Another one... Oxnard CA

[Shadrach]

6 minutes ago, kortopates said:

both prop tips are significantly curved back in the photos


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indeed. It’s my understanding that the tips bend back when windmilling and bend forward when under power. 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, skykrawler said:

With the profile on the decent over mid field maybe he didn't know the engine wasn't making power until it was too late.

I think he lost his engine or ran out of fuel at the bottom of the descent. Looks like he was trying to hold best glide and then tried to “stretch it”. According to ADSB Exchange, he was down to 61kt and descending at 1024FPM on short final jus prior to impact. 

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Indeed. It’s my understanding that the tips bend back when windmilling and bend forward when under power. 

Maybe you mean completely at idle (or "dead engine" windmilling) vs being at full wide open throttle.  In between I am not sure if it is conclusive.

Now here is a pic of a Cessna with the blade tips bent forward but no explanation

https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/systems/propeller-strikes/

And here is another Cessna with one blade bent forward and the other backwards!

https://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/000901972.html

None of these prop strike/gear-up landings say "engine out" or "engine failure".  And they are bent back.  The throttle must have been pulled back  - some perhaps all the way to idle but I suspect some some had a small amount of power in and were not windmilling like a dead engine.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/12/incident-occurred-december-28-2017-at.html

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2016/06/runway-lights-could-be-returning-to.html

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2016/02/mooney-m20c-n6495u-bb-air-inc-incident.html

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/05/beechcraft-v35a-bonanza-n7974m-incident.html

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/05/committee-hears-from-general-aviation.html

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2019/02/cessna-r182-skylane-rg-n3177c-incident.html

https://www.ironplanet.com/for-sale/Aircraft-1986-Beech-Bonanza-B36TC-Propeller-Plane-Saskatchewan/5857330
 

 

Edited July 12, 2022 by 1980Mooney

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

I think he lost his engine or ran out of fuel at the bottom of the descent. Looks like he was trying to hold best glide and then tried to “stretch it”. According to ADSB Exchange, he was down to 61kt and descending at 1024FPM on short final jus prior to impact. 

I think you are right.  FAA ASIAS is out and it says "AIRCRAFT EXPERIENCED ENGINE ISSUES AND LANDED IN A FIELD HITTING A FENCE, OXNARD, CA."

I think the FAA gets this statement from the pilot.

[kortopates]

I think the Direction of bend is more to do with the angle the prop contacts the hard surface and more power results in continuous and greater curvature in the tips from successive strikes as the nose lowers to the surface.

I haven’t had a chance to measure how far away the plane got circling to land, nor the descent rate. But crossing over the runway at 2000’ should be more than double the altitude needed to make a power off landing with gear down and prop not pulled back. Something doesn’t quite add up as you’d expect having to slip it in staying within 3/4 nm of runway. where flaps deployed early?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, kortopates said:

I think the Direction of bend is more to do with the angle the prop contacts the hard surface and more power results in continuous and greater curvature in the tips from successive strikes as the nose lowers to the surface.

I haven’t had a chance to measure how far away the plane got circling to land, nor the descent rate. But crossing over the runway at 2000’ should be more than double the altitude needed to make a power off landing with gear down and prop not pulled back. Something doesn’t quite add up as you’d expect having to slip it in staying within 3/4 nm of runway. where flaps deployed early?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that generally speaking, the bend will follow the direction of thrust/blade AOA at the time of impact. Airframe pushing  Prop, blade tips bend toward airframe. Prop puling airframe, prop bends forwards. I have not seen prop tips bent forward when wind milling at impact.  
 

The ADSB data is consistent with a dead stick approach that was flown at sub optimal speeds. He crossed over the 45’ runway at a barometric altitude of 1900ft and approximately 255° off runway heading. GS was 85kts and descent rate 1280fpm. Further Decreases in speed correlate to increases in descent rate. I am not judging the pilot, I can only imagine how hard it is to put the nose down when  every fiber in you being is telling you to do the opposite. 
 

I’m feeling inspired to go practice military style, “Simulated Flame Out” approaches.

 

[Shadrach]

5 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Maybe you mean completely at idle (or "dead engine" windmilling) vs being at full wide open throttle.  In between I am not sure if it is conclusive.

Now here is a pic of a Cessna with the blade tips bent forward but no explanation

https://www.boldmethod.com/learn-to-fly/systems/propeller-strikes/

And here is another Cessna with one blade bent forward and the other backwards!

https://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/000901972.html

None of these prop strike/gear-up landings say "engine out" or "engine failure".  And they are bent back.  The throttle must have been pulled back  - some perhaps all the way to idle but I suspect some some had a small amount of power in and were not windmilling like a dead engine.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/12/incident-occurred-december-28-2017-at.html

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2016/06/runway-lights-could-be-returning-to.html

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2016/02/mooney-m20c-n6495u-bb-air-inc-incident.html

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/05/beechcraft-v35a-bonanza-n7974m-incident.html

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/05/committee-hears-from-general-aviation.html

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2019/02/cessna-r182-skylane-rg-n3177c-incident.html

https://www.ironplanet.com/for-sale/Aircraft-1986-Beech-Bonanza-B36TC-Propeller-Plane-Saskatchewan/5857330
 

 

I am sure that there are exceptions but generally speaking I think the tips bend toward blade AOA, perhaps that typically correlates to the angle the blade strikes the pavement. 
 

For instance in the thread Prop Strike due to partial gear collapse, the pilot’s testimony is as follows: on touch down he felt the gear give way and immediately added full power to go around. During this, the aircraft touched the runway with the prop tips as well as some antennas on the belly. The resulting tip bending looks like this.

 

 

 

 

[Ragsf15e]

9 hours ago, kortopates said:

I think the Direction of bend is more to do with the angle the prop contacts the hard surface and more power results in continuous and greater curvature in the tips from successive strikes as the nose lowers to the surface.

I haven’t had a chance to measure how far away the plane got circling to land, nor the descent rate. But crossing over the runway at 2000’ should be more than double the altitude needed to make a power off landing with gear down and prop not pulled back. Something doesn’t quite add up as you’d expect having to slip it in staying within 3/4 nm of runway. where flaps deployed early?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m sure you already understand this, but I’m quoting you for others because you brought up the engine out pattern…

What were the winds for this guy?

Winds play a big part in the size/shape of a power off pattern and especially on the pilot’s perception vs reality of where they are on glideslope before turning into the wind.  Like on DW you can have a strong tailwind and be screaming (groundspeed).  Your base turn will be wider ground track.  If no correction on base, you’ll be pushed farther from the runway.  On final, you’ll quickly realize that the glideslope looks ok but your aim point or airspeed are short/slowing. Common reaction (which doesn’t work) is to keep pulling the nose up and slowing below Vg.  A better response is to recognize winds early, stay higher on base final, and use gear, flaps, slips, s turns as required to reduce energy on final.  If on final and you recognize you’re low, keep Vg.  If you’re over flat terrain but short of the runway, diving slightly to get down and into ground effect and then holding it off will slightly increase your overall distance.  BL, I don’t deploy gear, flaps or speed brakes until I’m damn sure I’ve got it made.  Of course, you don’t want to be so high that nothing works to slow you down on final and you shoot off the end.  Practice.  And don’t forget to get the gear down!

This is a really fun exercise to practice with an instructor who’s familiar or with glider pilots!  I like to start with exact the power off 180s in the commercial pilot acs.  Then move to different parts in the pattern or cruise flight.

[Shadrach]

16 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

I’m sure you already understand this, but I’m quoting you for others because you brought up the engine out pattern…

What were the winds for this guy?

Winds play a big part in the size/shape of a power off pattern and especially on the pilot’s perception vs reality of where they are on glideslope before turning into the wind.  Like on DW you can have a strong tailwind and be screaming (groundspeed).  Your base turn will be wider ground track.  If no correction on base, you’ll be pushed farther from the runway.  On final, you’ll quickly realize that the glideslope looks ok but your aim point or airspeed are short/slowing. Common reaction (which doesn’t work) is to keep pulling the nose up and slowing below Vg.  A better response is to recognize winds early, stay higher on base final, and use gear, flaps, slips, s turns as required to reduce energy on final.  If on final and you recognize you’re low, keep Vg.  If you’re over flat terrain but short of the runway, diving slightly to get down and into ground effect and then holding it off will slightly increase your overall distance.  BL, I don’t deploy gear, flaps or speed brakes until I’m damn sure I’ve got it made.  Of course, you don’t want to be so high that nothing works to slow you down on final and you shoot off the end.  Practice.  And don’t forget to get the gear down!

This is a really fun exercise to practice with an instructor who’s familiar or with glider pilots!  I like to start with exact the power off 180s in the commercial pilot acs.  Then move to different parts in the pattern or cruise flight.

Do you have any recommended or updated techniques beyond the High Key/Low Key?  I have on several occasions simulated engine out situations from low cruise alt (4,000 to 6,000) and several miles out.  The goal not being to see if I can extract the most glide from the altitude, but to practice managing energy all the way to touchdown.  Usually with satisfactory results. By far the biggest challenge for me has been managing significant and sometimes changing winds. One occasion necessitated a request for a different runway. Despite having more than adequate altitude at the start, I had pooched things so badly that I was barely going make the high key position while airborne so instead made a straight in to the intersecting runway. Nice that it was an option, but no guarantees in the real world.  I find that the skills required seem to atrophy faster than others.

[cliffy]

Something to think about-

How do you practice your engine out landings?  

Do you plan to touch down on the numbers or do you look at the 1,000' big white blocks as your preferred touch down point?

With  one you have no leeway if short and no power with the other you have 1,000' as a fudge factor for winds or miscalculations.

JMO but all engine failure planning should be at the big white blocks and not the end of the runway

[Shadrach]

37 minutes ago, cliffy said:

Something to think about-

How do you practice your engine out landings?  

Do you plan to touch down on the numbers or do you look at the 1,000' big white blocks as your preferred touch down point?

With  one you have no leeway if short and no power with the other you have 1,000' as a fudge factor for winds or miscalculations.

JMO but all engine failure planning should be at the big white blocks and not the end of the runway

It depends.  My home drome, KHGR has 7000' available so I shoot to touchdown about 1/3 of the way down.  Once on a flight review, the CFI pulled the engine right after stall recovery. Odd exercise in cleaning up and pitching down for best glide. I set up to dead stick into KFRR (3008'). We crossed the threshold dirty at about 40' but a bit fast (>80mph). It was good enough for him. We'd have made it but not without a bit of cross control and max braking drama.

[Ragsf15e]

46 minutes ago, cliffy said:

Something to think about-

How do you practice your engine out landings?  

Do you plan to touch down on the numbers or do you look at the 1,000' big white blocks as your preferred touch down point?

With  one you have no leeway if short and no power with the other you have 1,000' as a fudge factor for winds or miscalculations.

JMO but all engine failure planning should be at the big white blocks and not the end of the runway

Definitely.  Even in the USAF, T6 training let us use the first 1/3 of the runway for sfo training.  Normal patterns were a much tighter restriction.  The drawback is landing on a shorter runway you might end up with excessive energy at the end, but I think I’d rather resolve that on final with drag than be short.

[Ragsf15e]

14 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

It depends.  My home drome, KHGR has 7000' available so I shoot to touchdown about 1/3 of the way down.  Once on a flight review, the CFI pulled the engine right after stall recovery. Odd exercise in cleaning up and pitching down for best glide. I set up to dead stick into KFRR (3008'). We crossed the threshold dirty at about 40' but a bit fast (>80mph). It was good enough for him. We'd have made it but not without a bit of cross control and max braking drama.

I’d take that rather than be short!

TBH, unless you practice a lot and know exactly what the winds are, it’s difficult to fully comprehend what they are going to do to you.  If you practice with strong winds, you’ll get a good idea what it might look like.  I guarantee your second attempt will be better than the first though.  Unfortunately, you only get one shot in the real thing.  Unless I’m really sure of the winds and my landing is assured, I’ll try to have extra energy (turn base/final slightly early and be ~Vg+10ish.  On base and final I set my aim point (impact point) just prior to my intended touchdown point.  It shouldn’t move in the canopy.  If speed is increasing, I’ve got it made and I can deploy drag.  If it’s holding steady, standby, if it’s decreasing, don’t go below Vg, get pointed at the runway asap (turn directly to the runway).  Doing it this way is a slight mind shift from holding Vg and seeing where your aim point shifts, but it seems easier for me and it’s how I was trained.  With practice you can already see and aim at your aim point as soon as you start turning from downwind and you can assess your speed change during the turn.

Doing power off 180s is one of the best parts of the commercial check.

[Shadrach]

11 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

Definitely.  Even in the USAF, T6 training let us use the first 1/3 of the runway for sfo training.  Normal patterns were a much tighter restriction.  The drawback is landing on a shorter runway you might end up with excessive energy at the end, but I think I’d rather resolve that on final with drag than be short.

Me too but sometimes the best course of action is to pitch up and slow way down...which is a bit of a mental mindfxxk on a dead stick final.

[Shadrach]

1 minute ago, Ragsf15e said:

I’d take that rather than be short!

TBH, unless you practice a lot and know exactly what the winds are, it’s difficult to fully comprehend what they are going to do to you.  If you practice with strong winds, you’ll get a good idea what it might look like.  I guarantee your second attempt will be better than the first though.  Unfortunately, you only get one shot in the real thing.  Unless I’m really sure of the winds and my landing is assured, I’ll try to have extra energy (turn base/final slightly early and be ~Vg+10ish.  On base and final I set my aim point (impact point) just prior to my intended touchdown point.  It shouldn’t move in the canopy.  If speed is increasing, I’ve got it made and I can deploy drag.  If it’s holding steady, standby, if it’s decreasing, don’t go below Vg, get pointed at the runway asap (turn directly to the runway).  Doing it this way is a slight mind shift from holding Vg and seeing where your aim point shifts, but it seems easier for me and it’s how I was trained.  With practice you can already see and aim at your aim point as soon as you start turning from downwind and you can assess your speed change during the turn.

Doing power off 180s is one of the best parts of the commercial check.

Honestly, I think that DS approach into KFRR was 50% luck, 40% conditions and 10% familiarity.  I was doing especially well on that review but I don't think a second attempt would have gone better.  I'm glad he did not ask.

[Ragsf15e]

1 minute ago, Shadrach said:

Me too but sometimes the best course of action is to pitch up and slow way down...which is a bit of a mental mindfxxk on a dead stick final.

How do you mean?  I’m picturing slowing way down, picking up a healthy descent, but not having enough energy (or power) to stop the descent and flare?  I have used the slow way down trick to descend rapidly before but always had to lower the nose further or add power to have enough speed to cut the decent at the end.

[Shadrach]

2 hours ago, Ragsf15e said:

How do you mean?  I’m picturing slowing way down, picking up a healthy descent, but not having enough energy (or power) to stop the descent and flare?  I have used the slow way down trick to descend rapidly before but always had to lower the nose further or add power to have enough speed to cut the decent at the end.

I mean that if you're fast while your on final for a shortish strip, pitching up feels counter intuitive.  However, I find it to be more effective at net energy dissipation than cross controlling. Would have to be a tremendous sink rate to not have adequate energy to flare once in ground effect. 

[kortopates]

15 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

How do you mean?  I’m picturing slowing way down, picking up a healthy descent, but not having enough energy (or power) to stop the descent and flare?  I have used the slow way down trick to descend rapidly before but always had to lower the nose further or add power to have enough speed to cut the decent at the end.

Shouldn't ever need to get that slow, since we can slip before getting that slow, but the key point is what you both pointed out which is until you know you have the pavement made, maintain best glide speed for the weight to give max range/distance. But once you know your high you can start to dissipate the excess energy by adding drag by slowing down to near landing speed and slipping but don't add flaps till you're 100% certain.  Till then slip down initially with greater precision (than flaps). I do these every week with at least one student if not more in all different Mooney's and different props, And my rules for success are:

Glide to abeam the intended point of landing for left traffic (its an emergency, you need left traffic to keep the runway in sight) at Vg, gear up, prop back.

Once at the airport gear goes down abeam the intended point of landing (instrument bars on 5000' + runway) and off set on the down wind by 2/3 to 3/4 NM from the runway. We can transition to a  near min sink airspeed, assuming we still have altitude to loose. (Min sink is actually pretty close to stall speed, but just above landing speed is a good compromise). Spiral above airport, tracking altitude loss with each 360, (which will be near 1K') at that limited spiral size 2/3 to 3/4nm offset, until you expect you can't make another spiral without descending below 1K AGL. 

Start the last 180 to landing initially at Vg, but once your confident your high you can start to slow down and then start slipping if still high. Only after your 100% certain you have the tarmac made start putting in flaps. But once on final we have our sight picture to show where we'll be landing if we're not going too fast and near Vref. (otherwise the excess airspeed will add considerable distance that needs some practice to judge). But landing with flaps is optional if your coming in without excess altitude to loose. But I find it always helpful to add in approach flaps just before starting the flare to improve forward visibility rather than land no flaps.

As mentioned earlier, winds play a big role in this, but the size of pattern plays the biggest role IMO with the prop second in that extra blade(s) add a lot of drag.  Most common mistake is getting too far away on the downwind, then not pitching for Vg till you know you have the tarmac made. When you practice this, you realize you need to do this monthly to maintain the skill needed to pull it off the first time. The experience gained from practicing it should go along ways to ensuring you set  up properly to give your self the best chance of pulling it off.

Pilots that can pitch to the desired airspeed almost immediately, then trim it out will do great at this. But those that are using the trim wheel to slow down will have a much harder time. 

[thinwing]

he was over the runway at 2000ft agl so i am having trouble with his landing short even with the engine failure....im thinking he needed to speed up and not slow down...at least to best glide

 

[cliffy]

Could he have been planning his engine out touchdown on the numbers? Rather than 1,000' down the runway?

[Hector]

So, this got me thinking. Anyone on here have an engine out experience? It looks like the pilot was just a few hundred feet short of the runway. Assuming this was a full engine failure, I'm guessing the "engine out" practice we've all had in training would have got him to the runway. But the difference in actual performance between a full failure and an engine at idle is something we don't often experience.

Partial engine failure on takeoff from KTMB (Miami) around 25 years ago. Happened 300-400 ft off the ground taking off on 27L made a right turn and just barely made 9L. Probably had 200 hours total.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shadrach]

40 minutes ago, thinwing said:

he was over the runway at 2000ft agl so i am having trouble with his landing short even with the engine failure....im thinking he needed to speed up and not slow down...at least to best glide

 

Indeed I have the same assessment. I was not in the cockpit so I can’t say for sure what is circulating the ground speed suggest that he’s spent very little if any time stabilized at Vbg. Looks to me like he was slow.

 

 

 

[Shadrach]

46 minutes ago, cliffy said:

Could he have been planning his engine out touchdown on the numbers? Rather than 1,000' down the runway?

I’m inclined to believe that he was not that far ahead of the airplane. If he were really planning he would’ve started his base much sooner. That pattern is about the same size as I would fly with the working engine. 
 

there’s also the chance that the power loss was sporadic and he thought he could nurse it to the threshold.

[Ragsf15e]

13 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

I’m inclined to believe that he was not that far ahead of the airplane. If he were really planning he would’ve started his base much sooner. That pattern is about the same size as I would fly with the working engine. 
 

there’s also the chance that the power loss was sporadic and he thought he could nurse it to the threshold.

Sometimes it’s easier to just pull it to idle and become your best glider pilot without mixing in partial power.  Leave it running in case you mess up and might get a little burst of power but generally don’t count on it.  Stay tight and be faster than Vg until you’re sure.  

[Shadrach]

13 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

Sometimes it’s easier to just pull it to idle and become your best glider pilot without mixing in partial power.  Leave it running in case you mess up and might get a little burst of power but generally don’t count on it.  Stay tight and be faster than Vg until you’re sure.  

probably a good idea. My dad made a three cylinder approach into Winner SD. My brother (sitting right seat), told me he would’ve flown a different approach profile but he kept his mouth shut and let the PIC be PIC. Dad added power on short final. Not sure if he needed it, but he wanted it and he got it. After that the engine was all finished. The prop stopped a few seconds after the nose wheel touched.