STOL flying in Europe
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Spain
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honestly, not enough unpopulated space in europe, and ever present regulation/restriction. The freedom given to canadian pilots with a float rating is staggering......compare that to european flying where most countries you cant even use a float rating.
Certainly in uk, microlights seem to take the place of stol backcountry stuff, flying into short farm strips, in a mostly un-supervised way. Same thing in france.
Certainly in uk, microlights seem to take the place of stol backcountry stuff, flying into short farm strips, in a mostly un-supervised way. Same thing in france.
Moderator
As I explain to my students, like four wheel drive, STOL is best used to get you out, rather than get you [further] in. STOL kit modifications are very common in Canada, and can be real life savers. But this is more the case in maneuvering safety than short takeoff and landing. Indeed, when one actually considers the ground roll distances required by many light aircraft, those distances are happily short. It is unlikely that one would find usable runways that short. So, "short" runways are commonly within the stated requirements of many light aircraft.
What I find troublesome, are "STOL" climbouts where there is no obstacle to clear, just for the sake of showing off. These eager pilots seem to overlook the fact that if you are climbing away at speeds in the STOL regime, an engine failure will leave the aircraft entirely unable to enter a safe glide before arriving back to the surface. Sometimes, this is operationally necessary, but not in the name of fun.
Similarly, if a STOL arrival is flown, the approach angle may be steep, and speeds slow. It will require extra skill and judgement to flare appropriately. Aircraft have come to grief, because the pilot simply did not arrest the descent prior to surface contact.
STOL type aircraft will be more safe to maneuver, allowing greater margins of safety in turns and increased G maneuvers, though again, if the pilot is in the habit of operating in that range anyway, the margin of safety is surrendered.
I would rather put a pilot in a plain Jane 172, and teach them to fly it with precision, than to put a pilot in a super STOL type, and try to teach them STOL skills. The 172 (or a number of other similar types) reward precise flying well.
Non standard landing surfaces are another story, but not so closely linked to STOL.
What I find troublesome, are "STOL" climbouts where there is no obstacle to clear, just for the sake of showing off. These eager pilots seem to overlook the fact that if you are climbing away at speeds in the STOL regime, an engine failure will leave the aircraft entirely unable to enter a safe glide before arriving back to the surface. Sometimes, this is operationally necessary, but not in the name of fun.
Similarly, if a STOL arrival is flown, the approach angle may be steep, and speeds slow. It will require extra skill and judgement to flare appropriately. Aircraft have come to grief, because the pilot simply did not arrest the descent prior to surface contact.
STOL type aircraft will be more safe to maneuver, allowing greater margins of safety in turns and increased G maneuvers, though again, if the pilot is in the habit of operating in that range anyway, the margin of safety is surrendered.
I would rather put a pilot in a plain Jane 172, and teach them to fly it with precision, than to put a pilot in a super STOL type, and try to teach them STOL skills. The 172 (or a number of other similar types) reward precise flying well.
Non standard landing surfaces are another story, but not so closely linked to STOL.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s easy to get in places, it’s harder to get out the primary reason being hitting the dyke at the end of the field at 10 v. 50mph hurts a lot more. Believe I know!!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've done lots of off airport flying in Ireland. Gone from it a few years now while other notions were explored like twins, aeros, amphibs, tourers, rotax etc but will def go back to it in 2018.
High wing, manual flaps and 8.50x6 tires will carry you a long way. If you read CC Pocock on Bush Flying he can do alot with a humble 145hp 172C.
High wing, manual flaps and 8.50x6 tires will carry you a long way. If you read CC Pocock on Bush Flying he can do alot with a humble 145hp 172C.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I think that depends on the pilot - an aircraft will get out according to the book figures, give or take various fudge factors, and all you have to do is start in the right place, which is easy enough to taxi to, and use the book technique.
Getting in is another matter. Yes, if you touch down at exactly the right spot at the right vertical and horizontal speeds etc it'll behave as per the book (give or take the fudge factors again), but this is rather more reliant on the pilot's ability to arrive at exact the right spot at exactly the right speed - arrive with a bit too much energy and it doesn't matter what it says in the book.
Getting in is another matter. Yes, if you touch down at exactly the right spot at the right vertical and horizontal speeds etc it'll behave as per the book (give or take the fudge factors again), but this is rather more reliant on the pilot's ability to arrive at exact the right spot at exactly the right speed - arrive with a bit too much energy and it doesn't matter what it says in the book.
