PVT PLT OF SMA SEL ACFT INADVERTENTLY ENTERED AN ATA BEFORE ESTABLISHING 2-WAY RADIO COMS AND SUBSEQUENTLY WAS FORCED TO LAND OFF ARPT WHEN THE ACFT ENG QUIT DURING EXECUTING A 360 DEG TURN FOR TFC SPACING.

Narrative

AT APPROX 6 MI FROM DPA WITH ATIS; I RADIOED THE DPA TWR TO ESTABLISH POS CONTACT. THE TWR DID NOT RESPOND AS THE XMISSION WAS APPARENTLY BLOCKED. I AGAIN RADIOED DPA TWR AT APPROX 4 1/2 MI AND THE XMISSION WAS APPARENTLY BLOCKED AGAIN. I RADIOED DPA TWR THE 3RD TIME ADVISING THAT I WAS 3-4 MI FROM THE ARPT AND WAS ADVISED BY THE TWR TO TURN R ON A NW HDG AND ADVISE WHEN 5 MI OUT. IN LESS THAN A MIN; THE TWR ADVISED ME TO ENTER THE L DOWNWIND LEG FOR RWY 33. DURING RADIO COMS; IT BECAME APPARENT TO ME THAT THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION IN THE TWR BECAUSE MY ACFT WAS BEING CONFUSED WITH ANOTHER ACFT IN CONTACT WITH THE TWR. THE TWR ULTIMATELY IDENTED MY ACFT AND POS AT APPROX MID-FIELD ON THE DOWNWIND FOR RWY 33. UPON PROPER IDENT; THE TWR ADVISED ME TO LAND FOLLOWING AN ACFT ON FINAL FOR RWY 33. I PROCEEDED TO ENTER THE BASE LEG AND ULTIMATELY FINAL APCH WHEN THE TWR ADVISED ME TO MAKE A 360 DEG TURN TO THE L IMMEDIATELY. I WAS APPROX 3/4 MI FROM TOUCHDOWN AT THAT POINT IN TIME. I ACKNOWLEDGED AND BEGAN EXECUTING THE 360 DEG TURN TO THE L WHILE ADDING PWR AND RETRACTING FLAPS. APPROX 180 DEGS THROUGH MY 360 DEG TURN; AT HDG OF APPROX 150 DEGS; THE ENG BEGAN LOSING PWR; AND IT WAS APPARENT THAT AN OFF- ARPT LNDG WAS IMMINENT. I ADVISED THE TWR OF MY ENG PROB; AND THEY IMMEDIATELY CLRED ME FOR LNDG ON RWY 33. UNFORTUNATELY; I WAS TOO DISTANT FROM THE RWY AND COULD NOT RISK THE CHANCE OF COLLIDING WITH BUILDINGS OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS ON THE FINAL APCH PATH TO RWY 33. THE ACFT WAS LANDED; OFF ARPT; IN A VERY WET AND SOGGY FOREST PRESERVE AREA WITHOUT PERSONAL INJURY AND WITHOUT STRUCTURAL DAMAGE TO THE ACFT. THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL AESTHETIC DAMAGE TO THE ACFT; HOWEVER. SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THIS INCIDENT ARE SUGGESTED AS FOLLOWS: 1) THE ACFT SHOULD NOT HAVE PENETRATED THE ATA UNTIL COM WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE TWR. THIS WOULD HAVE ALLOWED MORE TIME FOR THE TWR TO REACT TO THE OBVIOUS CONFUSION REGARDING THE 2 ACFT THAT WERE UNDER TWR GUIDANCE. 2) ALTHOUGH THIS TYPE OF ENG FAILURE IS UNUSUAL; A BETTER OPTION THAN THE 360 DEG TURN ON FINAL WOULD HAVE BEEN A GAR. THE GAR WOULD HAVE PROVIDED RWY 33 OR OPTIONAL RWYS ON WHICH TO LAND AND WOULD HAVE IMPROVED THE OPTIONS OF THE PLT WHEN FLYING AT THE EXTREMELY LOW ALT AT WHICH THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED.