PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Stable approach?
View Single Post
Old 15th January 2002 | 05:53
  #5 (permalink)  
broadreach
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
From: Scotland
Post

Coming from a non-pilot this post may be irritating to some; it's only meant to be provocative. I live, by choice, at the aeronautical equivalent of Dylan's "down at the end of Bleeker Street" and I watch many approaches and departures at the airport a few hundred metres away. To the extent that I think I can identify some individual PICs.

I understand a stable approach to be one where the aircraft is within certain parameters which will lead it to touchdown with a safe margin for braking and minor errors.

I've forgotten most of what Ian Dixon wrote in "Flying the Big Jets" back in 1965 or thereabouts but one of the things I do remember was that the more time you have to line up the better your landing is likely to be; and the less time you have, the more haphazard etc. Having to weave back and forth to get the numbers in position during the last 500 metres distracts from other important things. So, if at all possible, go for the long, straight in, approach.

Now, Bleeker Street allows long approaches every time when landing from the north (from the south is another matter altogether as there's a big rock in the way but that's not the issue here). And most landings from the north are long and straight. The single exception is in one airline where I believe the PIC is, to put it bluntly, having his rocks off.

His approach involves a low pass over the tower (positioned approx mid-field) followed by an immediate tight left turn. No downwind or base, just a tight circle into what is almost invariably a wings-level touchdown within 300 metres of the numbers and no more than moderate use of reverse thrust, turning off well before the last exit. A lovely sight, smooth, precious little in the way of corrections, like a bird alighting on a branch in still winter air.

Almost invariably. Every occasionally the aircraft is a bit off and in the last 500 metres he dances around like an epileptic on a pogo stick. At those times I charitably suspect the master was indoctrinating a pupil. But then I wonder whether that's the time and the place. How do you define the borderline between dreary, boring safety and a little bit of fun? And if he's really in instructor mode, how much margin is he allowing his pupil? As a matter of interest there is water at either end of the runway. And a rocky breakwater at one end which would do no end of damage to the undercarriage.

I think that, if I had ever become a pilot, I would have fallen on the side of "fun". Which is probably sufficiently good reason for not having followed that route.

What do you think?

broadreach
broadreach is offline