Good, but. . . .

[spiderweb]

I found this interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8kzGG49vWc

I'd bet the flightpath was very nearly consistent all the way down to the numbers, and the landing was quite nice, too.

But listen to those frequent changes in power. Is that due to dealing with updrafts due to warming? I'm thinking he could have done less power jockeying, and bracketed the power changes.

But whatever, approach and landing was safe, and even smooth, I guess.

 

[denverpilot]

A technique nit-pick. What concerns me more is how flat and low the entire approach was. Trash the engine, you're going in the trees. But I see a lot of Cirri doing that, so there must be some reason. Never flown one.

 

[Henning]

A technique nit-pick. What concerns me more is how flat and low the entire approach was. Trash the engine, you're going in the trees. But I see a lot of Cirri doing that, so there must be some reason. Never flown one.

That's what everyone is taught now, the stabilized approach method. Welcome to the FAA standard of training GA pilots to fly spam cans like 747s.

 

[Mafoo]

That's what everyone is taught now, the stabilized approach method. Welcome to the FAA standard of training GA pilots to fly spam cans like 747s.

I am being taught a much steeper approach. My turn from base to final is about 2/3 that distance, and I am about as high or higher then he is at the start of that video when I do it.

 

[Mafoo]

I just uploaded one of yesterdays landings (as seen from cockpit view in CloudAhoy). This is an example of how I am taught.

Please keep in mind, it was a 15 mph cross wind from 70 degrees, and the fist time I have done those, so the landing is less then steller.

 

[steingar]

I do things differently as well (or at least, I try to). But like the OP said, safe landing, everyone happy. I'll try not to pit pick another pilot's technique, and I might even succeed today.

 

[ChrisK]

My instructor teaches steep (primarily power off) approaches. He had me shallow out a bit in the 172 to account for the sight picture (aside from the fact that I think the 152 can plop down on short final a bit better without gaining as much speed).

Another one I went up with said "aren't you taught stabilized approaches???" and had me come in shallower.

I think that the "older" instructors are teaching steep approaches and the "younger" ones are teaching shallower approaches in my neck of the woods, and each camp ******* about / makes fun of the other one.

 

[tonycondon]

power off constant airspeed is a stabilized approach

 

[Mafoo]

power off constant airspeed is a stabilized approach

a constant airspeed approach is what I do. What other techniques are acceptable?

I only know to do it that way at the moment.

 

[airguy]

I was taught power-off abeam the approach numbers and make smooth turn to final, all about energy management and you'll never land short due to power loss. That was back a few years ago though, but I still use it on every landing today. My home strip has power lines on each end, if I used a flat approach I'd be giving up too much runway. Every approach is full flaps head-for-the-deck.

There is no such thing as "one size fits all" landing method. Know your aircraft, understand energy management, make it do what you want.

 

[rottydaddy]

Re: the first clip...
A little flatter than what I would fly but not what I'd call too flat. But when sinking air is encountered as they pass over that water (water absorbs heat and hangs on to it much longer than other surfaces), you see why it's better to be a tad steeper. If the engines's running fine at that moment, a little power fixes it easily (and that's exactly what the pilot does). If not, you have a problem.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I prefer tight, high approaches because 1) I can, and 2) I'm in a much better position if my engine takes a crap in the pattern. The only reason I would fly a flat approach is if I was setting up for a soft field landing with no obstructions.

 

[Mafoo]

I prefer tight, high approaches because 1) I can, and 2) I'm in a much better position if my engine takes a crap in the pattern. The only reason I would fly a flat approach is if I was setting up for a soft field landing with no obstructions.

Why would you even do it then?

One of my best landings, was when my CFI told me half way through the pattern that I had an Engine out, dropped me to 1000 rpm's, and said where would you land?

I was in the start of the downwind leg coming around for 25, when I pointed to runway 18 and said I would land there. He called the tower and told them I was going to make a training emergency landing on 18 and said go ahead (not what I was expecting)

turned to 18, was over the runway about the time I leveled out, at about 800-1000 feet above it. Side slipped and dropped like a stone. exited the slip, threw in some flaps, landed softly and taxied with about half the runway left.

Not really interested in landing like that every time , however I see no advantage to coming in low, and no downside to coming in high.

Not sure why people do it.

 

[flyingron]

A stabilized approach doesn't necessarily mean dragging it behind the power curve on a 3 degree slope. Having to chase the throttle all over the place on approach doesn't sound very "stabilized" to me.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Why would you even do it then?

One of my best landings, was when my CFI told me half way through the pattern that I had an Engine out, dropped me to 1000 rpm's, and said where would you land?

I was in the start of the downwind leg coming around for 25, when I pointed to runway 18 and said I would land there. He called the tower and told them I was going to make a training emergency landing on 18 and said go ahead (not what I was expecting)

turned to 18, was over the runway about the time I leveled out, at about 800-1000 feet above it. Side slipped and dropped like a stone. exited the slip, threw in some flaps, landed softly and taxied with about half the runway left.

Not really interested in landing like that every time , however I see no advantage to coming in low, and no downside to coming in high.

Not sure why people do it.

When I do FR's my CFI likes a shallow (shallower than my normal grand piano glide approach) for soft fields. Other than that I don't really do them routinely anyway so it's sort of a moot point.

 

[flyingron]

When I do FR's my CFI likes a shallow (shallower than my normal grand piano glide approach) for soft fields. Other than that I don't really do them routinely anyway so it's sort of a moot point.

The "approach" is largely immaterial. The point is that when rounding out to flare that you don't touch down except with minimal sink rate and airspeed. It makes no difference if you come in at 3 degrees or 30.

 

[Mafoo]

The "approach" is largely immaterial. The point is that when rounding out to flare that you don't touch down except with minimal sink rate and airspeed. It makes no difference if you come in at 3 degrees or 30.

That's what I thought. So why do people do it at 3 degrees?

 

[Inverted]

power off constant airspeed is a stabilized approach

This is what I teach, and will not teach it any other way for light single engine aircraft.

 

[Ghery]

That's what I thought. So why do people do it at 3 degrees?

That's the glideslope angle the PAPI will have you on. That's the glideslope angle for an ILS. Why 3 degrees? I don't have the answer for that.

 

[Henning]

That's what I thought. So why do people do it at 3 degrees?

Because they are teaching them to fly the PAPI/VASI slope so they are used to that glide slope when they transition to flying IFR on an ILS to minimums they don't crash in the transition. It's about training the lowest common denominator person to fly an airliner. That is the mission of the FAA training system; It has nothing to do with training fully capable GA pilots. Their primary function is to protect the public flying the airlines from the airlines and their pilots. The majority of pilot training that happens is people who aspire to fly for the airlines, so that is the program in the book. If you are being trained as the FAA specifies, this is what you get trained for.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

I just uploaded one of yesterdays landings (as seen from cockpit view in CloudAhoy). This is an example of how I am taught.

Please keep in mind, it was a 15 mph cross wind from 70 degrees, and the fist time I have done those, so the landing is less then steller.

I use Cloud Ahoy. How did you make that video (and upload / save it somewhere like You Tube)? That is super cool.

 

[sdflyer]

Because they are teaching them to fly the PAPI/VASI slope so they are used to that glide slope when they transition to flying IFR on an ILS to minimums they don't crash in the transition. It's about training the lowest common denominator person to fly an airliner. That is the mission of the FAA training system; It has nothing to do with training fully capable GA pilots. Their primary function is to protect the public flying the airlines from the airlines and their pilots. The majority of pilot training that happens is people who aspire to fly for the airlines, so that is the program in the book. If you are being trained as the FAA specifies, this is what you get trained for.

There is power off 180 also enforced by FAA..

There is nothing wrong with stabilized approaches as long as people understand their purpose. Steeper approaches usually comes with little more experience and practice.

 

[Henning]

I just uploaded one of yesterdays landings (as seen from cockpit view in CloudAhoy). This is an example of how I am taught.

Please keep in mind, it was a 15 mph cross wind from 70 degrees, and the fist time I have done those, so the landing is less then steller.

Do you want a full and honest critique? I will be very blunt, I don't mean offense or desire to trounce on you, but it will not be complimentary; that does not imply that it will be derogatory either. I assure you, I am quite neutral and you're fresh meat, you are fully expected to be incompetent at this point because you have yet to build the required experience base for competency.

If you don't want the full rip I'll just leave you with these tips. Don't look where you are pointing, look where you are going. If you look forward and the world seems to be sliding sideways, it is, turn your head the opposite direction until the view ahead you now face stops sliding, that is where you are going.

There are two ways to deal with this, you can crab or you can slip. If you crab I suggest you transition to your slip no lower than 100' or just after putting in full flaps, which ever comes first. Flaps are about energy management. Unless you are in a glider or a plane with a dead engine, full flaps with throttle used to add energy as required is the way to get the most precise and safest approach and landings. Those who were taught to reduce flaps to gain energy were taught the method applicable to flying jets where many, especially older, turbine engines have 'spool up' lag, often significant in the older ones. Recip engines offer us the luxury of instant power.

Fly either the crab or the slip for now, don't try to combine them yet, so don't waste time in the transition and get that wing down and rudder in, do it like you mean it, not like you're suggesting it. It's always better to over compensate for the wind than under in the beginning because it's easier to give up ground to the wind at the end than to gain it.

 

[Mafoo]

I use Cloud Ahoy. How did you make that video (and upload / save it somewhere like You Tube)? That is super cool.

I have a Mac. If you have one with a relatively new operating system on it, fire up Quicktime, got to file-> new screen recording, and then when you hit the red button, it will allow you to drag a box over whatever you want to record. Hit play in the middle of the window you created, and then start up Cloud Ahoy's playback in cockpit view. When done, you can save it as a movie and from youtube directly, click upload.

I am sure there are third party tools on the windows side that should do the same thing (hopefully). The nice thing about how OSX works with it's presentation layer, is anything you see on the screen gets recorded. Sometimes in windows, 3D hardware accelerated stuff ends up just being a black box.

 

[Henning]

I bet your CFI learned at a 141 school.

 

[kimberlyanne546]

I have a Mac. If you have one with a relatively new operating system on it, fire up Quicktime, got to file-> new screen recording, and then when you hit the red button, it will allow you to drag a box over whatever you want to record. Hit play in the middle of the window you created, and then start up Cloud Ahoy's playback in cockpit view. When done, you can save it as a movie and from youtube directly, click upload.

I am sure there are third party tools on the windows side that should do the same thing (hopefully). The nice thing about how OSX works with it's presentation layer, is anything you see on the screen gets recorded. Sometimes in windows, 3D hardware accelerated stuff ends up just being a black box.

I highly doubt I can do that with my PC. Darn. Oh well, if I have time I'll go into Cloud Ahoy and try it with some of my old flights.

 

[Mafoo]

Do you want a full and honest critique? I will be very blunt, I don't mean offense or desire to trounce on you, but it will not be complimentary; that does not imply that it will be derogatory either. I assure you, I am quite neutral and you're fresh meat, you are fully expected to be incompetent at this point because you have yet to build the required experience base for competency.

If you don't want the full rip I'll just leave you with these tips. Don't look where you are pointing, look where you are going. If you look forward and the world seems to be sliding sideways, it is, turn your head the opposite direction until the view ahead you now face stops sliding, that is where you are going.

There are two ways to deal with this, you can crab or you can slip. If you crab I suggest you transition to your slip no lower than 100' or just after putting in full flaps, which ever comes first. Flaps are about energy management. Unless you are in a glider or a plane with a dead engine, full flaps with throttle used to add energy as required is the way to get the most precise and safest approach and landings. Those who were taught to reduce flaps to gain energy were taught the method applicable to flying jets where many, especially older, turbine engines have 'spool up' lag, often significant in the older ones. Recip engines offer us the luxury of instant power.

Fly either the crab or the slip for now, don't try to combine them yet, so don't waste time in the transition and get that wing down and rudder in, do it like you mean it, not like you're suggesting it. It's always better to over compensate for the wind than under in the beginning because it's easier to give up ground to the wind at the end than to gain it.

Thanks for the info.

What you can't see in that video, is where the plane was looking. I was crabbed into the wind pretty good. I would guess somewhere between 20-30 degrees. I realized I turned short, so I just crabbed a little less to "slide" left. The cross wind was really not so much the issue. It was the 8 knot gusts that was throwing me off.

You can be as brutal as you like I realize I sucked at that landing, as I should. Never done it before.

 

[Mafoo]

I highly doubt I can do that with my PC. Darn. Oh well, if I have time I'll go into Cloud Ahoy and try it with some of my old flights.

If you want to share a flight, and tell me at what time you would like a video made, I can make it for you

 

[Mafoo]

I bet your CFI learned at a 141 school.

He learned at Purdue University.

 

[Henning]

You are far too timid with the aircraft and you are being taught to fly a jet, I'll leave it at that.

 

[Mafoo]

You are far too timid with the aircraft and you are being taught to fly a jet, I'll leave it at that.

Well i'm not, and I have a total (even after my solo) of 11 hours of flight time. I'm a newb, what can I say.

 

[denverpilot]

I highly doubt I can do that with my PC. Darn. Oh well, if I have time I'll go into Cloud Ahoy and try it with some of my old flights.

Pretty sure you can...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Recording+Screen+Windows+video

 

[Henning]

Well i'm not, and I have a total (even after my solo) of 11 hours of flight time. I'm a newb, what can I say.

You're not what? Not too timid? Yes you are, you never had the wing down far enough, not once. Not being taught to fly a jet? With that approach angle, you most certainly are, you just happen to be in a recip which means you are being taught less than optimal technique for your aircraft. It comes down to primacy and the FAA methodology of teaching being focused on people heading for jets in the airlines. You don't need to say anything, you just need to adjust your technique, as you said, you're a newb, no need to defend yourself, just learn.

 

[Mafoo]

You're not what? Not too timid? Yes you are, you never had the wing down far enough, not once. Not being taught to fly a jet? With that approach angle, you most certainly are, you just happen to be in a recip which means you are being taught less than optimal technique for your aircraft. It comes down to primacy and the FAA methodology of teaching being focused on people heading for jets in the airlines.

Well, "I am not" could really apply to both, but I meant being taught to fly a jet. If my CFI would let me to do a barrel roll (and the plane could take it), I would do one in a heartbeat.

I am not timid, just woefully inexperienced. I have done 185 mph on a motorcycle. I didn't however, do that in the first 11 hours I rode one

And I only showed you one of my landings. One was really bad, and it was because I was WAY overcorrecting the airplane.

I am a lot of things. Timid is not one of them. Completely green and just learning what I am doing? Yes. Timid? No.

 

[Henning]

Well, "I am not" could really apply to both, but I meant being taught to fly a jet. If my CFI would let me to do a barrel roll (and the plane could take it), I would do one in a heartbeat.

I am not timid, just woefully inexperienced. I have done 185 mph on a motorcycle. I didn't however, do that in the first 11 hours I rode one

And I only showed you one of my landings. One was really bad, and it was because I was WAY overcorrecting the airplane.

I am a lot of things. Timid is not one of them. Completely green and just learning what I am doing? Yes. Timid? No.

You never once over corrected the plane, you barely once had the correct correction in the plane to get you to centerline far closer in than you should have been, then you dropped it. Your moves were consistently to under correct.

 

[Henning]

Here's a video my buddy shot, it's a bit long but at the end is a crosswind landing in the same conditions you were experiencing.

 

[Henning]

He learned at Purdue University.

There you go... It's easy to spot really.

 

[Mafoo]

You never once over corrected the plane, you barely once had the correct correction in the plane to get you to centerline far closer in than you should have been, then you dropped it. Your moves were consistently to under correct.

I could have worded that better.. I did 8 landings. I showed you 1. One of the other 7 is the one I over corrected on.

Also, what you are seeing, is a GPS log from an iPhone sitting on the floor in the back of the C150. It's not the most accurate representation of reality.

The landing from your buddy doesn't look much different then the ones I did.

 

[Mafoo]

The landing from your buddy doesn't look much different then the ones I did.

Well, other then he had a much longer downwind, and came in a lot lower.

 

[Henning]

I could have worded that better.. I did 8 landings. I showed you 1. One of the other 7 is the one I over corrected on.

Also, what you are seeing, is a GPS log from an iPhone sitting on the floor in the back of the C150. It's not the most accurate representation of reality.

The landing from your buddy doesn't look much different then the ones I did.

That was me driving, where was the center of the runway? Note how the downwind wheel didn't hit the runway until the downwind wing stalled? That's because even after the upwind wheel tagged I keep feeding in more aileron and more back pressure still flying the plane in a balancinc act on one wheel down the runway until every last surface gave up the ghost and the downwind wing stalled dropping the wheel. At that point the plane is planted. When you level out in the flare you go sideways then as soon as you tagged, you relaxed and the plane was on the runway. Problem is when you do that, you aren't really planted firmly on the wheels, the plane hasn't quit flying and a gust can take enough weight off the wheels that it can put you off the runway and into the lights.

There's also a decent example of a turn around a point there where I did the 360 so I wouldn't have to fly halfway across the lake to follow the Cirrus's bomber pattern. The only reason I flew that far out was because tower was calling my base. Also note that the stall horn was already squeaking before I hit the threshold, that's because the horn typically comes on 5-7 kts before stall and since I have a crosswind I carry a bit of extra power to increase my rudder effectiveness.

The GPS portrayal gives a pretty good clue as to what's happenning, but if you shot video it would be better.