Sport Pilot Talk

snaproll wrote: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.

Thanks for your comments.
I'd like to become proficient in practicing that.

One trick I learned in glider training is that if you find yourself coming up short (remember, adding power or going around are not options...), then assuming there are no obstacles, you push forward stick, pick up speed, then level off in ground effect and float all the way to the runway.

drseti wrote:assuming there are no obstacles, you push forward stick, pick up speed, then level off in ground effect and float all the way to the runway.

… and that my friends has a pucker factor of about 9.5 (especially if you really don'r have a motor)!

I sure puckered the first time he had me try it, Richard, but to my CFIG it was no big deal. You can float a looooong way with a 35:1 L/D.

drseti wrote:

snaproll wrote: My flying habits have not changed in almost 50 years

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

Paul,
Was your flight examiner Orville or Wilbur? I am not that old, remember my father is still flying at 93.. VR.. Don

designrs wrote:

drseti wrote:assuming there are no obstacles, you push forward stick, pick up speed, then level off in ground effect and float all the way to the runway.

… and that my friends has a pucker factor of about 9.5 (especially if you really don'r have a motor)!

Personally . . . I would give it about 9.8.

snaproll wrote:Was your flight examiner Orville or Wilbur?

Actually, Don, it was Netta Snook. You may recall that she also taught Amelia (and I blame her for that unfortunate Howland Island incident).

All jest aside, I actually did meet Netta, in the '80s (and, yes, she was also in her 80s -- or maybe 90s!) Incredible woman, with some wonderful stories trapped away in her memory. You had to ask the right (leading) questions to unlock them. With some prompting, she told me how she had to dress in men's clothing when she hopped boxcars all the way to Elmira, to learn to fly from Glen Curtiss.

Never met Pancho Barnes, but I do sometimes get to fly her Stinson Station Wagon (I don't own it, but it now lives in my hangar at 1C9).

Nobody left from that generation. I feel honored to have known some of them.

My fictional character Avalon Eden is a composite of two of those actual early day female flight instructors. If you haven't read them, here's a link to some of the stories: http://avsport.org/publicat

snaproll wrote: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.

Couldn't agree more with this. From my little experience I have really come to appreciate that while a landing is the most critical stage of every flight it is also a critical training tool that should be taken advantage of on every flight. When I was first getting started I would watch private pilots dragging it in from miles out right on glide slope, thinking that must be nice to not have to worry about everything that comes with making power off landings and approaches. To be honest now it seems insane to me that anyone would want to do that. Not only are you not maintaining and honing energy management skills but if you do have an engine out coming in to land at most airports I fly into, you'd be in big trouble.

All I know is that in an emergency I would rather come in a little high than a little low. Being proficient at slipping will make this a non event. On the other hand if you are a little low there are little to no options. If your only option in an emergency is a short field slipping seems invaluable. For that reason I try to slip it in from time to time but I don't want to rely on it for to touch down where I want. I think it is interesting that this conversation has turned to this and it is some great information.

Interesting and funny story on this subject. As one of the instructors at my club was taking his cfis check ride, basically at the end of the flight, a valve broke off from the stem. Same aircraft I took my check ride in last week and with the same DPE. Anyways, he picked a field and slipped it in landing perfectly without a scratch. doing an engine out was the last thing the examiner was going to do so he passed him and gave him his instructor ticket.

......

CTLSi wrote: If you are unable to fly a pattern at the correct altitude, and unable to determine that you are at the correct altitude from base to final and unable to judge the speed, decent and width of your turns then you will eventually get into trouble in your 'erratic' technique.

Go back to the basics and start practicing extended approaches. The POH gives information on landing confi flap and speeds. Use the PAPI or VASI lights if you don't know your numbers and want verification of the glide slope on final.

Both I, my CFIs, and the DPE are satisfied with my 'erratic' approach. I will make sure to let them know of your concerns.

BTW, normal PAPI and VASI are set up for a 3° glide slope, which is often/usually too shallow for a power off light LSA to maintain. Most LSA will start above the glideslope, pass through it, and then be "low" over the threshold. If you maintain a 3° glideslope in a CT, you are probably carrying more energy than you need to into the landing.

MrMorden wrote:Most LSA will start above the glideslope, pass through it, and then be "low" over the threshold. If you maintain a 3° glideslope in a CT, you are probably carrying more energy than you need to into the landing.

This is really helpful. I was thinking about this as I tend to come in at a nice angle (most times) and then see the glideslope indicate below... and I say "But it looks right to me!"

Is a normal for an LSA to see "low" at say 300' of altitude with a nice normal sight picture?

designrs wrote:

MrMorden wrote:Most LSA will start above the glideslope, pass through it, and then be "low" over the threshold. If you maintain a 3° glideslope in a CT, you are probably carrying more energy than you need to into the landing.

This is really helpful. I was thinking about this as I tend to come in at a nice angle (most times) and then see the glideslope indicate below... and I say "But it looks right to me!"

Is a normal for an LSA to see "low" at say 300' of altitude with a nice normal sight picture?

I don't know the exact altitude where the crossover from high to low happens, but when I'm on my normal approach with the PAPI on it shows all white, then goes white/red for just a couple of seconds, then goes all red. I only use it as a general guideline (if it's all white over the fence, you might be just a little bit high, lol...) and actually judge the approach by my eyeballs and feel of the sink rate of the airplane.

This was all pointed out to me when I was training at Lockwood Aviation. I was on final, saw I was low by the approach lights, and added power. The instructor saw what I was doing and said "don't go by the lights, they are for heavier airplanes with more inertia and that approach won't work for us."

MrMorden wrote:The instructor saw what I was doing and said "don't go by the lights, they are for heavier airplanes with more inertia and that approach won't work for us."

Well, they are useful at night, especially at unfamiliar airports.

Other than that...

1) As stated, at 3° glide path you are beyond power-off gliding range of the runway. That may be an acceptable risk for some, but altitude always gives you more options.

2) Look where the lights are located - that is pretty much where you will begin your roundout and flare, normally landing a hundred or more feet beyond them. In a Light Sport on a long runway, no problem - but that may not always be the case.

To be honest, I have not paid any attention to VASI lights in a long time, since I'm no longer flying at night.

FastEddieB wrote:

MrMorden wrote:The instructor saw what I was doing and said "don't go by the lights, they are for heavier airplanes with more inertia and that approach won't work for us."

Well, they are useful at night, especially at unfamiliar airports.

Yes, I would absolutely use them at night to ensure obstacle and terrain clearance. But most on this board are not doing much night flying, so I didn't mention that.

I view them as an added tool. Since I land beyond the numbers, I find my normal approach to be above the glideslope for most of the approach and ends up on slope at the runway threshold.