What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

N838RV NTSB final report

Engine Out Flight to the Ground

I sure wish more pilots would practice engine out landings. When it happens for real for the first time it is like you just grabbed a bare wire from an old wore out electrical cord that is plugged in to 120 volts. Then you try everything to get the engine back running, flipping switches and valves, that takes about 5 seconds. Then you shut everything off and glide with your adrenaline making you sweat and heart pound hard.

Please practice engine out landings, in most cases they are survivable even in unfriendly terrain.
 
I sure wish more pilots would practice engine out landings.....

Please practice engine out landings, in most cases they are survivable even in unfriendly terrain.
You are right but kind of missing the point... "Engine out landing" means what? Landing with no power (idle)? We all do that for the most part every flight, as we should be at idle at or just before touchdown... Practicing idle power pattern, approach, final, landing without adding power is good, agree. Learn your best glide speed, practice power off stalls at safe altitude, yep all good things. However....

I think the main point is DON'T STALL... They stalled. So many loss of power accidents end in a stall and uncontrolled contact with the ground... DON'T STALL...

If loss of power is at low altitude,
* Don't turn go straight or don't turn more than 20-30 degrees left or right
* Fly it to the ground at best glide speed, slow before impact, flaps out, aim for least impact
* Wings level and take what ever you got to land on or hit
* Don't try to save the airplane, don't make steep turns...
* DON'T STALL.... DON'T STALL.....

An off field landing can be very survivable if you hit under control at min controllable airspeed (min vertical sink) ... Get slow, turn, and stall, hit uncontrolled, you will not make it.

The report says the engine was a factor but not cause:
Recip engine power section - Failure (Factor)
Airspeed - Not attained/maintained (Cause)
Angle of attack - Not attained/maintained (Cause)
Personnel issues Aircraft control - Pilot (Cause)

I think artificial stall warning or AOA is a great thing. Experimental aircraft don't mandate this,
and RV's have pretty good indication from buffeting it is about to stall... if you are sensitive to it....
However AOA indicators give us an amazing safety advantage...

The other thing is these hot rod engines making over stock (Lycoming) HP. It is safe, but these
are often not certified engine configurations. This crank failed in a few hours. I am of the belief
if you have a NEW engine you should fly it like phase 1, and stay near the airport. Climb to altitude
and orbit for the first X hours... RIP and condolences to family and friends of the pilot and passenger.
 
Last edited:
yep, good pointers Ross.

Had an engine failure in my first Falco in 2008 and was way surprised at the ROD. Following a con-rod failure the Lyco had lost all oil and the prop was effectively acting as an airbrake. At the time we were only about 400m (1200ft) AGL, and aided by my guardian angel working overtime, managed to land the stricken bird on a winding mountain road. Gear partially extended and flaps up...

My modest RV flight experience has taught me that I would not be using flaps in case of an emergency landing with the engine stopped. Especially with the 3 bladed prop, the steep approach results in a flare akin to an autorotation in a chopper...
 
I wouldn't drop full flap in an RV.

Or if you do then add more speed.
Did some engine out full flap tests in my 9A some time ago. My normal (engine producing power) short field approach speed is 55 kt with full flap. With a dead engine at 55 kt and full flap there is not enough power in the elevator/wings to arrest the greater rate of descent going into the flare. I found I had to add 10 kt (65 kt) to comfortably flare with a dead engine.

Fin
9A
 
Last edited:
Or if you do then add more speed.
Did some engine out full flap tests in my 9A some time ago. My normal (engine producing power) short field approach speed is 55 kt with full flap. With a dead engine at 55 kt and full flap there is not enough power in the elevator/wings to arrest the greater rate of descent going into the flare. I found I had to add 10 kt (65 kt) to comfortably flare with a dead engine.

Fin
9A

I guess it depends on whether you are worried about vertical or horizontal speed. I would be less concerned about being able to flare than about hitting anything in front of me at the lowest possible speed. For a forced landing in an open field, I would want a nice flare and smooth touchdown. If I was destined to hit a solid object head on, my goal would be to hit it at the lowest possible forward speed, which would seem to suggest full flaps and right on the edge of stall.

Chris
 
A sad event

I like everyone else never want to see these reports, but as has been said we need to practice for an engine out dead stick landing. If you don’t practice you are likely to become another report.

Most RVs have very poor glide ratio, the 9 is probably the best. Having practiced in the 9 I could pull power off well before turning base and still land on the runway. In the 4 there is no way you could do that. Pulling off power about a mile out from 1000 ft is about your limit.

Putting flaps out is never a good idea until you know you can make your landing point. But you must keep speed up and make turns very gently. If you must turn tighter increase your speed first.

I recently did three PFL with an instructor as part of a BFR. The first two I did a flawless touch and goes. The third I did a full flap full stop landing with no issues at all. Two of my friends have recently had real dead stick landings, one in a Europa, the second in a Kitfox 7, in both cases the aircraft were substantially damaged but both pilots and in one case a passenger were uninsured.

Both of these guys practice regularly. The reason for the damage on the Kitfox was that he was that his only option was a ploughed field, otherwise I am pretty sure the aeroplane would have been OK too.

So, everyone should practice for this, for low time RV pilots it is even more important.
 
I guess it depends on whether you are worried about vertical or horizontal speed. I would be less concerned about being able to flare than about hitting anything in front of me at the lowest possible speed.
I suspect that in my example where I am approaching 10 kt faster with a dead engine and full flap the high rate of descent will require considerable backstick in the flare which will abruptly reduce airspeed possibly to a similar airspeed to that after a “normal” flare at 55 kt? Might do some more testing!

Fin
9A
 
Last edited:
While I do practice engine outs, remember, an engine at idle is still reducing drag by quite a bit vs an engine stopped.
I remember Joe Blank doing full engine out tests over the Alvord Desert where it was safe to do so and he mentioned to me it was pretty significant.
I am sorry I don?t have direct experience. I should have taken the opportunity while I was there with Joe and our gang.
 
Idle thrust is significantly different than no thrust, especially on a Lycoming (my engine is geared 2.2 to 1 so a 900 rpm idle is only 400 prop rpm). You'll find elevator authority considerably reduced in the flair with zero power.

My thoughts on maintaining proper glide speed ( and a bit more is better than a bit less) is because you'll be a bit busy when this event really hits you and it's easy to lose 10 knots with only a few seconds of inattention/distraction. If you start at 70 and lose 10, that gives you 60. 60 knots in an RV with full flaps puts you in the 1500+ fpm descent range which is 25+ fps. This is enough to cause serious spinal compression/ death if you can't arrest that decent rate at the flare and at 60 knots, full flaps, you won't be able to.

I've noted a number of RV accidents have killed the occupants through spinal compression when they pancaked at high vertical rates by getting well below best glide speed. The airplanes were largely intact from the post crash photos and people were puzzled as to why these folks didn't survive-broken neck or crushed spine/ severed spinal cord.

I read an interesting article a number of years back where very experienced pilots were put through forced landing scenarios in a simulator. The main aim was to see if pilots had the discipline to poke the nose down at low altitude as speed was lost. I believe something like 80-85% pulled the stick back below 100 feet as the ground rushed towards them and speed was bleeding off.

I felt the same self preservation urge and had to consciously fight it. It's counter intuitive to force the nose lower while the ground rushes up at you in those last few seconds. You have little chance to survive if you get low and slow and much less with full flap. Your options already ended there at about 200 feet AGL.

I got down to around 60 knots after doing a gentle turn at about 400 AGL to align the aircraft with the plowed furrows. The high descent rate became much more apparent at about 250 feet AGL. Fortunately flaps were at zero and I had just enough energy to arrest most of the descent rate. The G meter still registered 7 Gs from the impact and that is a heck of a wallop when it's instantaneous.

I practiced forced landings a lot and I thought I would be prepared for the real thing if it happened. Despite the practice, which was certainly helpful, I wasn't fully prepared for everything I experienced in the real event.
 
Check out the late Joe Blank?s deadstick landing video at the Alvord Desert in Post #1:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=141918

Be sure to read Joe?s thoughts in Post #8.

I noticed that Joe used full flaps in this particular video. And in Post #8 referenced above he suggests experimenting with and without flaps. I'd be curious if Joe ever came to a conclusion as to which worked best in an RV. Sadly we can't ask him. There appears to be a difference of view in this thread regarding flaps up or down. Does anyone know?

Chris
 
Back on topic. Over on the Glasair forum some aircraft owners with certain XP400 engines have been asked to remove them and send them back to Superior for inspection. Speculation stemming from this accident.
 
For those of you who are flying a -9 (or -12), remember our numbers are different than those mentioned above.

For me, 60 knots I the fast approach speed I use when heavy. At that speed the vertical speed, with full flaps is around 650 FPM with full flaps.

Each person should practice engine out landings as often as they can. In my case, once I reduce power abeam the numbers, I try to land on my predetermined spot without touching the throttle again on every landing. I wish I could say this works out every time, but I can't.
 
Last edited:
-9 wing

The -9 Wing does a lot of things well but one thing it doesn’t do well at low airspeed is retain energy. Poof it’s gone, or something like that. The cubs and late model maules that I had been accustomed to flying always had enough energy at the flair to cushion just about any decent I could throw at it. The -9 does a ok job with airspeed but will plow right through it if too slow. I guess this is true with any wing to some degree but was an eye opener to me. Even the -6 seems to retain more energy at the flair over the -9.
 
I noticed that Joe used full flaps in this particular video. And in Post #8 referenced above he suggests experimenting with and without flaps. I'd be curious if Joe ever came to a conclusion as to which worked best in an RV. Sadly we can't ask him. There appears to be a difference of view in this thread regarding flaps up or down. Does anyone know?

Chris

I believe there are numerous factors that would influence the flaps / no flaps decision that make it far less than just a yes or no decision for all situations.

The first factor would be what model RV are you flying?

All of the short wing RV's have plain flaps that produce a small (but measurable) reduction in stall speed.
The RV-9, 10, and 14 have very effective slotted flaps that produce a higher reduction in stall speed. My opinion is that the best plan is one that allows a touch down at the slowest speed possible. In most all situations that will likely include teh use of flaps, but particularly with an RV-9,10 or 14

My personal plan for any forced landing will be to touch down as slow as possible, fully in control, and aiming for the clearest path that I can.

In ground effect, even an RV with plain flaps gains a valuable amount of stall speed reduction so if it works with the landing approach I am making, I will be using all the flaps I can get, but will be planning to postpone deployment until as late as possible to minimize developing a high sink rate.

In my opinion, it is far more important to be super familiar with the handling of your airplane at low speed, and able to fly it via muscle memory during a tense situation, so that you can concentrate on the rapid decision making processes that you likely will have to be making because one thing I am sure of..... there is no such thing as a standardized forced landing. There will always be a need to modify and adjust the plan based on what is happening in the moment, and the plan may have to be adjusted numerous times in the process.
 
I believe there are numerous factors that would influence the flaps / no flaps decision that make it far less than just a yes or no decision for all situations.

The first factor would be what model RV are you flying?

All of the short wing RV's have plain flaps that produce a small (but measurable) reduction in stall speed.
The RV-9, 10, and 14 have very effective slotted flaps that produce a higher reduction in stall speed. My opinion is that the best plan is one that allows a touch down at the slowest speed possible. In most all situations that will likely include teh use of flaps, but particularly with an RV-9,10 or 14

My personal plan for any forced landing will be to touch down as slow as possible, fully in control, and aiming for the clearest path that I can.

In ground effect, even an RV with plain flaps gains a valuable amount of stall speed reduction so if it works with the landing approach I am making, I will be using all the flaps I can get, but will be planning to postpone deployment until as late as possible to minimize developing a high sink rate.

In my opinion, it is far more important to be super familiar with the handling of your airplane at low speed, and able to fly it via muscle memory during a tense situation, so that you can concentrate on the rapid decision making processes that you likely will have to be making because one thing I am sure of..... there is no such thing as a standardized forced landing. There will always be a need to modify and adjust the plan based on what is happening in the moment, and the plan may have to be adjusted numerous times in the process.

I agree with most of what Scott says here. Be familiar with your aircraft in various configurations and every event will have some different circumstances requiring different action.

You might need to use full flap to get into your planned field to avoid over- running into something nasty. If you've got everything well stabilized and the field made, probably no worries about dropping flap then to reduce speed to the minimum.

My main point is to watch the ASI like a hawk, no less than every 10 seconds and be aware of the sink rate with full flap and zero thrust if you get low and slow. It simply doesn't give you many options in the last critical 10 seconds.

I think many people are so conditioned to using full flap for landing, they may not consider otherwise during a forced landing. I recall an RV10 accident a number of years ago where full flap was selected during a forced landing and the high sink rate wasn't arrested in time. The plane landed so hard that it buckled the fuselage and had to be extensively rebuilt.
 
Flamed out...

I believe there are numerous factors that would influence the flaps / no flaps decision that make it far less than just a yes or no decision for all situations.

In my opinion, it is far more important to be super familiar with the handling of your airplane at low speed, and able to fly it via muscle memory during a tense situation, so that you can concentrate on the rapid decision making processes that you likely will have to be making because one thing I am sure of..... there is no such thing as a standardized forced landing. There will always be a need to modify and adjust the plan based on what is happening in the moment, and the plan may have to be adjusted numerous times in the process.

I too agree.
I have had three actual flame-out (engine failure in flight) landings in single engine airplanes in nearly a half century of flying. One in the F16, two in GA airplanes.
One of those was my RV4 when an accessory case gear failed causing dual mag failure.
On all three occasions I was able to glide to an emergency field by attaining best glide speed, holding pitch attitude/best glide speed until the flare.
No flaps.
The F16 was fortunate as I was performing a simulated attack on the very place I ended up landing, onboard engine fire and best glide speed of 210 KIAS on final notwithstanding. :)
The other two were private grass strips within gliding range as I always try to be familiar with ALL potential emergency fields in my local flying area and stay near them if possible.
Lessons learned?
Practice makes perfect. Numerous practice flaps up power off approaches or SFO's (Sim Flame Out) make for a better real approach when or if the eventuality presents itself.

After that it's muscle memory.
Nuff said...

V/R
Smokey


**Next time you're out boring holes in the sky, climb to 5000' AGL and align yourself with your home field 10NM away. Bring the power to idle, establish best glide and set up a straight in approach. See how well you do...
 
Last edited:
I hadn?t flown a single engine airplane in a very very long time when I got my 9. One of the first things I did, even before getting my landings unlaughable (I had virtually no TW experience) was to determine from what altitude I could make the 180 turn back to the Rwy in the event of an engine failure on TO. Granted I still had some thrust with the throttle pulled back to idle but after six or seven tries I determined for my airplane that I needed 500 feet of altitude to make the turn. So my first 500 feet of climb on TO is done at 75 mph (65 knots - I know but my AS? is in mph). This experiment was conducted in a no wind environment.
 
I sure wish more pilots would practice engine out landings. When it happens for real for the first time it is like you just grabbed a bare wire from an old wore out electrical cord that is plugged in to 120 volts. Then you try everything to get the engine back running, flipping switches and valves, that takes about 5 seconds. Then you shut everything off and glide with your adrenaline making you sweat and heart pound hard.

Please practice engine out landings, in most cases they are survivable even in unfriendly terrain.

So true on the "bare wire from an old wore out cord" when it's the first time. Having recently experienced my first real loss of power - and it was during climb out - the startle factor is significant. Luckily we were at 1100 AGL and had been vectored to the downwind before departure 1.8 miles from the runway and made it back safe. It was solid houses and strip malls. Practicing engine out's is part of the solution. It would be good to find an effective way to practice reacting when the startle factor hits you.
 
I totally agree that pilots need to practice engine out landings. Here are a few cautionary considerations to bring into your “practice preparation.”

An engine at idle is not the same as a stopped engine. Drag will be higher with a real dead engine.

Obtain best glide speed smoothly. Abrupt control movements waste energy. It’s my opinion you do this first and then check fuel and if possible try to restart you engine.

Do not extend flaps until you know the landing is assured. Flaps add more drag than lift in my opinion. Being “on speed” is important but I’d rather have a little too much airspeed than not enough. Becoming distracted trying to restart a failed engine or align your aircraft with your point of intended landing can cost you valuable airspeed at a critical phase of flight. Airspeed is your friend so protect it!

I agree in a no wind condition it will normally take approximately 500 feet to complete a 180 degree turn but that does not guarantee you will be lined up with the runway or landing area your targeting. If your pattern is wide, winds are a factor, or your turn is delayed then you will need to adjust your plan accordingly.

Remember, it takes more time to safely execute a go around from an engine at idle during a practice dead engine landing. At idle power, the time requirement for a go around is greater than it is if you’re flying an instrument or visual approach at normal power settings.

I recommend using 200 feet AGL as your minimum decision altitude. I surprised myself once when practicing an engine out landing in stronger winds and a slightly delay downwind 1,000 foot AGL turn by making the go around decision a little late. The aircraft still descended while I was maintaining “on speed” waiting for the engine to spool up to safely stop my descent and climb out - short of the runway! Not comfortable. That is one reason why practicing engine out landings are important - but even a practice event can turn ugly if you haven’t thoroughly thought through the event before you begin it.
 
Last edited:
engine out landings

A lot of excellent advice here. I read Ross' short account and it seamed as though he was writing of my experience. It is alarming how powerful the urge to pull up becomes as you approach the ground. Your brain will be going at the speed of light and it needs to br reeled in. Repeat to yourself: "fly the plane" as often as you need.

About the only suggestion I can offer to mitigate the "startle factor" when the engine goes " bang", is to self breif for as many scenarios as possible before departing. You'll still be startled and momentarily in a state of dissbelief but rehearsals will shoren that time considerably.

Plan on losing an engine and reherse your actions often. Increase your odds. Then lets hope that none of us ever gets to test our preparedness.
 
I hadn?t flown a single engine airplane in a very very long time when I got my 9. One of the first things I did, even before getting my landings unlaughable (I had virtually no TW experience) was to determine from what altitude I could make the 180 turn back to the Rwy in the event of an engine failure on TO. Granted I still had some thrust with the throttle pulled back to idle but after six or seven tries I determined for my airplane that I needed 500 feet of altitude to make the turn. So my first 500 feet of climb on TO is done at 75 mph (65 knots - I know but my AS? is in mph). This experiment was conducted in a no wind environment.
Same case for rv6, I learned from my time in glider flying to get the nose down quick to make that turn possible
 
Back
Top