The long and short of forced landings
Who are the pilots who strive to remain within gliding distance of the runway when flying the traffic pattern? The majority of those who subscribe to this doctrine divide into two camps. The larger of these is the lucky group whose flight instructors nagged them on this point from earliest training. Once they catch themselves straying low or wide, they quickly remedy their boundary issues. The second camp of believers is made up of pilots who survived emergencies in the pattern--not just those who made it back down on the glide, but those who plowed up a cornfield as well.
There are other ways to gain admission to this collegial, cautious club. Spend time flying singles on for-hire sightseeing flights just offshore above the cold, cold north Atlantic and you'll acquire respect for the idea. That's true even if you never had to swim for it, or land on the only emergency landing site available such as a hilly, twisting golf course.
Not all flight instructors hammer home "Stay within gliding distance of the runway!" during training. There can be practical discouragements at many airports. And some CFIs openly mock the idea, citing the reliability of engines, the logistical challenges of busy traffic patterns, and the long straight-in approaches or base-leg entries routinely required at tower-controlled airports. They're right. Many situations preclude flying a pattern that might tap a pilot's skill at power-off accuracy approaches.
But that's no reason to disregard the concept. So here's an idea. Look up the 90-degree, 180-degree, and 360-degree power-off approaches, all of which can be found in Chapter 8 of the FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook, just before the discussion of simulated emergency landings. (The 180-degree power-off accuracy landing is also included in the Commercial Pilot Practical Test Standards.)
Accident files contain enough cases of undershoots, overshoots, and unfortunate instances in which a pilot had the runway made--but then lost it again--to suggest that practicing estimating power-off glides under various conditions is useful. Some may now raise their hand and suggest glider training as a related form of therapy, but gliders sometimes land off-airport as well.
A loss of power two miles from the airport at 1,200 feet may or may not result in an off-airport landing, depending on wind, altitude conservation, and airspeed control. But it's a close call, and may depend on how much maneuvering is required. On August 2, 2008, a Cessna 182 was on arrival at Westerly, Rhode Island (elevation 81 feet), when, according to the National Transportation Safety Board's online accident summary, it lost power. "The pilot had just applied carburetor heat while entering the base leg of the airport traffic pattern when the loss of power occurred. The pilot attempted to restore power but was unable. After determining that he would not be able to glide to the runway, he ditched the airplane in a river. Post-accident examination of the aircraft revealed that the wing was substantially damaged and that there was nesting material and the remains of a rodent in the inlet of the carburetor. The probable accident cause was found to be a loss of power attributed to a partial blockage of the air induction system.
Failing to make the runway is the common result of an unexpected power loss at low altitude, as that case shows. But even with the airport directly beneath, a pilot experiencing a sudden power loss may fail to capitalize on the gifts of time and altitude that were offered by fortune if the effects and consequences of maneuvering dominate the emergency. On August 9, 2008, a pilot and pilot-rated passenger in a Cessna 152 experienced a power loss after exhausting their fuel 10 nautical miles from their destination near Oceanside, California. "The pilot restarted the engine, and it ran for a few minutes before losing power again. The pilot was unfamiliar with the area and did not see the destination airport until the airplane was directly over the airport. He realized the airplane was too high and added full flaps and 'started to side-slip the airplane to lose our excessive altitude.' Initially, the pilot maneuvered the airplane for a landing on Runway 6; however, he was still too high, so he executed a 180-degree turn and landed on Runway 24. The airplane touched down near the departure end of the runway, overran the pavement, and encountered an embankment," recounted the NTSB summary.
Although the pilot was faulted for the fuel exhaustion, it seems that he did make a proper effort, with full flaps and slips, to save the day but was overtaken by events.
The root problem of these accidents was always the same: inaccurate flying without power. It's a safe bet that most pilots of powered aircraft do minimal practicing of power-off accuracy landings. And it's a rare task in recurrency training and flight reviews. Simulated emergencies aren't the same challenge. There the goal is demonstrating the ability to hit a touchdown target after a prolonged, turning glide, not survival. That takes us back to the opening question: When flying normal power approaches, beginning your descent from downwind, abeam the touchdown zone, do you fly at the correct distance from the runway? Here's the Airplane Flying Handbook's guidance: "This leg should be approximately 1/2 to 1 mile out from the landing runway, and at the specified traffic pattern altitude."
The AFH discussion also lists numerous common errors, including these:
- Downwind leg too far from the runway/landing area.
- Inadequate compensation for wind drift on base leg.
- Skidding turns in an effort to increase gliding distance.
- Overextension of downwind leg resulting from tailwind.
Of those four, the last is the most easily remedied: Just slow down! That's true whether it was a tailwind that carried you too far downwind or a request from the tower to extend for traffic.
There it is, then, a ready-made list of skills to practice the next time training day or a flight review rolls around, complete with a set of errors to avoid and a clear way of recognizing whether you have met the challenge. (If you had to add power to complete your approach, you didn't.)
Nothing will ever make a real-life unexpected power-off approach routine. But if you put yourself in the right spot before the problem arises, and keep your descent controlled and accurate thereafter, you and the passengers who are relying on you will emerge victorious.
Dan Namowitz is an aviation writer and flight instructor. A pilot since 1985 and an instructor since 1990, he resides in Maine.
Related Articles
