At 01:40 18 May 2018, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 9:00:15 PM UTC+12, Jonathon May
wrote:
At 06:36 17 May 2018, Bruce Hoult wrote:
On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 1:43:09 PM UTC+12, Richard
McLean wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 May 2018 22:21:48 UTC+8, Matt Herron Jr.
wrote:
from my perspective, reducing airbrakes at 100' changes your
glide
slop=3D
e and therefor aim point half way through final. So do you give up
your
in=3D
itial aim point at 100', or do you have two aim points? Either
option
seem=3D
s like a bad idea for students.
=3D20
Airbrake deployment should be a driven variable to maintain a
correc=
t
a=3D
pproach, not the other way around.
=3D20
Additionally, a shallower approach for the last 100' means you
are
way
=3D
more susceptible to wind shear, as you don't have much "extra"
glide to
rec=3D
over by closing the airbrakes.
=3D20
To me, it sounds like the tail strike problem is in the flair, not
the
=3D
use of airbrakes.
=3D20
Hi Matt, yes you give up the original aim point. This isn't ideal
but
bet=3D
ter than damaging the aircraft? The debrief can cover off the
reasons.
Lots=3D
of bad landings are the result of not accepting that you stuffed up
you=
r
o=3D
riginal aiming point & concentrating on the actual landing.

I'd think if you were so high turning final that you can't get back
on
t=
o
a=3D
standard half brake approach by, say, 100m before crossing the
fence
then
=3D
you've well and truly stuffed up the circuit. Especially in something
with
=3D
airbrakes as powerful as a DG1000 or Grob. You definitely should
never
b=
e
p=3D
lanning to carry full brake all the way down the approach ... that
leave
no=3D
thing in reserve for the unexpected.
=20
Trick one
I have not flown the DG1001 neo yet but I have quite a lot of time in
the
original DG1000,you need a step to get people in,if that is the
angle
f=
or
2point landing them the newer versions going to land tail wheel first