Engine failure on final

Recently, Ron Garret posted:

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?

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.

Neil

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:41:39 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?

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:41:39 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?

Noting you can do about requested extended downwind leg. But you could
keep your decent low or delay the decent to give you more reach. Also
consider a flapless landing to keep the glide angle shallow. Wait to
add flaps when you are certain to make the runway.

In article .com,
"Sport Pilot" wrote:


Noting you can do about requested extended downwind leg.

It depends on how extended, of course, but I will often add power and
climb on an extended downwind. (If you extend your downwind for rwy 16
at VNY long enough without climbing you'll end up landing on the 405.)
Also, you've got a lot better glide performance before you start to add
flaps. So downwind doesn't worry me nearly as much as final. If you're
on a glide path at 1.3 VS (which is usually pretty close to best glide
already) and you need power to maintain it, then if you lose that power
it seems to me that you're pretty much hosed.

rg

neil wrote:
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.

Larry Dighera wrote:
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?

I was about to ask that, too. Depending on the airport, it would be
tricky to make power-off approaches from the downwind *as a rule*. Not
only is there the situation Larry mentioned above (3rd, 4th or 5th
behind who-knows-what), but also airports with two runways that are
staggered by 1500' or so and ATCs frequently instructing you to switch
runways at the last minute.

Recently, unicate posted:

neil wrote:
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.

Larry Dighera wrote:
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?

I was about to ask that, too. Depending on the airport, it would be
tricky to make power-off approaches from the downwind *as a rule*. Not
only is there the situation Larry mentioned above (3rd, 4th or 5th
behind who-knows-what), but also airports with two runways that are
staggered by 1500' or so and ATCs frequently instructing you to switch
runways at the last minute.

Well, unless you're based at such an airport, those situations become the
exception, rather than the rule. If you are based at such an airport,
then, simply change the rule, and do power-on approaches. ;-)

The reasons that I prefer not to do that when I don't have to is that I
get lots of "dead stick" practice, which I think is a Good Thing.

Neil

Simple, just don't descend until you can glide to the Runway. Give
yourself at least a 1000' feet to react if you need to put yourself in
a situation where a landing at a location other than the runway is your
only option.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Truly here. It's just habit probably because I am a glider pilot. Fact
is, when there's traffic, I follow it and otherwise conform. But most
of my landings (e.g. home 'port) are without such traffic.

I generally just can't bring myself to consciously fly out of range
after I'm in range of a safe surface. When the wind is up, I probably
slip out of range anyway.

YMMV. I fly a simple a/c with simple needs.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:41:39 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?

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:41:39 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 or hold altitude on that "looooong, extended
downwind leg" rather than descend after crossing the usual abeam point and
turn base within gliding range. If you don't guarantee that you can make
the runway, who will? ;-)

Neil

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

Recently, Larry Dighera posted:

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:41:39 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.

or hold altitude on that "looooong, extended downwind leg" rather than
descend after crossing the usual abeam point and
turn base within gliding range.

See above.

If you don't guarantee that you can make the runway, who will? ;-)

The power developed by your engine.

At John Wayne airport (a Class C facility) it is not unusual to find
yourself on downwind well outside the surface area during "rush hour"
operations. It's not feasible to remain within power off gliding
distance of the runway threshold at these times. An instrument
approach imposes similar difficulty in maintaining power off gliding
distance to the runway. I can understand how it can reduce exposure
to landing short, but I don't find it often possible except at times
of low traffic density.