Peter wrote:
Consequently I reckon most people in this situation will glide straight ahead, despite the slight headwind component, especially by the time they have wasted time sorting out the engine.One would need to change the debate to whether, upon any engine problem, you should immediately make a turn to the nearest airport. I don’t think that is going to work unless you have a constant airdata-assisted “glide-to-here” computation.
SkyDemon’s GlideSafe feature with as up to date wind forecasts as possible is the closes thing to this for me and probably many other SEP GA pilots.
The original scenario is an interesting mathematical puzzle, but in practice you’d be very unlikely to make either airfield. Glide ratios are calculated using a new aircraft, not a dirty old one, covered in aerials and bugs, and probably a bit out of rig. I’d most likely keep straight ahead towards A whilst working out the various options.
The scenario begs many questions. Are both airfields at sea level? Do you actually have 10,000ft of gliding room? Is the wind at surface or 10,000ft? Many places have opposite direction wind from surface to 10,000ft. If you’re using GPS how far is the ARP from the start of the concrete? (LFOK Vatry easterly has 2nm of concrete before the ARP – that equals over 1000ft of spare height). Is the prop windmilling? You might not be able to stop the prop but, if you have oil pressure, you can pull the prop to full coarse to stretch the glide a fair bit.
By the time I’d got to 5000ft I’d probably have realised I wasn’t going to make the airfield and start planning a sensible slow arrival into whatever is below.
is to turn towards the airport BEFORE trying to sort things out
I think so too. With the gliding range on SD always on, you can monitor the situation. Then, if the engine quit, go straight to the nearest runway within gliding range (if available). SD may be off due to changing wind, but on average the error is minimal, and not really an issue unless the runway is on the very edge. I believe it is the best calculation you can do, that gives you the highest chance of a good outcome.
I still that is too simplistic.
The best chances of a good outcome may well be an off airfield landing nearer than either runway. Remember that the aircraft is now owned by the insurance company, your only real consideration is the well being of the pax.
So a golf course, field, road or meadow may well be best.
At the altitudes that most of us fly, we are nearly always outside the glideing range of an airfield.
Great discussion guys! You guys are all over it! Some really good thoughts and obviously you have put some thought into it. The “crosswind” angling wind scenario is really tricky and I’d have to do some serious math there.
I appreciate the openness to learn and explore new topics over here. It’s refreshing! Thanks!
Timothy wrote:
Remember that the aircraft is now owned by the insurance company, your only real consideration is the well being of the pax.
Please note that in some countries it is normal not to have hull coverage. In Hungary I can hardly think of a privately owned (i.e. not ATO or similar) plane having hull coverage. About 20-30% of cars have it, but mostly because banks require it for financing.
That strikes me as a serious flight safety concern. I can just see people being killed in a misjudged attempt to save the airframe.
And if anyone thinks “no-one would do that” just think of all the times when people (including myself) compromise safety for the sake if money.
Compromising safety for the sake of money is something I do every day. I’d be safer if I didn’t have to risk the drive to work 
My motivation towards not losing my aircraft has little to do with the loss of the aircraft’s monetary value, I happen to like my aircraft very much… Insurance is a separate issue, and in my mind has to do with protecting myself from others, not covering the financial value of my plane. Regardless in the US no aircraft insurance at all, liability or hull, is legally required and it makes no difference to the record of flight safety.
You could argue that carrying liability insurance encourages people to take undue risks and I think that would be equally inaccurate.
Timothy wrote:
your only real consideration is the well being of the pax.
Not if you have built the aircraft yourself, and it’s a single seater 
I think landing at an airfield is as good as 100% success. Landing on something that looks OK from 5k feet, may end up being barely usable, and the risk of injury and death greatly increases vs a runway. It’s also much easier to get first aid, at an airport, should the landing not go exactly as planned. Therefore I also think the pax would appreciate it.
