Phrase "landing runway" vs. "cleared to land"

On Jan 17, 10:02*am, " wrote:

The point of an approach is to land.

Using that logic aerobatic pilots should not wear chutes since the
point is not to jump out of the plane.

If a missed is required, the 285 HP and 10 degrees nose up will
maintain 96 KIAS (Vy) with gear and flaps down.

The drill is simple:
Prop is already full forward, so MP goes to 25"
Confirm Vy and positive rate of climb -- Flaps Up
Confirm Vy and positive rate of climb -- Gear Up

All this happens in sequence, with no rush required.

But I don't see the benefit unless you are flying something that does
not fly very stable at approach speed wo flaps (737 perhaps)

Applying full flaps when the runway is in sight seems to introduce
overly complex recations at the most critical phase of flight (low and
slow).

Once the runway is in sight everything is simplier. That is when the
student breathes his relief and lands. I've never noticed that part ot
be challenging to students, they're happy they found the runway and
ready to land. Its much easier to move flaps at this point than to try
to retract them while going missed at 200 feet in the soup.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:742db77b-27c0-433a-a541-
:

On Jan 17, 10:02*am, " wrote:

The point of an approach is to land.

Using that logic aerobatic pilots should not wear chutes since the
point is not to jump out of the plane.

If a missed is required, the 285 HP and 10 degrees nose up will
maintain 96 KIAS (Vy) with gear and flaps down.

The drill is simple:
Prop is already full forward, so MP goes to 25"
Confirm Vy and positive rate of climb -- Flaps Up
Confirm Vy and positive rate of climb -- Gear Up

All this happens in sequence, with no rush required.

But I don't see the benefit unless you are flying something that does
not fly very stable at approach speed wo flaps (737 perhaps)

No, they're perfectly stable without flaps. Three problems, though. The
pitch attitude is quite high making it difficult to see the runway
properly. You'll have very little drag and you won't really be able to
spool up muc and of course you'll be going 200 knots over the threshold!



Bertie

On Jan 17, 11:44*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:742db77b-27c0-433a-a541-

No, they're perfectly stable without flaps. Three problems, though. The
pitch attitude is quite high making it difficult to see the runway
properly. You'll have very little drag and you won't really be able to
spool up muc and of course you'll be going 200 knots over the threshold!

That's something I've got to do. I can certainly afford to get a 737
type rating if I really wanted to but for some reason I always find a
way to justify the thought away since it would only be for fun. Taking
the week off to do it is probably the biggest issue, I could do a lot
of things with that week..

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
:

On Jan 17, 11:44*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in
news:742db77b-27c0-433a-a541-


No, they're perfectly stable without flaps. Three problems, though.
The pitch attitude is quite high making it difficult to see the
runway properly. You'll have very little drag and you won't really be
able to spool up muc and of course you'll be going 200 knots over the
threshold!

That's something I've got to do. I can certainly afford to get a 737
type rating if I really wanted to but for some reason I always find a
way to justify the thought away since it would only be for fun. Taking
the week off to do it is probably the biggest issue, I could do a lot
of things with that week..


Ah, they're not that much fun to fly. Go do that Connie rating if the guy
is still doing it with the MACS one or get checked out in a B-17!

Bertie

On Jan 17, 2:22 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:


The point of an approach is to land.

Using that logic aerobatic pilots should not wear chutes since the
point is not to jump out of the plane.

Landing fast just because you might have to go missed is stacking the
deck -- in a bad way.

The intent of an approach is landing -- whatever provides the most
consistent, reliable, safe, controllable airspeed for landing is the
target airspeed -- not some arbitrary missed approach speed.

But I don't see the benefit unless you are flying something that does
not fly very stable at approach speed wo flaps (737 perhaps)

The benefit of approach flaps is reducing energy prior to contact with
the ground. Given a 20% increase in landing distance for every 10%
increase in airspeed (if I recall correctly), the slower I go, the
less floating over and subsequent rolling on the ground I do. That's a
good thing.

Once the runway is in sight everything is simplier. That is when the
student breathes his relief and lands. I've never noticed that part ot
be challenging to students, they're happy they found the runway and
ready to land. Its much easier to move flaps at this point than to try
to retract them while going missed at 200 feet in the soup.

So breaking out at minimums and introducing a significant pitch change
is simpler than...?

Keep in mind -- I never said Full flaps on approach -- only approach
flaps. In most airplanes that's 10 degrees. Full power at the MAP and
the airplane climbs. You climbing? Good -- flaps up. Still climbing?
Good -- gear up.

What could be simpler?

In my very humble opinion -- too much IFR training focuses on repeat
approaches then miss

I understand this helps compress training time, but I appreciated my
instructor's insistence on landing nearly every time. That's the point
of the approach. It doesn't take repeated missed approaches to learn
what to do when you go missed. But it takes some practice and power/
attitude/configuration experience to re-learn how to land.

Dan

In my very humble opinion -- too much IFR training focuses on repeat
approaches then miss

I understand this helps compress training time, but I appreciated my
instructor's insistence on landing nearly every time. That's the point
of the approach. It doesn't take repeated missed approaches to learn
what to do when you go missed. But it takes some practice and power/
attitude/configuration experience to re-learn how to land.

I agree that many instructors do too many missed approaches and not enough
landings. At a towered airport, I usually try to get "cleared for the option"
so the student doesn't know my intentions. I then tell the student that if I
say so, he should look outside and land if able, otherwise go missed. But I
wouldn't say that we land "nearly every time" - it's important to practice the
missed approach too, especially when it's unexpected.

On Jan 17, 12:04*pm, " wrote:
On Jan 17, 2:22 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Landing fast just because you might have to go missed is stacking the
deck -- in a bad way.

I'm not following. Why would you land fast, you just dumped all your
flaps when you broke out.

The intent of an approach is landing -- whatever provides the most
consistent, reliable, safe, controllable airspeed for landing is the
target airspeed -- not some arbitrary missed approach speed.

But landing is easy, missed is hard. Make the hard part easier and the
easy part will take care of itself.

The benefit of approach flaps is reducing energy prior to contact with
the ground. Given a 20% increase in landing distance for every 10%
increase in airspeed (if I recall correctly), the slower I go, the
less floating over and subsequent rolling on the ground I do. That's a
good thing.

I agree, dump the flaps when you break out at DH.

-robert

On Jan 17, 4:18 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

But landing is easy, missed is hard. Make the hard part easier and the
easy part will take care of itself.

Going Missed is the scary monster because:
1) You're close to the ground
2) You have configuration and power changes
3) You didn't get to land
4) You're still in the soup

The anxiety level can be reduced by:
1) Minimize configuration changes
2) Anticipate a missed
3) Take comfort in having been in the soup for however long it took
you to get to this phase of the flight. If you're still uncomfortable
in IMC, some dual is probably in order.

I think the student will have to unlearn the fast approach technique
once he/she steps into a more aerodynamically slippery airplane. In a
fast airplane you have to manage your energy if you want to land on a
small field at the conclusion of the approach.

With the proliferation of VNAV GPS approaches more and more smaller
runways have basically ILS minimums. A typical ILS ends with a 5,000
foot+ runway -- not so for VNAV GPS.

To clarify -- my point is that the approach should be flown in a way
that is a consistent and predictable. This presumes a specific Power-
Attitude-Configuration combination that requires only minor changes to
transition from the approach phase to the landing phase.

The Missed approach requires minimal PAC change -- Power to full,
Flaps up, gear up.

If you're in a fixed gear, it's doubly important that you teach
configuration change as part of the missed to prepare them for
retracts.

Try this next time -- see what happens to the ILS needles when your
student drops full flaps once the runway is in sight.

Dan

The Missed approach requires minimal PAC change -- Power to full,
Flaps up, gear up.

And please, let's not forget PITCH UP right away.

On Jan 17, 6:05 pm, "Barry" wrote:
The Missed approach requires minimal PAC change -- Power to full,
Flaps up, gear up.

And please, let's not forget PITCH UP right away.

Good point, though I've found that the trim I've applied to maintain
the target airspeed on approach takes care of that pretty well when I
apply full power. Mostly, I need to maintain some forward pressure
until I can get the flaps retracted.

Dan