Power-out spot landing techniques?

[Richard Thomas]

My instructor has me doing power out simulted emergency spot landings
in prep for my checkride. I've already had my checkride put back once
cause I'm not getting them right often enough. Did some more today but
still not 100%.

Does anyone ahve any tips? He wants me to land on the numbers. I can
sometimes do it 2 or 3 times in a row but next time, I'll be 100 ft
too high or just a little too low

Rich

[Bob Gardner]

You know about the dirty spot method, right? Find (or make) a spot on the
windscreen...maintain a constant descent path with that spot 50-75 feet from
the point on which you want to land. If it moves away from you, you are too
high...if it moves off of the runway and into the grass, you are too low.

Bob Gardner

"Richard Thomas" > wrote in message
.. .
> My instructor has me doing power out simulted emergency spot landings
> in prep for my checkride. I've already had my checkride put back once
> cause I'm not getting them right often enough. Did some more today but
> still not 100%.
>
> Does anyone ahve any tips? He wants me to land on the numbers. I can
> sometimes do it 2 or 3 times in a row but next time, I'll be 100 ft
> too high or just a little too low
>
> Rich
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Richard Thomas) wrote:

> My instructor has me doing power out simulted emergency spot landings
> in prep for my checkride. I've already had my checkride put back once
> cause I'm not getting them right often enough. Did some more today but
> still not 100%.
>
> Does anyone ahve any tips? He wants me to land on the numbers. I can
> sometimes do it 2 or 3 times in a row but next time, I'll be 100 ft
> too high or just a little too low

get a glider rating.

--
Bob Noel

[gblack]

"Richard Thomas" > wrote in message
.. .
: My instructor has me doing power out simulted emergency spot
landings
: in prep for my checkride. I've already had my checkride put back
once
: cause I'm not getting them right often enough. Did some more today
but
: still not 100%.
:
: Does anyone ahve any tips? He wants me to land on the numbers. I can
: sometimes do it 2 or 3 times in a row but next time, I'll be 100 ft
: too high or just a little too low

Go gliding!
Your circuit planning will improve out of sight...
--

George Black

http://www.koekejunction.hnpl.net/

[ls]

"Richard Thomas" > wrote in message
.. .
> My instructor has me doing power out simulted emergency spot landings
> in prep for my checkride. I've already had my checkride put back once
> cause I'm not getting them right often enough. Did some more today but
> still not 100%.
>
> Does anyone ahve any tips? He wants me to land on the numbers. I can
> sometimes do it 2 or 3 times in a row but next time, I'll be 100 ft
> too high or just a little too low
>
> Rich

The real key to it is to keep the intended landing point from moving up or
down. It should be stationary as you approach on final and kept still for as
long as possible until you're preparing to touch down (don't fly the plane
directly down onto the intended landing point, however - that can happen if
you're not concentrating and you don't flare correctly... not good)

The other main thing is to be aware of what the airplane is doing as you're
keeping that landing point stationary. If you're having to hold too high of
an airspeed, then you have an excess of energy that you need to dissipate.
The cheezy way to do it is to just dive a bit until the glideslope flattens
a bit and then resume your approach airspeed (although not cheezy in my
aircraft type which is incapable of slips - that's pretty much my only
option). Don't do this on the checkride or even with the CFI on board -
they'll slap you upside the head and with good reason. The much better way
is to use a slip or, if you're sure you have it made, adding flaps, to
accellerate energy dissipation and get you on glideslope without building up
too much airspeed.

If, on the other hand, you're having to hold too low of an airspeed to keep
the landing point from moving up, you don't have enough energy to make it
there and you're going to come up short.

But that's basically it. What you want to achieve is a stationary landing
point (up/down wise) at the correct glide angle (i.e. correct airspeed).
That will get you very close to the ballpark and depending on how good you
are with the flare, you should touchdown very near the intended landing
spot.

So, it's really pretty simple. You just have to keep practicing it until you
get it down. Energy management without power is a somewhat different skill
than with. With one less control, you have to do things a little different
with the remaining controls....

LS
AC fun racer 503.

[Stefan]

Bob Noel wrote:
>
> get a glider rating.

Spot landing a glider is fairly trivial whith those spoilers which let
you adjust the glide angle from 1/40 to 1/7 or so without slipping.
Those spam cans have way more momentum and no spoilers. Of course you
can slip them.

Stefan

[Richard Thomas]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 19:04:36 GMT, (Richard
Thomas) wrote:

>My instructor has me doing power out simulted emergency spot landings
>in prep for my checkride. I've already had my checkride put back once
>cause I'm not getting them right often enough. Did some more today but
>still not 100%.
>
>Does anyone ahve any tips? He wants me to land on the numbers. I can
>sometimes do it 2 or 3 times in a row but next time, I'll be 100 ft
>too high or just a little too low
>
>Rich
>

FWIW, I just spent .9 practicing these and managed 11 decent landings
with two of them just a little long (but still allowing for stopping
before the 1000' markers). No go arounds or coming down short. Amazing
what a night's sleep will do.

Rich

[G.R. Patterson III]

Richard Thomas wrote:
>
> Does anyone ahve any tips? He wants me to land on the numbers. I can
> sometimes do it 2 or 3 times in a row but next time, I'll be 100 ft
> too high or just a little too low

Don't use a lot of flaps.

George Patterson
They say that nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is,
death doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.
Will Rogers

[Don Tuite]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 20:11:36 -0400, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>Richard Thomas wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone ahve any tips? He wants me to land on the numbers. I can
>> sometimes do it 2 or 3 times in a row but next time, I'll be 100 ft
>> too high or just a little too low
>
>Don't use a lot of flaps.

Take several days off before you do any more. Give your crocodile
brain a chance to catch up with your ape brain.

Don

[Cub Driver]

Don't you lose the "dirty spot" when you're slipping?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[ls]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Don't you lose the "dirty spot" when you're slipping?

My last 3-axis airplane didn't have a windsheild, so there was no dirty spot
to lose ;). Just kept my eyes on the landing spot and kept it from moving,
whether I was in a slip or not....

LS
AC fun racer 503.

> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Andrew Gideon]

ls wrote:

> The cheezy way to do it is to just dive a bit until the
> glideslope flattens a bit and then resume your approach airspeed (although
> not cheezy in my aircraft type which is incapable of slips - that's pretty
> much my only option). Don't do this on the checkride or even with the CFI
> on board - they'll slap you upside the head and with good reason. The much
> better way is to use a slip or, if you're sure you have it made, adding
> flaps, to accellerate energy dissipation and get you on glideslope without
> building up too much airspeed.

What about slowing below best glide, but (obviously {8^) above stall?

>
> If, on the other hand, you're having to hold too low of an airspeed to
> keep the landing point from moving up, you don't have enough energy to
> make it there and you're going to come up short.

This I don't follow. If the spot is steady, you're going to make the spot
at your current speed (assuming you're holding that speed, of course).

- Andrew

[Dan Thomas]

A previous poster mentioned airspeed, and he's right. Most of the
students I fly with have trouble nailing an airpseed and holding it.
For power-off approaches, use the best glide speed and then make
the approach just a bit high, applying flap as necessary to steepen
the glide to hit the spot. You can also reduce the approach speed a
bit to steepen a glide, but watch that you don't start such a serious
sink rate that you end up short without any flare speed. Reducing
glide speed 5 knots can make a big difference in the glide angle.
Diving at the spot is the wrong thing to do, as it increases airspeed
which will only cause float when you reach the surface.
I once read of the British training their recon pilots in spot
landings during the big war. They buried a 2x6 flush with the grass,
flat side up, and the pilots learned to touch down ON the board, in
that 5 1/2 inches, without bouncing and at a given airspeed. If they
could do it, so can we. We just don't care enough to get good at it.
Or, perhaps, we can't afford to get good at it.

Dan

[David Megginson]

(Dan Thomas) writes:

> Reducing glide speed 5 knots can make a big difference in the glide
> angle. Diving at the spot is the wrong thing to do, as it increases
> airspeed which will only cause float when you reach the surface.

And that's only half the problem: at the higher speed, you also close
with the threshold sooner, so there's less time for the plane to
descend. 700 fpm is 700 ft/nm at 60 kt, but only 525 ft/nm at 80 kt.
If you start two miles back even with no wind, you'll end up 350 ft
higher over the threshold with the 80 kt dive than you would with the
60 kt mush.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[Stefan]

David Megginson wrote:
>
> And that's only half the problem: at the higher speed, you also close
> with the threshold sooner, so there's less time for the plane to
> descend. 700 fpm is 700 ft/nm at 60 kt, but only 525 ft/nm at 80 kt.

Ever heard of such a thing as a polar curve?

Stefan

[Stefan]

David Megginson wrote:
>
> And that's only half the problem: at the higher speed, you also close
> with the threshold sooner, so there's less time for the plane to
> descend. 700 fpm is 700 ft/nm at 60 kt, but only 525 ft/nm at 80 kt.

Ever heard of such a thing as a polar curve?

Stefan



..

[Stefan]

David Megginson wrote:
>
> And that's only half the problem: at the higher speed, you also close
> with the threshold sooner, so there's less time for the plane to
> descend. 700 fpm is 700 ft/nm at 60 kt, but only 525 ft/nm at 80 kt.

Ever heard of such a thing as a polar curve?

Stefan



..

[David Megginson]

Stefan <"stefan"@mus. INVALID .ch> writes:

>> And that's only half the problem: at the higher speed, you also close
>> with the threshold sooner, so there's less time for the plane to
>> descend. 700 fpm is 700 ft/nm at 60 kt, but only 525 ft/nm at 80 kt.
>
> Ever heard of such a thing as a polar curve?

Details, please.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[Stefan]

David Megginson wrote:
>
> > Ever heard of such a thing as a polar curve?
>
> Details, please.

e.g. http://home.att.net/~jdburch/polar.htm

I'm sure an internet search will yield a lot of others.

Stefan

[Robert M. Gary]

(Richard Thomas) wrote in message >...
> My instructor has me doing power out simulted emergency spot landings
> in prep for my checkride. I've already had my checkride put back once
> cause I'm not getting them right often enough. Did some more today but
> still not 100%.
>
> Does anyone ahve any tips? He wants me to land on the numbers. I can
> sometimes do it 2 or 3 times in a row but next time, I'll be 100 ft
> too high or just a little too low

A power off approach to touch down "on the numbers" is a commercial
maneuver called a 180 precision approach. For private you just want to
be about 1/3 of the way down the runway. However, its up to your CFI.
I find that students have the most trouble doing engine outs from
cruise altitudes, so I usually end air work (stalls, slow flight, etc)
by pulling the engine and we go for an off field landing. There really
is only one "trick" necessary and if you can understand it, everything
about your landings will get better. When you are approaching a
landing spot there is one spot that does not move in your field of
vision. If you were writing a filght simulator program, you'd need to
make everything above and below this magic point "stretch" because
that's what happends in real life. The area that does not move is
where you will be if you don't touch anything. Once you can see that
point you can predict where you will touch down and can correct. Also,
I teach to come in high and do a lot of slipping. I also take students
out and just practice slipping because it makes engine out landings
so, so , so much easier because you can so greatly control your rate
of decent. It also makes tailwheel transition easier. :)

-Robert, CFI

[Robert M. Gary]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> Don't you lose the "dirty spot" when you're slipping?

I have my students come out of the slip every once in a while to
recheck their "dirty spot".

[Robert M. Gary]

Andrew Gideon > wrote in message >...
> ls wrote:
>
> > The cheezy way to do it is to just dive a bit until the
> > glideslope flattens a bit and then resume your approach airspeed (although
> > not cheezy in my aircraft type which is incapable of slips - that's pretty
> > much my only option). Don't do this on the checkride or even with the CFI
> > on board - they'll slap you upside the head and with good reason. The much
> > better way is to use a slip or, if you're sure you have it made, adding
> > flaps, to accellerate energy dissipation and get you on glideslope without
> > building up too much airspeed.
>
> What about slowing below best glide, but (obviously {8^) above stall?

In the old days CFIs taught the students to enter spins, first one
way, then the other. Each spin was recovered after only about 45
degrees of rotation. The resulting maneuver looked like a falling
leaf, thus the maneuver was named the "falling leaf". You could
probably lose your CFI ticket for teaching that now.

-Robert, CFI

[David Megginson]

Stefan <"stefan"@mus. INVALID .ch> writes:

>> > Ever heard of such a thing as a polar curve?
>>
>> Details, please.
>
> e.g. http://home.att.net/~jdburch/polar.htm

I meant details about why you posted the question. That is an
interesting site, though -- thanks.

People don't tend to go into that much detail for powered flight,
probably because we're so heavy (relatively) and moving forward so
fast that we tend to blast through updrafts and downdrafts too quickly
do much with them.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[Greg Esres]

<<at the higher speed, you also close with the threshold sooner, so
there's less time for the plane to descend. 700 fpm is 700 ft/nm at 60
kt, but only 525 ft/nm at 80 kt. If you start two miles back even with
no wind, you'll end up 350 ft higher over the threshold with the 80 kt
dive than you would with the 60 kt mush.>>

Sounds like you just proved that the faster you go, the greater your
glide range. :-)

[Greg Esres]

<<use the best glide speed>>

Best glide is a clean speed; with gear down, an aircraft will have a
greater glide range with a slower speed.

[Stefan]

David Megginson wrote:
>
> >> > Ever heard of such a thing as a polar curve?
> >>
> >> Details, please.
> >
> > e.g. http://home.att.net/~jdburch/polar.htm
>
> I meant details about why you posted the question.

It wasn't a question. It was a hint.

Stefan

[ls]

> What about slowing below best glide, but (obviously {8^) above stall?

No reason why that wouldn't work either. A friend of mine uses this
technique in his Citabria from time to time. I don't like to do this in my
airplane, though, because roll control becomes very heavy and slow (due to
yaw stability) at low airspeeds.

> > If, on the other hand, you're having to hold too low of an airspeed to
> > keep the landing point from moving up, you don't have enough energy to
> > make it there and you're going to come up short.
>
> This I don't follow. If the spot is steady, you're going to make the spot
> at your current speed (assuming you're holding that speed, of course).

Right. But, as I said (look again at the paragraph above), if the spot is
moving up and you don't have the energy to keep it from doing so, you're
going to come up short.

LS
AC fun racer 503.

> - Andrew
>

[Borislav Deianov]

In rec.aviation.student Andrew Gideon > wrote:
> ls wrote:
>
>> The cheezy way to do it is to just dive a bit until the
>> glideslope flattens a bit and then resume your approach airspeed (although
>
> What about slowing below best glide, but (obviously {8^) above stall?

Here is a page that discusses both of the above techniques (from John
Denker's excellent online book on aerodynamics):

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/power.html#sec-energy-stunts

Neither is usually the best method of glide path control but it never
hurts to have more tools in your toolbox.

Boris

[Borislav Deianov]

In rec.aviation.student Stefan <"stefan"@mus. invalid .ch> wrote:
> Bob Noel wrote:
>>
>> get a glider rating.
>
> Spot landing a glider is fairly trivial whith those spoilers which let
> you adjust the glide angle from 1/40 to 1/7 or so without slipping.
> Those spam cans have way more momentum and no spoilers. Of course you
> can slip them.

There's also no altitude penalty for closing the spoilers once you
have them open so you can continously adjust them during the approach.
This makes them work more like a throttle than flaps. Push the lever
forward to go further, pull it back to go down. :-)

Boris

[Borislav Deianov]

In rec.aviation.student David Megginson > wrote:
>
> People don't tend to go into that much detail for powered flight,
> probably because we're so heavy (relatively) and moving forward so
> fast that we tend to blast through updrafts and downdrafts too quickly
> do much with them.

Not necessarily. A common technique that the glider towplanes use is
"thermal on tow" which just means they circle in any updrafts along
the way. This improves their climb rate considerably, even if the
updraft is too small and they have to fly in and out of it.

Another example is flying through a strong downdraft. Knowing what a
polar curve looks like at least in principle tells you that it's much
better to speed up and get out of the downdraft quicker rather than
try to outclimb it at Vy. This can be a life saver in the mountains.

Regards,
Boris

[Andrew Gideon]

Borislav Deianov wrote:

> Neither is usually the best method of glide path control but it never
> hurts to have more tools in your toolbox.

I recently took a club checkout with someone that didn't want me to slip a
172 at full flaps, even for a (simulated) emergency landing. That leaves
me looking for alternatives for the upcoming retest. The "slow below best
glide" occurred to me one day as I was practicing short field landings.

- Andrew

[Richard Thomas]

On 11 Aug 2003 16:48:59 -0700, (Robert M. Gary)
wrote:

>A power off approach to touch down "on the numbers" is a commercial
>maneuver called a 180 precision approach. For private you just want to
>be about 1/3 of the way down the runway. However, its up to your CFI.
>I find that students have the most trouble doing engine outs from
>cruise altitudes, so I usually end air work (stalls, slow flight, etc)
>by pulling the engine and we go for an off field landing. There really
>is only one "trick" necessary and if you can understand it, everything
>about your landings will get better. When you are approaching a
>landing spot there is one spot that does not move in your field of
>vision. If you were writing a filght simulator program, you'd need to
>make everything above and below this magic point "stretch" because
>that's what happends in real life. The area that does not move is
>where you will be if you don't touch anything. Once you can see that
>point you can predict where you will touch down and can correct. Also,
>I teach to come in high and do a lot of slipping. I also take students
>out and just practice slipping because it makes engine out landings
>so, so , so much easier because you can so greatly control your rate
>of decent. It also makes tailwheel transition easier. :)
>
>-Robert, CFI

My CFI is convinced that the examiner will want me to do it. I will
find out on Thursday I guess. Tried some more today at a different
runway with the CFI onboard and didn't do too well. Didn't really get
enough sleep last night though so perhaps that didn't help. Will try
and get a couple of practice ones in before the checkride in the
morning maybe.

Rich

[Andy Neumann]

Here's a method related to the dirty spot method.

Take a grease pen and put a mark on the windshield that represents the
flight path of the airplane at cruise airspeed. This is a lot better
than just picking a random dirty spot, especially for students who may
be a little confused because there may be A LOT of dirty spots on the
windscreen. :-) (You can do this by setting up cruise flight and
putting a mark on the horizon. When you look at the horizon you will
see two dots because of binocular vision.) Now, to fly a precise
power-off approach, put that dot on your touchdown point. As long as
your airspeed remains high enough (I'd say 10-15 kts above best glide
for training aircraft), that mark represents the flight path of the
aircraft, and you should fly right down to your point. What about the
extra 10-15 kts? Use the flaps to reduce airspeed on final, and if
that isn't enough to reduce airspeed (minimize float), it's time to
slip. The key to this method is AIMING the aircraft where we want it
to go, and it will go there; not just trimming for an airspeed and
using all kinds of maneuvers to bleed off altitude. I have been
taught and found myself that if I turn final about 500' AGL and 1/2
mile from the touchdown point, I can fly all the way down to my
intended point by aiming the aircraft and controlling speed with flaps
and slips.

Great thread! I enjoyed reading everyone's methods. best regards,
andy

[Roger Halstead]

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:34:23 -0400, Andrew Gideon
> wrote:

>Borislav Deianov wrote:
>
>> Neither is usually the best method of glide path control but it never
>> hurts to have more tools in your toolbox.
>
>I recently took a club checkout with someone that didn't want me to slip a
>172 at full flaps, even for a (simulated) emergency landing. That leaves
>me looking for alternatives for the upcoming retest. The "slow below best
>glide" occurred to me one day as I was practicing short field landings.

OK...I'm gonna try a different approach...and I hope it makes sense to
some one.

Remember flying and particularly landing is all about "energy
management"! Power out, "spot landings" build on all you have learned
before. So, for those who already know all this you can skip wayyy
ahead, but a little review never hurts. Plus this is a Generic and
over simplified approach.

Depending on where you are there is nothing that says you have to come
in at best glide. OTOH you do have to remember speed and altitude are
both energy available to use, or dispense with as you see fit.

Although speed is kinetic energy and altitude is potential energy in
this case they both equate to pretty much the same thing.

You can exchange altitude for speed. IE, turn potential energy into
kinetic and "up to a point" you can trade speed for altitude
up-to-a-point. Turn kinetic back into potential energy.

Sometimes you need to get rid of potential energy (altitude) without
gaining kinetic energy (speed) and sometimes you need to get rid of
speed without losing (or gaining) a lot of altitude.

It's that "up-to-a-point" where you have to be careful, or it can get
you into trouble
..
There are limitations to this. You can only spend so much kinetic
energy safely. So figure the lower limit is 1.3 Vso. (or thereabouts)
Now the same is true for too much kinetic energy. Vne is self
explanatory, but in the pattern just how fast is too fast. We can
lower the speed a bit by saying we certainly don't want to be above
the flap extension speed (if you have them)..or is best glide above
flap speed. OK, so at least in most trainers it's not and we can
*probably* say we don't want to exceed flap speed.

Now we also have potential energy which is altitude and in reality we
don't have to spend a lot of altitude to get quite a bit of speed.
Hence the old tale about being able to come down, or slow down, but
not both. Again, in a trainer this usually isn't a *big* problem
unless we make it one either intentionally or unknowingly. Trainers
and many light planes have lots of drag which *usually* prevents the
potential energy from becoming too much kinetic energy.

Rephrased: You *almost* have to try to try to get too much speed out
of too much altitude in a trainer, although someone usually manages to
do so on almost a daily basis. So we know it can be done!

Soooo...having a nice stabilized pattern is a good goal for starters.
It's the basic building block for good landings. You have to be good
at landings to eventually become good at landing on a specific spot.
(repeatedly) Every one of us gets lucky now and then. Now and I know
it ain't fair, but to get good at engine out, spot landings we need to
be good (and consistent) at regular landings first.

So we start out for the elusive stabilized pattern on a good day (IE,
the mythical no wind day, which was usually yesterday)
You need to learn your down wind altitude, speeds, flap settings,
power settings, and how far out you should be from the runway.

Now, where do you turn base? *Usually* we turn base when the threshold
is at a 45 degree angle to the rear.

That puts us on base. You do know your speed, flaps settings, rate of
descent and power settings if applicable? Remember that the base leg
should be perpendicular to down wind and final and on a no wind day
should require no wind correction.

Now the turn to final from base. You need to lead the turn (start
before you are straight out from the runway) so when you finish
turning 90 degrees you are lined up with the runway. Again, it's
speed, flaps, and power.

Now is where we look for that greasy spot in the windshield.
Some of us use the whole windshield...OK, so we need to wash it more
often....What we look for is whether the desired aiming point which
should be at least a 100 feet short of the desired landing point
(It'll vary with different airplanes), stays in the same position, or
moves up, or moves down in the windshield.

As many have already said...If the aiming point stays put..Yippi!
That's great. OTOH if it moves down in the windshield it means you are
going to land beyond the aiming point and need to slow a bit, or
steepen you angle of descent. Unfortunately steepening the angle of
descent *usually* means we are going to trade some altitude for speed.
Hence you can't just dive at the at the aiming point or you will gain
so much speed that when you level off you will just float and float
and float right on buy the aiming point, the landing point, and who
knows what else. He who forces the plane on before "it's ready" will
end up imitating a big fish called a Porpoise. This irritates the
living bejusus out of the FBO who rented the plane to you and also
brings out all the airport bums who are suddenly sporting big signs
grading your landings on a scale of 1 to 10...Nothing higher than a 3
will bring them out.

If the aiming point moves up, it means we are going to land short of
the aiming point and need to shallow the angle of descent, but if we
do that then we are going to slow down and that will cause the angle
of descent to increase which is what we didn't want.

Now if we have an engine we just add a bit of power which lets us
shallow the angle of descent without slowing. Unfortunately the goal
of the exercise is to do this without an engine.

Sooo...we now know that the aiming point moving up in the windshield
means were are not going to do well at all on this particular engine
out landing, but we can be thankful there is an engine up there to
prevent anything more than embarrassment.

But what about that moving down in the windshield and steepening the
angle of descent without gaining too much airspeed?

Flaps are wonderful things. They let you slow down AND increase your
rate of descent. (to-a-point) At least they do on most airplanes we
in this group can afford.

Slips (cross controlled flight do the same thing. Albeit without
adding any lift). Slips can let you lose a lot of altitude in a hurry
without gaining a lot of airspeed.

So, with careful planning, lots of practice, erring if any, on the
high side. Keep the "dirty spot" stationary in the window, and using
energy management you "land on the spot".


Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
> - Andrew

[David Megginson]

Borislav Deianov > writes:

> For an explanation, see Deakin's book again. Have you bookmarked this
> link yet? http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/power.html

I think you meant Denker, not Deakin -- the leaning debate must be
starting to get to everyone.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[Dan Thomas]

(Andy Neumann) wrote in message >...

Now, to fly a precise
> power-off approach, put that dot on your touchdown point. As long as
> your airspeed remains high enough (I'd say 10-15 kts above best glide
> for training aircraft), that mark represents the flight path of the
aircraft, and you should fly right down to your point.

Lots of students will have trouble touching down on a point
because they forget that the roundout and flare flatten the glide and
carry them farther down the runway before touchdown. You need to aim
at a point a couple hundred feet ahead of the intended touchdown
point.
Consider, too, the difference in wind velocity as you descend.
Normally, with stronger winds, the windspeed will be less and more
from the left as you near the ground, so the airplane will experience
a performance decrease as it passes into the calmer air. Airspeed will
drop somewhat and the airplane may settle and come short of the
intended aiming point.
Airspeeds above the manufacturer's published glide speed are
going to cause excessive float and the pilot will tend to land the
airplane too fast and perhaps grind the tires off trying to keep from
overrunning the runway. I have replaced numerous nearly-new tires
caused by such techniques, and some of those have been ground down
through three of the four plies. A blowout at that speed is almost
certain to cause a serious accident. Wheelbarrowing is another
phenomenon caused by excessive speed, and we had a student wreck an
airplane a few years ago by touching down long and fast.
There has been a spate of landing accidents recently here in
Canada where nosegears were bent or broken during landing, all related
to ballooning and bouncing. These are almost always due to excessive
speed. The approach is nose-low because of the speed, and either the
nose hits and kicks the airplane back into the air where it starts to
porpoise as the pilot tries to get control, or it balloons in the
flare and ends up at 20 feet with no airspeed.
Therefore, high approach speeds are much more dangerous than most
folks think. Cessna's published speeds, for example, are already
plenty high, considering that rule-of-thumb approach speed is 1.3
times Vso.

Dan

[Cub Driver]

>on a true power-out
>approach many things become optional and you do what you have to do to
>get the plane to a safe spot on the runway.

This is such a good point that perhaps students ought to be trained in
it.

In my check ride, about the only maneuver (that I recall) that I was
required to perform was a simulated power-out landing. I picked my
field, made a perfect rectangle (descending onto the downwind leg),
and would have landed the sucker save that the examiner told me to go
power on.

Afterward I thought how stupid that was, to set myself up flying
parallel to the field and in the wrong direction, boxing the turns to
base and final. I could easily have run out of altitude before I ever
lined up with the field/runway.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Andy Neumann]

You're right! You can't fly at an airspeed higher than normal
approach speed down to the runway surface. With this method, flaps
(and slips if necessary) must be used to slow to the proper
roundout/flare speed ahead of time. There should be no more than 200
feet of float if the roundout starts at the proper height and
airspeed.

As for the wind--in my opinion, possible variations in the wind are a
good reason to fly the approach at a higher airspeed. The reason I
don't fly power-off approaches at best glide speed is that if you get
an unexpected headwind on final, you can do nothing about it but hold
best glide and hope you make it. (If this were an emergency at
altitude, then best glide is definitely called for--but this
discussion is about the power-off 180 accuracy approach and landing
right?) With an extra 10 kts in there, you have a buffer for wind
shear, etc. If you are sinking on glide path, just pitch up to
recapture it (this will cost you some airspeed--but that is what the
buffer is for), and then don't use flaps of slips (there is no reason
to slow down further if you're having trouble making the runway).

And yes, as airpseed decreases towards slow flight, angle of attack
will increase and now our original mark on the windscreen cannot be
held on the touchdown point without sinking below glidepath. The
flightpath of the aircraft is now somewhere below the mark on the
windscreen, so we must set a pitch attitude that holds glidepath (and
results in an airspeed no slower than best glide) and make mental note
of it.

As with all of the methods/tips in the thread--each requires a little
improvising depending on the conditions. But, if we can make a couple
of things the same on each power-off 180 accuracy approach and
landing, it makes the job a lot easier. Instead of making best
glidespeed my constant, I have chosen to make a constant glidepath by
always turning a 500' AGL final approximately 1/2 mile from the
touchdown point. This target gives me enough "energy" in the event of
a headwind, and allows enough time to put in flaps and possibly slip
if I get too fast in the event of a tailwind or even no-wind. By
keeping a little extra airspeed in the event of an unexpected
headwind, I should be able to fly that same glidepath (give or take
depending on conditions) on each approach. Just a different way of
looking at it I suppose...

Once about 30' above the runway, begin a normal roundout, flare, and
landing.

comments much appreciated, best regards, andy

[Teacherjh]

>>
Afterward I thought how stupid that was, to set myself up flying
parallel to the field and in the wrong direction, boxing the turns to
base and final. I could easily have run out of altitude before I ever
lined up with the field/runway.
<<

Depends on conditions, and you were (presumably) monitoring
conditions as you flew.

Jose

(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Richard Thomas]

Well, I took the checkride and passed on Thursday. Yay for me. I
certainly don't feel I deserve to pass, I didn't get the
short-field-on-the numbers landing right (coming in considerably down
from the numbers) but the examiner then asked me for a soft field "on
the numbers" which I did get on the numbers so was passed based on
that. Then the examiner informs me that I shouldn't be chasing the
airspeed (apparently, for one I was coming in OK at 60 knots but was
supposed to be 55 so I adjusted a litle above the runway and that
caused me to come in long). Was also told that I should have used
slips as necessary. My instructor had not said that this was OK. He
later said he wanted people to get it right without slips first then
work in slips later. Well, that's OK for general principle but when it
comes to checkride time I'd like to have every allowable technique at
my disposal to pass. But I passed and he's a great instructor in
general so I'll forgive him.

As I say, I don't feel I deserved to pass {though I do not feel that I
am unsafe either). But maybe that's a good thing as now I know I still
have to work on improving. I also now feel that I can learn for
learning's sake and not just to get through a test.

So now I have checked out in the airport's 4-seater and should be
taking my family out for a meal this Friday. I do hope I don't scare
them too much.

Rich

[john smith]

Congratulations, Rich!
As many of us will tell you, you have earned a "Certificate to Learn".
You will never "master" any one aspect of aviation. There are just too
many variables.
Every time you take off, cruise or land, something is always different.
Weight, temperature, wind, everything.
What you will learn is how to adapt to each situation, and apply a given
technique to a given condition.
Use your brain, be safe, and above all... have fun!

[gblack]

--

"Richard Thomas" > wrote in message
...
: Well, I took the checkride and passed on Thursday. Yay for me. I
: certainly don't feel I deserve to pass, I didn't get the
: short-field-on-the numbers landing right (coming in considerably
down
: from the numbers) but the examiner then asked me for a soft field
"on
: the numbers" which I did get on the numbers so was passed based on
: that. Then the examiner informs me that I shouldn't be chasing the
: airspeed (apparently, for one I was coming in OK at 60 knots but was
: supposed to be 55 so I adjusted a litle above the runway and that
: caused me to come in long). Was also told that I should have used
: slips as necessary. My instructor had not said that this was OK. He
: later said he wanted people to get it right without slips first then
: work in slips later. Well, that's OK for general principle but when
it
: comes to checkride time I'd like to have every allowable technique
at
: my disposal to pass. But I passed and he's a great instructor in
: general so I'll forgive him.
:
: As I say, I don't feel I deserved to pass {though I do not feel that
I
: am unsafe either). But maybe that's a good thing as now I know I
still
: have to work on improving. I also now feel that I can learn for
: learning's sake and not just to get through a test.
:
: So now I have checked out in the airport's 4-seater and should be
: taking my family out for a meal this Friday. I do hope I don't scare
: them too much.

Congratulations and welcome to the club....
now you start learning to fly :-)))


George Black
http://www.koekejunction.hnpl.net/

[Robert Perkins]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:31:47 GMT, (Richard
Thomas) wrote:

>I
>certainly don't feel I deserve to pass, I didn't get the
>short-field-on-the numbers landing right (coming in considerably down
>from the numbers) but the examiner then asked me for a soft field "on
>the numbers" which I did get on the numbers so was passed based on
>that.

I didn't get the short-field landing right on my checkride either. The
DE told me "that wasn't very short!" and had me park the airplane,
whereupon she passed me.

It's more about safe piloting than it is about perfect piloting. But
my next four landings were spot-on-the-numbers!

Rob

[Cub Driver]

>Rich, you passed because you are a safe pilot, not a perfect one. You're
>an even better pilot because you can recognize that you have

When my instructor signed me off for the checkride, he said: "This
means that I would be willing to have a member of my family fly with
you." I was immensely grateful for that word of confidence, though I
have yet to take a member of my own family flying with me--less
because I doubt my ability than because five years of flying has made
me aware that bad things can happen in avaiation, even to the skilled
and cautious. I'm happy to take that risk for myself, but not for
someone I love.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Chris Ehlbeck]

Jeff is right. None of us are perfect. Here I am at 15 hrs and getting
ready to solo. The past 2 times I've run into some difficulties (wind,
sudden wind changes, not setting the flare up right). On my last lesson I
was correcting any difficulties on my own. My CFI says that's pretty damned
important, a pilot who is able to react and correct problems. He went on to
say that they'd rather see that than a student who always does it right
because they don't know what they'd do in a difficult situation. It was
only on my last lesson that I "figured" out how to try and correct problems.
I finally got comfortable with a simulated engine failure on downwind. He
pulled the throttle, I trimmed and turned for the field (really short
final). He kept asking "Are you going to make it?" "Are you sure?" I was
confident with a "Yes" even telling him we'll land on the runway, it'll be
way past the numbers but with plenty of room.
He's been telling me that the examiners look more for a competent and safe
pilot than anything else.

Have fun taking the family for dinner!
Chris

--
I'm learning to fly! See what's going on.
www.home.bellsouth.net/p/pwp-cehlbeck
"Wizard of Draws" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Thomas wrote:
> >
> > As I say, I don't feel I deserved to pass {though I do not feel that I
> > am unsafe either). But maybe that's a good thing as now I know I still
> > have to work on improving. I also now feel that I can learn for
> > learning's sake and not just to get through a test.
> >
>
> Rich, you passed because you are a safe pilot, not a perfect one. You're
> an even better pilot because you can recognize that you have
> imperfections you need to work on.
> Congratulations and have fun!
> --
> Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
>
> "Cartoons with a Touch of Magic"
> http://www.wizardofdraws.com
> http://www.cartoonclipart.com
>
> Arnold for Governor!
> http://www.wizardofdraws.com/store/terminator.html

[A Lieberman]

Cub Driver wrote:

> When my instructor signed me off for the checkride, he said: "This
> means that I would be willing to have a member of my family fly with
> you." I was immensely grateful for that word of confidence, though I
> have yet to take a member of my own family flying with me--less
> because I doubt my ability than because five years of flying has made
> me aware that bad things can happen in avaiation, even to the skilled
> and cautious. I'm happy to take that risk for myself, but not for
> someone I love.

Dan,

I find the aboe very intriguing. I understand that aviation has it own
enherited risks, but so does driving, biking, walking and so on. I also
realize, you have heard the song and dance that flying is safer then
driving, yada yada yada.

But why not enjoy sharing the joys of flying with your loved ones?

I think about all the safety checks that is done during preflight and
runup that are not done in our other modes of travel. One good example
would be, do you walk around your car to see that you have adequate tire
pressure before driving? I would bet not.... Because of aviation, I
now make a point to do a quick walk around my vehicle to insure it is
safe to drive. We do take alot for granted in the reliablility of our
mechanical equipment, and as you already know, aviation does have
redundancy for when something fails.

I explain to every new passenger, that the preflight and engine runup is
for our safety, if anything fails, then we turn back to the ramp. I
stress the safety aspect of flying, not the danger part. I stress the
safety of our flight BEGINS on the ground, not at 7000 feet altitude. I
do not preflight the plane without them, as I want them to see what
safety measures we take. And yes, I use checklists in fromt of them.

When airborne, depending on the person, I may share the safety checks I
do in the air (scanning instruments, cross checking and so on). If I
already know the person is nervous leaving terra firma, I don't offer
this tidbit of information as I want them to enjoy the flight OUTSIDE
the plane, not be focused on the attitude indicater, heading and so on.

I have given 4 discovery flights (2 kids and 2 adults in 4 different
flights) in my short flying career, and there is nothing more rewarding
then seeing and hearing the reaction of people after defying the laws of
gravity.

I figure, if it is safe enough for me to go up, it is safe enough for me
to fill up the other three seats in the plane. Outside of density
altitude considerations and weight and balances, the plane doesn't care
if it holds one or 4 passengers (in my case anyway).

So why not share the joy of flying with three others????

Allen

[Yossarian]

My DE told me that if I blew the short field landing, as in it wasn't short,
I would fail. I kinda agree since if you mess that one up on a real life
short field you'll probably drive into some trees. I did mess up the first
approach so I did a go-around and set it up better the 2nd time.


"Robert Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> I didn't get the short-field landing right on my checkride either. The
> DE told me "that wasn't very short!" and had me park the airplane,
> whereupon she passed me.
>
> It's more about safe piloting than it is about perfect piloting. But
> my next four landings were spot-on-the-numbers!
>
> Rob

[Cub Driver]

>I find the aboe very intriguing. I understand that aviation has it own
>enherited risks, but so does driving, biking, walking and so on. I also
>realize, you have heard the song and dance that flying is safer then
>driving, yada yada yada.

When I was taking flight lessons, I would assure my wife that the most
dangerous part was over when I parked the car at the airport. This of
course isn't true, as I now realize, and as I hope you also
appreciate.

The best analogy of the dangers of lightplane flying is to motorcycle
riding. It's not like going into combat, but it is much more dangerous
than driving the family Accord.

I might well choose to take up motorcycling someday, but I would never
put my granddaughter on the pylon behind me.

Let's just say that something tells me to make dang sure that if my
genes don't make it into the fourth generation, it won't be because I
took her to the grave with me. I won't fly my daughter because she's
needed to take care of my granddaughter. As for my wife, well, she's
useful as a babysitter.

Maybe if I'd had a bunch of kids, I'd feel differently.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Robert Perkins]

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 06:10:17 -0400, Cub Driver >
wrote:

>Maybe if I'd had a bunch of kids, I'd feel differently.

Trust me on this one as a father with a bunch of kids. You wouldn't.

Rob

[Robert M. Gary]

My wife and 7 and 8 year old boys have about 500 hours in the back of
my Mooney everywhere from Mexico to AZ, to NM, to all places in CA.
They travel great in IMC or VMC, day and night. I've never had a
problem. The kids love breaking out of the clouds at minimums when we
go to the coast. Of course I also take recurrency training very
seriously and often fly with the local old time CFIs or local DE (
since I'm a CFI he'll sometimes even ride with me for free).

-Robert

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >I find the aboe very intriguing. I understand that aviation has it own
> >enherited risks, but so does driving, biking, walking and so on. I also
> >realize, you have heard the song and dance that flying is safer then
> >driving, yada yada yada.
>
> When I was taking flight lessons, I would assure my wife that the most
> dangerous part was over when I parked the car at the airport. This of
> course isn't true, as I now realize, and as I hope you also
> appreciate.
>
> The best analogy of the dangers of lightplane flying is to motorcycle
> riding. It's not like going into combat, but it is much more dangerous
> than driving the family Accord.
>
> I might well choose to take up motorcycling someday, but I would never
> put my granddaughter on the pylon behind me.
>
> Let's just say that something tells me to make dang sure that if my
> genes don't make it into the fourth generation, it won't be because I
> took her to the grave with me. I won't fly my daughter because she's
> needed to take care of my granddaughter. As for my wife, well, she's
> useful as a babysitter.
>
> Maybe if I'd had a bunch of kids, I'd feel differently.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Robert A. Barker]

"Richard Thomas" > wrote in message
...
> Well, I took the checkride and passed on Thursday. Yay for me. I

>
> Rich
>
Rich: CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!! Welcome to the fold!!!!!!!!

Now go out and commit aviation!!!!!!!!! :-)

Bob Barker N8749S