Simulated Failure Gone Wrong

Malko

Malko

ughhh
Staff member
[ QUOTE ]
NTSB Identification: FTW04LA138
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, May 24, 2004 in Decatur, TX
Aircraft: Cessna 172, registration: N5302E
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On May 24, 2004, at 1530 central daylight time, a Cessna 172 single-engine airplane, N5302E, was substantially damaged during a hard landing following a simulated loss of engine power near Decatur, Texas. The certified flight instructor (CFI) and student pilot were not injured. The airplane was registered to Air Golf Inc., of Coppell, Texas, and operated by Marcair Inc., of Roanoke, Texas. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and a flight plan was not filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 instructional flight. The local flight originated from the Northwest Regional Airport, near Roanoke, Texas, at 1430.

During a telephone interview, the CFI reported to the NTSB investigator-in-charge that during the flight, he reduced power and applied carburetor heat to simulate an engine failure. During the descent, he observed the student simulating the emergency check list, and selecting a suitable field for landing. At an altitude of approximately 20 feet above ground level (agl), the CFI told the student to "go-around" and proceeded to call out "my airplane" three times, as he applied full power and moved the flap position handle to the up position. The student pilot started to apply back pressure and would not release the controls despite the CFI's request. The CFI "attempted to push forward on the controls, but was unable to overcome the student pilot." Subsequently, the airplane landed hard in a field and impacted trees. The airplane came to rest upright in a nose low position.

Examination of the airplane, by an Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector, who responded to the site of the accident, revealed the engine firewall was bent. Both the left and right wings were bent. Flight control continuity was established to the ailerons and elevator flight control surfaces.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this strike anyone else as odd?
confused.gif
Or do other CFI's out there maneuver this low. The reason I ask is I have never done the simulated engine out that low. Once I have selected my field and determined that it could be made, we always recovered above 1000 agl.
 
i think the lowest we ever got during my PPL training was about 800 agl, where the landing site was a field. seems foolish to get down to 20 agl before initiating the climb, but might there been a runway underneath them? it does not say specifically...
 
I usually try to recover by 1000 AGL during simulated engine failures, 500 ft should be the absolute minmum in most cases. Occasionally I will give students low level engine failures on departure, just to make sure they know not try to turn back to the airport, but again, no lower than 500 AGL.
 
Yeah, going that low is rediculous. I had an instructor go over the top so hard once that my flight bag ended up in the baggage compartment and a pen flew off the dash and hit me in the face.

On that same flight he had the airplane in a 90 degree bank once and simulated a crop duster down to around 100 feet AGL or so. I wont fly with him anymore, although I like the guy I am just not going to allow him to kill me.
 
Actually I remember I went flight school shopping and flew out of a flight school from that airport, if only I could remember the name?!?!? I remember we came really low on a simulated engine out, I thought for a second we were going to land in some farmers field! I don't remember how low exactly, but it was low enough to make me nervous! Wonder if it was the same guy, I'll check my logbook tonight and see!
banghead.gif
 
When I was doing my Private about a year and a half ago my instructor took us down very low. It was early on in my training, maybe my tenth lesson or so, and we were over a very rural (read cow pasture) area and he decided to show me the procedure for landing off-airport i nan emergency. He selected his field and then slipped us down. I thought it was cool to be down to about 100 ft as I had never been that low over open terrain. Then 80, then 50, then I thought that we were really going to land in the field. We were no more than 10ft off the grass when he applied power and proceded to climb out. Knowing what I know now I would never get this low without actually having a true emergency ,but tthen I didn't know the difference and after all...he was the instructor, he must know what he is doing. He is in his late 70's and instructs as a hobby and I don't think that he put us in any real danger, its just not something that I would do as a pilot or CFI for that matter. And that's all I have to say about that.
laugh.gif
 
There aren't many chances to try it, but doing a real power off landing is a really good thing to try. When I got my PPL I did a couple where we took it all the way to touchdown. Flying jumpers last summer I would run the fuel lines dry (with gas still in the tanks) durring my descent. I continued my descent, made a normal landing, restarted the engine and taxied to the hanger.

Were I got my PPL we had permision to use some local cropduster strips for praticing engine faliures. I have done these over normal airports where no one was in the pattern. Flying over head I pull the engine and let the student give it a shot. To do this you must be careful, if your student isn't assured of a good landing by 500 ft, Go Around!

Many schools have a policy of never going below 500 AGL. Many instructors think that ever going lower is illeagle. However, in the right areas, and circumstances it is perfectly legit.
 
Most the engine failiures we practice are right down to 2-300FT
Always recover easily with that height.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Most the engine failiures we practice are right down to 2-300FT
Always recover easily with that height.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you can recover from that height, but I would see that as an unneccessary risk. Once I and my CFI are sure that the field can be made, there is no real need to go below 1000 agl. Now that I think about it, I believe the fbo where I train has that as an formal policy to not go below the 1000 agl when doing the maneuver. 200-300 ft agl does not leave much room if there is an issue.
 
yeah true, our policy is 500FT unless otherwise instructed.

Your right though, dont need to take the extra risk and go below 500FT
 
I've been with CFI's that wanted to get down really low and I took a checkride on which the examner wanted to go down below 500' AGL....I wasn't having it. I initiated the recovery before he told me to, and he didn't like that very much, but he said that he was impressed by the fact that I made that decision at what he thought was a critical point.

For me? Unless there's an open field dead ahead with no obstacles that are going to break the plane, I'm not going below 500'.
 
I have students land at an airport after a failure. If I'm simulating an off field landing I have the student go around once they decide if they would make their landing spot or not, but not lower than 500AGL
 
[ QUOTE ]
Many schools have a policy of never going below 500 AGL. Many instructors think that ever going lower is illeagle. However, in the right areas, and circumstances it is perfectly legit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I would go with studs to the area east of Mobile, Arizona (middle of nowhere). I would tell them just after the simulated engine out started to perform their procedures and fly their aircraft until I tell them to recover. If I say nothing, continue. We'd spiral down and touchdown on country roads, abandoned strips, etc. I'd already marked most of these places on my map, and then driven to them and reconned them for basic suitability (no potholes, etc), and they were pretty obvious places, so the studs would usually pick them when I pulled their engines in that piece of sky.

To me, a monkey could spiral tha aircraft down to 500 AGL and recover, it was making that last 500 AGL to touchdown count, that made you or broke you. That's why I wanted my studs to take it all the way in, so they could see what that was like......more positive training, IMO.

The NTSB report illustrated in this thread sounds eerily like the Sawyer Aviation 172 that went down near Fountain Hills about a year ago.
 
My PPL CFI would have me do the engine failures above the airport, 5 miles upwind, 5 miles downwind, etc, from 5ooo' to a full landing...it's good training!
 
I don't ever take anyone below 500' AGL unless we're going into an airport.

Pulling the engine above a grass strip is a great learning tool, then the student actually gets to make an "off airport" landing on a grass runway.

Of course my current school doesn't allow ANY grass strips in their airplanes, so I don't get to do this anymore. so I'll only take it below 500' if we're in a position to make it back to the paved runway...
 
[ QUOTE ]
.......we were over a very rural (read cow pasture) area and he decided to show me the procedure for landing off-airport i nan emergency. He selected his field and then slipped us down. I thought it was cool to be down to about 100 ft as I had never been that low over open terrain. Then 80, then 50, then I thought that we were really going to land in the field. We were no more than 10ft off the grass when he applied power and proceded to climb out. Knowing what I know now I would never get this low without actually having a true emergency ,but tthen I didn't know the difference and after all...he was the instructor,....... its just not something that I would do as a pilot or CFI for that matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only comment I would have is that going that low over a field that is suitable for landing, such as a good pasture, is not in my opinion dangerous. Keeping in mind other factors like being familiar with surrounding obstacles. It is not risk free and probably shouldn't be a surprise to the student.

This was discussed in an earlier thread, but it was not so very long ago that one of the "outs" a light airplane pilot had was landing in an open field. As opposed to say trying to press on to an airport in deteriorating weather. Although it certainly shouldn't be high on the list of options today, the fact that the only time it is considered is with engine failure, and then it is not practiced to a low enough altitude to make it realistic in the students mind, may be a trap.

In fact I can think of a handful of accidents off the top of my head, one of them a 121 carrier with fatalites, where the pilot was so determined to land on some kind of pavement that they made bad decisions. It seemed they couldn't even consider the idea of landing on grass or dirt.

It seems there ought to be at least some good hard discussion during training about the relatively safe option that a nice open field can offer, even in some situations where the engine is still running. Just a thought.

Besides, anyone who has seen the movie Fandango knows you can land those things about anywhere.
smile.gif
 
Where I fly and got my PPL, we have a large dry river with nobody around. Lots of the instructors and on my checkride would go down to around 200 AGL. Its kinda fun, but still maybe not the safest thing to do.
 
Most of my recoveries during training were in the 300-500 ft agl range, never any lower than that (that I can recall). I'd love to get the experience of a grass strip, but our school's insurance doesn't cover it. I also agree that doing power-offs all the way to landing at an airport is excellent training. My CFI for my PPL used to do that when I was on downwind to make sure I had in my head to stay close to the airport (but not TOO close) in case I lost an engine. One of my best landings was when he pulled the power on me abeam the numbers. Nice lazy semi-circle, and I put it down right on the numbers. All this, and it was at night, too. His response, "Where the hell did THAT come from? How come you don't land like that all the time?"
smile.gif
 
My old flight school where I first started only would take us down to maybe a little below 1k agl before going full power and cutting of the decent... since switching I now take it down to 2-300 agl before breaking the descent.

I would say being able to practice the maneuver all the way down to a lower altitude has given me somewhat of a more complete perspective overall. Granted if you plan accordingly and approach correctly cutting the maneuver off at a higher level would probably work just fine. I just like having the chance to get lower simply because there's an extra 700 or so feet that something else could occur that may alter my plan.

With things happening quickly during the emergency procedure I think like everything else we practice repeatedly it helps develop a more complete picture or experience overall.

Granted of course the area you train in can get ya that low ...and there aren't too many local's who sit out on the back 40 waiting for some target practice
spin2.gif
 
As a general rule, we use 500 ft. for recovery. However, if we are simulating engine-outs over a grass strip, we'll take it down to around 200' and do a go-around/low pass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top