Jump to content

Engine out on approach – would YOU make the runway?


IrishAl

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Back on point, a summary of what I taught, and how I fly, regarding the OP:

 

When faced with an engine failure, or a sudden roughness at altitude...

 

1) Find the nearest airport or suitable landing spot and turn towards it. It should be close enough that gliding to it is not even in question.

 

2) Turn so as to head directly for it as you slow down to best glide speed. Trim.

 

3) If you have the time and attention, run checklists, declare an emergency, squawk 7700, whatever.

 

4) With sufficient altitude get over the center of the airport and begin to circle down. No fancy steep spirals or anything, just medium-banked turns.

 

5) While circling directly overhead, choose a "key position" to shoot for. That "key position" is downwind, abeam your intended point of landing, at 1,000' AGL - though anywhere between 800' and 1,300' AGL is close enough. By "playing" your turns, that 500' range should not be hard to hit.

 

6) From that point, everything should be familiar. Since you (hopefully) practice power-off approaches, this is just another one of those. With sufficient runway, aim about 1/3 of the way down the runway. If its a field, the field will dictate where to aim. Wait on full flaps until the field is "made" beyond any question - usually very short final. Err on the side of being a bit high over being low at all - there are lots of ways to get down, but too low without power you're kinda screwed.

 

Most common mistake is to try to fly a LONG straight-in or very, very wide pattern to something and misjudging. Its not something we often do, and it can be very difficult to judge, especially with varying winds aloft.

 

Anyway, I'd suggest maybe 1 landing out of every 10 to go ahead an maintain altitude at your destination and practice this from your cruise altitude. Making appropriate radio calls, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I owned a CT, I'd want to be proficient at all the flap settings, including the maximum. I'd assume they were put there by Flight Design as a tool to get maximum performance from their planes. And I like to practice maximum or near maximum performance on nearly every landing, so if and when I need it I won't be rusty.

Eddie, I don't think the way I do and teach landings is much different that what you prescribe, except that I don't use full flaps in the CT. I also didn't teach full flaps initially in the Cessna 150 when I was flying one of them. In my Piper Warrior I always use full flaps.

 

Now I can think of two different aircraft manufactures that have reduced the maximum flap settings in their aircraft based on safety concerns during approach and landing. Flight Design is one and Cessna the other. Now if the manufacturer makes a change with later models, wouldn't it make you rethink your position on using the maximum flaps on the older models? I know it makes me put a little extra thought into the equation.

 

You are correct that the flaps are a tool to be used. I would also bet that you think following the POH or in this case the AOI would also be a good idea. In a warning placed in the AOI they say the airplane can be landed safely and easily with 15° flaps, and maximum flaps should be used for short runways (less than 1000 feet) under favorable wind conditions. Their biggest wind condition concern is a crosswind. Now this is for the CTLS that has 35° flaps and not the CTSW with 40°, and the newer airplanes now only have 30° flaps with the same warning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back on point, a summary of what I taught, and how I fly, regarding the OP:

 

When faced with an engine failure, or a sudden roughness at altitude...

 

1) Find the nearest airport or suitable landing spot and turn towards it. It should be close enough that gliding to it is not even in question.

 

2) Turn so as to head directly for it as you slow down to best glide speed.

 

3) If you have the time and attention, run checklists, declare an emergency, squawk 7700, whatever.

 

4) With sufficient altitude get over the center of the airport and begin to circle down. No fancy steep spirals or anything, just medium-banked turns.

 

5) While circling directly overhead, choose a "key position" to shoot for. That "key position" is downwind, abeam your intended point of landing, at 1,000' AGL - though anywhere between 800' and 1,300' AGL is close enough. By "playing" your turns, that 500' range should not be hard to hit.

 

6) From that point, everything should be familiar. Since you (hopefully) practice power-off approaches, this is just another one of those. With sufficient runway, aim about 1/3 of the way down the runway. If its a field, the field will dictate where to aim. Wait on full flaps until the field is "made" beyond any question - usually very short final. Err on the side of being a bit high over being low at all - there are lots of ways to get down, but too low without power you're kinda screwed.

 

Most common mistake is to try to fly a LONG straight-in or very, very wide pattern to something and misjudging. Its not something we often do, and it can be very difficult to judge, especially with varying winds aloft.

 

Anyway, I'd suggest maybe 1 landing out of every 10 to go ahead an maintain altitude at your destination and practice this from your cruise altitude. Making appropriate radio calls, of course.

This is loud and clear: I like it! Just worth to mention is that our CT doesn't behave the same with idle power (let say 1800 rpm),and engine off: I have noticed a big difference during the flare since speed will reduce far quicker (flare needs to be very close to the ground)... Just practice as you said... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back on point, a summary of what I taught, and how I fly, regarding the OP:

 

When faced with an engine failure, or a sudden roughness at altitude...

 

1) Find the nearest airport or suitable landing spot and turn towards it. It should be close enough that gliding to it is not even in question.

 

2) Turn so as to head directly for it as you slow down to best glide speed.

 

3) If you have the time and attention, run checklists, declare an emergency, squawk 7700, whatever.

 

4) With sufficient altitude get over the center of the airport and begin to circle down. No fancy steep spirals or anything, just medium-banked turns.

 

5) While circling directly overhead, choose a "key position" to shoot for. That "key position" is downwind, abeam your intended point of landing, at 1,000' AGL - though anywhere between 800' and 1,300' AGL is close enough. By "playing" your turns, that 500' range should not be hard to hit.

 

6) From that point, everything should be familiar. Since you (hopefully) practice power-off approaches, this is just another one of those. With sufficient runway, aim about 1/3 of the way down the runway. If its a field, the field will dictate where to aim. Wait on full flaps until the field is "made" beyond any question - usually very short final. Err on the side of being a bit high over being low at all - there are lots of ways to get down, but too low without power you're kinda screwed.

 

Most common mistake is to try to fly a LONG straight-in or very, very wide pattern to something and misjudging. Its not something we often do, and it can be very difficult to judge, especially with varying winds aloft.

 

Anyway, I'd suggest maybe 1 landing out of every 10 to go ahead an maintain altitude at your destination and practice this from your cruise altitude. Making appropriate radio calls, of course.

 

Very good suggestion.

I like it, Eddie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is virtually no reason to use more than 15 flaps in the CT or be slower than 60kts over the numbers.  The takeoff and landing distance for the aircraft is laughably short. 

 

Full flaps in the FD produces so much drag and the stall speed so low that dropping onto the runway is nearly always the result...harder on the gear, and certainly unnecessary. 

 

If you are trying to use the FDCT as an STOL aircraft, then you are in the wrong plane.    Consider the Zodiak Jeep instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CT flies like a kite and is a pretty challenging airplane to land, and not very stable in gusty conditions.  In addition, it bleeds off energy almost instantly in the flare, which is much more pronounced with higher flap settings.  With practice you can tell when the bottom is about to fall out, but with 30° or 40° flap settings, you'd better be exactly where you need to be or be johnny-on-the-spot with the throttle.

 

In calm conditions I prefer using 30° flaps.  40° flaps doesn't really give you slower speeds, but adds significantly to the energy bleed off mentioned above.  I practice 40° when it's very calm, and If I were landing engine out off-airport that is what I'd use to really minimize landing energy.  Otherwise it just adds challenge to the landing without much benefit.

 

That said, in gusty conditions, or in steady winds more than about 8kt, I'm probably going to use 15° flaps.  The airplane is much more controllable with less flaps in those conditions, and it's just easier to land at 15°.  The penalty is of course more landing energy to be dissipated; however I have noticed with significant wind when the the airplane in the ground at 30° flaps, it gets a little squirrelly on the ground as the wings are producing too much lift on roll out.  I would definitely recommend that when landing in wind with more than 15°, the first thing to be done once the plane is down is to raise the flaps.  I go to -6 if I'm landing full stop, or 15° if touch-and-go.

 

I definitely think that keeping landing speed/energy down is a high priority, but a controllable landing is paramount.  So do what is slowest and commensurate with your abilities and comfort level.  For me that means not using high flap settings in serious wind conditions.

 

BTW:  I don't like using 0° flaps for landing, even in higher winds.  For some reason the approach just feels "wrong" to me at that setting and the airplane feels way too fast and like it wants to really sink without power, even above 60kt.  I'm probably just not used to that speed/sight picture for landing and am keeping the nose too high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also didn't teach full flaps initially in the Cessna 150 when I was flying one of them.

Different strokes!

 

I'm pretty sure I learned full flaps from the very beginning training in a Cessna 150, and I know that's how I taught.

 

Thanks to the Law Of Primacy, they are still my "go to" landings.

 

My concern is that students who learn partial flap landings "because they're easier", and are then shown full flap landings, delayed "because they are more difficult" will carry that prejudice with them for the rest of their careers. I think we see the effect with some of the pilots posting here.

 

But I see your point, and just agree to disagree!

 

Anecdote: Bonanza coming into Copperhill, runway about 3,000' long. Fast, flat approach. No flaps. Touches down fast and flat and uses virtually ALL of the runway to get stopped.

 

After he taxied in, I asked about why no flaps? Answer, "Don't much care for them", or words to that effect.

 

In any case, that's hardly an isolated case, and I wonder about how these guys were taught, and if they were taught correctly I wonder when and why they got lazy and began to disregard their training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CT flies like a kite and is a pretty challenging airplane to land, and not very stable in gusty conditions.  In addition, it bleeds off energy almost instantly in the flare, which is much more pronounced with higher flap settings.  With practice you can tell when the bottom is about to fall out, but with 30° or 40° flap settings, you'd better be exactly where you need to be or be johnny-on-the-spot with the throttle.

 

In calm conditions I prefer using 30° flaps.  40° flaps doesn't really give you slower speeds, but adds significantly to the energy bleed off mentioned above.  I practice 40° when it's very calm, and If I were landing engine out off-airport that is what I'd use to really minimize landing energy.  Otherwise it just adds challenge to the landing without much benefit.

 

That said, in gusty conditions, or in steady winds more than about 8kt, I'm probably going to use 15° flaps.  The airplane is much more controllable with less flaps in those conditions, and it's just easier to land at 15°.  The penalty is of course more landing energy to be dissipated; however I have noticed with significant wind when the the airplane in the ground at 30° flaps, it gets a little squirrelly on the ground as the wings are producing too much lift on roll out.  I would definitely recommend that when landing in wind with more than 15°, the first thing to be done once the plane is down is to raise the flaps.  I go to -6 if I'm landing full stop, or 15° if touch-and-go.

 

I definitely think that keeping landing speed/energy down is a high priority, but a controllable landing is paramount.  So do what is slowest and commensurate with your abilities and comfort level.  For me that means not using high flap settings in serious wind conditions.

 

BTW:  I don't like using 0° flaps for landing, even in higher winds.  For some reason the approach just feels "wrong" to me at that setting and the airplane feels way too fast and like it wants to really sink without power, even above 60kt.  I'm probably just not used to that speed/sight picture for landing and am keeping the nose too high.

 

Concur, Andy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different strokes!

 

I'm pretty sure I learned full flaps from the very beginning training in a Cessna 150, and I know that's how I taught.

 

Thanks to the Law Of Primacy, they are still my "go to" landings.

 

My concern is that students who learn partial flap landings "because they're easier", and are then shown full flap landings, delayed "because they are more difficult" will carry that prejudice with them for the rest of their careers. I think we see the effect with some of the pilots posting here.

 

But I see your point, and just agree to disagree!

 

Anecdote: Bonanza coming into Copperhill, runway about 3,000' long. Fast, flat approach. No flaps. Touches down fast and flat and uses virtually ALL of the runway to get stopped.

 

After he taxied in, I asked about why no flaps? Answer, "Don't much care for them", or words to that effect.

 

In any case, that's hardly an isolated case, and I wonder about how these guys were taught, and if they were taught correctly I wonder when and why they got lazy and began to disregard their training.

I learned to fly in a Citabria with NO flaps does that mean I should be landing airplanes that have flaps without using them? Laws of primacy and all, I don't even consider landing all airplanes with no flaps.

 

As an instructors I think that we should teach people to fly in a manner that coincides with the aircraft being flown. Granted there are some things that should be standardized, but when it comes to different aircraft I think following the procedures set by the manufacturer are more important. I would not dream of teaching normal landings in my Warrior with partial flaps, because the POH says normal landings are to be made with full flaps. On the flipside I teach normal landings at 15° flaps in the CT which is less than full flaps because, that is what the AOI suggest.

 

You say that you disagree with me, but I don't really think that is the case. My whole point is that we should be flying the airplane using procedures suggested in the AOI/POH. I really hope your not suggesting that people use normal procedures that are different than those suggested in the POH/AOI because that is the way you learned to fly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40° flaps doesn't really give you slower speeds,

 

If I were landing engine out off-airport that is what I'd use to really minimize landing energy.  

Andy,

If 40 doesn't give you any slower speed how will using 40 minimize landing energy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, I am looking at the FD CT-LSA Flight Training Supplement - CTSW (Rev date 01.01.2009) and the FD Aircraft Operating Instructions - CTSW (Rev date 29-Apr-2008). 

 

I am unable to find the section in either manual that is consistent with your statement, "On the flipside I teach normal landings at 15° flaps in the CT which is less than full flaps because, that is what the AOI suggest."  Can you show me where I can find that?

 

From my reading, the CTSW AOI indicates -

 

1.  With engine failure, "Before touchdown, select flaps 40 degrees" (page 7-1)

2.  Normal landing, "Flaps as desired (40 degrees for short field)" (page 8-4)

 

The Flight Training Supplement indicates -

 

1. "Flaps from 15 degrees to 40 degrees" (page 3-5)

2.  With engine failure, "keep minimum speed of 54 kts until final approach" (no mention of flaps of any setting) (page 4-1)

3.  "In case of landing on a field with crops or in a forest - for final approach, the flap position should be 40 degrees and airspeed should be 43 kts on short final" (page 4-1)

 

FWIW, after 2300 landings in my 2006 CTSW, I routinely use 30 degrees of flaps and enter ground effects in the mid 40 kts airspeed.  Under poor conditions (gusting winds, especially crosswinds) I will increase airspeed accordingly.  Under very poor conditions I will use 15 degrees. 

 

Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

 

My POH says flaps as desired for Normal Landings.  Relying on the POH isn't useful for this question in my case.

 

30* is normal for me, gusting above 20kts is when I use 15*.  I never use zero.

 

The CT isn't as different as we CT pilots make it out to be.  Landing with flaps means a steeper approach, more degrees of rotation in the round out, and more using your feet and slow flight skills.

 

In GA in general pilots make it 'easy' on themselves landing with take-off flaps and then justify it with argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you can articulate a very good reason to land with partial flaps...

 

 

in the AOI they say the airplane can be landed safely and easily with 15° flaps, and maximum flaps should be used for short runways under favorable wind conditions.

 

the newer airplanes now only have 30° flaps with the same warning.

 

Eddie,

He's recommending partial flaps for the CT because FD recommend it.

This forum is about the CT, so while your comment is valid generally speaking, I think he's just pointing out it's not valid for the CT.

 

Would that be correct, gentlemen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems FD are now pointing people away from using full flaps for normal landings - that might explain the disparity between what Tom is saying (from lots of experience) and what the 2009 handbook says.

 

I think the fact that 40 is no longer available on new aircraft speaks volumes.

 

Here in Ireland there has been a high incidence of CT runway accidents, particularly as we have such narrow runways and gusty conditions.  Also, a lot of these landing accidents occurred with the earlier models with the smaller vertical stab.

 

Insurance companies here have significantly higher premiums for the CT compared to similar models because of its poor low speed handling reputation.   I think a lot of this reputation came because the standard 'full flaps for landing' habit made it much more of a handful than was necessary.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, I am looking at the FD CT-LSA Flight Training Supplement - CTSW (Rev date 01.01.2009) and the FD Aircraft Operating Instructions - CTSW (Rev date 29-Apr-2008). 

 

I am unable to find the section in either manual that is consistent with your statement, "On the flipside I teach normal landings at 15° flaps in the CT which is less than full flaps because, that is what the AOI suggest."  Can you show me where I can find that?

 

From my reading, the CTSW AOI indicates -

 

1.  With engine failure, "Before touchdown, select flaps 40 degrees" (page 7-1)

2.  Normal landing, "Flaps as desired (40 degrees for short field)" (page 8-4)

 

The Flight Training Supplement indicates -

 

1. "Flaps from 15 degrees to 40 degrees" (page 3-5)

2.  With engine failure, "keep minimum speed of 54 kts until final approach" (no mention of flaps of any setting) (page 4-1)

3.  "In case of landing on a field with crops or in a forest - for final approach, the flap position should be 40 degrees and airspeed should be 43 kts on short final" (page 4-1)

 

FWIW, after 2300 landings in my 2006 CTSW, I routinely use 30 degrees of flaps and enter ground effects in the mid 40 kts airspeed.  Under poor conditions (gusting winds, especially crosswinds) I will increase airspeed accordingly.  Under very poor conditions I will use 15 degrees. 

 

Fred

The warning is in the CTLS AOI page 4-16. Since this is the CT model that I fly the most it is what I am most familiar with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I learned to fly in a Citabria with NO flaps does that mean I should be landing airplanes that have flaps without using them? Laws of primacy and all, I don't even consider landing all airplanes with no flaps.

Good point.

 

Coincidentally, I owned a 7ECA Citabria (no flaps) while still a pretty green instructor. Had just one primary student in it, and he did fine.

 

And I think much of my affinity for forward slips came about from my time with that plane.

 

Yes, we can learn one method and then add additional skills - the whole "building blocks" concept - so that's also a valid teaching technique.

 

And if CT is actually recommending against full flaps, everyone would be well advised to follow that recommendation.

 

I only dove in due to a post about someone only using 0° or 15° since they left training.

 

What I probably need more than anything is more CT time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

 

My POH says flaps as desired for Normal Landings.  Relying on the POH isn't useful for this question in my case.

 

30* is normal for me, gusting above 20kts is when I use 15*.  I never use zero.

 

The CT isn't as different as we CT pilots make it out to be.  Landing with flaps means a steeper approach, more degrees of rotation in the round out, and more using your feet and slow flight skills.

 

In GA in general pilots make it 'easy' on themselves landing with take-off flaps and then justify it with argument.

I now teach in a CTLS, and the manual is more complete than that of the CTSW. When I had my CTSW it was strongly suggested by a flight instructor who worked with Flight Design USA to establish the transition training that I only use 15° flaps until I became quite familiar with the airplane. This is something that I also use when teaching. I do also teach the student to land with more than 15° flaps, because to not do so would also be an injustice to the student. I just don't teach it from the beginning. It is fine that you use 30° flaps for normal landings, and that you were trained that way. The point I am trying to get across is that trying to teach someone to land with full flaps from the beginning in a CT is a bad idea. You and Fred must agree that full flaps for a normal landing is not a good idea since you both use 30°.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I now teach in a CTLS, and the manual is more complete than that of the CTSW. When I had my CTSW it was strongly suggested by a flight instructor who worked with Flight Design USA to establish the transition training that I only use 15° flaps until I became quite familiar with the airplane. This is something that I also use when teaching. I do also teach the student to land with more than 15° flaps, because to not do so would also be an injustice to the student. I just don't teach it from the beginning. It is fine that you use 30° flaps for normal landings, and that you were trained that way. The point I am trying to get across is that trying to teach someone to land with full flaps from the beginning in a CT is a bad idea. You and Fred must agree that full flaps for a normal landing is not a good idea since you both use 30°.

 

 

We do use 30°, for me it is because 40° runs out of energy too fast.

 

Reflex = cruise

zero = intermediate setting

15 = take-off

30 = landing

40 = special use like steep descent or short/short field or imminent crash

 

The fact that we use 30 doesn't mean 15 makes sense it just means that 40 has unwanted issues.

 

I wasn't trained that way, I learned to fly in my Quad City Challenger, single seat, and I cranked in full flaperons for all landings.

 

When I was checked out in my CT I did all 30° landings and was asked to promise 2 things.  

1) I would do some go-arounds, 2) I would wait a while before using 40°

 

Checkout took an hour.

 

-------------------------------------

 

Variable geometry is a valuable tool, if you have it why not use it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point.

 

Coincidentally, I owned a 7ECA Citabria (no flaps) while still a pretty green instructor. Had just one primary student in it, and he did fine.

 

And I think much of my affinity for forward slips came about from my time with that plane.

 

Yes, we can learn one method and then add additional skills - the whole "building blocks" concept - so that's also a valid teaching technique.

 

And if CT is actually recommending against full flaps, everyone would be well advised to follow that recommendation.

 

I only dove in due to a post about someone only using 0° or 15° since they left training.

 

What I probably need more than anything is more CT time!

Can a person do full flap landings in a CT? Sure they can. Trying to teach a student to land a CT with full flaps from the beginning would be like trying to teach someone how to fly a tailwheel airplane in a P51. In theory it can be done, but the chance of something bad happening is far greater.

 

Just so you know I always do some full flap landings and some zero flap landings with the student prior to solo. Just after solo I teach short and soft field take offs and landings and we use full flaps conditions permitting for these. My recommendation is still 15° flaps for normal landings. Like I said before if done properly the 15° landing only increases touchdown speed by a couple knots, and I would rather give up a 2 knot increase in speed to lessen the chances of damage due to a hard landing.

 

My guess is what I want to see from a student when landing is similar to what you want to see except for the flap setting in the CT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do use 30°, for me it is because 40° runs out of energy too fast.

 

Reflex = cruise

zero = intermediate setting

15 = take-off

30 = landing

40 = special use like steep descent or short/short field or imminent crash

 

The fact that we use 30 doesn't mean 15 makes sense it just means that 40 has unwanted issues.

 

I wasn't trained that way, I learned to fly in my Quad City Challenger, single seat, and I cranked in full flaperons for all landings.

 

When I was checked out in my CT I did all 30° landings and was asked to promise 2 things.  

1) I would do some go-arounds, 2) I would wait a while before using 40°

 

Checkout took an hour.

 

-------------------------------------

 

Variable geometry is a valuable tool, if you have it why not use it?

I didn't try and imply that 15° makes sense because you use 30°. What I did try and imply is that using 40° doesn't make sense under normal circumstances, like making normal landings. The fact that you switch to 15° under difficult circumstances would also seem to imply that landing with 15° flaps makes it easier to maintain control of the airplane.

 

I will add once again that I teach students how to land with all flap settings, I just start with 15° because it is easier to learn how to land the airplane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This weekend I landed at KLAL, full fuel ,calculated 15.3 Knots crosswind, 0 deg. Flaps, was a non event. I'm much more likely to find stiff crosswinds , in Florida, than willd life (except maybe an alligator) on the runway.

 

Cheers

 

PS: Did find a Cessna on the Runway , in December, was diverted, at about 300 AGL , to an alternative Runway. Blown tire. Towered airport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...