Over the fence throttle setting

[CanAmdelta1]

On light civil aircraft...Chop power and glide or reduce power all the way to flare?

[what next]

It depends on wind/gusts, runway, type of aircraft, flap setting, and a lot of other factors.

Chop the power and glide in a Seneca (also a "civil light aircraft") and the result might look like this: Seneca landing accident image by Bartuzzinni on Photobucket (http://media.photobucket.com/image/seneca%20landing%20accident/Bartuzzinni/SenecaII.jpg)

[hugh flung_dung]

Power off as the aircraft goes through level in the flare.
The slipstream adds to the airflow over the tailplane so if you close the throttle before or at the start of the flare the nose will go down just when you want to raise it - not a helpful thing for it to do.

HFD

[DFC]

The slipstream adds to the airflow over the tailplane so if you close the throttle before or at the start of the flare the nose will go down just when you want to raise it - not a helpful thing for it to do.



You forgot to mention the fact that closing the throttle will also cause Yaw - and as a consequence roll. However, the only people who should see these reactions are those that can't rememebr exercise 4 (and if they can't are not reminded by their instructor).

Provided that the pilot prevents pitch, roll and yaw while changing power there is no reason why making changes to the power setting (increase or decrease) at any stage of the approach or landing should cause any form of an unexpected unwanted or unstable situation.

-------

Getting back to the original question and by "over the fence" I expect that you mean a point 50ft above the threshold i.e. the official end of the approach and the start of the landing phase (the start of the landing distance required).

The first place you need to look is the performance section of the Flight Manual / POH. This will tell you the exact conditions from which the performance figures were derived. Many of the older manuals with say something like "Power Off Approach at 67Kt, Flaps 40, Full Stall landing, maximum braking, paved dry level runway.

Clearly from this you can see what you have to do to have any chance of getting close to the figures quoted in the manual. and ultimately isn't this what we are trying to do rather than simply making some form of random arrival that hopefully permits us to use the aircraft again with minimum fuss?

The next thing that we have to think about is making a good stable approach.

If you are making a glide approach then it is easy.

If making an approach with power then the question is can you cope with a destabilisation at 50ft (which for most aircraft is before the flare is entered) by removing a lot of the energy and since there is no way the aircraft will continue some 300m forward while remaining on a 3 degree slope (or follow any other power on profile to the aiming point) unless you have a lot of excess speed. This means if you chop the power at 50ft you are going to have to lower the nose and quite soon thereafter raise it again for the flare.

My recomendation is that the aircraft is flown along a stable approach with power towards the desired aiming point at a constant approach speed / approach angle and will cross the threshold at 50ft. From a suitable point the power is slowly reduced while continuing towards the aiming point so that the aircraft enters the flare power off and has an arrival on the mainwheels (tricycle) without damaging them and without any significant float.

The last time you look at the speed is just at the 50ft point and this is your energy indicator -

significantly low - go arround

slightly low - delay the power reduction

on speed - good

slightly high - earlier then normal power reduction

significantly high - go arround.

After 50ft, you are no longer interested in approach speed because you are no longer on approach. You are however interested in the aiming point and making a suitable arrival. Keeping everything stable and making changes gradually makes this much easier.

Since this will not be the method used to derive the landing figures in the manual you need to go into the figures and work out what to add - this is not difficult. If one looks at the airbourne part of the figures in the manual one will usually find that it is a lot less than 300m (1000ft) - 3 degree distance from 50ft to 0 - .....because either a glide approach was made or the throttle was chopped at 50ft. Simply add the missing distance to the book figures and you have a more resonable starting point for your performance. Don't forget to still add suitable factors!!

In sumary - stable approach at the correct approach speed followed by a gradual reduction in energy while making progress towards the aiming point.

[hugh flung_dung]

"You forgot to mention the fact that closing the throttle will also cause Yaw ... " actually, I didn't forget. I chose to mention the significant effect and to ignore the insignificant ones.
We all have different experiences, but mine are that good landings tend not to follow power reductions at the start of the flare.

HFD

[Chuck Ellsworth]

When doing type ratings on the PBY I had them reduce power to throttles closed at two hundred and fifty feet during water landings.

When they could consistently land without having to add power I then allowed use of power for landing.

During water landing training the circuits were at three hundred feet and three minutes touch and go to touch and go...they did thirty minutes of T&G's which made for ten circuits.

[S-Works]

Fly beta for me.....

[Intercepted]

I agree with Chuck about cutting the throttle early and learn to land that way.

If you can't make consistently good landings from a glide approach, keep doing it until you can.

In my opinion there is no "magic point" where you close the throttle. If you are looking for one it probably reveals that you still don't have the "feeling" for your aircraft type. More hours/training might be appropriate (but not to find out where to cut the throttle).

[A37575]

and since there is no way the aircraft will continue some 300m forward while remaining on a 3 degree slope (or follow any other power on profile

Deliberately flying a three degree slope for a light trainer such as a C172, Warrior etc is nonsense. A typical glide approach with idle power and landing flap down will be around six to seven degrees and that is quite normal. These aircraft are so light they have little inertia and using the flight manual recommended threshold speed, the flare is straightforward. A powered final approach with typically 1200-1500 RPM and landing flap will give around 5-6 degrees descent angle. To deliberately aim for a transport aircraft three degree ILS slope while flying a light single as above (landing flap selected) would need considerable RPM requiring a long drag in at low speed. Three degree slope was never designed for light aircraft.

[what next]

Hello!

Deliberately flying a three degree slope for a light trainer such as a C172, Warrior etc is nonsense.

Objection! As an instructor, I mainly train students on integrated ATPL courses. Pedestrian to Airliner talkes less than 200 flying hours, nearly half of which are "flown" on a procedures trainer (not very realistic in the last stages of landing). So we fly every single approch exactly the way they will fly it later on the job, independent of the type of (training) aircraft to familiarise them early with the approach picture they will see after they complete their course. Nobody ever called this nonsense before...

Happy landings,
max

[DFC]

Deliberately flying a three degree slope for a light trainer such as a C172, Warrior etc is nonsense.


Is it? Perhaps we are heading down the wrong road in FAR-23 and CS-23 then!

I am all for glide approaches (subject to engine care). However, one has to remember a few things.

1. The 3 degree slope has been round a lot longer than "heavy" aircraft or even jets. the 3 degree slope comes from a lot of research into what pilots felt was a "natural" approach angle.

2. When teaching approach and landing techniques to students the most important thing is the stable approach angle and being able to recognise not only the basic approach angle but also to be able to make appropriate adjustments when visual illusions (up-sloping or down sloping runways for example or wide vs narrow runways) may make assessment of the correct safe approach angle more difficult.

It is in the teaching environment that being able to repeat a standard over and over assists the student in many ways - even if they have no plans to fly professionally.

Flying glide approaches are an essential progression once the basics have been mastered. However, it is only when the basics have been mastered that one can expect the student to cope with the situation where the perfect approach will have one runway aspect today and a totally different one tomorrow to the same runway and in fact one can fly a series of perfect glide approaches where one never has the same runway aspect.

(Almost) Every instructor I know can stand up at a board and draw 3 diagrams - the runway aspect when On the slope, when high and when low and you will find that in 99.9 of them they will draw a 3 degree slope or very close to it.

Now, can you draw me the runway aspect for the glide approach, (on, high and low) - oh......and do it for calm, 5Kt 10Kt, 15Kt, 20Kt and 30Kt of headwind plut 5Kt of tailwind.......I'll be back in a few hours to review the 21 drawings you will have made!! :E

Having said all that - if you refer back to the post you read before making these comments, you will find that I was making a reference to landing distances and giving a few pointers on how one needs to compare the technique one is using on the day to the technique used to establish the book figures. As I pointed out and I am sure you will find, if one tries to use a 3 degree slope after the 50ft point one will exceed the book figures because they are not based on such a slope.

Let me finish by quoting what I said previously;


My recomendation is that the aircraft is flown along a stable approach with power towards the desired aiming point at a constant approach speed / approach angle and will cross the threshold at 50ft. From a suitable point the power is slowly reduced while continuing towards the aiming point so that the aircraft enters the flare power off and has an arrival on the mainwheels (tricycle) without damaging them and without any significant float.



Where do you get 3 degrees from that?

[mad_jock]

As long as your students are never allowed out unsupervised in a SEP I don't have a problem with that. I think it is nonsense as well.

So you fly 3 deg glidslopes cause thats what they will be used to flying commercial. Must have quite talented limited students then cause all the low houred modualar FO's I have flown with haven't seemed to have had any issues with doing three degree glides.

Its just the usual pish of operating SEP like a big jet which doesn't teach them how to fly properly and also fills there head with rubbish.

You will be telling us next you make them add on half the gust to the approach speed.


If they wish continue flying SEP I hope they go for further training before being licensed to fly unsuspecting pax.

[what next]

You will be telling us next you make them add on half the gust to the approach speed. I teach as written in our authority-approved training manual. And yes, it asks for 1/2 gusts to the approach speed (but not more than 15kt in case of C172/Pa28).

[mad_jock]

Thus another generation of pilots is pumped out the sausage machine who don't have a clue what they are doing and there heads are full of rubbish.

Lets just hope they all get jet jobs so they can continue to be operators instead of pilots. And also not put anyones life at risk in a single engine piston.

[Intercepted]

Is it? Perhaps we are heading down the wrong road in FAR-23 and CS-23 then!I don't know what FAR-23 and CS-23 are saying, but if they tell you to teach 3 deg approaches in a light aircraft they must be wrong and you should lobby the "authorities" to change them rather than blindly accept them as the "truth".

To teach a student to fly an aircraft in an unsafe manner with the excuse that he otherwise will have problems to convert later is really daft. If a student is airline pilot material i believe he won't have a problem to convert. If he has a problem he should probably not be a pilot at all, or at least he should learn how to land a light aircraft safely since this might be the only type of aircraft he will fly in the future.

I was taught flying at an airfield with houses, trees and no open fields on the approach. Do you think my instructor took the risk of teaching me to approach at 3 deg because FAR-23 and CS-23 said so? No he didn't, he taught me to use common sense and land the aircraft safely.

Remember: Every approach is potentially a glide approach.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hmmm.... going back and reading my post #6, from some of the assertive opinions here it would appear that I am a poor instructor who needs retraining to teach the correct way.

[DFC]

Intercepted,

Recomend that you find out what FAR-23 and CS-23 are and then review your post.

As an instructor, can you please let us have a drawing of the runway aspect you teach for whatever constant angle of approach you use in SEP - (day and night). You can let us know how we can recognise that aspect and know that we are not too high and not too low especially when flying an SEP at night. ;)

----------


You will be telling us next you make them add on half the gust to the approach speed.


Every safe operator I know make an appropriate addition to the approach speed when flying in gusting and/or turbulent conditions.

Most of those same operators use the POH speed when there are no gusts and impose something like a +10 / -0 tollerance on approach speed.

It is receomended by ICAO, FAA, CAA, EASA and last but by no means least the Aircraft Manufacturer.

Show me a "pilot" who can maintain an approach speed and no less when the windspeed varies between 5 and 25 knots.

People would do well to remember that the reported wind is an average speed and you get the gust if it is more than 10 knots above the average. Therefore a wind moving rapidly between 5 and 15 knots is reported as 10Kt. If there are gusts that reach 21 then it is 10 Gusting 21. So we add on 5 or 6 knots during the approach phase because if the wind drops from 21 to 5 that is a 16 Knot loss and having 5 knots in hand is a very good idea.............even more so when flying a type where that 16 Knot loss can represent 30% of your stall speed..............now go on and tell me you will approach at 1.3Vso even when it is gusty!!!

Problem also is that many people fail to understand where the approach ends and the landing begins and that flying the approach with an extra 5 knots due to gusts does in no way means that the landing phase has to be flown 5 knots faster than normal.

That is where the total lack of understanding happens and I see it at all levels - people adding the appropriate increment to the approach speed but making the error of maintaining the extra speed all the way to the flare without realising that the approach ended some distance behind them while at the same time not allowing extra landing distance for the overspeed at the threshold.

As I said earlier. Approaching 50ft check your energy (speed) and based on that decide how soon or late you will start to close the throttle.

[what next]

To teach a student to fly an aircraft in an unsafe manner...

Most of the time I instruct instrument flying. Mostly on single engine piston aircraft. Most instrument approaches have three degree glideslopes (both precision and non-precision approaches). 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?

[mad_jock]

Well it is thats why nearly all authorities ban single engine IMC IFR flights public transport.

Alot of the airports in the UK 3 degree approaches don't allow you to glide clear in case of engine failure. You maybe lucky where you are training.

The additional "risk" for training flights is deemed acceptable because everyone onboard knows about the increased risk because its a means to an end ie to complete the training course.

The only time a single is mean't to use a 3 deg glide outside training is when the risk to life and limb is increased due to other factors ie you can't see the ground due IMC and you have to get it on the ground before you run out of fuel. If you have the option to fly it visually you should decrease your exposure to risk by flying it visually with the normal SEP approach angle.

[DFC]

The only time a single is mean't to use a 3 deg glide outside training is when the risk to life and limb is increased due to other factors ie you can't see the ground due IMC and you have to get it on the ground before you run out of fuel. If you have the option to fly it visually you should decrease your exposure to risk by flying it visually with the normal SEP approach angle.


Can anyone come up with any form of reference that backs-up such a statement or that in any way defines what "the normal SEP approach angle." is?

There is plenty of litrature available to explain why 3 degrees was selected as a standard point to start from.

There are published rules that define approach angles above 4.5 degrees as "steep approaches" and they don't limit that definition to certain categories of aircraft if such approach angles have to be used.

Can't find anything that defines this "normal SEP approach angle." as being any different from any other aircraft.

Can you?

Perhaps we are getting confused with "optional" techniques and "emergency procedures" when we simply want to define some yard-stick that a student can refer to and 99% of instructors can easily recreate.


Well it is thats why nearly all authorities ban single engine IMC IFR flights public transport.



Applies to a lot of multi-engine types also especially when close to their certified MTOW. So it is not a single engine issue.


Alot of the airports in the UK 3 degree approaches don't allow you to glide clear in case of engine failure.


Indeed, the CAA has seen fit to exempt all aircraft landing and taking-off at those aerodromes from the low flying prohibitions and they do not agree that a C172 flying a 3 degree approach could be classed as anything other than "flying in accordance with normal aviation practice".

[Chuck Ellsworth]

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. .

[Intercepted]

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 teachI'm not an instructor, but I do have a night rating and have not bent any aircraft yet :ok: 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.

[Cows getting bigger]

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. :)

[Dan the weegie]

Personally I'll stick with the 'picture' I know works. I haven't got a clue what glideslope that presents. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

Thank you :)

[ei-flyer]

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?

:rolleyes:

[Cows getting bigger]

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.

[CanAmdelta1]

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.

[DFC]

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. :D

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).

[hugh flung_dung]

"Some people can fly a perfect aerobatic sequence while reciting the 13 times tables." Damn, I didn't think anyone was listening :O it must be that sticky PTT again.

(Sorry, now back to the discussion)

[InFinRetirement]

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.

[Cows getting bigger]

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.

[biscuit74]

Excellent post Chuck. The topic sorted in a nutshell.

[funfly]

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

[CanAmdelta1]

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.:ok:

[richardsimpson]

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/262-wing-commander-roland-bee-beamont-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]