Mark got it right.

Rather than fly from IP to the threshold at 55 knots
with, say, 1/2 spoiler, I will fly at 70-75 knots at
1/4 spoiler. This way I make all my turns at well above
stall speed and can handle gusts, etc better. I end
up on short final at a lower angle (better view), but
with more energy. If everything looks good, I go to
3/4 spoiler and bleed the energy down at constant altitude
(say 50-75'), then land as usual. If there is some
obstacle or other issue, I can close the spoilers and
have enough energy to pick a different touchdown point.
This requires that you have good spoilers and that
you don't over-do the extra speed - that could run
up the risk of over-shooting.

This is how I normally land, so it's not making everything
different just for outlandings.

Thoughts?

9B

At 04:30 27 August 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
Eric Greenwell wrote:
Andy Blackburn wrote:

I have often used somewhat higher speeds on approach
as well. The logic is simple: trade a little altitude
for airspeed and you will get a better perspective
on field slope, power lines and other features that
my not be visible at higher view angles.

I might not be visulizing this right: as you go down
final approach, you
reduce the spoilers and speed up, so you end up on
a lower glide path
but with an a more shallow approach?

At what altitude do you begin this speed/altitude trade?

There is practically nothing worse than having those
hidden power lines pop up above the horizon when you
are at 30' and 50 kts on final (this is the voice
of
experience from the person who had to pick up the
wreck).

So, the lines are hidden in the ground clutter, but
by coming in at a
more shallow angle, you can see them above the horizon
sooner (i.e.,
from farther away than with steeper approach)?

I think he's saying to use a flatter, faster glide
slope on
far out final, until 50-100 ft AGL, and then use a
steeper glide slope.
Remember he mentioned it wasn't a stabilized approach.
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA