sigh
Umpteenth try:
Had the plane been setting up for an approach along a realistic glide path (i.e. one that didn’t require engine power), the engine failure needn’t have been deadly.
As it was, the plane was too low for its distance from the runway, or, if one wishes, too far from the threshold for its altitude, and that was because it tried to respect the ominous three degree glideslope. Had it been alotted a glideslope that it could glide, it could have remained higher all the while.
Had the plane been setting up for an approach along a realistic glide path (i.e. one that didn’t require engine power), the engine failure needn’t have been deadly.
That statement is incorrect unless the failure happened at the TOD for your glide approach glidepath.
TOD? Should read ToD , perhaps, for “Top of Descent”? Even then, it is my turn to find your writing bewildering. ;) As I read it, the engine failure occurred at the end of the descent, rather than at its beginning.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
Had the plane been setting up for an approach along a realistic glide path (i.e. one that didn’t require engine power),
How many people would be injured every day with aircraft running off the end of the runway, if that were the situation? No power, means for many aircraft, no way to correct a situation slightly of being too high on approach.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
TOD? Should read ToD , perhaps, for “Top of Descent”? Even then, it is my turn to find your writing bewildering. ;) As I read it, the engine failure occurred at the end of the descent, rather than at its beginning.
Ah, I think that is the problem. No. It occurred before he started down the glideslope for his approach. But regardless you can’t set a glideslope for a glide approach. What if there is a tailwind (and circle to land)? You can’t fly it.
What if there is a tailwind
You increase drag by whatever means available (flaps, extend gear early, sideslip, reduce engine power or even cut magnetos – yes I’ve done that, more than once, nothing exceptional there)
and circle to land
not sure what you mean by this – IFR terminology, perhaps?
You can’t fly it
excuse me for disagreeing – I have managed, a few times. Never failed, actually, as yet.
Are you suggesting he should have been slipping down the glideslope? I agree with you in VMC Jan, but though I don’t have much IMC experience I have to say I don’t fancy the idea of doing that routinely.
I think my plan, in cold blood, would have been to gain lots of speed so that you have as much energy as possible when you pop out of the clouds, then pick a spot and aim to hit it as slowly as possible with full flaps. This might be easier in the UK than the US though, where airports are more likely to be in built-up areas.
I would have tried to glide to an airport (if possible), at Vbg, and then do a descending orbit, and hope that it works out just right.
Otherwise, the best one can do is glide into a non built up area which is also a topographically low point.
The non-certified portable devices which assist with this have a limitation in that they don’t know the wind. For that, you need a connection to aircraft data: heading and TAS. And to get TAS you need IAS and temperature and altitude.
Jan, it is impossible to fly an ILS without engine power. What might work is to glide to an airport (using GPS in OBS mode) and circle till you’re down.
Two years ago I asked a question about the risk of flying IFR in a SEP. The thread might be worth a read: http://www.euroga.org/forums/flying/1203-the-risk-of-single-engine-ifr
What i would have done, if i was cool enough:
- turn around to the closest airport
- make a direct to and set the runway heading as the DTK
- fly Vbg
… in the Cirrus i would activate CAPS between 1000 and 500 ft AGL if i was not able to make the rwy, or if i was not sure i’d make it
