Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Flying Instructors & Examiners
Reload this Page >

Over the fence throttle setting

Flying Instructors & Examiners A place for instructors to communicate with one another because some of them get a bit tired of the attitude that instructing is the lowest form of aviation, as seems to prevail on some of the other forums!

Over the fence throttle setting

Old 4th Oct 2010, 22:55
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I must be quite different from quite a few pilots who post here.

When flying single engine airplanes I try and plan my approaches to the landing area at a vertical approach angle that will allow me to either land on the airport or on a nearby clear area if available should the engine fail.

Three degree approach angles never enter my mind when flying singles.

I do not fly single engine IFR in IMC.

I do not fly single engine wheel airplanes beyond gliding distance of land.

I do not fly single engine airplanes at night except in the circuit for training.....and that was some years ago.

I am a firm believer in stacking the cards in my favor when ever possible because there will be enough times when one has to increase the risk factors without doing it for no good reason. .
Chuck Ellsworth is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2010, 23:10
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: N/A
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Recomend that you find out what FAR-23 and CS-23 are and then review your post.
I did have a look in FAR-23 and can't see any reason for a review of my last post. FAR Part 23 seems to be all about airworthiness standards for normal, utility, aerobatic and commuter category of aircraft.

In a nutshell: A long list of important requirements and methods to find out if a modern aircraft can be granted an airworthiness certificate.

I did not find any paragraph talking about light aircraft doing 3 degree approaches. Please point out the correct paragraph for me, I would like to see what FAR-23 has to say about the matter.

What I did find though is how you measure the maximum travelled distance in still air when you have an engine failure.

Far Part § 23.71:
The maximum horizontal distance travelled in still air, in nautical miles, per 1,000 feet of altitude lost in glide, and the speed necessary to achieve this must be determined with the engine inoperative , its propeller in the minimum drag position, and landing gear and wing flaps in the most favourable available position.

The method of testing this doesn't come as a surprise to me, but I think you (DFC) and others teaching 3 degree approaches religiously in light aircraft should go up in your training aircraft (don't bring a student) and switch that engine off when you have established yourself on final approach (I have a feeling that some of you teach 4 mile finals as well).

Yes, you will discover that you can't glide a 3 degree approach! Make sure you get that engine started again before its to late.

The students of yours that forget to set fuel to rich or forget carb-heat on a murky day might not be able to get that engine going again.

As an instructor, can you please let us have a drawing of the runway aspect you teach
I'm not an instructor, but I do have a night rating and have not bent any aircraft yet If you still would like to have my non-instructor view on the matter let me know. I doubt you want to hear anything from someone with my opinion, maybe since this is an instructors forum and non-instructors and students should keep away? .

If I interpret your statement correctly, I must conclude that instrument flying on single engine aircraft is inherently unsafe and should not be taught. Are you really saying that? ]
No, you didn't interpret me correctly.

If I fly IFR in clouds at FL40 and we have a cloud base well above MSA I don't think instrument flying is unsafe. With the correct traffic service it might actually be more safe than staying at a crowded VFR level.

If I continue on a 3 degree approach in a SEP with nowhere to glide clear on a sunny day when I could have chosen to fly differently I do believe my choice was wrong and inherently unsafe.

If I'm tracking an ILS on a 3 degree approach in a SEP with nowhere to glide clear In IFR conditions I do think its inherently unsafe, but I'm aware of the risk and will do it anyway.

And Finally:

If I, as a student, track an ILS on a 3 degree approach in a SEP with nowhere to glide clear on a sunny day I will accept the risk, but I would also know that I should use a totally different approach when I fly VFR because my instructor taught me this in a solid way during my PPL studies.

DFS: We don't need FAR-23 to be capable of applying some common sense.

Last edited by Intercepted; 4th Oct 2010 at 23:21.
Intercepted is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2010, 05:53
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, DFC is sort of right

CS23.75

The horizontal distance necessary to land and come to a complete stop from a point 15 m (50 ft) above the landing surface must be determined, for standard temperatures at each weight and altitude within the operational limits established for landing, as follows:
(a) A steady approach at not less than VREF, determined in accordance with CS 23.73 (a), (b) or (c) as appropriate, must be maintained down to 15 (landing m (50 ft) height and –
(1) The steady approach must be at a gradient of descent not greater than 5·2% (3°) down to the 15 m (50 ft) height.
(2) In addition, an applicant may demonstrate by tests that a maximum steady approach gradient, steeper than 5·2% (3°), down to the 15 m (50 ft) height is safe. The gradient must be established as an operating limitation and the information necessary to display the gradient must be available to the pilot by an appropriate instrument.
(b) A constant configuration must be main- tained throughout the manoeuvre;
(c) The landing must be made without excessive vertical acceleration or tendency to bounce, nose-over, ground loop, porpoise or water loop.
Personally I'll stick with the 'picture' I know works. I haven't got a clue what glideslope that presents.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2010, 12:37
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Cows Getting Bigger
Personally I'll stick with the 'picture' I know works. I haven't got a clue what glideslope that presents.
Thank you
Dan the weegie is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2010, 08:55
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: ireland
Age: 38
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DFC... Oh dear, oh dear...

I just can't see there being any hope for somebody with their head shoved so far up the regulatory arse.

I prefer to leave my additional mental capacity intact for flying the aeroplane when it's required as opposed to memorising a hundred and one useless regs.

So how do you handle gusting conditions? Do you refer to the industry approved manual before commencing each approach with these conditions forecast? Or can you just fly?

ei-flyer is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2010, 09:06
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think the point about quoting CS23 et al is that the aircraft operating data is derived from the tests and criteria as defined in the specification. I agree, I wouldn't personally be getting hung-up about the precise specification as far as glidepath angles are concerned but it is of passing interest to know how the performance data is derived.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2010, 18:30
  #27 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ontario Canada Gulf Coast USA
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good posts all!

My OP was due to my observation of students being taught or at least allowed to chop power on short final. Depending on wind conditions it was interesting to watch and sometimes I literally flinched seeing the results while watching from the ground of course.

I was taught both ways, however I usually carry some power over the Airport property line and reduce gradually until idle power at the flare.

I agree in today,s trainers and glide ratios it would be impossible to Pwr off Glide to R/W @ 500' AGL and a 1 mile final into wind on a 3 deg glide slope.
Thankfully we have a few golf cources near the airport.

I like the use of PAPI(3 deg) on short final as it aides in sink rate recognition among other things, but I dont use it much further out than approx. half mile when on final.

Many of the students at the airport I fly out of are training to eventually become ATP in their respective countries, they use the 3 deg approach but again they turn from base to a 3/4 mile final. Noise abatement won't allow a 20 mile 3 deg slope.

Anyway, so far some very interesting and experience based posts.

Last edited by CanAmdelta1; 6th Oct 2010 at 18:34. Reason: spelling
CanAmdelta1 is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2010, 09:47
  #28 (permalink)  
DFC
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
it is of passing interest to know how the performance data is derived.
I would say that in every case it is of more than a "passing interest" to decide if you have enought runway to land on or not...........unless you laways use 10,000ft runways in a C172.

Unless you follow exactly the method specifed in the manual - you will never get anywhere near the book figures. No one is going to do the book procedure perfectly so to allow for day to day slight differences we factor the figures.

However, As I pointed out earlier, if you look at the book figures derived under FAR-23 (been around for a loong time so not just new aircraft) or CS-23 you will see that while landing, the difference between the published landing distance and the ground roll will not be anything close to 1000ft (300m) - 150m being more typical.

So if you fly a 3 degree approach to the 50ft point as the test pilot did, you can not - as many schools teach - continue this stable 3 degree line to a few feet above the runway, round-out and land without exceeding the book figure by some 150m or more.

That is the point I was making and that is where CS-23 etc comes into relevance.

------------

ei-flyer,

I prefer to leave my additional mental capacity intact for flying the aeroplane when it's required as opposed to memorising a hundred and one useless regs.
Some people can fly a perfect aerobatic sequence while reciting the 13 times tables. Not everyone is limited to the same extent.

Depending on what you fly you will have learned parts of CS-23 / FAR-23 and perhaps BCARs and Annex 8 and so many other documents that it would make your head spin - but of course, you simply saw "Pilot Training Manual" on the cover. So if you fly you do know (or did at some stage) "a hundred and one useless regs". You just don't know where they come from or have not realised yet that they were not invented by ther author of the manual you used to learn to fly or your instructor!!

--------

I like the use of PAPI(3 deg) on short final as it aides in sink rate recognition among other things, but I dont use it much further out than approx. half mile when on final.
Why do you need PAPI to make a judgement. Isn't the whole idea of runway shape / aspect that you don't need PAPI?

PAPI are less and less useful as one approaches the threshold and therefore if you are going to use them it should be from as far out as possible - when you break cloud - until it is confirmed that you are stabilised but not in the last few seconds of the approach and never inside the threshold.

PAPI are only required in specific cases - most GA fields don't have them and don't need them. Even at night I prefer to have them off so that the student can learn the correct runway aspect and then have them turned on during an approahc to confirm to the studen that they can fly an appropriate approach without PAPI - provided that they get the picture correct. (note the singular of picture is used).
DFC is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2010, 10:05
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Lurking within the psyche of Dave Sawdon
Posts: 771
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
"Some people can fly a perfect aerobatic sequence while reciting the 13 times tables." Damn, I didn't think anyone was listening it must be that sticky PTT again.

(Sorry, now back to the discussion)
hugh flung_dung is online now  
Old 7th Oct 2010, 10:58
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18m N of LGW
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The book that will teach you to fly has never been written.

And neither will it be written.

Listen to Chuck Ellsworth, he uses common sense as each good pilot does. Quoting this section or that section in either FAA or CAA rules is, to be frank, stupid. They are a guide of course but you cannot teach someone to fly by them - what value would they be? To use them as a guide to basic flying is sheer rot.

Each flight - ANYONE - makes will, in some small detail, or large, be different from the next and a student or professional will need to know that. Mother nature will be different, the aircraft will often fly differently to the last one you flew - even if it is the same type. YOU, yourself, might feel 'different' in some way physiological way. That is the way it is.

Chuck mentions using power to land, only after he knows that they guy he is with can do each approach and landing without it. Think about that. It is almost natural and certainly gives the student a lot of confidence when he knows in HIS own mind that he can control an aircraft, so where does 3 degrees come from? They use 5 degrees at LCY, so what? It would not be necessary for a light aircraft to use either. However, if you have an instrument rating you will follow the basics and that's that!

I have flown more than a 100 different types, many of them single seat singles. In the latter, no-one tells you that you should do this or do that other than speeds and other important pointers so you use your skills learned from doing things the right way - then you will feel confident when you get behind some real power built into a flighty type.

Its all a case of common sense skills and using them to pass on to someone else. Or to use yourself since a good instructor or check pilot will need hone his own skills for the benefit of others.

So, it is disturbing to see so much emphasis placed upon this or that section is some book or another - that is called 'book-airmanship", which has little to do with the ACTUAL flying - that comes from within and, as I said, it is all you need to to keep an aeroplane in the air and deal with it if it decides it no longer wants be there.

There is nothing very difficult about flying these days but I do recall instances when pilots thought they knew it all and I would have to switch over to my special demonstrations that no book ever mentioned. How to recover from an aircraft that bites when you are getting cocky. That usually did it.

I have not ventured here for some time but I am surprised DFC is still spouting off his rules and regs. That is something for a student to learn at home. You cannot read it in the air. As for instructors, there was once man called Bunny Branson, a man sometimes given to slight eccentricities, but nonetheless an instructors instructor. He would not tolerate BS but he would compliment good teaching.

Last edited by InFinRetirement; 7th Oct 2010 at 16:36.
InFinRetirement is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2010, 13:06
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DFC, as ever, personal abuse comes to the fore and you really can be a condescending c***.

You'll be pleased to know that, like many, I teach at an airfield where the runways are significantly shorter that 10000ft (somewhere between 510-750m) and we cannot fly 3deg glidepaths due to the surrounding terrain (if we did, we would be 'landing' in a suburban back garden at about 3/4 of a mile). Surprisingly, we still achieve landing distances comparable with the book.

CS-23 remains merely of a passing interest to the majority of instructors who, despite your remonstrations, manage to produce largely safe pilots..

PS. If I follow the precise procedure as laid down in the C172SP AFM, what 'speed' should I be flying the approach at? The 'book' says 65-75kts and one presumes this figure is derived from ops at MAUW. What if I am 300-400lbs less than MAUW? The book doesn't tell me.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2010, 13:22
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 331
Received 7 Likes on 3 Posts
Excellent post Chuck. The topic sorted in a nutshell.
biscuit74 is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2010, 15:15
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Age: 85
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chuck says it all...

When flying single engine airplanes I try and plan my approaches to the landing area at a vertical approach angle that will allow me to either land on the airport or on a nearby clear area if available should the engine fail.

..you try coming in at three degrees with an X-Air
funfly is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2010, 20:31
  #34 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ontario Canada Gulf Coast USA
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In ref. to DFC
Quote:

I just can't see there being any hope for somebody with their head shoved so far up the regulatory arse.

I can see.....a glass belly button would allow him to see clearly from his current cranial position!!!

And DFC I never said I NEEDED a PAPI to make a judgement you inferred that to me, here's a tip for you Sunshine, don't speak for me.
CanAmdelta1 is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2015, 15:45
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Roland Bee Beaumont

Dear Sir, Madam,

My name is Richard Simpson and I am trying to get hold of some of the relatives of Roland 'Bee' Beaumont. (I apologise for posting on this thread but I know one of your members here (InFinRetirement) posted an obituary up on the site a number of years ago and said he knew Beaumont's daughter: http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/2...-has-died.html

I'm trying to get in contact because I work for a digital publishers and we're trying to see if Ms Beaumont would be interested in republishing some of her father's works like 'Fighter Test Pilot'. If any of you can help me get in contact with Ms Beaumont that would be greatly appreciated.

Best wishes,
Richard Simpson
[email protected]
richardsimpson is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.