power off approach tips? remos g3

[Jack Tyler]

Jon, I'm fairly convinced from your earlier posts that your CFI is simply inexperienced with LSA's and being overly cautious. But regardless, I'd encourage you to follow Paul's suggestion: the two of you fly to a comfortable altitude and go thru all the slow flight drills you are familiar with. Let both of you discover how the plane handles in a bank at the low end of the band, and at what speed it actually stalls when in the landing configuration he/you choose when doing routine landings. And because you will have already reviewed the (ahem...) 'AOI' numbers, compare how that plane is flying with what the AOI is recommending. My bet is that the AOI will represent the a/c accurately, the CFI and you will both gain some confidence in the numbers as published in the AOI, and you'll both have a chance to discover first-hand that you won't fall out of the sky when flying IAW the manufacturer's recommendations. And that in turn will get you flying approach speeds that others here are recommending.

BTW there's an excellent article written by Barry Schiff on the 'Impossible Turn' that I'd recommend you read when you have a chance. (This refers to the standard axiom that the pilot should ONLY land straight ahead when presented with loss of power on takeoff, rather than attempting to return to the airport). Part of Schiff's discussion on this issue - and why the axiom can be bad rather than good advice - talks about the kind of air work needed to determine just what's possible with a given a/c in slow flight. When adjusted a bit, it would be an excellent guide for you doing what Paul recommended, as well.

Unfortunately, Schiff's article (in April's PILOT magazine) apparently can't be accessed unless you are an AOPA member and log on first...but here's an Aviation Summit summary of his talk on this topic:
http://www.aopa.org/summit/news/2010/101113turn.html
This link is worth looking at because the video link of a Mooney pilot who just happened to be running a video camera when he lost power on takeoff...and attempted the Impossible Turn. He did it out of reflex, without really thinking about it. Schiff's methodical, thoughtful discussion of how to - potentially - have the Impossible Turn in one's back pocket is the safe way. Excellent article.

I would consider it a plus that you've had multiple CFI's in your logbook (if I bothered to think about it at all) if this was the result of wanting a good instructor/student 'fit' and because a given CFI lacked substantial experience in the a/c being used for instruction. That tells me you are trying to get the most from your instructional hours. Keep in mind that my son had perhaps 15 or 20 instructors in his log book by the time he graduated from Primary at Pensacola. <s>

One related thought: Ernie's got a lot of experience (which I lack) in an LSA and obviously has dialed in all the numbers for his a/c and a normal approach. But two things struck me about the specific regimen he outlined: how much time do his eyes stay outside the cockpit, and just how helpful are all the altitude vs. speed vs. flap settings vs. engine rpm combinations when e.g. there's a strong headwind...or crosswind...or when the landing is otherwise atypical (e.g. flying into Sun 'n Fun, being asked by ATC to expedite the approach, clearing a high obstacle, doing a short field landing, and so forth). When flying the family AA-5, all 3 of us had similar combos of numbers for a routine landing that Ernie mentions, so knowing them isn't my concern. I just wanted to note that a) such numbers will not always fit the circumstances and b) especially given the clever avionics in these modern LSA's, it can be tempting for one's eyes to spend too much time inside the cockpit.

[Jon V]

A lot of thoughtful, and thought provoking, advice.

My CFI-count concern is probably silly. It comes from thinking of my logbook as akin to a resume. In my work if I see many short engagements on a resume, well, in my experience it's a legitimate red flag. Of course that's looking at the whole student/CFI relationship backwards but that's habitual thought for you.

Regarding the impossible turn... the CFI I was originally planning to fly the Remos with talked about going to one of the larger (but not super busy) airports in the area and, with tower in the loop, practicing exactly those turns in the Remos. Unfortunately, he isn't flying at all in June (he'll be out of state) and our schedules don't mesh well. I'm an AOPA member so I'll check out that article.

Headwinds and gusts are part of the reason I'm not willing to say outright, "we're doing it wrong," at this point. It has been windy almost every flight. In fact most of the cancelled lessons have been due to wind > 25Kts.

On the other hand...first, we were running almost exactly the same numbers on a day with <5kts of wind (METAR actually read 0). Second, even in strong winds, the book (Remos calls it a "Pilot Information Manual" or PIM, so AOI, PIM, POH) says, "In a headwind component of more than 17 mph (15 kts) it is recommended to carry out the landing with a flaps setting of 15°." We have landed with headwinds over 15kts and kept the 30° flaps...I would think if we are adjusting for strong winds (half the gust and so on) we would do more than just fly faster.

Take the plane up to altitude, and do power-off stalls in the landing configuration. Do several, and determine what Vso really is. Then, try for 1.4 Vso on downwind, 1.3 Vso on final. This may well yield slower (or maybe even faster) numbers than the book calls for, but give them a try and see what happens. If you get too much sink, or float, you can then tweak the numbers for what works.

I've been trying to think of ways of doing exactly that (determine actual performance), so this was a great help. The manual's Vapproach (59) is a rounded 1.3Vso (58.5) so if we can demonstrate a stall at 45 we've pretty much confirmed the manual's numbers.

...especially given the clever avionics in these modern LSA's, it can be tempting for one's eyes to spend too much time inside the cockpit.

One of the reasons I opted to fly with this FBO is that their G3s have minimal avionics. In fact, the plane doesn't have even gyro instruments. I wanted to concentrate on flying "outside the cockpit" because that was really the fun part, and the part that seems to take the most practice/feel development.

Thanks again.

[drseti]

Unfortunately, Schiff's article (in April's PILOT magazine) apparently can't be accessed unless you are an AOPA member and log on first

I have a solution for that! Jon, email or PM me your postal address, full name, and email address, and I'll sign you up for a complimentary 6-month AOPA membership. Then, you can go online and download articles.

[Jon V]

Paul... very kind of you to offer that. I would take you up on that but I am already a member. In fact my card says I've been a member since 2005 but just between you and me there was a bit of a gap - the middle four or so years.

Had a pretty good talk with my CFI, which ended with "let's try it" ... perfect weather/no wind/clear sky, but when I started taxiing it felt like the brakes were stuck on. A bit of a let down but I told my instructor, "This feels wrong. What do you think?" He agreed so we turned around and parked to let the mechanic have a look.

Next lesson is scheduled for next Thursday because I have some traveling to do this week. Then we're going to try for the 5 days a week pace again and hopefully weather will be a little kinder.

[snaproll]

Jon,
I am "old school" and procedures were taught a little different. When I learned to fly, the instructor would cut the power anywhere in the pattern an tell me what spot I had better hit on the runway. He would also cut power away from the airport and say find a place to land - and not allow power until my mains touched down in a field or dirt road. Point is plan you flights and pattern work with the intent of making the runway. Flaps and slips are a good tool to burn off excess speed and altitude, but start practicing without flaps and make every landing dead stick from the downwind leg. Master this and the rest comes easy. I have had 5 engine failures in my life and have never scratched an airplne. I now fly a Remos GX and have no problems with approach or landings. Good luck..
VR.. Don Stits

[drseti]

VR.. Don Stits

Damn, that name's familiar. Your "old school" reference was a tipoff. Are you by any chance Ray Stits' son? If so, nice to meet you (and if not, it's still nice to meet you).

[snaproll]

Guilty as charged... Guess I should watch that old school stuff.. Ray still flys, turns 90 this month, and took delivery on a Skycatcher several weeks ago.
VR.. Don

[drseti]

Guilty as charged... Guess I should watch that old school stuff..

Nah, it's a useful secret code between guys of our generation.

Ray still flys, turns 90 this month, and took delivery on a Skycatcher several weeks ago.

I'm so glad to hear that! I suppose you know your dad is a god within EAA. And now, he could be a poster child for the whole LSA movement!

I'm guessing he's basing that Skycatcher at FlaBob?

My mom is also about to turn 90 (which, I guess, makes us contemporaries). She was just out for a visit last week (she still lives in CA; I moved to PA 21 yrs ago), but refused to go flying with me. So, I guess she must be getting older...

We could reminisce, but should probably take this off-thread. Feel free to email me any time, at [email protected].

Safe skies,
Paul

[Jack Tyler]

And to the larger group reading this, don't necessarily think Don's description is terribly 'old school'. Not that long ago, both my PPL instructor (a mid-40's woman) and my instrument instructor (now 86, and Al's still flying, doing flight reviews & instructing) had this same expectation:

"When I learned to fly, the instructor would cut the power anywhere in the pattern and tell me what spot I had better hit on the runway."
(However, in my case they told ME to cut the power...).

For those of you learning (and aren't we all...), think about this a moment: Not only is the instructor expecting the student to 'make the field' and land safely regardless of where power loss occurs...but the instructor is also expecting the student to land at a specific spot on the runway. This can seem all but impossible at first. But as it turns out, this is actually quite do-able once one becomes familiar with the variables in the plane's flight envelope, the existing wind conditions, and so forth. And if you read an earlier post from me (above), you'll notice my son & I would routinely have contests, in turn, on who could best do this kind of landing while doing landings at our home field. At the time, Dev was between 18 and 20.

Don points out he's had 5 power losses and not yet scratched or bent a plane. I'd say there are two lessons there: first, power losses aren't all that uncommon, so having this kind of skill set available might well come in handy for any given pilot. And second, practice really does pay off. I've 'only' had two power losses (so far), one due to an IA & A&P (and finally, me!) failing to fully inspect the a/c after its annual and failing to notice a single missing cotter pin on a castellated nut. The other was due to a catastrophic engine failure well before its TBO. One landing was relatively easy; I was near a Class B airport. The other was on a deserted barrier island beach laced with rock erosion barriers and driftwood. No scratches on our plane, either...but because of those practice sessions, I'm sure.

[Jon V]

I don't see any of that as farfetched or especially unusual. Well, one exception... actually touching the ground during away-from-airport emergency power off landing practice. I don't think we ever got lower than 10' AGL. The floor was set by usage rights (the "fields" we used for practice were tiny little private utility runways used to access monitoring stations for reservoir lakes, or the old/closed El Toro USMCAS airfield, or probably-private land) and insurance/FBO policy (no off-airport landings).

I suspect we're talking about different things though. Maybe it's only a distinction in my mind, but...this is what my previous CFIs (mostly my first) taught, and we practiced often (again, speaking mostly of the first)...from the FAA AFH (h-8083-3a):

EMERGENCY APPROACHES AND LANDINGS (SIMULATED)

From time to time on dual flights, the instructor should give simulated emergency landings by retarding the throttle and calling “simulated emergency landing.” The objective of these simulated emergency landings is to develop the pilot’s accuracy, judgment, planning, procedures, and confidence when little or no power is available.

A simulated emergency landing may be given with the airplane in any configuration. When the instructor calls “simulated emergency landing,” the pilot should immediately establish a glide attitude and ensure that the flaps and landing gear are in the proper configuration for the existing situation. When the proper glide speed is attained, the nose should then be lowered and the airplane trimmed to maintain that speed.

A constant gliding speed should be maintained because variations of gliding speed nullify all attempts at accuracy in judgment of gliding distance and the landing spot. The many variables, such as altitude, obstruction, wind direction, landing direction, landing surface and gradient, and landing distance requirements of the airplane will determine the pattern and approach procedures to use.

Utilizing any combination of normal gliding maneuvers, from wings level to spirals, the pilot should eventually arrive at the normal key position at a normal traffic pattern altitude for the selected landing area. From this point on, the approach will be as nearly as possible a normal power-off approach. [Figure 8-29]

With the greater choice of fields afforded by higher altitudes, the inexperienced pilot may be inclined to delay making a decision, and with considerable altitude in which to maneuver, errors in maneuvering and estimation of glide distance may develop. All pilots should learn to determine the wind direction and estimate its speed from the windsock at the airport, smoke from factories or houses, dust, brush fires, and windmills.

Once a field has been selected, the student pilot should always be required to indicate it to the instructor. Normally, the student should be required to plan and fly a pattern for landing on the field first elected until the instructor terminates the simulated emergency landing. This will give the instructor an opportunity to explain and correct any errors; it will also give the student an opportunity to see the results of the errors.

However, if the student realizes during the approach that a poor field has been selected—one that would obviously result in disaster if a landing were to be made—and there is a more advantageous field within gliding distance, a change to the better field should be permitted. The hazards involved in these last-minute decisions, such as excessive maneuvering at very low altitudes, should be thoroughly explained by the instructor.

Slipping the airplane, using flaps, varying the position of the base leg, and varying the turn onto final approach should be stressed as ways of correcting for misjudgment of altitude and glide angle. Eagerness to get down is one of the most common faults of inexperienced pilots during simulated emergency landings. In giving way to this, they forget about speed and arrive at the edge of the field with too much speed to permit a safe landing. Too much speed may be just as dangerous as too little; it results in excessive floating and overshooting the desired landing spot. It should be impressed on the students that they cannot dive at a field and expect to land on it.

During all simulated emergency landings, the engine should be kept warm and cleared. During a simulated emergency landing, either the instructor or the student should have complete control of the throttle. There should be no doubt as to who has control since many near accidents have occurred from such misunderstandings.

Every simulated emergency landing approach should be terminated as soon as it can be determined whether a safe landing could have been made. In no case should it be continued to a point where it creates an undue hazard or an annoyance to persons or property on the ground.

...

It was very "by the book", very useful, and I enjoyed it quite a bit too which was a nice bonus. Never had any problem with it beyond normal learning curve.

This is what my current CFI was trying to do, which in turn caused me to start this thread:

POWER-OFF ACCURACY APPROACHES

Power-off accuracy approaches are approaches and landings made by gliding with the engine idling, through a specific pattern to a touchdown beyond and within 200 feet of a designated line or mark on the runway. The objective is to instill in the pilot the judgment and procedures necessary for accurately flying the airplane, without power, to a safe landing.

The ability to estimate the distance an airplane will glide to a landing is the real basis of all power-off accuracy approaches and landings. This will largely determine the amount of maneuvering that may be done from a given altitude. In addition to the ability to estimate distance, it requires the ability to maintain the proper glide while maneuvering the airplane.

With experience and practice, altitudes up to approximately 1,000 feet can be estimated with fair accuracy, while above this level the accuracy in judgment of height above the ground decreases, since all features tend to
merge. The best aid in perfecting the ability to judge height above this altitude is through the indications of the altimeter and associating them with the general appearance of the Earth.

The judgment of altitude in feet, hundreds of feet, or thousands of feet is not as important as the ability to estimate gliding angle and its resultant distance. The pilot who knows the normal glide angle of the airplane can estimate with reasonable accuracy, the approximate spot along a given ground path at which the airplane will land, regardless of altitude. The pilot, who also has the ability to accurately estimate altitude, can judge how much maneuvering is possible during the glide, which is important to the choice of landing areas in an actual emergency.

The objective of a good final approach is to descend at an angle that will permit the airplane to reach the desired landing area, and at an airspeed that will result in minimum floating just before touchdown. To accomplish this, it is essential that both the descent angle and the airspeed be accurately controlled. Unlike a normal approach when the power setting is variable, on a power-off approach the power is fixed at the idle setting. Pitch attitude is adjusted to control the airspeed. This will also change the glide or descent angle. By lowering the nose to keep the approach airspeed
constant, the descent angle will steepen. If the airspeed is too high, raise the nose, and when the airspeed is too low, lower the nose. If the pitch attitude is raised too high, the airplane will settle rapidly due to a slow airspeed and insufficient lift. For this reason, never try to stretch a glide
to reach the desired landing spot.

...
The basic procedure in these approaches involves closing the throttle at a given altitude, and gliding to a key position. This position, like the pattern itself, must not be allowed to become the primary objective; it is merely a convenient point in the air from which the pilot can judge whether the glide will safely terminate at the desired spot. The selected key position should be one that is appropriate for the available altitude and the wind condition. From the key position, the pilot must constantly evaluate the situation.

...

180° POWER-OFF APPROACH
The 180° power-off approach is executed by gliding with the power off from a given point on a downwind leg to a preselected landing spot. [Figure 8-27] It is an extension of the principles involved in the 90° poweroff approach just described. Its objective is to further develop judgment in estimating distances and glide ratios, in that the airplane is flown without power from a higher altitude and through a 90° turn to reach the base-leg position at a proper altitude for executing the 90° approach.

The 180° power-off approach requires more planning and judgment than the 90° power-off approach. In the execution of 180° power-off approaches, the airplane is flown on a downwind heading parallel to the landing runway. The altitude from which this type of approach should be started will vary with the type of airplane, but it should usually not exceed 1,000 feet above the ground, except with large airplanes. Greater accuracy in judgment and maneuvering is required at higher altitudes.

When abreast of or opposite the desired landing spot, the throttle should be closed and altitude maintained while decelerating to the manufacturer’s recommended glide speed, or 1.4 VSO. The point at which the throttle is closed is the downwind key position.

The turn from the downwind leg to the base leg should be a uniform turn with a medium or slightly steeper bank. The degree of bank and amount of this initial turn will depend upon the glide angle of the airplane and the velocity of the wind. Again, the base leg should be positioned as needed for the altitude, or wind condition. Position the base leg to conserve or dissipate altitude so as to reach the desired landing spot.

The turn onto the base leg should be made at an altitude high enough and close enough to permit the airplane to glide to what would normally be the
base key position in a 90° power-off approach.

Although the key position is important, it must not be overemphasized nor considered as a fixed point on the ground. Many inexperienced pilots may gain a conception of it as a particular landmark, such as a tree, crossroad, or other visual reference, to be reached at a certain altitude. This will result in a mechanical conception and leave the pilot at a total loss any time such objects are not present. Both altitude and geographical location should be varied as much as is practical to eliminate any such conception. After reaching the base key position, the approach and landing are the same as in the 90° power-off approach.

Unfortunately, it wasn't nearly so successful. As in, neither the CFI nor I could do it. We could land the plane, sure, about 3000' long. It also, as this thread has pointed out, wasn't particularly "by the book." Oh, the maneuver is IN the book, yeah, but we weren't following the book's advice on how to successfully carry out the maneuver. We were running about 15% over recommended speeds, etc.. These were not "control manipulation" errors, but judgments of the CFI which I did not (and still do not, except in the "he believed another CFI over the handbook" sense) understand.

The result was a bit frustrating. Just a titch. Kinda. I don't mind deviating from standard practice, and I don't mind learning through trial and error, but when I can't understand the thinking behind a deviation, and it isn't working, the combination just bugs me.

For the sake of completeness, the "default" type of landing my first CFI drilled into me is a by-the-book "NORMAL APPROACH AND LANDING", which means stabilized approach, power-on, etc. He was the main source of the distinction in my mind between "normal" and "emergency" as different conditions requiring different approaches.

In the hours since CFI #1 took his job at a regional I've figured out that he was teaching almost 100% "by the book"... by the POH, by the AFH, by the PTS, etc.. Everything I learned from him has aligned, sometimes word for word, with some mainstream/official source such as FAR/AIM, AFH, the POH for the plane we were flying, etc...which makes him unique amongst CFIs in my experience.

In case anyone hasn't read it, all quoted text came from this document:
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/airc ... _handbook/
Chapter 8.

[snaproll]

Guilty as charged... Guess I should watch that old school stuff..

Nah, it's a useful secret code between guys of our generation.

Ray still flys, turns 90 this month, and took delivery on a Skycatcher several weeks ago.

I'm so glad to hear that! I suppose you know your dad is a god within EAA. And now, he could be a poster child for the whole LSA movement!

I'm guessing he's basing that Skycatcher at FlaBob?

My mom is also about to turn 90 (which, I guess, makes us contemporaries). She was just out for a visit last week (she still lives in CA; I moved to PA 21 yrs ago), but refused to go flying with me. So, I guess she must be getting older...

We could reminisce, but should probably take this off-thread. Feel free to email me any time, at [email protected].

Safe skies,
Paul

Paul,
He is still out of Flabob and is enjoying his light sport. Ray maintained his 3rd class up until last year and finally switched over. What I find interesting is 5 of the 15 aircraft he designed actually fall under the current light sport classification. Best wishes - will contact you offline - wouldn't want to bore the other members with old history. By the way, the "old school training" was useful - I was winning spot landing contest at airshows in the 60's.... Don

[Jon V]

Flew with the CFI again yesterday.

We tried approaches at 60, 65, and 70.

(A) I recognize that my knowledge and time-in-cockpit/perception is very limited. I have only a few hours of training and I have a fair amount of rust from 6 years of not flying.

(B) I'm, according to the CFI, "not initiating my flare soon (high) enough."

(C) With a 60 or 65 MPH approach, flaring where/how he wants, the plane reaches the limit of elevator travel several feet up and drops onto the runway. Thunk. That was him cutting short my round-out by puling back for me.

(D) Approaching at 70, rounding out and starting a very slight flare where he wants, and then milking it down. Timing of the final bit of the flare (to get the nose high sight picture) is very critical.

His position now is, "We tried it, 70 worked best. Slower is maybe OK for a really experienced pilot but you've got to judge the flare just exactly right."

I must've been tired at that point because I replied, "We were flaring way too high and dropped it in." He gave me a long stare in return.

Meh, to hell with it. I'm just venting now. Sorry.

[bitten192]

Have you guys actually read the POH (sorry Paul, that's what REMOS calls it) for the G3?

7.8 Approach

To prepare for approach, switch on the electric fuel pump and set the elevator trim to the neutral position and set carburetor heat to "warm" as necessary. When entering final, we recommend establishing an airspeed of 60 to 63 mph (52 to 55 kts) and extending flaps to the 40° position.

7.9 Normal Landing

The airspeed for touch down should indicate about 40 mph (35 kts) with flaps down (40°) and 45 mph (39 kts) with flaps up (0°). The touch down should be first onto the main gear. The maximum permissible crosswind component must not exceed 17 mph (15 kts). In a headwind component of more than 17 mph (15 kts) it is recommended to carry out the landing with a flaps setting of 15°.

The G3 is not a C152 or a Grumman AA5 or a REMOS GX. Suggest you learn how to fly it the way the manufacturer recommends. Seen the utube video of the REMOS breaking a nose wheel on landing?


Good Luck

Ernie