Another hour logged

On Mar 12, 3:26 pm, Sam wrote:
On 12 Mar 2007 14:33:06 -0700, Robert M. Gary wrote:

[...]

In short, you are more likely (today) to damage something with a non-
stable final than an engine failure in the pattern. When I demo
landings now I set the plane up for landing at 500 feet and cross my
arms so they can see that everything is trimmed and set up for hands
off flight.

Interesting, and makes sense.
I spent many a buck mastering the glide approach as a separate
technique, ie pull the throttle somewhere abeam the numbers and don't
touch it again until you finish with the wings.
Do you still teach this? I mean it's very useful in the case of a
FLWOP don't you think?

Really the only time I pull the power in the pattern is before a non-
instrument checkride. I don't pull the power in the pattern in high
performance aircraft at all.
What I generally do is put the pilot under the hood and get him very
involved in some instrument procedures about 3,000 feet over an
airport (not the procedure airport). Then I pull the power and tell
him we just came out of the clouds. It usually takes a few moments to
realize that they are right over an airport.
About 75% of pilots are not able to land at an airport from 3,000 on
top of the field. Usually after 3 attempts they have it down. I
consider this more valuable than pulling the power in the pattern and
probably more real-life.

-Robert, CFII

On 12 Mar 2007 15:32:25 -0700, "Robert M. Gary"
wrote in .com:

About 75% of pilots are not able to land at an airport from 3,000 on
top of the field.

Why is that?

I would make a poor instructor because it has been too long since I learned to fly. It is not
because I neglect the basics but rather that I do things without, any longer, being conscious of
it, therefore "why"!

Crash Lander wrote:
Most of the approaches were a bit low too, with 1 being low
enough to give me a bit of a scare. Came in too low, and had to give
almost full power to clear the trees.

I must ask - was the headwind (on final) on the day greater than you had previously experienced?

Wind strength will have an effect on how "close" you should turn base/final thus determining how
"steep" your approach will be. Under these circumstances, a steep approach is not necessarily
an indication that an approach is 'wrong' as it is a function of airspeed (distance through the
air) and not groundspeed (distance over the ground).

The distinction of approach angle in relation to the difference in headwind on final is not
always immediately recognised - it comes with, firstly, recognising the situation and taking the
appropriate action -then- later, experience will kick in and it will become 'automatic'.


--
..
..
..
..
..
..

READ CAREFULLY. By reading this article, you agree solely, and/or on behalf of your employer, to
release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements,
licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure,
non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your
employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my
ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me
from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of yourself and/or your employer.

veritas wrote:

I would make a poor instructor because it has been too long since I
learned to fly. It is not because I neglect the basics but rather
that I do things without, any longer, being conscious of it,
therefore "why"!

Crash Lander wrote:
Most of the approaches were a bit low too, with 1 being low
enough to give me a bit of a scare. Came in too low, and had to give
almost full power to clear the trees.

I must ask - was the headwind (on final) on the day greater than you
had previously experienced?

Wind strength will have an effect on how "close" you should turn
base/final thus determining how "steep" your approach will be. Under
these circumstances, a steep approach is not necessarily an
indication that an approach is 'wrong' as it is a function of
airspeed (distance through the air) and not groundspeed (distance
over the ground).

The distinction of approach angle in relation to the difference in
headwind on final is not always immediately recognised - it comes
with, firstly, recognising the situation and taking the appropriate
action -then- later, experience will kick in and it will become
'automatic'.


No, the headwind was not stronger than I had experienced before. I
reakon I just had a tough time deciding when it was best to turn base.
Made my downwinds too long. Next time, if the wind is similar, I'm
going to try and turn base sooner, and I'm sure that will make all the
difference.

--
Oz Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.

"Crash Lander" wrote in message
...
enough to give me a bit of a scare. Came in too low, and had to give
almost full power to clear the trees. Was happy with my result in that
one though, as I recognised the situation, and tought it out clearly.

Cool. Just have to work on recognizing the situation earlier.

Mike Young wrote:

"Crash Lander" wrote in message
...
enough to give me a bit of a scare. Came in too low, and had to give
almost full power to clear the trees. Was happy with my result in
that one though, as I recognised the situation, and tought it out
clearly.

Cool. Just have to work on recognizing the situation earlier.

That's the truth Mike.

--
Oz Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.

Why did you need to push the nose down slightly? Were you slow as well
as low, so you needed the extra airspeed? Or were you afraid of
stalling even though you had plenty of airspeed? If you needed to push
the the nose down slightly you were dangerously slow, and if you
didn't need to then you shouldn't have.


On Mar 10, 12:41 am, "Crash Lander" wrote:
Well, the vibration in the prop that I mentioned last week has been
rectified. Aparently they fixed it up during the week. No sign of
vibration anymore.

Did 2 circuits with the instructor today, and 5 solo. Was reasonable
happy with my last touch down, but all the rest were a bit sloppy.
Winds were about 12kts, and between 100 and 120 degrees, which really
made it crosswind circuits, as we were using runway 17. I guess this
partly explains why the landings were not to my liking, but not
completely. Most of the approaches were a bit low too, with 1 being low
enough to give me a bit of a scare. Came in too low, and had to give
almost full power to clear the trees. Was happy with my result in that
one though, as I recognised the situation, and tought it out clearly. I
remember being careful not to panic and pull back too hard on the
stick. Otherwise I would have stalled the wings and had a closer look
at the branches. I applied the power, and pushed the nose down a little
to gain speed, then gently pulled back on the stick. She gained speed
and climbed nicely. I'm sure it was nowhere near as close a call as I
thought it was, but it was really the first time I've had to 'take
evasive action'.

Booked in again for next saturday afternoon, and I should knock off the
balance of my solo circuits requirement then, so we can move on to the
next part of the syllabus. Looking forward to that.

--
Crash Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Why did you need to push the nose down slightly? Were you slow as well
as low, so you needed the extra airspeed? Or were you afraid of
stalling even though you had plenty of airspeed? If you needed to push
the the nose down slightly you were dangerously slow, and if you
didn't need to then you shouldn't have.

I reakon I pushed it down (slightly) because I was afraid of stalling. As I
said before, there was probably no danger at all, but I reakon as it was my
worst approach, and I was closer than I had ever been to an obstacle, I
wanted the extra speed and power just in case.
Crash Lander