http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5777938.html

Is there a way to get a weather report from that location/time?

After looking at the pic my thought was that there are too many
senseless crashes resulting in death. I suspect that in many it is
pilot error and I have no idea how you instill in pilots common sense
or a way to suppress "get home-itis."

I also wonder if the Cirrus parachute system gives some pilots a false
sense of security.

So for the student pilots reading this...don't do stupid things.

Ron Lee

On 12/13/2005 08:26, Ron Lee wrote:

> Is there a way to get a weather report from that location/time?
>
> After looking at the pic my thought was that there are too many
> senseless crashes resulting in death. I suspect that in many it is
> pilot error and I have no idea how you instill in pilots common sense
> or a way to suppress "get home-itis."
>
> I also wonder if the Cirrus parachute system gives some pilots a false
> sense of security.
>
> So for the student pilots reading this...don't do stupid things.

.... that would be all pilots ;-)

and it's good advice.

>
> Ron Lee


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

> Is there a way to get a weather report from that location/time?

Within 24 hours, you can get the local METAR data from the FAA 24-cycle
files, on a FTP site.

Generally the weather, in the form of a METAR, is part of the FAA
preliminary accident report, but the one for the Cirrus crash lists the
weather as unknown.

> After looking at the pic my thought was that there are too many
> senseless crashes resulting in death. I suspect that in many it is
> pilot error and I have no idea how you instill in pilots common sense
> or a way to suppress "get home-itis."

All mistakes are "operator error" of some sort. That's the nature of
mistakes. The real question is how the error or errors could have been
averted. Is there something in the design of the equipment that is causing
the operator to make errors, etc.

> I also wonder if the Cirrus parachute system gives some pilots a false
> sense of security.

That's been the charge, and a suspiscion of pilots since the system was
announced. However, there still have been a number of accidents, including
this one, where the parachute was not deployed. It does not appear that
there are too many parachute incidents, whereas the 'chute was deployed when
normal piloting technique would have recovered from the problem.

> So for the student pilots reading this...don't do stupid things.

Of course.

>> So for the student pilots reading this...don't do stupid things.
>
> ... that would be all pilots ;-)
>

An unsafe pilot is one who no longer considers him/herself to be a student.

"JohnH" > wrote
> An unsafe pilot is one who no longer considers him/herself to be a
> student.

Well, I sure as hell don't consider myself to still be a student.
Not after 20,000+ flight hours.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
Flight Instructor Airplane/Instrument Airplane
USN S-2F P-2V P-3B
PanAm (retired)

>> Is there a way to get a weather report from that location/time?

("Charles Oppermann" wrote)
> Within 24 hours, you can get the local METAR data from the FAA 24-cycle
> files, on a FTP site.
>
> Generally the weather, in the form of a METAR, is part of the FAA
> preliminary accident report, but the one for the Cirrus crash lists the
> weather as unknown.


The crash site is in the southwest corner of Minnesota - 15 miles east of
the South Dakota border, 70 miles north of Iowa.


Montblack

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:59:32 -0800, "Charles Oppermann"
> wrote in
>::

>> Is there a way to get a weather report from that location/time?
>
>Within 24 hours, you can get the local METAR data from the FAA 24-cycle
>files, on a FTP site.

You can go back a little farther than that here:
http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=oax
but there is better historical data available.

According to the report at:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5777938.html

David Johnson, Mark's brother, said the three were leaving Wayne,
Neb., after attending a birthday party for Arthur's sister and
were headed toward Flying Cloud Airport in Eden Prairie [the
evening of December 10, 2005].

Assuming that the departure airport was:

KLCG Wayne, NE, USA Wayne Municipal Airport

And the destination airport was:

KFCM Minneapolis, MN, USA Flying Cloud Airport


Here is the December 10, 2005 observed weather around 9pm local:

KLCG Wayne, NE, USA Wayne Municipal Airport
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KLCG.html

D Time Wind Vis. Weather Sky Cond.
A (cst) (mph) (mi.) Temperature (ºF)
T Air Dwpt
E

10 22:11 NW 13 G 20 10.00 Overcast OVC029 36 32 29.93 NA
10 21:51 NW 13 G 17 10.00 Overcast OVC027 36 32 29.93 NA
10 21:31 NW 13 10.00 Overcast OVC027 36 32 29.93 NA
10 21:11 NW 12 10.00 Overcast OVC027 36 32 29.93 NA
10 20:51 NW 13 10.00 Overcast OVC027 36 32 29.93 NA

KFCM Minneapolis, MN, USA Flying Cloud Airport
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/data/obhistory/KFCM.html

D Time Wind Vis. Weather Sky Cond.
A (cst) (mph) (mi.) Temperature (ºF)
T Air Dwpt
E

10 22:53 N 16 G 25 10.00 Partly Cloudy SCT031 25 14 29.72 1007.3
10 21:53 NW 20 G 29 10.00 A Few Clouds FEW036 27 16 29.68 1006.2
10 20:53 NW 18 G 25 10.00 Overcast OVC039 30 19 29.66 1005.5
10 19:53 NW 21 G 29 10.00 Overcast and Breezy BKN031 OVC041 31 21
29.63 1004.5

Ron Lee wrote:
> Is there a way to get a weather report from that location/time?
>
> After looking at the pic my thought was that there are too many
> senseless crashes resulting in death. I suspect that in many it is
> pilot error and I have no idea how you instill in pilots common sense
> or a way to suppress "get home-itis."
>
> I also wonder if the Cirrus parachute system gives some pilots a false
> sense of security.
>
> So for the student pilots reading this...don't do stupid things.

To a point. However, in the end we are all responsible adults. We are
fortunate that the gov't still allows us to be responsible in aviation.
We could live in a horrible world where the FAA regulated everything to
a point this accident can't happen. Having the freedom to make your own
decisions and choices carries with it the ability to hurth yourself. I,
for one, am thankful that I live in a county where I still have the
freedom to hurt myself.

-Robert

>>> So for the student pilots reading this...don't do stupid things.
>>
>> ... that would be all pilots ;-)
>>
>
>An unsafe pilot is one who no longer considers him/herself to be a student.
>


Please give me the wisdom to realize whats stupid. I believe stupid is a slippery slope.


Paul

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>>
>> So for the student pilots reading this...don't do stupid things.
>
>To a point. However, in the end we are all responsible adults. We are
>fortunate that the gov't still allows us to be responsible in aviation.
>We could live in a horrible world where the FAA regulated everything to
>a point this accident can't happen. Having the freedom to make your own
>decisions and choices carries with it the ability to hurth yourself. I,
>for one, am thankful that I live in a county where I still have the
>freedom to hurt myself.
>
>-Robert
>
As long as you only hurt yourself I agree.

Ron Lee

I wonder how easy it is to get to the chute handle while the plane is
plunging out of control. I once slipped out of a 4 point harness while
doing inverted spins and found it very, very difficult to get to the
rudders to stop the spin. I wonder if the forces of a plunging Cirrus
could make it hard to get out. In the military there are always a
couple ways to eject partially for this reason.

-Robert, CFI

Aw, c'mon. There must be SOMEthing out there you don't know. 8<)
And that would make you a student!

Or was what my Air Force Pilot Dad said about Navy pilots correct?
(real big grin)

(He was a pilot back in the 40s through 60s. He had many stories, some
of which I learned from in later years after I got my own license. A
couple of his best, scariest, funniest stories did happen to involve
navy pilots.
Later I went into the navy myself {forced in by the draft} While I
absolutely hated the navy, I did have to admit one thing with no
reluctance. Every time my Dad took off, he came home to the same or
similar airport. When the navy carrier pilots came home, the ship had
moved, was pointed some other direction, was changing in altitude
during the landing, and grade wasn't stable either. And to top it off,
the strip was really, really short. ANY pilot has to respect THOSE
guys.)

SSSHHHHH. They lawyers will hear you.

> wrote

> Please give me the wisdom to realize whats stupid. I believe stupid is a
slippery slope.

That's an easy one.

If you have to stop and think, deciding if it is stupid or not, it is
probably stupid! <g>
--
Jim in NC

wrote:
> Aw, c'mon. There must be SOMEthing out there you don't know. 8<)
> And that would make you a student!

Not so. By definition, students are studying a topic.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

"Bob Moore" > wrote
>
> Well, I sure as hell don't consider myself to still be a student.
> Not after 20,000+ flight hours.

I propose that "being a student" is a state of mind. You certainly have
more time in walkarounds and flight planning than most of us will ever log
in the air. If you are happy with what you know, and what kind of planes
you can fly at this point in your life, then maybe it is safe to say that
you are not a student.

If on the other hand, you want to fly something different (like a
floatplane, or power assisted glider, or.... then you could once again
adjust your state of mind, to being a student.

Then along comes a new piece of avionics, and you have to study the manual
and learn how it works. Once again, you could safely say that for a period
of time, you are a student.
--
Jim in NC

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:7IMnf.13821$Ea6.4550@trnddc08...
> Not so. By definition, students are studying a topic.

By which definition?

At least one online definition (American Heritage Dictionary) includes as
one possible definition of a "student" the simple phrase "An attentive
observer".

Personally, I think anyone who claims to still be learning (possibly through
attentive observation :) ) can consider themselves to be a "student". The
obvious corallary is that someone who claims not to be a "student" is
someone who has given up learning.

Pete

On 2005-12-13, Bob Moore > wrote:
> "JohnH" > wrote
>> An unsafe pilot is one who no longer considers him/herself to be a
>> student.
>
> Well, I sure as hell don't consider myself to still be a student.
> Not after 20,000+ flight hours.

Ah yes, just like the airline pilot at our glider club who thought he
didn't need a recurrency check after not flying a glider for a few
months, and nearly wrecked the tug and glider combination...

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

Dylan Smith > wrote:

> Ah yes, just like the airline pilot at our glider club who thought he
> didn't need a recurrency check after not flying a glider for a few
> months, and nearly wrecked the tug and glider combination...

There are many examples in the NTSB accident reports of fatal accidents
where a five digit hour ATP was PIC.

I don't ever aspire to be that cocky.

--
Peter

>>>>When the navy carrier pilots came home, the ship had
moved, was pointed some other direction, was changing in altitude
during the landing, and grade wasn't stable either.<<<<

Oh come on, those guys never had to land with a crosswind - how hard
can that be? <G>

Now if they had to do all that WITHOUT arresting cables then I'd be
impressed..

Peter R. wrote:
> There are many examples in the NTSB accident reports of fatal accidents
> where a five digit hour ATP was PIC.

The most important hour in your logbook in the next one.

Hilton

wrote:
ade wasn't stable either.<<<<
>
> Oh come on, those guys never had to land with a crosswind - how hard
> can that be? <G>
>

Good thing, too! Have you noticed on a carrier how close the TOWER is
to the LANDING STRIP??? 8<O

On land, the only thing that close is the new housing development. But
then, that's not humorous....

> Oh come on, those guys never had to land with a crosswind - how hard
> can that be? <G>
>
> Now if they had to do all that WITHOUT arresting cables then I'd be
> impressed..

Perhaps they could do like they tried with the C-130, and the JATO bottles
pointed backwards.

Hey wait a minute. If it worked would they be called JATOAL?
--
Jim in NC

It's true what they say. The world has no further use for those that
have nothing more to learn.
-Robert

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:32:08 -0800, Mark Hansen
> wrote:

>On 12/13/2005 08:26, Ron Lee wrote:
>
>> Is there a way to get a weather report from that location/time?
>>
>> After looking at the pic my thought was that there are too many
>> senseless crashes resulting in death. I suspect that in many it is
>> pilot error and I have no idea how you instill in pilots common sense
>> or a way to suppress "get home-itis."
>>
>> I also wonder if the Cirrus parachute system gives some pilots a false
>> sense of security.
>>
Knowing a number of pilots who fly them I'm certain of it. I think
any one flying with the knowledge of a parachute tied to the plane
that is supposed to save your but can not be ignored.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>> So for the student pilots reading this...don't do stupid things.
>
>... that would be all pilots ;-)
>
>and it's good advice.
>
>>
>> Ron Lee

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> "JohnH" > wrote
>> An unsafe pilot is one who no longer considers him/herself to be a
>> student.
>
> Well, I sure as hell don't consider myself to still be a student.
> Not after 20,000+ flight hours.
>
> Bob Moore
> ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
> Flight Instructor Airplane/Instrument Airplane
> USN S-2F P-2V P-3B
> PanAm (retired)

Bob,

I think his point would be that even with all your glorified wide body time,
you come take a ride with me in my F-15 and you're a student buddy. If you
think you're not, then you're dangerous.

I worry more about the 20,000 hour "I can fly anything" pilot than I do
about my younger guys who "know they know nothing". (when transitiioning to
a new airframe)

(not saying you're like that, just trying to explain his point)

"John Doe" > wrote
> I think his point would be that even with all your glorified wide body
> time, you come take a ride with me in my F-15 and you're a student
> buddy. If you think you're not, then you're dangerous.

John Doe ???? Sure, I can fly F-15s in MS FlightSim as well as you.
Without a real name, squadron number, and other verifiable facts,
you're just a nobody passing out bull****. And, you should know
that none of the aircraft that I claim to have flown are "widebodies".

Bob Moore

On 2005-12-14, Morgans > wrote:
>
>> Oh come on, those guys never had to land with a crosswind - how hard
>> can that be? <G>
>>
>> Now if they had to do all that WITHOUT arresting cables then I'd be
>> impressed..
>
> Perhaps they could do like they tried with the C-130, and the JATO bottles
> pointed backwards.

They also did some other tests with the C-130 and backwards JATOs.
There's a video of one of their attempts.

It shows the C-130 on final, then they fire the rockets. A bit
too early, as it turns out - the plane comes to a complete halt
when still around 50 feet in the air, and predictably, falls out
the sky. The wings break off, bits of propellor shower the scene, flames
shoot out the stubs of the broken wings. While this is going on,
the narrator of the video in a bored voice says dryly, "Due to
a combination of factors, the rockets were fired prematurely
leading to an excessively hard landing"

I suspect "excessively hard landing" is probably a euphemism for
"crashing".

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

Bob Moore > wrote:

> Without a real name, squadron number, and other verifiable facts,
> you're just a nobody passing out bull****. And, you should know
> that none of the aircraft that I claim to have flown are "widebodies".

Seems to me, Bob, that the premise still stands, regardless if this
anonymous poster is an F-15 pilot or not.

--
Peter

On 12/14/2005 15:59, Morgans wrote:

>> Oh come on, those guys never had to land with a crosswind - how hard
>> can that be? <G>
>>
>> Now if they had to do all that WITHOUT arresting cables then I'd be
>> impressed..
>
> Perhaps they could do like they tried with the C-130, and the JATO bottles
> pointed backwards.
>
> Hey wait a minute. If it worked would they be called JATOAL?

Well, you need to get a V (for vertical) in there somewhere, since that's
how the C-130 "landed" ;-)

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Sacramento, CA

> They also did some other tests with the C-130 and backwards JATOs.
> There's a video of one of their attempts.
>
> It shows the C-130 on final, then they fire the rockets. A bit
> too early, as it turns out - the plane comes to a complete halt
> when still around 50 feet in the air, and predictably, falls out
> the sky.

Here's that video, Dylan:

http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/C-130%20Crash%20Landing.mpg

It's a remarkable display of altitude misjudgment...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> It shows the C-130 on final, then they fire the rockets. A bit
>> too early, as it turns out - the plane comes to a complete halt
>> when still around 50 feet in the air, and predictably, falls out
>> the sky.
>
> Here's that video, Dylan:
> http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/C-130%20Crash%20Landing.mpg
> It's a remarkable display of altitude misjudgment...

The amazing thing to me is that those rockets did stop forward progress
really well. The distance over the ground after firing appeared well less
of 500 feet.

Of course, adding in the vertical vector nearly straight down didn't help,
and all the drag created by the gear and wings digging into the ground
probably helped too.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:85gof.630703$_o.389483@attbi_s71...
>> They also did some other tests with the C-130 and backwards JATOs.
>> There's a video of one of their attempts.
>>
>> It shows the C-130 on final, then they fire the rockets. A bit
>> too early, as it turns out - the plane comes to a complete halt
>> when still around 50 feet in the air, and predictably, falls out
>> the sky.
>
> Here's that video, Dylan:
>
> http://alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/C-130%20Crash%20Landing.mpg
>
> It's a remarkable display of altitude misjudgment...
>
> :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck


The line between a good landing and ripping the damn wings off the thing is
not that much different!

Kind of reminds me of my first solo night landing, I can't believe I didn't
bend the landing gear!

----------------------------------------
DW

Bob

I learned somethig each time I flew even after thousands of hours.

If you have quit learning then you should quit flying.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ````````````````````````````

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:42:28 GMT, Bob Moore >
wrote:

>"JohnH" > wrote
>> An unsafe pilot is one who no longer considers him/herself to be a
>> student.
>
>Well, I sure as hell don't consider myself to still be a student.
>Not after 20,000+ flight hours.
>
>Bob Moore
>ATP B-707 B-727 L-188
>Flight Instructor Airplane/Instrument Airplane
>USN S-2F P-2V P-3B
>PanAm (retired)

Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT wrote:
> Kind of reminds me of my first solo night landing, I can't believe I didn't
> bend the landing gear!



Neither could we. <G>




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
...
> Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT wrote:
>> Kind of reminds me of my first solo night landing, I can't believe I
>> didn't
>> bend the landing gear!
>
>
>
> Neither could we. <G>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN


So here I am getting ready to flare, power out, so I come level about a foot
or two off the runway, hold a nose high attitude and just wait on the mains
to touch and I'm still waiting and it's sinking and I'm STILL WAITING and
it's still SINKING and I'm STILL waiting then I think OH **** I'M TO HIGH!
BAM! The bottom fell out and I SLAMMED that 172 into the runway. How I
didn't crash it I don't know. I must of been 4-6 feet off the runway, not
1-2. I promptly got my instructor in the plane and relearned how to
visualize night landings.

---------------------------------
DW

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
> So here I am getting ready to flare, power out, so I come level about a
> foot or two off the runway, hold a nose high attitude and just wait on the
> mains to touch and I'm still waiting and it's sinking and I'm STILL
> WAITING and it's still SINKING and I'm STILL waiting then I think OH ****
> I'M TO HIGH! BAM! The bottom fell out and I SLAMMED that 172 into the
> runway. How I didn't crash it I don't know. I must of been 4-6 feet off
> the runway, not 1-2. I promptly got my instructor in the plane and
> relearned how to visualize night landings.

Glad nothing broke!

Apart from visualizing, it's very handy to develop the reflex of applying
power as soon as you start to feel the bottom drop out. That saved me once
in a similar situation. Immediately after applying power, I was prepared to
go around, but instead I found myself touching down gently, so I just cut
the power and accepted the landing.

--Gary

Dylan Smith wrote:

> On 2005-12-14, Morgans > wrote:
>
>>>Oh come on, those guys never had to land with a crosswind - how hard
>>>can that be? <G>
>>>
>>>Now if they had to do all that WITHOUT arresting cables then I'd be
>>>impressed..
>>
>>Perhaps they could do like they tried with the C-130, and the JATO bottles
>>pointed backwards.
>
>
> They also did some other tests with the C-130 and backwards JATOs.
> There's a video of one of their attempts.
>
> It shows the C-130 on final, then they fire the rockets. A bit
> too early, as it turns out - the plane comes to a complete halt
> when still around 50 feet in the air, and predictably, falls out
> the sky. The wings break off, bits of propellor shower the scene, flames
> shoot out the stubs of the broken wings. While this is going on,
> the narrator of the video in a bored voice says dryly, "Due to
> a combination of factors, the rockets were fired prematurely
> leading to an excessively hard landing"

You must not have seen the same video I did as the C-130 didn't even
come close to a complete stop in the air. It hit the runway at what
appeared to be 50 or so MPH and was still moving forward when the fires
broke out and it veered to the right.

Matt

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:41:19 -0500, "Darkwing"
<theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in
>::

>BAM! The bottom fell out and I SLAMMED that 172 into the runway. How I
>didn't crash it I don't know. I must of been 4-6 feet off the runway, not
>1-2.

I once landed at an unlit airport at night without benefit of landing
light. I just set up a 500'/minute descent and let it find the
runway. Worked fine.

Larry Dighera wrote:
> I once landed at an unlit airport at night without benefit of landing
> light. I just set up a 500'/minute descent and let it find the
> runway. Worked fine.


I used to crank the lights up full blast at fields with pilot controlled
lighting. No more. Now I crank it up full blast until I'm well established on
final, then bring the lighting down to the lowest level. Makes the runway jump
out much more vividly in the flare rather than an aritificial plane about a foot
or two higher created by bright runway lights.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Larry wrote:
> I once landed at an unlit airport at night without benefit of landing
> light. I just set up a 500'/minute descent and let it find the
> runway. Worked fine.

Last year I had a complete electrical failure in the (towered) pattern at
night with a student. I'll leave out all the details, but we didn't have
lights, flaps (172), radios; there were other aircraft in the pattern.

Anyway, I set up a glassy water landing and it worked like a charm. And
they said a seaplane rating wasn't useful! :)

Hilton

Larry wrote:
> I once landed at an unlit airport at night without benefit of landing
> light. I just set up a 500'/minute descent and let it find the
> runway. Worked fine.

Yeah...500fpm would definitely "find" the runway.



--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:08:52 GMT, "Hilton" > wrote
in >::

>I set up a glassy water landing and it worked like a charm.

You mean like this?

http://avstop.com/AC/FlightTraingHandbook/Landings.html
During the final approach the seaplane should be flown at the best
nose high attitude, using flaps as required or as recommended by
the manufacturer. A power setting and pitch attitude should be
established that will result in a rate of descent not to exceed
150 feet per minute and at an airspeed approximately 10 knots
above stall speed. With a constant power setting and a constant
pitch attitude, the airspeed will stabilize, and remain so if no
changes are made. The power or pitch should be changed only if the
airspeed or rate of descent deviates from that which is desired.
Throughout the approach the seaplane performance should be closely
monitored by cross checking the instruments until contact is made
with the water.

Upon touchdown, back elevator control pressure should be applied
as necessary to maintain the same pitch attitude. Throttle should
be reduced or closed only after the pilot is sure that the
aircraft is firmly on the water. Several indications should be
used.

Fortunately, a land aircraft has sprung gear, unlike a sea plane, so
it's possible to increase the rate of descent somewhat without
problem.

Larry wrote:
> Hilton wrote
>
>>I set up a glassy water landing and it worked like a charm.
>
> You mean like this?

You establish a nose up attitude just before passing your last visual
reference point as low as safely possible. Add some power, then ignore the
lake - it my case I ignored my altitude and just kept it between the runway
edge lights. It really is remarkable how stable aircraft are in this phase,
even the Twin Bee seemed rock solid for a twin at a slow airspeed. Also,
don't flare - especially on a checkride. :)

Note: You can burn up a ton of distance. At 100fpm, let's say you cross the
VRP at 200', that's two minutes in the descent and about 2 miles (12000').
So you do need to get down low to minimize the distance. FYI: I had my
student call out the airspeed continually as an added safety factor. (I was
in the right seat).

Hilton

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>
> So here I am getting ready to flare, power out, so I come level about a
> foot or two off the runway, hold a nose high attitude and just wait on the
> mains to touch and I'm still waiting and it's sinking and I'm STILL
> WAITING and it's still SINKING and I'm STILL waiting then I think OH ****
> I'M TO HIGH! BAM! The bottom fell out and I SLAMMED that 172 into the
> runway. How I didn't crash it I don't know. I must of been 4-6 feet off
> the runway, not 1-2. I promptly got my instructor in the plane and
> relearned how to visualize night landings.
>
> ---------------------------------
> DW

There is a tendency when landing at night to visualize the runway as the
plane made by the runway lights. Typically this plane is a couple of feet
above the actual runway. You then make a beautiful landing on that virtual
runway defined by the lights and then plummet that invisible couple of feet
to the actual runway. This happens most often when you are doing night
landings without the landing lights. Hopefully the landing lights will let
you pick up the actual runway in your visual field when you get close and
you can adjust your landing accordingly.

Of course, you may have the same problem I have. In by big old WWII bird
my eyes are higher than usual above the runway when I land. Then when I
climb into a Cessna I tend to land at the proper eye level for my airplane,
leaving the Cessna gear substantially above the runway! Easing on a bit of
power to keep the sink rate from getting out of hand allows one to settle
gently onto the runway, albeit a bit furthur along than you had anticipated.
Ok with 4000 feet of runway, not so good on Wilbur's 1300 foot strip! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )