Dear Burt

I think a "simulated off-field landing"
flight portion with standards isn't a bad idea.

But keep in mind the reason I advocate this is to
standardize the examiners. Having some examiners
require 8 feet and others require 400 feet as the
tolerance for an off-field (minimum-energy) landing
isn't standardized.

I'm not sure a PTS change is absolutely required.
There are newletters and such for examiners that
can discuss this and come to a "consensus" that
within 200 feet, or 400 feet or whatever of a designated
point for simulated off-field landings is a reasonable idea.

And if this is only in the commercial PTS, then
maybe that is ok. I know plenty of private pilots who
follow the X-C stuff in the GFH and are always within glide
of long runways and never, ever put themselves in an
off-field situation. If they want to fly this way, good for them...

In article ,
T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
Martin Eiler wrote:

Todd I think your opinion is that normal glider landings
should mirror what the Private asel standards describe
as touching down smoothly at approximate stalling speed,
at or within 400 feet beyond a specified point.

I don't have any strong opinions about where in the PTS to
put an accuracy landing test (Normal Landing Task or
elsewhere) but I do think if the PTS is going to have an
accuracy landing test it should be similar to the test
above. If they want to have two tests, then the stopping
point test is fine.



--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:05:41 +0100, "Bert Willing"
wrote:

Still, in an off-airfield landing you need the shortest possible rollout.
And that should be teached and tested.

I guess we both know where the broken tail booms on US Twin 2's come
from, don't we?


Bye
Andreas

I don't understand the broken tail booms bit or what
that has to do with short rollouts. We do teach and
test for short rolls in the UK and I have no recollection
of a large number of tail boom breaks

At 02:04 16 February 2005, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:05:41 +0100, 'Bert Willing'
wrote:

Still, in an off-airfield landing you need the shortest
possible rollout.
And that should be teached and tested.

I guess we both know where the broken tail booms on
US Twin 2's come
from, don't we?


Bye
Andreas

The remark was targeted to the opposite - if you do a main wheel landing
with the excess energy needed to taxi to a stopping point 2 miles away, you
have a good chance to enter a PIO :-)))

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Don Johnstone" a écrit dans
le message de news: ...
I don't understand the broken tail booms bit or what
that has to do with short rollouts. We do teach and
test for short rolls in the UK and I have no recollection
of a large number of tail boom breaks

At 02:04 16 February 2005, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:05:41 +0100, 'Bert Willing'
wrote:

Still, in an off-airfield landing you need the shortest
possible rollout.
And that should be teached and tested.

I guess we both know where the broken tail booms on
US Twin 2's come
from, don't we?


Bye
Andreas

Interesting. What's the date on your PTS? Mine, dated 1999 and downloaded
from the FAA, does not have an item 1 and 2. It has a single unnumbered
paragraph containing the text shown in your number 1.

"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
...
"Roger Worden" wrote:

Where in the PTS does it say land without reference to the altimeter? I
don't see it. I think that's a Bronze requirement, but not in the PTS. I
was
asked to do it on my PPG practical... much to my surprise! I had never
done
it before but nailed it.

See 2 below:

X. AREA OF OPERATION: EMERGENCY OPERATIONS
A. TASK: SIMULATED OFF-AIRPORT LANDING
REFERENCES: Soaring Flight Manual, Glider Flight Manual.
NOTE: This landing will be performed at an established
airport.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to a simulated
off-airport landing, including selection of a suitable
landing area and the procedures used to accomplish an
off-airport landing.
2. Performs a simulated off-airport landing without the use
of an altimeter.