I guess the question comes down to energy management.
At one extreme, if you come in low and slow on a long
final you run the risk of not being able to extend
your touchdown point should an obstacle become apparent.
At the opposite extreme, a short, high and fast approach
runs the risk of running too long on touchdown, even
with full spoilers.

I've opted for being a bit faster in the pattern to
keep some extra margin for wind gusts and to allow
more margin for moments of distraction turning base
or final. To keep total energy under control, this
means flying a bit lower pattern. Flying 70 knots instead
of 60 knots means about 50' lower in the pattern for
the same total energy. Obviously you'd start to slow
down before getting to treetops or other obstacles.


In a 'standard' approach you have to lose about 20
knots from final approach to touchdown. I need lose
30 knots, which means starting that process a few seconds
sooner. The flatter glidepath on short final means
that you are, for a brief period, at a lower angle
to your final touchdown point, so you do get a peek
at potential obstacles. I can't say that this has ever
directly benefitted me, but I do know of cases where
pilots have been too slow on final, with bad results.

9B

At 23:24 28 August 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
Chris OCallaghan wrote:
Andy,

I guess my only comment is a question: Does it really
make any
difference in what you see? Framing wires against the
sky (if that's
your intent) requires being lower than the wires. Which
in turn means
you are at risk of hitting other wires.

What is the genesis of this approach? It clearly requires
advanced
energy management skills, so it isn't appropriate for
low time pilots
(the majority) or lower peformance sailplanes. Was
it suggested by
someone, or is it someplace you arrived through time
and experience?

I'll give it a try at the home drome during my next
few flights. But I
guess I'm still having trouble determining what advantage
I have by
flying a base and final leg low and fast. Would you
apply the same
method for an approach over tall trees? Even if it
meant losing sight
of your intended touch down point during much of the
final leg?

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with Andy yet, but
let's consider for a moment the psychological effect
of
this idea: perhaps it helps focus the pilot on the
objects between the glider and the intended touchdown.
Or helps orient the pilot to the type of terrain found
on the way in, or gets him lower so it's easier to
determine wind
direction from small cues on the ground.

Again, I'm not advocating the idea, but there are some
more
subtle points...
--

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