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

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

On Jan 17, 2:01*pm, " wrote:
On Jan 17, 4:18 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
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.

I only teach in Monneys but I'm not sure why you would need to be
faster without flaps. Even if I used flaps I wouldn't change the speed
on the approach. Are you flying ILSs in a 172 at 50 knots such that
you need flaps?

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.

But either way you have full flaps once you go visual so the landings
distance is the same in each technique.

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

Once you're visual holding the needles in the middle is trivial
because you are looking at the runway.

-robert, CFII

On Jan 17, 9:15 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:

I only teach in Monneys but I'm not sure why you would need to be
faster without flaps. Even if I used flaps I wouldn't change the speed
on the approach. Are you flying ILSs in a 172 at 50 knots such that
you need flaps?

Nope --100-90 KIAS in an A36, 90 KIAS in a 172. Approach flaps set in
the A36 and 10 degrees in 172.


But either way you have full flaps once you go visual so the landings
distance is the same in each technique.

While that may be the case in a particular Mooney or Cherokee or
Skyhawk, this method will not work in a faster (more slippery)
airplane.

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

Once you're visual holding the needles in the middle is trivial
because you are looking at the runway.

Do you ever practice ILS all the way down to touchdown? If not, you
may want to try it -- it's a good confidence boost.

Dan

On Jan 18, 5:26*am, " wrote:
On Jan 17, 9:15 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:



I only teach in Monneys but I'm not sure why you would need to be
faster without flaps. Even if I used flaps I wouldn't change the speed
on the approach. Are you flying ILSs in a 172 at 50 knots such that
you need flaps?

Nope --100-90 KIAS in an A36, 90 KIAS in a 172. Approach flaps set in
the A36 and 10 degrees in 172.

I never noticed that as a problem in the A36. It was very stable at
100 knots without flaps. I never felt any tendancy for it to be
unstable.


But either way you have full flaps once you go visual so the landings
distance is the same in each technique.

While that may be the case in a particular Mooney or Cherokee or
Skyhawk, this method will not work in a faster (more slippery)
airplane.

What plane are you flying that is more slippery than a Mooney and that
does not slow when you deploy the flaps? Your A36 is a truck compared
to the slippery Mooney. I used to cook into San Jose Int'l in the A36
at 150 knots and drop the gear/flaps on short final. I could feel the
G's of the decelleration, so you can't tell me that your A36 won't
slow with flaps.

-Robert

On Jan 18, 2:05 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:


What plane are you flying that is more slippery than a Mooney and that
does not slow when you deploy the flaps? Your A36 is a truck compared
to the slippery Mooney. I used to cook into San Jose Int'l in the A36
at 150 knots and drop the gear/flaps on short final. I could feel the
G's of the decelleration, so you can't tell me that your A36 won't
slow with flaps.

-Robert

The A56 drag coefficient is a bit more than a Lear and an F-104, so
it's pretty slippery.

In the Army we differentiated between doctrine and technique. Doctrine
everybody was to do, period. Technique was the method you employed to
achieve doctrine.

In this case "doctrine" is to arrive at the runway with as little
energy as possible, given the requirements of safety in the conditions
at hand.

If you can reconfigure the airplane on short final and reduce the
speed as appropriate to achieve this, then that's your technique.

But I think teaching this particular method as the only way for every
airplane is a mistake, as it will eventually lead to overly fast
landings when the student climbs aboard his/her faster airplane.

It just seems to me that a consistent, less drastic change in
configuration is the better technique.

Dan

On Jan 18, 6:32*pm, " wrote:


The A56 drag coefficient is a bit more than a Lear and an F-104, so
it's pretty slippery.

True, but its still a truck compared to a Mooney.

But I think teaching this particular method as the only way for every
airplane is a mistake, as it will eventually lead to overly fast
landings when the student climbs aboard his/her faster airplane.

I think anyone who teaches either technique and claims its good for
all aircraft is probably full of crap. I wouldn't teach flying
approaches w/o flaps in a 767. When I'm giving training in the Mooney
or occasionally in the A36 people are looking for type specific
training. Showing them how its done in other aircraft (like a 767) is
not what they are looking for. In both those aircraft I find the no
flap approach best. Add to that that I live in a fog valley and
finding nothing but 0/0 at mins is not uncommon so shooting approaches
to mins in actual is not theory around here and neither are missed in
actual.

-Robert

On Jan 18, 9:37 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Jan 18, 6:32 pm, " wrote:



The A56 drag coefficient is a bit more than a Lear and an F-104, so
it's pretty slippery.

True, but its still a truck compared to a Mooney.

But I think teaching this particular method as the only way for every
airplane is a mistake, as it will eventually lead to overly fast
landings when the student climbs aboard his/her faster airplane.

I think anyone who teaches either technique and claims its good for
all aircraft is probably full of crap. I wouldn't teach flying
approaches w/o flaps in a 767. When I'm giving training in the Mooney
or occasionally in the A36 people are looking for type specific
training. Showing them how its done in other aircraft (like a 767) is
not what they are looking for. In both those aircraft I find the no
flap approach best. Add to that that I live in a fog valley and
finding nothing but 0/0 at mins is not uncommon so shooting approaches
to mins in actual is not theory around here and neither are missed in
actual.

-Robert

Well then there ya go...

Dan

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in news:12386052-d134-4208-b818-
:

On Jan 18, 6:32*pm, " wrote:


The A56 drag coefficient is a bit more than a Lear and an F-104, so
it's pretty slippery.

True, but its still a truck compared to a Mooney.

But I think teaching this particular method as the only way for every
airplane is a mistake, as it will eventually lead to overly fast
landings when the student climbs aboard his/her faster airplane.

I think anyone who teaches either technique and claims its good for
all aircraft is probably full of crap. I wouldn't teach flying
approaches w/o flaps in a 767.


Wel, as a matter of fact, we do have to do that....


Bertie