I'm taking my 2nd stab at my commercial checkride in a couple days.
Last week, I got through the Oral exam fine. We first flew my
instructor's Bonanza for the complex pattern work. Didn't do too bad on
the soft-field stuff, but I sailed right past my short-field mark by
about 300 feet. We then tried a short approach. Not even the 180 deg
accuracy landing. Just make the runway. Well, after several laps of
dropping the gear abeam the numbers, I did it again & came up well
short of the runway.
Pink slip.
I've gone up with my instructor to work on both accuracy landings, but
can't seem to hit them consistently. Any advice? Any examiners care to
tell how much "fudge" factor they may allow if I'm a little short or
long? If I am, can I request another try at it?
I haven't even had the chance to demonstrate the airwork in my Cherokee
yet (which I think will go much better). I'm hoping the DE will let me
do that stuff first & save the complex for last. But, since the complex
is what I failed the first time, I don't know if we have to complete
that first.
My CFI says I fly just fine, and I'm starting to feel more comfortable
in the Bo (only 7 hours so far). I've got 160+ in the Cherokee & 450
total. I'm just psyching myself out over 2 little landings.
Ugh.

wrote:
> I'm taking my 2nd stab at my commercial checkride in a couple days.
> Last week, I got through the Oral exam fine. We first flew my
> instructor's Bonanza for the complex pattern work. Didn't do too bad on
> the soft-field stuff, but I sailed right past my short-field mark by
> about 300 feet. We then tried a short approach. Not even the 180 deg
> accuracy landing. Just make the runway. Well, after several laps of
> dropping the gear abeam the numbers, I did it again & came up well
> short of the runway.


With the Bo and a short approach put the gear down no later than
midfield. Full flaps, power off. Turn base at the approach end, speed
no more than 90 mph, assuming you and the FAA man on board. One
sweeping turn to final. You can't land short if you don't go past the
end of the runway. Much better to roll off the end at a slow speed than
stall it in short. You'll still only need 1000 feet of runway if you
keep the speed to 85 mph on the downwind to base.

> wrote

> My CFI says I fly just fine, and I'm starting to feel more comfortable
> in the Bo (only 7 hours so far). I've got 160+ in the Cherokee & 450
> total. I'm just psyching myself out over 2 little landings.
> Ugh.

I don't know what everyone else thinks, but that does not seem like very
much time to transition into a Bo, to me.

Perhaps your instructor rushed you to the test, a little bit.

Nothing like practice. Good practice, that is. <g>
--
Jim in NC

Lands are all about controlling speed, the right speed. 1.3
Vs(x) for the weight you're actually flying. You didn't say
what model Bonanza, but an A36 can be 800 pounds under
certificated GW, or 25% under. You must reduce your
approach speed by the proper amount or you will float
forever. Beech does publish excellent TO and Landing graphs
with speed adjustments.
You can fly a few knots, not more than 5, faster which will
give you a steeper descent and then you can use the extra
speed to slow down to get a better glide. If you are using
best glide speed there is nothing you can do to improve your
approach without adding power.

You are likely flying too fast and too wide on downwind.
You are also probably watching your gauges and airspeed as
you configure the Bonanza for the approach, do it by sound
and feel and watch the runway for relative motion (drift and
glide path) and you should do fine.

Remember, you will get a landing gear failure and it may
come in the pattern with a simulated engine failure. Make
sure you know the procedure and have checked during the
pre-flight that the gear handle can be un-stowed [sometimes
the spar cover is installed over the handle]. But also
remember that it take 50 turns to get the gear down and you
only have so much time. If he gives you a simulated engine
failure and then the gear fails, exercise your judgment,
tell him that in a real case you'd land gear up rather than
risk a crash while trying to crank the gear. Then add power
and go-around, crank the gear on downwind to show him you
know how. Sometimes an examiner will give you a task to see
if you have fixated on the checkride and not the safety of
the flight.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P


> wrote in message
oups.com...
| I'm taking my 2nd stab at my commercial checkride in a
couple days.
| Last week, I got through the Oral exam fine. We first flew
my
| instructor's Bonanza for the complex pattern work. Didn't
do too bad on
| the soft-field stuff, but I sailed right past my
short-field mark by
| about 300 feet. We then tried a short approach. Not even
the 180 deg
| accuracy landing. Just make the runway. Well, after
several laps of
| dropping the gear abeam the numbers, I did it again & came
up well
| short of the runway.
| Pink slip.
| I've gone up with my instructor to work on both accuracy
landings, but
| can't seem to hit them consistently. Any advice? Any
examiners care to
| tell how much "fudge" factor they may allow if I'm a
little short or
| long? If I am, can I request another try at it?
| I haven't even had the chance to demonstrate the airwork
in my Cherokee
| yet (which I think will go much better). I'm hoping the DE
will let me
| do that stuff first & save the complex for last. But,
since the complex
| is what I failed the first time, I don't know if we have
to complete
| that first.
| My CFI says I fly just fine, and I'm starting to feel more
comfortable
| in the Bo (only 7 hours so far). I've got 160+ in the
Cherokee & 450
| total. I'm just psyching myself out over 2 little
landings.
| Ugh.
|

Jim Macklin > wrote:
> If he gives you a simulated engine failure and then the gear fails,
> exercise your judgment, tell him that in a real case you'd land gear
> up rather than risk a crash while trying to crank the gear.

I don't know about you, Jim, but if I was working a real engine
failure, I'm not sure I'd have the presense of mind to even notice if
the gear down light came on or not :-)

Been there, you notice. You may ignore it, but you should
notice.



"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin > wrote:
| > If he gives you a simulated engine failure and then the
gear fails,
| > exercise your judgment, tell him that in a real case
you'd land gear
| > up rather than risk a crash while trying to crank the
gear.
|
| I don't know about you, Jim, but if I was working a real
engine
| failure, I'm not sure I'd have the presense of mind to
even notice if
| the gear down light came on or not :-)

In article <4B6Fg.4479$SZ3.926@dukeread04>,
"Jim Macklin" > wrote:

> Lands are all about controlling speed, the right speed. 1.3
> Vs(x) for the weight you're actually flying.

Remember that Vsx gear down is about 15-20 mph slower than Vsx gear up.
Look it up in the charts.

> You didn't say
> what model Bonanza, but an A36 can be 800 pounds under
> certificated GW, or 25% under. You must reduce your
> approach speed by the proper amount or you will float
> forever. Beech does publish excellent TO and Landing graphs
> with speed adjustments.

Landing weight = w2
Max gross weight =w1
Stall speed landing weight, landing config = Vs1
Stall speed at max gross weight, landing config = Vs

[sqrt (w2/w1)*Vs] = Vs1

> You can fly a few knots, not more than 5, faster which will
> give you a steeper descent and then you can use the extra
> speed to slow down to get a better glide. If you are using
> best glide speed there is nothing you can do to improve your
> approach without adding power.
>
> You are likely flying too fast and too wide on downwind.
> You are also probably watching your gauges and airspeed as
> you configure the Bonanza for the approach, do it by sound
> and feel and watch the runway for relative motion (drift and
> glide path) and you should do fine.
>
> Remember, you will get a landing gear failure and it may
> come in the pattern with a simulated engine failure. Make
> sure you know the procedure and have checked during the
> pre-flight that the gear handle can be un-stowed [sometimes
> the spar cover is installed over the handle]. But also
> remember that it take 50 turns to get the gear down and you
> only have so much time. If he gives you a simulated engine
> failure and then the gear fails, exercise your judgment,
> tell him that in a real case you'd land gear up rather than
> risk a crash while trying to crank the gear. Then add power
> and go-around, crank the gear on downwind to show him you
> know how. Sometimes an examiner will give you a task to see
> if you have fixated on the checkride and not the safety of
> the flight.

Jim, is there any speed that is best to fly when cranking the gear down
by hand?

Roy Smith wrote:
> I don't know about you, Jim, but if I was working a real engine
> failure, I'm not sure I'd have the presense of mind to even notice if
> the gear down light came on or not :-)


Oh, you'll see it. You just won't care. <G>



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

As others have mentioned, speed control and a tight pattern. I'd rather be
high and tight, guaranteed to make the runway and allowing a slip as an
option, low and wide doesn't leave you that option. Explaining your
reasoning, as long as it's safe and correct, shows commercial knowledge.

My commercial ride was the last ride that I was able to take with our local
DE. He's a real parrot on checkrides and a great teacher. When we were
about 5ft agl on the 180 degree power off spot landing, he asked if we'd
make the designated touchdown spot. I responded confidently that we would
because if we were short the ride would be over. Then he asked what options
I had to extend the glide "just in case"... Prop I said, pull the prop and
reduce the disc drag. "Ever done it?" he asks. "Nope" by that time his
hand was already on the prop control and it was coming back. We floated an
extra distance, I can't remember how far, but he laughed and said "See how
that works? But think before you do it, you need oil pressure in a single"
And with that our ride ended on a fun and informative note.

Jim

JM makes a good point.
A go-around or an engine out approach are great times for a DE to pull the
gear circuit breaker while you're occupied with other things.

One thing that our DE, and I as well, try to drive into every commercial and
or complex student is to keep your hand next to the gear handle until you
get the "gear up" or "gear down" indications. It will serve as a physical
reminder to turn your eyes back to the indicators before your hand is
returned to service. Some will say to leave it on the handle, but those
who've broken their gear handles off when hitting turbulence will tell you
to just put your hand "near" the handle.
Jim B

I've gone up with my CFI for a couple more flights just working the landings
in the Bonanza (A BE33, by the way). They're alot better, but once in a
while I'll still float past where I need to be.
I failed the first short-field because I was way long, and the short
approach was well below best glide with the gear hanging out & a very nose
high attitude at the very last. We would have made the runway, but he called
for a go-around. That apparently, was the final straw that ended the ride. I
agree it was a crappy approach.
Now I've got them more consistent. But once in a while, there's still a
floater I can't seem to get down, or a power off that's setup & safe, but
still short of my desired touchdown point. Ugh.


"Jim Burns" > wrote in message
...
> As others have mentioned, speed control and a tight pattern. I'd rather
be
> high and tight, guaranteed to make the runway and allowing a slip as an
> option, low and wide doesn't leave you that option. Explaining your
> reasoning, as long as it's safe and correct, shows commercial knowledge.
>
> My commercial ride was the last ride that I was able to take with our
local
> DE. He's a real parrot on checkrides and a great teacher. When we were
> about 5ft agl on the 180 degree power off spot landing, he asked if we'd
> make the designated touchdown spot. I responded confidently that we would
> because if we were short the ride would be over. Then he asked what
options
> I had to extend the glide "just in case"... Prop I said, pull the prop and
> reduce the disc drag. "Ever done it?" he asks. "Nope" by that time his
> hand was already on the prop control and it was coming back. We floated
an
> extra distance, I can't remember how far, but he laughed and said "See how
> that works? But think before you do it, you need oil pressure in a single"
> And with that our ride ended on a fun and informative note.
>
> Jim
>
>

Morgans > wrote:

> I don't know what everyone else thinks, but that does not seem like very
> much time to transition into a Bo, to me.

I had about 550 hours in a C172 before I moved up to a Bonanza and it took
me about 12 hours with an instructor to get (more or less) comfortable with
the added workload and speed of the aircraft.

--
Peter

> But once in a while, there's still a
> floater I can't seem to get down, or a power off that's setup & safe, but
> still short of my desired touchdown point.

Are you taking wind sufficiently into consideration in your sight picture?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Peter R." > wrote

> I had about 550 hours in a C172 before I moved up to a Bonanza and it took
> me about 12 hours with an instructor to get (more or less) comfortable
with
> the added workload and speed of the aircraft.
>

Yeah, I would think. Did you also have to pass a commercial checkride at
the end of the 12 hours? I would think you would want to be more than (in
your words) "more or less comfortable with the added workload and speed"
before you had to pass a checkride, with all of the added pressures and
nervousness that "automatically" comes with a checkride.
--
Jim in NC

I like 1.5 Vs until on final, that provides a good margin
for maneuvering with bank angles up to 30 degrees. Yes you
can calculate the proper speed, Beech does have the proper
speeds on their performance charts, adjusted for actual
weight.


"john smith" > wrote in message
...
| In article <4B6Fg.4479$SZ3.926@dukeread04>,
| "Jim Macklin" >
wrote:
|
| > Lands are all about controlling speed, the right speed.
1.3
| > Vs(x) for the weight you're actually flying.
|
| Remember that Vsx gear down is about 15-20 mph slower than
Vsx gear up.
| Look it up in the charts.
|
| > You didn't say
| > what model Bonanza, but an A36 can be 800 pounds under
| > certificated GW, or 25% under. You must reduce your
| > approach speed by the proper amount or you will float
| > forever. Beech does publish excellent TO and Landing
graphs
| > with speed adjustments.
|
| Landing weight = w2
| Max gross weight =w1
| Stall speed landing weight, landing config = Vs1
| Stall speed at max gross weight, landing config = Vs
|
| [sqrt (w2/w1)*Vs] = Vs1
|
| > You can fly a few knots, not more than 5, faster which
will
| > give you a steeper descent and then you can use the
extra
| > speed to slow down to get a better glide. If you are
using
| > best glide speed there is nothing you can do to improve
your
| > approach without adding power.
| >
| > You are likely flying too fast and too wide on downwind.
| > You are also probably watching your gauges and airspeed
as
| > you configure the Bonanza for the approach, do it by
sound
| > and feel and watch the runway for relative motion (drift
and
| > glide path) and you should do fine.
| >
| > Remember, you will get a landing gear failure and it may
| > come in the pattern with a simulated engine failure.
Make
| > sure you know the procedure and have checked during the
| > pre-flight that the gear handle can be un-stowed
[sometimes
| > the spar cover is installed over the handle]. But also
| > remember that it take 50 turns to get the gear down and
you
| > only have so much time. If he gives you a simulated
engine
| > failure and then the gear fails, exercise your judgment,
| > tell him that in a real case you'd land gear up rather
than
| > risk a crash while trying to crank the gear. Then add
power
| > and go-around, crank the gear on downwind to show him
you
| > know how. Sometimes an examiner will give you a task to
see
| > if you have fixated on the checkride and not the safety
of
| > the flight.
|
| Jim, is there any speed that is best to fly when cranking
the gear down
| by hand?

Morgans > wrote:

> Did you also have to pass a commercial checkride at
> the end of the 12 hours?

Not at all. This was just to move up to the aircraft, not to obtain my
commercial. About half those hours were flying in real IMC to get used to
handling the aircraft in an IFR setting, which I don't believe is part of
the commercial training, is it?

In any regard, I doubt I would have passed the commercial checkride after
those 12 hours/

> I would think you would want to be more than (in
> your words) "more or less comfortable with the added workload and speed"
> before you had to pass a checkride, with all of the added pressures and
> nervousness that "automatically" comes with a checkride.

Agreed.

--
Peter

wrote:
> I'm taking my 2nd stab at my commercial checkride in a couple days.
> Last week, I got through the Oral exam fine. We first flew my
> instructor's Bonanza for the complex pattern work. Didn't do too bad on
> the soft-field stuff, but I sailed right past my short-field mark by
> about 300 feet. We then tried a short approach. Not even the 180 deg
> accuracy landing. Just make the runway. Well, after several laps of
> dropping the gear abeam the numbers, I did it again & came up well
> short of the runway.
> Pink slip.
> I've gone up with my instructor to work on both accuracy landings, but
> can't seem to hit them consistently. Any advice? Any examiners care to
> tell how much "fudge" factor they may allow if I'm a little short or
> long? If I am, can I request another try at it?
> I haven't even had the chance to demonstrate the airwork in my Cherokee
> yet (which I think will go much better). I'm hoping the DE will let me
> do that stuff first & save the complex for last. But, since the complex
> is what I failed the first time, I don't know if we have to complete
> that first.
> My CFI says I fly just fine, and I'm starting to feel more comfortable
> in the Bo (only 7 hours so far). I've got 160+ in the Cherokee & 450
> total. I'm just psyching myself out over 2 little landings.
> Ugh.
>
Too little time in the airplane to judge how it will respond to what you do.
Wait a while It takes time. I did not pass my ATP multi partly because
they switched airplanes on me at the last minute.
Michelle P

I got my commercial due to being a military pilot so I only had to take a
written test on civilian regulations. Won't the examiner allow you to use
power on final to drag it to the point you wish to land and then throttle to
idle? After I retired from the Air Force some friends let me be a member of
their aero club for free in exchange for flight instruction. This one guy
had the same problem you're having. He couldn't consistently land at the
beginning of an actual short runway. I asked him why he didn't take his
base leg out a little further so he could drag it in with some power and
then chop it at the runway. His eyes got big and he said he didn't think
that was legal. I told him it was silly to purposely enter an uncontrolled
event to avoid the POSSIBILITY of an engine failure and not having enough
glide speed/path to get to the runway. Sure, if you have a normal runway
length you should set up so that with an engine failure in the pattern you
can still make it to the runway.

You try not to deliberately enter a dangerous situation to avoid the
possibility of something else happening. But if the regs for the CHECK RIDE
don't allow it you have to do it that way for the check ride only. But not
in a real very short field situation.

--
Darrell R. Schmidt
B-58 Hustler History: (see below)
http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'm taking my 2nd stab at my commercial checkride in a couple days.
> Last week, I got through the Oral exam fine. We first flew my
> instructor's Bonanza for the complex pattern work. Didn't do too bad on
> the soft-field stuff, but I sailed right past my short-field mark by
> about 300 feet. We then tried a short approach. Not even the 180 deg
> accuracy landing. Just make the runway. Well, after several laps of
> dropping the gear abeam the numbers, I did it again & came up well
> short of the runway.
> Pink slip.
> I've gone up with my instructor to work on both accuracy landings, but
> can't seem to hit them consistently. Any advice? Any examiners care to
> tell how much "fudge" factor they may allow if I'm a little short or
> long? If I am, can I request another try at it?
> I haven't even had the chance to demonstrate the airwork in my Cherokee
> yet (which I think will go much better). I'm hoping the DE will let me
> do that stuff first & save the complex for last. But, since the complex
> is what I failed the first time, I don't know if we have to complete
> that first.
> My CFI says I fly just fine, and I'm starting to feel more comfortable
> in the Bo (only 7 hours so far). I've got 160+ in the Cherokee & 450
> total. I'm just psyching myself out over 2 little landings.
> Ugh.
>

There's 2 accuracy landings for Commercial. A short-field (with power) and a
180 degree power off landing.
I took my re-test today & passed! Got passed the landings I missed in the Bo
& then got to do the airwork stuff in my Cherokee. Whew. Now I can start
reading up on CFI training.

As my CFI & I were putting away the Bonanza, we watched 4 F-16s (based here)
make a tight short approach to land. They make it look easy... ;-)

Thanks for all those who chipped in some advice.

"Darrell S" > wrote in message
news:v5HFg.1632$y61.1016@fed1read05...
> I got my commercial due to being a military pilot so I only had to take a
> written test on civilian regulations. Won't the examiner allow you to use
> power on final to drag it to the point you wish to land and then throttle
to
> idle? After I retired from the Air Force some friends let me be a member
of
> their aero club for free in exchange for flight instruction. This one guy
> had the same problem you're having. He couldn't consistently land at the
> beginning of an actual short runway. I asked him why he didn't take his
> base leg out a little further so he could drag it in with some power and
> then chop it at the runway. His eyes got big and he said he didn't think
> that was legal. I told him it was silly to purposely enter an
uncontrolled
> event to avoid the POSSIBILITY of an engine failure and not having enough
> glide speed/path to get to the runway. Sure, if you have a normal runway
> length you should set up so that with an engine failure in the pattern you
> can still make it to the runway.
>
> You try not to deliberately enter a dangerous situation to avoid the
> possibility of something else happening. But if the regs for the CHECK
RIDE
> don't allow it you have to do it that way for the check ride only. But
not
> in a real very short field situation.
>
> --
> Darrell R. Schmidt
> B-58 Hustler History: (see below)
> http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/

It is a test, with a maneuver described.
http://www.faa.gov/education_research/testing/airmen/test_standards/pilot/media/FAA-S-8081-12B.pdf





"Darrell S" > wrote in message
news:v5HFg.1632$y61.1016@fed1read05...
|I got my commercial due to being a military pilot so I only
had to take a
| written test on civilian regulations. Won't the examiner
allow you to use
| power on final to drag it to the point you wish to land
and then throttle to
| idle? After I retired from the Air Force some friends let
me be a member of
| their aero club for free in exchange for flight
instruction. This one guy
| had the same problem you're having. He couldn't
consistently land at the
| beginning of an actual short runway. I asked him why he
didn't take his
| base leg out a little further so he could drag it in with
some power and
| then chop it at the runway. His eyes got big and he said
he didn't think
| that was legal. I told him it was silly to purposely
enter an uncontrolled
| event to avoid the POSSIBILITY of an engine failure and
not having enough
| glide speed/path to get to the runway. Sure, if you have
a normal runway
| length you should set up so that with an engine failure in
the pattern you
| can still make it to the runway.
|
| You try not to deliberately enter a dangerous situation to
avoid the
| possibility of something else happening. But if the regs
for the CHECK RIDE
| don't allow it you have to do it that way for the check
ride only. But not
| in a real very short field situation.
|
| --
| Darrell R. Schmidt
| B-58 Hustler History: (see below)
| http://members.cox.net/dschmidt1/
|
| > wrote in message
|
oups.com...
| > I'm taking my 2nd stab at my commercial checkride in a
couple days.
| > Last week, I got through the Oral exam fine. We first
flew my
| > instructor's Bonanza for the complex pattern work.
Didn't do too bad on
| > the soft-field stuff, but I sailed right past my
short-field mark by
| > about 300 feet. We then tried a short approach. Not even
the 180 deg
| > accuracy landing. Just make the runway. Well, after
several laps of
| > dropping the gear abeam the numbers, I did it again &
came up well
| > short of the runway.
| > Pink slip.
| > I've gone up with my instructor to work on both accuracy
landings, but
| > can't seem to hit them consistently. Any advice? Any
examiners care to
| > tell how much "fudge" factor they may allow if I'm a
little short or
| > long? If I am, can I request another try at it?
| > I haven't even had the chance to demonstrate the airwork
in my Cherokee
| > yet (which I think will go much better). I'm hoping the
DE will let me
| > do that stuff first & save the complex for last. But,
since the complex
| > is what I failed the first time, I don't know if we have
to complete
| > that first.
| > My CFI says I fly just fine, and I'm starting to feel
more comfortable
| > in the Bo (only 7 hours so far). I've got 160+ in the
Cherokee & 450
| > total. I'm just psyching myself out over 2 little
landings.
| > Ugh.
| >
|
|