My POH (TB20GT) says one should always land gear up, off-airport. I can see why they recommend that but don't agree with it. If I was a renter, I would feel differently (wreck it and walk away, is just fine).
It's funny, as soon as people quote the "well my POH says so", the advice is invariably taken unconditionally as absolute gospel. With regard to general performance, this is entirely justifiable - test pilots and engineers have spent many hours flying the aircraft and using these results to generate performance figures under nearly all prevailing conditions.
But in terms of what to do in a forced landing, did they put the same effort in the testing process, forced landing the aircraft into all manner of surfaces, over a wide range of flight parameters? I very much doubt it. The advice, whilst potentially correct, is likely nothing more than an educated guess without anywhere near the evidence base of the performance calculations.
I mean this in the nicest possible way but, Peter, I think you response speaks to hubris over the reality of how GA pilots actually do when the engine unexpectedly fails for real.
Working at "Saving" the aircraft invariable means accepting a higher risk of passenger injury because if you get it wrong the results are going to be worse. There are many many forced approach accidents with fatalities where in an attempt to get back to the runway or to the "good" field control was lost or the aircraft hit an immovable object with tragic results. In many, if not most, of these accidents a place "good enough" to have a survivable landing and within easy reach was rejected.
Unfortunately training can't prepare you for the adrenalin rush and shock you will face when the real engine failure occurs and the chance of operating at maximum skill is greatly diminished. This is the time to give yourself every advantage.
I own a Nanchang Cj6 which does not have hull insurance. If the engine were to fail I would land gear up in virtually every circumstance. landing gear up will be safer so that is what I will do even though it means wrecking my $90,000 airplane. That would hurt, but way less than being dead.
ATPL 6500 hrs
65 types flown
Class 1 Aeroplane and Aerobatic instructor
Less hours than BPF, but still 4-figures, a CPL, Class Rating Instructor - 64 types PIC, and several firmly for real engine failures in a selection of light and microlight aeroplanes (a few in X'Airs during post-build flight testing, one in a spin in a Savannah, one inverted in an Auster when I messed up a slow roll and emptied the carb bowls, a partial EFATO in a Stinson Voyager at about 300ft, a broken bearing in a Rotax engined flexwing, a faulty fuel pump during climbout in a Thruster TST that I was doing the annual air test of). None of them led to a scratch on the aircraft, nor several precautionary landings in fields I've done from time to time in microlights when the conditions were getting silly.
I absolutely agree about the adrenalin rush - it is quite overwhelming. (Actually the post debrief adrenaline dump is far worse, but at-least you have the luxury of time to deal with that one.)
I disagree that there's an incompatibility in most cases between trying to save the aeroplane and trying to save the occupants. Even a gear-up in, say, an Arrow - with the prop stopped is not going to do much damage to the aeroplane, flown well. With the fixed gear aeroplanes that are most of my flying, I've no choice anyhow - but most places I fly, the options are good for finding something that'll do minimal damage to the aeroplane, and at the same time, no damage to the occupants. If there aren't those options - what the heck am I doing there in a single engined aeroplane?
My biggest concern is the complete lack of preparedness of the vast majority of little aeroplane pilots for an engine failure. I fly with very few who ever practice a PFL between biennials, and fewer who ever practice touch drills to attempt a re-start. And virtually none who have spent any time pattering a mayday or pan-pan call.
So, the vast majority of PPLs, in my experience, will if the engine stops - make no attempt to re-start (several of mine I did successfully - all the X'Air failures bar one which I didn't both with as it failed on finals for a glide approach, the Savannah, the Auster), fixate on some field approximately in front of them with no real idea of adjusting flightpath to make it, and communicate with neither their passengers, nor ATC.
Despite the fact that at some point they all passed a test in this stuff. They simply don't practice, and without practice, the skills won't be there in a relaxed environment with a simulated failure and an instructor sat next to them, and far less so with the adrenaline rush of a real one.
G
I had an engine failure last year and had to make an emergency landing at the airforce base Leeuwarden while returning from the islands north of our small little country (island = Ameland).
I also don't think that maintenance is done that well in the GA sector as compared to the maintenance done @ the airliners. Engines are also not that great all the time.
I personally don't like flying twin engine aircraft, so I opted for the CAPS parachute system offered by Cirrus. I know, the safety record of the Cirrus is not better than that of other aircraft, but the CAPS system has so far lives. As of February 28 2013, there were 32 CAPS save events with 65 survivors (9 injuries, 3 minor injuries, 53 uninjured) and 1 fatality.
When participating in the COPA CPPP training, they teach you to pull the chute and not force land on the grass somewhere. There is too big an opportunity to hit something or for e.g. the landing gear to collapse. Of those that did not pull the chute in the Cirrus there were so far 95 fatal Cirrus accidents with 188 fatalities plus 22 serious injuries, 3 minor injuries, zero uninjured.
The CAPS parachute is available in the climb from 500 feet and higher and in the decent until 1000 feet above the ground.
Now, if I fly in IMC or at night, the CAPS system is my second engine.
I don't particularly disagree with most above.
It's depends on the situation. One should not generalise.
Let's say I got an engine stoppage at 3000ft and there are fields all over the place - a pretty common scenario in the UK and many other places.
I am not going to go out of my way to do a gear up landing - minimum cost £30k. I will look for a decent field and aim to get it into that.
And obviously from 3000ft (> 3 mins time to go) one would go through the motions
but one would not try a restart if there is a conrod sticking out of the cowling, or if the prop has suddenly stopped dead. Trying to starter-motor-start a seized engine might not do the battery much good, and I will need that on the way down, especially from say FL180 (over 20 minutes to ponder).
A turnback on an EFATO is a very different proposition. With a runway of say < 1000m it isn't going to work (in the TB20) unless there is a strong headwind, although a turnback could enable landing on some flat part of the airfield which is better than landing on a housing estate which is sometimes the only other option. All the analyses I have read of turnbacks show that it must be done decisively, rapidly, with a large bank angle, on the verge of the stall, and most people won't pull it off successfully unless they have briefed before takeoff exactly what they will be doing and they are competent in controlling the aircraft.
CPL/IR
1600hrs, 1500 on type
FWIW.....
A comment on turnbacks.
With a full engine failure, I'd not do one in the vast majority of circumstances. And I have practiced them, and read most of the published research on it. This has given me a healthy lack of respect for them.
I've three times had an engine start rough-running very shortly after departure - all three I turned back: two to land on the reciprocal, one with that initial intention, but turned that into a landing on a disused crosswind runway. The difference between that is that I've got partial power - a rate of descent but a low one, and the luxury of positioning myself using that residual power so as to position for something better, even if the engine [i]then[/i] quits
I had an interesting experience a while ago with a (fairly low ability) student - when I asked for his take-off safety brief, he included a turnback in the event of an EFATO. When I challenged him - no, he didn't know how to fly one, and he'd never practiced one. I'm quite certain that it would have killed him. We had words!, but I never did work out where he got that from in his brief.
G
Peter, just out of curiosity when was the last time you did a PFL ?
Peter, just out of curiosity when was the last time you did a PFL ?
Some months ago, I guess.
Not often enough, I am sure 
A comment on turnbacks. With a full engine failure, I'd not do one in the vast majority of circumstances.
I tried the "impossible turn" back to the reciprocal runway 1 week ago at Rotterdam in a Cirrus. I took the stall speed for the Cirrus at a 45 degrees bank angle with flaps set to 50%, multiplied that times 1.3 for safety and took that speed as a reference. Once I pulled the throttle all the way down I would pitch to that airspeed and try to make the turn. I ended up ok for the reciprocal approach but way to the side of it. So, ideally, after takeoff I would have to fly a offset takeoff track in order to be able to make it back to the runway. Or I would have to fly the turn (at 45 degrees bank angle) at a lower speed closer to the stall speed (which I do not want to do).
it should work from departure field elevation plus 1000ft. Bank 45 degrees. Nose decidedly down at least -5° below horizon. Fine speed tuning and further flaps after the 180 turn ... re-intercept centerline from the off-set position. If below 1000ft GND land +/- straight ahead.
