![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 15, 6:16 am, Stefan wrote:
Andrew Sarangan schrieb: No it is not a sixth sense. It is the right combination of numbers and sight picture. Sight picture only helps when you are fairly low (ie 500' AGL) and on final approach. During downwind or base you don't have a good sight picture to tell whether you are going to be too high or too low. You have to rely on your altimeter and use several 'target' altitudes until you turn final. I disagree. Of course the alitmeter can be very helpful, but only if you know the ground elevation and if you are sure your current altimeter setting is correct. As this is often not the case, think in angles. Angles stay the same regardless of height and distance. I have to disagree. Altimeter errors are pretty minor compared to visual errors. Even if you never changed the altimeter setting since takeoff, you can't be more than a few tens of feet off unless you are flying through some huge weather system, or are a long way off from home. Unless you are in hilly terrain, ground elevation is only a quick glance away from a sectional chart. If you are doing the landing at an airport, then you know exactly what the elevation is. It is true that angles stays the same regardless of height and distance, but that only applies for a straight line. When you are on downwind or base you are only guessing what your approach angle might be. You are relying heavily on how high it "feels" and how far it "feels", and how that might transpire into a good approach angle after you turn final. Once you are on final, your argument is correct that you should be able to do everything by the visual angle. But by that time it is too late to make large changes, only minor changes. This is the reason many pilots find practice engine outs to have inconsistent results. If you set target altitude for different positions prior to reaching final, the consistency significantly improves. I've been teaching this way and I rarely had a student fail to make a runway on a practice power-off approaches. Someone else mentioned a sticking altimeter when the engine is not running. I never had a real engine failure so I can't disagree with that, but every airplane I have flown in shows an altitude changes with daily pressure changes even when it is parked in the hanger. The vibrations in a parked airplane must be much smaller than one that is airborne, with or without an engine. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Emergency landing at airfield | Danny Deger | Piloting | 10 | January 8th 07 06:31 PM |
Emergency landing theoretical | gatt | Piloting | 21 | May 15th 06 03:07 PM |
Live emergency landing on tv right now | C. Massey | Piloting | 7 | May 4th 06 02:49 AM |
C-141 emergency landing Christchurch | Miche | Military Aviation | 11 | February 6th 04 04:04 AM |
N30793, Emergency Landing | Tom Hughes | Piloting | 5 | August 21st 03 03:56 AM |