Testing your glide. Are people doing this?

OK, this is going to sound really silly, but I'm not a pilot,
If planes glide so well, then how come they crash?
It would seem reasonable, that if they glide, and they have an engine
failure etc. that they'd glide them in, not leave smoking craters like the
news tends to show.
Am I missing something here?

Trentus

"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("Yossarian" wrote in the Catalina Perep thread)
My first trip I was that low too, but now my FBO insists on a continuous
climb to the middle of the channel for better glide distance if your
engine
quits. 4500' in a 172 is only like 7 miles glide.


I wonder how many people have actually glided their planes (rentals or
otherwise) and so know what their real world glide range numbers will be -
from say, 6,000 ft AGL down to 3,000 ft AGL? Into the wind vs tailwind,
etc?

I'm under the impression that 5:1 is a good (safety) number to have in
your
head for an average 172 flying at 3,000 ft AGL, and below. Gives you some
"what the hey?" room and *some* turning room.

Can't quite make a 3 mile target with exactly 5:1 at 3,000 ft
AGL....15,000
ft. Leaves you 840 ft short of 3 miles. Still, (a mile glide per 1,000 ft
of
altitude) seems like a good number to keep in your head for lower
altitudes.
Almost 5:1.

I wonder how much better (than the made up safety number 5:1) people will
see up at 6,000 ft AGL. Are people getting book numbers, in their planes,
when they go up and practice real world glides - from say 6k down to 3k?


Montblack
Happy Birthday Kristen
October 25