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 |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
This is one of the strangest threads I've ever read on this group.
It's a bit like arguing about how many aliens it takes to screw in a light bulb. You definitely should use a pre-takeoff check list. I can't imagine anyone arguing about this. The only relevant pre-landing item is "Gear down and locked". Everything else should flow from a normal landing. Use whatever spoilers you need. Keep the airspeed at or above the yellow triangle. If you have flaps, use whatever you need. How can you land without looking out? You don't need a checklist for that. If you don't know what the wind is, you ought not to be landing there. The landing pattern is no place to be dumping ballast. No stalling on turn to final allowed. Good luck, Allan "Bill Daniels" wrote in message news:45%_c.386696$%_6.208174@attbi_s01... ...SNIP... For example: BUFSTALL (In downwind) Ballast: Dump started 7 minutes ago, valve in open position, water should be gone by now. Undercarriage: Visually check handle is securely in the down position where I put it a minute ago. Flaps: Visually check, securely in landing position where they have been since pattern entry. Speed: Still correct for wind and turbulence. Trim: Still set. Airbrakes: Visually check, left hand still on correct handle since testing. Look: Surrounding airspace and landing area are still clear of conflicting traffic - select aim point. Landing: Mentally review, touchdown attitude, flaps to negative after touchdown, stick back to make tailwheel heavy, brake smoothly. Used in this manner, the BUFSTALL checklist can be done in just a few seconds. Bill Daniels |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
Ian Johnston wrote:
circuit extras are Undercarriage (check only, should be down already), Speed, Airbrakes (in case frozen). USA! I love it. U (because I've seen several gear-ups). S (because it reminds one to turn early or late on downwind, and compensate for headwind/look at the sock), also, many landing accidents are undershoots. A (less important, but worthy of a check to ensure you don't have a flap handle (L-13), and that they actually unlock) Everything else should have been done before or is plain bleeding obvious. Yep, the rest could be further down the list... I had one instructor who used the F for "Fag (extinguish and chuck out of DV panel)"... LOL! I had to read this one twice... -- ------------+ Mark Boyd Avenal, California, USA |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Reed wrote:
Frank, Not a troll. There's no BGA-mandated checklist for pre-landing checks, as far as I know (this kind of thing changes regularly), and in any event as a basic instructor I'm not permitted to let the student fly below 500 feet or to teach this stuff, so what I wrote was about my own flying practices. Certainly, in my pre-solo training (following the then BGA manual) in 1996/7 I wan't taught pre-landing checks. I love the BGA instructor levels. Good for you being a basic instructor! landing checklists are potentially problematic because on training aircraft some parts don't apply - thus, e.g. learning to say "Undercarriage - fixed" can cement the idea in a student's mind that there is no need for action, so when moving to retractable undercarriage they don't lower it. We call this in the USA "negative transfer." And yep, having a bunch of items ignored on a checklist is a bad way to introduce checklists. (For what it's worth, I understand my wheels-up landing met all the common criteria - 10th flight on retractable, so I'm just becoming comfortable with it and not consciously thinking about the differences from previous aircraft; high workload (trying to scratch away from a winch launch); and distractions (other aircraft in the circuit and the launch point in an unfamiliar place). Result - reversion to primary training which, of course, was on fixed wheel aircraft). I flew a power plane yesterday where a yoke clip was blocking BOTH pilot views of the gear indicator. Took that bugger off... In gliders I use my wife's hair clip: to retract the gear, first take the clip off the gear handle and put it on the spoiler handle. Then raise gear. When pulling spoilers for landing, if the clip is in the way, put the gear down and put it on the gear handle, then use spoilers. Not perfect (what if I'm getting sucked into a cloud?) but it's worked so far... But how many people have accidentally landed with ballast? And is it common in gliders to have a limitation that one can only land without ballast? Kinda makes a rope break interesting... -- ------------+ Mark Boyd Avenal, California, USA |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
You definitely should use a pre-takeoff check list. I can't imagine
anyone arguing about this. Pre-takeoff is with a glider stopped, on the ground. Yep, a great place to do a good thorough checklist. I think we all agree, it's just I'm advocating a prioritized list... The only relevant pre-landing item is "Gear down and locked". Everything else should flow from a normal landing. Use whatever spoilers you need. Keep the airspeed at or above the yellow triangle. If you have flaps, use whatever you need. How can you land without looking out? You don't need a checklist for that. If you don't know what the wind is, you ought not to be landing there. The landing pattern is no place to be dumping ballast. Allan I'm thinking US is ok. Undercarriage seems primo, beyond that I really do consciously think about airspeed because of the wind, and there really are ballast issues (two people or one in a two seater?). The rest does seem very subconscious, but I'd guess there are differing thoughts. If I was flying something that I had a subtle ballast imbalance in previously, I might add that next. If it was an L-13 and I was prone to mixing up flaps and spoilers, I'd add it. But you're right, from what I've seen, I think U should be number one for many people... -- ------------+ Mark Boyd Avenal, California, USA |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
Ian Johnston wrote:
Personally, I think the best idea is to work out a personal check list, where each item appears as a result of thought and decision. And, of course, discussion with other pilots and instructors, intelligent reading of accident reports and so on. !!!! Absolutely. I'm a big fan of teaching pilots to evaluate their own weaknesses too. They make checklists which focus on the things they are likely to do wrong. I have three pilots who fly one partnership aircraft, and they all use their own custom checklist. Two are long and pedantic, one is shorter and much more focussed, but each works well for the personality of the pilot. And from this thread, there have been some excellent points, but it seems clear we all use different checklists based on our varying needs and aircraft... -- ------------+ Mark Boyd Avenal, California, USA |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
Eric Greenwell wrote:
Unfortunately, +5 knots is not very good insurance against gusts and turbulence, which typically increase with wind speed. Or was this supposed to be added on top of the "1/2 the wind speed"? If so, I suggest the +5 knots is redundant in general (specific sites [hill sites, for example] may require much higher speeds, of course). US flying handbooks seem to suggest 1.3 times stall speed for approach. Perhaps the aircraft POH differ (so I won't address that, as there are too many reasons for that and too many POHs to speak clearly to). But at 1.3 times Vso, for the gliders I know of that stall at 30kts+, this means 40kts, which is 10 kts over stall speed, and seems pretty good. With a 20 knot headwind, now one would be on final at (1.3 x 30) + (1/2 x 20) = 50kts. That seems pretty good for a glider that stalls at 30 kts. So yep, it's a SWAG (scientific wild arse guess), but it seems ok. Now a thermal right at flare and touchdown is a much more interesting problem, but hey, ya gotta land SOMETIME! I believe, but have no direct evidence for it, that it was chosen empirically: over many years, people that used that value had it work out well, so it became the recommendation. I suspect the origin is now shrouded in the fog of history. Yeah, trying to figure out the polar during landing was probably just too complicated. The GFH tries to simplify things to 7th grade math. Yep, so a 14 year old can do it -- ------------+ Mark Boyd Avenal, California, USA |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
Mark James Boyd wrote:
But how many people have accidentally landed with ballast? Thousands, I'm sure, over the years. I've done it. If you do it intentionally so you can adjust your landing, it's not a problem, but if it's unintentional, you can find yourself wondering why you aren't stopping... And is it common in gliders to have a limitation that one can only land without ballast? Yes, it is. They can do it, of course, but on some gliders it can raise the weight 40%, and the landing speed 20%, so it's going to be lot harder to stop! Another potential problem is a leak on one side means one wing can be a lot heavier than the other, so it goes down first and early, often leading to a ground loop. The structural margins are reduced, but still well within the G loadings of the usual landing. Kinda makes a rope break interesting... Yes, as the turn radius is increased and turn rate lowered, in addition to the weight and landing speed issues. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
In gliders I use my wife's hair clip: to retract the gear, first take the clip off the gear handle and put it on the spoiler handle. Then raise gear. When pulling spoilers for landing, if the clip is in the way, put the gear down and put it on the gear handle, then use spoilers. Not perfect (what if I'm getting sucked into a cloud?) but it's worked so far... In my club's B4, we used a short length of a heavy duty cardboard roll the same way. One day, a bunch of years ago, the Kinsman ridge was cooking and the clouds were just above ridge top and I had to run the ridge at 100 knots and/or spoilers to keep out of the clouds. I kept the gear up due to the high speeds. I got used to using the spoilers with the cardboard tube still on it. You know what happened but because the landing was on grass, only the paint was slightly scuffed (a B4 is metal, BTW). The fault was clearly my failure to use a proper landing checklist. I'm MUCH better at using a landing check list now :-). Still, when I bought the LS6, the first thing I did was to install a gear warning. Tony V. |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
It appears that if you draw a tangent to your glider's polar beginning, not at zero, but at any given headwind speed, the line will touch the polar at a point that is best L/D plus half that headwind. Close to it but, yes - as you can see in the lines drawn on the L23 polar of the article http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/GB.../headwind.html I was under the impression it was added to give you a margin for gusts and turbulence, which are usually less than the average wind speed. The "half" was likely chosen empirically, as something that was adequate almost all the time. I suspect that you may be confusing the "best speed to cover the most ground in a headwind" with "the best speed to make a safe approach to landing". Tony V. |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
At 15:42 07 September 2004, Tony Verhulst wrote:
It appears that if you draw a tangent to your glider's polar beginning, not at zero, but at any given headwind speed, the line will touch the polar at a point that is best L/D plus half that headwind. Close to it but, yes - as you can see in the lines drawn on the L23 polar of the article http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/GB.../headwind.html I was under the impression it was added to give you a margin for gusts and turbulence, which are usually less than the average wind speed. The 'half' was likely chosen empirically, as something that was adequate almost all the time. I suspect that you may be confusing the 'best speed to cover the most ground in a headwind' with 'the best speed to make a safe approach to landing'. Tony, As I read his question it, he was asking for 'best speed to cover the most ground in a headwind. Actually, he seemed to confuse the two in the question. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
SR22 Spin Recovery | gwengler | Piloting | 9 | September 24th 04 07:31 AM |
Spin Training | JJ Sinclair | Soaring | 6 | February 16th 04 04:49 PM |
Cessna 150 Price Outlook | Charles Talleyrand | Owning | 80 | October 16th 03 02:18 PM |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Piloting | 25 | September 11th 03 01:27 PM |