The pilot reported that, while the Ryan Navion was on short final to the runway in Fresno, Calif., he increased power to maintain the glideslope and then heard a muffled “bang or chug,” followed by the engine sounding “as if it were drowning.”
The airplane started to descend, and the pilot executed an off-airport landing.
During the landing, the left wing hit a fence. The airplane then crossed a median and came to rest against a second fence.
The NTSB determined the probable cause as a partial loss of engine power for reasons that could not be determined.
NTSB Identification: WPR14LA337
This August 2014 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
Learn from the misfortune of others
Sign up now to receive NTSB Accident Reports and GA news in your email inbox. Join 110,000+ fellow aviators.
In the 1970’s the FAA decided base to final stall was occurring because landings were being taught as idle-power approaches. They recommended making longer approaches which has translated to pilots being instructed to make these approaches.
The result is that there is no longer a requirement for a PPL to demonstrate proficiency of the idle-power approach. Many Instructors are teaching these unusually long approaches as being normal.
Additionally, these same PPL’s cannot make an emergency engine out approach and touch down where they want.
As usual, the FAA makes rules not based upon common sense but what looks good on paper. Rather than teach turns with no power, ther want a procedure that cures one problem and creates another.
Hi Robert – long time no talk. Emergency descents have always remained in the PTS, now ACS. They are still taught and tested. Another factor in the change you mention I believe is that with the far greater reliability of engines, pilots could take advantage and maintain a stabilized approach on the same descent angle every time no matter the conditions, a much more desirable method than super steep approaches with a strong wind and shallower approaches with little wind. More consistent descent angles would be a very favorable factor for judging the roundout and being at the right speed and reducing incidents and accidents. This does not mean that now pilots were not going to make the runway if a power failure occurred. If they prefer, they can use an aiming point that for instance keeps the lights red over white (or even further down the runway if it’s long enough) and have a safety margin in the event of an engine failure. That’s up to the pilot.
Many pilots do not know their airplane well enough so fly the VASI or PAPI to landing. Lack of reliance on their Mk I eye ball & experience places pilots at risk with over extended patterns and poor airmanship skills.
If the motor quits and you cannot make the runway, you were not in the pattern.
If the pattern is extended and you give up 1′ of altitude until you are sure you can make the runway, I question you judgement and skills.
Every landing should be a personal contest to see if you can land only using flaps, slips and no additional power. The goal is to land on the numbers. Learn your airplane! I don’t care if you 15,000′ of runway in front of you. The runway behind you is worthless.
Just my 2 cents.
You may want to consider landing past the numbers. If you land on the numbers that means you were aiming before them, right. There has to be room for the roundout (flare) and float. On runways where the numbers are at the very beginning of the pavement, then you are aiming at the ground before the runway. One can use aiming and landing points further into the runway and still easily land within the recommended margin, within the first third of the runway. For example, the 500ft markers could be used as the aiming point which should easily allow roundout, float, and a touchdown before the 1000ft markers. Adjustments to move those points closer to the approach end would be made for runways less than 3000ft to achieve the landing within the first third. Just in case you have an unexpected downdraft and the engine falters, you should then still make the pavement if your original glide is into the runway a few hundred feet rather than before it. Depends on descent angle and airspeed too.
Again there are many external factors not in our control which do put us temporarily outside glide range as you are describing it – ex: fly-in event arrival procedures, approach control vectoring and altitude requirements, tower instructions (like to follow the second aircraft on final, pretty common), busy non-tower pattern where you are following base traffic which is following two on final. Consideration of all of that is part of our risk assessment.
Warren, Did you really read what I said? Train your self to land on a spot. That should be your goal every time you fly. We are flying small airplanes, not 747’s. I’ve been flying over 50 years. I’ve seen people try to kill them selves with small airplanes. Sadly, many have succeeded. When I see an aquaintence die because of doing something stupid, I get on a rant like this. Learn to fly the damn airplane, you are not a passenger.
Spot landings (in my book any landing in any airplane) start with a straight line descent to the aiming point – the touchdown point will depend on how much float you have which depends on how the airspeed was controlled. That’s the regular procedure for me as I believe it is for you. If you want to land at the very beginning of the runway, which I have done plenty of times, that’s your choice. But I decided to start aiming a little longer and therefore leave more room for error, whether I’m doing a power on or power off approach. I mentioned those markings because they are so obvious but I usually don’t aim that far on power on approaches (usually first or second centerline stripe). Since (I think) you were talking about doing power off approaches on a regular basis to practice for an engine failure, then aiming a little further I think is safer. It also tends to help avoid low level turbulence at the approach end of the runway due to obstacles and also helps avoid downdrafts where terrain slopes downward before the runway, a big problem for power off approaches. Congratulations on 50 years of flying – I’m about 9 behind you.
“The goal is to land on the numbers.” “The runway behind you is worthless.”
Your goal may be to land on the numbers (which I’ll admit I’ve done at times), but there’s no logic that that is better or safer when you have runways thousands of feet long, and you choose to land in the first 100 or 200 feet. Our examiner likes the touchdown on the short field landing to be not less than the third centerline stripe past the numbers (which closely coincides with the papi/vasi). That may sound like it doesn’t comply with the flight test standards, but it does. The requirement is a landing within a certain distance on or past a point specified by the examiner, not just the very beginning of the runway. That confirms the skill to accurately control the approach and touchdown and builds in room for error. Sometimes, headwind components turn out to be far greater than the pilot estimates. Same for low level downdrafts especially where there is a drop in terrain just before the runway. For someone who is actually in a distress condition with little or no power, and aiming to the numbers, that unexpected wind or downdraft will probably mean a landing short of the runway. If you originally aim an appropriate distance further from the beginning of the runway, and there is that unexpected headwind or downdraft that will rob you of gliding distance, you will still make the runway since you allowed for conditions that no one can always anticipate. Runway behind you in that case is just your safety margin. On takeoffs, yes it is runway wasted.
“Train your self to land on a spot.” I agree with that but not the ‘your self’ part. Get instruction.
You just don’t get it.
Or, Stu, is it just that he has the temerity to disagree with you? The “You just don’t get it” argument is the refuge of those who have no further facts to offer. It’s weak.
I can argue th point, just decided it’s not worth trying with this guy.
What point? He’s right !
Being right and dead are two different things. How many people can fly their airplane to specs in the hand book? Those numbers were produced by a professional test pilot. My point is, in an emergency can you land the airplane where you want. 1/3rd down the runway does not count. Can you put your airplane on a spot? If you don’t practice, one try every two years is not a skill. What is so wrong with making every landing to a spot so dangerous. Why should a current pilot need instruction to be able to gauge where his airplane will touch down? Flying small airplanes is very unforgiving, it’s right up there with motorcycle riding when it comes to danger. Why not have every tool available in an emergency? Sitting at your computer and telling me I’m wrong is far from sitting in an airplane with no power. I’ve been there, have you?
Stu,
Nobody said making a landing to a spot is a bad thing per se. Let me ask you this. Suppose you just moved and were newly based at a runway in the FL everglades, and there happened to be an alligator that liked to hang out in the swamp right at the approach end of the runway, just waiting for the first pilot to have a bad day and land one foot short of the runway so he could sink his teeth into that pilot’s rear end. Would you still insist on landing on the numbers?
By the way the test pilots develop performance numbers that they say approximate average piloting techniques. At least that’s what is stated in the C172 POH.
Have a good one.
And what if frogs had wings?…… Most if not all airports have thresh holds. Don’t be stupid. You always have the option when practicing a spot landing to add power. The goal is to develope a technique and picture out the windscreen to arrive on a given spot on a consistent basis. Play. Try a little test. Give your self 2500′ above the airport 10 miles away and 1900 rpm, partial power loss. What are you going to do? Will you try to make the airport, if so how? Will you try to climb? Possibly assume the motor quits when you are on final. Will you fly the pattern? What technique will you use? Go out and actually fly the test. Not impossible in your 172. When the rubber hits the road, will you have the composure to fly a real emergency?
“You always have the option when practicing a spot landing to add power.”
Good training suggestions. You obviously realize that when practicing, sometimes you don’t make it and so you use the power because you haven’t left any margin for error like aiming down the runway. Can you guarantee me that when I push on the throttle, the engine will respond so that I make it to the numbers?
You can play what if games all day. Nothing is 100%, but adding power is close. Try only reducing power to landing, if you add power you lose, better luck next time.
I use the reduced power option also just as you say but still aim past the numbers. I don’t think anyone understands why you deliberately reduce your chances of making the runway. You can aim down the runway an appropriate amount, and still maintain your gliding skills to your high levels. It’s your choice. I sincerely hope you have another 50 years of flying.
Trying to land on the numbers on a 10k ft runway is crazy. If you have lots of runway for the aircraft you are flying then 1/3 of the way down the runway is a good aiming point. If you misjudge and undershoot or have a power or wind problem then you will have fudge factor. I am talking most GA aircraft and lots of runway.
What if you only have 1500′? Are you willing to give up 500′ in an emergency? I won’t hold it against you if you don’t have the skill, it could cost you your life. Runway behind you is worthless.
The ground roll in the POH for a C172S at sea level standard temp no wind is 575 feet. So it would be possible, if executed correctly, to land half way down a 1500ft runway and stop within the runway.
I always wonder why so many pilots feel the need to make such long approaches and overly large patterns. Keeping it tight would really help in these situations where if you loose the engine you will still have a chance to make it to the runway.
I know I’m not within gliding distance at times but I empathize with your thoughts. Sometimes you are put there when having to follow other aircraft in the pattern or when arriving on an instrument approach. However, if the approach area were a swamp filled with alligators, then I think there’s no way I’d take any chances.
If I read this correctly he was on the glideslope which implies an instrument ILS or LPV approach. I’m not aware of any aircraft that can fly a glideslope and be within gliding distance of landing if the engine fails unless it is in the last 1/4 mile or so.
Very interesting point. I will check in my light sport but it will be different for every airplane.
I never Go to full flaps until I’m on short final I was taught to bepreparedto land if you lost power downwind or on base,after 45 years of flying I can say I could almost always make it to the airport when on final
Cmac, could too tight a pattern lead to too tight turns onto base and final, setting up for a stall spin?
You can enter a stall spin with no bank angle. No matter what, fly the airplane. If you treat every landing like it’s an emergency, if it happens you are prepared. A tight pattern, speed control and doing it all the time can make the difference between going home and being a statistic.