Testing your glide. Are people doing this?

("Yossarian" wrote in the Catalina Perep thread)
My first trip I was that low too, but now my FBO insists on a continuous
climb to the middle of the channel for better glide distance if your
engine
quits. 4500' in a 172 is only like 7 miles glide.


I wonder how many people have actually glided their planes (rentals or
otherwise) and so know what their real world glide range numbers will be -
from say, 6,000 ft AGL down to 3,000 ft AGL? Into the wind vs tailwind, etc?

I'm under the impression that 5:1 is a good (safety) number to have in your
head for an average 172 flying at 3,000 ft AGL, and below. Gives you some
"what the hey?" room and *some* turning room.

Can't quite make a 3 mile target with exactly 5:1 at 3,000 ft AGL....15,000
ft. Leaves you 840 ft short of 3 miles. Still, (a mile glide per 1,000 ft of
altitude) seems like a good number to keep in your head for lower altitudes.
Almost 5:1.

I wonder how much better (than the made up safety number 5:1) people will
see up at 6,000 ft AGL. Are people getting book numbers, in their planes,
when they go up and practice real world glides - from say 6k down to 3k?


Montblack
Happy Birthday Kristen
October 25

Are people getting book numbers, in their planes,
when they go up and practice real world glides - from say 6k down to 3k?


Folks should go out and practice this a bunch. Early in the morning high above
the airport, they should simulate a glide onto the runway, to get a feel for
the descent rate, speed, angle, etc. etc.
VL

("MLenoch" wrote)
Folks should go out and practice this a bunch. Early in the morning high
above
the airport, they should simulate a glide onto the runway, to get a feel
for
the descent rate, speed, angle, etc. etc.


Talking to folks at airports, do you get the sense that people are, in fact,
doing what you suggested? Or is it just a good idea ...."I should do that,
one-of-these-days"...kind of thing?

Just curious.

--
Montblack

"Styled by the laws of nature.............Concorde"

My experience is that most people don't actually know how to fly their
airplanes. They know how to get them off the ground, from Point A to Point
B, but they never do touch and gos, they never go out and do stalls, and
they really don't know how their airplane performs in anything other than
the cruise. Personally, I enjoy simply controlling the machine. Kind of
like racing drivers - they enjoy being in control of the machine, not using
it go to anywhere. Therefore, I get a hell of a kick out of touch and goes,
I stall the airplane all the time simply because it's fun, I do all kinds of
turns and maneuvers just for the hell of it. What this all means is that I
know how my airplane performs at all edges of it's envelope and with the
engine off more than I do in the cruise. Possibly all for fun, but really,
in the back of my mind, it's so I know how to get out of trouble faster than
I got into it.

Shawn
"Montblack" wrote in message
...
("MLenoch" wrote)
Folks should go out and practice this a bunch. Early in the morning
high
above
the airport, they should simulate a glide onto the runway, to get a feel
for
the descent rate, speed, angle, etc. etc.


Talking to folks at airports, do you get the sense that people are, in
fact,
doing what you suggested? Or is it just a good idea ...."I should do that,
one-of-these-days"...kind of thing?

Just curious.

--
Montblack

"Styled by the laws of nature.............Concorde"

Are people getting book numbers, in their planes,
when they go up and practice real world glides - from say 6k down to 3k?

Be careful up there! I fly at 2900 feet.

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

(MLenoch) writes:

Folks should go out and practice this a bunch. Early in the morning
high above the airport, they should simulate a glide onto the
runway, to get a feel for the descent rate, speed, angle, etc. etc.

Right, but don't count on the numbers -- a prop hooked up to an idling
engine isn't windmilling as much as a prop hooked up to an engine with
no power. I


All the best,


David

Folks should go out and practice this a bunch. Early in the morning high
above
the airport, they should simulate a glide onto the runway, to get a feel
for
the descent rate, speed, angle, etc. etc.

Now that we monitor Unicom at all hours, I can tell you that it is VERY rare
to hear someone practicing any "engine out" procedures over our airport.
Even though we have a very active bunch of flight instructors, we almost
never hear anyone announce this extremely important routine.

Now, perhaps they are taking students to a smaller, less busy airport
nearby -- but I doubt it. I think it's just one of those things that new
pilots do with their instructors over rural areas, and then rarely practice
again. And they almost never do it over an airport.

I know I haven't done the "engine out" routine for a looong time -- but I
plan to at our next opportunity. Thanks for the reminder, Montblack!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" writes:

Now that we monitor Unicom at all hours, I can tell you that it is
VERY rare to hear someone practicing any "engine out" procedures
over our airport. Even though we have a very active bunch of flight
instructors, we almost never hear anyone announce this extremely
important routine.

During my training (at controlled airport), a simulated engine failure
on base or final wouldn't generate any radio activity at all; a
simulated engine failure in the downwind would be preceeded by a call
to tower "request direct to threshold." It would be hard for someone
to know what we were practicing simply by monitoring the radio
traffic.

At the flying club where I trained, you cannot get cleared for first
solo by without first demonstrating a good command of engine-out
procedures in the circuit (there's a long checklist of items -- I
think it comes from Transport Canada). I had to demonstrate deadstick
landings from downwind and base again during training for my night
rating.


All the best,


David

During my training (at controlled airport), a simulated engine failure
on base or final wouldn't generate any radio activity at all; a
simulated engine failure in the downwind would be preceeded by a call
to tower "request direct to threshold."

Standard practice at an uncontrolled airport here in the U.S. is to announce
"Iowa City Traffic, Warrior 33431 is left downwind for RWY 25, Iowa City,
simulated emergency landing" -- or something to that effect.

I suppose, as with all radio usage, it's entirely optional to announce this
procedure at an uncontrolled airport. I, for one, however, appreciate
knowing when I'm sharing the pattern with someone who may be flying a
potentially unusual pattern.

I hear it announced this way often enough to presume that most people *do*
announce it -- although, of course, there is no way of knowing how many
"NORDO-simulated-engine-out" landings are made every day.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:QHumb.24708$Tr4.49542@attbi_s03...
| During my training (at controlled airport), a simulated engine failure
| on base or final wouldn't generate any radio activity at all; a
| simulated engine failure in the downwind would be preceeded by a call
| to tower "request direct to threshold."
|
| Standard practice at an uncontrolled airport here in the U.S. is to
announce
| "Iowa City Traffic, Warrior 33431 is left downwind for RWY 25, Iowa City,
| simulated emergency landing" -- or something to that effect.
|

I usually just announce that I am making a 'short approach.' There are
several reasons for making a short approach; engine out practice is just one
of them. I usually take students over to Shelton for engine out practice
because I often have the whole airport to myself.