WOW!

Here is something you more experienced pilots might want to comment on.
Being a pilot of much less experience, it just looked like an
interesting thing to see comments on some of the points the pilot
makes.. I came across this 2005 article while just wandering about on
the web. Scroll down to the high speed approach article.

You'll need acrobat reader.

http://www.pugetsoundsoaring.org/new...ow_10_2005.pdf

Yikes....
80 knot patterns in a 2-33? I can't agree with his
comment that students are 'incompetent', thus they
are taught stabilized approaches. Also, what does
the POH state for approach speeds?

I suspect others might come up with more reasons why
99%? of us don't fly patterns like this.

Stewart Kissel wrote:
Yikes....
80 knot patterns in a 2-33? I can't agree with his
comment that students are 'incompetent', thus they
are taught stabilized approaches. Also, what does
the POH state for approach speeds?

I suspect others might come up with more reasons why
99%? of us don't fly patterns like this.

Yes. TIME.

I doubt if he makes many, if any, field landings.
If he uses that approach method into a small paddock
or even an unusual airfield, he's going to end up with
egg on his face.

At 21:48 31 October 2006, wrote:
Here is something you more experienced pilots might
want to comment on.
Being a pilot of much less experience, it just looked
like an
interesting thing to see comments on some of the points
the pilot
makes.. I came across this 2005 article while just
wandering about on
the web. Scroll down to the high speed approach article.

You'll need acrobat reader.

http://www.pugetsoundsoaring.org/new...ow_10_2005.pdf

wrote:
Here is something you more experienced pilots might want to comment on.
Being a pilot of much less experience, it just looked like an
interesting thing to see comments on some of the points the pilot
makes.. I came across this 2005 article while just wandering about on
the web. Scroll down to the high speed approach article.

You'll need acrobat reader.

http://www.pugetsoundsoaring.org/new...ow_10_2005.pdf

I flew my Discus out of Bergseth a time or two. Even gave some
instruction in the club's equipment. Never did anything like that.
Hummm, let's see the Maneuvering speed on the trusty sail pig, ( too
dirty three), is 65MPH. Eighty-five knots is a mite fast.

Zulu

wrote:
wrote:
Here is something you more experienced pilots might want to comment on.
Being a pilot of much less experience, it just looked like an
interesting thing to see comments on some of the points the pilot
makes.. I came across this 2005 article while just wandering about on
the web. Scroll down to the high speed approach article.

You'll need acrobat reader.

http://www.pugetsoundsoaring.org/new...ow_10_2005.pdf

I flew my Discus out of Bergseth a time or two. Even gave some
instruction in the club's equipment. Never did anything like that.
Hummm, let's see the Maneuvering speed on the trusty sail pig, ( too
dirty three), is 65MPH. Eighty-five knots is a mite fast.

32 mph over Maneuvering speed is a mite fast? What's Vne?


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Very well written article. This is a 'standard' airshow
sailplane approach. I've done it a thousand times.
Gives you exceptional glidepath control, excellent
control authority and makes a stall/spin highly unlikely
(though not impossible). One of my tricks for setting
up a perfect spot landing.

That being said; as with any new technique, don't try
it the first time without the assistance of someone
experienced in the technique. (I was taught a similar
approach by Les Horvath.) Just because it has advantages
doesn't mean there aren't ways to screw up. The higher
speeds may cause the controls to be 'twitchy', possibly
leading to a disastrous PIO situation. The spoilers
(especially Grobs) may behave very badly when deployed
at high speeds. It may be possible to overstress the
glider. Be extra cautious of this technique when switching
from a 2-33 to a higher performance glider. The extra
energy you're carrying may be more than you realize.

There are advantages in learning where the edges of
the performance envelope are, but explore carefully
with the help of an experienced pilot. Knowing the
parameters may give you the advantage you need to get
out of a sticky situation someday. Being comfortable
on a fast, low approach might come in handy when you
discover power lines while setting up an out landing.
I've seen the results of trying to go over without
enough energy...



At 21:48 31 October 2006, wrote:
Here is something you more experienced pilots might
want to comment on.
Being a pilot of much less experience, it just looked
like an
interesting thing to see comments on some of the points
the pilot
makes.. I came across this 2005 article while just
wandering about on
the web. Scroll down to the high speed approach article.

You'll need acrobat reader.

http://www.pugetsoundsoaring.org/new...ow_10_2005.pdf

Very well written article. This is a 'standard' airshow
sailplane approach. I've done it a thousand times.
Gives you exceptional glidepath control, excellent
control authority and makes a stall/spin highly unlikely
(though not impossible). One of my tricks for setting
up a perfect spot landing.

That being said; as with any new technique, don't try
it the first time without the assistance of someone
experienced in the technique. (I was taught a similar
approach by Les Horvath.) Just because it has advantages
doesn't mean there aren't ways to screw up. The higher
speeds may cause the controls to be 'twitchy', possibly
leading to a disastrous PIO situation. The spoilers
(especially Grobs) may behave very badly when deployed
at high speeds. It may be possible to overstress the
glider. Be extra cautious of this technique when switching
from a 2-33 to a higher performance glider. The extra
energy you're carrying may be more than you realize.

There are advantages in learning where the edges of
the performance envelope are, but explore carefully
with the help of an experienced pilot. Knowing the
parameters may give you the advantage you need to get
out of a sticky situation someday. Being comfortable
on a fast, low approach might come in handy when you
discover power lines while setting up an out landing.
I've seen the results of trying to go over without
enough energy...



At 21:48 31 October 2006, wrote:
Here is something you more experienced pilots might
want to comment on.
Being a pilot of much less experience, it just looked
like an
interesting thing to see comments on some of the points
the pilot
makes.. I came across this 2005 article while just
wandering about on
the web. Scroll down to the high speed approach article.

You'll need acrobat reader.

http://www.pugetsoundsoaring.org/new...ow_10_2005.pdf

Bob C wrote:
Very well written article.

Yes as Bob says, a well written article. About what I'm not too
sure... It makes me wonder if the writer really understands the
reasons behind accepted glider approach methods.

I believe that there has been a careful accounting of extra-high speed
approach methods to counter strong sink/wind gradient and insufficient
energy conditions. If I recall, the physics pretty much favor the near
best glide "accepted" approach techniques in wide use (world wide for
decades) in all conditions.

I say we thank him for operational testing of a method that I'm too
chicken to use except when I have more runway then I know what to do
with and nothing better to do. Go MAN GO!

Matt Michael

wrote:
Here is something you more experienced pilots might want to comment on.
Being a pilot of much less experience, it just looked like an
interesting thing to see comments on some of the points the pilot
makes.. I came across this 2005 article while just wandering about on
the web. Scroll down to the high speed approach article.

You'll need acrobat reader.

http://www.pugetsoundsoaring.org/new...ow_10_2005.pdf


I don't think his justifications are seamless, particularly in his
choice of approach speed (much higher than is necessary to prove his
point) but it's worth reading.

He can do a conventional approach, when he must. Can all of us do his
preferred "high-energy" approach, safely, consistently? If so, then we
are better qualified to criticize.

One may not wish to see it taught to the average student. Those who want
it will come by it on their own, in the current US training atmosphere,
or be very fortunate in their choice of CFIG.

And, Bob C.'s follow-on comments are invaluable.


Jack