Buying your own plane for training

Sport aviation is growing rapidly. But the new sport pilot / light-sport aircraft rules are still a mystery to many flight schools and instructors. To locate a flight school offering sport pilot training and/or light-sport aircraft rentals, click on the "Flight School And Rental Finder" tab above. This is a great place to share ideas on learning to fly, flight schools, costs and anything else related to training.

Moderator: drseti

User avatar
FastEddieB
Posts: 2213
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Buying your own plane for training

Postby FastEddieB » Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:53 am

Wm.Ince wrote:Therefore, he should be decreasing the approach angle by increasing his rate of descent?
I would recommend reducing power, adding drag (flaps and/or slip) and increasing rate of descent until a normal approach angle was intercepted. At that point, it becomes a 'normal approach' profile.


I'm just a little confused.

I see a steeper approach as one with a greater angle.

For instance, a PAPI is normally 3°. But the one we just had approved at Copperhill utilizes 4° for the RWY20 approach. That's clearly a larger approach angle to provide a steeper approach due to terrain.

Unless I'm totally misreading you.
Fast Eddie B.
Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA
FastEddieB@mac.com

Wm.Ince
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:27 pm
Location: Clearwater, FL

Re: Buying your own plane for training

Postby Wm.Ince » Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:51 am

FastEddieB wrote:
Wm.Ince wrote:Therefore, he should be decreasing the approach angle by increasing his rate of descent?
I would recommend reducing power, adding drag (flaps and/or slip) and increasing rate of descent until a normal approach angle was intercepted. At that point, it becomes a 'normal approach' profile.
I'm just a little confused.
I see a steeper approach as one with a greater angle.
For instance, a PAPI is normally 3°. But the one we just had approved at Copperhill utilizes 4° for the RWY20 approach. That's clearly a larger approach angle to provide a steeper approach due to terrain.
Unless I'm totally misreading you.
We are on the same page.
In the example he gave, he was steeper than the desired approach angle (high and fast).
In order to "capture" the desired angle, he should have increased his descent angle (by increasing rate of descent for a constant speed) until the desired approach angle was intercepted. Current descent angle is not necessarily desired approach angle. If current descent angle is flown to thresold, then it has also become the approach angle.
Bill Ince
CTSW
Retired Heavy Equipment Operator

User avatar
FastEddieB
Posts: 2213
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Buying your own plane for training

Postby FastEddieB » Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:02 pm

Got it!

Still curious to hear the rationale behind the no-flap landing, though.
Fast Eddie B.

Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA

FastEddieB@mac.com

Wm.Ince
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:27 pm
Location: Clearwater, FL

Re: Buying your own plane for training

Postby Wm.Ince » Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:17 pm

eyeflygps wrote:Yes. Reduce power. Raise nose. Slow down. Add flaps. Increase approach angle. Rate of descent may or may not increase (in fpm), but approach angle will be steeper due to slower air speed and ground speed.
If the approach is already steep (high and fast), why would you want to increase approach angle (i.e. going from 4 degrees to 5 degrees)? Wouldn't that be making it even steeper?
By "Reducing power. Raise nose. Slow down," that is counter productive in increasing a descent rate. The intent is to increase descent angle, not the approach angle. Let's not confuse the two.
Last edited by Wm.Ince on Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Bill Ince
CTSW
Retired Heavy Equipment Operator

User avatar
FastEddieB
Posts: 2213
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Buying your own plane for training

Postby FastEddieB » Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:29 pm

Wm.Ince wrote:
eyeflygps wrote:Yes. Reduce power. Raise nose. Slow down. Add flaps. Increase approach angle. Rate of descent may or may not increase (in fpm), but approach angle will be steeper due to slower air speed and ground speed.
If the approach is already steep (high and fast), why would you want to increase approach angle (i.e. going from 4 degrees to 5 degrees)? Wouldn't that be making it even steeper?


Confused again!

If you don't increase approach angle, making it steeper, you're likely to land way, way down the runway, or maybe even overshoot it altogether.

Reducto ad absurdum, what would happen if you decreased your approach angle to 0º? Increasing approach angle is how you get down!
Fast Eddie B.

Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA

FastEddieB@mac.com

rcpilot
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2015 4:32 pm
Location: Mastic, NY

Re: Buying your own plane for training

Postby rcpilot » Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:35 pm

Ok, so people don't get in a tizzy, let me clarify. Normally I don't make long final approaches(unlike many people I've seen at my home airport, KHWV). So I'm used to cutting the power and can usually apply flaps and have a comfortable approach and touch down near the end of the runway. Yes, because of traffic I've had to extend my downwinds and make longer approaches. As you would expect I compensate by adding power(trying not to get too low as they've had complaints about low flying planes. Imagine that.) In general I'd rather error on being a little too high then too low, especially when there is plenty of runway. Maybe it's just me, but sometimes, even when making what looks like a great approach, the Zenith might be just a bit outside the white arc and when that happens, I just don't bother with the flaps. The plane lands just fine. So yeah, at Gabreski and Islip I probably could have reduced the power a little sooner and maybe gotten into the white arc and used flaps but hey, I got down safely, with plenty of room and didn't have to stress over hitting the ILS lights. Look, is everyone of my landings perfect, ah no, but you know what they say about landings.

Wm.Ince
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:27 pm
Location: Clearwater, FL

Re: Buying your own plane for training

Postby Wm.Ince » Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:43 pm

FastEddieB wrote:Increasing approach angle is how you get down!
We are talking apples and oranges here.
The initial scenario was "high and fast," meaning steep.
To shallow out the steep approach angle, an increased descent angle must be flown, until the normal approach angle is intercepted.
Once intercepted the descent rate can be reduced. At that point, the descent angle and approach angle coincide. Then the approach is not steep (high) anymore.
Bill Ince
CTSW
Retired Heavy Equipment Operator

User avatar
FastEddieB
Posts: 2213
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Buying your own plane for training

Postby FastEddieB » Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:56 pm

Wm.Ince wrote: At that point, the descent angle and approach angle coincide.


Sorry.

I just find the way you're expressing it confusing, as if descent angle and approach angle are two separate things.

Maybe it's just me. I'll assume it is.
Fast Eddie B.

Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA

FastEddieB@mac.com

Wm.Ince
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:27 pm
Location: Clearwater, FL

Re: Buying your own plane for training

Postby Wm.Ince » Fri Dec 23, 2016 12:59 pm

eyeflygps wrote:Actually, his descent angle may have been fine. He was high and lowered the nose to the descent angle needed to reach the end of the runway. However, being high and lowering the nose would result in a too fast airspeed and he would probably need to lower the nose some more and on and on.

By reducing power, raising the nose, slowing down, and adding flaps, his approach angle may have remained the same but his airspeed would be reduced and his ground speed would be reduced. His descent angle may have been fine, may need to be increased, or may need to be decreased. You don't know unless you were there or knew precise distances, altitudes, speeds, etc.

Concur.
When he said "high," I presumed he meant steep, but since your post, I can see maybe not, since he was on a long straight in. He may have been on a normal approach angle (3 degrees) but with plenty of altitude (even above pattern altitude).
Bill Ince
CTSW
Retired Heavy Equipment Operator

Wm.Ince
Posts: 609
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:27 pm
Location: Clearwater, FL

Re: Buying your own plane for training

Postby Wm.Ince » Fri Dec 23, 2016 1:05 pm

FastEddieB wrote:
Wm.Ince wrote: At that point, the descent angle and approach angle coincide.
Sorry.
I just find the way you're expressing it confusing, as if descent angle and approach angle are two separate things.
Maybe it's just me. I'll assume it is.
Sorry for the confusion.
You are correct. I am distinguishing between descent angle and approach angle.
Bill Ince
CTSW
Retired Heavy Equipment Operator

3Dreaming
Posts: 2090
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: Buying your own plane for training

Postby 3Dreaming » Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:16 pm

He said he was a little high and fast. To me a little is slightly above the glide path. Also the airplane he is flying has a really slow Vfe, and if I remember correctly they are somewhat ineffective. Depending on where he was on the approach slowing to add flaps could have produced a longer landing.

User avatar
FastEddieB
Posts: 2213
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Buying your own plane for training

Postby FastEddieB » Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:45 pm

3Dreaming wrote:He said he was a little high and fast. To me a little is slightly above the glide path. Also the airplane he is flying has a really slow Vfe, and if I remember correctly they are somewhat ineffective. Depending on where he was on the approach slowing to add flaps could have produced a longer landing.


Well, let me add the usual warning...

If one were to find oneself in the above-described situation, and the only way to land was with no flaps, the Most Conservative Action would be to go around and try again.

PS - I'm having a bit of trouble envisioning how approaching and landing without flaps from a too-high approach would ever result in a shorter landing than getting full flaps in and taking it from there. But maybe that's just a failure of imagination! :wink:

PPS - The classic scenario is sometimes referred to as "High, hot and overshot"!
Fast Eddie B.

Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA

FastEddieB@mac.com

3Dreaming
Posts: 2090
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:13 pm
Location: noble, IL USA

Re: Buying your own plane for training

Postby 3Dreaming » Fri Dec 23, 2016 6:29 pm

Guys, I was just taking an educated guess based on what has been said about the airplane. I agree that in normal circumstances with most airplanes slowing and adding flaps would be the right thing to do. I think criticizing him on what he said based on the picture in your mind without knowing the idiosyncrasies of this model airplane and the actual details of what the approach was isn't fair.

User avatar
FastEddieB
Posts: 2213
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Buying your own plane for training

Postby FastEddieB » Fri Dec 23, 2016 7:13 pm

3Dreaming wrote:I think criticizing him on what he said based on the picture in your mind without knowing the idiosyncrasies of this model airplane and the actual details of what the approach was isn't fair.


I in no way meant to criticize!

I just wanted to understand the logic where a high, fast approach would lead to a no-flap landing, since it seemed not to follow.

Since he was with an instructor, I also wanted to be sure he was taking away the right lesson from the experience.
Fast Eddie B.

Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA

FastEddieB@mac.com

User avatar
FastEddieB
Posts: 2213
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:33 pm
Location: Mineral Bluff, GA

Re: Buying your own plane for training

Postby FastEddieB » Fri Dec 23, 2016 7:22 pm

eyeflygps wrote:One thing we didn't talk about is how do you prevent this situation when making a long straight-in approach for one reason or another?


I was taught, and went on to teach, that on a straight-in to think of the traffic pattern as a string. You then "cut the string" and mentally place it along the straight-in. IOW, if you normally have items you accomplish abeam the numbers - flaps, carb heat, power reduction, whatever - try to visualize where that point would be on the straightened string. If you normally turn final around 500', try to aim for that same position, and then each approach will at least be kind of familiar.

Does that make sense?
Fast Eddie B.

Sky Arrow 600 E-LSA • N467SA

FastEddieB@mac.com


Return to “Training”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests