Engine-out tips from glider pilots
If you must make an off-airport landing, which type of field is best? I contemplated the question after practicing simulated engine-out landings with an instructor at Pennsylvania’s Van Sant Airport. The grass strip is a good substitute for what an emergency landing site might be like in the area. But unlike the area’s plentiful farm fields, the conditions are known. How would I decide between fields if I were to lose my engine in the real world?
The FAA’s Airplane Flying Handbook doesn’t provide much information on choosing a suitable emergency landing site—only pick a large field, land along the furrows, and watch for obstacles. It does mention that “terrain appearances from altitude can be misleading,” so don’t “hesitate to discard the original plan for one that’s better.” That’s a good point: Don’t fixate on the first field you see until it’s too late to divert to a better one.
But what makes one field better than another? I turned to those pilots who plan for “landing out” on every flight: cross-country glider pilots. In Gliding, A Handbook on Soaring Flight, Derek Piggott devotes numerous pages to landing in strange fields, information that’s good for all pilots.
Safety first
You should select a field for one reason only: its attributes for a safe landing. The selection never should be influenced by the difficulty of retrieving the airplane, potential damage to the aircraft, or the cost of crops that may be ruined. If the country-club fairway is the best choice, land there and deal with the cost of repairing the grass later.
It may seem obvious when Piggott writes, “the largest good field should always be selected.” It will provide for the greatest margin for error in flying the landing pattern, and in distance required to stop. But factors such as wind, ground slope, and obstacles change the effective size of a landing site.
Wind also significantly changes the effective landing distance available. Landing into the wind steepens the approach, allowing obstacle clearance using less distance, and it reduces the touchdown speed and rollout. A downwind landing in the same field may be impossible. Never land downwind unless there is no other choice and it’s a very lengthy field. In light winds, a longer field with a crosswind is usually better than a shorter field oriented into the wind.
The slope also changes the effective length. Landings should always be uphill, or across a slope. When landing downhill, your airplane will float excessively as the ground drops away beneath it, and it may not stop before meeting a tree. However, rising terrain often makes pilots think their approach is too steep and they may raise the nose, causing a drop in airspeed and a hard landing. Maintain the proper airspeed and don’t let the view of the ground fool you.
Landing uphill will result in very short landing rolls, so pilots can take extra room to clear obstacles. Once you’ve landed, you may need to turn the airplane across the hill so it doesn’t roll backward. Now is a good time to use that emergency tiedown kit you brought.
If the wind is upslope, then a crosswind and across-the-hill landing is best. A wing-low attitude into the wind will match the slope and give clearance for the uphill wing tip. Be wary of turbulence in the lee of hills on windy days.
Keep in mind that fields alongside rivers and lakes tend to slope toward the water. Look for changes in the color of the field that may indicate muddy spots. How steep is too steep? Piggott claims that if you can see the slope of a field from 1,000 feet, then it’s too steep for landing. Look for a level field.
Roads often have power and telephone lines running alongside them, so it might be better to select a field farther from roads. These wires are almost impossible to see from the air, so just assume that they are there.
It may be better to land in a shorter field surrounded by a low fence than a longer field surrounded by tall trees. For gliders, Piggott claims that a landing area is effectively shortened by eight times the height of an obstruction. A 50-foot tree on the edge of a 1,200-foot field reduces its effective length by 400 feet. Also, I wouldn’t want to come up short and hit a tall tree; I’d rather try to glide over a low fence. During any landing in a strange field, get on the brakes quickly, before you discover a gopher hole.
Corn or cows?
Any field under cultivation should be suitable for landing. If heavy farm machinery can work the field, then your airplane should be able to land there. It’s important to land along the furrows. If you choose a field with crops, shorter plants are better. Tall corn certainly will cushion the landing, but the tough stalks can damage your airplane.
Piggott warns that unripe corn is very green and can easily be mistaken for grass from the air. I’ve seen this myself. Knowing the land use and crops in your local flying area may be the key to a successful off-airport landing.
If you have a choice, a mown hayfield may be best. It’ll be low cut and fairly smooth, with no crop to damage your airplane. In the late autumn, you should find many stubble fields from harvested crops, which are easy to identify from the air.
Avoid fields with animals. Hitting a cow will scratch the finish on your airplane, and once you’ve landed, you’ll find that they like to rub their flea-bitten hides against anything nearby. Fabric-covered aircraft have been chewed to pieces by animals. Unless you’re planning to re-cover your Cub, avoid the livestock.
Pastures often look attractive, with low cropped grass, but there are reasons they’re used for animals and not crops: rocks, ditches, and hills. The animals don’t care how rocky or level the ground is, but farm machinery does. Think “crops not cows.”
Golf courses, parks, sports fields, and beaches can be excellent spots to land. But while a safe landing is the utmost consideration, any civilized pilot would rather crash into a tree than land on a playground full of children. The safety of people on the ground may be the one caveat when selecting the best emergency landing site.
Piggott warns against considering athletic fields for landing, claiming a single football field is too short. Many fields in a row might work if they don’t have fences, lights, or people on them. Once again, these obstacles can be difficult to see until it’s too late.
This is the primary problem with manmade areas such as parks and golf courses; they’re built to attract people. But the time, day, and month will have a great influence on this. A park on a cold February weekday evening is likely to be clear, but when flying over the beach on a sunny June weekend, your only option may be the surf.
Next time you’re flying over the alfalfa, look down and consider the various fields. Which would you select if the engine suddenly quit?
Dennis K. Johnson is a freelance writer and pilot living in New York City.
The Glider Flying Handbook recommends glider pilots select an intended landing field no lower than 1,500 feet agl and fly an approach that offers a good view of the area from all sides.
Related Articles
