Engine failure & hard landing video

[Akromaster]

...it's easy to be an armchair critic...

Not having a go CP, but who knows what I'd do in the same circumstance and yes it's pretty easy to be an armchair critic. I wouldn't normally wage in on these discussions because of my limited experience, but in his blog he does encourage it. I don't profess to think I would have done any better, but it's good that firstly he was ok and secondly he was willing to share so we CAN discuss it.

 

 

[rhtrudder]

We often think that heading for a road is not an option because it is illegal to land on a road. A road is often the best and safest option.Alan.

I do understand about landing on roads but have seen plenty of news footage of planes landing on freeways when the choice is plowing into someone house , unsure whether they would be in trouble with the authitories

 

 

[Teckair]

We often think that heading for a road is not an option because it is illegal to land on a road. A road is often the best and safest option.Alan.

I knew someone who got run over and killed landing on a road. Other bad points about landing on roads, wires, signs/white posts, the camber makes the plane want go bush. When I have had failures a road was the last option for me. I have landed on roads with the engine going and not found it easy, one time a car drove under the wing.

 

 

[M61A1]

We often think that heading for a road is not an option because it is illegal to land on a road. A road is often the best and safest option.Alan.

I'm guessing it would depend on where you are. Almost all roads have powerlines next to them, usually they have junctions teeing off them, very hard to pick in the afternoon sun.

What surprises me here, is that so far no-one has suggested that a landing site should have already been chosen before the event. When you've done that, it's just another landing. (especially at that altitude).

 

Errors were made, maybe he'll do better next time. For those condemning steep turns at low level, go and do some LL training, it may save your life.

 

 

[cooperplace]

Not having a go CP, but who knows what I'd do in the same circumstance and yes it's pretty easy to be an armchair critic. I wouldn't normally wage in on these discussions because of my limited experience, but in his blog he does encourage it. I don't profess to think I would have done any better, but it's good that firstly he was ok and secondly he was willing to share so we CAN discuss it.

agree 100%; one v useful thing from this is that it encourages us to do engine failure training. The first time I tried this solo, 2500 ft above a strip, I was sweating. I now practice some variation of this most times I fly, and it's useful experience.

 

 

[Teckair]

What surprises me here, is that so far no-one has suggested that a landing site should have already been chosen before the event. When you've done that, it's just another landing. (especially at that altitude).

Yes good in theory but at 1000 ft that changes so often, so maybe don't fly around at 1000 ft but wait a minute we don't know why he was at 1000 ft.

 

 

[poteroo]

For those condemning steep turns at low level, go and do some LL training, it may save your life.

It may well. But, the aircraft continues to fly according to the principles we've all learned, regardless of height above ground. A little akin to engines continuing to run whether they are over open land or 100nm over water.

 

The time for 'steep turns' is while you have height,airspeed and 'clean air' - as you get lower, you should be just fine tuning the approach. Holding your attitude accurately for best glide, and making any turns precisely in balance will extend your airborne time - really important. Common errors in BFR's for both GA and RAAus are flying too fast, and way out of balance turns.

 

 

[M61A1]

Yes good in theory but at 1000 ft that changes so often, so maybe don't fly around at 1000 ft but wait a minute we don't know why he was at 1000 ft.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at......but I can tell you that when I'm at lower altitudes, my landing site has been chosen (to the best of my ability) and that may mean that my route or altitude has been altered to ensure that I have that landing are as an option.

 

 

[M61A1]

It may well. But, the aircraft continues to fly according to the principles we've all learned, regardless of height above ground. A little akin to engines continuing to run whether they are over open land or 100nm over water.The time for 'steep turns' is while you have height,airspeed and 'clean air' - as you get lower, you should be just fine tuning the approach. Holding your attitude accurately for best glide, and making any turns precisely in balance will extend your airborne time - really important. Common errors in BFR's for both GA and RAAus are flying too fast, and way out of balance turns.

Generally speaking you are absolutely correct, however, assuming you've made some errors, and are lower, it's rather useful to have some experience turning close to the ground.

I would go as far as to say that it may have saved my arxe. I have no LL endorsement, but I have completed some training. As I may have mentioned before, I found turning close to the ground very intimidating initially, and I would not like to have had to do it on my first engine fail.

 

The AUF used to get a lot of engine failures, but most were uneventful forced landings, now engine failure seems to result in a lot of damaged aircraft and sometimes deaths.

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

The closest I have come to this scenario is in a car and I hope it stays that way. At about 3:31 into the video it looks like he nearly lost it, 90° bank angle or very close.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

What a great service this gentleman has done for all of us by posting his mishap. The slower the aircraft we fly the more important the wind direction is. A thirty knot landing speed with ten knots tailwind mean landing at forty knots as opposed to a twenty knot landing speed into wind. That is a huge difference in landing distanced required and potential damage and injury. Because we almost always land into wind, and are used to the sight picture this presents, we will always be much too high if we stuff up the wind direction in an emergency, then of course we lower the nose to get into our paddock and speed increases.

 

We have very good forecasts. I try to be aware of the general ground wind forecast when I am flying. That can be updated enroute by the visual signs others here have pointed out, but at least if you have the forecast you have an early idea of which direction to land in. Trying to figure out the wind after an engine failure with the mind in overdrive is always going to be so much more difficult. With a new, untried aircraft especially, why fly low if you don't have to? Height AGL equals time. Time to think and time to cover distance.

 

 

[terryc]

when your at 1000 feet there should be no excuse not to put the plane down with the exemption of may be ground conditions when you arrive.

 

My failure was at 200-250 feet when performance is more critical.

 

 

[facthunter]

1,000 feet AGL gives you about one and a half minutes of flight time at the most, (engine out). If you manoeuver it's less. If you want to reverse your direction quickly you have no option to do a shallow banked turn, It has to be quite radical or you won't achieve it in the height available. I'm not keen to comment on this particular situation at length. The pilot would have a better idea what he did and why. A 270 degree turn is achieved more efficiently by a 90 degree one the other way, if you plan it. If you still are looking for somewhere to land , it's something else. Nev

 

 

[Blueadventures]

Seems like the fuel tank vent was blocked before the flight and that is not good.

 

A lot of water on the ground in the ruts where he stopped and on the ground he rolled over before hitting the trees and looks misty in the video; could carb icing have been a factor?

 

May not have had any brakes available either.

 

Great he walked away and appreciate his sharing of the experience.

 

Great video about what occures; always best to increase landing options at first sign of engine problems and then after remain close to options. Best ones can be the ones below or just pased if you have height as you have had a bit of a look. Always best if you have the height to fully check the site and approach.

 

 

[Teckair]

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at......but I can tell you that when I'm at lower altitudes, my landing site has been chosen (to the best of my ability) and that may mean that my route or altitude has been altered to ensure that I have that landing are as an option.

What I mean is at 1000 ft your options are more limited and they keep changing and it will be easier to get caught out, some of the x-spurts on here don't know what they are on about.

 

 

[poteroo]

some of the x-spurts on here don't know what they are on about.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Forums are meant to be locations where we share these differing opinions without denigration being heaped on us. Lets keep it that way. happy days,

 

 

[Teckair]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Forums are meant to be locations where we share these differing opinions without denigration being heaped on us. Lets keep it that way. happy days,

OK, but I was just thinking there is some bad advice floating around.

 

 

[Nobody]

OK, but I was just thinking there is some bad advice floating around.

So instead of politely posting your differing opinion so that others can learn you behave like a child in the schoolyard.

 

 

[Teckair]

So instead of politely posting your differing opinion so that others can learn you behave like a child in the schoolyard.

Sorry I thought I was alerting low hour guys that some of what was posted was bad advice.

 

 

[Teckair]

So instead of politely posting your differing opinion so that others can learn

I thought I did that.

 

 

[Bats]

I'm a big believer in learning to fly out near the edges of the envelope, including low level, however there is a big difference between planned LL, engine delivering the requisite number of ponies - and reefing an unfamiliar aircraft into a steep descending (of necessity) turn through 270 degrees. At less than 1,000' agl this isn't very different to trying to turn back from an efato and we all know how many of those end in tears. Fine and well if there is no other option, provided you have the necessary kinetic energy to roll level and arrest the descent, but here there appeared to be other better options. I say unfamiliar because from my reading of the blog entry, he had only 4 hours on the newly built aircraft when he set off on the final flight.

 

 

[Teckair]

from my reading of the blog entry, he had only 4 hours on the newly built aircraft when he set off on the final flight.

That would be heart breaking.

 

 

[diesel]

...all valid points, but he should have remembered the old classic:don't be surprised when the engine stops- be surprised that it doesn't!

Its true Lyle. Diesel ok, no hisseys. Flight tests ok so warbirds over Wanaka in a couple of days. All as you say. Chas

 

 

[flying dog]

Ok, I'll join in.

 

Concerns:

 

1 - Low hour plane flying low. Not a good idea. I believe it is called TIGER COUNTRY.

 

2 - I agree with the others who are concerned with the fact the belt wasn't tightened at the onset of the problem. That is when the engine STARTED to sputter. It is a sign things are (Probably) going to get worse.

 

3 - After the engine "stopped" why could I still hear what I think to be the engine? There is something visible off the nose of the plane which remains in the same relative position as the plane moves, so it isn't scenery, and looks like a prop blade, yet I am sure I am still hearing the engine. When it stops, things get very quiet and all you should hear is wind noise - and sometimes a few 4 letter words from the pilot.

 

4 - Wind speed/direction. Huh?! As this plane is not punching holes in the sky, the pilot should have a pretty good idea what the wind is doing by the difference between the nose of the plane and the direction of flight. Cross winds make the nose point into the wind when the plane is flying a different direction. Head/Tail winds, although a bit more "tricky" aren't that difficult either. Head wind: You are not moving over the ground that fast. Tail wind: You are scooting over the ground (or as it is otherwise said: You are flying.)

 

5- Turns. 270 Degree!!! Woah! You are low (bad) and want to go to a place at your 3 or 9 o'clock. Let's make it 3 o'clock for this example. WHY would you turn 270 degrees (to the left)? You are already too low, so you turn towards where you want to go, NOT away from it.

 

If you are too high, well, you are LUCKY. But you can't afford to lose too that much height when that low to the ground.

 

Other things about other comments:

 

"The road with a loop at the end which was to the right"

 

Yeah, I saw that and thought it was a runway at first, then thought it could have been a road to a lake/pond/puddle.

 

"Landing on roads is difficult EVEN WITH ENGINE RUNNING"

 

Ok, let's think about this:

 

Agreed, they are not the best place to land. They are often not level/flat, and do have a hump in the middle. That is to allow water to run off it when it rains, and maybe because the RMS couldn't be bothered flattening it. What ever.

 

But I am slightly concerned that even with the engine running and someone finds it difficult to land there, maybe more practice is needed?

 

Sure it is not exactly something you do often, and probably don't want to do often - the ROAD part - but landing on something which is not flat/smooth while having engine power AND finding it difficult is in itself problematic.

 

Back to the video quickly in closing.

 

I agree the person has taken on a mammoth thing posting the video and leaving themselves open to critics. Been there. Done that.

 

He says that "things happen quickly and appologises for ..... something".

 

It is an ULTRALIGHT! As I said earlier: You are not punching holes in the sky.

 

You put all these comments on the video and remove them before I have time to read them, and yet you then jump forward in the video.

 

As this is done in retrospect, I think it would be a lot better if you PAUSED the video at points and explained what is there and what you see as important, so when the person watching sees it, they are "on the same page" and you don't get all these "what if" posts. For instance, that road with a loop at the end / runway. Pause it and tell us what it is.

 

Sure, at the time YOU probably didn't know. But now you have the time, SHARE the knowledge.

 

Don't cut bits out. If someone doesn't want to watch it, let THEM skip it. Someone else may find it helpful, as it helps keep the time line so the person watching sees the time line unfold in front of them.

 

And yes, ok, pausing it and putting things on the clip kind of goes against that, but at least it is PAUSED and the person can relate to it, rather than reading comments filling the screen and not having time to read them before they vanish.

 

I'll stop digging my hole now, but dogs are inclined to like digging.

 

 

[M61A1]

That would be heart breaking.

Yes, when you look at the pics, you can see a lot of work went into it.