always too high on final....how to fix

jordane93 said:
I like to use the 3 to 1 rule. If you are 5 miles out you should be roughly at 1500ft. Keep the runway the same "width" and length. If the runway is getting narrower, you're getting too high. If the runway is getting fatter and wider, you're getting too low. Be careful of runway width illusions as well.
Click to expand...
I like this
 
Cooter143 said:
I disagree, and you really don't understand the method. It is a good tool to put them consistently in the right window so that they can develop the right power settings and sight picture. If you have airport elevation, the you simply figure out the other numbers. The ground references are just there to help you tighten up the window. It is much more precise than just flying a power setting and airspeed because it provides for corrections all the way to final glide path. What kind of sight picture do you think he's developed the way he's going? The sight picture will come much quicker if he develops consistency early on.


You simply adjust for winds, it's not hard.
Click to expand...

You must only fly at one airport all the time
 
EppyGA said:
You must only fly at one airport all the time
Click to expand...
No, you're quite wrong. And in turn, I'll deduce from your post that you must be incapable of meaningful discussion. What else do you know about me? You can either criticize me or what I've said. The discussion will progress more beneficially if you stick to the topic and leave personal criticism out of it.
 
Cooter143 said:
No, you're quite wrong. And in turn, I'll deduce from your post that you must be incapable of meaningful discussion. What else do you know about me? You can either criticize me or what I've said. The discussion will progress more beneficially if you stick to the topic and leave personal criticism out of it.
Click to expand...

I think the point was that to use landmarks specific to a given runway or runways deprives a student of the skills necessary to fly patterns at a variety of airports they might encounter.

I further think something may have been lost in translation.
 
FastEddieB said:
I think the point was that to use landmarks specific to a given runway or runways deprives a student of the skills necessary to fly patterns at a variety of airports they might encounter.

I further think something may have been lost in translation.
Click to expand...
I responded to that comment above. But his comment is of absolutely no use unless the goal is distraction, argument, or self promotion.

I am happy to respond further about the limitations GRPs may impose, but I don't think there really are limitations if you understand it correctly. The method I describe can be used on a aircraft carrier with nothing but water around and the runway actually moving. So, you aren't in any way tied to GRPs but they do help in creating consistency early on. Glideslope will be the same regardless of which airport you at, and I would argue that "sight picture" is probably the least reliable way to remain consistent and safe and different airports. I've got quite a bit of experience and I've been "pulled down" low based on a very deceiving sight picture.

When flying multiple trips around the pattern, it is very helpful to establish ground references. The military does it all the time and they certainly aren't confined to "one airport" mentality. It really annoys me how quick some people are to insult or criticize when it's their own thinking that's in a box.
 
Mike Smith said:
I like this
Click to expand...
I do not like this! five miles out at 1500 feet is too low if the engine quits in most aircraft. It's apparently an airliner approach which is totally unnecessary in a 172. You should be close in downwind, watching the runway and looking out for traffic not "looking out for landmarks" especially the idiot with no radio or one that refuses to use one. . You should feel comfortable enough with what your flying that at 1000-1500 feet in the pattern AGL, you can land the airplane on a 2000 ft runway. If it's your first landing at a strange airport, landmarks are worthless. It's also a bad way to train. It's imperative that one learns the airplane and its limitations rather than the landmarks. It's time for a good instructor, forget the Internet.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
I do not like this! five miles out at 1500 feet is too low if the engine quits in most aircraft. It's apparently an airliner approach which is totally unnecessary in a 172. You should be close in downwind, watching the runway and looking out for traffic not "looking out for landmarks" especially the idiot with no radio or one that refuses to use one. . You should feel comfortable enough with what your flying that at 1000-1500 feet in the pattern AGL, you can land the airplane on a 2000 ft runway. If it's your first landing at a strange airport, landmarks are worthless. It's also a bad way to train. It's imperative that one learns the airplane and its limitations rather than the landmarks. It's time for a good instructor, forget the Internet.
Click to expand...
So what's your suggestion?
 
Jimmy cooper said:
five miles out at 1500 feet is too low
Click to expand...

Really? Do you enter the pattern in a descent? Not recommended technique. You are more likely to die from a mid-air collision than an engine failure.
 
Cooter143 said:
No, you're quite wrong. And in turn, I'll deduce from your post that you must be incapable of meaningful discussion. What else do you know about me? You can either criticize me or what I've said. The discussion will progress more beneficially if you stick to the topic and leave personal criticism out of it.
Click to expand...

So let's say our OP flies to a new to him airport. What landmarks would you like him to use in the pattern there? Or maybe he's flying into a "D" airport and gets "report a 5 mile final to rwy xx" or "report 3 mile right base to rwy xx". Which landmarks should he use there? Maybe he should learn the airplane and how to fly it. What to takes to set up and 400-500 descent and the sight picture he needs. If all else fails he should be able to use a slip to get him there.
 
Really? Do you enter the pattern in a descent? Not recommended technique. You are more likely to die from a mid-air collision than an engine failure.
Click to expand...

Not directed towards me, and this is rapidly devolving into a whole 'nother discussion, but...

I begin a gradual descent to arrive at 1,500' agl just a mile or two from the airport, then overfly, then fly out far enough to descend clear of the pattern and enter it at the recommended 45º angle.

It's how I was taught and how I taught and how I fly patterns at non-towered airports about 95% of the time, if not more. My goal is to always be in a position from which I could glide to the airport if the engine took a dump. May never happen, but if it ever does I'll be relieved I fly patterns that way.

Again, some will point out the whole "pattern thing" is non-regulatory, so best be aware of pilots flying straight in or in any manner of bizarre entry!
 
Ask your instructor to demonstrate and note the sight picture, airspeed, power, and flaps. Then try to mimic it.

People here have varying ideas about whether approaches should be steep or shallower. Both are techniques and up to the individual. But none of us are the OP's CFI, so it would be easier for the OP to use whatever technique the CFI uses, and not try to confuse the matter until he or she gets the basic approach and landing down.
 
EppyGA said:
So let's say our OP flies to a new to him airport. What landmarks would you like him to use in the pattern there? Or maybe he's flying into a "D" airport and gets "report a 5 mile final to rwy xx" or "report 3 mile right base to rwy xx". Which landmarks should he use there? Maybe he should learn the airplane and how to fly it. What to takes to set up and 400-500 descent and the sight picture he needs. If all else fails he should be able to use a slip to get him there.
Click to expand...

Did you miss this?

Cooter143 said:
Use your altimeter. Calculate a number off of TDZE and assign it a place in the pattern (like base just prior to final turn). Fly to that altitude, and on subsequent passes figure out what VSI is needed to get there. Then when you turn off of downwind, you can set that VSI to get you there. But, this assumes you have the same starting point each time or you will need to adjust your numbers slightly.
Click to expand...

I sometimes wonder if the misrepresentation here is intentional. I like this forum and it has exposed me to a lot of different ideas that have helped me but the inability of people to actually try to understand others points gets tiresome. To engage in discussion requires that you actually follow what is being said and what has been said. It also helps if you don't always assume the worst of the others point and begin your discussion there.

Why don't you try engaging with something I've actually said, and ask me to defend it? I am more than happy to go back and forth and see who has the better ideas.

My point is that you use GRP as a building block to help in setting up "gates" to fly through on your turn from downwind to final. The GRPs aren't necessary or a crutch, they are a tool to use to provide consistency. Like I said, pilots training in much more demanding environments than a PP student use them all the time without being so handicapped that they can't fly to a different field. That is a silly distraction and whether intentional or not misses my point.
 
You use the landmarks at your home field, get a sight picture of what it looks like while over those land marks, then use that sight picture at a different field. It's ain't hard to teach if you are a halfway competent instructor.

But I still don't understand why anyone advocates putting your back to the pattern. Let's get a picture of all the traffic, and then completely lose it by flying with our back to the airport for 2 minutes. Not to mention any NORDO's that snuck in while you were blind to the airport environment. Dumbest thought process ever - it's no surprise the gov't came up with it.
 
jordane93 said:
I like to use the 3 to 1 rule. If you are 5 miles out you should be roughly at 1500ft. Keep the runway the same "width" and length. If the runway is getting narrower, you're getting too high. If the runway is getting fatter and wider, you're getting too low. Be careful of runway width illusions as well.
Click to expand...

How is 5 miles to 1500' a 3 to 1 ratio? 5 miles is 26,400'. Divide that by 1500 and you have a 17.6 to 1.
 
SkyDog58 said:
How is 5 miles to 1500' a 3 to 1 ratio? 5 miles is 26,400'. Divide that by 1500 and you have a 17.6 to 1.
Click to expand...
It's a rule of thumb. You divide the altitude you need to lose (in feet) by 3. The result is the distance (in miles) you need to start down at a 3 degree glide path.
 
Everskyward said:
It's a rule of thumb. You divide the altitude you need to lose (in feet) by 3. The result is the distance (in miles) you need to start down at a 3 degree glide path.
Click to expand...

I think it's easier just to consider hundreds feet per nautical mile when setting up for a VFR approach. 300/nm for 3deg and 400/nm for a 4 deg. If you have DME or GPS, it's really easy to set up a self contained approach. I use the 3 to 1 rule to help set up my descent from altitude though.
 
"The popular technique for STOL landings is high and steep. Slow high AOA approaches are MUCH safer when flown steep because you can lower the nose to manage airspeed."

This.

Something I do, sometimes intentionally sometimes not, is aim for touchdown a couple hundred feet before the threshold.

Chopping the throttle abeam the numbers as mentioned in #11 is also a good habit to get into. Once on downwind you should be able to make it to the runway at any point, without power.
 
Cooter143 said:
I think it's easier just to consider hundreds feet per nautical mile when setting up for a VFR approach. 300/nm for 3deg and 400/nm for a 4 deg. If you have DME or GPS, it's really easy to set up a self contained approach. I use the 3 to 1 rule to help set up my descent from altitude though.
Click to expand...
Personally I don't use any math on a visual approach and don't consider the altimeter after leaving pattern altitude. I use how it looks, plus the VASI/PAPI if there is one. Like you, I use the 3 to 1 rule to help set up my descent from altitude. Actually now I use the VNAV and TOD functions since the airplane is equipped to do that.
 
looks like 300 to 1 to me, but i'm not a math wiz
 
"Chopping the throttle abeam the numbers . . ."

Poorly phrased. Sorry. Better to have said "Reducing power to something near idle but not so far that the front cylinders are being shock cooled nor so far that sudden application of power - as in a go-around - causes the engine to stumble. Application of or reduction of power should always be done smoothly. The phrase "Chopping the throttle(s)" smacks of poor technique although in certain circumstances and when speaking informally, "chopping the throttle(s)" might well be an appropriate way to describe things. As I used it in my post it just sounds flippant.

Flippant? A flippant is a person who performs aerobatic manaeuvers so what on earth do flippants have to do with chopping throttle(s)? I'm just muddying the waters, said Tom clearly. Looks like a graveyard spiral. Pass the bong please.
 
If already in the pattern, taking the throttle to idle isn't going to shock cool anything - and most certainly not in a training plane.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
I do not like this! five miles out at 1500 feet is too low if the engine quits in most aircraft. It's apparently an airliner approach which is totally unnecessary in a 172. You should be close in downwind, watching the runway and looking out for traffic not "looking out for landmarks" especially the idiot with no radio or one that refuses to use one. . You should feel comfortable enough with what your flying that at 1000-1500 feet in the pattern AGL, you can land the airplane on a 2000 ft runway. If it's your first landing at a strange airport, landmarks are worthless. It's also a bad way to train. It's imperative that one learns the airplane and its limitations rather than the landmarks. It's time for a good instructor, forget the Internet.
Click to expand...


1500 feet is high enough, and fine enough for a cross country cruising altitude.

I hope you aren't really suggesting always flying within gliding distance of airports.

Lots of good cross country hours don't have 500 agl, let alone 1500'.
 
JoseCuervo said:
1500 feet is high enough, and fine enough for a cross country cruising altitude.

I hope you aren't really suggesting always flying within gliding distance of airports.

Lots of good cross country hours don't have 500 agl, let alone 1500'.
Click to expand...

True, especially on floats! Do you regularly fly x/c at < 500 AGL?
 
3 in the green said:
True, especially on floats! Do you regularly fly x/c at < 500 AGL?
Click to expand...

Many float pilots rarely get above 500'. I remember when I took my very first helicopter lesson. It was after many years of flying in Alaska, and often on floats.

We were just shy of 500' doing maneuvers in a Bell 47 and I was hanging out the door looking down at that ground.

My instructor kind of laughs at me and says, "A little different from what you're used to isn't it?"

I replied, "Sure is, I'm not used to being this high".

PJ
 
SToL said:
Many float pilots rarely get above 500'. I remember when I took my very first helicopter lesson. It was after many years of flying in Alaska, and often on floats.

We were just shy of 500' doing maneuvers in a Bell 47 and I was hanging out the door looking down at that ground.

My instructor kind of laughs at me and says, "A little different from what you're used to isn't it?"

I replied, "Sure is, I'm not used to being this high".

PJ
Click to expand...

Haha, so true. Great response.
 
It surprises me to read how many pilots actually mentally calculate this stuff. It's V F R for crying out loud... You should be able to do this stuff without spending a lot of time thinking about it... I've never done division during my approach to an airport but somehow always manage to be at pattern altitude about 3 miles out... If I've never been there before, or approaching from an awkward angle, I'll usually overfly and get into a better position for a 45 entry... The OP doesn't need landmarks...he needs practice and guidance from his instructor... eventually it will come together for him as it has for all of us...
 
FlySince9 said:
It surprises me to read how many pilots actually mentally calculate this stuff. It's V F R for crying out loud... You should be able to do this stuff without spending a lot of time thinking about it... I've never done division during my approach to an airport but somehow always manage to be at pattern altitude about 3 miles out... If I've never been there before, or approaching from an awkward angle, I'll usually overfly and get into a better position for a 45 entry... The OP doesn't need landmarks...he needs practice and guidance from his instructor... eventually it will come together for him as it has for all of us...
Click to expand...
I can do it, you should be able to do it, now just go do it. That doesn't really help the OP much with his problem. I doubt any of the instructors offering advice here still need to use the instructional techniques they teach to their students. It's one thing to be able to do it, and another to be able to teach it.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
I do not like this! five miles out at 1500 feet is too low if the engine quits in most aircraft. It's apparently an airliner approach which is totally unnecessary in a 172. You should be close in downwind, watching the runway and looking out for traffic not "looking out for landmarks" especially the idiot with no radio or one that refuses to use one. . You should feel comfortable enough with what your flying that at 1000-1500 feet in the pattern AGL, you can land the airplane on a 2000 ft runway. If it's your first landing at a strange airport, landmarks are worthless. It's also a bad way to train. It's imperative that one learns the airplane and its limitations rather than the landmarks. It's time for a good instructor, forget the Internet.
Click to expand...

I take great offense at your comment about the idiot with no radio!
I could say the same about the clown in his Belchfire 250 with the latest high tech gadgets and his nose glued to them.
Not every place is the east coast or SoCal with it's high density traffic. The vast majority of this country is relatively sparse and a radio is not needed 100% of the time.
I would appreciate it if you wouldn't insult everyone of us with limited electrical systems.
 
Speaking of those who are electronically challenged, (joking) on the other end of the spectrum are the people who get on the radio and say, "N12345 is on approaching blah blah, any other aircraft in the area please announce"! Who the heck thought this was an good idea to start teaching people? There are some areas where if you say that you're gonna hear 30 people come back to you. Besides, when you talk like that you immediately single yourself out as someone ripe to be made fun of.

Just announce your intentions and then listen up and see and avoid. In theory the people closest to you who feel they may possibly be an issue, will answer up. You don't need to hear from the other 29 or 28 people.

PJ
 
FlySince9 said:
It surprises me to read how many pilots actually mentally calculate this stuff. It's V F R for crying out loud... You should be able to do this stuff without spending a lot of time thinking about it... I've never done division during my approach to an airport but somehow always manage to be at pattern altitude about 3 miles out... If I've never been there before, or approaching from an awkward angle, I'll usually overfly and get into a better position for a 45 entry... The OP doesn't need landmarks...he needs practice and guidance from his instructor... eventually it will come together for him as it has for all of us...
Click to expand...

Me too. Never a formal calcuation on when to depart cruise and descend...just a sense of "it's time." I'm usually no higher than 8500' anyway. I tend to get down near pattern altitude a little earlier than most, just to get stabilized for landing and reduce workload in the pattern.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top