Question For The Experts - Use Of Flaps.
 

Flying schools typically require a training aircraft, say a Cessna 172, to fly a base leg around 65 knots, final around 60 knots to the threshold.

1.3 Vs is around 61 kts as Vs, power off, flaps down, is about 47 kts. Stall clean is around 55 kts from memory.

My question is as follows. Suppose you are on final, configured with full flaps for a landing, say just at 500ft. The engine coughs splutters and dies.

You are doing 65 knots. You judge you aren't going to make the field. Yes, I know I should be able to make the field, but that's moot just now. In addition at places like YMMB, some pretty flat approaches get taught in my opinion.

What is to stop you retracting flap to extend your glide?

I've never seen this discussed, let alone demonstrated or taught. The rule seems to be that once flaps are down they aren't going to be touched until you are on the ground. What am I missing here apart from the obvious issue of retracting flaps below the clean stall speed?

I've tried this at altitude in an approach configuration and their are no abrupt trim changes, etc.

The same issue relates to off field forced landings. Too much flap? Why not just retract some until your glide is what you want?

Handing over....

My school teaches that if you are going to fall short, then get the flap back up. I learnt this first time I did a glide approach in the 172. Took flap as per normal in the 152, but fell short. My instructor explained that it "flies like a brick with full flap compared to the 152, so if you need to take some flap up to extend the glide on final, then do so."

This was also said by the ATO when I did the PPL test recently. High on base and final, side slip in. Afterwards we went over the forced landing leg lengths and heights. During this he also said "if you find yourself falling short, then clean the flap up to help extend the glide"

His reason was, you only have one shot in a real emergency to get it in the field, so do what ever it takes!

So some places are teaching it to students, like me :}

I understand that the main reason for not retracting flap as a 'rule' would most likely be because this type of training is being provided to students who cannot be relied upon to manage the decision; so after consideration of the way humans work under pressure there is a 'more reasonable' chance of success with the flaps as they are etc because there is 'less' to do and it will likely lead to a lower controlled touch down speed.

By retracting the flap (large changes in configuration) there is a considerable sink below the current glide path followed by an increase in speed... supposing you survive the extra sink and don't hit anything at your increased speed, you will be able to glide further from where you are when best glide AoA is re-established. :}

In doing this at low altitude e.g. <500 AGL you risk misjudging the extra sink as this procedure would only be done with an optimistic view of a worsening situation; and you also risk the higher possibility of entering a spin or a stall and dying for sure.

At higher altitudes or with small changes in flap (e.g. 40 degrees up to 30 degrees on a C172) and with more experience your chances of success with this procedure are much better...:ok:

Rule 1. NEVER extend full flap until you are assured of a landing ! Pretty basic training......that doesn't seem to be taught anymore. This was also said by the ATO when I did the PPL test recently. High on base and final, side slip in. .....Pretty sure side slips in a 172 are a no no.

in the broad strokes, flap creates a bit more lift and a lot of drag, there is a reason gliders are very slippery! to minimise drag.
the flap is just another flight control at your disposal, use it as necessary for safe flight, if your falling short in a glide, lose the drag and glide thurther.. of course, at best glide speed, for L/D ratio.

Sorry, I should of clarified that I side sliped it to about 300 from about 600ft. No one has told me its a no no in the 172, though I try not to make a habbit of needing to!

I have only had to bring the flap back up once other than the time I was shown, and then it was only back from 30 to 20deg, so the attitude change was pretty small, and I felt more comfortable with my slope than before. I can full see how it would cause large sink going from full flap to none, I dont think I could ever see anyone doing that unless at great height.

I dont know if it makes any difference, but in the focred landing check list, we list flaps "as required" rather then "flaps full" which I heard once. I guess this lends itself more to being able to use them as need be before switching the master off?

First of all, you should not have 'full flap' in a C172 at 500 feet. I know they teach students these days to configure once they are established on final, however this will involve you 'dragging' it in all the way down final. This is 'poor' airmanship when considering the following aircraft, and a recipe for disaster if the situation you questioned happened for real. It may be okay at a GAAP (class D) aerodrome where everyone is doing the same thing, if you fly in the real world and do this with an RPT aeroplane up your behind, you could become an accident waiting to happen - especially if you were not making the required radio calls (which has happened to me on occasion).

Energy management is a crucial aspect of airmanship which is not taught. The trick is to fly the aeroplane all the way to the ground taking into account the current conditions without making large power changes, adding flap as required.

If you are following a slow aeroplane on downwind, don't fly wide, stay in gliding distance of the field, slow down and extend 10 degrees of flap. If you have the circuit to yourself, stay clean (not 3nm which seems normal for lighties these days) and extend flap as you require.

As a rule of thumb when I was flying piston VFR aeroplanes, I would not configure until 300 AGL (gliding distance of the threshold). Stabilized approach criteria is something you should be worrying about when you are flying an aeroplane where this is important.

In regards to your original question, you do as a Pilot what is required to fly your aeroplane safely in regards to the current situation. If this calls for raising flap to extend your glide to make the field - then do it. If this requires side slipping a C172 (which is prohibited in the POH with full flaps) then do it!

i think the poor airmanship side of it comes from a lack of situational awareness, i am capable of flying an approach at 30 kts with full flap, but if there is other traffic, then no way will i do it.

and whats the reason for NOT having full flap on a C152 at 500 ft?
full flap, plus a very steep approach into a tight field? then you can do a glide approach with full flap in any aircraft.

my greatest satisfaction is a when i can glide from base, yet still get full flap out and make a 30 kts landing right on my mark with 50 mtr landing roll and not touch the throttle.

I'm by no means an expert but PA39 summed up my point of view beautifully.

I was taught to have full flap out by about 400 feet, but it wasn't until my first Chief pilot pointed it out that i realized that this practice is "unsafe" in an engine failure situation. He suggested putting out full flap going over the fence, however I feel that's getting a bit late. I tend to throw out full flap when I'm assured I'll make it to the clearway, it leaves me enough time to stabilize the aircraft before the flare and if the donk did go U/S I'd be happy to put it in the undershoot if needed.

Because you have a couple of barn doors hanging out the back creating heaps of drag. This in turn requires you to use lots of power to maintain the profile. I've done my fair share of short field ALA operations and a standard approach profile IMO is the best way to get the job done.

Sometimes in the 172s/152s I'd leave 20 degrees out and land with that! Lets face it, they will land flapless in less than 400 meters!

Again! Only apply full flap when you know you are going to make it to the runway!

You wouldn't want to apply it before that, there's no need and no recovery if your thrust is lost.

Sunfish, you should give it a go. Practice up a bit higher and see what happens to your glide when you drop the flaps and re-apply them.

Question why it is unsafe. I assume most here are talking about a powered approach and any aircraft which loses power with or without flap is not going to make the powered aiming point, it will fall short.

Unless you are all conducting a glide approach from the start from some point late base and final you will not make the runway even clean unless you are aiming originally to land a good way in or at excessively high speed.

The benefit of having flap already out is that no configuration change is necessary and the touchdown speed off field will be much less.

Some larger and high performance singles have very little hope of making the runway even from a close downwind position, especially if there is a headwind to the field. The best method to teach is always know how far you can safely glide in any configuration and have a clear area to put down off airport in the event of total power loss. If you can safely make the runway do it, if not take the off field option. Focusing too much on stretching a glide back to the field results in stall spin accidents and its better to land in the rough upright (better still a reserve, padock or oval) at low speed than arrive at the boundary fence inverted and lacking control.

I think the CP should not even take off as at some point after lift off the aircraft would not be able to safely glide back to the runway after an engine failure.

Any sideslipping should be done with caution in most trainers, especially with lower fuel loads as it can lead to fuel interuptions.

In any case discussion on the point should also involve some practice. In a real emergency best to stick to what you know and have done rather than try something new.

A well known ex Kununurra CP used to demonstrate a turn back after take-off and expect his boys to be competent at the maneuver.

Whilst not always the best thing to do, it is another trick in the bag if it is ever required.

What absolute bullocks :ugh:

High performance singles are usually very slippery and glide far more efficiently than your average trainer.

The only exception to this is perhaps the mighty C207 and a Cherokee 6. (and the C209). However if you can't make the field from your downwind position, you should rethink your circuits IMO. Something like a PC12, a turnback after takeoff is a QRH maneuver.

Especially with the size of circuits that are promoted at the training fields these days. The circuits I flew, I would have been able to make the field in 90% of the circuit, and I kept this margin in every piston type I flew.

You can tell who the Grob/C152/C172 instructor is :zzz:

This one has been touched on before

Retracting Flaps

There's a bit of drivvle there, but post #7 gets to the point - I think this bloke knew what he was talking about.

Energy Management
 

Thank goodness for your wise words Green Goblin, I was really concerned with several of the posts.

Good to ask though - can't learn otherwise.

Energy management is exactly what it is in the smaller cessna's (et al)- each circuit can be different. Circuits should always be flown with possibility of engine failure in mind - too late when it has happened. Good practice for night circuits also.
Long time since I have flown the cessnas but I recall sideslipping with full flap prohibited in at least some single cessnas because
1. loss of elevator authority (due shielding)
2. gravitiy feed fuel system

:)

BA38 anyone?

pretty sure that had a major impact (retracting the flaps) in the outcome of that flight at LHR..

Another thing Sunny, you're flying a C172!

KISS!!!

1.3 VS, bla bla bla, FFS IT'S A C172!!

What I suggest you do, put a post it note over that ASI and fly looking out of the big thing called a window out the front. Use your primary and secondary flight controls to take you where you need to go.

If you really want to learn something, go do a tail wheel endo in a Moth. It will really sharpen up your flying skills and get you looking out of the front of the thing rather than trying to treat it like a heavy.

To put it another way :p KISS!

GG

No one is saying to disturb or conduct an unstabilised approach at all. They/we/I are just saying to not lower all your flap, until you are going to make it in.

The last 2 hours you have been above LSALT in cruise with time to plan your glide and off field landing. A failure on final approach in landing configuration will have you in the weeds before you probably comprehended the gravity of what was happening. This is the time you need to be prepared for an emergency.

A little bit of prior planning and personal SOPs help prepare your recovery in a future upset.

WHY oh why are you even discussing a "stabilised" approach??? It's an inappropriate notion when discussing the average GA airframe -up to & including most twins!!! You have neither the mass nor the inertia inherent in that mass to properly conduct a "stabilised" approach!!! Sure, there are elements of the stabilised approach paradigm that are utterly appropriate to GA airframes and pilot action, but the practice of attempting to "stabilise" the average GA approach is a complete nonsense!!!

Energy management is what GA drivers need to be concentrating on, along with appropriate circuit tracks and size. How many "pilots" do you see out there flying 747 circuits, dragging their airframe to the threshold with almost full power whilst sitting right on the back of the L/D curve in what is their interpretation of a "stabilised" approach?

Further, why not have full-flap in a C172 at 500'??? I used to have exactly that configuration most approaches in all sorts of conditions in some locations -in older 172's that had the 40 degree flaps too, not the more recently built 30 degree models. When you needed to get down, that was the way to do it. Admittedly, it's not always necessary, but when you need to use it, you need to know how -and don't try to overshoot from that configuration either. You'll wind-up as a smoking hole in the ground. Something like that will teach you about energy management in no time.

Nothing, as long as you adjust your speed (and trim) to correspond with the configuration. If you forget to trim, under the pump the aircraft will move away from the best L/D speed for that configuration, and you will have not achieved your aim.

I think most pilots would be better served by going straight for the carby heat if on short finals at YMMB if the engine splutters and dies, historically carby icing is the real issue, not how much flap one has selected or the size/shape of circuit flown.

Off field, what should have been taught is that first, if you are looking short, is to reduce the distance to touchdown by turning towards the aim point earlier, i.e. making crosswind, downwind, base shorter. Flap selection should be restricted to leave as much variation of control as possible over the angle and rate of descent.

That would surprise me, when doing glide approaches in the circuit, or PFLs in the training area/NAVs, it is a standard consideration given in the briefing. I would find it hard to believe that at no stage this was covered. What you may have had is a recent light bulb moment and actually connected the dots and reinvented the wheel.

Blanket statement like that are not useful.

The CASA standard that is expected to be taught is "turn onto final at about 500FT and select landing flap when rolled out on final", that is straight from their instructor manual. In reality if you turn onto final at 500 ft, and select full flap when rolled out, you will be just below 500 feet, but not by much.

That would be poor airmanship on the part of the RPT aircraft. Too often I see pilots of light twins like the SF34 think they are the skygods at regional airports. Airmanship also applies to RPT aircraft, and they should fit into the local traffic pattern, not the other way around.

Airmanship and situational awareness is a two way street.

It is, every GFPT holder must be able to do a PFL, glide, and flapless approach.

Turn backs used to be taught around the world, the procedures comes from high performance (i.e. low drag) aircraft, they work in a glider, PC-9 or PC-12, but not in C152 unless you have enough energy to start with. The procedure is not suited to most GA light singles as pilots do not have the data at which height they will have enough energy to return. Once on crosswind, a 90 degree turn towards the runway become far more possible.

A turn back in a C172 would require a 45 degree AoB turn, which places the aircraft at the stall speed at low altitude in an emergency. The altitude loss for a 180 degree turn in "test pilot" conditions is 200-300 ft. A PPL holder being hit with an engine failure, and then a subsequent stall warning would not fair so well.

In a paper presented to the AIAA, 28 pilots with experience levels from 40 hrs to 5000 hrs were put in a simulator and told to expect and emergency at some stage.

They were given a takeoff clearance to climb straight ahead to 3000'. At 500 ft they were given an engine failure, 85% of pilots landed straight ahead, no crashes, of the 15% that attempted a turn back, 2/3 crashed from steep bank/stall.

Then they were repositioned for takeoff, pilots were told to expect engine failure at 500’, and they could handle it any way they wish. 90% of the pilots landed straight ahead, no crashes. Of the 10% that turned back, 50% crashed.

They were then repositioned again for takeoff. Pilots were told to attempt 180 turn upon engine failure, only 43% of them were successful. 85% of failures involved bank exceeding 55 degrees which is a low level stall/spin entry.

It is far safer to land in area that would require smaller angles of bank to maximise the stall buffer. This become even more pronounced in low visibility and at night, and with low experience.

Turn backs in GA aircraft at low altitude in my view are right up there with going past a perfectly good airport if you have a problem to save your boss a few bills, or not closing the second throttle on a light twin when not achieving some climb performance.

You must have flown a different PC-12 than I have. The RFDS does teach turn back when above a certain altitude, they also teach an IMC cloud break procedure which gets you over the runway at 400ft/Vne if engine out in IMC, similar to what the RAAF do in the PC-9. They are not manufacturers procedures and I would not recommend either to anyone not having been taught them conducting them in anger.

Stabilised approaches need to be taught as people without much experience need a consistent picture to hang their hat on. They do not have the experience or judgement to fly a circuit as efficiently say a pilot that has done 1000 hrs of bungles joy flights.

The majority of people I have taught went on to fly other aircraft apart from GA singles. Even in a GA single, conducting an instrument approach requires the aircraft to be stabilised from the FAF/FAP. The earlier this concept is taught, the easier it is to move from the known (VFR) to the unknown (NVFR/IMC) training. Night training should also involve stable consistent approaches.

Nothing at all, as long as the correct procedure is applied.

I have to fess up, it's a while since I've flown one in any configuration... but from memory, with 40 degrees out in the breeze and even a moderate load (say 2 POB, 1/2 tanks) full throttle in that configuration resulted in a negative ROC. If a missed approach was necessary from that configuration, I started getting the flaps up (very carefully) from the instant the throttle was in.

American courts of the day (70's, 80's) took pretty much the same view, which very nearly sounded the death knell of the GA manufacturing industry around that time -and certainly resulted in Cessna reducing the available flap from 40 degrees to 30. The old crash reports were replete at the time with details of Yanks flying their 40 degree equipped 172's into oblivion on a missed approach from a 6,000' concrete runway!!! No editorialising necessary from me there...

So I guess really the problem with overshooting from that configuration (something I have done -apparently successfully :E) is, or should I say was apparently a lack of training and inept mishandling.

Well there has been lots of thread drift here.............but the best answer to you question is............ Ask Capt. Peter Burkhill.

Simple question and a pretty simple lesson being tought here.

Here is another worthy video to watch.

This is NOT a suits all demonstration, but it does make you think carefully about how you would deal with a turnback scenario and how best to train for and execute.

If you know you can....its better than a controlled crash.

If you only think you can..........you can't.

Best to know what you can and can't do.

Aerobatics in California

J:ok:

Or consider this
 

Accident description

Status
Date:27 DEC 1986Time:13:48
Type:de Havilland DH-114 Riley Heron 2B
Operator:Sunflower Airlines
Registration Q-FEFC/n / msn:14056First flight:1955
Crew:Fatalities: 2 / Occupants: 2Passengers:Fatalities: 9 / Occupants: 12Total:Fatalities: 11 / Occupants: 14
Airplane damage:Written offAirplane
Location:near Nadi (Fiji)
Phase:Approach (APR)
Nature domestic Scheduled Passenger Departure Savusavu- Nadi, Fiji

At 500 feet the right flap jammed at 35° while the left one continued to 60°. The aircraft rolled to 90° bank, struck the ground and cart wheeled short of runway 21.
PROBABLE CAUSE: Unsecured non-standard flap attachment pin migrated upward and lodged in a lightening hole.

As Im at work, I cant watch the above vids but I can say that I have been shown the turn back once and it was followed by pretty strict instructions on its use.

In a 152 we set out to perform this maneuver, where just short of 700ft(xwind turn for us) the instructor pulled the power and performed the move. Back on the strip he asked me to perform this as per his prompts, which I did and we landed again safely (quite day at the field).
His instructions were that it was possible, BUT only if you can check these 3 things off can you attempt it.

Good head wind on takeoff, giving a good tailwind to help get back.
Never below 500ft, and even then it shouldnt be below at least 600ft.
No one following you on the runway.

Before anyone says anything, he drove home that landing ahead option 1 and 1a. The only time you should consider this was if in your pre take-off brief you know there is no a safe field off the end of the runway to land in.
Never exceed 30deg AoB.

Ive never attempted it again or been asked to perform it.
Just giving a newbie’s point of view on whats being taught :ok:

SpyderPig
I think when you get to see the video's you will change your mind on that. Seems that more is good. I am going to do some tests myself some time soon to see what results can be achieved safely.

That's where we're going to have to agree to disagree I reckon. I'm of the opinion that trainees need to be taught appropriately to fly what they are flying now, not what they may or may not fly several years and thousands of hours down some future track -when they can be properly and appropriately trained in what they need to know, in what they need to know it in. The "consistent picture they need to hang their hat on" when training and in the early stages of their career does not come from attempting to fly an inappropriate "stabilised" approach. They need to be getting trained to see and accurately perceive the sight-picture in front of them and manage their approach path and appropriately respond to managing their profile to achieve the desired result. Instructors that train their student on the basis of "You'll never fly a [insert desired heavy-metal here] if you do that" are the bane of the industry IMO, not serving themselves, their institution or their students well.

Jabawocky's 1st video is one of the examples I was going to quote myself... their stabilised approach went all to hell in a hand-basket when the power faded. Had a stabilised approach been the only trick in their arsenal, how do you think that would have wound up? They were able to see and do what was necessary to achieve a bloody good result because they were trained to see and respond to what was necessary rather than slavishly follow a formalised procedure. Likewise, Captain Sullenburger of Hudson River fame -how "stabilised" do you reckon his approach was?

The Politically Correct stance of "train 'em for the majors" is bull**** IMO. Many will never make it, some don't want to. They still have years of active GA flying in front of them and need to be trained to fly what they are in.

Firstly in reply to Sunfish I would say that retracting flap would be OK if overshooting as long as the IAS is adjusted appropriately and the aircraft trimmed, as previously stated. Certainly worth a try if all else has failed, anyway! For information, the ADF teaches CT4 students to initially pick an aiming point 1/3 into the selected landing field, then when on final full flap is selected to bring the aim point back in order to take full advantage of the landing distance available.
Secondly – my 2c on glide slope management for powered approaches. The ADF teaches CT4 students to roll out final at 500FT AGL then select full flap. The resulting glide slope is significantly steeper than those flown by other GA types I have observed that also are using full flap. I estimate that the full flap glide slope some GA drivers are using are shallower than the glide slope we teach CT4 students for flapless approaches. As others have stated, a case of trying to fly 747 circuits in lighties in my opinion. Why?
Thirdly – turn backs. Reciprocal turnbacks are possible in the PC9. However these manoeuvres are not to be briefed, demonstrated or taught to students. And with good reason. Remember the PC9 has an ejection seat that works quite well. Why risk stalling the aircraft at high AoB trying to make it back when the Martin Baker roadside assist plan is available?
As a first tourist QFI on the PC9 I recall practicing reciprocal turnbacks with other QFIs. The “manly” thing to do was to hack the throttle at 500FT AGL and try to get it back on the runway from there. Frequently this required pulling to the light buffet in order to haul the nose around. The lunacy of this eventually dawned on me after practicing these manoeuvres at night, scaring the sh!t out of myself.
A couple of thousand more hours on the beast later, I wouldn’t consider a reciprocal turnback in the PC9 below 1,000FT AGL. Remember the ADF has spent a motza installing ejection seats. They’re not there for looks.
Reciprocal turnbacks are only practiced (sans students!) in the CT4 to demonstrate the absolute futility of attempting such a manoeuvre in that aircraft.

I've practiced and pulled off the odd turn back successfully, no dramas, but that was ideal conditions. As we should all know it wouldn't take much for things to go pear-shaped; one thing leads to another when the proverbial hits the fan.

What is there to stop you? nothing. Reduce drag ....say F20 or there abouts. Course pitch if you can and have a windmilling prop.

Jaba, your correct saying my tune would change after watching the aero vid. From memory Im sure he said I should try to nail 30deg and best glide speed during the turn, but we were also at around 650-700ft, and again he said it would depend on good conditions, like XXX described.
Anyway, when I go for a nav this week Ill still be prepping for the fields off the end of the strip:ok:

My circuits are a 300ft decent on base and a 700ft final with flap 30 at around 500ft. 1/3 strut spacing downwind, 45deg to threshold base turn. It seems like a pretty standard pattern to me, I hardly think this is airline stuff? We have RPT at our CTAF, and when ever the PAPI is on we pretty much ignore it as our profile is more like 4 or 5 degree profile due to being much smaller and having a steeper profile. Its all good to train students to act in a professional way "gettin em ready for the majors" but part of that should be teaching people to fly their current type correctly?

Back to the flaps though, a small change of one stage just extend the glide a little shouldnt be a problem I think. But if you find yourself wanting to pull back more than that, chances are you've made a meal of it and probably shouldnt be up there flying in the first place. They drummed it into me pretty hard about getting it right, you only getting one shot in a real failure.

The majority of pilots issued with a new CPL in Australia transition to a multi-crew aircraft with less than 250 hrs total time, and normally do so within 6-12 months of being issued with the CPL (some are asked to sit and wait for a bit longer like during the last downturn). A lot of those CPL holders are trained for overseas airlines (be around 30-40%).

A stabilised approach means being on the final approach course from where a landing can be carried out in the landing configuration without exceeded acceptable speed, pitch, and roll variations.

It does not mean a 3 degree ILS approach from 3000'/10nm.

Do you mean if they had not changed configuration ? They still would have landed within the airport perimeter on the runway centreline. The lights and antennae in the clearway are frangible by design. Even after changing configuration, they resumed a stabilised approach.

That was also stable, for a ditching. Gear up, on speed, wings level, and pitch attitude within the stabilised approach criteria. If they were unstabilised, they would have ended up like the Ethiopian 767.

I think most people do, they just do not recognise what they are doing is actually a stabilised approach. Airlines give the crews direction as to what parameters trigger an unstabilised approach, I have only similar words in the upper levels of GA where high performance aircraft are operated.

Flight manuals and pilot operating handbooks of light aircraft are not that specific in a lot of cases as to what the standard landing configuration is, it may just say flap "as required" or "as appropriate", if you have fixed undercarriage that landing configuration deviation is also removed from the equation. It would them come back to what performance figures are available, if a pilot decides to land in a configuration for which they do not have performance figures, it may void their insurance.

In larger aircraft, manufacturers get more specific with their published procedures, and hence their operations are less variable.

If you are doing it without large variations in configuration, speed, and attitude, and complete your landing checklist, it is airline stuff. That is a what airlines call a stabilised approach. Flying a circuit in a airliner is still much the same as a C-172, the speeds and heights are a little higher, but the principle is the same.

What I was taught way back was:
1) Don't select full flap until a landing (on the runway) is assured,
2) Don't select flap, when the result will be the requirement to add power to overcome the associated drag.

I suggest that if the above is followed, then the circumstances outlined in the question at the start of this thread is minimised.

These days I believe there is far too much emphasis on following strict procedures and not in teaching students that there are other options on the menu that may be suitable. The student must be able to think outside the box!

As for the 'keeping the circuit tight so that you can glide to the runway if you have an engine failure' , that would mean a glide approach for every circuit you do, would it not? Either that, or you land long with a normal power approach.

who's a jolly joker!!! where did you get this info from? or are you just trying to drum up some business for your school?

did you know that 75% of all statistics are made up.............:hmm:

SWH, what you're describing pretty much mirrors what I've been taught since I started flying charter. That is, every approach is required to be stabilised (yes, even in a 210) - the only thing that changes with type/weight/size of aircraft is how far out this must occur. And that "stabilised" doesn't have to mean a perfect 3 deg slope - it just means being able to continue the approach to the runway without any gross changes in configuration or attitude, and with airspeed continually reducing to reach threshold speed on short final.

Again, number 2 here describes how I was taught - approach stabilised from X miles out, with gear and flap extension on schedule to bring you to your landing configuration and airspeed, without any changes to throttle setting from 1st flap extension onward (of course, throttle adjusted as required on final, but in a perfect approach, shouldn't be required until the flare).

I experienced what I see as the "opposite" view a few months ago - riding in the back of a 210 with a pilot I'd never met - he kept around 20" on with an aiming point a few hundred metres past the threshold, then on very short final, cut the power to near-idle, dumped full flap and shifted his aim point to the threshold, resulting in a very steep approach for the last half-mile or so. Nothing really out of whack, airspeed pretty much where it should be and a good landing not too far past the threshold - but it hit me as a completely opposing theory on how to fly a piston single approach. Not what I'd call stabilised. If he'd had an engine failure on short final though, he may well have been in a better position than I'd got used to flying a C206/210. But I wouldn't like to jump out of the 210 into a PA31 and use the same technique.

I'm not saying this is "wrong" though - some here will probably say this is how they do it and any other way is crazy. Don't know.

The concept of always flying a stabilised approach has always been completely logical to me though, and make the transition to heavy piston twins (and I assume turbines and beyond, not there yet) a lot more straightforward and logical.

Look guys, it would appear you all do not know the definition of a stabilised approach.

I'll post it here for you:


1. The aeroplane is on the correct flight path
2. Only small changes in heading and pitch are required to maintain the correct flight path
3. The aeroplane is not more than Vref +20 and not less than Vref
4. The aeroplane is in the correct landing configuration
5. Sink rate is not greater than 1000 feet
6. Power setting is appropriate for the aeroplane configuration
7. All briefings and checklists have been completed
8. Stabilised by 500ft in VMC or 1000ft in IMC


This is in regards to an above 5700kg aeroplane. Whenever we are talking stabilised approach criteria, this is what is being referred to.

In regards to a light piston single or twin, there is no reason why you can't use this as a reference, however you should fly the aeroplane as is required to do so in the interests of safety.

In regards to the ongoing debate about the 3 degree glideslope, the requirement is to be on the correct flight path for the approach that is being flown. Some require more, others less. A piston single feels mighty awkward when you are trying to fly a PAPI!

If you need to ask
 

Forget the theory, reconfiguring flaps close to the ground should be done with great care regardless of type .... and only when absolutely necessary.