Landing long
Guest
Posts: n/a
Vanessa Feltz Type Rated
As a line driver once said to me, you're not committed to land until your turn onto the taxiway - tongue in cheek and inaccurate perhaps, but I never land until I KNOW that I can stop and I've gone around a couple of times over the years following bounces from bumpy short grass runways, rather than risk a marginal arrival.
As a line driver once said to me, you're not committed to land until your turn onto the taxiway - tongue in cheek and inaccurate perhaps, but I never land until I KNOW that I can stop and I've gone around a couple of times over the years following bounces from bumpy short grass runways, rather than risk a marginal arrival.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rochester... lovely long grass runways.
Intrigued at how one can overshoot 800m+
Personally I always treat every field as a short one as the Pup's brakes are absolutely crap.
I try to arrive over the numbers in a consistant manner and attempt a short greaser (?) even though it might not always happen for me!
Agree with the previous postings regarding going around...
I think that not even some instructors know danger when it stares them in their face.
The quality of instructing is still very poor in spite of JAR moves. I wouldn't get in an aeroplane with some of the instructors I have come across.
Let's concentrate on using our joint resources to secure Rochester's future (and stop landing long of course)
B
Intrigued at how one can overshoot 800m+
Personally I always treat every field as a short one as the Pup's brakes are absolutely crap.
I try to arrive over the numbers in a consistant manner and attempt a short greaser (?) even though it might not always happen for me!
Agree with the previous postings regarding going around...
I think that not even some instructors know danger when it stares them in their face.
The quality of instructing is still very poor in spite of JAR moves. I wouldn't get in an aeroplane with some of the instructors I have come across.
Let's concentrate on using our joint resources to secure Rochester's future (and stop landing long of course)
B
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jumping on a personal hobby horse here. When there's nobody else in the circuit, I fly military style constant aspect circuits, by adjusting the bank angle and keeping the sight angle constant I know (because I tried a couple of weekends ago against a marker by the runway) that I can accurately make a touchdown point within 10ft, or 20ft if I want to guarantee a soft landing (okay, yes I have plenty of hours, about 130 of which are in this particular aeroplane).
Sideslipping can be eliminated or kept to the last few feet.
Rectangular circuits, in my opinion, do not lend themselves to hitting accurately a touchdown point, particularly if you can't use power to adjust the descent rate (which I prefer not to - I tend to do glide approaches unless there's a good reason not to).
John Stewart Smith (the until recently editor of Flight Safety Bulletin) wrote a piece on the subject in FSB a year or so ago which I agreed with absolutely.
G
Sideslipping can be eliminated or kept to the last few feet.
Rectangular circuits, in my opinion, do not lend themselves to hitting accurately a touchdown point, particularly if you can't use power to adjust the descent rate (which I prefer not to - I tend to do glide approaches unless there's a good reason not to).
John Stewart Smith (the until recently editor of Flight Safety Bulletin) wrote a piece on the subject in FSB a year or so ago which I agreed with absolutely.
G
Guest
Posts: n/a
In a C150, nearly ran into a stone wall at the end of a short runway once. If you decide as soon as you touch down, or before, that there's not room to stop, then it's not a problem. In my case there should have been room to stop, but it wasn't till I applied the brakes that I realised how slippery it was. So when I realised I was even further down the runway and also, by braking, I had lost the necessary airspeed to lift off again. If I'd continued I'd have been into the wall, or through it and over the cliff beyond.
Fortunately I managed to swing it round and ended up facing the opposite way on the grass about 30 m off to one side of the runway. If it'd been a car it would have rolled over, since it was still going quite fast. Also fortunately it's not a tail dragger. Still can't believe it stayed upright, but definitely worth knowing for if it happens again. Spectator applauded and thought this dramatic arrival was planned!
It goes to show, though, that go-around and touch-and-go decisions are sometimes affected by factors other than the obvious.
Fortunately I managed to swing it round and ended up facing the opposite way on the grass about 30 m off to one side of the runway. If it'd been a car it would have rolled over, since it was still going quite fast. Also fortunately it's not a tail dragger. Still can't believe it stayed upright, but definitely worth knowing for if it happens again. Spectator applauded and thought this dramatic arrival was planned!
It goes to show, though, that go-around and touch-and-go decisions are sometimes affected by factors other than the obvious.
Guest
Posts: n/a
PAPIs are Precicion Approach Path Indicators, and therefore are not what should be used to land a light a/c in VFR flight. I was taught to keep the picture constant, and 'drive'it in, crossing threshold at 5kts above touchdown speed, aiming for the numbers, and touching down just after them due to the flare. By landing at the start, I do not wear out the brakes by standing on them to make the first exit. I think a lot can be said for the mil. oval circuit for ease and awareness as well.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If you are on final with 40 degrees of flap and you have to consider side-slipping to lose height, then its probably time to throw away that approach and start again. Practise make perfect. Start by treating every landing as though on a short strip, use the numbers from the POH and stop adding a few knots on for good measure. As you gain in confidence and experience you can, with the owners permission, start visiting some of the more challenging strips such as Hardwicke, Stancombe, Eastbach etc.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tigerman
One of our club mambers emailed Cessna just before Christmas to find out whether or not we are allowed to sideslip a C152 with flap down. Their reply was along the following lines:
"Many people have got this idea from somewhere, but it's not from us. It may be from a caution, not a limitation, put onto the C172. With full flap down (40 or 30 deg, they didn't say) in a C172, a sideslip will cause a slow, weak oscillation in the elevator. This is easily controllable by holding the control column.
This situation has not been found in test flying the C152, so there is no problem."
We teach no sideslip though to try and instil some better judgement earlier in the approach, so that pilots use either flap or sideslip, but don't need both.
Having said that, if I had a real engine failure and was being thermalled up and over the only decent field to land in, I'd do whatever I had to to land there rather than in a forest.
FNG
regarding "tendency to float", I think some aeroplanes (eg C172) do have a tendency to not stall as sharply as some others (eg Grumman AA-1, AA-5). Maybe this is where the phrase comes from.
And a quickie to anyone flying Tiger Moths, when three-pointing, do you wait until it's just about to stall at 6 inches above the runway and pull it back a bit sharply? I've been doing this for a few weeks and she stalls onto the ground for greasers, and I can feel it slow down heaps as well, ground roll about 100m. Does this sound right? Does it deserve another thread? Definitely NOT an aeroplane to land long! (no brakes...)
and finally
B9
What about a place with a 2000' hill 1/2 mile from the threshold, and you have to fly above 700' on close base to get through the only saddle, chop the power, fly/glide/slip/apply full flap and turn final down the side of the hill to get in to the strip? No point overshooting, you'd just have to do it again anyway. All good fun!
------------------
Confident, cocky, lazy, dead.
One of our club mambers emailed Cessna just before Christmas to find out whether or not we are allowed to sideslip a C152 with flap down. Their reply was along the following lines:
"Many people have got this idea from somewhere, but it's not from us. It may be from a caution, not a limitation, put onto the C172. With full flap down (40 or 30 deg, they didn't say) in a C172, a sideslip will cause a slow, weak oscillation in the elevator. This is easily controllable by holding the control column.
This situation has not been found in test flying the C152, so there is no problem."
We teach no sideslip though to try and instil some better judgement earlier in the approach, so that pilots use either flap or sideslip, but don't need both.
Having said that, if I had a real engine failure and was being thermalled up and over the only decent field to land in, I'd do whatever I had to to land there rather than in a forest.
FNG
regarding "tendency to float", I think some aeroplanes (eg C172) do have a tendency to not stall as sharply as some others (eg Grumman AA-1, AA-5). Maybe this is where the phrase comes from.
And a quickie to anyone flying Tiger Moths, when three-pointing, do you wait until it's just about to stall at 6 inches above the runway and pull it back a bit sharply? I've been doing this for a few weeks and she stalls onto the ground for greasers, and I can feel it slow down heaps as well, ground roll about 100m. Does this sound right? Does it deserve another thread? Definitely NOT an aeroplane to land long! (no brakes...)
and finally
B9
What about a place with a 2000' hill 1/2 mile from the threshold, and you have to fly above 700' on close base to get through the only saddle, chop the power, fly/glide/slip/apply full flap and turn final down the side of the hill to get in to the strip? No point overshooting, you'd just have to do it again anyway. All good fun!
------------------
Confident, cocky, lazy, dead.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm cheating a little bit, it's in New Zealand, and "field" is not an appropriate word, more like "strip". "Interesting" is, however, an appropriate word. It's about 10cm wider than a C172 undercarriage, but plenty long enough to not have to brake hard.
Although, to keep it relevant to the thread, I'd rather land long than land short. Someone crashed into a little 3' high bank at the threshold a few years ago and really honestly suffered for it. One of the problems with elevated strips on platform formations or hilltops is that the wind tends to be a headwind, and this headwind tends to follow the ground contours, and if the ground goes down from (the runway) to (just before the runway) then the wind goes down (and so does your aeroplane) on very short finals. In this case it went down too much and he was trying to land on the threshold but got caught.
Co-ordinates are S40deg49' E173deg49'
Greville harbour, on D'Urville Island.
edited to show relevance to thread
------------------
Confident, cocky, lazy, dead.
[This message has been edited by chicken6 (edited 24 January 2001).]
Although, to keep it relevant to the thread, I'd rather land long than land short. Someone crashed into a little 3' high bank at the threshold a few years ago and really honestly suffered for it. One of the problems with elevated strips on platform formations or hilltops is that the wind tends to be a headwind, and this headwind tends to follow the ground contours, and if the ground goes down from (the runway) to (just before the runway) then the wind goes down (and so does your aeroplane) on very short finals. In this case it went down too much and he was trying to land on the threshold but got caught.
Co-ordinates are S40deg49' E173deg49'
Greville harbour, on D'Urville Island.
edited to show relevance to thread
------------------
Confident, cocky, lazy, dead.
[This message has been edited by chicken6 (edited 24 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I copy, with the kind permission of John Farley, some words of wisdom about how instructors might teach landing skills.
It seems to me that this approach offers PPLs a "self check list" well worth considering...
"I don’t believe it is possible to come up with a one size fits all technique for landing with maximum safety. Pilot, aircraft, runway and weather all need to be taken into account to even establish the best plan, let alone the issues about teaching and executing the plan.
But we have to start somewhere.
Let us assume an inexperienced recreational student pilot and a light aircraft of a type that is in widespread use. We have now removed two major variables.
Such a combination should ideally not be going about their business where the runway is other than plenty long enough and the weather pretty benign. In such normal circumstances, the instructor will surely be tying to get the student to develop three skills;
A Correct visual judgement of the approach and landing that is going on
B Proper control techniques
C Flying accuracy.
Not separating out these three elements and just getting on with bashing the circuit in some generalised way and hoping it will all come good one day is not helpful for the student.
In my view these skills should be taught/honed in the order listed. A and C are at the heart of this thread.
By all means teach the inexperienced student to land 1/3 in when teaching A and B. That way you maximise the chances of leaving the student to appreciate errors and correct them without instructor intervention and also enhance solo safety.
Then when A and B are sorted (and not before) you really need to beat up on the student over C. For my money this includes a touchdown point well in (for the extra safety this provides against an engine problem on finals) BUT that does not mean you accept other than the chosen point of touchdown. If undershooting - sort it, if overshooting - go around.
Once A,B and C are sorted the available skills allow the pilot to CONVERT to a new runway type. (short, narrow, bumpy, slippery, sloping, different width/length perspective etc etc)
Such a new runway may well require the (now) available skills of C to be used to land at the threshold – or wherever is appropriate for the combination of all the factors present.
When subsequently faced with a new runway, aircraft and weather combination the inexperienced pilot can then talk to him/herself downwind about the need to consider A, B and C.
JF"
PS: for those not aware of JF, he is a very experienced pilot. His track record includes the testing Hawker P1127/Harrier.
It seems to me that this approach offers PPLs a "self check list" well worth considering...
"I don’t believe it is possible to come up with a one size fits all technique for landing with maximum safety. Pilot, aircraft, runway and weather all need to be taken into account to even establish the best plan, let alone the issues about teaching and executing the plan.
But we have to start somewhere.
Let us assume an inexperienced recreational student pilot and a light aircraft of a type that is in widespread use. We have now removed two major variables.
Such a combination should ideally not be going about their business where the runway is other than plenty long enough and the weather pretty benign. In such normal circumstances, the instructor will surely be tying to get the student to develop three skills;
A Correct visual judgement of the approach and landing that is going on
B Proper control techniques
C Flying accuracy.
Not separating out these three elements and just getting on with bashing the circuit in some generalised way and hoping it will all come good one day is not helpful for the student.
In my view these skills should be taught/honed in the order listed. A and C are at the heart of this thread.
By all means teach the inexperienced student to land 1/3 in when teaching A and B. That way you maximise the chances of leaving the student to appreciate errors and correct them without instructor intervention and also enhance solo safety.
Then when A and B are sorted (and not before) you really need to beat up on the student over C. For my money this includes a touchdown point well in (for the extra safety this provides against an engine problem on finals) BUT that does not mean you accept other than the chosen point of touchdown. If undershooting - sort it, if overshooting - go around.
Once A,B and C are sorted the available skills allow the pilot to CONVERT to a new runway type. (short, narrow, bumpy, slippery, sloping, different width/length perspective etc etc)
Such a new runway may well require the (now) available skills of C to be used to land at the threshold – or wherever is appropriate for the combination of all the factors present.
When subsequently faced with a new runway, aircraft and weather combination the inexperienced pilot can then talk to him/herself downwind about the need to consider A, B and C.
JF"
PS: for those not aware of JF, he is a very experienced pilot. His track record includes the testing Hawker P1127/Harrier.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My dad (God rest his soul) who was an experienced veteran light aircraft instructor (and instructor of instructors come to that) always told me that the first bit of the teaching/patter for EFTS (that's E for Empire!) was "Pick A Point To Land On".
I happened to stroll down to the local GA airfield last Sunday and I stood watching a few approaches and landings. Nearly all of them touched down circa one third to one half way up a 900 metre strip. I won't even comment on the landing technique of some of the aircraft/pilots since that would be a good topic for another thread!
------------------
I happened to stroll down to the local GA airfield last Sunday and I stood watching a few approaches and landings. Nearly all of them touched down circa one third to one half way up a 900 metre strip. I won't even comment on the landing technique of some of the aircraft/pilots since that would be a good topic for another thread!
------------------
