Steep approach gone bad

[jesse]

Several have posted that the approach was so bad. Any of you that have not been that far out of whack on any approaches, say with a strong gusty crosswind component? If so did your nose gear collapse like that?

Oh sure - I've had some less than beautiful landings in some challenging conditions (some in perfect conditions). But I've never drove the nose wheel into the ground. You can botch a whole hell of a lot in a landing but slamming the nosewheel HARD is really one that shouldn't happen, period.

There was a moment in that video where I reached for the control stick I didn't have to get that nose up right before impact. It needs to be instinct and the instructor botched that. I've had a couple of times where I've let someone that either barely flys or is completely unfamliar with the model land and have seen that exact sight picture - difference was I got the nose up before they drove it in.

 

[ScottM]

Several have posted that the approach was so bad. Any of you that have not been that far out of whack on any approaches, say with a strong gusty crosswind component? If so did your nose gear collapse like that?

Sure, I have had some crappy approaches, sometimes I was able to salvage them too other times I went around. But I never dove for the ground.

Heck, one of my go arounds is on youtube.

The story is that I aborted the first attempt because an ultralight cut me off. On the 2nd go attempt I was just too fast on a short runway after flying a close in pattern and not setting myself up great. I tried bleeding off speed but at halfway down the runway I was still not landing and going too fast. I decided then to go around and on the third attempt I landed. This was at 6Y9.

You can see it here at 1:25 in the video below.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Yeah, that really is the question isn't it. I wonder if he got a 709 out of that... As soon as the nose started to lower he should have been on the stick adding back pressure while telling him what he was doing and why. What's saddest is that the student still didn't understand what happened, which means he still didn't get any learning value out of the accident. He thinks it stalled.

It didn't stall, of course. He stopped flaring and it developed a nasty sink and pancaked hard enough to break stuff. Nowhere near stall, but in airplanes that are light and that might also have lower aspect ratios, sink is more of a threat than the stall. My Jodel will behave exactly the same way long before stall speed is reached. And a lot of stall-proof Ercoupes got busted this way, too.

Dan

 

[AdamZ]

I watched the video a couple of times and didn't see anything I recognized as a stall. I think he just flew it into the ground and broke the nose gear during the resulting PIO.

I agree. I didn't see a stall but thought he did a carrier landing and got pranged on the bounce.

 

[sba55]

Well of course!

But, I assume the case here was an instructional flight. A key skill is being able to place the airplane where you intend. It's one thing to intentionally land somewhere down the runway to save a long taxi or make a certain taxiway. It's something altogether different to be so hosed up you aren't quite sure where you are going to touch down.

This case was clearly the latter.

Agreed. I'm only saying that it's a good thing to learn how to make a good landing out of this approach; even if the approach obviously needs work.

 

[poadeleted20]

Agreed. I'm only saying that it's a good thing to learn how to make a good landing out of this approach; even if the approach obviously needs work.

I didn't see anything particularly bad about the approach -- just a failure to flare properly at the end. But I'm thinking the instructor's right hand fingers should have been resting on the stick, not the instrument panel.

 

[xaminmo]

I think the Remos IAS vs CAS is a big difference at low speeds. Not an issue, they were going plenty fast enough for that little plane, even if they had been at max gross.

Steep approach is OK as long as you don't land on the nose. The gear is fiberglass, so not very forgiving.

They flared high, AND kept in way too much power.
When he flared, he kept flying, so he pushed it onto the runway.
That broke the gear and after the bounce, it landed on the prop.

I agree with the "not keeping backpressure" comments above. Once you're in the flare, I'd hope power would be pulled to idle, and the stick should have kept moving back (roughly equal pressure) until you're at the end, then promptly, but gently let the nose wheel down.

He let the nosewheel down while still flying.

 

[poadeleted20]

One thing I'm learning about the CTsw is that with anything more than just a smidgen of power, it won't come down at all unless you dive at the runway at about 1.5 Vs. It seems happiest with a speed on final of about 52-54 knots, depending on weight, and slowing to about 48-50 knots over the fence. Anything more, and you're either going to plant it nosewheel first or float forever. Of course, if you scale those numbers to a C-172, that's about the same as 60 KIAS on final and 55 KIAS over the fence, which just goes to show that the FAA's generally-recommended 1.3 Vs0 on final and 1.2 Vs0 over the fence is a pretty good number in almost any light SE airplane.

 

[xaminmo]

which just goes to show that the FAA's generally-recommended 1.3 Vs0 on final and 1.2 Vs0 over the fence is a pretty good number in almost any light SE airplane.

I agree wholeheartedly. Since VREF of 1.3Vso (14 CFR 23.73(a)) is based on max gross with CG at forward limit, there should be more than ample room for imperfect speed control at 1.3Vso without risk of stalling. Gust factors, especially in the Remos in that video, should be pretty small considering it's limited to 25kts headwind and 15kts crosswind for takeoff and landing.

 

[sba55]

I didn't see anything particularly bad about the approach -- just a failure to flare properly at the end. But I'm thinking the instructor's right hand fingers should have been resting on the stick, not the instrument panel.

Not inherently, sure. It doesn't seem like the objective was to land long, but maybe it was, in which case the approach was appropriate.