young eagle flight incident

[Hacker]

A recent FAAST seminar presented these clever acronyms:
ETOSARTO: Every TakeOff iS A Rejected Takeoff
ELISAGO: Every Landing IS A Go Around

Yep, these -- like "stabilized approach criteria" -- are also good techniques to help ensure a safe landing. The same caution applies as well: they are also not end state objectives in and of themselves.

 

[Ghery]

I'll say that I'm never fully configured at 1,000 feet and think that idea is stupid for spam cans. I doubt you ever go full flaps on the downwind in a spam can either.

Abeam the tower I've still got the flaps up and haven't reduced throttle (below what I'm using in the pattern, anyway). Full flaps don't happen until final.

Now, a stabilized approach works fine on an instrument approach where I'm striving for minimal corrections the whole time. A different situation. But, a VFR day in the pattern? A whole different story.

 

[oregonboy109]

We do 200ft AGL approach stabilized up here...works well.

 

[Hank S]

Good points. The examples brought out though in its self are stablized approaches, just using different techniques for each aircraft or situation. 2 mile approach for my A/C is about right (10,000 feet out at pattern alt to land on 5,000 rwy for good visual presentation of glide path, VASI or PAPI). Beam the numbers - gear down, 45 deg first notch flap & turn base adjust throttle...[/QUOTE]

I learned to fly a pattern about 1/2 mile from the runway. When I bought the Mooney, I found myself flying about 2-3 blocks wider, judging by the roads below me. A pattern 2 miles wide is excessive for most GA planes, I think. Not even the C414 based at our 3000' obstructed field flew that wide coming in . . . . Flaps start out on downwind; gear down abeam intended point to of landing; adjust throttle and flaps as needed on final.

 

[bflynn]

Why no go around with 3 young lives on board?

Denial? The same reason pilots let PIOs go, hoping that they're not seeing what they're seeing?