Preventing Go-Around Accidents

[poadeleted20]

I did land our C-177B with around a 17kt component once. My left foot was almost straight out.

Try pulling your seat forward another notch.

In any event, since it's not a limitation, there isn't much incentive for the manufacturer to go a whole lot farther in the maximum crosswind component demonstration than the regulatory minimum of 0.2 Vs0 (see 14 CFR 23.233). About 0.3 Vs0 seems to be about the norm. But if the aircraft meets all the other directional control requirements, it will probably have a lot of rudder in reserve even with the crosswind at 0.3 Vs0, and my C-177 experience suggests that it can handle at least 50% more than the book demonstrated value, although pilot skill is being seriously taxed at that point.

Nevertheless, my instructing experience suggests that the average nonprofessional light plane pilot (the 50 hr/year crowd) is generally wise to set the book demonstrated value as their own limit in Standard category aircraft. OTOH, my LSA experience suggests that any demonstrated crosswind value in the book there should be taken a lot more seriously by even the most skilled and proficient pilots, probably because of the relative paucity of certification standards in that area for LSA's.

Of course, what a pilot can handle and what the airplane can handle are often two different things, with the average pilot's proficiency level usually being too low to safely fly the plane to its physical/aerodynamic limits. But don't blame the airplane if the pilot isn't capable of flying it to its limit, and don't suggest to pilots that reduced flap setting will make a significant difference in their ability to handle crosswinds.

 

[poadeleted20]

For those that advocate landning with full flaps for everything, how do you configure for instrument approaches to minimums in light airplanes?

In an appropriate configuration for approach, say, what I'd have on downwind past abeam or base leg.

Is it full flaps and gear out all the way down the ILS from GS intercept to the ground like a big jet, or do you select full flaps when you break out.....even if it is at DH?

The latter -- partial flap for approach, full flap for landing -- just like I do every day in the VFR pattern. Why? See the Law of Exercise in the Aviation Instructor's Handbook. We do best that which we do most often, and especially for folks who fly only a few times a month, trying to do something different in critical situations than they do normally is just making things a lot more difficult and more likely to end in a heap next to or beyond the runway.

 

[Fearless Tower]

In an appropriate configuration for approach, say, what I'd have on downwind past abeam or base leg.

The latter -- partial flap for approach, full flap for landing -- just like I do every day in the VFR pattern. Why? See the Law of Exercise in the Aviation Instructor's Handbook. We do best that which we do most often, and especially for folks who fly only a few times a month, trying to do something different in critical situations than they do normally is just making things a lot more difficult and more likely to end in a heap next to or beyond the runway.

So you are okay with (and you teach your IFR students) to select full flaps under 200 AFE?

Overall, I agree with what you are saying, however, I do believe there are situations where depending on conditions and airplane I would be far more comfortable landing with Approach flaps than re-configuring.

And there aren't too many light piston twins that I would want to fly an approach with full flaps.

 

[azure]

Overall, I agree with what you are saying, however, I do believe there are situations where depending on conditions and airplane I would be far more comfortable landing with Approach flaps than re-configuring.

Is there a regulatory minimum on the length of runway that can have an ILS?

The reason I ask is that at least at the airports I've trained at around here with ILSs (shortest is KPHN at 5100 feet), I can't imagine not being able to go from partial to full flaps, slow down and land with plenty of runway to spare from 200 AGL unless there was a really decent tailwind -- and in that case, I'd think circling minimums and landing the other way, or going somewhere else, would both be better options.

 

[Henning]

So you are okay with (and you teach your IFR students) to select full flaps under 200 AFE?

Overall, I agree with what you are saying, however, I do believe there are situations where depending on conditions and airplane I would be far more comfortable landing with Approach flaps than re-configuring.

And there aren't too many light piston twins that I would want to fly an approach with full flaps.

Why? I toss the last notch of flaps in in the last 25-50' routinely (that's where I know I'm not going around) and tossing them in as I cross the threshold is not unusual for me. It just depends on what I needed for the approach. It's not a big deal in most planes as long as you you were in proper trim before you put the flaps in. Where people run into trouble with it is when they don't trim on final and are already holding back pressure when the put the last notch in, then it can get heavy, but as long as I'm trimmed for 30*, tossing the last 15 in at the bottom is nothing but an extra little bit of force in the flare. None of it is a big deal. Fly the airplane, not the checklist. These aren't airliners with huge inertia.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Why? I toss the last notch of flaps in in the last 25-50' routinely (that's where I know I'm not going around) and tossing them in as I cross the threshold is not unusual for me. It just depends on what I needed for the approach. It's not a big deal in most planes as long as you you were in proper trim before you put the flaps in. Where people run into trouble with it is when they don't trim on final and are already holding back pressure when the put the last notch in, then it can get heavy, but as long as I'm trimmed for 30*, tossing the last 15 in at the bottom is nothing but an extra little bit of force in the flare. None of it is a big deal. Fly the airplane, not the checklist. These aren't airliners with huge inertia.

Let's just say that I was just reading a discussion on another board about this very issue in the King Air and the general consensus among those pilots is to leave the flaps alone when you break out, unless you break out early.

In good weather/vis, I don't have a problem with dropping full flaps within '200 (I do it in the Duchess pretty regularly), but not so sure I would want to be messin' with the config change breaking out on the ILS with vis at mins. Perhaps if I flew more approaches in those conditions I might feel otherwise (and pulling the hood off at DH isn't the same as making the landing under real mins).

 

[Everskyward]

Let's just say that I was just reading a discussion on another board about this very issue in the King Air and the general consensus among those pilots is to leave the flaps alone when you break out, unless you break out early.

I remember that being a controversy in school. I'm sure I have done it both ways, but I'm someone who will try out different things just to see. I still think that unless there is something that spells out one way or the other in the AFM or company SOPs it's pilot's choice and comes under the heading of "technique" not "procedure".

 

[Henning]

Let's just say that I was just reading a discussion on another board about this very issue in the King Air and the general consensus among those pilots is to leave the flaps alone when you break out, unless you break out early.

In good weather/vis, I don't have a problem with dropping full flaps within '200 (I do it in the Duchess pretty regularly), but not so sure I would want to be messin' with the config change breaking out on the ILS with vis at mins. Perhaps if I flew more approaches in those conditions I might feel otherwise (and pulling the hood off at DH isn't the same as making the landing under real mins).

In an Air Tractor we roll flaps in and out on every turn, and we're putting them in for the climb and turn and taking them out for the dive and entry. It doesn't seem to be causing a bunch of accidents and were doing it all under 100'.

What is the difference between 200' in CAVU and 200' broke out on the ILS? How does the plane respond differently?

 

[Fearless Tower]

What is the difference between 200' in CAVU and 200' broke out on the ILS? How does the plane respond differently?

The plane does not respond differently - the concern isn't how the airplane behaves, but about the human factors involved. The workload on the pilot transitioning from the panel to the runway environment is higher when the vis it at mins than it is when you pull a hood off or the visibility below the layer is clear.

 

[dell30rb]

in good weather I have no problems changing configurations on demand because I am comfortable flying the airplane using the outside horizon as a reference. But breaking out at 200 with 10mi vis and breaking out at 200 with minimum visibility is a different story. If I was breaking out in murk and didn't have a clear horizon, it would be much easier just to leave the airplane in the same configuration since you already have airspeed and glide path nailed, nothing to do but pull the power and flare.

visibility is the key here

 

[poadeleted20]

If I was breaking out in murk and didn't have a clear horizon, it would be much easier just to leave the airplane in the same configuration since you already have airspeed and glide path nailed, nothing to do but pull the power and flare.

Y'all be careful about pulling the power when you see the runway, especially in low vis conditions -- that's how folks end up in the approach lights instead of on the runway. I teach them to leave power alone, extend the flaps while holding pitch attitude steady, and wait until over the runway to pull the power. since you're already on a straight line to the TDZ, there's no reason to meddle with your descent angle by chopping power, and extending the flaps while maintaining attitude will allow deceleration to landing speed while staying on that path.

 

[Henning]

The plane does not respond differently - the concern isn't how the airplane behaves, but about the human factors involved. The workload on the pilot transitioning from the panel to the runway environment is higher when the vis it at mins than it is when you pull a hood off or the visibility below the layer is clear.

True, but I don't see what effect that has in the ability to reach over and flick the switch down. If that piece of extra workload is gonna kill your King ait pilots, I'd hate to see them in an emergency in 310 sh-t howdy.

If I was in an Aztec doing a OEI approach with the hydraulics engine feathered, I wouldn't bother to pump in the last 15*, but outside of that reconfiguring the flaps when on visual on the ILS at mins is no concern of mine, been there and done it way more than once using it as SOP, "Rabbit, REIL, Flaps" when I break out unless I have a reason to hold them some longer. As I said, I'll throw em in at the same time I'm starting my flare sometimes, but typically whenever my wheels touch, all the flaps will be out or on their way.

 

[Everskyward]

True, but I don't see what effect that has in the ability to reach over and flick the switch down. If that piece of extra workload is gonna kill your King ait pilots, I'd hate to see them in an emergency in 310 sh-t howdy.

No one is talking about dying except you. There have been many extreme examples in this thread just to make a point one way or the other. If it's your airplane fly it like you want. If it's someone else's and they express an opinion, fly it like they want you to, or as in the situation I witnessed far up in the thread, walk away.

 

[p1l0t]

No one is talking about dying except you. There have been many extreme examples in this thread just to make a point one way or the other. If it's your airplane fly it like you want. If it's someone else's and they express an opinion, fly it like they want you to, or as in the situation I witnessed far up in the thread, walk away.

Henning is always telling everyone they are going die. He told one pilot he was kill his passengers by landing with 20 degrees of flaps. He told me I would blow a tire and go off the upwind side of the runway if I land faster than 35kts. I did ask him once or twice nicely to stop trolling. I'm sure most of the people on here are reasonably good [and by good I mean safe] pilots. People have different techniques / methods and some maybe better than others or not. We are here to learn from each other so let us try and use our own personal experiance and try to back it up with our best logic/reasoning. Telling others they are going to die or kill is counter productive.

Anyway back on topic. I tend to fly approches at one notch of flaps and 90kts in most of the airplanes I fly. It feels more stable with a notch of flaps, I know all the power settings for it, and 90kts doesn't require any interpolation on the plate to set my timer. If I breakout with enough altitude and time I will go for the full flaps. However, if the visibilty is crap, and/or breaking out occurs close to the runway sometimes I will just land it with the 10 degrees. Sometimes I just don't want to upset a nice stable approach. It is pretty rare though, generally I just dump the flaps in when landing is assured.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

 

[ajstoner21]

Hmm....

 

[Jaybird180]

Y'all be careful about pulling the power when you see the runway, especially in low vis conditions -- that's how folks end up in the approach lights instead of on the runway. I teach them to leave power alone, extend the flaps while holding pitch attitude steady, and wait until over the runway to pull the power. since you're already on a straight line to the TDZ, there's no reason to meddle with your descent angle by chopping power, and extending the flaps while maintaining attitude will allow deceleration to landing speed while staying on that path.

First time I saw approach lights was when I was over them at KACY. I wasn't sure of exactly what I was seeing. I'm still not sure how much clearance I had over them. How high are they anyway?

 

[silver-eagle]

First time I saw approach lights was when I was over them at KACY. I wasn't sure of exactly what I was seeing. I'm still not sure how much clearance I had over them. How high are they anyway?

It depends. I've seen them over the highway and I've seen them at ground level in the grass. I suspect technically, level with the runway.

 

[COFlyBoy]

First time I saw approach lights was when I was over them at KACY. I wasn't sure of exactly what I was seeing. I'm still not sure how much clearance I had over them. How high are they anyway?

You really only end up in the approach lights if you're short of the runway. Those things aren't that high above the runway. Maybe 4 to 5 feet or so, like a VASI or PAPI box.

 

[airguy]

- Stay over the runway. You could still touch down if it's a late go-around. Maintain directional control.

Yup - I had to go around once for a deer on the runway. Night approach, deep into the flare and committed to touch down when I saw eyes maybe 150 yard down the runway. Threw the power to it, settled to the runway, rolled for about half the distance picking up speed, and lifted off again.

 

[dmccormack]

First time I saw approach lights was when I was over them at KACY. I wasn't sure of exactly what I was seeing. I'm still not sure how much clearance I had over them. How high are they anyway?

Fly on over to Morgantown, WV (KMGW) where you'll see approach lights mounted on a series 80' towers...

 

[Jaybird180]

There are some that are higher. There is a walking and jogger park near KBWI and you can spot them from there. If it weren't for the prohibited sign "protecting" them, you could walk over and touch them. They're higher than a human being.

 

[Jaybird180]

Fly on over to Morgantown, WV (KMGW) where you'll see approach lights mounted on a series 80' towers...

How do you stay out of the approach lights when (for example) at dusk on a westerly approach course?

 

[spinfire]

How do you stay out of the approach lights when (for example) at dusk on a westerly approach course?

I believe they are level with the runway... but the runway is up on top of a big hill! I've never flown there, but I've driven past it.

 

[Jaybird180]

My point is, that we know some of them are above ground...WAAAAY above ground level. If your approach angle is acute, you could have an aiming point that is correct for the touchdown zone, yet put yourself on a collision course for the lights (maybe I'm not using the correct term for the lighting system I'm describing?).

 

[p1l0t]

I imagine if there is an 80' approach light the ground is lower there than the runway by a good portion of that distance.. But then again I have landed on runways with 50-100ft trees on either side so it wouldn't be impossible to miss.. Still all of the approach light systems I have ever seen are [about] level with the runway.


<---<^>--->

 

[COFlyBoy]

My point is, that we know some of them are above ground...WAAAAY above ground level. If your approach angle is acute, you could have an aiming point that is correct for the touchdown zone, yet put yourself on a collision course for the lights (maybe I'm not using the correct term for the lighting system I'm describing?).

If you're flying at least a 3 degree approach to the touchdown zone, you won't hit the approach lights. The FAA isn't that stupid. The approach lights are supposed to be an aid to landing, not an obstacle.

At KDEN some of the approach lights are on ~25 foot towers, but they are at the same level as the runway. The ground slopes downward, so they had to use towers to get the lights at the same level.

 

[COFlyBoy]

First time I saw approach lights was when I was over them at KACY. I wasn't sure of exactly what I was seeing. I'm still not sure how much clearance I had over them. How high are they anyway?

Here's one of the approach lights at KACY (its the orange stick). They have MALSR according to airnav. It looks like it is about 10 feet hight. Not much higher than the fence.

 

[dmccormack]

How do you stay out of the approach lights when (for example) at dusk on a westerly approach course?

You must be from Kansas...

See, in West Virginia and some other places there are these things called "hills." Sometimes airports are built on TOP of the hills. So the lights need towers just to be level.

 

[poadeleted20]

You really only end up in the approach lights if you're short of the runway.

...which was my not-very-clear point. Chopping power when you see the runway is a great way to end up short of the runway.

In any event, yes, we often use the term "AGL" when we should be saying "ATDZE," but it's an old habit.

 

[Jaybird180]

Here's one of the approach lights at KACY (its the orange stick). They have MALSR according to airnav. It looks like it is about 10 feet hight. Not much higher than the fence.

Well that makes me feel better.

 

[p1l0t]

Yeah even if you see approach lights that are 10' above ground way back from the runway near the road that is a non-issue probably less than one degree compared to a typical three to four and a half degree glide slope. You can, however, often find 50' tall trees at the end of [sometimes a short-field] runway. That's when its time to dust off the old POH and make sure that your expectations match the performance charts.

 

[Jaybird180]

I am confident in my short field capabilities. My mentor (Vietnam Vet Pilot) stated that he once flew into the airport where I trained. I had previously been unaware that many (experienced) pilots don't like flying into and from there.

Now that I've seen something different, I can appreciate longer and wider runways and intend to visit my alma-mater from time/time just to keep the dust off.

I know what you mean about trees. Add power lines, turbulence from US-50 , the FRZ and a 2400 x 40 foot runway with a slope, and that's W00 in a nutshell.