I'm feeling that the typical VASI glideslope is a little low

txflyer said:
So that's what those things are. They're always white all the way down for me.
Click to expand...

I fly a canard. Though I rarely fly 2 mile finals the VASI is always red over red and I've got my speed brake down....easy to make the runway. My glide ratio is really spectacular but not 20 to 1.
I get bitched at by the KBFI tower landing on 13L as their rules require that be flown by the VASI. I had to remind them, since it's for noise, that at idle I'm pretty quiet....
 
Red over red is prohibited at all towered airports. See 14 CFR 91.129(e)(3). The only exception is if it is necessary for a safe landing.

It's not about gliding distances. It's about obstructions, which couldn't care less about your canard. It might be justified if you would risk an overrun by remaining above the VASI. That's not likely at Boeing Field.
 
MAKG1 said:
Two whites is just fine. Use the bug-splat method to determine if you will make the runway.

Two reds is not good.

My short field landings are consistently smoother with a steeper lower-power approach.

Yes, you need more than 6 deg to make a power off approach in a 172 with no flaps. Add flaps and it's even steeper. It's WAY steeper in a 182.
Click to expand...

No joke. In an N model with 40 degrees it looks like you're on a 30-degree dive to the threshold. Did I mention it's really fun :)

For me, when I turn final I normally see 3 or 4 whites on a 4 light PAPI. I'm Always high and that's fine because I have more options to fix that high approach than If I'm low... Because then my only options dragging it in with power or landing in the grass.
 
MAKG1 said:
It's not about gliding distances. It's about obstructions, which couldn't care less about your canard. It might be justified if you would risk an overrun by remaining above the VASI. That's not likely at Boeing Field.
Click to expand...

Makg, I think he was saying he was a canard because he has to be mindful of his approach speed, angle, and configuration to safely land his plane. I don't think he was eluding to gliding distances and obstructions. I agree with your points though.
 
flyingriki said:
I fly a canard. Though I rarely fly 2 mile finals the VASI is always red over red and I've got my speed brake down....easy to make the runway. My glide ratio is really spectacular but not 20 to 1.
I get bitched at by the KBFI tower landing on 13L as their rules require that be flown by the VASI. I had to remind them, since it's for noise, that at idle I'm pretty quiet....
Click to expand...



You do what you must do as PIC, but losing an engine and not making the field on short final to me, is like those adolescent dreams of finding yourself in school with nothing on but your underwear. :yikes:
 
txflyer said:
You do what you must do as PIC, but losing an engine and not making the field on short final to me, is like those adolescent dreams of finding yourself in school with nothing on but your underwear. :yikes:
Click to expand...

I was flying an L-39 pilot back form the paint shop one day where we left his plane. Being an excellent and never ending instructor as we turned final at home he asked 'could you make the field from here'? He assumed we were way too low. I chuckled and told him we were actually a little high and I was standing on both rudders as well as as having the speed brake out to get down to the threshold. Really surprised him!
 
Last edited:
I can understand that you are getting low on the approach but I don't understand this obsession about never letting yourself get into a position where you can't glide to the runway if the engine quits. For cripes sakes you've just flown across half the state and now all of a sudden you think your engines gonna quit?

I mean come on, we gotta have at least a cursory amount of faith in our machines. Why the heck are you taking it up if you don't at least have that? :dunno:
 
Silvaire said:
I can understand that you are getting low on the approach but I don't understand this obsession about never letting yourself get into a position where you can't glide to the runway if the engine quits. For cripes sakes you've just flown across half the state and now all of a sudden you think your engines gonna quit?

I mean come on, we gotta have at least a cursory amount of faith in our machines. Why the heck are you taking it up if you don't at least have that? :dunno:
Click to expand...


Good point! But, I must say that i've read a lot of reports that include "2 miles from runway" and then the discription "fatal".....

Doesn't hurt to be cautious on the landing.
 
If you're running low on fuel, the closer you get to the airport, the more likely you are to run out. You can also kill the engine in a very low fuel situation by rolling into a turn.

But most of the other accidents near the airport seem to be unrelated to the engine, or on departure. Like, bad instrument approaches.

Engine failures in the pattern are much rarer than loss of control on the ground.
 
Last edited:
The argument that I've always heard trotted out is that, supposedly, most engine failures occur the first time you pull the power to well below cruise setting after running at cruise for a long time. But I've never seen any evidence that this is true (other than anecdotal), and even if it is, I use reduced power for descents all the time, so my engine should quit well before I reach the pattern.

A better argument might be: the lower you are, the fewer options you have in case the engine does quit. This one I'll buy. I still prefer partial power approaches as a rule, though.
 
If you have zero oil pressure, throttle reduction is when the bad stuff happens. But that's hardly the only type of failure, and it shouldn't be a surprise.
 
In the Husky, I like to be abeam the numbers on downwind, cut the power, put in full flaps, glide on in and do a short field. I don't bother turning the VASI's on (ruins my concentration)
I consider it's a good landing if I land on or before the numbers, (but after the start of the runway). :D
 
I think I could pull power abeam the numbers and land safely. I just don't think i'd be able to use my normal turn for base and final. I think they'd have to be somewhere in the 30*+ range. I'd like to try it and see.
 
For any of you who believe one should always be in a position to make the runway if your engine quits, what do you do at a controlled field when the tower instructs you to "extend your downwind, I'll call base"? Say "unable", turn base early, and ruin everyone's day?

I'd like to see a compilation of NTSB accident reports involving a loss of power in the pattern beyond "downwind abeam the numbers" where said loss of power wasn't due to a SPT like switching to an empty tank, turning off the magnetos, or just running out of fuel trying to stretch things. Then (assuming you find more than a couple) subtract out the ones where the pilot stalled the airplane rather than flying it onto the ground and see what's left.

From what I've read, engine failures on takeoff do present a (small) risk but the occurrence of real engine failures on base or final that lead to serious accidents are at least as rare as truly perfect flights with zero (minor) mistakes.

I also believe that a significant portion of the pilots who claim to always remain in position to make the runway if the engine quits pass through several points in many if not most of their landing patterns where that's not really going to work out.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
I think I could pull power abeam the numbers and land safely. I just don't think i'd be able to use my normal turn for base and final. I think they'd have to be somewhere in the 30*+ range. I'd like to try it and see.
Click to expand...

I've done a bunch of power off 180s, in every aircraft I'm qualified in.

Unless you fly B-52 patterns, it's not hard in a 172. In fact, with no training, you're likely to be VERY high and have to slip the living hell out of it. Just don't use flaps until the field is made, and keep it at best glide (conveniently, it's pretty close to final approach speed).

In an aircraft with a CS prop or stupid-slow gear (Cessna complex singles), it's not so easy. Some planes glide more like bricks. It's something you have to practice.
 
Last edited:
I can say in a 172 that pulling the power abeam the numbers at TPA is cake to get it down... with a lot left over...I almost ALWAYS have to slip it because I'm too high, but that's better than coming up short.

My instructor pulled the engine abeam many times. After a while I learned that I didn't have to make a turn towards the runway RIGHT NOW, though the approach was definitely a shortened one.
 
I've done many lessons with pulling power abeam the numbers. I usually just make a gentle continuous turn and make it no problem. One lesson he upped the ante when there was a 25kt headwind aloft. Made me try to get it down on the numbers. That was a tough one. Needless to say my engine miraculously got power back a few times.
 
48dodge said:
I've done many lessons with pulling power abeam the numbers. I usually just make a gentle continuous turn and make it no problem. One lesson he upped the ante when there was a 25kt headwind aloft. Made me try to get it down on the numbers. That was a tough one. Needless to say my engine miraculously got power back a few times.
Click to expand...
Abeam the numbers is easy. Try it with partial flaps just as you start to roll out from your turn to base when following 3 other planes ahead of you in the pattern.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not everyone and certainly not the FAA.
Click to expand...

The old crusties, and even some of the new crusty to be. My usual BFR guy is my age, always chides me for partial power approaches. "You'll never make the runway...."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top