teaching emergency landings...How low do you go...

gatt wrote:
My first instructor liked to have me practice emergency landings over rural
Oregon. Although we observed basic airspace rules, we'd get down below
treetop levels, short final, maybe 100' or less before go around. Once, I
could see the startled expression on a farmer's face as he watched us. On a
couple of occasions, I thought we were actually going to land. Birds took
flight, etc. Subsequent instructors and examiners always called it "good"
well above that so we never got that low.

My question is, what would you say the lowest appropriate height AGL for
teaching student pilots about off-field emergency landings in, say, a C-152,
given the 500' rule? (We -definately- busted that in the case of the
farmer. The instructor even said so.)


-c
CP-ASEL-IA, CFI student





There are three factors common to all forced landings;
1. Control of the aircraft (Fly the airplane)
2. Picking the right spot based on aircraft position, wind, and terrain.
3. Setting up for and flying the approach (obvious)

If these three factors are accomplished, for the purposes of instruction
and training, the actual touchdown can be assumed.

I NEVER advocate using the mixture and a stopped prop in forced landing
training. The reason for this should be obvious but I always mention it
just in case someone misses the point.
Taking into consideration the effects on glide from a stopped prop as
opposed to an idling engine, it doesn't take long to realize that
setting up ANY forced landing approach whether it be with an idling
engine or with the engine completely dead, requires setting up that
approach based on THE AVAILABLE VISUAL CUES as they relate to the
position of the aircraft at all times from the intended landing site.
Based on this single fact, it should be apparent that if a pilot is
flying the airplane properly, that pilot will be making the approach
based on WHATEVER THE REAL TIME VISUAL CUES are telling him/her. This
means that prop stopped or windmilling, a properly trained pilot will be
executing a forced landing approach compensating AUTOMATICALLY to
achieve a key position based on what the visual cues are telling them.
Considering this, there should NEVER be a need to pull the mixture on a
student. Doing this can easily turn a practice session into an actual
forced landing.
I advocate using the airport for power off approaches to sharpen the
ability to properly fly the airplane based on seeking a key position on
available visual cues. Doing it this way allows the actual landing as well.
Lastly, on selecting a field; this factor can be accomplished at any
time during a dual session locally or on a cross country with the
concentration on coupling the power off approaches practiced back at the
airport with the additional factors involved; flying the airplane and
the choice of the field.
These places chosen should be researched by the instructor for
suitability before they are used for this purpose.



--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote:

Considering this, there should NEVER be a need to pull the mixture on a
student. Doing this can easily turn a practice session into an actual
forced landing.

I agree about stopping the prop. I have done it before, but only to
satisfy my curiosity about performance differences between stopped and
windmilling. I did it over a deserted airport with a long runway (actually 3
long runways).

I am curious about pulling the mixture, though. The only difference
between pulling the throttle and pulling the mixture is that one cuts off air
to the engine and the other cuts off fuel. Since pulling the mixture cuts
off the fuel, it keeps the engine and plugs from loading up as much. In
practice (at least in Cherokees and 172s), I've found that the prop is not
going to stop when the mixture is pulled, unless the plane gets within a few
knots of stall speed.

I'm not a CFI, but I do practice engine out landings on a regular basis
(religiously, since my real engine out). I prefer pulling the mixture to
idle cutoff as a means of simulating the power loss, just because it keeps
the plugs cleaner. Power recovery is as simple as pushing the mixture back
in and verifying that the throttle is full forward. Is there something I'm
not thinking of?

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200802/1

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:

Considering this, there should NEVER be a need to pull the mixture on a
student. Doing this can easily turn a practice session into an actual
forced landing.

I agree about stopping the prop. I have done it before, but only to
satisfy my curiosity about performance differences between stopped and
windmilling. I did it over a deserted airport with a long runway (actually 3
long runways).

I am curious about pulling the mixture, though. The only difference
between pulling the throttle and pulling the mixture is that one cuts off air
to the engine and the other cuts off fuel. Since pulling the mixture cuts
off the fuel, it keeps the engine and plugs from loading up as much. In
practice (at least in Cherokees and 172s), I've found that the prop is not
going to stop when the mixture is pulled, unless the plane gets within a few
knots of stall speed.

I'm not a CFI, but I do practice engine out landings on a regular basis
(religiously, since my real engine out). I prefer pulling the mixture to
idle cutoff as a means of simulating the power loss, just because it keeps
the plugs cleaner. Power recovery is as simple as pushing the mixture back
in and verifying that the throttle is full forward. Is there something I'm
not thinking of?

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)


Pulling to ICO is simply not necessary to teach forced landings. Doing
it is just asking for possible trouble. Bottom line is that the pros
just don't outweigh the potential cons.
It's just not a practice I have ever recommended.
DH

--
Dudley Henriques