Another hour logged

veritas wrote:

I would make a poor instructor because it has been too long since I
learned to fly. It is not because I neglect the basics but rather
that I do things without, any longer, being conscious of it,
therefore "why"!

Crash Lander wrote:
Most of the approaches were a bit low too, with 1 being low
enough to give me a bit of a scare. Came in too low, and had to give
almost full power to clear the trees.

I must ask - was the headwind (on final) on the day greater than you
had previously experienced?

Wind strength will have an effect on how "close" you should turn
base/final thus determining how "steep" your approach will be. Under
these circumstances, a steep approach is not necessarily an
indication that an approach is 'wrong' as it is a function of
airspeed (distance through the air) and not groundspeed (distance
over the ground).

The distinction of approach angle in relation to the difference in
headwind on final is not always immediately recognised - it comes
with, firstly, recognising the situation and taking the appropriate
action -then- later, experience will kick in and it will become
'automatic'.


No, the headwind was not stronger than I had experienced before. I
reakon I just had a tough time deciding when it was best to turn base.
Made my downwinds too long. Next time, if the wind is similar, I'm
going to try and turn base sooner, and I'm sure that will make all the
difference.

--
Oz Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.

Tony wrote:

Dear Mr Crash

Since it's been decades, not years, since I was signed off as a PP,
things probably have changed, but I remember a lesson dear old CFII J
O'B taught.

He pointed out that if I was to suffer an engine failure at any time
after passing the numbers downwind and not be able to glide to the
runway, if I didn't die in the crash he'd kill me for embarrassing
him! He reserved the right, during dual instruction, to yank the
throttle full back, lean back, and cross his arms. Woe on the student
who couldn't make the numbers comfortably.

The point is this -- don't get too low! You have flaps, you have
slips, all kinds of tools for dumping energy, but there may come a
time when you don't have a way of adding any.

Once you're at pattern altitude you're becoming a superior pilot if
all of your power adjustments are in the downward direction. Pay
attention to CHT, cowl flaps if you have them, things like that, to
keep the engine 'comfortable', but try very hard to not put yourself
in a circumstance where you have to add power.

Now, there's an important point here. Safety is the point. The "I want
to be a superior pilot" ego should not prevent you from adding power
if you have to. Just give yourself a lower grade on that landing, and
go forth and sin no more.


May the wind be gentle on your nose during the flare!





On Mar 9, 11:41 pm, "Crash Lander" wrote:
Well, the vibration in the prop that I mentioned last week has been
rectified. Aparently they fixed it up during the week. No sign of
vibration anymore.

Did 2 circuits with the instructor today, and 5 solo. Was reasonable
happy with my last touch down, but all the rest were a bit sloppy.
Winds were about 12kts, and between 100 and 120 degrees, which
really made it crosswind circuits, as we were using runway 17. I
guess this partly explains why the landings were not to my liking,
but not completely. Most of the approaches were a bit low too, with
1 being low enough to give me a bit of a scare. Came in too low,
and had to give almost full power to clear the trees. Was happy
with my result in that one though, as I recognised the situation,
and tought it out clearly. I remember being careful not to panic
and pull back too hard on the stick. Otherwise I would have stalled
the wings and had a closer look at the branches. I applied the
power, and pushed the nose down a little to gain speed, then gently
pulled back on the stick. She gained speed and climbed nicely. I'm
sure it was nowhere near as close a call as I thought it was, but
it was really the first time I've had to 'take evasive action'.

Booked in again for next saturday afternoon, and I should knock off
the balance of my solo circuits requirement then, so we can move on
to the next part of the syllabus. Looking forward to that.

--
Crash Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.

Hi Tony!
You know what? When we did glide aproaches, I did fine! I'll try and
put that lesson into practice next week and make every approach a glide
approach.
My a/c doesn't have flaps either by the way. It's a little ultralight
Gazelle.

--
Oz Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.

Mike Young wrote:

"Crash Lander" wrote in message
...
enough to give me a bit of a scare. Came in too low, and had to give
almost full power to clear the trees. Was happy with my result in
that one though, as I recognised the situation, and tought it out
clearly.

Cool. Just have to work on recognizing the situation earlier.

That's the truth Mike.

--
Oz Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.

On Mar 10, 4:19 pm, "Tony" wrote:
Dear Mr Crash

Since it's been decades, not years, since I was signed off as a PP,
things probably have changed, but I remember a lesson dear old CFII J
O'B taught.

He pointed out that if I was to suffer an engine failure at any time
after passing the numbers downwind and not be able to glide to the
runway, if I didn't die in the crash he'd kill me for embarrassing
him! He reserved the right, during dual instruction, to yank the
throttle full back, lean back, and cross his arms. Woe on the student
who couldn't make the numbers comfortably.

That is also how I used to teach when I was mostly flying Aeroncas and
Cessna 140's. However, most of the instructor community is starting to
change its opinion on the old "you should be able to make the runway w/
o power from abeam". The problem with that technique is that is sets
you up for a less stable approach. Today, there are far more accidents
as a result of unstable setups than engine failure in the pattern.
Many of the pilot type courses (Mooney, Bonanza), etc teach CFIs not
to pull the power abeam specifically to avoid teaching this
technique.
The way I teach now is to let the pilot maintain some power throughout
the pattern but to roll out on final such that everything is set up to
fly "hands off" below 500 feet. In most situations, if you have to do
anything more than small adjustments below 500 feet, you go around.
This technique works *MUCH* better in high performance aircraft (and
retracts) but also is ok in trainers too.
In short, you are more likely (today) to damage something with a non-
stable final than an engine failure in the pattern. When I demo
landings now I set the plane up for landing at 500 feet and cross my
arms so they can see that everything is trimmed and set up for hands
off flight.

-Robert, CFII

On Mar 12, 3:26 pm, Sam wrote:
On 12 Mar 2007 14:33:06 -0700, Robert M. Gary wrote:

[...]

In short, you are more likely (today) to damage something with a non-
stable final than an engine failure in the pattern. When I demo
landings now I set the plane up for landing at 500 feet and cross my
arms so they can see that everything is trimmed and set up for hands
off flight.

Interesting, and makes sense.
I spent many a buck mastering the glide approach as a separate
technique, ie pull the throttle somewhere abeam the numbers and don't
touch it again until you finish with the wings.
Do you still teach this? I mean it's very useful in the case of a
FLWOP don't you think?

Really the only time I pull the power in the pattern is before a non-
instrument checkride. I don't pull the power in the pattern in high
performance aircraft at all.
What I generally do is put the pilot under the hood and get him very
involved in some instrument procedures about 3,000 feet over an
airport (not the procedure airport). Then I pull the power and tell
him we just came out of the clouds. It usually takes a few moments to
realize that they are right over an airport.
About 75% of pilots are not able to land at an airport from 3,000 on
top of the field. Usually after 3 attempts they have it down. I
consider this more valuable than pulling the power in the pattern and
probably more real-life.

-Robert, CFII

On 12 Mar 2007 15:32:25 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in .com:

About 75% of pilots are not able to land at an airport from 3,000 on
top of the field.

Why is that?

Why did you need to push the nose down slightly? Were you slow as well
as low, so you needed the extra airspeed? Or were you afraid of
stalling even though you had plenty of airspeed? If you needed to push
the the nose down slightly you were dangerously slow, and if you
didn't need to then you shouldn't have.


On Mar 10, 12:41 am, "Crash Lander" wrote:
Well, the vibration in the prop that I mentioned last week has been
rectified. Aparently they fixed it up during the week. No sign of
vibration anymore.

Did 2 circuits with the instructor today, and 5 solo. Was reasonable
happy with my last touch down, but all the rest were a bit sloppy.
Winds were about 12kts, and between 100 and 120 degrees, which really
made it crosswind circuits, as we were using runway 17. I guess this
partly explains why the landings were not to my liking, but not
completely. Most of the approaches were a bit low too, with 1 being low
enough to give me a bit of a scare. Came in too low, and had to give
almost full power to clear the trees. Was happy with my result in that
one though, as I recognised the situation, and tought it out clearly. I
remember being careful not to panic and pull back too hard on the
stick. Otherwise I would have stalled the wings and had a closer look
at the branches. I applied the power, and pushed the nose down a little
to gain speed, then gently pulled back on the stick. She gained speed
and climbed nicely. I'm sure it was nowhere near as close a call as I
thought it was, but it was really the first time I've had to 'take
evasive action'.

Booked in again for next saturday afternoon, and I should knock off the
balance of my solo circuits requirement then, so we can move on to the
next part of the syllabus. Looking forward to that.

--
Crash Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Why did you need to push the nose down slightly? Were you slow as well
as low, so you needed the extra airspeed? Or were you afraid of
stalling even though you had plenty of airspeed? If you needed to push
the the nose down slightly you were dangerously slow, and if you
didn't need to then you shouldn't have.

I reakon I pushed it down (slightly) because I was afraid of stalling. As I
said before, there was probably no danger at all, but I reakon as it was my
worst approach, and I was closer than I had ever been to an obstacle, I
wanted the extra speed and power just in case.
Crash Lander