PIlot Deviation

Aw, c'mon, man...

With your new avatar, you gotta look for reasons to quote Top Gun.

"I'd like a video... but if you screw up just THIS MUCH, you'll be flying a cargo plane loaded with rubber dog **** outta Hong Kong."
 
deyoung said:
I gather you're at DMAFB? Just curious, since I'm based at KTUS. :)
Click to expand...

What are your initials. I'm TM. Ask Irving Rodriguez, Mike Frye and Diane Seven how cool I am. ;)

Or if you're a pilot based at KTUS, hop on over the the North Ramp and Handy Hangars (#13) and say hi.
 
Hey I've met people from this forum, of course it took me two years to do it but I've met em! At least one might vouch for me. ;)
 
BigBadLou said:
One quiet night, when I am the only one in the pattern at our class D, I want to try this. :)
The twr guys know me so it should be no problem. ;)
Click to expand...

I can't find it, but a few years ago there was a youtube video of one of the Reno air racers using the tower like a pylon with permission and the ATC guys laughing their rears off (no one else in the airspace). That guy taught Maverick a thing or two about buzz jobs, and will never be beat if you see the video.
 
I've seen AF jets at least two military fields do buzz jobs on the towers. No one cared except the ATC Officer at one of them raised hell about it. Think he must have got it from Top Gun and felt he had to do the same.
 
Radar Contact said:
I do get the point about having SA that you are trying to make and no one has ever had too much SA.

I differ from you a bit on the "depart the pattern and report downwind again at a speed compatible with the traffic pattern". "Speed compatible" and "reasonable speed" are way too subjective and mean very different things to higher performing planes and each plane driver. I'd use different tools in the box. i.e. Use both right and left traffic, inform the higher performing aircraft to fly his pattern 500' higher, extending downwind, making short approaches, issuing 360 on downwind, instructing an aircraft that is doing touch and go's that this one will be a full stop taxi back due to pattern saturation, doing a better job with 3000'/4500' runway separation, maintain max forward speed, reduce to slowest practical, etc. My last resort would be to politely ask an aircraft that you've already given clearance to enter the airspace to exit it. If you couldn't take one more plane you should have known that and told them on initial call to remain outside the D/C airspace until you had room.

Just respectful slight disagreeing with you. Thank you for past service keeping all us separated.
Click to expand...


On instrument approaches I used to try to keep my speed up in my Cessna's and Piper's as long as possible under the belief that I was helping clear the airspace faster arguing that staying at 120kts made the average 10nm GPS approach only 5 minutes. To fix me of my habit, my instructor took me up as his safety pilot and flew the same approach himself 3 times to MAP with me timing each one.

The first time he flew as I had at 120 until dirtying up inside the FAF and it took as expected between 4.5 and 5 minutes to the MAP.
The next he flew he was already dirty at the IAF and flew at 90 the entire way and it took as expected be 6.5 and 7 minutes to the MAP
The last time he flew at 120 until just outside the FAF where he dirtied up and flew 90 the rest of the way. Took 5.5 to 6 minutes.

On the debrief he asked me which approach looked best and easiest. My instructor flew really solid approaches and I didn't get the impression he exaggerated any of it to prove his point but I had to admit the approach at 90 the entire way was the most accurate of the 3 approaches, had the least intense workload and while 2 minutes seemed a lifetime to me on paper neither the controllers or fast mover behind us seemed to care and it was over before I knew it.

It was the hybrid approach that got dirty just before the FAF instead of after which was still smooth and less intense that really drove home his point. His point being that 30, 60, 90 or even 120 kts difference in airspeed doesn't make a huge difference in time over the short distances involved in an approach but it does make a huge difference in the workload and controllability of the airplane especially as you are approaching to land and his example approaches gave a very visual reminder of a phrase my grandfather used to say: "slow down, you'll go faster."


These examples definitely apply in pattern work where that extra speed isn't a huge impact, especially if that speed is outside or at the boundary of the airspace with plenty of time to still slow down as was what sounded to be the case in the OPs original post. While I understand fully that these planes could be flying slower and it usually the bad planning and lack of skill on the part of the pilot that causes them to insist they cant get any slower, short of super STOL takeoff/landing competition where I've seen planes get off the ground in as little as 17mph, sequencing a slower 60kt plane with a 180kt plane is just a matter of positioning. I do understand the added complexity and difficulty in sequencing fast movers with slow movers particularly at a training airport where the slow movers might not be doing exactly as the controller wanted but I also know the FAA didn't just come up with their speed restrictions out of thin air.
 
apr911 said:
On instrument approaches I used to try to keep my speed up in my Cessna's and Piper's as long as possible under the belief that I was helping clear the airspace faster arguing that staying at 120kts made the average 10nm GPS approach only 5 minutes. To fix me of my habit, my instructor took me up as his safety pilot and flew the same approach himself 3 times to MAP with me timing each one.

The first time he flew as I had at 120 until dirtying up inside the FAF and it took as expected between 4.5 and 5 minutes to the MAP.
The next he flew he was already dirty at the IAF and flew at 90 the entire way and it took as expected be 6.5 and 7 minutes to the MAP
The last time he flew at 120 until just outside the FAF where he dirtied up and flew 90 the rest of the way. Took 5.5 to 6 minutes.

On the debrief he asked me which approach looked best and easiest. My instructor flew really solid approaches and I didn't get the impression he exaggerated any of it to prove his point but I had to admit the approach at 90 the entire way was the most accurate of the 3 approaches, had the least intense workload and while 2 minutes seemed a lifetime to me on paper neither the controllers or fast mover behind us seemed to care and it was over before I knew it.

It was the hybrid approach that got dirty just before the FAF instead of after which was still smooth and less intense that really drove home his point. His point being that 30, 60, 90 or even 120 kts difference in airspeed doesn't make a huge difference in time over the short distances involved in an approach but it does make a huge difference in the workload and controllability of the airplane especially as you are approaching to land and his example approaches gave a very visual reminder of a phrase my grandfather used to say: "slow down, you'll go faster."


These examples definitely apply in pattern work where that extra speed isn't a huge impact, especially if that speed is outside or at the boundary of the airspace with plenty of time to still slow down as was what sounded to be the case in the OPs original post. While I understand fully that these planes could be flying slower and it usually the bad planning and lack of skill on the part of the pilot that causes them to insist they cant get any slower, short of super STOL takeoff/landing competition where I've seen planes get off the ground in as little as 17mph, sequencing a slower 60kt plane with a 180kt plane is just a matter of positioning. I do understand the added complexity and difficulty in sequencing fast movers with slow movers particularly at a training airport where the slow movers might not be doing exactly as the controller wanted but I also know the FAA didn't just come up with their speed restrictions out of thin air.
Click to expand...

At the busy airports (Cs and Bs say) it's common for ATC to request a faster speed to the FAF , but that's your choice and you can decline the request. You may get turn out for resequencing if the controller can't fit whatever it is they're attempting to do though.
 
Yes it does happen and there are things I personally do to assist that when asked if I am able (for example, no flaps or less than full flaps on a visual or high, well above minimums, overcast day), even inside the FAF but in general I've found the fast until just before FAF approach and then slow doesn't cause issue. If the traffic behind you is that close that they need you to keep significant speed past the FAF, they wont clear you to continue and will re-sequence you but at the really busy Class B airports, they probably already resequenced you in the air without you even knowing it.

My instructors secondary point besides the first one that airspeeds below 200kts and above minimum controllable airspeed in most airplanes wont greatly alter time over short distances, was illustrated in a few months later in a twin engine. He had 170kts indicated and he pulled power 3/4 of a mile out from the FAF and started to slow down; he hit gear speed of 130 at 1/4 of a mile out and flap speed at 1/10 of a mile and approach speed with just enough time to put the second notch of flaps in as he hit FAF, then he just managed the transition from level flight to a descent while the flaps were in motion and added/removed power as necessary to remain on glideslope.

Had he kept his speed up all the way through to the FAF, it would have taken him 16 seconds to cover the distance. Slowing down when he did in the manner he did, it took him 20 seconds to cover the distance adding only 4-5 seconds to his approach.
 
Timbeck2 said:
As a controller, I would like to see pilots realize what it takes for a controller to manage a mix of slow, fast and heavy aircraft with no reduced runway separation on ONE 13,000' runway. I do it every day.
Click to expand...
Some controllers are better at it than others. I was flying a 170, 172, and the Navion in and out of IAD for years. You could tell which guys had a clue and which ones were idiots who tried to line up the slow movers at the gate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top