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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Kirk Stant wrote:
I fly my pattern based on where I want to touch down, and adjust the pattern accoding to my altitude and the wind. I prefer low, tight, fast patterns, so I can see what I'm getting into during a landout! And if you don't like what you are getting into, how do you avoid if you are low and tight? Even a high, large pattern will eventually have you as close to the "what you are getting into", but in the mean time, you have a lot more time to look things over and change your mind. I don't think I like the idea of a fast landout, either. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
I have often used somewhat higher speeds on approach
as well. The logic is simple: trade a little altitude for airspeed and you will get a better perspective on field slope, power lines and other features that my not be visible at higher view angles. There is practically nothing worse than having those hidden power lines pop up above the horizon when you are at 30' and 50 kts on final (this is the voice of experience from the person who had to pick up the wreck). A little extra energy can be useful - assuming you have good divebrakes. It also helped me this summer at Parowan when a huge dust devil kicked off right in the middle of the runway when I was at 100' on final. I was able to stretch my approach so that I didn't have to flare in the middle of the sucker. I know this flys in the face of the traditional stabilized approach philosophy - so I'm interested in counterpoints. 9B At 06:00 26 August 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote: Kirk Stant wrote: I fly my pattern based on where I want to touch down, and adjust the pattern accoding to my altitude and the wind. I prefer low, tight, fast patterns, so I can see what I'm getting into during a landout! And if you don't like what you are getting into, how do you avoid if you are low and tight? Even a high, large pattern will eventually have you as close to the 'what you are getting into', but in the mean time, you have a lot more time to look things over and change your mind. I don't think I like the idea of a fast landout, either. -- Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
If you had of said you used your extra speed to take
you to the dust devil and climb away I would have been far more impressed! At 07:00 26 August 2004, Andy Blackburn wrote: I have often used somewhat higher speeds on approach as well. It also helped me this summer at Parowan when a huge dust devil kicked off right in the middle of the runway when I was at 100' on final. I was able to stretch my approach so that I didn't have to flare in the middle of the sucker. I know this flys in the face of the traditional stabilized approach philosophy - so I'm interested in counterpoints. 9B At 06:00 26 August 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote: Kirk Stant wrote: I fly my pattern based on where I want to touch down, and adjust the pattern accoding to my altitude and the wind. I prefer low, tight, fast patterns, so I can see what I'm getting into during a landout! And if you don't like what you are getting into, how do you avoid if you are low and tight? Even a high, large pattern will eventually have you as close to the 'what you are getting into', but in the mean time, you have a lot more time to look things over and change your mind. I don't think I like the idea of a fast landout, either. -- Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Nice reference to the original topic!
:-) At 15:36 26 August 2004, Kirk Davis wrote: If you had of said you used your extra speed to take you to the dust devil and climb away I would have been far more impressed! At 07:00 26 August 2004, Andy Blackburn wrote: I have often used somewhat higher speeds on approach as well. It also helped me this summer at Parowan when a huge dust devil kicked off right in the middle of the runway when I was at 100' on final. I was able to stretch my approach so that I didn't have to flare in the middle of the sucker. I know this flys in the face of the traditional stabilized approach philosophy - so I'm interested in counterpoints. 9B At 06:00 26 August 2004, Eric Greenwell wrote: Kirk Stant wrote: I fly my pattern based on where I want to touch down, and adjust the pattern accoding to my altitude and the wind. I prefer low, tight, fast patterns, so I can see what I'm getting into during a landout! And if you don't like what you are getting into, how do you avoid if you are low and tight? Even a high, large pattern will eventually have you as close to the 'what you are getting into', but in the mean time, you have a lot more time to look things over and change your mind. I don't think I like the idea of a fast landout, either. -- Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Slightly off topic but the following is pretty good reading, IMHO. pdf: http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/GB...erLandings.pdf If you prefer html: http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/GB...r_landings.htm Tony V. -- Even popularity can be overdone. In Rome, along at first, you are full of regrets that Michelangelo died; but by and by you only regret that you didn't see him do it. Mark Twain |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Eric Greenwell wrote in message ...
And if you don't like what you are getting into, how do you avoid if you are low and tight? Even a high, large pattern will eventually have you as close to the "what you are getting into", but in the mean time, you have a lot more time to look things over and change your mind. I don't think I like the idea of a fast landout, either. Eric, what I want is to have the best look at the potential landout field before actually landing on it. That means picking the field early, looking at it carefully while making a last attempt to climb out (if possible, then setting up a pattern close enough to be able to see terrain details and pick the exact point to touch down at. That usually means being downwind at about 500' or so, and that means being pretty close in. By fast, I mean about 60 to 70 knots (depending on wind, etc) in my LS6 dry. That is plenty enough for aggresive turning if necessary to adjust my pattern, and to float over a last minute fence, but slow enough that with full divebrakes I can quickly slow down on short final for a low energy tail first landing. And I practice this often at my home field, using different runways when possible to get used to different patterns. And it has worked on my actual landouts, when necessary (obviously not a good idea when landing at a big controlled field - that requires a totally different pattern technique!). I shudder when I watch 2-33s flying wide bomber patterns, downwind at 1000', and flying long finals. It may be FAA approved textbook, but I think it is bad technique. I like the BGA's idea of the angled base leg, which approaches my preferred military-style one turn to final pattern. Hope this clarifies things a bit. Kirk |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Since discussion isn't blossoming yet, here's some compost...
Once within a thousand feet of the ground, I'm generally doing two things: dumping water and increasing speed. My thermal search continues, but will typically be limited to an easy pattern entry for my first choice in available fields. As I work bits of lift, the water gets turned off and back on based on my sense of whether I can make a save. But my airspeed stays elevated (pattern speed rather than thermalling speed). While working on the save, I am also paying particularly close attention to my primary and secondary fields. I've never applied a close-in, higher speed approach for the sake of a closer look at a field. A typical search for lift will give me a very good look at the field from different angles for at least several minutes. I base my understanding of obstructions on what I can see and what I "know" about obstructions. Poles mean wires. I never assume that just because I can see a second pole that wires don't go in some other direction as well. Changes in crop color, even slight, are a sign of potential obstructions. I always assume that there is a wire between any structure and any road. I assume that every road has a wire running along it. I've found over the years that my critical decision point to stop searching for lift is between 400 and 200 feet agl, depending on conditions. This is not when I enter the pattern, but when I put the gear down and focus ENTIRELY on landing safely. Typically, I'll be at least half way through a modified downwind (still looking for lift). This means that I am viewing the field from less than 400 feet above and 400 feet displaced from my intended centerline. I think base leg is the most critical part of the landing pattern. I've had several minutes to look at the field. I have decided on its suitablity. Base leg gives me a parallax view. This is when I can most accurately judge slope(s) and irregularities. Once I've turned base, only under the most extraordinary circumstances would I consider another field. Instead, I measure the problems revealed during base leg and adjust to suit. Here's my logic for this: we've proved time and again at local aiports that a poor pattern into a good field can produce the very worst of results. The success of a landing is based more, I believe, on the quality of your pattern than the quality of the field. Of course, there's a standard to be applied. A perfect approach into a rock scramble will yield less than happy results. But in general, I'd rather make a good pattern into a challenging (but landable) field than a poor pattern into an ideal field. Unfortunately, in the search for lift (and for some, under the psychological duress of laning out), it's the pattern that usually suffers. If there are problems, the closer you are to a standard pattern, the better you'll be able to address them. If you are doing something unusual (lower and faster than usual), you've added another variable to deal with. Here's a simple formula to consider: No lower than 1000 feet agl: dump water, increase speed, start assessing the particulars of your two best choice fields. Keep searching for lift (the best way to guarantee an uneventful landing is to get home!). 700 feet agl: select the best of available options and start moving into your pattern. Continue your search for lift within the limits of the landing pattern until you reach your own personal minimum altitude based on conditions, skill, confidence, etc., and your ability to execute a proper base leg. Commit to a landing before you turn base. At this point, you will not, under any circumstances, work lift. You recognize that to do so unsuccessfully could lead to an accident. (When my wheel goes down, the soaring portion of my flight is complete.) Throughout the base leg, take advantage of the parallax view to verify your earlier assessment of the field. Pay attention to the edges of the field as well. Add new variables as they appear and deal with them. Make adjustments as needed on final to avoid observed or suspected obstructions. Once you have cleared all known obstructions, land! Don't extend your glide down the field to get closer to a road, house, or gate. The longer you spend at wire altitudes, the more likely it is that you'll find one. Land with minimum enegery. If you've failed to observe a ground obstruction, you'll want to hit it at the lowest possible speed. Apply your brakes immediately on touchdown. Always assess the field after you've landed. What didn't you see? What did you see that wasn't really a problem? This review will serve your assessment of the next field you find yourself falling into. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris OCallaghan" wrote in message om... Since discussion isn't blossoming yet, here's some compost... Once within a thousand feet of the ground, I'm generally doing two things: dumping water and increasing speed. My thermal search continues, but will typically be limited to an easy pattern entry for my first choice in available fields. As I work bits of lift, the water gets turned off and back on based on my sense of whether I can make a save. But my airspeed stays elevated (pattern speed rather than thermalling speed). While working on the save, I am also paying particularly close attention to my primary and secondary fields. I've never applied a close-in, higher speed approach for the sake of a closer look at a field. A typical search for lift will give me a very good look at the field from different angles for at least several minutes. I base my understanding of obstructions on what I can see and what I "know" about obstructions. Poles mean wires. I never assume that just because I can see a second pole that wires don't go in some other direction as well. Changes in crop color, even slight, are a sign of potential obstructions. I always assume that there is a wire between any structure and any road. I assume that every road has a wire running along it. I've found over the years that my critical decision point to stop searching for lift is between 400 and 200 feet agl, depending on conditions. This is not when I enter the pattern, but when I put the gear down and focus ENTIRELY on landing safely. Typically, I'll be at least half way through a modified downwind (still looking for lift). This means that I am viewing the field from less than 400 feet above and 400 feet displaced from my intended centerline. I think base leg is the most critical part of the landing pattern. I've had several minutes to look at the field. I have decided on its suitablity. Base leg gives me a parallax view. This is when I can most accurately judge slope(s) and irregularities. Once I've turned base, only under the most extraordinary circumstances would I consider another field. Instead, I measure the problems revealed during base leg and adjust to suit. Here's my logic for this: we've proved time and again at local aiports that a poor pattern into a good field can produce the very worst of results. The success of a landing is based more, I believe, on the quality of your pattern than the quality of the field. Of course, there's a standard to be applied. A perfect approach into a rock scramble will yield less than happy results. But in general, I'd rather make a good pattern into a challenging (but landable) field than a poor pattern into an ideal field. Unfortunately, in the search for lift (and for some, under the psychological duress of laning out), it's the pattern that usually suffers. If there are problems, the closer you are to a standard pattern, the better you'll be able to address them. If you are doing something unusual (lower and faster than usual), you've added another variable to deal with. Here's a simple formula to consider: No lower than 1000 feet agl: dump water, increase speed, start assessing the particulars of your two best choice fields. Keep searching for lift (the best way to guarantee an uneventful landing is to get home!). 700 feet agl: select the best of available options and start moving into your pattern. Continue your search for lift within the limits of the landing pattern until you reach your own personal minimum altitude based on conditions, skill, confidence, etc., and your ability to execute a proper base leg. Commit to a landing before you turn base. At this point, you will not, under any circumstances, work lift. You recognize that to do so unsuccessfully could lead to an accident. (When my wheel goes down, the soaring portion of my flight is complete.) Throughout the base leg, take advantage of the parallax view to verify your earlier assessment of the field. Pay attention to the edges of the field as well. Add new variables as they appear and deal with them. Make adjustments as needed on final to avoid observed or suspected obstructions. Once you have cleared all known obstructions, land! Don't extend your glide down the field to get closer to a road, house, or gate. The longer you spend at wire altitudes, the more likely it is that you'll find one. Land with minimum enegery. If you've failed to observe a ground obstruction, you'll want to hit it at the lowest possible speed. Apply your brakes immediately on touchdown. Always assess the field after you've landed. What didn't you see? What did you see that wasn't really a problem? This review will serve your assessment of the next field you find yourself falling into. Chris has a lot of good points but let me suggest something else. Most of us pretty well know the routes we will use on XC flying. Get your handheld GPS, a digital camera and a good map with a Lat/Long grid and go driving. Looking over fields from ground level is much better than from 1000' feet while stressed out. You don't need to find many fields, just enough to fill in the gaps between airports. When you find a good one, note the GPS coordinates and take photos and notes. Maybe include the name of the landowner and a phone number. If you can, walk the landing area. Then, post them on your club web site. The Albuquerque Soaring Club is a good example of this. Scratching for a save when within an easy glide of a known safe landing site is a lot less stressful. Bill Daniels |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |