landing procedures..

James331 said:
Sure do, look at every engine failure in a SE plane where they landed short or overshot due to poor energy management.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if we were still flying behind OX-5's, your position might have merit. However, given the very small number of engine failure landing accidents of the sort you mention in the modern engine era, and the very large number of landing accidents involving power-off approaches where the engine was running fine, the FAA concluded that we'd have a lot fewer accidents if we made the partial-power stabilized approach the recommended normal procedure. 40 years of accident statistics since them have proved them right.
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
When I saw a student going way wide or getting low in the pattern, I'd often simulate an engine failure. If the student aimed for a field or a parking lot or whatever, I'd ask, "Why not just glide to the runway?" Typical answer was that we were too low for that. My response? "Exactly."
Click to expand...

Exactly :yes:



Ron Levy said:
Perhaps if we were still flying behind OX-5's, your position might have merit. However, given the very small number of engine failure landing accidents of the sort you mention in the modern engine era, and the very large number of landing accidents involving power-off approaches where the engine was running fine, the FAA concluded that we'd have a lot fewer accidents if we made the partial-power stabilized approach the recommended normal procedure. 40 years of accident statistics since them have proved them right.
Click to expand...

I've had two full engine failures thus far in my career, it does happen.

Spose I'm not a very good CFI, I like to teach energy management, I don't think a student should NEED power to land from the downwind, I also teach falling leaf stalls and spins pre-solo when able, I don't let my PPL student use iPads, just paper charts, I think someone should be able to fly with just eye balls and paper, other silly stuff like that :idea:
 
FastEddieB said:
When I saw a student going way wide or getting low in the pattern, I'd often simulate an engine failure. If the student aimed for a field or a parking lot or whatever, I'd ask, "Why not just glide to the runway?" Typical answer was that we were too low for that. My response? "Exactly."
Click to expand...
The chances that after a long flight with the engine running perfectly, it will choose that point to quit without warning are...?

BTW, I agree with you about pilots flying a 747 pattern in a 172, but not for that reason. Graphic below was some pattern work I needed to do recently.

attachment.php

The tight one is my normal pattern; the one that starts normally and then goes to East J was because of another airplane in the pattern. I recall when he self-announced, I had a hard time finding him.
 

Attachments

  • 150520 TTA Patterns.PNG
    150520 TTA Patterns.PNG
    288.6 KB · Views: 33
James331 said:
Spose I'm not a very good CFI, I like to teach energy management, I don't think a student should NEED power to land from the downwind, I also teach falling leaf stalls and spins pre-solo when able, I don't let my PPL student use iPads, just paper charts, I think someone should be able to fly with just eye balls and paper, other silly stuff like that :idea:
Click to expand...

Why would anyone think you were a bad CFI for any of that? :confused: OTOH, why would you think a CFI who uses techniques different than yours is a bad CFI? Does it have to be that black and white with religious fervor thrown in for good measure?

Teaching energy management (absolutely necessary IMO) and that a student should not NEED power to land does not preclude teaching stabilized approaches. I know I teach both of those and even require my pre-solo students to land without the ASI! :yikes:
 
midlifeflyer said:
The chances that after a long flight with the engine running perfectly, it will choose that point to quit without warning are...?
Click to expand...
That depends largely on how much gas you put in the tank and how long you've been flying....
 
Fearless Tower said:
That depends largely on how much gas you put in the tank and how long you've been flying....
Click to expand...
True. But then you have the issue of a pilot being called upon to fly with precision after making a series of bad decisions already, including the one that says, "Crap! I'm almost out of gas. Better make this pattern extra tight!"
 
James331 said:
Exactly :yes:

I've had two full engine failures thus far in my career, it does happen.

Spose I'm not a very good CFI, I like to teach energy management, I don't think a student should NEED power to land from the downwind, I also teach falling leaf stalls and spins pre-solo when able, I don't let my PPL student use iPads, just paper charts, I think someone should be able to fly with just eye balls and paper, other silly stuff like that :idea:
Click to expand...

The FAA Pilot Training System is geared to producing airline pilots, not GA pilots. Nobody gives a rats ass about GA pilots, you're on your own to learn what is best for you. The FAA is about protecting the insurance industry in an environment of Strict Liability, that is Airlines, not GA.

Students now are taught to land like a 737 from day one for primacy.

I do a "power off short approach" on a FR and it scares some CFIs.:lol:
 
Last edited:
Good point, only the 7GCBC has flaps in the Citabria line. 80 sounds a bit excessive. Sounds like a recipe to float a long time burining off speed or to bounce if you try to land it that speed.

You're not stalled in the Citabria if the mains are on the ground.
 
flyingron said:
Good point, only the 7GCBC has flaps in the Citabria line. 80 sounds a bit excessive. Sounds like a recipe to float a long time burining off speed or to bounce if you try to land it that speed.

You're not stalled in the Citabria if the mains are on the ground first.
Click to expand...
FTFY;) But you have the option to wheelie on. In most everything TW I'll tag tail first and the mains plop in a bit.
 
Ron Levy said:
Next time one of you "power-off" guys gets in a Glasair III, let me know how it works.
Click to expand...

:confused: you can power off in anything, even an F-16, or the Space Shuttle. Just make sure you know how much steeper you need to be so you have enough kinetic energy to replace the mechanical energy.
 
Henning said:
:confused: you can power off in anything, even an F-16, or the Space Shuttle. Just make sure you know how much steeper you need to be so you have enough kinetic energy to replace the mechanical energy.
Click to expand...

Just try flying the downwind at 2500 AGL and dropping into the pattern like that from above when others are in the pattern, and let me know how it goes. It is certainly not a valid "normal" procedure, nor one with any utility if your engine quits on the normal 1000 AGL downwind.

BTW, I'd like to ask those who think "power off" is a valid normal procedure to tell me how many engine failures are recorded every year in the traffic pattern, and then compare that to the number of landing accidents where the engine was still running properly.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Next time one of you "power-off" guys gets in a Glasair III, let me know how it works.
Click to expand...

Diff plane, diff procedure. I don't land a twin Piper same way I used to land a Pitts S2.

Shirley you can grasp that...
 
docmirror said:
Diff plane, diff procedure. I don't land a twin Piper same way I used to land a Pitts S2.

Shirley you can grasp that...
Click to expand...

Anecdote:

I got my multi in an Apache at TMB.

First time I landed it, I held it off, and held it off, and held it off, and landed near a full stall with the yoke nearly all the way back. I was smugly pleased.

Not the instructor: "G**dammit Benson! You can't land this thing like a 150!!!"

I modified my technique to land a bit faster. But once clear of that instructor, guess what? You CAN land it just like a 150!

Clearly does not apply to all GA planes. But it does to more than most pilot think!

And don't call me Shirley!
 
Henning said:
FTFY;) But you have the option to wheelie on. In most everything TW I'll tag tail first and the mains plop in a bit.
Click to expand...

My original statement is correct. You are not stalled in the Citabria if the mains are on the ground. Can't happen (barring some bizarre non-horizontal winds).

I suspect you didn't stall it in the tailwump landing either, however.
 
Margy's instructor was big on carrying power into the flare. Claims it works fine on the DC-6 he was flying regularly at the time. I had him in the right seat and closed the throttle coming across the fence as I always did and landed fine as usual. He admitted, "I guess that works, too."
 
Ron Levy said:
BTW, I'd like to ask those who think "power off" is a valid normal procedure to tell me how many engine failures are recorded every year in the traffic pattern, and then compare that to the number of landing accidents where the engine was still running properly.
Click to expand...

Where are all these accident reports involving pilots who just cannot handle the daring feat of a power off landing in their light GA single?

I don't care if the chance of engine failure in the pattern is low. IT COSTS ME NOTHING to fly a power off approach. There is only benefit for me. And it maintains skills that could come in handy in the event of an OFF airport engine failure. Most of the new pilots I see trained these days would have trouble landing their 172 in a 2000' long field power off. Most of them carry power into the flare in a 172, still going 70KTS, and float about 2000'. :frown3:

Just because flight training seems to be structured around the lowest common denominator pilot doesn't mean you must stay there as a by-product of your training.
 
Of course doing power-off landings from the abeam position is possible. Its even a good idea to be comfortable doing it. But, in a 7ECA, its much more comfortable, and easier on the airplane, to add just a touch of power over the threshold just to smooth things out as you flare. Throttle cables are analog as I recall, its not a binary function.
 
wilkersk said:
But, in a 7ECA, its much more comfortable, and easier on the airplane, to add just a touch of power over the threshold just to smooth things out as you flare.
Click to expand...

Really?? The 7ECA is just a glorified Champ. It's about the easiest thing in the world to land power off. I can't relate to what you state at all, but then piloting technique varies hugely.
 
Ron Levy said:
Just try flying the downwind at 2500 AGL and dropping into the pattern like that from above when others are in the pattern, and let me know how it goes. It is certainly not a valid "normal" procedure, nor one with any utility if your engine quits on the normal 1000 AGL downwind.

BTW, I'd like to ask those who think "power off" is a valid normal procedure to tell me how many engine failures are recorded every year in the traffic pattern, and then compare that to the number of landing accidents where the engine was still running properly.
Click to expand...

You can do it from a 45° pattern in pretty much anything. If you are flying outside the 45° pattern volume your pattern is excessively large.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top