Precautionary landing question

Skylane81E

Skylane81E

Final Approach
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
8,059
Location
Cincinnati
Display Name
Display name:
Duncan
Yesterday I was flying along fat dumb and happy, but while keeping an eye out for a place to set down if the engine died I started to wonder what I would do if I suffered a partial engine failure. Now that summer is here landing in a farmers field is a last resort IMO, especially if the plane can maintain altitude. So it seemed to me that the best course of action would be maintain altitude and head for the nearest airport, those are seldom far away around here.

My question come in here. Where I was flying the nearest airport (MWO) was 3.5 away to the west, next closest (I68) just shy of 5 east. The rub is that between MWO and I was a solid urban landscape and between I68 and I farmland. I decided that I would rather chance the extra 1.5 to stay over terrain more fitting of a forced landing.

So, thoughts?
 
I would go for I68. No buildings to worry about hitting if you can't make it.
 
If the motor is still running, regardless of how bad ,and you are not on fire I would pick I68 too..
 
think id go for I68 as well.
 
As PIC in an emergency, you have authority to do what you need to do to have the best possible outcome for 1) people on the ground, 2) People in the aircraft, 3) property on the ground, and lastly 4) the aircraft itself.

You could certainly reason that flying farther over less hostile terrain would benefit all four above. Even if your engine was out, you might consider landing in a field over landing at an airport surrounded by development if you weren't 100% certain that you could glide all the way to the airport.

Use your judgement.
 
Which one has cheaper fuel? JUST KIDDING! Yes I think I'd go with I68 as well.
 
A couple of other questions I'd ask before answering: 1) is the turf runway (8/26) still usable at MWO? If so, it could afford a straight-in approach where you'd have to make a turn at I68. 2) How high were you & what would the potential glide distance be? 3) Does MWO have better service facilities where I68 has little or none? 4) What were the winds at your altitude?

When I got my PPL (at ISZ...), we used I68 for practice engine-outs, so I have a certain familiarity for the airport that I might consider favorable, along with the rural fields.

That said, if I'm high enough, it sure might be more attractive to plan a straight-in for MWO rather than risking the loss of altitude on a base-to-final turn at I68.

All together: closer airport, aligned runway, enough altitude, fairly calm winds, I'd probably choose MWO. Change the winds or altitude factor and my conclusion would probably change.
 
For me it depends. If you are absolutely certain you have the ability to make the further airport with room to spare I would go for the further airport. If not and you are absolutely sure you can make the closer airport then I would go for the closer airport. If you are not absolutely sure you can make either airport, then I would find the most inviting area that I know I can make and land there. I have read about way too many fatal accidents that have occured because the pilot tried to extend their glide to a field that was further away, but more inviting and ended up short, and "flew" over closer less inviting areas where he could have landed with some reserve. I would rather do a controlled descent to an off field landing, than an uncontrolled descent to an airport.
 
2,500MSL, not going to make either airport if the engine just quit, winds 10 or so from the SW at that altitude, fairly calm at the surface.


I too practiced engine failures at I68' Tom seemed to like that place.

IIRC you flew the chicken hawk, and FWIW that is what I was in
 
douglas393 said:
For me it depends. If you are absolutely certain you have the ability to make the further airport with room to spare I would go for the further airport. If not and you are absolutely sure you can make the closer airport then I would go for the closer airport. If you are not absolutely sure you can make either airport, then I would find the most inviting area that I know I can make and land there. I have read about way too many fatal accidents that have occured because the pilot tried to extend their glide to a field that was further away, but more inviting and ended up short, and "flew" over closer less inviting areas where he could have landed with some reserve. I would rather do a controlled descent to an off field landing, than an uncontrolled descent to an airport.
Click to expand...

Assuming engine running badly, but enough to keep airborne, cannot reach either field gliding.
 
Skylane81E said:
2,500MSL, not going to make either airport if the engine just quit, winds 10 or so from the SW at that altitude, fairly calm at the surface.
Click to expand...

I think I'd pick something within glide range and then see if I could leapfrog using different spots within gliding range, to get to either/any airport.

I wouldn't plan for the airport(s) until they were assured.

But that'd depend a whole lot on what "partial engine failure" meant. Can you climb or just maintain altitude?

Sounds like "think like a glider guy" time. Or "think like a light twin in Denver" time. ;)
 
IMO, staying over a good place to land even if you must fly a greater distance is better than going direct, especially if it's a big wide road or roads with very little traffic. Knowing where you're going to land without the need for hasty decision-making is a huge relief and allows the pilot to use more of the available brain cells for troubleshooting, checklists, etc.



QUOTE=Skylane81E;1203716]Assuming engine running badly, but enough to keep airborne, cannot reach either field gliding.[/QUOTE]
 
Fly on the remaining good engine to an airport. With a long runway. I'd probably go to HAO and then give you a call. ;)
 
Skylane81E said:
Assuming engine running badly, but enough to keep airborne, cannot reach either field gliding.
Click to expand...
Assuming the engine is running badly and not easily fixed by something(change fuel tanks, mixture, throttle, mags, carburator heat, ...), then I am landing off field at the most inviting field that is immediately available. I do not know when the engine is going to stop running badly and stop altogether, and I would rather land off field with a badly running engine and land with some control, then stretch my already bad luck in the hopes of making an airport that may not be in gliding distance and run the risk of an uncontrolled descent and landing.
 
The real question is whether or not you had filed a flight plan????
 
That's exactly what the guy in the 421 thought over Mississippi when he and his family were returning to Florida at FL190.

Ted DuPuis said:
Fly on the remaining good engine to an airport. With a long runway. I'd probably go to HAO and then give you a call. ;)
Click to expand...
 
Skylane81E said:
2,500MSL, not going to make either airport if the engine just quit, winds 10 or so from the SW at that altitude, fairly calm at the surface.


I too practiced engine failures at I68' Tom seemed to like that place.

IIRC you flew the chicken hawk, and FWIW that is what I was in
Click to expand...

I'd probably take I68 then.

Chickenhawk = ugly, but the best flying 172 on the line when I trained.
 
wabower said:
That's exactly what the guy in the 421 thought over Mississippi when he and his family were returning to Florida at FL190.
Click to expand...

Yeah, unfortunately he made a large number of mistakes in his decision on which airport to use, descent planning, approach choice, and use of gear and flaps. The accident chain had many links on that one.

Meanwhile the other guy in a 421 who blew a jug made good calls and walked away.
 
FWIW I'm enjoying the look into others decision making process.

In this case choosing I68 is the easy choice, as the terrain getting there is all equally suitable to an off airport landing, the only option is the interstate but given traffic, the large number of signs, the grade etc I would choose a field over it for an emergency landing. Sure I'm more likely to damage the plane that way, but I know I can walk away from a careful landing in a partly grown corn field, and not an encounter with a car, overpass or sign.

I also note that once established that MWO was out of gliding range no one wants to limp a plane over the city.
 
In a single I'd agree with the flight over a corn field. One of the major benefits of flying out in the midwest is the large number of fields that one can land in and walk away from, even if the plane is damaged.

With a twin it does get a bit different. The one time we had to divert for engine issues we ended up flying around 30 miles (maybe a bit more) to get to an airport with good services, fire trucks, and long runways. Wasn't going to try rushing to get on the ground and then have to combine a short field landing with no support with a bucking and unhappy engine.
 
It really depends on what you mean by a partial engine failure. One set of mags is out? Fly to the nearest airport with a mechanic on the good set of mags. Running rough? If you can find a setting that minimizes that with minimal to no altitude loss, then the answer is the same. Otherwise, keep over favorable terrain and make for any airport if possible (not necessarily by the shortest route), a field if not. Excessive temperatures requiring insufficient throttle? Land at the nearest airport, keeping favorable terrain under the aircraft at all times.

There is SOME risk to landing in a field, so I won't do that just because the engine might possibly get worse in the future. There can be hidden obstacles, and furrows and some crops can flip the aircraft. The key here is to keep options open.
 
Duncan, I am going to keep myself over the most inviting land possible and head to I68 (even though I like MWO more!) No need to make an off field landing just for a rough running engine, but keep it an option, come in high and once you have the airport made then you come down.
 
flyingmoose said:
Duncan, I am going to keep myself over the most inviting land possible and head to I68 (even though I like MWO more!) No need to make an off field landing just for a rough running engine, but keep it an option, come in high and once you have the airport made then you come down.
Click to expand...
You make a good point here as to what defines a badly running engine, and certainly the degree it is running badly would certainly change what is done. So how do we define badly running, and when is it important to get on the ground ASAP. Certainly some definites are there, spitting oil, on fire, not producing enough power to keep airborn would be for me time to land in farmer John's corn field. Whereas the engine coughing a wee bit would lead me to the closest airport probably where facilities exist as long as it is not too far from the one without facilities. So how do we define a "badly running engine" requiring the off field landing, from the "badly running engine" requiring us to land on field expeditiously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top