Fly 'em like an airliner?

[Tricky Woo]

Well do you?

The recent thread on landings seems to have digressed (nicely, I might add) into a discussion on differing philosophies as how to fly a light aircraft.

My simple question is whether a light aircraft can and should be flown like a much larger aircraft? Three degree approaches, cross-country-circuits, and nailing the speed to 'exactly 54 knots', indicates an airliner culture, methinks. Not a 'wrong' culture, but a 'different' one.

T'other camp is far more seat-of-pants than this. It's also where I've set up my tent, to be honest.

Discuss.

TW

[tacpot]

I think we must be camping on the same site!

To fly a light aircraft like a heavy aircraft ingores the fundamental nature of the aircraft you're are flying. What professional pilot would ignore anything different about the type he was flying?

So three degree approachs, and x-country circuits are out, but precision in light aircraft flying DOES get my my vote. If the POH/FM says 54 knots, you should try to fly at 54 knots. You'll fail of course, but to try is divine and to fail is just human.

Jonathon Livingston tacpot.

[ 20 August 2001: Message edited by: tacpot ]

[Kermit 180]

Agreed, its the freedom and 'seat of the pants' aspect of light aircraft flying that is so unique and fun. Be precise but enjoy the flying, enjoy the views, enjoy challenging yourself on approaches into strips etc.

Kermie

[Go-Around]

I thought it would have been to everyone's advantage to fly as accurate as possible.
What's the point of just bimbling around at any old speed. As said above, if the book say 92kts, then try for 92kts, accurate
timing and naviagation.
After a while it should become second nature and makes the step up to bigger, better things much easier.
BTW, what's a cross country "circuit"?
GA

[Mister Gash]

When didya last see a 747 being spun, looped and rolled? :D

[Simon W]

I was also wondering, what is a "xcountry circuit"?

[Tiger_ Moth]

Tricky thats partly why I decided to learn on Tigers. Cessnas and stuff are flown and treated like airliners despite being so small and i cant stand that. And I also hate all this VOR needle, tracking radar talk. Sounds like something youd expect in an airliner.

[Tricky Woo]

Simon W,

You'll see 'cross country circuits' demonstrated at an airfield near you.

Take powerful binoculars.

TW

[PPRuNe Dispatcher]

In his book "Make Better Landings" Alan Bramson has this to say about extended circuits :

"One school with a reputation for this technique was the Norfolk and Essex Flying Club, so-called because its circuits took in most of the county of Norfolk and all of Essex."

--Mik

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Fly accurately at all times in every aeroplane you captain - but bomber command circuits are for bombers. And 3 degree approaches and rotate speeds are for multi engine parrafin burners off loooong runways -both are WRONG for SE light aircraft. IMHO, of course ;~)

SSD

[A7E Driver]

And just what is so aggravating about a 3 degree approach?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

SD

How about engine failure at 2 mile final??

How about causing an aerial taffic jam as your 3 degree approach neccesites a mega final (therefore a bomber circuit) to fit it in?

In a SE VFR light aircraft, keep it tight, keep it close, keep it professional.

SSD

[ 20 August 2001: Message edited by: Shaggy Sheep Driver ]

[Tricky Woo]

I see that this thread is heating up nicely.

TW

[Skylark4]

How`s your flying going Tiger Moth, are you having trouble getting it on the ground properly. You and I operate at the same speed, about 60 knots and I don`t think big circuits suit either of us.
Mike W

[A7E Driver]

Shaggy Sheep -- you are mixing up a number of issues. I always fly 3 degree approaches --- but have never flown a two mile final while VFR except when forced to by others who lack pattern discipline. When I do have to extend --- I push over on final when the approach is 3 degrees. What's the problem? (A 3 degree IFR approach is required by the procedure. Surely you are not arguing with that.)

I wish everyone would fly 3 degree approaches --- these guys that drag it in in the weeds scare the hell out of me.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

SD

if you fly a 3 degree approach even at 2 miles you'd only be at 600 feet !! Just how low do you turn final??

How do you combine a neat visual ciruit with 3 degree approach??

3 degrees *is* dragging it in through the weeds - chop the power on final and see how far short of the field you'll fall.

Yes, for IFR procedure traffic the ILS is usually 3 degrees. It's optimised for multi engine jet transports, not SE light aircraft.

SSD

[Tricky Woo]

Mr Static,

Some of us consider a three degree approach in a light aircraft flying VFR to be 'dragging it through the weeds'.

I fully agree that an IFR approach is more often at three degrees, seeing as that's the usual ILS glideslope, or whatever. However, I think this discussion is concentrating on VFR circuits and approaches. Presumably you only ever fly on IMC days?

TW

[poetpilot]

I prefer the 45 degree rule when I'm in the circuit. That is, if the threshold (or a threshold) is less than 45 degrees to me then I may well not make it back if the donk stops.

This was brought home to me back in 84 when I was flying a VP1 (arguably one of the draggiest machines around). I had an engine failure at 1500 feet upwind of the airfield on a straight climbout (wind down the runway at c.12kts).

I elected to go back to the field because I considered I had enough height to do so. The drag effect was similar to a C150 with full flap on approach. I made it back to the active threshold but only by flying a steady, shallow 360 degree turn. A conventional circuit would not have got me back to it.

Thereafter, I have always tried to make my circuits and approaches tight enough to at least get to the field boundary should I lose power.

[A7E Driver]

I'm very surprised by these comments recommending a "do it yourself glideslope."

How often is it that engines suddenly fail during the last 1.5 minutes of the approach? 1 in a million? Perhaps.

How often is it that someone prangs one in because he screwed up the flare because he was way too high and then pushes over the nose to "get it down" --- or runs off the end of the runway because he comes in too high/hot --- or almost takes out the boundary fence because he equates being low/flat with a greaser.

Sorry guys. Go stand at the end of the runway some Saturday and look at the show. Very entertaining --- but don't take your children. No --- I'll continue to risk life and limb and fly a 3 degree stable approach from 1.5 miles. And no lectures about long finals please. My 600 carrier landings averaged an 8 second wings level final. I know what a tight pattern is.

[poetpilot]

Careful - you are now using conjecture rather than real statistics to back up your arguments. If engine failures on final are indeed 1 in a million then I should have been a Lottery winner by now.... I have either seen at first hand or heard from fellow pilots of this occurring at least 6 times over a 20 year period. It's happened to me once. Quite common in VW engined aircraft, A65s, C90s when despite carb heat they ice up.

The next statement is much more to do with pilots knowing how to hold their speeds and fly accurately down whatever angle glidepath they choose, so that they arrive at the correct landing point, at the correct speed & attitude, pointing in the correct direction, rounding out correctly & of course stopping in a straight line.

Saturday moprnings or indeed any other times are always entertaining at GA/light aircraft fields - people have to learn to fly you know, and they only learn by getting it wrong before they get it right (even when they are qualified).

Although I don't doubt your abilities, and have every respect & a high regard for your carrier experience, at least you had a hook to stop you!!!! (sorry, couldnt resist that). But even as a lowly PPL I can claim many more landings than that at a field with short runways close to a built up area.

Could I ask you something - would you adjust your rule if your home airfield's main runway approach was over a heavily built up area with no let out should your donk stop one day at 1.3 miles? One of our guys didnt. He was lucky when he landed on the sewage farm in nice new Cessna. He got out, but the plane was cut in two by the sewage sweeper rotor arm. His fuel guages showed quarter full of course so he knew his engine wouldnt stop.

Or would you be thinking about the traffic in front of and behind you (which may include anything from microlights to a fast twin) when you set yourself up on the base leg prior to turning finals? Lots of traffic, different speeds, a radio advisory service only and you have to start making lots of decisions to remain safe and considerate, not just sticking to what is best for yourself.

[Tricky Woo]

I wonder how long it would take a J3 Cub (65hp, cruise about 50 knots) ) with a 10 knot headwind to make a one and a half mile approach, all at three degrees? SSD is good at these sorts of sums, so I'll leave it to him. Of course, no one would dream of flying a J3 like that.

Ok, so this is a rhetorical question simply to show that something has gone a bit strange with the way pilots are looking at their light aircraft. The easiest retort is that an Archer or whatever is a different beastie. Agreed! But both aircraft are picking their way around the same circuit.

The amazing thing is that I'd much rather have an engine failure in a Cub than an Archer, even though the temptation to fly the Archer like a sodding Boeing 737 would make things even worse.

TW

[poetpilot]

I think the best thing I could say in terms of this discusssion is............

"Whilst "by the book" procedures, speeds, rules etc are laudable and good for the purposes of training and use in the ideal situations, we tend to stay alive in this game by knowing the theory, respecting it, but using it as a benchmark.

When we are in situations that demand variances, we have to quickly assimilate the contributing factors & accept them. These can be pilot, aircraft, other aircraft, ground facilities & guidance, weather, whether we have an exceptional situation or not, etc, etc, etc.

When we are in a situation where the factors start to make the "airliner" rules illogical and in some cases downright unsafe or inconsiderate, then we have to use our skill and experience to do the best thing and still pull off a safe and accurate landing.

Key to this is developing a more intimate knowledge of our own and our aircraft's capabilities & limitations. If we do not know this, then we are a potential liability to ourselves and others and should stay on the ground.

If you live by rules rigidly, then one day the commonest rule - Murphy's Law - will inevitably wake up and bite you on the bum.

[Tiger_ Moth]

i know im inexpierienced but 3 degrees sounds downright immoral in a light aircraft.

Lessons are going well skylark but ive had 3 cancellations so ive only had 4 lessons. Next lesson will be slow flight.

Static, when were you on a carrier and what did you fly?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

It's a wind-up. Got to be.

The 'carrier' ?

Not one of HM's or US of A's, I'd venture a guess.

SSD

[A7E Driver]

Tiger --- I must be missing something. Hasn't your instructor told you to try to roll out on final at 450-500 feet? Has he explained the vasi / papi system and how to use them to assist with proper glideslope? Has he introduced you to the approach sight picture? If the answer to any of the above is yes -- you are flying a 3 degree glideslop (OK -- sometimes a 3.25 approach).

Please don't listen to these guys who improvise as they go along. Contrary to Poet's comment, I ask who has more more accidents - guys who follow religiously standardised and well-proven procedures ---- or the fals Top Guns who "really know how to fly an airplane.

Guys please --- don't screw up students with thinking like this. If you old timers want to do it ---- OK by me --- but don't tell students this is good practice.

And yes --- I am really ex-USN. A7s, Super Etendards (French Navy -- long story) and finally F18s. My time off is now spent in an Arrow --- flying 1.5 mile finals. ;-)

[Tricky Woo]

Nope, not a wind-up. Wannabe airline pilot playing at Airbus in a sodding Arrow. I shudder to think.

TW

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

3 degrees at 1.5 miles - so you're sitting there in your Cherrytree at 450 feet QFe 1.5 miles out. If TW is correct, and this isn't a wind-up, then you are a menace to other in the circuit and everyone living on the (very) extended centerline of any field you visit.

Carrier pilots *know* how to fly. You, apparently, don't. Was it Pickfords you were with?

SSD

[A7E Driver]

Tiger -- don't listen to me. Ask a CFI. Any CFI --- to explain to you about approach altitudes, touch down aim points, and standardised approaches. Please don't listen to the extremely questionable advice on this board. And good flying on 'ya.

[long final]

Once new a guy called Ronchonner, musta defected ...... ;)

[Skylark4]

Someone earlier mentioned the 45 degree rule and thats what I work to. In a glider you can be a bit further out than that but too far and it feels most uncomfortable. O.K., the engine was never there but you would be surprised at how much height you can lose in an area of sinking air, not half as uncomfortable as you will be, two miles out at 650 ft. in a light a/c..
Lets have some input from those who have been there and done that. Have YOU ever had the donk stop on you and what was the result?
Anyone out there from Kidlington? Has it ever happened there?

Mike W

[Tricky Woo]

About time there was a decent fight on this forum. Right, where're my knuckle-dusters? You lot 'ave 'ad it now...

TW

[BEagle]

I agree wholheartedly that the 3 deg approach is inappropriate in SEP aircraft. The 'runway aspect' should be used to assess final approach angle, NOT reliance upon 3 deg PAPIs/VASIs.
As an aside, when CFS came to do their annual visit to the better UAS at Benson, one of their Jet Provost background people queried why we weren't flying 3 deg approaches. It was pointed out that the standard Bulldog circuit (using that '45 deg rule') resulted in a steeper approach path. He was sceptical, so I did some calculations based on the '400 ft point' which they insist upon and proved that the resulting approach angle would be 5.4 deg. He then admitted that he was wrong; I also showed that if he really wanted us to fly 3 deg approaches, then the '400 ft point' would have to be renamed as the '222 ft point' - an absurdly low height to roll out at on final for a basic student.

Leave 3 deg approaches to those with more than one engine - or with a bang seat! The 'dragging it in from 2 miles out' approach one meets at places like Kidlington is wholly WRONG for a SEP aeroplane!

[Kermit 180]

Good post Tricky Woo, love the way its going.

Right, I'm in for a scrap. 3 degree-ers - vs - eyeballers.

Kerms :mad:

[A7E Driver]

Let's do a little math guys. Will you grant me a 3000 foot distance abeam. I know -- a little wide --- but if you first climb to 400-500 before turning --- you still have another 400-500 feet to go to pattern altitude = 1 minute of flying crosswind. So assume 3000 feet abeam on downwind. If you turn when the threshold is 45 degrees behind you (a little late in my opinion -- but OK). That puts the start of the turn to base (using 45/45/90 trig) at 3000 feet past the threshold. Assume 10 knots of wind down the runway = 17 feet per second drift. Assume one minute time from start of turn to base to start of turn to final = 60x17 =another 1020 feet from the threshold due to wind drift (and probably more because that would be a rather quick base). Assume 80 knot indicated during the turn to base = 133 feet/sec (I fly my Arrow 100/90/80 kts --- so would be a little more). OK the 90 degree turn to base takes 20-25 seconds --- so let's just take half of that as direct downwind distance at 133 feet/sec = another 1600 feet downwind to complete the turn to base. OK let's add it up:

3000 feet past threshold start turn
1020 feet for 10 knot wind
1600 feet for aircraft turn radius at 80 kts
500-700 feet from threshold to touch down point

Total distance = 6320 feet = 1.2 miles

OK you micro light guys can do it much tighter --- but I maintain my case that 1.25 - 1.5 mile final at 500 foot glideslope intercept is about right. +/- 0.5 miles to allow speed difference in Cessnas/Pipers.

BTW, in fighters we didn't fly a base leg. 1.1 nm abeam at 800 feet -- continuous spiral to final at 27 degrees angle of bank --- aiming for about 600 feet at the 90 and rolling wings level at 450 feet.

[poetpilot]

Well, Mr Static, you can take the 1000 odd feet off for crosswind drift for a start. If you are flying a circuit correctly, on ANY leg of the circuit you offset drift (unless of course you really want to be drifted).

Look, I again state I have every respect for your experience and abilities. But I just hope to hell that you dont have that engine on your Arrow quit on you when you're over a town or highway on the way in to a field.

It may help here to state that the average light aircraft field in the UK tends to be a bit more cramped than those that one finds in the States, that unless you are using a decent, large field you are unlikely to have VASI/PAPIs, and nine times out of ten you are mixing it in the circuit with many different types travelling at many different speeds. If you did your approach at Barton on 27 I think you may not be very popular with the circuit traffic or the tower guys.

On top of that, the terrain around our airfields is not always as flat and predictable as you may get in the states, and there are all sorts of obstacles we have to contend with. Indeed, some fields (Popham being an example) wont even allow you to make a straight approach to one of their runways, due to obstructions.

Re: the 45 degree rule - I believe this is standard in terms of glider training (I did 700 launches way back at the start of my flying career), certainly in the UK. When I progressed to flying light aircraft, back in 70s, there was still a fair number of ex-military people who instructed. I learnt most of my skills from them and they've never let me down. I have suffered 4 engine failures (only one on finals I grant you) and always got back to earth without a scratch, thank God.

One of the reasons why you may not hear of engine stoppages on finals is that in many (hopefully most) cases, the pilot pulls off a landing on the field without further incident BECAUSE they made allowances for such a contingency. I would seriously advise you to get overhead your local field and switch off (YES switch off) your engine when in the landing configuration. Check out just how she performs flaps down and dragging that static prop through the air. Yes, slow it up so the prop stops - because it might just do that if the engine is seizing or you are slow on speed.

Handy Hint - Just make sure when you do it that you do not attempt to fly a 3 degree approach, please!

Examples I've seen/experienced.........

1. Myself in a VP1, over the hedge at 45kts, about 50 feet up. Carb ice. got down ok.

2. Tipsy Nipper, twice on finals at about 300 feet. Carb ice. Got down OK.

3. Jodel D112. A65. carb ice or fuel contamination. about 200 feet on finals. Got down OK.

4. Cessna 172. Approaching on PAPIs (my best mate flying). landed short in a field (no damage). Faulty readings on fuel guages. He learnt about flying from that (certainly learnt about Cessna fuel guages).

5. Cessna 172RG (I think - may have been a 206). Dragging it into Barton on a long approach. landed in the sewage farm. aircraft written off. pilot ok. Faulty readings on fuel gauges. He had enough money to go and buy something else.

6. Grob on the downwind on a reasonably windy day, just 2 weeks ago. Landed on the golf course because there was no way he could get back to the field. Subject to investigation so will not comment on the cause. Both occupants ok, in my opinion he did totally the right thing in choosing where to land. Plane banged its nosewheel and prop in a bunker.

Interesting, eh? The guys flying the airliner approach didnt make it. Everyone else did. I'll exclude the downwind incident from my judgement - I wasnt there, wasnt in the plane, but I wonder what his aspect of the airfield was at the point when the engine stopped. Bet it was shallower than 45 degrees.

Look, if it can happen, it will happen. It's always best to make sure that when it does happen you know what to do and are in the right place.

Another thing Static - go and beg a ride in a Cub or a Stearman or something and shoot an approach or two. Please! You'll enjoy it anyway.

[poetpilot]

oh and another thing. 500-700 feet past the numbers for touchdown point? At Barton that puts you a third of the way down our biggest runway. On 32 probably 2/3rds !!! Gulp.

Saw a student pilot once on his qualifying from Liverpool try that. He didnt go back to Liverpool by air that night. The 172 looked like an X-fighter after it had gone through the hedge. Nice bit of forward sweep.

You are using airliner/combat plane figures for light aircraft & light aircraft airfields here and they are just not appropriate for the UK and for small single engined planes.

You'll be ok if you stick to large concrete areas - and you're quite lucky in France of course, because they get local subsidies to build mega fields in the middle of nowhere, with all the facilities.

[bookworm]

I'm having some trouble with that math Static.

Imagine a 180 degree turn onto final from 3000 ft abeam as suggested, with no base leg. The total length of the turn arc is 4700 ft, which takes a grand total of 35 seconds at 80 knots.

You seem to be suggesting taking 20 to 25 seconds for the turn on to base and then another 35 to 40 seconds straight on the base leg. This would surely put you at least half a mile on the far side of the centreline, wouldn't it?

Ignoring this ugly civil convention of rolling the wings level for a while on base :) and assuming the 180 degree turn on to final once again, you would have (assuming your 10 knot wind) about 5500 track feet to the touchdown point from the midpoint of the turn, and about 3200 ft track feet to the touchdown point from the end of the turn after the roll out on to final. The 3 degree glideslope heights for those are 275 ft and 160 ft. You can add 50 ft to those by considering the threshold rather than the touchdown point if you prefer.

That doesn't seem to be consistent with your "Hasn't your instructor told you to try to roll out on final at 450-500 feet?" when you cannot hope to be wings level on final higher than 210 ft.

[Tiger_ Moth]

Static, the answer is no because we havent got onto circuits yet, we're just on slow flight. Im tempted to agree with you seeing as you've had so much expierience in jets and so much military flying but when you start talking about 3.25 degrees it makes me angry. I mean 3.25 degrees! Who can judge to .25 of a degree? Especially in a Moth with no artificial horizon! Theres nothing wrong with having a slowish turn but does it really matter if its 2 or 3 or 4 degrees as long as it gets you onto finals? Seems like a bit of an unnecessary skill for a light aircraft pilot to have.

[A7E Driver]

Haven't had a chance to run your numbers Bookworm -- but a first observation is that you can't make a 180 in 30 seconds. At standard rate of turn --- +/- 21 AOB in an Arrow, 27 AOB in a fighter --- 180 requires one minute ---- 90 degrees to base = +/- 30 seconds.

Will double check the rest later.

Regards

[A7E Driver]

Tiger -- although the numbers seem incredibly small --- 3 degrees or 3.25 --- there is a very noticeable/appreciable difference in the approach picture between 3 and 4 degrees. Enormous. I know --- it doesn't sound like there could be -- but there is.

By the way -- the Vasi/papi/ILS systems are all calculated to give you obstacle clearance on the approach if you follow them. There are no promises about engine failure performance. I would just repeat my earlyier comment that the most important thing a beginning pilot (experienced ones to) is to fly stablised, i.e., controlled/consistent approaches. For every engine failure on final accident I'll bet there are a thousand caused by too steep an approach -- or by too shallow an approach --- or by full power off -- then full power on --- wheel barrowing, etc. from people who weren't flying a stabilised approach. Talk to your instructor about it.

I think I have beat this subject to death --- and I can see I am definitely in the minority on this board --- so I'll shut up now. May you never run out of airspeed, altitude and ideas all at the same time!

[KeithAlexander]

I learnt my lesson recently on my skills test about being too far out. it was my 'attempt' at the glide approach.

needless to say i cut it so fine that i put it practically on the numbers with no flap selected.

but i landed and he couldnt fault me, so thats the main thing

[LowNSlow]

Static, I appreciate your experience but you don't seem to have adapted your experience to light aircraft flying. A typical approach to the airfield I use:

Fly overhead, check the wind direction.

Do a circuit to the East of the field.

Avoid the farmhouse and the row of houses behind it (go through the gap).

Make the base turn inside of the electricity pylons.

Side slip, round out, close throttle and taxi in to tumultuous applause from the assorted rabbits and birds watching the performance.

VASI, PAPI who the Hell are they????????

Here in the UK, if you fly as you describe you would not be welcome in most airfields cos you'd get the complainers roaring.

[A and C]

beagle some words of wisdom on this thread at last.

[Tricky Woo]

BEagler,

Why is A and C creeping to you? Does he owe you money or something?

TW

[bookworm]

Haven't had a chance to run your numbers Bookworm -- but a first observation is that you can't make a 180 in 30 seconds. At standard rate of turn --- +/- 21 AOB in an Arrow, 27 AOB in a fighter --- 180 requires one minute ---- 90 degrees to base = +/- 30 seconds.

You chose the circuit width (and therefore the turn diameter), not me! If you want to make a 180 degree standard rate turn from downwind on to final, you'll need to make the downwind about a mile from the runway. If you want to make it 3000 feet from the runway, you'll need to turn at greater than standard rate.

[BEagle]

No, Tricky, I know him/her/woteva not!

Watch out, here comes Uncle Herriot......Hope Mrs P is looking after you without too many tit-bits and that you haven't been going 'flop-bot'! Has Hodgkin been throwing your ring for you?

I understand that the delightful Bagby is known unofficially as 'Darrowby International!!!

(With apologies to non-James Herriot aficionados who don't know who the famous 'Tricky-Woo' was!!)

[ 23 August 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[FNG]

Hey Static, I'm sure that Tiger Moth will really appreciate your handy tips about PAPIs/VASIs etc when he is side-slipping the approach in his DH 82a.

Keep up the good work TM. Just one question: isn't every lesson in the mighty Snake Moth* a lesson in "slow flight"? Just kidding!

Must dash now: got to go off to the local 500 metre farm strip to check that the PAPIs are aligned correctly for that nice Airbus chappie who said he'd bring his crate in later for a spot of tea and banter.

footnote:
* Some of the White Waltham De Havilland punter-trip drivers have dubbed it the snake because keeping it straight is like trying to hold onto one.

[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: FNG ]

[A7E Driver]

My comments were directed at the 95% of GA pilots who spend their time in standard Cessnas and Pipers at the majority of airfields in the Uk (or elsewhere).

It is concerning, however, that an apparent beginner with 4 hours time is receiving "guidance" of very debatable value on this forum. I do hope that he listens much more closely to his instructor than he does to the chat on this Board.

[Dan Winterland]

I (mostly) agree with BEagle as well!

Three degree glidepaths are fine for the professional schools where the students won't do anything else in their professional life, but for your average GA pilot they are a bit excessive. IMHO, your average GA pilot doesn't need them, closer circuits/higher approaches give you a chance to reach the runway if your one and only engine quits. I don't know the statistics for carb icing on finals, but I suspect it's not an isolated event.

As for big circuits - don't get me started! Except to say that once I landed my own aircraft at a local airfield where the instructors were wannabe airline pilots and taught their students to fly airliner style circuits like they did. I could see someone a few miles ahead when turning downwind, but he was so far away I assumed he was leaving the circuit. I was sitting in the bar with a cup of coffee by the time he landed (no exaggeration) when he berated me for cutting him up in the circuit! :eek:

[Tricky Woo]

Mr Static,

The majority of airfields in the UK are short strips, and many of those are grass. The majority of SEP aircraft in the UK have fixed under-carriage and fixed props. The majority of light aircraft in the UK are used solely for pleasure.

As far as I'm aware, the situation in the US is identical.

As regards your hundreds of carrier landings, I have to say that I truly am impressed. I've read enough about them to know that they are blindingly difficult. They also require a stunning amount of bravery. Hats off to you, you deserve a lot of respect for that.

However, I seem to remember that carrier landings are controlled by a nice young chap signalling corrective instructions to the descending pilot. Hardly what I would call a landing judged solely by the pilot's judgement of a descent profile.

I would like to ask you straight if you have EVER landed ANYWHERE without the use of visual aids such as PAPI, VASI, ILS or whatever?

Last point, your methods, if utilised in a vintage aircraft like a Tiger Moth would be, I hesitate to type this, dangerous. The idea that I should drag an aircraft like a Chipmunk, J3 Cub or SuperCub down a shallow 3 degree glide-scope, with all my metaphorical eggs in a single basket, i.e. 100% faith in my engine, fills me with abject horror.

I also know that the various instructors that I've sat in front of in all three types mentioned, would have dragged me out of the cockpit and then given me a bloody good kicking for being so sodding stupid.

I agree that TIGER_MOTH should take the advice on given on this thread with two or three pounds of salt.

TW

[A7E Driver]

TW -- while I admit that the vast majority of my time is in turbine aircraft --- I am also proud of the fact that I remember where I started and continue to fly GA aircraft. Indeed, I own an Arrow that I fly for fun. And I checked my log book --- and have about 680 hours SEP time. So I'm not exactly a beginner when it comes to flying aircraft with noisy fans on the pointed end.

I repeat once again, that my comments on circuit profile were directed at Cessna and Piper drivers --- not warbirds, not Tiger Moths, not 1940s Cubs.

Those of you who favour steep approaches with major power/attitude transitions required seem to be ignoring the overwhelming stats that clearly show that 50 hour/year GA pilots have trouble remaining proficient at this. They would be much better served by "controlled/stabilised approaches".

If you want to talk about carrier ops (which I haven't done in 12 years), I'd be delighted to explain how it is really done. Think there are some fundamental misunderstandings ---- but let's stick to GA for now.
Regards

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Are you implying that a 'controlled, stabilised aproach' can only be done by dragging it in through the weeds?

Ahem. I beg to differ.

Watch any Yak, Chippy, Tiger and many other types being flown by experienced and very competent pilots. You will observe controlled stabilised approaches flown in a manner that is appropriate to the aeroplane, not a manner that is appropriate to a multi-engine jet transport. To them, 3 Degrees was pop group favoured by Prince Charles, and nothing whatever to do with approaches.

Students and low houred guys - beware! Ask a *respected* instructor if you want unbiased advice - preferably one with time on aeroplanes other than Cessnas and other spamcans. Don't take on board this 3 degree crap.

NEVER drag a sl light aircraft in on a shallow approach like this guy is suggesting. It is very bad airmaship and highly dangerous and most inconsiderate to other pilots in the circuit.

SSD

[Do28]

I always taught my private students to keep the patterns and finals as tight as possible. In a C172, there final need not be any longer than 1/2 mile provided you have set yourself up properly. Unless there is a strong wind, finals are done with the throttle closed. If an engine ever quits on you, this bit of skill will be a nice thing to have. To those who say that an engine failure is too unlikely to worry about, I have had 3 total failures and one partial(the valve seat broke and the engine was in the process of killing itself when I landed). With light GA aircraft, the method I like to use is to keep the downwind leg as tight as possible, reduce power and start the descent midfield, turn base about 600 ft agl and reduce power further, then the power off final. There is nothing sacred about 3 degrees for light aircraft. You can fly a perfectly safe visual approach at twice that. Go and experiment with it. Decide for yourself which seems safest, which will challenge and improve your skills, and which will leave you in the weeds short of the airport wishing you flew a steeper approach.

[Final 3 Greens]

An interesting thread has sprung up whilst I was away on holidays.....

1 - You should not fly a SEP like a jet as it is a different machine, but it will still obey the same laws of physics, so it is good to take some time to understand these at a basic level.

2 - Unless you like to make a "sporting" approach (and some do), you will need to work out a bit of geometry and realise that flying a stabilised final involves getting the pitch and power broadly right, sinking at a REASONABLY constant rate and correcting visually as you go, in other words flying through a series of altitude gates which can be precalculated to give a sense check at every mile, half mile or whatever unit is preferred.

3 - If the average SEP glides at 70kts groundspeed for the sake of argument and sinks at around 550fpm, then it will need about 470 feet of altitude for each NM to be covered. As someone has already pointed out, a three degree glideslope provides much less; conclusion, hope the undershoot area is promising if the engine fails. In a PA28 Archer, turning a one mile final at 500 feet is MARGINAL with anything of a headwind ... I know, I have tried it a few times (and that is with the benefit of an idling prop and residual thrust.)

In conclusion, I strongly believe that every student should be taught how to use a glide approach and also to understand the basics of energy management.

I'm not going to beat up anyone on the thread - one of the most appealing things about flying is that we have a right to hold our own opinions and views.

:) :) :)

[ 27 August 2001: Message edited by: Final 3 Greens ]

[poetpilot]

Well yes, Greenals 3 Fines, we do have the right to hold our own views but I think its dangerous for Static to use the argument that its dangerous for student/low hour pilots not to use his 3 degree approach (even in Cessna/Piper PA-999 Prentendaliners).

I would say its dangerous for student/low hour pilots:

(a) Not to know their aeroplanes in terms of speeds, rates of descent & climb, behaviour at low speed, trim, etc etc etc ad nauseam

(b) To be taught that one approach method is the only approach method

(c) Not to be able to reach the airfield or a suitable safe landing area in the event of power failure in the circuit

(d) Not to be able to make safe controlled approaches & landings in all flap configurations available

(e) Not to know how to effect extra height loss on finals with good speed control

(f) Not to be able to land on short runways

(g) Not to be able to fly non-standard approaches where local conditions (ie obstructions, housing) dictate.

(h) To think that Cessna & Piper light single engines are different to any other light single engined aircraft - I dont remember reading anywhere that the laws of aerodynamics differ in any way on these types.

(i) To think they are the only aircraft that matter in a crowded circuit

(j) To think that all airfields have people in the tower who will get you down safely with clever whizzbang technologies and lights.

Sorry Static, I went quiet on this previously but as you can see I'm not the only one who thinks this. In addition, you've now started to qualify your argument by bringing specific types into it.

It would be grossly misleading for students to take your views on board - at the end of the day let's entrust the arguments of safety down to the students' instructors, who I am sure are qualified and experienced enough to teach all the aspects covered above.

Whatever some cynics may say about instructors, all those I have met would, I am sure, agree with the above sentiments (a) to (j).

[Final 3 Greens]

AGHHH

Its the dsyxeci pote agina!

Greenals 3 Fines

:p

[poetpilot]

Well, I could have spelt you as

3 Flings A Sneer


Regards
PooPettil :D :D

[ 28 August 2001: Message edited by: poetpilot ]

[Final 3 Greens]

Let it poop, toilet plop!

BTW, did you know that "three degree final" can become "hedge referential?"

F3G

:eek: :rolleyes: :D