Engine failure on final

A much better technique is to fly the extending downwind, base and
maybe even part of final at a 1000' AGL. Once within gliding range,
then reduce power....

But you WERE withing gliding range when you were abeam at the 180, if
you flew a proper downwind leg. Unless circumstances *force* you to
extend the downwind, it is poor practice to do so.

vince norris

In article ,
vincent p. norris wrote:

Nobody has mentioned that one of the reasons to avoid aiming for the numbers
and to plan your touchdown point to be at the 1/3 point of a std 3000'
training rwy is to allow a margin for an engine failure on short final.

Boy, I've been flying for a looooong time, and I never heard that one
before!

Strikes me as developing one bad habit to correct for another bad
habit.

If you fly a proper approach, you'll make the runway whether or not
the engine keeps running.

Well, that's pretty much what prompted me to ask the question in the
first place. What exactly is a "proper approach"? I don't see how it's
possible to fly final with power on a trajectory that puts you on the
numbers and still be able to make the runway if you lose power.

rg

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...

The discussion about cutting power on final reminded me of something
I've been puzzled about for some time now.

If you fly final with some amount of power (which I gather most people
do -- I always have) that seems to guarantee that if you lose your
engine on final you will land short, and there's pretty much nothing you
can do about it. Is that true? Or have I missed something? What
should you do if you lose your engine just after turning base to final?

The "I always cut power on final" guys to the contrary (and I am not saying
that they are full of it, only that they may not have considered all
possibilities), I think you are missing something.

So try it. Set up just as you would for a power on landing, flaps down,
recommended airspeed, right on glide slope, and cut your power. See if you
can make it. If you can't, figure out why not.

But then you are on base. Well, turn straight toward the runway. Forget
about flying a square pattern. Set up for best glide. Experiment with it. Is
it easier to make the runway if you raise your flaps? How does the wind
affect it? Can you still do it if you start out somewhat low and slow? What
does it take to milk that last bit of distance out of your altitude? You can
read about this stuff forever, but actually practicing things and trying
them out will teach you a heck of a lot.

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:30:41 -0800, Ron Garret
wrote:

I don't see how it's
possible to fly final with power on a trajectory that puts you on the
numbers and still be able to make the runway if you lose power.

That's why some of us fly power-off approaches. If your airport is
friendly to that technique, why not use it?

If you need a power-on approach to blend with other traffic or keep
the controller sane, then do that. After all, it's very unlikely that
your engine will quit--probably less likely than someone will bump
into you in the pattern.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:24:18 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
::

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:31:46 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in

As I was taught, the point of flying safely is to always have a
viable option. So, I fly tight patterns and make power-off landings
as a rule. If I make it to the pattern, I can make it to a runway,
engine or no.

Truly? So when you're #5 in the pattern (which necessitates a
looooong, extended downwind leg) you just fly the pattern at 2,000'
then?

Of course not, one has to use common sense, for example, fly the
pattern slower rather than lower

So your aircraft is slow enough to permit you to remain within gliding
distance of the threshold at normal pattern altitude while four other
aircraft head cross country several miles from the runway? Doubtful.

Larry... be reasonable!

I hadn't realized that I wasn't. It was your use of the absolute word
'always' and the phrase 'as a rule' that prompted me to question your
meaning.

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:24:18 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
::

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:31:46 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in

As I was taught, the point of flying safely is to always have a
viable option. So, I fly tight patterns and make power-off
landings as a rule. If I make it to the pattern, I can make it
to a runway, engine or no.

Truly? So when you're #5 in the pattern (which necessitates a
looooong, extended downwind leg) you just fly the pattern at
2,000' then?

Of course not, one has to use common sense, for example, fly the
pattern slower rather than lower

So your aircraft is slow enough to permit you to remain within
gliding distance of the threshold at normal pattern altitude while
four other aircraft head cross country several miles from the
runway? Doubtful.

Larry... be reasonable!

I hadn't realized that I wasn't. It was your use of the absolute word
'always' and the phrase 'as a rule' that prompted me to question your
meaning.

So... you object to "always" having a viable option? Obviously, there will
be times when one *doesn't* have a viable option. Still, I agree with my
instructors advice that abandoning viable options by choice shouldn't be
considered "safe flying". Nor should applying "rules" where doing so
results in the abandonment of viable options (even FARs don't insist on
such behavior). So, no, I don't think you were being reasonable, just
argumentative.

Neil

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:36:42 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
::

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:24:18 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
::

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:31:46 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in

As I was taught, the point of flying safely is to always have a
viable option. So, I fly tight patterns and make power-off
landings as a rule. If I make it to the pattern, I can make it
to a runway, engine or no.

Truly? So when you're #5 in the pattern (which necessitates a
looooong, extended downwind leg) you just fly the pattern at
2,000' then?

Of course not, one has to use common sense, for example, fly the
pattern slower rather than lower

So your aircraft is slow enough to permit you to remain within
gliding distance of the threshold at normal pattern altitude while
four other aircraft head cross country several miles from the
runway? Doubtful.

Larry... be reasonable!

I hadn't realized that I wasn't. It was your use of the absolute word
'always' and the phrase 'as a rule' that prompted me to question your
meaning.

So... you object to "always" having a viable option?

No.

Obviously, there will be times when one *doesn't* have a viable option.

That was my point.

Still, I agree with my instructors advice that abandoning viable options
by choice shouldn't be considered "safe flying".

Given your statement above, your choice should be to divert to another
airport when there are several aircraft in the pattern necessitating
an extended downwind leg in excess of gliding distance to the runway,
right?

Nor should applying "rules" where doing so results in the abandonment
of viable options (even FARs don't insist on such behavior). So, no,
I don't think you were being reasonable, just argumentative.

Could it be that I was attempting to point out, that your instance on
remaining within gliding distance of the runway failed to consider the
fact that it is often impossible at busy airports? Isn't that
reasonable?

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:36:42 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
::

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:24:18 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in
::

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:31:46 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote in

As I was taught, the point of flying safely is to always have a
viable option. So, I fly tight patterns and make power-off
landings as a rule. If I make it to the pattern, I can make it
to a runway, engine or no.

Truly? So when you're #5 in the pattern (which necessitates a
looooong, extended downwind leg) you just fly the pattern at
2,000' then?

Of course not, one has to use common sense, for example, fly the
pattern slower rather than lower

So your aircraft is slow enough to permit you to remain within
gliding distance of the threshold at normal pattern altitude while
four other aircraft head cross country several miles from the
runway? Doubtful.

Larry... be reasonable!

I hadn't realized that I wasn't. It was your use of the absolute
word 'always' and the phrase 'as a rule' that prompted me to
question your meaning.

So... you object to "always" having a viable option?

No.

Obviously, there will be times when one *doesn't* have a viable
option.

That was my point.

Poorly made, I might add. Risk management is an unavoidable part of daily
life, and as such shouldn't require a lot of explanation. Ergo, you were
not being reasonable.

Still, I agree with my instructors advice that abandoning viable
options by choice shouldn't be considered "safe flying".

Given your statement above, your choice should be to divert to another
airport when there are several aircraft in the pattern necessitating
an extended downwind leg in excess of gliding distance to the runway,
right?

How would *increasing* the time in which an engine failure might occur by
flying to another airport be the best way to maintain viable options? If
one is concerned about the status of one's engine, one should minimize
their dependence on it, no? ;-)

Nor should applying "rules" where doing so results in the abandonment
of viable options (even FARs don't insist on such behavior). So, no,
I don't think you were being reasonable, just argumentative.

Could it be that I was attempting to point out, that your instance on
remaining within gliding distance of the runway failed to consider the
fact that it is often impossible at busy airports? Isn't that
reasonable?

Not really. Unless you actually believed that I was in some way implying
that no XC should ever take place. Was that to be your next point (of
course, "...make it to the pattern" would have made such an argument
difficult)? ;-)

Regards,

Neil

Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
-

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
In article ,
vincent p. norris wrote:

Nobody has mentioned that one of the reasons to avoid aiming for the
numbers
and to plan your touchdown point to be at the 1/3 point of a std 3000'
training rwy is to allow a margin for an engine failure on short final.

Boy, I've been flying for a looooong time, and I never heard that one
before!

Strikes me as developing one bad habit to correct for another bad
habit.

If you fly a proper approach, you'll make the runway whether or not
the engine keeps running.

Well, that's pretty much what prompted me to ask the question in the
first place. What exactly is a "proper approach"? I don't see how it's
possible to fly final with power on a trajectory that puts you on the
numbers and still be able to make the runway if you lose power.

Reduce drag and you'll make it unless you were carrying a lot of power on a
flat approach. Reduce your flap setting.

What exactly is a "proper approach"?

Among other things, one that enables you to make the runway if the
engine quits.

I don't see how it's possible to fly final with power on a trajectory
that puts you on the numbers and still be able to make the runway if you lose power.

So don't use power!

Dan is right; your engine probably won't quit. But some do, because
we read about accidents of that kind.

You can play the odds, or you can play it safe.

vince norris