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

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

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

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

Fly overhead, check the wind direction.

Do a circuit to the East of the field.

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

Make the base turn inside of the electricity pylons.

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

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

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

beagle some words of wisdom on this thread at last.

BEagler,

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

TW

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

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

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

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

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

[ 23 August 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

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

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

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

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

[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: FNG ]

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

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

I (mostly) agree with BEagle as well!

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

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

Mr Static,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TW

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

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

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

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

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

Ahem. I beg to differ.

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

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

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

SSD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:) :) :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AGHHH

Its the dsyxeci pote agina!

Greenals 3 Fines

:p

Well, I could have spelt you as

3 Flings A Sneer


Regards
PooPettil :D :D

[ 28 August 2001: Message edited by: poetpilot ]

Let it poop, toilet plop!

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

F3G

:eek: :rolleyes: :D