Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3C)
Chapter 18: Emergency Procedures
Introduction
This chapter describes certain abnormal and emergency situations that may occur in flight. The key to successful management of an
emergency situation, and/or preventing an abnormal situation from progressing into a true emergency, is a thorough familiarity with,
and adherence to, the procedures developed by the airplane manufacturer. The following guidelines are generic and are not meant to
replace the airplane manufacturer’s recommended procedures contained in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved
Airplane Flight Manual and/or Pilot’s Operating Handbook (AFM/POH). Rather, they are meant to enhance the pilot’s general
knowledge in the area of abnormal and emergency operations. If any of the guidance in this chapter conflicts in any way with the
anufacturer’s recommended procedures for a particular make and model airplane, the manufacturer’s recommended procedures take
precedence.
Emergency Landings
This section contains information on emergency landing techniques in small fixed-wing airplanes. The guidelines that are presented
apply to the more adverse terrain conditions for which no practical training is possible. The objective is to instill in the pilot the
knowledge that almost any terrain can be considered “suitable” for a survivable crash landing if the pilot knows how to use t he
airplane structure for self-protection and the protection of passengers.
Types of Emergency Landings
The different types of emergency landings are defined as follows:
⦁ Forced landing—an immediate landing, on or off an airport, necessitated by the inability to continue further
flight. A typical example of which is an airplane forced down by engine failure.
⦁ Precautionary landing—a premeditated landing, on or off an airport, when further flight is possible but
inadvisable. Examples of conditions that may call for a precautionary landing include deteriorating weather,
being lost, fuel shortage, and gradually developing engine trouble.
⦁ Ditching— a forced or precautionary landing on water.
A precautionary landing, generally, is less hazardous than a forced landing because the pilot has more time for terrain selection and
the planning of the approach. In addition, the pilot can use power to compensate for errors in judgment or technique. The pilot should
be aware that too many situations calling for a precautionary landing are allowed to develop into immediate forced landings, when the
pilot uses wishful thinking instead of reason, especially when dealing with a self-inflicted predicament. The non-instrument-rated
pilot trapped by weather, or the pilot facing imminent fuel exhaustion who does not give any thought to the feasibility of a
precautionary landing, accepts an extremely hazardous alternative.
Psychological Hazards
There are several factors that may interfere with a pilot’s ability to act promptly and properly when faced with an emergency. Some of
these factors are listed below.
⦁ Reluctance to accept the emergency situation—a pilot who allows the mind to become paralyzed at the
thought that the airplane will be on the ground in a very short time, regardless of the pilot’s actions or
hopes, is severely handicapped in the handling of the emergency. An unconscious desire to delay the
dreaded moment may lead to such errors as: failure to lower the nose to maintain flying speed, delay in the
selection of the most suitable landing area within reach, and indecision in general. Desperate attempts to
correct whatever went wrong at the expense of airplane control fall into the same category.
⦁ Undue concern about getting hurt—fear is a vital part of the self-preservation mechanism. However, when
fear leads to panic, we invite that which we want most to avoid. The survival records favor pilots who
maintain their composure and know how to apply the general concepts and procedures that have been
developed through the years. The success of an emergency landing is as much a matter of the mind as of
skills.
⦁ Desire to save the airplane—the pilot who has been conditioned during training to expect to find a relatively
safe landing area, whenever the flight instructor closed the throttle for a simulated forced landing, may
ignore all basic rules of airmanship to avoid a touchdown in terrain where airplane damage is unavoidable.
Typical consequences are: making a 180° turn back to the runway when available altitude is insufficient;
stretching the glide without regard for minimum control speed in order to reach a more appealing field; and
accepting an approach and touchdown situation that leaves no margin for error. The desire to save the
airplane, regardless of the risks involved, may be influenced by two other factors: the pilot’s financial stake
in the airplane and the certainty that an undamaged airplane implies no bodily harm. There are times,
owever, when a pilot should be more interested in sacrificing the airplane so that the occupants can safely
walk away from it.
Basic Safety Concepts
General
A pilot who is faced with an emergency landing in terrain that makes extensive airplane damage inevitable should keep in mind that
the avoidance of crash injuries is largely a matter of: (1) keeping the vital structure (cabin area) relatively intact by using dispensable
structure (i.e., wings, landing gear, fuselage bottom) to absorb the violence of the stopping process before it affects the occupants and
(2) avoiding forceful bodily contact with interior structure. Avoiding forcible contact with interior structure is a matter of seat and
ody security. Unless the occupant decelerates at the same rate as the surrounding structure, no benefit is realized from its relative
intactness. The occupant is brought to a stop violently in the form of a secondary collision.
The advantage of sacrificing dispensable structure is demonstrated daily on the highways. A head-on car impact against a tree at 20
miles per hour (mph) is less hazardous for a properly restrained driver than a similar impact against the driver’s door. Accident
experience shows that the extent of crushable structure between the occupants and the principal point of impact on the airplane has a
direct bearing on the severity of the transmitted crash forces and, therefore, on survivability.
Dispensable airplane structure is not the only available energy absorbing medium in an emergency situation. Vegetation, trees, and
even manmade structures may be used for this purpose. Cultivated fields with dense crops, such as mature corn and grain, are almost
as effective in bringing an airplane to a stop with repairable damage as an emergency arresting device on a runway. [Figure 18-1]
Brush and small trees provide considerable cushioning and braking effect without destroying the airplane. When dealing with natural
and manmade obstacles with greater strength than the dispensable airplane structure, the pilot should plan the touchdown in such a
manner that only nonessential structure is “used up” in the principal slowing-down process.
Figure 18-1. Using vegetation to absorb energy.
The overall severity of a deceleration process is governed by speed (groundspeed) and stopping distance. The most critical of these is
speed; doubling the groundspeed means quadrupling the total destructive energy and vice versa. Even a small change in groundspeed
at touchdown—be it as a result of wind or pilot technique —affects the outcome of a controlled crash. It is important that the actual
touchdown during an emergency landing be made at the lowest possible controllable airspeed, using all available aerodynamic
devices.
Most pilots instinctively—and correctly—look for the largest available flat and open field for an emergency landing. Actually, very
little stopping distance is required if the speed can be dissipated uniformly; that is, if the deceleration forces can be spread evenly
over the available distance. This concept is designed into the arresting gear of aircraft carriers that provides a nearly constant stopping
force from the moment of hookup.
The typical light airplane is designed to provide protection in crash landings that expose the occupants to nine times the acceleration
of gravity (9G) in a forward direction. Assuming a uniform 9G deceleration, at 50 mph the required stopping distance is about 9.4
feet. While at 100 mph, the stopping distance is about 37.6 feet —about four times as great. [Figure 18-2] Although these figures are
based on an ideal deceleration process, it is interesting to note what can be accomplished in an effectively used short stopping
distance. Understanding the need for a firm but uniform deceleration process in very poor terrain enables the pilot to select
touchdown conditions that spread the breakup of dispensable structure over a short distance, thereby reducing the peak deceleration
of the cabin area.
Figure 18-2. Stopping distance vs. groundspeed.
Attitude and Sink Rate Control
The most critical and often the most inexcusable error that can be made in the planning and execution of an emergency landing, even
in ideal terrain, is the loss of initiative over the airplane’s attitude and sink rate at touchdown. When the touchdown is made on flat,
open terrain, an excessive nose- low pitch attitude brings the risk of “sticking” the nose in the ground. Steep bank angles just before
touchdown should also be avoided, as they increase the stalling speed and the likelihood of a wingtip strike.
Since the airplane’s vertical component of velocity is immediately reduced to zero upon ground contact, it should be kept well under
control. A flat touchdown at a high sink rate (well in excess of 500 feet per minute (fpm)) on a hard surface can be injurious without
destroying the cabin structure, especially during gear-up landings in low-wing airplanes. A rigid bottom construction of these
airplanes may preclude adequate cushioning by structural deformation. Similar impact conditions may cause structural collapse of the
overhead structure in high-wing airplanes. On soft terrain, an excessive sink rate may cause digging in of the lower nose structure and
severe forward deceleration.
Terrain Selection
A pilot’s choice of emergency landing sites is governed by:
⦁ The route selected during preflight planning
⦁ The height above the ground when the emergency occurs
⦁ Excess airspeed (excess airspeed can be converted into distance and/or altitude)
The only time the pilot has a very limited choice is during the low and slow portion of the takeoff. However, even under thes e
conditions, the ability to change the impact heading only a few degrees may ensure a survivable crash.
If beyond gliding distance of a suitable open area, the pilot should judge the available terrain for its energy absorbing capability. If
the emergency starts at a considerable height above the ground, the pilot should be more concerned about first selecting the desired
general area than a specific spot. Terrain appearances from altitude can be very misleading and considerable altitude may be lost
before the best spot can be pinpointed. For this reason, the pilot should not hesitate to discard the original plan for one that is
obviously better. However, as a general rule, the pilot should not change his or her mind more than once; a well-executed crash
landing in poor terrain can be less hazardous than an uncontrolled touchdown on an established field.
Airplane Configuration
Since flaps improve maneuverability at slow speed, and lower the stalling speed, their use during final approach is recommended
when time and circumstances permit. However, the associated increase in drag and decrease in gliding distance call for caution in the
timing and the extent of their application; premature use of flap and dissipation of altitude may jeopardize an otherwise sound plan.
A hard and fast rule concerning the position of a retractable landing gear at touchdown cannot be given. In rugged terrain and trees,
or during impacts at high sink rate, an extended gear would definitely have a protective effect on the cabin area. However, this
advantage has to be weighed against the possible side effects of a collapsing gear, such as a ruptured fuel tank. As always, the
manufacturer’s recommendations as outlined in the AFM/POH should be followed.
When a normal touchdown is assured, and ample stopping distance is available, a gear-up landing on level, but soft terrain or across a
plowed field may result in less airplane damage than a gear-down landing. [Figure 18-3] Deactivation of the airplane’s electrical
system before touchdown reduces the likelihood of a post-crash fire.
However, the battery master switch should not be turned off until the pilot no longer has any need for electrical power to operate vital
airplane systems. Positive airplane control during the final part of the approach has priority over all other considerations, including
airplane configuration and checklist tasks. The pilot should attempt to exploit the power available from an irregularly running engine;
however, it is generally better to switch the engine and fuel off just before touchdown. This not only ensures the pilot’s initiative over
the situation, but a cooled-down engine reduces the fire hazard considerably.
Approach
When the pilot has time to maneuver, the planning of the approach should be governed by the following three factors:
⦁ Wind direction and velocity
⦁ Dimensions and slope of the chosen field
⦁ Obstacles in the final approach path
Figure 18-3. Intentional gear-up landing.
These three factors are seldom compatible. When compromises have to be made, the pilot should aim for a wind/obstacle/terrain
combination that permits a final approach with some margin for error in judgment or technique. A pilot who overestimates the gliding
range may be tempted to stretch the glide across obstacles in the approach path. For this reason, it is sometimes better to plan the
approach over an unobstructed area, regardless of wind direction. Experience shows that a collision with obstacles at the end of a
ground roll or slide is much less hazardous than striking an obstacle at flying speed before the touchdown point is reached.
Terrain Types
Since an emergency landing on suitable terrain resembles a situation in which the pilot should be familiar through training, only the
more unusual situations are discussed.
Confined Areas
The natural preference to set the airplane down on the ground should not lead to the selection of an open spot between trees or
obstacles where the ground cannot be reached without making a steep descent.
Once the intended touchdown point is reached, and the remaining open and unobstructed space is very limited, it may be better to
force the airplane down on the ground than to delay touchdown until it stalls (settles). An airplane decelerates faster after it is on the
ground than while airborne. Thought may also be given to the desirability of ground-looping or retracting the landing gear in certain
conditions.
A river or creek can be an inviting alternative in otherwise rugged terrain. The pilot should ensure that the water or creek bed can be
reached without snagging the wings. The same concept applies to road landings with one additional reason for caution: manmade
obstacles on either side of a road may not be visible until the final portion of the approach.
When planning the approach across a road, it should be remembered that most highways and even rural dirt roads are paralleled by
power or telephone lines. Only a sharp lookout for the supporting structures or poles may provide timely warning.
Trees (Forest)
Although a tree landing is not an attractive prospect, the following general guidelines help to make the experience survivable.
⦁ Use the normal landing configuration (full flaps, gear down).
⦁ Keep the groundspeed low by heading into the wind.
⦁ Make contact at minimum in dicated airspeed, but not below stall speed, and “hang” the airplane in the tree
branches in a nose-high landing attitude. Involving the underside of the fuselage and both wings in the initial
tree contact provides a more even and positive cushioning effect, while preventing penetration of the
windshield. [Figure 18-4]
⦁ Avoid direct contact of the fuselage with heavy tree trunks.
⦁ Low, closely spaced trees with wide, dense crowns (branches) close to the ground are much better than tall
tr
ees with thin tops; the latter allow too much free fall height (a free fall from 75 feet results in an impact speed
of about 40 knots, or about 4,000 fpm).
⦁ Ideally, initial tree contact should be symmetrical; that is, both wings should meet equal resistance in the tree
ranches. This distribution of the load helps to maintain proper airplane attitude. It may also preclude the loss
of one wing, which invariably leads to a more rapid and less predictable descent to the ground.
⦁ If heavy tree trunk contact is unavoidable once the airplane is on the ground, it is best to involve both wings
imultaneously by directing the airplane between two properly spaced trees. Do not attempt this maneuver,
however, while still airborne.
Figure 18-4. Tree landing.
Water (Ditching) and Snow
A well-executed water landing normally involves less deceleration violence than a poor tree landing or a touchdown on extremely
rough terrain. Also, an airplane that is ditched at minimum speed and in a normal landing attitude does not immediately sink upon
touchdown. Intact wings and fuel tanks (especially when empty) provide floatation for at least several minutes, even if the c abin may
be just below the water line in a high-wing airplane.
Loss of depth perception may occur when landing on a wide expanse of smooth water with the risk of flying into the water or stalling
in from excessive altitude. To avoid this hazard, the airplane should be “dragged in” when possible. Use no more than intermediate
flaps on low-wing airplanes. The water resistance of fully extended flaps may result in asymmetrical flap failure and slowing of the
airplane. Keep a retractable gear up unless the AFM/POH advises otherwise.
A landing in snow should be executed like a ditching, in the same configuration and with the same regard for loss of depth perception
(white out) in reduced visibility and on wide-open terrain.
Engine Failure After Takeoff (Single-Engine)
A number of variables and pilot actions factor into a successful emergency landing shortly after takeoff. When an engine failure
occurs during the initial climb, the pilot should lower the nose of the airplane and establish the proper glide attitude. What happens
next if the engine does not restart? Does the pilot select a field directly ahead (or slightly to the side of the takeoff path) or should the
pilot turn back toward the point of departure? There's not much time to decide and a lot to consider.
Continuing straight ahead or making a slight turn gives the pilot time to establish a safe landing attitude, and the landing occurs under
control and as slowly as possible (assuming a takeoff made into a headwind). This minimizes the risk of injury and usually represents
the option with the lowest risk—i.e. the safest option. Turning back requires a more complex analysis and consideration of risk. At
some urban airports, there may be numerous hazards in the departure path. In that case, the pilot might turn back, but only if certain
the airplane can reach the field from its current position and the pilot has trained and practiced the turn back maneuver.
Turning back to an airport after a low-altitude engine failure, also known as “the impossible turn,” presents many challenges, and a
pilot who attempts to turn back without due consideration and training will need considerable luck to prevent disaster. If the airplane
strikes the ground during the turn, cartwheeling could occur. If the pilot does not lower the nose sufficiently during the turn, an
accelerated stall and fatal crash may occur. Even after executing a successful turn, a return to the airport often results in a downwind
approach. The increased groundspeed could rush a pilot not properly trained for landing downwind. The increased groundspeed and
associated increase in kinetic energy also raise the likelihood of serious injury if unable to make the field.
If considering a turn back to the runway following an engine failure on takeoff, the pilot should know the expected altitude loss
during the turn for the specific make and model airplane as well as whether the airplane can physically glide back to the field after
executing the turn. Traditionally, the FAA has given the following example. An airplane has taken off and climbed to an altitude of
300 feet above ground level (AGL) when the engine fails. [Figure 18-5 ] After a typical 4-second reaction time, the pilot elects to
turn back to the runway. Using a standard rate (3° change in direction per second) turn, it takes 1 minute to turn 180°. At a glid e
speed of 65 knots, the radius of the turn is 2,100 feet, so at the completion of the turn, the airplane is 4,200 feet to one side of the
runway. The pilot needs to turn another 45° to head the airplane toward the runway. By this time, the total change in direction
is 225° equating to 75 seconds plus the 4-second reaction time. If the airplane in a power-of f glide descends at approximately 1,000
fpm, it has descended 1,316, feet placing it 1,016 feet below the runway.
The preceding example illustrates why a turn back, if attempted, requires a turn with a higher bank angle. A standard rate or
shallow turn consumes too much time, requires too much distance, and generates an unacceptable solution.
Training for a turn back includes practicing turns in both directions at a safe altitude in the make and model flown after simulating an
engine failure from a climb. Practice should result in consistent altitude loss and the ability to avoid an accelerated stall when
executing a gliding steep turn. Pilots should be alert for and respond appropriately to any stall warning and reduce wing loading
during the turn as necessary. There will be some observed variation in altitude loss during training. The pilot should anticipate that
during an actual emergency, the expected altitude loss could end up at the high end of the range observed while practicing. Success in
training involves the demonstrated ability to evaluate the effect of climb performance of the airplane, determine the better direction to
turn back (usually into a crosswind), predict the altitude above ground after the turn, know the distance to the landing zone, and know
if the glide performance of the airplane will allow the pilot to make the field. Some airplanes cannot usually make the return
successfully, some can make the return under certain conditions, and some can usually return. The pilot should not attempt a turn back
unless a successful turn back will result.
Figure 18-5. Turning back to the runway after engine failure.
A turn back to the departure runway may require more than a 180° change in direction. There could also be cases where turning back
results in overshooting the runway, and the pilot needs to sense the aiming point within seconds after completing a turn back and make
any necessary adjustments to achieve the best possible outcome. A turn back at low altitudes presents an unacceptable risk for student
pilots, low-time pilots, untrained pilots, pilots without adequate proficiency, and pilots flying airplanes with insufficient glide
performance to return to the field. However, experienced pilots interested in knowing when and how to make an emergency turn back
after takeoff should use the services of an authorized flight instructor who can explain and demonstrate the practicality (or
impracticality) of “the impossible turn” in the specific make and model used during training.
Emergency Descents
An emergency descent is a maneuver for descending as rapidly as possible to a lower altitude or to the ground for an emergency
landing. [Figure 18-6 ] The need for this maneuver may result from an uncontrollable fire, a sudden loss of cabin pressurization, or
any other situation demanding an immediate and rapid descent. The objective is to descend the airplane as soon and as rapidly as
possible while not exceeding any structural limitations of the airplane. Simulated emergency descents should be made in a turn to
check for other air traffic below and to look around for a possible emergency landing area. A radio call announcing descent
intentions may be appropriate to alert other aircraft in the area. When initiating the descent, a bank of approximately 30 to 45°
should be e stablished to maintain positive load factors (G forces) on the airplane.
Emergency descent training should be performed as recommended by the manufacturer, including the configuration and airspeeds.
Except when prohibited by the manufacturer, the power should be reduced to idle, and the propeller control (if equipped) should
be placed in the low pitch (or high revolutions per minute (rpm)) position. This allows the propeller to act as an aerodynamic brake
to help prevent an excessive airspeed buildup during the descent. The landing gear and flaps should be extended as recommended by
the manufacturer. This provides maximum drag so that the descent can be made as rapidly as possible, without excessive airspeed.
The pilot should not allow the airplane’s airspeed to pass the never-e xceed speed (V NE), the maximum landing gear extended
speed (VLE), or the maximum flap extended speed (V FE), as applicable. In the case of an engine fire, a high airspeed descent could
blow out the fire. However, the weakening of the airplane structure is a major concern and descent at low airspeed would place less
stress on the airplane. If the descent is conducted in turbulent conditions, the pilot also needs to comply with the design
maneuvering speed (VA) limitations. The descent should be made at the maximum allowable airspeed consistent with the procedure
used. This provides increased drag and a high rate of descent. The recovery from an emergency descent should be initiated at a
high enough altitude to e nsure a safe recovery back to level flight or a precautionary landing.