Landing long
Guest
Posts: n/a
Landing long
Have just seen the post re Rochester. Time on time again I see similar accident reports in GASIL where chaps touched down long and ran through the boundary fence causing all sort of chaos/carnage.
If a runway/airstrip is posted as being 600 metres long, then the guy who measured it stood at the very end..and measured.. to the other very end!!
Why do so many pilots (especially us recreational PPL's) chose not to land at the start of the runway? What is so Łucking attractive about the halfway point and the intrinsic "will we make or won't we" roulette?
We do ourselves very little favours when totally preventable accidents such as landing short/long occur.
Miffed 'cos my insurance over time will be recalculated to take things like this into account.
Stik
If a runway/airstrip is posted as being 600 metres long, then the guy who measured it stood at the very end..and measured.. to the other very end!!
Why do so many pilots (especially us recreational PPL's) chose not to land at the start of the runway? What is so Łucking attractive about the halfway point and the intrinsic "will we make or won't we" roulette?
We do ourselves very little favours when totally preventable accidents such as landing short/long occur.
Miffed 'cos my insurance over time will be recalculated to take things like this into account.
Stik
Guest
Posts: n/a
Maybe the art of slipping has been lost. If you are too high of fast, slip. Maybe some pilots are scared of slipping because some POH's warn against with flaps extended it eg C172. I was taught it is not a structural issue, but controlability if you get too slow. Is this correct? 172s come down quite nicely with a boot full of rudder. Or are people's feet forgeting what those things on the floor are for?
Guest
Posts: n/a
The way the PPL syllabus is taught, students are encouraged to land a third of the way into the runway, using a powered approach.
It doesn't take the application of much imagination to understand how a slight loss of airspeed control (say plus 5-10kts) can extend the touchdown point and result in long landings.
This won't be an issue at longer runways (say 1000m plus), but could effectively reduce a 600m field to 300m LDA, which is getting marginal in many light singles.
I learned at a 1600m field and did not really control the touchdown point of my landings until I moved to a 700m field and a good instructor taught me how to approach a little steeper, with less power and to aim for an early touchdown point. I have been grateful to her on many subsequent occasions.
There is an issue for recreational PPLs in that post GFT, there is no formal continuous development path and what is very a safe doctrine at student level can then become a constraint as the fledging pilot wishes to visit more challenging fields.
I approach most landings as if they are at short fields (unless runway occupancy is an issue) and find that this develops healthy skill/confidence levels and maintains currency.
It doesn't take the application of much imagination to understand how a slight loss of airspeed control (say plus 5-10kts) can extend the touchdown point and result in long landings.
This won't be an issue at longer runways (say 1000m plus), but could effectively reduce a 600m field to 300m LDA, which is getting marginal in many light singles.
I learned at a 1600m field and did not really control the touchdown point of my landings until I moved to a 700m field and a good instructor taught me how to approach a little steeper, with less power and to aim for an early touchdown point. I have been grateful to her on many subsequent occasions.
There is an issue for recreational PPLs in that post GFT, there is no formal continuous development path and what is very a safe doctrine at student level can then become a constraint as the fledging pilot wishes to visit more challenging fields.
I approach most landings as if they are at short fields (unless runway occupancy is an issue) and find that this develops healthy skill/confidence levels and maintains currency.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tigerman
The C172 manual warns against slipping, with flaps extended because the wing/fuselage configuration can lead to a very unpleasant stall/spin. In other words, when flying out of balance the wings/flaps/fuselage on one side can "blank" the other wing from the airflow causing a stall on one side, which can flip the a/c over into a spin.
Having said that, I know many pilots who have slipped a 172 with flaps and survived, but I wouldn't try it myself.
I find that slipping the 172 when clean gives a good 1500' rate of descent, which can be instantly removed without side effects, unlike flaps. Therefore I'd slip the 172 clean and then feed in flaps later in the approach - as I recall you can extend 10 degrees at up to 135kts or thereabouts and then the limit is 90 kts for the rest, so this is quite practical.
The PA28 can be slipped with 40 degrees of flaps without fear!
[This message has been edited by JamesG (edited 18 January 2001).]
[This message has been edited by JamesG (edited 18 January 2001).]
[This message has been edited by JamesG (edited 18 January 2001).]
The C172 manual warns against slipping, with flaps extended because the wing/fuselage configuration can lead to a very unpleasant stall/spin. In other words, when flying out of balance the wings/flaps/fuselage on one side can "blank" the other wing from the airflow causing a stall on one side, which can flip the a/c over into a spin.
Having said that, I know many pilots who have slipped a 172 with flaps and survived, but I wouldn't try it myself.
I find that slipping the 172 when clean gives a good 1500' rate of descent, which can be instantly removed without side effects, unlike flaps. Therefore I'd slip the 172 clean and then feed in flaps later in the approach - as I recall you can extend 10 degrees at up to 135kts or thereabouts and then the limit is 90 kts for the rest, so this is quite practical.
The PA28 can be slipped with 40 degrees of flaps without fear!
[This message has been edited by JamesG (edited 18 January 2001).]
[This message has been edited by JamesG (edited 18 January 2001).]
[This message has been edited by JamesG (edited 18 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Are people really taught to aim one third in for a normal landing? That was the initial aiming point selected for glide approaches and PFLs, with the aiming point coming back towards you as you become confident of making the runway or landing field and lower the flaps. On powered approaches I was taught to land just after the numbers. Is this unusual?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rightstuffer
Totally agree - the lady in question taught me to aim to land just after the numbers, which in turn forced the action you describe
FNG
Good question and I am thinking over why I made the statement. I seem to recall the Trevor Thom books mentioning this technique and my own experience and anecdotal evidence from others suggests that this is the case, but I may have over-generalised - think I'll ask the Flying Instructors for their comments. Thanks for the sanity check.
Totally agree - the lady in question taught me to aim to land just after the numbers, which in turn forced the action you describe
FNG
Good question and I am thinking over why I made the statement. I seem to recall the Trevor Thom books mentioning this technique and my own experience and anecdotal evidence from others suggests that this is the case, but I may have over-generalised - think I'll ask the Flying Instructors for their comments. Thanks for the sanity check.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My landing roll is about 200m and go to aerodromes with up to 3000m! Sometimes it is worth putting down near the exit to save 10 minutes taxying. I do agree that accuracy is not emphasised much these days. Perhaps clubs should do regular spot landing competitions (and precision navigation) as well as the normal fly outs.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Interesting comment about being taught a powered approach for PPL.
For my PPL syllabus, I was taught to fly a close circuit, pull the power abeam the numbers, and apply flaps on base and aim for the numbers. Essentially a glide. My instructor(s) emphasised this to practice power off for the awful day when the front goes quiet
Only when doing IFR did the concept of powered or stabilised approach become more the norm. This was mainly for ME. If your single engine stops then your glide path will be a lot steeper than in a powered approach and the near fence gets a lot nearer (or further depending on how you view matters
)
I try and treat every field as a short one and use as much flap as I feel happy with considering crosswind &c.
------------------
-.-- --.- -..-
For my PPL syllabus, I was taught to fly a close circuit, pull the power abeam the numbers, and apply flaps on base and aim for the numbers. Essentially a glide. My instructor(s) emphasised this to practice power off for the awful day when the front goes quiet
Only when doing IFR did the concept of powered or stabilised approach become more the norm. This was mainly for ME. If your single engine stops then your glide path will be a lot steeper than in a powered approach and the near fence gets a lot nearer (or further depending on how you view matters
)I try and treat every field as a short one and use as much flap as I feel happy with considering crosswind &c.
------------------
-.-- --.- -..-
Guest
Posts: n/a
Slipping a 172 is only a problem if you have more than 20 degrees of flap (per the POH), and since I've always been taught not to put in more than 20 before turning final it's easy enough to put in a slip if you're too high in the turn. I don't much care for full flap on a 172 anyway because it likes to shake, rattle & roll when the flaps hit 30.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Squark 8888 What about a 172 with 40* of flap in the correct hands a wonderful a/craft 4up full fuel and still up and down better than most smaller a/c.corse you get a bit of shaking its called bufffet or something.My memory says all U.K. 172s are placarded no side-slips with flaps extended.Must be a good reason. S&R FOUND YOUR STRIP AT THE W/END. SORRY IF MY FUN AWAKENED YOUR SLUMBER!!! BYE 4 NOW
Guest
Posts: n/a
Part of the problem is the aiming point you use on final is not the landing point, but the flare point.
Everyone is told to aim at the numbers, for example, and adjust if they seem to move up or down in the windshield. Thats fine if you don't flare, but the roundout and flare will use up about another 500ft before the wheels touch, more if you're above target airspeed.
Teaching to land a third of the way into the runway, with a powered approach, is in case the engine quits. That way, even if you land short, you're still on the runway. Not really a good idea, as even a perfect approach still leaves you with at most only 2/3 usable runway.
If the wheels are not firmly down BEFORE the first 1/3 of the runway is behind you, go around!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Without sounding like a hero, I'll just add that I have slipped a 172 with 40 degrees flap. And suvrived. I was taught to do it if nessecary by a very experienced instructor. Its probably not a good idea to fly them round uncoordinated too close to the ground, too often, cause even a 172 can bite. or so I have been told.
Cheers
Tigerman
Cheers
Tigerman
Guest
Posts: n/a
It does make you speculate about what was going on in both of the PA-28s mentioned piling in (or nearly so) at Rochester. On each occasion it must have looked well wrong. We don't know all the facts, but it's tempting to say that the instructor should have commanded the go around, or even taken over if need be (so tempting indeed that I've just said it).
It may be that people become too proud to go around, or even too worried about the bill. No one would ever admit this, though. I suspect more of the former: surely no-one really thinks about how much it's costing them when on short final?
[This message has been edited by FNG (edited 19 January 2001).]
It may be that people become too proud to go around, or even too worried about the bill. No one would ever admit this, though. I suspect more of the former: surely no-one really thinks about how much it's costing them when on short final?
[This message has been edited by FNG (edited 19 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
FNG
The result of the flying instructors responses does not lead to a firm conclusion, although one reply suggests that PAPI/VASIs should be used if available, which would tend to put you some way in I would have thought and an Australin instructor mentions crossing the threshold at 50' which would put the pilot some way in.
Therefore I think my assertion would probably better be stated in terms that the PPL training encourages the student to land WITHIN the first third of the runway.
Taking into account some of the other comments here and some of the instructors comments about needlessly high approach speeds, a picture crystallises in my mind of execcisve floating and indecision leading to the aeroplane deciding the outcome/
Alan Bramson used to author a column (in Flyer I think) using the strapline "Who was in control, the pilot or the plane"; cruel perhaps, but in this instance perhaps healthy food for thought.
As stiknruda says, we all ultimately pay the price for these bangs, just let's be thankful that it is a financial cost only at Rochester.
The result of the flying instructors responses does not lead to a firm conclusion, although one reply suggests that PAPI/VASIs should be used if available, which would tend to put you some way in I would have thought and an Australin instructor mentions crossing the threshold at 50' which would put the pilot some way in.
Therefore I think my assertion would probably better be stated in terms that the PPL training encourages the student to land WITHIN the first third of the runway.
Taking into account some of the other comments here and some of the instructors comments about needlessly high approach speeds, a picture crystallises in my mind of execcisve floating and indecision leading to the aeroplane deciding the outcome/
Alan Bramson used to author a column (in Flyer I think) using the strapline "Who was in control, the pilot or the plane"; cruel perhaps, but in this instance perhaps healthy food for thought.
As stiknruda says, we all ultimately pay the price for these bangs, just let's be thankful that it is a financial cost only at Rochester.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm bound to say that I thought the suggestion of using glideslope indicators as a training device a poor idea, as surely pilots should be taught to operate from any type of runway. At most GA fields the only indicator you get is the numbers and many strips don't even have those, so flying by basic principles rather than using big-aeroplane props seems more sensible to me.
Thanks to Nimbus for sensible advice.
Re approach speeds: you often hear people say "such and such an aeroplane has a tendency to float". I said this to my instructor one day and he replied "no they don't: people have a tendency to fly them 5 or 10 knots too fast into the flare".
Lastly, a pity that these prangs occurred at embattled Rochester and not at secure Biggin where the naughty aeroplanes came from.
Thanks to Nimbus for sensible advice.
Re approach speeds: you often hear people say "such and such an aeroplane has a tendency to float". I said this to my instructor one day and he replied "no they don't: people have a tendency to fly them 5 or 10 knots too fast into the flare".
Lastly, a pity that these prangs occurred at embattled Rochester and not at secure Biggin where the naughty aeroplanes came from.