Utah-Jay wrote:Sure practice the power off stuff, but good luck finding much of a good choice in true backcountry areas/terrain. Best best is the river as opposed to rocks and trees.

A bit off topic, but as a generalization, I will hang it in the tree tops before putting it in to the water. There have been many airplanes hung up in the tree tops with little to no trauma.

Look at the Stinson-Bruce Meadows tree top crash video from 2012. Three of four occupants uninjured and one broken jaw from face-IP impact.

The problem of getting myself and passengers down from trees is far preferable to trying to get them out of a cabin that is rapidly filling with swift and cold water. Furthermore, many of the shallower streams are full of boulders that will really tear a moving airplane and its occupants up.

This is an interesting accident to review: https://selwaybitterrootproject.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/the-1979-crash/

Moose Creek is a fairly easy backcountry strip, but the forced landing opportunities surrounding it are pretty ugly.

Scolopax wrote:as a generalization, I will hang it in the tree tops before putting it in to the water. There have been many airplanes hung up in the tree tops with little to no trauma.

Look at the Stinson-Bruce Meadows tree top crash video from 2012. Three of four occupants uninjured and one broken jaw from face-IP impact.

Mileage definitely will vary. A friend died in a PA-12 accident at Nimpo Lake 20 years ago. Wreckage was found shy of the lake at the bottom of some tall trees.

Flying into wispy black spruce is probably good. Hitting the tops of 80' firs, stopping, and falling to the ground is not good.

Allowing the nose to go down as designed to prevent stall has worked for me in 9 of 13 engine failures. It allowed me to trade what little altitude I had for the airspeed to safely turn at whatever bank angle needed to make a good landing zone.

Zzz wrote:

Scolopax wrote:as a generalization, I will hang it in the tree tops before putting it in to the water. There have been many airplanes hung up in the tree tops with little to no trauma.

Look at the Stinson-Bruce Meadows tree top crash video from 2012. Three of four occupants uninjured and one broken jaw from face-IP impact.

Mileage definitely will vary. A friend died in a PA-12 accident at Nimpo Lake 20 years ago. Wreckage was found shy of the lake at the bottom of some tall trees.

Flying into wispy black spruce is probably good. Hitting the tops of 80' firs, stopping, and falling to the ground is not good.

That's true Zane. The variables are marginally manageable when your options become so limited. When the fan quits turning it's important to have responses locked and loaded, rather than trying to do too much figuring or trying to expand your options as your flight energy zeroes out.

The smallest softest looking trees would obviously be the best choice if there is no flat open ground. Softest smallest trees, with extremely limited maneuvering is what I have programmed in to my forced landing from low level power loss response for the best odds of survival.

With trees, the aircraft will absorb a lot of impact energy, come to a rest, most likely not catch fire, and then you need to figure out how to get people down (if stuck up high), or wait to be rescued while enjoying the luxury of breathing air.

In a forced landing in the water, you most likely flip, transitioning from an in flight emergency directly into another extremely time critical emergency in the water. Being restrained with harnesses in an inverted airplane that is filling with water is an extremely ugly situation. Drowning deaths are likely, hypothermia usually imminent and if things go perfectly and everyone is lucky enough to get to shore, your survival gear is likely unrecoverable, and you are on to emergency #3...

There is no one size fits all answer, but for me I'm avoiding the water in my land plane.

I fly in very rugged country with my family on board quite often, so I think about these things a lot.

The big winged Cessna's ability to get slow with full flaps makes smacking the terrain hard pretty irresponsible. Don't sweat the nose wobbles if you have to forward slip with full flaps to make the beginning of the landing zone. Airspeed does not change, even though it looks like it should. I'm not a designer, but I have gotten down into the beginning of the LZ fine that way. When low, really good places are often right there and better places are well out of reach. A bird in hand sort of thing.

Backcountry is acceptance of incidents and accidents to avoid fatalities.

Coming into a strip with no go around, I tend to come in behind the power curve, the extra thrust coming from the prop makes the elevator much more awake in my 185, makes things easier to control especially energy management. I practice power off technique at strips that allow a safe place to do so, its important for me to practice both, but know my limitations for either.

It bothers me every time I see this thread title:
"idle at key point, or come in hanging by the prop?"

There is a lot of middle-ground technique in between these two methods.
A power-on approach does not necessarily mean you are hanging it on the prop.

Slips help

Easier often to burn energy than get it back

Varanger,

If possible a 3 deg glide slope with power on as needed has been my choice.

Has worked great jumping between airliners, corporates and GA aircrafts. Things are more stable and you have it pretty much standardized for any aircraft that you fly. Same Pic...

Some runways will of course require a steeper App for example due to obstacles.
Planes like the Stearman will also require a steeper App. if you want to have a better view of the runway on final but even so it will be pretty much always power on.

The bigger the plane you fly the sooner you will be performing 3 deg. power on finals.

(Yes, I do practice and remain current doing once in a while idle power App&Ldgs on my Skywagon)

Scolopax wrote:Backcountry flying knowledge and skills are developed to deal with variability that is not encountered in environments that are highly groomed for aircraft operations. When preparing for the variability that will be encountered, it is best to have more than one tool sharpened up.

The backcountry approach environment will almost always present you with situations that cannot be handled with one technique that has been perfected at your home base.

Considering this, mastery of both the steep power at idle scrub energy through aircraft control and the drag and drop approach techniques is better than dependence on one. The real world exists between and up to the limits of either. My recommendation is to alternate between the two when you practice.

Rob's advice about taking care of your engine by limiting extreme changes in power settings is also on point.

This is where it's at. Good summary post.

It's about being flexible and having a wide range of skills. Not doing the same landing in the circuit 500 times, it's about experiencing 50 different landings 10 times each.

The following was alluded to in this thread, but not directly addressed. Most reciprocating engines prefer a power on descent and approach for factual reasons beyond the scope of this thread. Power off descents and approaches in geared and supercharged engines are especially detrimental. The very definition of "power off" itself must be defined for one to have an intelligent discussion. Therefore, if one cares about the long-term health of the powerplant, this must enter the discussion ref the topic of this thread. The best answer for questions involving technique is "it depends". The multitude of variables must be specific to obtain a specific answer.

Yes. And even with the if-then recognition, there can be a default for training purposes. When the default is arbitrary and without consideration of if-then, trouble can occur. When if-then is arbitrary it means I know and you don't; again little training takes place.

Good teachers can offer data and experience and physics to what they teach.

The notion that your aircraft's glide performance with the throttle closed is the same as it will be with the engine making zero power could catch you off guard if the engine does actually quit. The difference between the thrust generated at idle vs the drag of a prop windmilling against the compressions can quite significantly effect your glide performance, depending on several factors.

So to truly prepare for an engine failure on short final, you must either carry extra energy (how much?), or actually shut it down. I used to shut it down in the pattern often, aiming for a mid field touch down point to see how it actually behaved. A worthwhile exercise IMO, if you plan properly.

Scolopax wrote:The notion that your aircraft's glide performance with the throttle closed is the same as it will be with the engine making zero power could catch you off guard if the engine does actually quit. The difference between the thrust generated at idle vs the drag of a prop windmilling against the compressions can quite significantly effect your glide performance, depending on several factors.

So to truly prepare for an engine failure on short final, you must either carry extra energy (how much?), or actually shut it down. I used to shut it down in the pattern often, aiming for a mid field touch down point to see how it actually behaved. A worthwhile exercise IMO, if you plan properly.

Good to be prepared for an engine out and practice power off 180s at the key position. It is also good to practice gliding from altitude to the key position and to break the engine out procedure into these two steps. Agree with Scolopax about the glide performance being very different in the real situation than with power at idle. Planning to be high and aiming for midfield are good practices. I never liked the 200 foot rule on the commercial ACS. I just got SMART glide on my Garmin 650Xi and went up to 6K yesterday and hit the button for fun gliding into KMMV.

I also think it is good to train for the impossible turn especially if you fly in congested cities where a turn back to the airport is sometime the best option. Certainly have to know the limitations of the maneuver and where to execute it safely. The work of Brain Schiff is outstanding on this subject and his recommendations are a must for anyone who lives in an area where this maneuver is needed.

Doing short field takeoffs and landings require a lot of practice. More so than doing power off 180s. I enjoy practicing the maneuver because it is challenging. This should not be practiced on gusty days or with lots of crosswind. Best to practice on calm days. Landing distance is proportional to the square of the airspeed. Thus a 10% increase in approach speed results in a 20% increase in landing distance. The Converse is also true. The best short field landings are performed with a high angle of attack behind the power curve. Pitching for airspeed or attitude and using the throttle for altitude. I actually like to think of landing this way being similar to a lunar landing. Often I will fly my 180 slow enough there isn't a lot of elevator authority and it will require some power for the flare. If you want to consistently land an airplane on the mark and roll out in a short distance this is the way it is done.

To land and approach slowly you also have to practice slow flight and stalls in as many configurations as possible and get familiar with how the airplane feels slow, on the buffet, and where it breaks. My plane flies really nicely right when the stall horn starts to sound. I like to hold that attitude on my approaches. The buffet is still quite bit slower and the break even slower so there is a lot of buffer. I have always been afraid to compete in STOL contests because I think I might push my approach speed slower toward the buffet. I am a competitive person and really I just wanted to learn to fly this way so I can bomb short strips in the mountains.

Good to train for all type of landings. Power off, STOL landings, and crosswinds. You can never be proficient enough. I am lucky to have a 750 foot grass runway at twin oaks as a practice strip but aiming for the first taxiway or a similar mark at the home airport is a good way to measure your STOL proficiency. There is always the roll out of shame at the last taxiway.


Josh

Your math on the speed is instructive, Josh. Where we actually roll out to, without brakes is also instructive, but since that is ground speed headwind is a factor unless we add as much extra airspeed as there is headwind component. The power at the bottom you mention is instructive. We have to already be slow to be able to add that power and still hit the mark. The way I judge technique is that if we have to close the throttle before touchdown, we are going too fast to land. But that is determined back out there a bit on short final. If we have not picked up on the increase in apparent rate of closure, we will be too fast. And even a bit further back, if we have not slowed enough to sink enough to require dynamic rather than set throttle, we will have trouble with potential energy of altitude when that apparent rate zings past apparent brisk walk. We do not have spoilers. We have to bring the throttle dynamically into play to have consistency with touching down slowly and softly on the spot every time. And dynamic throttle also mitigates gust spread, which adding speed only does temporarily. We have to be in control. Good explanation. Thanks.

Great thread with excellent posts albeit somewhat scattered mindsets. That's not unusual given the OP started with "I'm doing this to prepare for that but sometimes cheat with this other, is that bad?"

Your (OP) logic for practicing power off approaches is at the foundation of virtually all primary training. No one is the person who learned how to fly (powered aircraft) without proving to someone they can do it with the mill shut down. It's a worthy endeavor, but don't get too wrapped up in it. It's mostly neophyte horseshit. It is not the best practice for your engine, it is not the best practice for performance, and it is only semi likely to be realistic. In fact it may have you learning counter productive things like, if I pull power at the key point I will make the strip... newsflash: you don't get to choose that key point if it is an emergency you are training for.

Be patient and exercise what Scolo, Hotrod, Battson, Jim, TR and others are suggesting. Learn them all, and experience the widest range of scenarios your mind will allow.

Why do old farts push learning the wing? because that's what you're flying. You're not flying the engine. Learn to extract what you need, to ask it make it do it's best. Learn to manage the engine, and what you need it to do, to make it's do it's best. You're not in a helicopter, nor a glider, you have a toolbox full of tools to be used alone or in concert.

The human body is an amazing instrument, an amazing set of tools, and a super processor. Learn to interpret and trust that instrument, the tools, and how to process what they can do in concert for you. People scoff, cite physics, and suggest all else is bunk. But just like Hotrod rightly pointed out that there is a country mile between 'Idle at key point and hanging by the prop' There is a country mile between earning a PPL, and being able to fly like a bird. Endeavor to really fly, not operate the levers, or be a systems operator.

Did you know that the UBC allows for stairs to be a maximum of 3/8" different from the highest rise to the lowest rise? and the expectation is +/- 1/8" tolerance in level? The ball of your foot will know if the stairs are not built right. The ball of your foot is going to recognize a difference of 1/8" out of level . If the ball of your foot can do that, just imagine what your finger tips, ears, eyes and nose could do with a little patience and experience.

Fly with the tips of your fingers and the tips of your toes. If you arbitrarily shove the stick and a peddle in to a corner and against the firewall at every taxi, when do you learn exactly what the wing really needed to stay put? If you don't learn the minimums, how do you learn your reserves? Learn the tactile feeling of the stick / yoke, the tactile feeling of the seat. Learn these things, and the numbers or colors on the dials will soon seem sooo imprecise. I can't recount the number of times a new pilot asked me what speed 'X' ship wants to land at. WTF... If you're about to take off in it, you should know immediately there after what speed it will land at. More importantly, if you were 'listening' to how it felt on departure, you should know exactly how it should feel landing.

Why energy management? because the wing doesn't know where the energy came from. If it takes 'X' torque, manifold, or RPM to yield 'this' feeling, and shoving the stick forward 'that' much with a dead engine yields the same, you are done trying to 'figure' out what the wing needs, and you didn't need dials, numbers or math.

Learn to learn. If you are new to a plane, what speed did it get light on your first take off? because that's where it's going to be done flying on your first landing. More importantly, how did that talk to your finger tips? These are not fly by wire ships, your finger tips will remember how much pressure they can ask of your wing, if you ask them to. People practice stalls Why not practice not to stall? Since that's not popular, why not note things when you practice stalls. What did it feel like before it broke? where did it slide off to? what was your foot trying to instinctively do while your mind was racing off elsewhere? I see absolutely no good coming of arbitrarily flying around the sky lifting the nose until it quits if you aren't trying to disseminate what is actually going on. It's like touch and goes. Who dreamt that up as a learning aid? There is absolutely nothing going on there but gas burnt.

I recently flew with an exceptionally well trained and experienced gentleman in a model new to him. On landing he repetitively shoved the yoke to the firewall and brought the tail up proud. It's the wheel landing we were all taught , when things like proving proficiency at landing styles took precedence over landing safely.
Genuinely curious I asked him why he continued to do that, but of course the box stock answer was airflow over the tail, and weight on the mains for brakes.

I'm still learning, and hope to never stop, but my experience has been that if the ship is slowed such that the tail is barely alive at touchdown, you may as will keep bringing the stick on back, because there won't be enough speed to generate enough lift to impact braking. Slowed up like this, brakes would be required to lift the tail, and aft yoke pressure to keep the tail in check if short is your goal, because elevator will be all but done. If you have elevator left after touchdown, you are still flying, while your goal is actually to land.
Clean up the flaps and you are now essentially wingless. I realize the contestants in the bunch will nick off a few feet by doing balancing acts while attempting not to earn the business of a local prop shop, but I'm talking real life landing here.

The point in my question was not to suggest his technique was poor, or the I knew a better one, it was simply me trying to learn why he elected to do what he was doing. Why was he seeing things from a different angle.

contactflying wrote: The way I judge technique is that if we have to close the throttle before touchdown, we are going too fast to land.

Sorry Jim, I feel like, if your student is closing the throttle to slow down in a landing phase, allowing him to close the throttle reaffirms his mistaken belief that throttle is going to slow him down. I do not instruct, but if I did, and a student reached for the throttle to slow the ship on landing, I'd have a ruler against his knuckles... I guess that's why I don't instruct

Oh jeez.... I can babble. And that is why I don't instruct

Why do people find it so hard to believe that while 250 hrs might make you legal to try and fly commercial, it damned sure wouldn't make you a Micheal Jordan, Beethoven, Jimmie Johnson, oh hell... it won't even make you a Tonya Harding...

Burn gas... burn it with conviction, and pay attention. THAT will make the difference you're looking for.

Take care, Rob

So much good stuff in this thread. Happy I asked, even though I realise I made it very obvious that I an not particularly experienced... Not that it matters. Still better than being a fake knowitall.

I do have some questions when it comes to climbing. I get why climbing in Vx drastically shortens the reaction time, and will probably lead to a substantial loss in altitude before you reach best glide speed. Maybe not until you're already in the trees. But Vy being a big problem I don't quite get. Isn't Vy usually faster than best glide already, and isn't altitude better than speed? What's best, being fast and low or now quite as fast and higher up? It might be because of the differences between different airplanes. The Savage Classic I fly is so light and draggy that it pretty much stops the moment the engine dies. If anything happens at a very lowish altitude, I don't think I have as much to say about where we're going down as higher up. But whats "low" and whats "fast"? The savage stalls at less than 34kts straight ahead and Vy is at 65kts.

Until you brought it up here, I would have sworn that my best bet is climb at best rate and try and get nosing over to really stick in my muscle memory. I'm not trying to argue against people who knows better than me, I just ask so I can understand.

You're just too mean to instruct, Rob. And you are (almost for MTV) always right. Thanks for your non-instructor advice. Often that is the best advice.