Fly 'em like an airliner?
 

Well do you?

The recent thread on landings seems to have digressed (nicely, I might add) into a discussion on differing philosophies as how to fly a light aircraft.

My simple question is whether a light aircraft can and should be flown like a much larger aircraft? Three degree approaches, cross-country-circuits, and nailing the speed to 'exactly 54 knots', indicates an airliner culture, methinks. Not a 'wrong' culture, but a 'different' one.

T'other camp is far more seat-of-pants than this. It's also where I've set up my tent, to be honest.

Discuss.

TW

I think we must be camping on the same site!

To fly a light aircraft like a heavy aircraft ingores the fundamental nature of the aircraft you're are flying. What professional pilot would ignore anything different about the type he was flying?

So three degree approachs, and x-country circuits are out, but precision in light aircraft flying DOES get my my vote. If the POH/FM says 54 knots, you should try to fly at 54 knots. You'll fail of course, but to try is divine and to fail is just human.

Jonathon Livingston tacpot.

[ 20 August 2001: Message edited by: tacpot ]

Agreed, its the freedom and 'seat of the pants' aspect of light aircraft flying that is so unique and fun. Be precise but enjoy the flying, enjoy the views, enjoy challenging yourself on approaches into strips etc.

Kermie

I thought it would have been to everyone's advantage to fly as accurate as possible.
What's the point of just bimbling around at any old speed. As said above, if the book say 92kts, then try for 92kts, accurate
timing and naviagation.
After a while it should become second nature and makes the step up to bigger, better things much easier.
BTW, what's a cross country "circuit"?
GA

When didya last see a 747 being spun, looped and rolled? :D

I was also wondering, what is a "xcountry circuit"?

Tricky thats partly why I decided to learn on Tigers. Cessnas and stuff are flown and treated like airliners despite being so small and i cant stand that. And I also hate all this VOR needle, tracking radar talk. Sounds like something youd expect in an airliner.

Simon W,

You'll see 'cross country circuits' demonstrated at an airfield near you.

Take powerful binoculars.

TW

In his book "Make Better Landings" Alan Bramson has this to say about extended circuits :

"One school with a reputation for this technique was the Norfolk and Essex Flying Club, so-called because its circuits took in most of the county of Norfolk and all of Essex."

--Mik

Fly accurately at all times in every aeroplane you captain - but bomber command circuits are for bombers. And 3 degree approaches and rotate speeds are for multi engine parrafin burners off loooong runways -both are WRONG for SE light aircraft. IMHO, of course ;~)

SSD

And just what is so aggravating about a 3 degree approach?

SD

How about engine failure at 2 mile final??

How about causing an aerial taffic jam as your 3 degree approach neccesites a mega final (therefore a bomber circuit) to fit it in?

In a SE VFR light aircraft, keep it tight, keep it close, keep it professional.

SSD

[ 20 August 2001: Message edited by: Shaggy Sheep Driver ]

I see that this thread is heating up nicely.

TW

How`s your flying going Tiger Moth, are you having trouble getting it on the ground properly. You and I operate at the same speed, about 60 knots and I don`t think big circuits suit either of us.
Mike W

Shaggy Sheep -- you are mixing up a number of issues. I always fly 3 degree approaches --- but have never flown a two mile final while VFR except when forced to by others who lack pattern discipline. When I do have to extend --- I push over on final when the approach is 3 degrees. What's the problem? (A 3 degree IFR approach is required by the procedure. Surely you are not arguing with that.)

I wish everyone would fly 3 degree approaches --- these guys that drag it in in the weeds scare the hell out of me.

SD

if you fly a 3 degree approach even at 2 miles you'd only be at 600 feet !! Just how low do you turn final??

How do you combine a neat visual ciruit with 3 degree approach??

3 degrees *is* dragging it in through the weeds - chop the power on final and see how far short of the field you'll fall.

Yes, for IFR procedure traffic the ILS is usually 3 degrees. It's optimised for multi engine jet transports, not SE light aircraft.

SSD

Mr Static,

Some of us consider a three degree approach in a light aircraft flying VFR to be 'dragging it through the weeds'.

I fully agree that an IFR approach is more often at three degrees, seeing as that's the usual ILS glideslope, or whatever. However, I think this discussion is concentrating on VFR circuits and approaches. Presumably you only ever fly on IMC days?

TW

I prefer the 45 degree rule when I'm in the circuit. That is, if the threshold (or a threshold) is less than 45 degrees to me then I may well not make it back if the donk stops.

This was brought home to me back in 84 when I was flying a VP1 (arguably one of the draggiest machines around). I had an engine failure at 1500 feet upwind of the airfield on a straight climbout (wind down the runway at c.12kts).

I elected to go back to the field because I considered I had enough height to do so. The drag effect was similar to a C150 with full flap on approach. I made it back to the active threshold but only by flying a steady, shallow 360 degree turn. A conventional circuit would not have got me back to it.

Thereafter, I have always tried to make my circuits and approaches tight enough to at least get to the field boundary should I lose power.

I'm very surprised by these comments recommending a "do it yourself glideslope."

How often is it that engines suddenly fail during the last 1.5 minutes of the approach? 1 in a million? Perhaps.

How often is it that someone prangs one in because he screwed up the flare because he was way too high and then pushes over the nose to "get it down" --- or runs off the end of the runway because he comes in too high/hot --- or almost takes out the boundary fence because he equates being low/flat with a greaser.

Sorry guys. Go stand at the end of the runway some Saturday and look at the show. Very entertaining --- but don't take your children. No --- I'll continue to risk life and limb and fly a 3 degree stable approach from 1.5 miles. And no lectures about long finals please. My 600 carrier landings averaged an 8 second wings level final. I know what a tight pattern is.

Careful - you are now using conjecture rather than real statistics to back up your arguments. If engine failures on final are indeed 1 in a million then I should have been a Lottery winner by now.... I have either seen at first hand or heard from fellow pilots of this occurring at least 6 times over a 20 year period. It's happened to me once. Quite common in VW engined aircraft, A65s, C90s when despite carb heat they ice up.

The next statement is much more to do with pilots knowing how to hold their speeds and fly accurately down whatever angle glidepath they choose, so that they arrive at the correct landing point, at the correct speed & attitude, pointing in the correct direction, rounding out correctly & of course stopping in a straight line.

Saturday moprnings or indeed any other times are always entertaining at GA/light aircraft fields - people have to learn to fly you know, and they only learn by getting it wrong before they get it right (even when they are qualified).

Although I don't doubt your abilities, and have every respect & a high regard for your carrier experience, at least you had a hook to stop you!!!! (sorry, couldnt resist that). But even as a lowly PPL I can claim many more landings than that at a field with short runways close to a built up area.

Could I ask you something - would you adjust your rule if your home airfield's main runway approach was over a heavily built up area with no let out should your donk stop one day at 1.3 miles? One of our guys didnt. He was lucky when he landed on the sewage farm in nice new Cessna. He got out, but the plane was cut in two by the sewage sweeper rotor arm. His fuel guages showed quarter full of course so he knew his engine wouldnt stop.

Or would you be thinking about the traffic in front of and behind you (which may include anything from microlights to a fast twin) when you set yourself up on the base leg prior to turning finals? Lots of traffic, different speeds, a radio advisory service only and you have to start making lots of decisions to remain safe and considerate, not just sticking to what is best for yourself.

I wonder how long it would take a J3 Cub (65hp, cruise about 50 knots) ) with a 10 knot headwind to make a one and a half mile approach, all at three degrees? SSD is good at these sorts of sums, so I'll leave it to him. Of course, no one would dream of flying a J3 like that.

Ok, so this is a rhetorical question simply to show that something has gone a bit strange with the way pilots are looking at their light aircraft. The easiest retort is that an Archer or whatever is a different beastie. Agreed! But both aircraft are picking their way around the same circuit.

The amazing thing is that I'd much rather have an engine failure in a Cub than an Archer, even though the temptation to fly the Archer like a sodding Boeing 737 would make things even worse.

TW

I think the best thing I could say in terms of this discusssion is............

"Whilst "by the book" procedures, speeds, rules etc are laudable and good for the purposes of training and use in the ideal situations, we tend to stay alive in this game by knowing the theory, respecting it, but using it as a benchmark.

When we are in situations that demand variances, we have to quickly assimilate the contributing factors & accept them. These can be pilot, aircraft, other aircraft, ground facilities & guidance, weather, whether we have an exceptional situation or not, etc, etc, etc.

When we are in a situation where the factors start to make the "airliner" rules illogical and in some cases downright unsafe or inconsiderate, then we have to use our skill and experience to do the best thing and still pull off a safe and accurate landing.

Key to this is developing a more intimate knowledge of our own and our aircraft's capabilities & limitations. If we do not know this, then we are a potential liability to ourselves and others and should stay on the ground.

If you live by rules rigidly, then one day the commonest rule - Murphy's Law - will inevitably wake up and bite you on the bum.

i know im inexpierienced but 3 degrees sounds downright immoral in a light aircraft.

Lessons are going well skylark but ive had 3 cancellations so ive only had 4 lessons. Next lesson will be slow flight.

Static, when were you on a carrier and what did you fly?

It's a wind-up. Got to be.

The 'carrier' ?

Not one of HM's or US of A's, I'd venture a guess.

SSD

Tiger --- I must be missing something. Hasn't your instructor told you to try to roll out on final at 450-500 feet? Has he explained the vasi / papi system and how to use them to assist with proper glideslope? Has he introduced you to the approach sight picture? If the answer to any of the above is yes -- you are flying a 3 degree glideslop (OK -- sometimes a 3.25 approach).

Please don't listen to these guys who improvise as they go along. Contrary to Poet's comment, I ask who has more more accidents - guys who follow religiously standardised and well-proven procedures ---- or the fals Top Guns who "really know how to fly an airplane.

Guys please --- don't screw up students with thinking like this. If you old timers want to do it ---- OK by me --- but don't tell students this is good practice.

And yes --- I am really ex-USN. A7s, Super Etendards (French Navy -- long story) and finally F18s. My time off is now spent in an Arrow --- flying 1.5 mile finals. ;-)

Nope, not a wind-up. Wannabe airline pilot playing at Airbus in a sodding Arrow. I shudder to think.

TW

3 degrees at 1.5 miles - so you're sitting there in your Cherrytree at 450 feet QFe 1.5 miles out. If TW is correct, and this isn't a wind-up, then you are a menace to other in the circuit and everyone living on the (very) extended centerline of any field you visit.

Carrier pilots *know* how to fly. You, apparently, don't. Was it Pickfords you were with?

SSD

Tiger -- don't listen to me. Ask a CFI. Any CFI --- to explain to you about approach altitudes, touch down aim points, and standardised approaches. Please don't listen to the extremely questionable advice on this board. And good flying on 'ya.

Once new a guy called Ronchonner, musta defected ...... ;)

Someone earlier mentioned the 45 degree rule and thats what I work to. In a glider you can be a bit further out than that but too far and it feels most uncomfortable. O.K., the engine was never there but you would be surprised at how much height you can lose in an area of sinking air, not half as uncomfortable as you will be, two miles out at 650 ft. in a light a/c..
Lets have some input from those who have been there and done that. Have YOU ever had the donk stop on you and what was the result?
Anyone out there from Kidlington? Has it ever happened there?

Mike W

About time there was a decent fight on this forum. Right, where're my knuckle-dusters? You lot 'ave 'ad it now...

TW

I agree wholheartedly that the 3 deg approach is inappropriate in SEP aircraft. The 'runway aspect' should be used to assess final approach angle, NOT reliance upon 3 deg PAPIs/VASIs.
As an aside, when CFS came to do their annual visit to the better UAS at Benson, one of their Jet Provost background people queried why we weren't flying 3 deg approaches. It was pointed out that the standard Bulldog circuit (using that '45 deg rule') resulted in a steeper approach path. He was sceptical, so I did some calculations based on the '400 ft point' which they insist upon and proved that the resulting approach angle would be 5.4 deg. He then admitted that he was wrong; I also showed that if he really wanted us to fly 3 deg approaches, then the '400 ft point' would have to be renamed as the '222 ft point' - an absurdly low height to roll out at on final for a basic student.

Leave 3 deg approaches to those with more than one engine - or with a bang seat! The 'dragging it in from 2 miles out' approach one meets at places like Kidlington is wholly WRONG for a SEP aeroplane!

Good post Tricky Woo, love the way its going.

Right, I'm in for a scrap. 3 degree-ers - vs - eyeballers.

Kerms :mad:

Let's do a little math guys. Will you grant me a 3000 foot distance abeam. I know -- a little wide --- but if you first climb to 400-500 before turning --- you still have another 400-500 feet to go to pattern altitude = 1 minute of flying crosswind. So assume 3000 feet abeam on downwind. If you turn when the threshold is 45 degrees behind you (a little late in my opinion -- but OK). That puts the start of the turn to base (using 45/45/90 trig) at 3000 feet past the threshold. Assume 10 knots of wind down the runway = 17 feet per second drift. Assume one minute time from start of turn to base to start of turn to final = 60x17 =another 1020 feet from the threshold due to wind drift (and probably more because that would be a rather quick base). Assume 80 knot indicated during the turn to base = 133 feet/sec (I fly my Arrow 100/90/80 kts --- so would be a little more). OK the 90 degree turn to base takes 20-25 seconds --- so let's just take half of that as direct downwind distance at 133 feet/sec = another 1600 feet downwind to complete the turn to base. OK let's add it up:

3000 feet past threshold start turn
1020 feet for 10 knot wind
1600 feet for aircraft turn radius at 80 kts
500-700 feet from threshold to touch down point

Total distance = 6320 feet = 1.2 miles

OK you micro light guys can do it much tighter --- but I maintain my case that 1.25 - 1.5 mile final at 500 foot glideslope intercept is about right. +/- 0.5 miles to allow speed difference in Cessnas/Pipers.

BTW, in fighters we didn't fly a base leg. 1.1 nm abeam at 800 feet -- continuous spiral to final at 27 degrees angle of bank --- aiming for about 600 feet at the 90 and rolling wings level at 450 feet.

Well, Mr Static, you can take the 1000 odd feet off for crosswind drift for a start. If you are flying a circuit correctly, on ANY leg of the circuit you offset drift (unless of course you really want to be drifted).

Look, I again state I have every respect for your experience and abilities. But I just hope to hell that you dont have that engine on your Arrow quit on you when you're over a town or highway on the way in to a field.

It may help here to state that the average light aircraft field in the UK tends to be a bit more cramped than those that one finds in the States, that unless you are using a decent, large field you are unlikely to have VASI/PAPIs, and nine times out of ten you are mixing it in the circuit with many different types travelling at many different speeds. If you did your approach at Barton on 27 I think you may not be very popular with the circuit traffic or the tower guys.

On top of that, the terrain around our airfields is not always as flat and predictable as you may get in the states, and there are all sorts of obstacles we have to contend with. Indeed, some fields (Popham being an example) wont even allow you to make a straight approach to one of their runways, due to obstructions.

Re: the 45 degree rule - I believe this is standard in terms of glider training (I did 700 launches way back at the start of my flying career), certainly in the UK. When I progressed to flying light aircraft, back in 70s, there was still a fair number of ex-military people who instructed. I learnt most of my skills from them and they've never let me down. I have suffered 4 engine failures (only one on finals I grant you) and always got back to earth without a scratch, thank God.

One of the reasons why you may not hear of engine stoppages on finals is that in many (hopefully most) cases, the pilot pulls off a landing on the field without further incident BECAUSE they made allowances for such a contingency. I would seriously advise you to get overhead your local field and switch off (YES switch off) your engine when in the landing configuration. Check out just how she performs flaps down and dragging that static prop through the air. Yes, slow it up so the prop stops - because it might just do that if the engine is seizing or you are slow on speed.

Handy Hint - Just make sure when you do it that you do not attempt to fly a 3 degree approach, please!

Examples I've seen/experienced.........

1. Myself in a VP1, over the hedge at 45kts, about 50 feet up. Carb ice. got down ok.

2. Tipsy Nipper, twice on finals at about 300 feet. Carb ice. Got down OK.

3. Jodel D112. A65. carb ice or fuel contamination. about 200 feet on finals. Got down OK.

4. Cessna 172. Approaching on PAPIs (my best mate flying). landed short in a field (no damage). Faulty readings on fuel guages. He learnt about flying from that (certainly learnt about Cessna fuel guages).

5. Cessna 172RG (I think - may have been a 206). Dragging it into Barton on a long approach. landed in the sewage farm. aircraft written off. pilot ok. Faulty readings on fuel gauges. He had enough money to go and buy something else.

6. Grob on the downwind on a reasonably windy day, just 2 weeks ago. Landed on the golf course because there was no way he could get back to the field. Subject to investigation so will not comment on the cause. Both occupants ok, in my opinion he did totally the right thing in choosing where to land. Plane banged its nosewheel and prop in a bunker.

Interesting, eh? The guys flying the airliner approach didnt make it. Everyone else did. I'll exclude the downwind incident from my judgement - I wasnt there, wasnt in the plane, but I wonder what his aspect of the airfield was at the point when the engine stopped. Bet it was shallower than 45 degrees.

Look, if it can happen, it will happen. It's always best to make sure that when it does happen you know what to do and are in the right place.

Another thing Static - go and beg a ride in a Cub or a Stearman or something and shoot an approach or two. Please! You'll enjoy it anyway.

oh and another thing. 500-700 feet past the numbers for touchdown point? At Barton that puts you a third of the way down our biggest runway. On 32 probably 2/3rds !!! Gulp.

Saw a student pilot once on his qualifying from Liverpool try that. He didnt go back to Liverpool by air that night. The 172 looked like an X-fighter after it had gone through the hedge. Nice bit of forward sweep.

You are using airliner/combat plane figures for light aircraft & light aircraft airfields here and they are just not appropriate for the UK and for small single engined planes.

You'll be ok if you stick to large concrete areas - and you're quite lucky in France of course, because they get local subsidies to build mega fields in the middle of nowhere, with all the facilities.

I'm having some trouble with that math Static.

Imagine a 180 degree turn onto final from 3000 ft abeam as suggested, with no base leg. The total length of the turn arc is 4700 ft, which takes a grand total of 35 seconds at 80 knots.

You seem to be suggesting taking 20 to 25 seconds for the turn on to base and then another 35 to 40 seconds straight on the base leg. This would surely put you at least half a mile on the far side of the centreline, wouldn't it?

Ignoring this ugly civil convention of rolling the wings level for a while on base :) and assuming the 180 degree turn on to final once again, you would have (assuming your 10 knot wind) about 5500 track feet to the touchdown point from the midpoint of the turn, and about 3200 ft track feet to the touchdown point from the end of the turn after the roll out on to final. The 3 degree glideslope heights for those are 275 ft and 160 ft. You can add 50 ft to those by considering the threshold rather than the touchdown point if you prefer.

That doesn't seem to be consistent with your "Hasn't your instructor told you to try to roll out on final at 450-500 feet?" when you cannot hope to be wings level on final higher than 210 ft.

Static, the answer is no because we havent got onto circuits yet, we're just on slow flight. Im tempted to agree with you seeing as you've had so much expierience in jets and so much military flying but when you start talking about 3.25 degrees it makes me angry. I mean 3.25 degrees! Who can judge to .25 of a degree? Especially in a Moth with no artificial horizon! Theres nothing wrong with having a slowish turn but does it really matter if its 2 or 3 or 4 degrees as long as it gets you onto finals? Seems like a bit of an unnecessary skill for a light aircraft pilot to have.

Haven't had a chance to run your numbers Bookworm -- but a first observation is that you can't make a 180 in 30 seconds. At standard rate of turn --- +/- 21 AOB in an Arrow, 27 AOB in a fighter --- 180 requires one minute ---- 90 degrees to base = +/- 30 seconds.

Will double check the rest later.

Regards

Tiger -- although the numbers seem incredibly small --- 3 degrees or 3.25 --- there is a very noticeable/appreciable difference in the approach picture between 3 and 4 degrees. Enormous. I know --- it doesn't sound like there could be -- but there is.

By the way -- the Vasi/papi/ILS systems are all calculated to give you obstacle clearance on the approach if you follow them. There are no promises about engine failure performance. I would just repeat my earlyier comment that the most important thing a beginning pilot (experienced ones to) is to fly stablised, i.e., controlled/consistent approaches. For every engine failure on final accident I'll bet there are a thousand caused by too steep an approach -- or by too shallow an approach --- or by full power off -- then full power on --- wheel barrowing, etc. from people who weren't flying a stabilised approach. Talk to your instructor about it.

I think I have beat this subject to death --- and I can see I am definitely in the minority on this board --- so I'll shut up now. May you never run out of airspeed, altitude and ideas all at the same time!