Undershoot Vs. Overshoot airport landing accidents

‘No 360s please. That has disaster written all over it.’ T8

Disagree once the pilot is proficient and not a student. I consider a 360 circling pattern to an off field landing preferable, especially when field elevation is unsure.
S K makes a mistake, to ‘Preach’ to him not to use a proven technique to improve knowledge of the field condition because some can’t make a coordinated turn below 1000’ agl a bit of snake handling.

R

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 2:43:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
‘No 360s please. That has disaster written all over it.’ T8

Disagree once the pilot is proficient and not a student. I consider a 360 circling pattern to an off field landing preferable, especially when field elevation is unsure.
S K makes a mistake, to ‘Preach’ to him not to use a proven technique to improve knowledge of the field condition because some can’t make a coordinated turn below 1000’ agl a bit of snake handling.

R

Hi Henry:

There's nothing wrong with a 360 degree pattern (that is, one that completely encloses the landing area). The 360 I am taking issue with is the tight 360 that happens on final because the pilot thinks he's hopelessly high. As previously noted, better solutions exist.

best,
Evan

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 11:54:32 AM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 2:43:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
‘No 360s please. That has disaster written all over it.’ T8

Disagree once the pilot is proficient and not a student. I consider a 360 circling pattern to an off field landing preferable, especially when field elevation is unsure.
S K makes a mistake, to ‘Preach’ to him not to use a proven technique to improve knowledge of the field condition because some can’t make a coordinated turn below 1000’ agl a bit of snake handling.

R

Hi Henry:

There's nothing wrong with a 360 degree pattern (that is, one that completely encloses the landing area). The 360 I am taking issue with is the tight 360 that happens on final because the pilot thinks he's hopelessly high. As previously noted, better solutions exist.

best,
Evan

Tight 360s are much safer than shallow 360s. Much harder to stall/spin. I just finished a winch launching class, and was taught that in the event of a rope break you can find yourself at mid field at 300' -400' and your best option is a tight 360 turn or two- to the downwind side, tangent to the runway, then land from mid field once below 300'. (this is for a shorter 2700' runway). It seemed very unintuitive at first, but it worked just fine.

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 6:33:47 PM UTC-4, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 11:54:32 AM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 2:43:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
‘No 360s please. That has disaster written all over it.’ T8

Disagree once the pilot is proficient and not a student. I consider a 360 circling pattern to an off field landing preferable, especially when field elevation is unsure.
S K makes a mistake, to ‘Preach’ to him not to use a proven technique to improve knowledge of the field condition because some can’t make a coordinated turn below 1000’ agl a bit of snake handling.

R

Hi Henry:

There's nothing wrong with a 360 degree pattern (that is, one that completely encloses the landing area). The 360 I am taking issue with is the tight 360 that happens on final because the pilot thinks he's hopelessly high. As previously noted, better solutions exist.

best,
Evan

Tight 360s are much safer than shallow 360s. Much harder to stall/spin. I just finished a winch launching class, and was taught that in the event of a rope break you can find yourself at mid field at 300' -400' and your best option is a tight 360 turn or two- to the downwind side, tangent to the runway, then land from mid field once below 300'. (this is for a shorter 2700' runway). It seemed very unintuitive at first, but it worked just fine..

Thanks for pointing that out. Winch training on my todo list, maybe I'll change my opinion in light of new data. Winch trained pilots have some advantages: namely, a lot more landings and more low altitude maneuvering and decision making. That's got to make a difference.

-Evan

Matt Herron Jr. wrote on 4/18/2019 3:33 PM:

Tight 360s are much safer than shallow 360s. Much harder to stall/spin. I just finished a winch launching class, and was taught that in the event of a rope break you can find yourself at mid field at 300' -400' and your best option is a tight 360 turn or two- to the downwind side, tangent to the runway, then land from mid field once below 300'. (this is for a shorter 2700' runway). It seemed very unintuitive at first, but it worked just fine.

Why not turn 180, fly downwind, and then do another 180 when you have enough
runway to land, instead a tight 360? And especially instead doing two 360's!


--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me)
- "A Guide to Self-Launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorg...ad-the-guide-1
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Dec 2014a" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm

http://soaringsafety.org/prevention/...anes-2014A.pdf

OK......a reply down the thread.......

Chewing on this a bit........

My basic comment.....if you are rusty enough to totally blow a pattern, I think you are rusty enough to NOT do a 360 late in the pattern.....

I basically have NO issues with doing a 360* pattern approach (sorta common for US aviation military) or current GA pilots......
Being "OMG" high for a non-current pilot (ANY kind) on final.....you have already sorta proved you are rusty...thus you are adding to that by doing a 360 on final.......
Can we say "another statistic"?!?!?!

Part of me states.......complacency.......
Good example?
The Snowbird at HHSC every fall.
Some peeps do well.
Others "have to practice".......!!!!
Why?
The basics are......energy management in a known environment.
What is the issue?

Go look up the rules for the HHSC Snowbird rules......anybody doing XC should do well in the comp......sheesh......anybody close to PPG or above should do well.....power guys should be close....
I have seen too many peeps used to, "Land somewhere, peeps will push us back...." is total BS....!!!!
Every landing is to a point, end up where you need to be........
Period......

Yes......poop happens, way too many "stupid broken stuff" based on complacency.......
Yes, I help fix some "stupid stuff"...,,,,,

Yes, I agree with T8 and some others here.
I have stated some of what I do/recommend.
I will assume some peeps here think I am a "butthead" which may be true (for various reasons.....) but worst I have done in decades is pull glass gear door rivets in sorta tall crop p,us lots of grass stains.
I have no clue on how many off airport landings I have done from 1-26 to ASG-29.

OK.....let the poop storm start....I have my Nomex suit on....I don't care other than......
Don't hurt the ship.....peeps are OK.
Period.

This thread reminds me of 'a friend of mine' who set his altimeter to exactly 1000 feet lower than field elevation.

Then he took a long and high flight in wave and had gotten used to 'things look tiny on the ground', so he was on downwind before he got the That Looks About Wrong rude awakening.

At 15:28 17 April 2019, wrote:
I always assumed that there are more overshoot airport accidents than
undershoot ones. That is mainly due to our general knowledge that it's
better to be too high than not high enough.
Am I correct here ?
Dan


I once saw a pilot fly the full length of a 1000yd grass airfield, then do
a 180 and fly all the way back, try another 180 until the wingtip hit, and
crash, all the while with the wheel going up and down. Fortunately just a
bent glider, no injury.
Dave

I just want to underscribe the statement:
Don't Ever Do the Airbrake Dive in the DuoDiscus Mk 1.
It won't have the desired effect, while actually bringing the sailplane in ground effect at very high speeds. Unless you have 3 km or more of runway in front of you.
The 2nd generation of the Duo (with landing flaps) allows this technique. The Arcus has powerful drag devices. Totally different beasts when managing the energy for landing.

Been there, done that, had vertebrae concussion and a nerve compression.

Aldo Cernezzi
www.voloavela.it

A. The only Duo on our field sold recently so I don’t have access to one for testing.

B. If you watch both videos it can be readily observed that the steep approach is discontinued well before reaching ground effect. Both flights crossed the airport threshold at a nominal airspeed. One must scrub altitude early enough to get back to a stable approach before touchdown.

Having previously owned a Duo T (pre-XL) I’m pretty confident that this technique will be similarly effective, but don’t have the means to make that video at this time.