One thing with COntinental fuel injection systems, unlike RSA systems on Lycos, is that FF is fuel-pressure dependant.
Therefore, if you forget the aux fuel pump on at low engine power, you can get a rich cut and lose the engine. THis is a non-issue at high power or in cruise since you will adjust mixture as required for your desired FF. However, at low power, in the circuit, just as you push your mixture full rich for landing, you will flood the engine, possibly leading to total power loss, if not immediately, maybe as you reduce throttle to adjust the glidepath.
The cure is easy: turn the pump off (should have been off at or after start anyway), it’s part of the prelanding checklist in your Bonanza, right? (This does not apply to Lycos or carburetted low-wingers, which are the opposite, right? )
Could this have happened in the OP?
This does not apply to Lycos or carburetted low-wingers, which are the opposite, right?
Exactly; it is in the pre landing checklist. Fuel pump ON…
Antonio wrote:
The cure is easy: turn the pump off (should have been off at or after start anyway), it’s part of the prelanding checklist in your Bonanza, right?
It has been such a long time ago but I remember there are different systems on the Bonanza. at least in some the fuel pump has got two settings. On low it did behave like most planes just assuring the fuel flow. But at the high setting and engine idle it can cut out the engine. A Bonanza did fall into houses over 20 years ago in Berlin due to this when the city airport Tempelhof was still open. I remember it was assumed the pilot apparently did have training in other types of planes and then did transfer the habit to turn that pump on high setting to the Bonanza.
LeSving wrote:
From a pure objective standpoint, a circuit where engine power is needed to make it to the runway is very much unnecessary
Some people claim this, but I disagree. A circuit as you suggest will generally be tight and with a short and steep final. This carries its own risks which IMO are greater than the very minor risk of engine failure during the short time you’re in the circuit.
Antonio wrote:
What would you have done differently?
Honestly speaking I don’t know whether I would have reacted so much better. Of course, sitting on the couch, with time to think, it’s easy to tell a different story. But in that situation my first bet would have been to restart the engine. I assume I would have put all possible effort to get it restarted. It really looks as if the pilot was doing the same and only for that reason stalled the plane.
Could it be, that this is another crash where everyone survived BECAUSE the plane was stalled into ground? We had one case last year where I think a Mooney was landed on a beach, stalled the last 10 meters and everybody survived without a scratch. I already asked there if it could have been a good idea to stall to further reduce forward motion and thus energy.
Edit: this is the older case where also a stall landing was performed
What I would have (and do) differently for such approaches, as said, a more steep approach, and if practical, circling from a shorter downwind, rather than a long, straight final approach. A powered in approach sets you up for exactly what this pilot experienced. A lower power, more steep approach gives a better chance of making the runway if it quits, or at least getting a better glide and flare if you have to land short.
And, practice in type, with power off landings from the downwind, to touchdown. I am frequently surprised when I train pilots on new types, how few have recently flown a power off approach and landing, and can correctly estimate the more steep approach, and more abrupt flare. The “okay, power on, and go around” forced approach to 100 feet training technique completely denies the student the final, and most important element of practice forced approach and power off landings.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Some people claim this, but I disagree. A circuit as you suggest will generally be tight and with a short and steep final. This carries its own risks which IMO are greater than the very minor risk of engine failure during the short time you’re in the circuit.
It’s the standard approach on ULs, and also used by the military. It’s a matter of doing it enough times until it sits. I don’t see what kind of risks this brings, because you always make it to the runway in a flying condition. If you never practice it, it will feel weird and strange perhaps, which by itself may be a risk? It’s a simple matter of using the energy you have to your advantage, not let it burn away by doing long finals.
UdoR wrote:
Edit: this is the older case where also a stall landing was performed
That is also an interesting one with some similarities. After flying an interesting power-off approach to the beach avoiding the cliffs, he extended the gear in the last second which must have somewhat cushioned the impact. In that case terrain was a difficulty in getting the right approach and I am unsure if a less steep, gliding (vs stalled) approach would have allowed him to make the beach.
In the OP, however, an extended glide may have allowed them to reach the runway.
Antonio wrote:
What would you have done differently?
Difficult to say from the comfort of your own armchair.
The primary problem here was that he had very few time.
If you know you are going to ditch, gear up, full flaps and keeping the airplane straight would be the consideration. But he probably did not realize that until he was almost down. He was on final, landing minded, had power loss and at some stage realized that he can’t make it. I think that was when he started to retract the gear. Also at that point he possibly saw that flying straight he might hit the shoreline and turned to the right, which then caused the plane to stall in the last moment.
It is highly questionable if rising the gear immediately would have prolonged the glide to reach land or the runway. Or if maybe reducing flaps to take off would have. Quite possibly it might have caused the plane to reach the shoreline but not the runway which then would cause a crash onto land with the potential of greater deceleration forces than this plunge into the lake.
With runways like this one, the first and last 500 ft are always quite critical. And while it would be a great idea to tell everyone to put life jackets, in many cases people just won’t do that as it might scare passengers, but of course it would be the thing to do.
By the looks of it however, they did get away from this unhurt, the plane stayed up long enough for them to stand on the wing until rescue arrived even though one decided to swim. So i don’t see much fault in how they dealt with it.
The question to which we won’t have an answer is why the engine quit in the first place. That would have been quite interesting.
UdoR wrote:
Could it be, that this is another crash where everyone survived BECAUSE the plane was stalled into ground? We had one case last year where I think a Mooney was landed on a beach, stalled the last 10 meters and everybody survived without a scratch. I already asked there if it could have been a good idea to stall to further reduce forward motion and thus energy.
Certainly you will touch down with minimum energy if you do a full stall landing. This is not recommended for ditchings, though, because of the difficulty of judging height over water – particularly if you’re not used to it.
