Absolutely! Good story, the only problem that might
arise from doing a
360 on final is, if you are the first in a long string
of gliders lined up to
land. You might throw a lemon into someones plans for
a normal landing.
I guess land long and get off the RW.
Chuck

At 04:12 21 July 2006, Brad wrote:
Our club operated the last 2 weekends at a 'mountain'
airport in
Darrington Washington. This is a 2500' paved strip
at 540 msl. It is
aligned with the prevailing winds and is at the end
of a long valley.
Usually considered by local XC pilots as a land-out
field for our
mountain excursions; since the airport we usually fly
out of was sort
of off-limits during the Arlington Airshow, so we just
packed up and
headed to Darrington for a few weeks.

That being said, the first approach I made during our
encampment
would
be an example of 'another way to skin a cat'

After being in the air for over 4 hours, the first
2 hours duking it
out with Ron on Gold mountain in survival flying mode;
1 to 2 knot
lift, tight to the ridge and very carefully making
decisions regarding
360 turns or not.......then finding valley magic and
making huge 360's
with flaps all he way down, in the middle of the valley,
on auto pilot
mode.......it was time to land.

Of course now the whole valley is is lift, and we literally
had to find
sink to help us get down, the air is rowdy, the valley
is now a real
venturi and the treeline upwind of the airstrip is
sending swirly
dervishes hurtling towards the runway and providing
approaching pilots
with a handful of delights we normally don't see at
our sedate home
airport.

So.........to make a long story short, I will admit
I made a poor mid
field approach; too high and too close to the approach
end of the
runway. I find that I cannot continue the downwind
because Gold
mountain would probably fill my canopy with her trees,
and the wind is
hurtling me along at quite a clip, and it is now time
to turn to
final.......still way to high..........I turn final,
full spoilers, not
going to make it.....well.......maybe I could stop
at the end of the
runway..........maybe.........SOLUTION: do a 360, on
the 270 side of
the 360 the spoilers come fully out, a slight slip........correcti
ng
like crazy to stay alighned with the runway.....and
then I am on the
ground and rolling out. I stop at the intersection
and push off to the
ramp with the help of friends.

So what........I know a 360 in the approach is not
standard practice,
but it worked, I flew 5 more times during our encampment
there and
made
perfect standard approaches despite the turbulence
and rowdy air. The
360 worked, I'll do it again if needed, but it is not
somthing I will
use unless the situation calls for it.

My bad? I don't think so..........I think those of
us that do, do;
those of us that think we can, like to talk, or write,
excessively
about it........ and those of use that can't...........(fill
in the
blanks)

Cheers,
Brad
199AK





PeterK wrote:
Have you ever given any thought that there might be
another method
besides a
forward slip or spoilers?? Or let's just be narrow
minded about this.
There
is always more than one way to skin a cat. And by
the way, there is
nothing
new about the high parasitic drag approach is just
you obviously
never heard
about it. This sure smells like something personal
to me as well. (IT
actually stinks!) Peter Kovari (and this case,unlike
some others I
dare
spell out my name)
'MS' wrote in message
news:
...
Nothing personal at all. I guess it's because the
absurdity of not
being able to land a glider on a 6,000 foot runway
using the
conventional forward slip or spoilers. I often
hear glider pilots
over analyze and try to 'get to the heart of a deeper
problem in
order
to partially exonerate themselves. 'It couldn't
be me making
several
huge lapses in judgement, so it must be my instructors
fault for
not
providing me proper training. My instructors are
too
conservative.
They did not teach me everything I needed to know.'
The author
never
stated it that way, but that's what I got out of
the article.

I am an aviation safety counselor and I once had
to counsel an ATP
who
ran out of fuel on a personal flight. Luckily, it
ended without
damage
to the aircraft or killing him, his wife or his small
child. Part of
the 'punishment' the FAA handed out was for him to
give his story
at
several pilot meetings. He began his story ' Hey,
if it could
happen
to me, it could happen to anyone.' Although he admitted
to some
of the
error, he was still in denial that ithe series of
pilot errors he made
could be 100% avoided by him or other people.

I see some of the same theme in this article and
it really upsets
me.

I wouldn't have the problem with the article if the
author did not
blame 'conservativism' or his conservative flight
training as the
real
blame for his lack of airmanship, forethought and
planning. With
spoilers and a slip, I can induce 1,000 ft per minute
sink at 60kts
which should be sufficient to land on a 6,000 ft
runway from 500 ft
AGL
over the numbers. We practice rope breaks at 200ft
AGL in a
strong
headwind that becomes a strong tailwind once you
complete the
turn back
to the 4,000 runway. We rarely use up more than
3,000 ft to
come to a
complete stop.

The article should have stated the inherent dangers
with using a
high
drag approach, diving at the runway with full spoilers
and then
making
all the adjustments. It's not conservative. It's
not stable. It's not
needed.

MS
wrote:
There have been few articles in Soaring or subjects
on r.a.s.
which
have generated so much flak and so many 'ad hominem'

attacks against
the author of the articles. It seems that the most
virulent ones
were
sent anonymously or under initials only. Am I missing

something here,
or is there something personal against Jim Skydell
? The whole
point of
those two articles was to describe a series of events,
and NOT
excuse
them, so what is the beef ?

Cheers, Charles