taking my checkride today, or tomorrow

[FastEddieB]

Touching down at the beginning of the third runway stripe takes just as much skill and finesse, but doesn't come with the same risk. This is the point I was trying to get across, and also the one that was relayed to me by the old aviator.

Understood and do not disagree.

It all hinges on comfort level, and I would never encourage anyone to do things they're not comfortable with.

Then again, expanding one's "comfort zone" is a net "good thing" in aviation.

[dstclair]

I was a land on the numbers pilot until transitioning to my Sting. My instructor pointed out that I only needed a fraction of the runway in an LSA, increased safety of landing longer and the practical aspect of less taxiing (depending on turnouts).

My home airport is a short (by US standards) 2950' with one non-end turn out, conveniently place by the fuel pump. This turnout is around 600' from the south end of the runway which makes it unusable for me when landing to the north. Landing on the numbers would force a looong taxi on the runway to the north end of the runway so typically target landing at the fuel turn-out which still leaves me twice the needed runway.

Landing to the south, I target 500' down the runway to comfortably coast to the fuel turn-out.

[3Dreaming]

Touching down at the beginning of the third runway stripe takes just as much skill and finesse, but doesn't come with the same risk. This is the point I was trying to get across, and also the one that was relayed to me by the old aviator.

Understood and do not disagree.

It all hinges on comfort level, and I would never encourage anyone to do things they're not comfortable with.

Then again, expanding one's "comfort zone" is a net "good thing" in aviation.

Eddie, for me it is not about comfort level. I have the skill set to put the airplane where I want it. I used to put the airplane on the numbers, and could do it with precision. Now I put it where I want it, but the point I pick is down the runway a little. I see no point in adding extra risk by choosing to put it on the numbers instead. Other than if you need the whole runway length there is no good reason to land on the numbers instead of a point you choose farther down the runway. I know for many old aviators that is the way it has always been done, and I learned to fly that too. A little story about why I changed the point I choose to land on.
I had to do a test flight on a Cessna 210 after some maintenance. I took the local instructor/DPE with me on the flight. I came in for a perfect landing, putting the airplane right on the numbers. He said nice landing, but I don't want to see you do that again. He explained what I am trying to relay here. He told me landing on the numbers merely serves as a bragging point to other aviators and to boost your ego. He was right, and I changed where I choose to land on the runway

[CTLSi]

......

[3Dreaming]

When I fair the curve on comments about slips in this thread, what I see is that more experienced pilots see the broader, appropriate and helpful uses of a slip and less experienced pilots have a narrower view of the slip's utility and, for some a/c, its necessity. Personally, I would hate to give up the occasional usefulness of slipping the a/c on final. I think it would make me a less safe pilot.

I'm also not a fan of always choosing to avoid landing on the numbers. Partly that's because my home airport's main runway is 4000' long with the prevailing wind usually meaning my only taxiway turnoff is 1500' down the runway. So I either make that taxiway - without tire scrubbing and burdening the brake pads - or I accept the 2500' additional runway, perhaps mess with the approach of the guy behind me, and extend the taxi back to the fuel farm. More importantly, it is excellent and necessary practice for those times I truly need to land on the numbers (aka: use all the runway available). Any mountain flying course, where short runways are assumed, will usually start the curriculum by refining this practice, in high DA conditions to boot. Conditions, runways and airport surroundings vary so much that attempting to always land on the numbers would no doubt be foolish. Similarly, it seems to me that always avoiding the goal of landing on the numbers is to tie one hand behind one's back. But perhaps for folks without the constraints I sometimes face, it could always appear an unnecessary risk. Goes to show how the kinds of flying we do can be so varied.

Wrong.

A dead pilot with 100 hours is the same as a dead pilot with 10,000 hours. It is patently wrong to fly poorly and excuse the sloppy technique and risk taking by alleging 'more experience' allows it.

New pilots should not be subjected to such nonsense. And it's irresponsible for high time pilots to excuse poor flying technique masked as 'special skill.'

Slip to landing to lose altitude in a sloppy approach is a desperation move.

Want a good example of a 4,000 hour guy who killed himself by 'assuming' he didn't need transition training and pulled a bonehead move over the runway? Check this NTSB report out.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-0 ... -says.html

You do know that the FAA considers slips important enough that they require them to be taught to student pilots prior to solo? If you don't, take a look at CFR 61.87, (d), (14). If you didn't get this training maybe it should be reported to the FAA.

[sandpiper]

When I fair the curve on comments about slips in this thread, what I see is that more experienced pilots see the broader, appropriate and helpful uses of a slip and less experienced pilots have a narrower view of the slip's utility and, for some a/c, its necessity. Personally, I would hate to give up the occasional usefulness of slipping the a/c on final. I think it would make me a less safe pilot.

I'm also not a fan of always choosing to avoid landing on the numbers. Partly that's because my home airport's main runway is 4000' long with the prevailing wind usually meaning my only taxiway turnoff is 1500' down the runway. So I either make that taxiway - without tire scrubbing and burdening the brake pads - or I accept the 2500' additional runway, perhaps mess with the approach of the guy behind me, and extend the taxi back to the fuel farm. More importantly, it is excellent and necessary practice for those times I truly need to land on the numbers (aka: use all the runway available). Any mountain flying course, where short runways are assumed, will usually start the curriculum by refining this practice, in high DA conditions to boot. Conditions, runways and airport surroundings vary so much that attempting to always land on the numbers would no doubt be foolish. Similarly, it seems to me that always avoiding the goal of landing on the numbers is to tie one hand behind one's back. But perhaps for folks without the constraints I sometimes face, it could always appear an unnecessary risk. Goes to show how the kinds of flying we do can be so varied.

Wrong.

A dead pilot with 100 hours is the same as a dead pilot with 10,000 hours. It is patently wrong to fly poorly and excuse the sloppy technique and risk taking by alleging 'more experience' allows it.

New pilots should not be subjected to such nonsense. And it's irresponsible for high time pilots to excuse poor flying technique masked as 'special skill.'

Slip to landing to lose altitude in a sloppy approach is a desperation move.

Want a good example of a 4,000 hour guy who killed himself by 'assuming' he didn't need transition training and pulled a bonehead move over the runway? Check this NTSB report out.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-0 ... -says.html

And this article has what to do with slips and landing on the numbers?

Would you rather be too high and slip to correct? Or too low and have the engine balk when you tried to add power?

A slip is a tool in my piloting toolbox. One I don't need to use very often. But, I do keep in practice for when I might actually need it. Sometimes going around is not very practical. And, if I am checking a person out in an aircraft, slips will be included. As will full flaps, no flaps, and all in between. If the person can't perform these within reason, my name doesn't go in their log.

Landing on the numbers? Sometimes that's where I want to be, other times maybe not. Depends on the airport. Many of my flying years were spent landing on shorter runways including gravel bars, beaches, lakes and rivers. Landing at the approach end was usually a good thing.

At this stage in your flying career you do not have the experience to speak in such absolutes. This is not meant to be a negative comment. It is a fact and every one of us was was where you are at one time. We got our licenses, listened a lot, asked questions and learned.

[CTLSi]

......

[drseti]

Tyler asserts that some magical number of hours in the air equals some special insight into poor flying techniques.

That's not at all what I read in his post.

A high approach equals a poor approach.

Except when conditions require it. Then, it equals a good approach.

When some of you who claim superiority based on flying hours defend and perpetrate poor flying technique you are hurting those that are in training and don't know any better yet.

If you are suggesting that only high-time pilots use slips, you should really come and do some training (or a flight review) with me. Appropriate use of slips is something my primary students must demonstrate pre-solo. Flight hours have nothing to do with it.

[Jack Tyler]

"Tyler asserts that some magical number of hours in the air equals some special insight into poor flying techniques."
Cecil, thanks for putting your words in my mouth...which of course were not my words.

"A high approach equals a poor approach. Using a slip to get down is a weak and flaky flying technique..."
This is a good example why your limited experience combined with your absolute & sweeping statements are both misleading and not welcome. Note the comments Eddie made just a few posts ago about energy management; it would be helpful for you to consider them. Here's another example for you to mull over: An approach into a backcountry airstrip - nearby terrain, high trees immediately at one or both ends, short runway - is all about energy management. Flying a standard pattern at one's normal altitude? Using a standard glideslope? Sorry, none of that is available...so now what? With training, practice and finally experience, the ability to do that approach becomes an available - and also a safe - tool. So a pilot isn't supposed to practice those approaches to maintain currency? Or he's a flaky pilot because he does practice them? Or he's a poor pilot when he does use them? Come on, fella. Open up and let a bit of the world in...

To everyone else: This thread sure turned sideways from a check ride note...but I think it's been one of our better discussions. One reason I believe that's true is that we are seeing how different runways, different planes, different risk vs. reward equations and different comfort levels can make the landing approach such a dynamic event.

[zaitcev]

I would guess that over my career, I've probably made at least 20,000 landings. I can recall exactly one, on RWY 9R at Opa Locka, where in trying to show off I came up maybe a foot short of the pavement in a Citabria (I think) and kicked up some gravel.

This reminds me. I was in Florida on vacation once and thought I'd rent an Arrow to fly to KSC, so I went for a checkout with a local FBO (I think it was in Opa Locka, although it could be Hollywood -- it was during a major construction when they closed most runways except 1). When it came back to land, my CFI insisted that I aimed well short of the ruway, flared, and floated onto the runway. Took me a few tries to get it, but man. What a way to land.

[drseti]

The flare-and-float approach works well if you come in too hot, but it usually means you haven't nailed the proper approach speed.

[snaproll]

Noted the long discussion on approach techniques, slips, etc. A well prepared pilot practices closed throttle with no flaps, with each increment of flaps, and with slips both with and without flaps landing on a specific spot on the runway. Randomly cutting power at various positions in the pattern and planning to touch down at that same spot no matter what hones pilot skills and prepares a pilot for the inevitable engine out emergency landing. My old instructor was “really” old school and randomly cut power away from the airport and said “find a place to land”. I was not allowed power until I touched the mains down, whether it be in an open field, dirt road, river bottom, etc. The preparation was invaluable with my first, second, and succeeding engine failures – never scratched an airplane. Years back, most aircraft I flew did not have flaps and practicing slips to hit a spot on the runway was important. My flying habits have not changed in almost 50 years, I always approach either high if there is and obstruction or hot with no obstruction insuring I make the runway without power, and yes, I typically slip the airplane.

[MrMorden]

A slip to landing is NOT to be used to save a bad approach, extended or short. If too high go around. Guys slipping on every landing are definitely wandering away from best practice.

Very few pilots are right in the exact place they need to be, at the perfect speed, from abeam the numbers all the way to the touchdown point on *every* approach. Every approach is different and under different conditions, and most will require some control inputs to correct as the approach progresses.

So at what point do you realize you are high and go around? Short final? turning final? What if you are turning base and you can see you are high...go around? What if you are high abeam the numbers...go around?

It's not as simple as "if too high go around." It's not about "saving a bad approach" it's about the constant corrections in speed, altitude, and direction that go into making *any* approach work out. If you are high and you have time to correct it, then add flaps, slip, etc as needed. If you are low, add power until you are back on the desired glide path.

If you know your abilities and can safely fix an approach that isn't perfect, why wouldn't you? As soon as you know an approach can't be fixed without a lot of intervention or it starts feeling too much like work, sure, it's time to give it up and go around. High winds, night time, a short runway, or other complicating factors mean you should make that decision much easier. But I think adjusting your approach to make it work out when you can is a very valuable skill that promotes pilot proficiency and helps prepare for difficult conditions when they occur.

[drseti]

My flying habits have not changed in almost 50 years

Damn, Don, you're actually proud of being an old codger?

[FastEddieB]

"Note the comments Eddie made just a few posts ago about energy management; it would be helpful for you to consider them. Here's another example for you to mull over: An approach into a backcountry airstrip - nearby terrain, high trees immediately at one or both ends, short runway - is all about energy management. Flying a standard pattern at one's normal altitude? Using a standard glideslope? Sorry, none of that is available...so now what? With training, practice and finally experience, the ability to do that approach becomes an available - and also a safe - tool.

Far from the gnarliest back-country strip you'll ever find, but this was my home base for a while in N GA (57GA, Blue Ridge Skyport).
You can fast forward to about the 1 minute mark here:

http://youtu.be/R0IK7sm59sY?list=UUIRbX ... AUSLfkBO7w

Watch the ball and see how I use a slight slip nearly all the way in on final to steepen my already-full-flaps angled final.

And then close to a maximum effort slip to get down to the runway.

Could this have been done without slipping? In a Light Sport - probably, albeit with a whole lot more runway used. Getting my Cirrus in there was trickier and at least one Mooney managed to run off the end.

In any case, for me slipping is a tool I use routinely - not as a bandaid for a botched approach. Without that tool one can still fly safely, but I hold that every extra tool in a pilot's toolkit expands the horizons of what he or she can safely do.