Do you fly a 3 deg final approach?

jesse said:
Same thing as in the day. You just use a light as the indicator of movement.

I really don't know if I look for movement or just my angle. Probably both.
Click to expand...

Right -- and if there is no light, or the light is dim or obstructed or flickering or whatever -- best go someplace where you have a more dependable source.
 
whifferdill said:
Curious what kind of plane you are flying other than the fact that it's a taildragger? We can rule out 182. :yesnod: This information is meaningless without mentioning the aircraft type and whether or not you have a CS prop. 1700 rpm would be a helluva setting for a fixed pitch prop. If fixed-pitch, how many RPM does it take to sustain level flight at your approach speed? With that kind of power setting on final, in a lightly-loaded plane with a FP prop, it sounds like the technique used for flying approach just above stall speed, behind the power curve for a super short field landing. Say hi to the IAC 3 boys at Tara. :D
Click to expand...

I fly a Cessna 182....with a Horton STOL kit. I am at 75 on final, 70 over the fence, and 65 at touchdown (MPH).

I cannot wait for the next IAC event at Tara, lots-o-fun!
 
I look at the runway and put the plane on it.

While I can fly a correct and proper rectangular pattern (and do when appropriate), most of the time I don't. Plane always gets on the ground in one piece, and since 95% of the time I'm the only plane in the "pattern", it doesn't ruffle any feathers. It's fun to try different things.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I look at the runway and put the plane on it.

While I can fly a correct and proper rectangular pattern (and do when appropriate), most of the time I don't. Plane always gets on the ground in one piece, and since 95% of the time I'm the only plane in the "pattern", it doesn't ruffle any feathers. It's fun to try different things.
Click to expand...

Well said Ted, you never know what works for you unless you try different things.
 
Ron Levy said:
snip

Personally, I like a 4-5 degree glide path for VFR approaches to land. In most liight planes, this will require some power (allowing you to vary power to maintain glide path and manage your touchdown point) but not so much that it is "dragged in" low with a lot of power to annoy the airport neighbors. In a 182, that will probably be around 15 inches through most of the pattern after the abeam position, and down to about 1500-1700 RPM on short final.

This will also help reinfoce the use of trim/pitch for speed control and power for descent rate control which will be even more important when you start instrument training. The only difference is you'll need a little more power to maintain a 3-degree descent on the ILS than you need for the 4-5 degree descent on the normal VFR traffic pattern final, but if you stick with the basic technique (trim/pitch for speed control and power for descent rate control), it will come together easily.
Click to expand...

Holy Cow! This thread resulted in many more responses than I had hoped for. This POA is a great place for information. Thanks!

I think the above response is what my instructor is trying get across. I believe he is retired from big birds and is a well respected instructor locally. I mentioned to him that I would like to work towards an instrument rating. But, first, I needed some substantial review of the basics after many years of no flying. I have my PPL, so there is no examiner necessary, just a bi-annual review, and sufficient dual time for my insurance.

So, from these responses, I can conclude that either way is correct, but I now understand a bit better as to the risks/benefits of each method. I can use some the this feedback to enhance a discussion with my instructor.

Anything else you can add to this discussion is appreciated.
 
This is one of those topics best discussed with instructors/pilots on a one and one basis, Because it will generate a lively discussion when brought up as a group.

Do this enough times and you will determine what is best for you.

I had enough different instructors that I was taught both power on and power off approaches as "Normal". Of course Short fields and Soft fields are normally done with power.

However when I started instructing I had to decide which way I was going to teach as a normal approach. The deciding factor for me was that as an instructor I can speed up to 8 hrs a day in the pattern with students, usually if 50+ year old aircraft.
My odds of a power failure in the pattern I felt were higher than the average pilot, just because of the amount of time I spend there. Flying the pattern in such a way that once you turn crosswind you can make it back to the runway in the event of a power failer is free insurance.

Other side effects are that it is efficient and may result in an additional landing per hour. It also teaches pilots how to judge there altitude, distance and glide angles better as well as teaches them how to actually use the flaps as opposed to just how to put them down for landing. Also flying slow training aircraft you will fit into the pattern containing higher performance aircraft better.

Brian
 
Just like Ted said:

See the runway, stabilize the approach for the existing conditions, keep the sight picture consistent, make the landing. Doesn't feel right, go around.

Practice 'emergency' engine out situations in the pattern with an instructor aboard.

I don't understand why an instructor would get any student hung up on how many degrees of descent in an approach. That is strange, at least to me...even in my IR training, we don't get hung up on that issue.

My primary instructor would take me to fields without VASI or PAPI just to get the feel for a good visual set up and not be dependent on those things. It's easy to fall into the trap of becoming fixated on them and not what the actual landing looks like, and when they go inop, you get frazzled.
 
DutchessFlier said:
See the runway, stabilize the approach for the existing conditions, keep the sight picture consistent, make the landing. Doesn't feel right, go around.
Click to expand...

One thing I'd add is that there's also value in learning to salvage approaches. So some practice with coming in high and fast and managing to bleed off speed with the tools you have available isn't a bad idea, either. While I won't fault someone for choosing to go around, there are a number of situations where I've seen pilots go around several times because the approach wasn't perfect. It doesn't need to be perfect, it needs to get you on the ground safely.
 
Jeez, of all the causes of crash fatalities, mechanical engine failure in the landing pattern has to be dead last... What if it quits on take off and there are houses ahead? If you are so fearful of engine failure why would you even take off!

You instructor types will prevent far more crashes by focusing on two issues:
Cover the ASI and teach flying the airplane by sight picture and feel...
Beat fuel management into their brains until they bleed...

denny-o
 
Ted DuPuis said:
One thing I'd add is that there's also value in learning to salvage approaches. So some practice with coming in high and fast and managing to bleed off speed with the tools you have available isn't a bad idea, either. While I won't fault someone for choosing to go around, there are a number of situations where I've seen pilots go around several times because the approach wasn't perfect. It doesn't need to be perfect, it needs to get you on the ground safely.
Click to expand...

Agreed!! :yesnod:
 
Dr. O said:
Beat fuel management into their brains until they bleed...
Click to expand...

Engines don't run on blood.

But you would feel like a real idiot if you were on downwind and you didn't make it to the airport.
 
Dr. O said:
Jeez, of all the causes of crash fatalities, mechanical engine failure in the landing pattern has to be dead last... What if it quits on take off and there are houses ahead? If you are so fearful of engine failure why would you even take off!

denny-o
Click to expand...

IF you've practiced "engine out" (actually, power to idle), low energy, spot landings regularly, you're far more likley to squeeze the airplane into the only available landing patch when something bad happens.

If you only practice the engine-out routine once every couple of years, you'll be SOL.
 
skidoo said:
So, from these responses, I can conclude that either way is correct, but I now understand a bit better as to the risks/benefits of each method. I can use some the this feedback to enhance a discussion with my instructor.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. You should be able to do both types of approaches and other things in between. Sometimes traffic will dictate what kind of approach you need to do and you need to be able to adapt. If you become too much in love with a certain method adapting is harder.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
One thing I'd add is that there's also value in learning to salvage approaches. So some practice with coming in high and fast and managing to bleed off speed with the tools you have available isn't a bad idea, either. While I won't fault someone for choosing to go around, there are a number of situations where I've seen pilots go around several times because the approach wasn't perfect. It doesn't need to be perfect, it needs to get you on the ground safely.
Click to expand...
My experience doing primary training is that the trainees get plenty of practice at recovering from high/low/fast slow without my injecting the problem.;)
 
Ron Levy said:
My experience doing primary training is that the trainees get plenty of practice at recovering from high/low/fast slow without my injecting the problem.;)
Click to expand...

:rofl: You make a good point.

That said, I find a lot of pilots who may be a couple years removed from private training are surprisingly bad at it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top