Fly 'em like an airliner?
Victim of Blackmailing Scouser
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Zürich, Switzerland (But a Brit)
Age: 59
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how long it would take a J3 Cub (65hp, cruise about 50 knots) ) with a 10 knot headwind to make a one and a half mile approach, all at three degrees? SSD is good at these sorts of sums, so I'll leave it to him. Of course, no one would dream of flying a J3 like that.
Ok, so this is a rhetorical question simply to show that something has gone a bit strange with the way pilots are looking at their light aircraft. The easiest retort is that an Archer or whatever is a different beastie. Agreed! But both aircraft are picking their way around the same circuit.
The amazing thing is that I'd much rather have an engine failure in a Cub than an Archer, even though the temptation to fly the Archer like a sodding Boeing 737 would make things even worse.
TW
Ok, so this is a rhetorical question simply to show that something has gone a bit strange with the way pilots are looking at their light aircraft. The easiest retort is that an Archer or whatever is a different beastie. Agreed! But both aircraft are picking their way around the same circuit.
The amazing thing is that I'd much rather have an engine failure in a Cub than an Archer, even though the temptation to fly the Archer like a sodding Boeing 737 would make things even worse.
TW
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the best thing I could say in terms of this discusssion is............
"Whilst "by the book" procedures, speeds, rules etc are laudable and good for the purposes of training and use in the ideal situations, we tend to stay alive in this game by knowing the theory, respecting it, but using it as a benchmark.
When we are in situations that demand variances, we have to quickly assimilate the contributing factors & accept them. These can be pilot, aircraft, other aircraft, ground facilities & guidance, weather, whether we have an exceptional situation or not, etc, etc, etc.
When we are in a situation where the factors start to make the "airliner" rules illogical and in some cases downright unsafe or inconsiderate, then we have to use our skill and experience to do the best thing and still pull off a safe and accurate landing.
Key to this is developing a more intimate knowledge of our own and our aircraft's capabilities & limitations. If we do not know this, then we are a potential liability to ourselves and others and should stay on the ground.
If you live by rules rigidly, then one day the commonest rule - Murphy's Law - will inevitably wake up and bite you on the bum.
"Whilst "by the book" procedures, speeds, rules etc are laudable and good for the purposes of training and use in the ideal situations, we tend to stay alive in this game by knowing the theory, respecting it, but using it as a benchmark.
When we are in situations that demand variances, we have to quickly assimilate the contributing factors & accept them. These can be pilot, aircraft, other aircraft, ground facilities & guidance, weather, whether we have an exceptional situation or not, etc, etc, etc.
When we are in a situation where the factors start to make the "airliner" rules illogical and in some cases downright unsafe or inconsiderate, then we have to use our skill and experience to do the best thing and still pull off a safe and accurate landing.
Key to this is developing a more intimate knowledge of our own and our aircraft's capabilities & limitations. If we do not know this, then we are a potential liability to ourselves and others and should stay on the ground.
If you live by rules rigidly, then one day the commonest rule - Murphy's Law - will inevitably wake up and bite you on the bum.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: England
Age: 40
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i know im inexpierienced but 3 degrees sounds downright immoral in a light aircraft.
Lessons are going well skylark but ive had 3 cancellations so ive only had 4 lessons. Next lesson will be slow flight.
Static, when were you on a carrier and what did you fly?
Lessons are going well skylark but ive had 3 cancellations so ive only had 4 lessons. Next lesson will be slow flight.
Static, when were you on a carrier and what did you fly?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Diego - now Paris
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiger --- I must be missing something. Hasn't your instructor told you to try to roll out on final at 450-500 feet? Has he explained the vasi / papi system and how to use them to assist with proper glideslope? Has he introduced you to the approach sight picture? If the answer to any of the above is yes -- you are flying a 3 degree glideslop (OK -- sometimes a 3.25 approach).
Please don't listen to these guys who improvise as they go along. Contrary to Poet's comment, I ask who has more more accidents - guys who follow religiously standardised and well-proven procedures ---- or the fals Top Guns who "really know how to fly an airplane.
Guys please --- don't screw up students with thinking like this. If you old timers want to do it ---- OK by me --- but don't tell students this is good practice.
And yes --- I am really ex-USN. A7s, Super Etendards (French Navy -- long story) and finally F18s. My time off is now spent in an Arrow --- flying 1.5 mile finals. ;-)
Please don't listen to these guys who improvise as they go along. Contrary to Poet's comment, I ask who has more more accidents - guys who follow religiously standardised and well-proven procedures ---- or the fals Top Guns who "really know how to fly an airplane.
Guys please --- don't screw up students with thinking like this. If you old timers want to do it ---- OK by me --- but don't tell students this is good practice.
And yes --- I am really ex-USN. A7s, Super Etendards (French Navy -- long story) and finally F18s. My time off is now spent in an Arrow --- flying 1.5 mile finals. ;-)
Victim of Blackmailing Scouser
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Zürich, Switzerland (But a Brit)
Age: 59
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, not a wind-up. Wannabe airline pilot playing at Airbus in a sodding Arrow. I shudder to think.
TW
TW
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 degrees at 1.5 miles - so you're sitting there in your Cherrytree at 450 feet QFe 1.5 miles out. If TW is correct, and this isn't a wind-up, then you are a menace to other in the circuit and everyone living on the (very) extended centerline of any field you visit.
Carrier pilots *know* how to fly. You, apparently, don't. Was it Pickfords you were with?
SSD
Carrier pilots *know* how to fly. You, apparently, don't. Was it Pickfords you were with?
SSD
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Diego - now Paris
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiger -- don't listen to me. Ask a CFI. Any CFI --- to explain to you about approach altitudes, touch down aim points, and standardised approaches. Please don't listen to the extremely questionable advice on this board. And good flying on 'ya.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Abingdon, Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone earlier mentioned the 45 degree rule and thats what I work to. In a glider you can be a bit further out than that but too far and it feels most uncomfortable. O.K., the engine was never there but you would be surprised at how much height you can lose in an area of sinking air, not half as uncomfortable as you will be, two miles out at 650 ft. in a light a/c..
Lets have some input from those who have been there and done that. Have YOU ever had the donk stop on you and what was the result?
Anyone out there from Kidlington? Has it ever happened there?
Mike W
Lets have some input from those who have been there and done that. Have YOU ever had the donk stop on you and what was the result?
Anyone out there from Kidlington? Has it ever happened there?
Mike W
Victim of Blackmailing Scouser
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Zürich, Switzerland (But a Brit)
Age: 59
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About time there was a decent fight on this forum. Right, where're my knuckle-dusters? You lot 'ave 'ad it now...
TW
TW
I agree wholheartedly that the 3 deg approach is inappropriate in SEP aircraft. The 'runway aspect' should be used to assess final approach angle, NOT reliance upon 3 deg PAPIs/VASIs.
As an aside, when CFS came to do their annual visit to the better UAS at Benson, one of their Jet Provost background people queried why we weren't flying 3 deg approaches. It was pointed out that the standard Bulldog circuit (using that '45 deg rule') resulted in a steeper approach path. He was sceptical, so I did some calculations based on the '400 ft point' which they insist upon and proved that the resulting approach angle would be 5.4 deg. He then admitted that he was wrong; I also showed that if he really wanted us to fly 3 deg approaches, then the '400 ft point' would have to be renamed as the '222 ft point' - an absurdly low height to roll out at on final for a basic student.
Leave 3 deg approaches to those with more than one engine - or with a bang seat! The 'dragging it in from 2 miles out' approach one meets at places like Kidlington is wholly WRONG for a SEP aeroplane!
As an aside, when CFS came to do their annual visit to the better UAS at Benson, one of their Jet Provost background people queried why we weren't flying 3 deg approaches. It was pointed out that the standard Bulldog circuit (using that '45 deg rule') resulted in a steeper approach path. He was sceptical, so I did some calculations based on the '400 ft point' which they insist upon and proved that the resulting approach angle would be 5.4 deg. He then admitted that he was wrong; I also showed that if he really wanted us to fly 3 deg approaches, then the '400 ft point' would have to be renamed as the '222 ft point' - an absurdly low height to roll out at on final for a basic student.
Leave 3 deg approaches to those with more than one engine - or with a bang seat! The 'dragging it in from 2 miles out' approach one meets at places like Kidlington is wholly WRONG for a SEP aeroplane!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Diego - now Paris
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's do a little math guys. Will you grant me a 3000 foot distance abeam. I know -- a little wide --- but if you first climb to 400-500 before turning --- you still have another 400-500 feet to go to pattern altitude = 1 minute of flying crosswind. So assume 3000 feet abeam on downwind. If you turn when the threshold is 45 degrees behind you (a little late in my opinion -- but OK). That puts the start of the turn to base (using 45/45/90 trig) at 3000 feet past the threshold. Assume 10 knots of wind down the runway = 17 feet per second drift. Assume one minute time from start of turn to base to start of turn to final = 60x17 =another 1020 feet from the threshold due to wind drift (and probably more because that would be a rather quick base). Assume 80 knot indicated during the turn to base = 133 feet/sec (I fly my Arrow 100/90/80 kts --- so would be a little more). OK the 90 degree turn to base takes 20-25 seconds --- so let's just take half of that as direct downwind distance at 133 feet/sec = another 1600 feet downwind to complete the turn to base. OK let's add it up:
3000 feet past threshold start turn
1020 feet for 10 knot wind
1600 feet for aircraft turn radius at 80 kts
500-700 feet from threshold to touch down point
Total distance = 6320 feet = 1.2 miles
OK you micro light guys can do it much tighter --- but I maintain my case that 1.25 - 1.5 mile final at 500 foot glideslope intercept is about right. +/- 0.5 miles to allow speed difference in Cessnas/Pipers.
BTW, in fighters we didn't fly a base leg. 1.1 nm abeam at 800 feet -- continuous spiral to final at 27 degrees angle of bank --- aiming for about 600 feet at the 90 and rolling wings level at 450 feet.
3000 feet past threshold start turn
1020 feet for 10 knot wind
1600 feet for aircraft turn radius at 80 kts
500-700 feet from threshold to touch down point
Total distance = 6320 feet = 1.2 miles
OK you micro light guys can do it much tighter --- but I maintain my case that 1.25 - 1.5 mile final at 500 foot glideslope intercept is about right. +/- 0.5 miles to allow speed difference in Cessnas/Pipers.
BTW, in fighters we didn't fly a base leg. 1.1 nm abeam at 800 feet -- continuous spiral to final at 27 degrees angle of bank --- aiming for about 600 feet at the 90 and rolling wings level at 450 feet.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Mr Static, you can take the 1000 odd feet off for crosswind drift for a start. If you are flying a circuit correctly, on ANY leg of the circuit you offset drift (unless of course you really want to be drifted).
Look, I again state I have every respect for your experience and abilities. But I just hope to hell that you dont have that engine on your Arrow quit on you when you're over a town or highway on the way in to a field.
It may help here to state that the average light aircraft field in the UK tends to be a bit more cramped than those that one finds in the States, that unless you are using a decent, large field you are unlikely to have VASI/PAPIs, and nine times out of ten you are mixing it in the circuit with many different types travelling at many different speeds. If you did your approach at Barton on 27 I think you may not be very popular with the circuit traffic or the tower guys.
On top of that, the terrain around our airfields is not always as flat and predictable as you may get in the states, and there are all sorts of obstacles we have to contend with. Indeed, some fields (Popham being an example) wont even allow you to make a straight approach to one of their runways, due to obstructions.
Re: the 45 degree rule - I believe this is standard in terms of glider training (I did 700 launches way back at the start of my flying career), certainly in the UK. When I progressed to flying light aircraft, back in 70s, there was still a fair number of ex-military people who instructed. I learnt most of my skills from them and they've never let me down. I have suffered 4 engine failures (only one on finals I grant you) and always got back to earth without a scratch, thank God.
One of the reasons why you may not hear of engine stoppages on finals is that in many (hopefully most) cases, the pilot pulls off a landing on the field without further incident BECAUSE they made allowances for such a contingency. I would seriously advise you to get overhead your local field and switch off (YES switch off) your engine when in the landing configuration. Check out just how she performs flaps down and dragging that static prop through the air. Yes, slow it up so the prop stops - because it might just do that if the engine is seizing or you are slow on speed.
Handy Hint - Just make sure when you do it that you do not attempt to fly a 3 degree approach, please!
Examples I've seen/experienced.........
1. Myself in a VP1, over the hedge at 45kts, about 50 feet up. Carb ice. got down ok.
2. Tipsy Nipper, twice on finals at about 300 feet. Carb ice. Got down OK.
3. Jodel D112. A65. carb ice or fuel contamination. about 200 feet on finals. Got down OK.
4. Cessna 172. Approaching on PAPIs (my best mate flying). landed short in a field (no damage). Faulty readings on fuel guages. He learnt about flying from that (certainly learnt about Cessna fuel guages).
5. Cessna 172RG (I think - may have been a 206). Dragging it into Barton on a long approach. landed in the sewage farm. aircraft written off. pilot ok. Faulty readings on fuel gauges. He had enough money to go and buy something else.
6. Grob on the downwind on a reasonably windy day, just 2 weeks ago. Landed on the golf course because there was no way he could get back to the field. Subject to investigation so will not comment on the cause. Both occupants ok, in my opinion he did totally the right thing in choosing where to land. Plane banged its nosewheel and prop in a bunker.
Interesting, eh? The guys flying the airliner approach didnt make it. Everyone else did. I'll exclude the downwind incident from my judgement - I wasnt there, wasnt in the plane, but I wonder what his aspect of the airfield was at the point when the engine stopped. Bet it was shallower than 45 degrees.
Look, if it can happen, it will happen. It's always best to make sure that when it does happen you know what to do and are in the right place.
Another thing Static - go and beg a ride in a Cub or a Stearman or something and shoot an approach or two. Please! You'll enjoy it anyway.
Look, I again state I have every respect for your experience and abilities. But I just hope to hell that you dont have that engine on your Arrow quit on you when you're over a town or highway on the way in to a field.
It may help here to state that the average light aircraft field in the UK tends to be a bit more cramped than those that one finds in the States, that unless you are using a decent, large field you are unlikely to have VASI/PAPIs, and nine times out of ten you are mixing it in the circuit with many different types travelling at many different speeds. If you did your approach at Barton on 27 I think you may not be very popular with the circuit traffic or the tower guys.
On top of that, the terrain around our airfields is not always as flat and predictable as you may get in the states, and there are all sorts of obstacles we have to contend with. Indeed, some fields (Popham being an example) wont even allow you to make a straight approach to one of their runways, due to obstructions.
Re: the 45 degree rule - I believe this is standard in terms of glider training (I did 700 launches way back at the start of my flying career), certainly in the UK. When I progressed to flying light aircraft, back in 70s, there was still a fair number of ex-military people who instructed. I learnt most of my skills from them and they've never let me down. I have suffered 4 engine failures (only one on finals I grant you) and always got back to earth without a scratch, thank God.
One of the reasons why you may not hear of engine stoppages on finals is that in many (hopefully most) cases, the pilot pulls off a landing on the field without further incident BECAUSE they made allowances for such a contingency. I would seriously advise you to get overhead your local field and switch off (YES switch off) your engine when in the landing configuration. Check out just how she performs flaps down and dragging that static prop through the air. Yes, slow it up so the prop stops - because it might just do that if the engine is seizing or you are slow on speed.
Handy Hint - Just make sure when you do it that you do not attempt to fly a 3 degree approach, please!
Examples I've seen/experienced.........
1. Myself in a VP1, over the hedge at 45kts, about 50 feet up. Carb ice. got down ok.
2. Tipsy Nipper, twice on finals at about 300 feet. Carb ice. Got down OK.
3. Jodel D112. A65. carb ice or fuel contamination. about 200 feet on finals. Got down OK.
4. Cessna 172. Approaching on PAPIs (my best mate flying). landed short in a field (no damage). Faulty readings on fuel guages. He learnt about flying from that (certainly learnt about Cessna fuel guages).
5. Cessna 172RG (I think - may have been a 206). Dragging it into Barton on a long approach. landed in the sewage farm. aircraft written off. pilot ok. Faulty readings on fuel gauges. He had enough money to go and buy something else.
6. Grob on the downwind on a reasonably windy day, just 2 weeks ago. Landed on the golf course because there was no way he could get back to the field. Subject to investigation so will not comment on the cause. Both occupants ok, in my opinion he did totally the right thing in choosing where to land. Plane banged its nosewheel and prop in a bunker.
Interesting, eh? The guys flying the airliner approach didnt make it. Everyone else did. I'll exclude the downwind incident from my judgement - I wasnt there, wasnt in the plane, but I wonder what his aspect of the airfield was at the point when the engine stopped. Bet it was shallower than 45 degrees.
Look, if it can happen, it will happen. It's always best to make sure that when it does happen you know what to do and are in the right place.
Another thing Static - go and beg a ride in a Cub or a Stearman or something and shoot an approach or two. Please! You'll enjoy it anyway.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh and another thing. 500-700 feet past the numbers for touchdown point? At Barton that puts you a third of the way down our biggest runway. On 32 probably 2/3rds !!! Gulp.
Saw a student pilot once on his qualifying from Liverpool try that. He didnt go back to Liverpool by air that night. The 172 looked like an X-fighter after it had gone through the hedge. Nice bit of forward sweep.
You are using airliner/combat plane figures for light aircraft & light aircraft airfields here and they are just not appropriate for the UK and for small single engined planes.
You'll be ok if you stick to large concrete areas - and you're quite lucky in France of course, because they get local subsidies to build mega fields in the middle of nowhere, with all the facilities.
Saw a student pilot once on his qualifying from Liverpool try that. He didnt go back to Liverpool by air that night. The 172 looked like an X-fighter after it had gone through the hedge. Nice bit of forward sweep.
You are using airliner/combat plane figures for light aircraft & light aircraft airfields here and they are just not appropriate for the UK and for small single engined planes.
You'll be ok if you stick to large concrete areas - and you're quite lucky in France of course, because they get local subsidies to build mega fields in the middle of nowhere, with all the facilities.
I'm having some trouble with that math Static.
Imagine a 180 degree turn onto final from 3000 ft abeam as suggested, with no base leg. The total length of the turn arc is 4700 ft, which takes a grand total of 35 seconds at 80 knots.
You seem to be suggesting taking 20 to 25 seconds for the turn on to base and then another 35 to 40 seconds straight on the base leg. This would surely put you at least half a mile on the far side of the centreline, wouldn't it?
Ignoring this ugly civil convention of rolling the wings level for a while on base
and assuming the 180 degree turn on to final once again, you would have (assuming your 10 knot wind) about 5500 track feet to the touchdown point from the midpoint of the turn, and about 3200 ft track feet to the touchdown point from the end of the turn after the roll out on to final. The 3 degree glideslope heights for those are 275 ft and 160 ft. You can add 50 ft to those by considering the threshold rather than the touchdown point if you prefer.
That doesn't seem to be consistent with your "Hasn't your instructor told you to try to roll out on final at 450-500 feet?" when you cannot hope to be wings level on final higher than 210 ft.
Imagine a 180 degree turn onto final from 3000 ft abeam as suggested, with no base leg. The total length of the turn arc is 4700 ft, which takes a grand total of 35 seconds at 80 knots.
You seem to be suggesting taking 20 to 25 seconds for the turn on to base and then another 35 to 40 seconds straight on the base leg. This would surely put you at least half a mile on the far side of the centreline, wouldn't it?
Ignoring this ugly civil convention of rolling the wings level for a while on base
and assuming the 180 degree turn on to final once again, you would have (assuming your 10 knot wind) about 5500 track feet to the touchdown point from the midpoint of the turn, and about 3200 ft track feet to the touchdown point from the end of the turn after the roll out on to final. The 3 degree glideslope heights for those are 275 ft and 160 ft. You can add 50 ft to those by considering the threshold rather than the touchdown point if you prefer. That doesn't seem to be consistent with your "Hasn't your instructor told you to try to roll out on final at 450-500 feet?" when you cannot hope to be wings level on final higher than 210 ft.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: England
Age: 40
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Static, the answer is no because we havent got onto circuits yet, we're just on slow flight. Im tempted to agree with you seeing as you've had so much expierience in jets and so much military flying but when you start talking about 3.25 degrees it makes me angry. I mean 3.25 degrees! Who can judge to .25 of a degree? Especially in a Moth with no artificial horizon! Theres nothing wrong with having a slowish turn but does it really matter if its 2 or 3 or 4 degrees as long as it gets you onto finals? Seems like a bit of an unnecessary skill for a light aircraft pilot to have.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Diego - now Paris
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't had a chance to run your numbers Bookworm -- but a first observation is that you can't make a 180 in 30 seconds. At standard rate of turn --- +/- 21 AOB in an Arrow, 27 AOB in a fighter --- 180 requires one minute ---- 90 degrees to base = +/- 30 seconds.
Will double check the rest later.
Regards
Will double check the rest later.
Regards
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Diego - now Paris
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiger -- although the numbers seem incredibly small --- 3 degrees or 3.25 --- there is a very noticeable/appreciable difference in the approach picture between 3 and 4 degrees. Enormous. I know --- it doesn't sound like there could be -- but there is.
By the way -- the Vasi/papi/ILS systems are all calculated to give you obstacle clearance on the approach if you follow them. There are no promises about engine failure performance. I would just repeat my earlyier comment that the most important thing a beginning pilot (experienced ones to) is to fly stablised, i.e., controlled/consistent approaches. For every engine failure on final accident I'll bet there are a thousand caused by too steep an approach -- or by too shallow an approach --- or by full power off -- then full power on --- wheel barrowing, etc. from people who weren't flying a stabilised approach. Talk to your instructor about it.
I think I have beat this subject to death --- and I can see I am definitely in the minority on this board --- so I'll shut up now. May you never run out of airspeed, altitude and ideas all at the same time!
By the way -- the Vasi/papi/ILS systems are all calculated to give you obstacle clearance on the approach if you follow them. There are no promises about engine failure performance. I would just repeat my earlyier comment that the most important thing a beginning pilot (experienced ones to) is to fly stablised, i.e., controlled/consistent approaches. For every engine failure on final accident I'll bet there are a thousand caused by too steep an approach -- or by too shallow an approach --- or by full power off -- then full power on --- wheel barrowing, etc. from people who weren't flying a stabilised approach. Talk to your instructor about it.
I think I have beat this subject to death --- and I can see I am definitely in the minority on this board --- so I'll shut up now. May you never run out of airspeed, altitude and ideas all at the same time!