Flying Low NZ Flight Test
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've lost count of the amount of times I've put down into CD's strip in "Darfield North" - FLWOP, Short Field T/O & LDG. I've touched down plenty of times in the LFZ too as well as various other spots - my instructor (PPL & CPL) is a firm believer in 'doing things for real', for the obvious reasons and I like this approach.
On my PPL test though I was out over the Spit and don't think I got below 100ft on the FLWOP or the EFATO. I'll let you know what happens on the CPL test!
On my PPL test though I was out over the Spit and don't think I got below 100ft on the FLWOP or the EFATO. I'll let you know what happens on the CPL test!
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 34
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cant say I thought id ever be pleased the little alpha's sink like stones with full flap, no power, and a slight side slip, but sure saved my bacon on my cpl flight test! I was high, due to visual illusions of the sloping terrain (idiot), pulled out all stops to get down. I dropped to 150ft agl before going around. I told him during the preflight I would go round at his discretion...
Had a lovely 'chat' about making the paddock back on the ground!!
Great little plane for flight tests the r2160..just dont try drag her in with a howling gusty xwinds onto a sealed runway...they dont like tail strikes! Il Never forget that!
Had a lovely 'chat' about making the paddock back on the ground!!
Great little plane for flight tests the r2160..just dont try drag her in with a howling gusty xwinds onto a sealed runway...they dont like tail strikes! Il Never forget that!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: out bush
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok hears one.. still very fresh in my mind is my CPL flight test .. although it was around 1999 FLWOP In a LFA.Thought everything looked good, so reminded examiner of 500 ft requirement approaching 550ft.. "Continue, I want to see if you'll make it..ill call it " was the reply.? Ill make it easily i thought to myself.. ( The strip was surrounded by Grape paddocks and straight ahead I was flying into a "u" horse- shoe shaped hill for the climb out/overshoot.
At 150 FEET he called the go around.. I Felt relieved until the subsequent simulated failure at 500 feet.
I ended up turning more than 30 degrees in desperation, looking for any type of ' strip' and was not surprisingly yelled at!.After a further EFATO demonstration during the same flight test.. and one hell of a debrief, on the importance of not turning more than 30/45 degrees at low level, due to the increased descent rates, vcl etc. ( along with the story of an actual EFATO low level 180 degree turn back attempt, which resulted in multiple fatalities)..i'd passed. I have never forgotten that one.. It was kinda drilled into me, the importance of flying the plane.. even if i went straight ahead and stacked onto the grape vines.. protecting the fuselage.., may have been a better outcome then pulling into a steep turn.. washing off speed.. impacting the ground with -2000 feet a min/ negative g outcome.. not an easy call i'm sure.. depending on circumstances etc.. but flying the plane with survival in mind is paramount!.
At 150 FEET he called the go around.. I Felt relieved until the subsequent simulated failure at 500 feet.
I ended up turning more than 30 degrees in desperation, looking for any type of ' strip' and was not surprisingly yelled at!.After a further EFATO demonstration during the same flight test.. and one hell of a debrief, on the importance of not turning more than 30/45 degrees at low level, due to the increased descent rates, vcl etc. ( along with the story of an actual EFATO low level 180 degree turn back attempt, which resulted in multiple fatalities)..i'd passed. I have never forgotten that one.. It was kinda drilled into me, the importance of flying the plane.. even if i went straight ahead and stacked onto the grape vines.. protecting the fuselage.., may have been a better outcome then pulling into a steep turn.. washing off speed.. impacting the ground with -2000 feet a min/ negative g outcome.. not an easy call i'm sure.. depending on circumstances etc.. but flying the plane with survival in mind is paramount!.
Did a touch and go on a beach once, during a type rating. That was unexpected, and fun.
Several pre-flight test checks, and BFR's have involved going well below 500 feet during forced landing practice. At least once to the flare. All in approved LFA's.
On the actual first PPL flight test, I muffed it (too high) and the subsequent re-test involved 3 or 4 EFATO and one forced landing test. All taken low enough (maybe 100' or lower) so that it was clear the outcome was going to be survivable.
Helo autos I've done (just a few) were taken down to the flare, power added at that point, and converted to a hover. Apart from the fact that it all happens real fast, autos seemed a bit easier to me. I bet they aren't when the real thing happens, though.
Several pre-flight test checks, and BFR's have involved going well below 500 feet during forced landing practice. At least once to the flare. All in approved LFA's.
On the actual first PPL flight test, I muffed it (too high) and the subsequent re-test involved 3 or 4 EFATO and one forced landing test. All taken low enough (maybe 100' or lower) so that it was clear the outcome was going to be survivable.
Helo autos I've done (just a few) were taken down to the flare, power added at that point, and converted to a hover. Apart from the fact that it all happens real fast, autos seemed a bit easier to me. I bet they aren't when the real thing happens, though.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: `
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am astonished at some of the posts here. As a CPL, YOU are the PIC for this flight and it is YOU who decides and is responsible for that flight. The flight tester can make suggestions as to what he wants done but YOU are responsible for the flight and staying inside the Rules.
On my CPL preflight brief I informed GL (you wanted initials) what I would and would not be doing. I would not have the mixture pulled and I would simulate changing tanks, checking mags etc and I would not break 500' AGL during the FLWOP (and no, I did not simulate Carb Heat). If the engine was running with the settings before the throttle was closed then I didn't want to change anything when I initiated the go around at 550' AGL. Read what the Regs (sorry, now they are Rules) say about flying below 500'. The low flying area is different because the Rules say it is.
If you are unsure about being able to make the field/landing area by the 1,000' point then you need more training. After all isn't that why we practised all those Full Glide Approaches onto an airfield.
If you have a private strip to land on then you can take it all the way down. This is especailly good for the confidence of a PPL and it is legal. Having them enter Club competitions is another way to better simulate a FLWOP as it does add the extra pressure of hitting the spot.
On my CPL preflight brief I informed GL (you wanted initials) what I would and would not be doing. I would not have the mixture pulled and I would simulate changing tanks, checking mags etc and I would not break 500' AGL during the FLWOP (and no, I did not simulate Carb Heat). If the engine was running with the settings before the throttle was closed then I didn't want to change anything when I initiated the go around at 550' AGL. Read what the Regs (sorry, now they are Rules) say about flying below 500'. The low flying area is different because the Rules say it is.
If you are unsure about being able to make the field/landing area by the 1,000' point then you need more training. After all isn't that why we practised all those Full Glide Approaches onto an airfield.
If you have a private strip to land on then you can take it all the way down. This is especailly good for the confidence of a PPL and it is legal. Having them enter Club competitions is another way to better simulate a FLWOP as it does add the extra pressure of hitting the spot.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: In Transit
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggs
You have a point, in that the CPL candidate should absolutely ensure he/she fly's within the rules. But here's one or two things to think about.
And you would never find out how reliable your aircraft (and indeed you decision making skills) may or may not be under controlled conditions... So then, how are you going to react when you don't make that perfect 1000ft point because your engine has stopped in an entirely inconvenient position at an unexpected height?
That's the whole point in simulations isn't it? To catch the student off guard, to see if they will handle the real thing.
Where ever it is safe to do so, it's always worth going to the ground because no two FLWOPs or EFATOs are the same. Guaranteed the real thing will be different again. The more exposure you get, the better off you will be when that fateful day arrives.
There are two occasions where an LFZ isn't required for flight below 500agl. The Bona-fide purpose (effectively provides examiners with free reign, and they will exercise it) and the EFATOs under instructors authority.
You have a point, in that the CPL candidate should absolutely ensure he/she fly's within the rules. But here's one or two things to think about.
I would not have the mixture pulled and I would simulate changing tanks, checking mags etc and I would not break 500' AGL during the FLWOP... ...If you are unsure about being able to make the field/landing area by the 1,000' point then you need more training
That's the whole point in simulations isn't it? To catch the student off guard, to see if they will handle the real thing.
Where ever it is safe to do so, it's always worth going to the ground because no two FLWOPs or EFATOs are the same. Guaranteed the real thing will be different again. The more exposure you get, the better off you will be when that fateful day arrives.
Read what the Regs (sorry, now they are Rules) say
Paragraph (a)(2) (the 500ft rule) does not apply to a pilot-in-command of an aircraft
(c) if the bona fide purpose of the flight requires the aircraft to be flown at a height lower than that prescribed in paragraph (a)(2), but only if——
(d)
(1) the flight is performed without hazard to persons or property on the surface; and
(2) only persons performing an essential function associated with the flight are carried on the aircraft; and
(3) the aircraft is not flown at a height lower than that required for the purpose of the flight; and
(4) the horizontal distance that the aircraft is flown from any obstacle, person, vessel, vehicle, or structure is not less than that necessary for the purpose of the flight, except that in the case of an aeroplane, the aeroplane remains outside a horizontal radius of 150 metres from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure that is not associated with the operation.
Paragraph (a)(2) does not apply to a pilot-in-command——
(1) who is the holder of, or authorised by the holder of, a current instructor rating issued under Part 61 and who is conducting flight training or practice flights consisting of——
(i) simulated engine failure after take-off commencing below 1000 feet above the surface; or
(ii) simulated engine failure commencing above 1000 feet above the surface provided that descent below 500 feet above the surface is conducted within a low flying zone in accordance with 91.131;
(c) if the bona fide purpose of the flight requires the aircraft to be flown at a height lower than that prescribed in paragraph (a)(2), but only if——
(d)
(1) the flight is performed without hazard to persons or property on the surface; and
(2) only persons performing an essential function associated with the flight are carried on the aircraft; and
(3) the aircraft is not flown at a height lower than that required for the purpose of the flight; and
(4) the horizontal distance that the aircraft is flown from any obstacle, person, vessel, vehicle, or structure is not less than that necessary for the purpose of the flight, except that in the case of an aeroplane, the aeroplane remains outside a horizontal radius of 150 metres from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure that is not associated with the operation.
Paragraph (a)(2) does not apply to a pilot-in-command——
(1) who is the holder of, or authorised by the holder of, a current instructor rating issued under Part 61 and who is conducting flight training or practice flights consisting of——
(i) simulated engine failure after take-off commencing below 1000 feet above the surface; or
(ii) simulated engine failure commencing above 1000 feet above the surface provided that descent below 500 feet above the surface is conducted within a low flying zone in accordance with 91.131;
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the PFL in my CPL test, I picked this god awful dog leg paddock, rough as guts with a big hump in the middle - and then the examiner insisted I land in it. Turned out to be Ryleston airfield.
Helo autos I've done (just a few) were taken down to the flare, power added at that point, and converted to a hover. Apart from the fact that it all happens real fast, autos seemed a bit easier to me. I bet they aren't when the real thing happens, though.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New Zealand
Age: 37
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always enjoyed forced landings in the slab wing arrow because of that. Your decision making was "what's under me?" Then you go and land on it, pretty much an auto-rotation! You descend to get enough energy to flare.
Last edited by Aerozepplin; 31st Aug 2010 at 20:33. Reason: Spellin' aint too good
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Wellington
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing except a helicopter goes down faster than an Gruman AA1 w/o power.
Many years ago, one got written off in South Wairarapa on an FLWOP exercise. Seems the pilots (instructor+student) both forgot to warm the engine on the way down after simulated failure at 3000 ft. Overshoot comenced at about 30ft, but the noise didn't recomence until after the aircraft hit the fence at the start of the paddock. So the exercise was a total failure.
Many years ago, one got written off in South Wairarapa on an FLWOP exercise. Seems the pilots (instructor+student) both forgot to warm the engine on the way down after simulated failure at 3000 ft. Overshoot comenced at about 30ft, but the noise didn't recomence until after the aircraft hit the fence at the start of the paddock. So the exercise was a total failure.
I always enjoyed forced landings in the slab wing arrow because of that. Your decision making was "what's under me?" Then you go and land on it, pretty much an auto-rotation! You descend to get enough energy to flare.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ENZED
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aerozepplin,
you are nearly correct.
Grummans flyoff the earths surface on a tangent, as it curves away beneath them.. Thats why they require a long runway.(and yes, I have a AA1 rating....)
As for a previous comment, yes it would be an interesting comparison between, say a CB300 auto-rotating, and a AA1-C in glide mode, to see who arrived first....................
Nah, Cessnas Rule...............
That should get a few bites...
you are nearly correct.
Grummans flyoff the earths surface on a tangent, as it curves away beneath them.. Thats why they require a long runway.(and yes, I have a AA1 rating....)
As for a previous comment, yes it would be an interesting comparison between, say a CB300 auto-rotating, and a AA1-C in glide mode, to see who arrived first....................
Nah, Cessnas Rule...............
That should get a few bites...
