Approach to Land question

IFR, I fly a stablized approach, but VFR, I like a constantly decreasing airspeed. I generally keep my speed up till rolling out on final, and then like to have the airspeed decay to 55-60 (172). Probably not as good an idea in a heavier, higher performnce airplane. . .but in a 172 and in T-41s, it works for me.
 
Landshark said:
Just got my PPL so this is not set in stone for me. I like to keep a stabilized approach with power. I get the speed set for the configuration and lock in my aim point. More power if the aim point starts getting away from me, less power if I start overtaking it. Power to idle right before the flare, taking care not to let the nose dip when the power is reduced.

Like a wise CFI once said, pitch for airspeed and power for altitude.
Click to expand...

Bingo!

Bob Gardner
 
Ever see an F-16 do a SFO (simulated flame out) approach? Starts at 7000' agl (called high key) and hopefully ends on the runway. Plane glides like an elephant and comes down very quick. Basically an overhead pattern that begins at 7000' agl.
 
I was taught to land the high wing trainers (172, 150, 152) with no power. Fly a tight pattern (1/2 mile) and be at idle on base. It's good practice should you ever need to do the real thing. However, I may carry some power if I have queasy passengers. PAPI is way too shallow and puts you @ 300' AGL at 1 mile. You'll not make the runway if there's an engine problem.
 
Stabilized is best for most people.

I fly it like it said in my private pilot book ages ago... keep the numbers in the same relative position in your windshield (for a given flap setting). It should not be rising (you're headed for the dirt) or falling (too high) but staying in the same relative spot and hopefully getting bigger :D

On short final you can reduce your speed a bit if it's not gusty and establish your slip if it's a xwind situation. I like to fly short final in my xwind slip so that I can determine how much is bank is required and what power setting will be required to keep everything nice and steady - and to only be changing one thing at a time.

Some instructors have you establish your xwind slip just before or in the flare. I'm sure many people do it that way but I don't. Seems like you're establishing the slip while also trying to flare and it never has felt right to me - too many things changing. I like to establish my slip a bit earlier (short final usually) and just maintain it into and through the flare with increasing aileron and back pressure.
 
I've done the "idle" abeam the numbers in both a 172 and a Cherokee 180.

In the 172 if you do that, you can still glide for miles..that thing floats like crazy.
In a 180, go ahead and toss a brick out the window when you pull the throttle and bet you beat the brick to the ground :)

Just takes coordination and airspeed control. It is GREAT practice for engine out situations. When I have pax with me I'll carry power all the way down to the field because cutting power in the Cherokee drops the nose pretty much right away. If you don't pay attention it can catch you by surprise.

That's how a lot of people get into hard landings/accidents in those planes. They don't expect the drop and they compensate with too much back pressure, float and come down hard on the mains.
 
Miles? No, it's about 1.5 at best glide in a 172 from 1000 AGL. Less (by a lot) if you drop flaps. Not all pattern altitudes are that high.
 
MAKG1 said:
Miles? No, it's about 1.5 at best glide in a 172 from 1000 AGL. Less (by a lot) if you drop flaps. Not all pattern altitudes are that high.
Click to expand...

Cessna is generous with that number, right? It means No wind with a good pilot who can fly absolutely straight/level and maintain Vbg and isn't sweating profusely.
 
I don't know about you, but I can't fly level with engine idle for very long. In a 172, best glide generally results in a pretty good 500 FPM descent (clean).

From abeam the numbers with a 1/4 mile pattern, there is plenty of altitude.
 
MAKG1 said:
Miles? No, it's about 1.5 at best glide in a 172 from 1000 AGL. Less (by a lot) if you drop flaps. Not all pattern altitudes are that high.
Click to expand...

"Miles" was a joke. It's been years since I flew a 172 but I remember attempting a power off, full flap, 60KT approach, and feeling like the damn thing was stuck up in the air. Then I put in a full rudder slip and it still felt stuck. Depends on what you're accustomed to. I really can't understand those who feel they need power in a 172 to "arrest the descent rate" on landing.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
I prefer a stepped-down powered approach with targeted airspeeds. For a "normal" pattern in a 172 that translates to 90 to enter the pattern and downwind, reduction to 80 approaching the abeam point and before beginning descent, 75 on base, 70 on final and target Vref on short final. Incrementally adding flaps - to begin decsent on downwind, on base and once the runway is made - results in those airspeed with virtually no change in power and except for the momentary pitch moment produced by adding flaps, almost no change in trim.

With different singles, the target airspeeds and the settings to produce them will be a bit different. But the system has worked well with all the makes/models I've flown since I was first taught that as a student pilot.

Funny: I was demonstrating this to a student who was having trouble stablizing. The student was working way too hard so I flew this type of approach to landing almost completely hands off except for the flap deployment, final roundout and to correct lateral deviations. Student thought it was magic.
Click to expand...

Exactly the what I was taught and I love it. Makes landings easy and translates well to other aircraft. My instructor would fly this hands off, turning with just the rudder and trim wheel. I cut power over the threshold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top