The comments I might make would be
(a) STOL is not a civilian operation. The certification addresses the normal sort of approach .. not a near stall beastie. I would be very reluctant to play with this in anger if it had not been investigated formally.
(b) an engine failure becomes a guaranteed crash in all likelihood for a very low speed approach. My attitude is that one is better to land very definitely under control and take the risk of a possible overrun if the assessment turns out to be wrong (terrain having been considered) rather than spearing in short after losing control.
(c) there may be undesirable longitudinal stability problems, especially with a bigger motor, trying to shoot an approach at the lower speeds .. especially in the event of a missed approach .. even the lovely old SuperCub is a handful (and footful to help the hands trying to push the stick forward) on a missed approach ... maybe the 30 year gap since I last flew one has mellowed the recollection .. but the basics are still correct.
(d) as we are talking precautionary landings, there is the inference of sufficient time to make a detailed assessment of the relevant paddocks so the probability is that there will not be too many surprises .. the only times I have frightened myself a little in years gone by on glider paddock retrieves is (as is sometimes the case) having to approach into sun in the late afternoon...
(e) I would keep in mind that the origin of performance landing data in the books involves a worked up mathematical model for the aircraft which is validated by a TP doing his best to get "good" data. The most exciting (terrifying ?) of my flying has been on just such flights in GA aircraft.
One ought not to expect that one, being an ordinary sort of mug pilot, can achieve anything like what the usual test program might demonstrate. The sort of flare which I have seen some TPs do is not, shall we say, what you or I might do in normal operations. Far better to do a nice, stabilised approach and a well controlled flare with minimum float and an early touchdown.
Trying for a dive at the ground to save a few yards ground roll is just plain silly. The risks associated with destabilising an approach are great .. and there is the very real risk, on occasion, of doing the nosewheel in due to an inappropriate assessment of the surface hardness.
(f) I would be most reluctant to try for a near stall touchdown ... difficult to control the touchdown and, in any case, the aircraft decelerates far better on the ground under braking than it does in the air. No percentage at all in doing this ... quite silly
Last edited by john_tullamarine; 18th Jun 2002 at 01:30.