Stall/spin and ground reference maneuvers

John,

Yes, I would. It's the pattern I've flown for 40+ years and it's always
worked well for me. I would not consider changing to a square base with a
90 degree turn to final during a critical outlanding at a fenced field.
Likewise, I wouldn't advise anyone to switch to a circling landing under the
same circumstances.

I plan my patterns to roll to a stop at the same location every time using
minimal wheel brake. I do this with calm winds and 30+ kt winds. I find it
easier to plan and execute simply by changing the point where I begin my
final turn.

PS - Navy pilots can't land, then only crash and hope the wire stops them
before they go over the side. ;-)

"John Carlyle" wrote in message
...
Dan,

Would you do a circling approach if you were going into a difficult strip,
too? Say, a narrow cornfield surrounded by trees. I ask because the Navy
pilots I know who fly gliders have reverted to the non-circling approach.

-John, Q3

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 12:59:10 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
I fly my pattern just like Kirk, though a little higher and faster at the
start. I begin my descending final turn when abeam the touchdown point
and
roll out on final at about 200 ft and over the numbers. I do this both
in
my LAK and in the tow planes.

I did it this way in the Air Force and when I flew a King Air for
FlightSafety. The only exception was in the B-727. Gotta be gentle for
the
pax.

Thanks, Dan. I suspected you'd keep on with what was familiar to you.

-John, Q3

PS - My Navy buddies tell me they do circling approaches because the airstrip is moving. Air Force pilots copy Navy pilots because the field knows an Air Force pilot is coming and it will run away... grin

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 11:10:00 AM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:
John,

Yes, I would. It's the pattern I've flown for 40+ years and it's always
worked well for me. I would not consider changing to a square base with a
90 degree turn to final during a critical outlanding at a fenced field.
Likewise, I wouldn't advise anyone to switch to a circling landing under the
same circumstances.

I plan my patterns to roll to a stop at the same location every time using
minimal wheel brake. I do this with calm winds and 30+ kt winds. I find it
easier to plan and execute simply by changing the point where I begin my
final turn.

PS - Navy pilots can't land, then only crash and hope the wire stops them
before they go over the side. ;-)

"John Carlyle" wrote in message
...
Dan,

Would you do a circling approach if you were going into a difficult strip,
too? Say, a narrow cornfield surrounded by trees. I ask because the Navy
pilots I know who fly gliders have reverted to the non-circling approach.

-John, Q3


On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 12:59:10 PM UTC-5, Dan Marotta wrote:

I fly my pattern just like Kirk, though a little higher and faster at the

start. I begin my descending final turn when abeam the touchdown point

and

roll out on final at about 200 ft and over the numbers. I do this both

in

my LAK and in the tow planes.



I did it this way in the Air Force and when I flew a King Air for

FlightSafety. The only exception was in the B-727. Gotta be gentle for

the

pax.

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 7:35:51 AM UTC-6, John Carlyle wrote:

Would you do a circling approach if you were going into a difficult strip, too? Say, a narrow cornfield surrounded by trees. I ask because the Navy pilots I know who fly gliders have reverted to the non-circling approach.

Depends. If low, yes - I'll fly whatever pattern I can to land safely. If I have more time and want to look over the landing area more, then I might fly a higher, longer pattern to give more time to pick the best place to land. Also need to be able to fly bigger patterns when sequencing behind other gliders, so all the skills need to be maintained.

I think it's important to be able to fly a "de-stabilized" (non-constant airspeed) approach in gliders, so that energy can be maintained until late in the approach, and used or gotten rid of as required. Also should be able to fly an approach from just about anywhere around the intended point of landing. Always flying the same pattern into the same airfield pretty much guarantees that your first landout will be exciting! Power pilots are taught to fly "stabilized approaches" because that is how you land a big airplane.. Totally unnecessary in small planes, and IMO downright dangerous in gliders.

As far as watching the ASI, after reaching the TLAR point where I want to start the turn, I look just to the inside (11 or 1 o'clock) when initiating the turn, monitor the ASI for trend (glider is trimmed slightly fast), monitor the yawstring, then check how the turn is progressing, then back to ASI - yawstring - turn, etc until time to roll out. If it's a busy runway I might roll out momentarily to check the extended final, then roll back into the turn - those would be pretty aggressive rolls with lots of speed.

Kirk

Kirk,

Thank for writing that - very interesting that you mix approach types.

I'm not too clear about your comment "always flying the same pattern into the same airfield pretty much guarantees that your first landout will be exciting". I always use a downwind-base-final pattern, I've logged 10 landouts in farmers fields, and except for having to dodge an electric wire fence once they were low or no drama events (although some of the retrieves were interesting).

Your "de-stabilized" (non-constant airspeed) approach comment was also interesting. I tend to keep high until on final, just to keep my options open, but my speed stays pretty much constant. Being high has helped me on several occasions to delay a bit (once a person behind me with no radio landed under me, another time someone drove onto the field). Do I understand correctly that you tend to keep your energy in speed rather than altitude?

-John, Q3

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 11:30:30 AM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 7:35:51 AM UTC-6, John Carlyle wrote:

Would you do a circling approach if you were going into a difficult strip, too? Say, a narrow cornfield surrounded by trees. I ask because the Navy pilots I know who fly gliders have reverted to the non-circling approach.

Depends. If low, yes - I'll fly whatever pattern I can to land safely. If I have more time and want to look over the landing area more, then I might fly a higher, longer pattern to give more time to pick the best place to land. Also need to be able to fly bigger patterns when sequencing behind other gliders, so all the skills need to be maintained.

I think it's important to be able to fly a "de-stabilized" (non-constant airspeed) approach in gliders, so that energy can be maintained until late in the approach, and used or gotten rid of as required. Also should be able to fly an approach from just about anywhere around the intended point of landing. Always flying the same pattern into the same airfield pretty much guarantees that your first landout will be exciting! Power pilots are taught to fly "stabilized approaches" because that is how you land a big airplane. Totally unnecessary in small planes, and IMO downright dangerous in gliders.

As far as watching the ASI, after reaching the TLAR point where I want to start the turn, I look just to the inside (11 or 1 o'clock) when initiating the turn, monitor the ASI for trend (glider is trimmed slightly fast), monitor the yawstring, then check how the turn is progressing, then back to ASI - yawstring - turn, etc until time to roll out. If it's a busy runway I might roll out momentarily to check the extended final, then roll back into the turn - those would be pretty aggressive rolls with lots of speed.

Kirk

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 7:58:56 AM UTC-8, John Carlyle wrote:

I just don't know if making people aware of peripheral vision changes is the way forward. Isn't it better to get them to focus only on what matters for the few seconds that are needed in a low altitude turn?

Visual perception is certainly not the only thing. I do think it is how most pilots interpolate between references to the airspeed and yaw string. Generally that scan cycle is a pretty rapid loop and wandering into stall/spin is not a big risk. I do believe that pilots get into trouble because, for one reason or another, they: 1) don't update the scan, 2) misinterpret what the instruments are telling them or 3) fail to act. I'd bet that #1 is the main thing - possibly due to distraction, fixation, overload or other reasons. When this happens your central and peripheral vision (and your inner ear) are how you maintain attitude and airspeed and that can drift, but also can be fooled if the visual cues are different than what you get 99% of the time when you are flying above a couple hundred feet. Why is this important to know? Because if you know and train to recognize that the cues will push to towards a skidding turn that is too slow you have a better chance of checking yourself before you do something based on instincts honed by flying at altitude that down low can kill you.

I do not know how strong these effects are but a ride with a competent check pilot/instructor might be able to inform how strong the tendency is.

That's my theory anyway.

9B

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 12:24:51 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 7:58:56 AM UTC-8, John Carlyle wrote:

Visual perception is certainly not the only thing. I do think it is how most pilots interpolate between references to the airspeed and yaw string. Generally that scan cycle is a pretty rapid loop and wandering into stall/spin is not a big risk. I do believe that pilots get into trouble because, for one reason or another, they: 1) don't update the scan, 2) misinterpret what the instruments are telling them or 3) fail to act. I'd bet that #1 is the main thing - possibly due to distraction, fixation, overload or other reasons. When this happens your central and peripheral vision (and your inner ear) are how you maintain attitude and airspeed and that can drift, but also can be fooled if the visual cues are different than what you get 99% of the time when you are flying above a couple hundred feet. Why is this important to know? Because if you know and train to recognize that the cues will push to towards a skidding turn that is too slow you have a better chance of checking yourself before you do something based on instincts honed by flying at altitude that down low can kill you.

I do not know how strong these effects are but a ride with a competent check pilot/instructor might be able to inform how strong the tendency is.

That's my theory anyway.

9B

BTW, that's one reason why I tend to carry a bit more airspeed until I'm on final (like Kirk). I know that if I get a surprise or distraction on the turn to final with a bigger speed margin I will have more time to sort the distraction before airspeed bleeds off. That works in my -27. I don't do it in a Duo.

9B

Always check for that low airplane dragging it in on a long final.
JMF


At 18:08 05 March 2014, John Carlyle wrote:
Kirk,

Thank for writing that - very interesting that you mix approach types.=20

I'm not too clear about your comment "always flying the same pattern into
t=
he same airfield pretty much guarantees that your first landout will be
exc=
iting". I always use a downwind-base-final pattern, I've logged 10
landouts=
in farmers fields, and except for having to dodge an electric wire fence
o=
nce they were low or no drama events (although some of the retrieves were
i=
nteresting).=20

Your "de-stabilized" (non-constant airspeed) approach comment was also
inte=
resting. I tend to keep high until on final, just to keep my options
open,
=
but my speed stays pretty much constant. Being high has helped me on
severa=
l occasions to delay a bit (once a person behind me with no radio landed
un=
der me, another time someone drove onto the field). Do I understand
correct=
ly that you tend to keep your energy in speed rather than altitude?=20

-John, Q3

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 11:30:30 AM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 7:35:51 AM UTC-6, John Carlyle wrote:
=20
Would you do a circling approach if you were going into a difficult
str=
ip, too? Say, a narrow cornfield surrounded by trees. I ask because the
Nav=
y pilots I know who fly gliders have reverted to the non-circling
approach.=
=20
=20
Depends. If low, yes - I'll fly whatever pattern I can to land safely.
I=
f I have more time and want to look over the landing area more, then I
migh=
t fly a higher, longer pattern to give more time to pick the best place
to
=
land. Also need to be able to fly bigger patterns when sequencing behind
ot=
her gliders, so all the skills need to be maintained.
=20
I think it's important to be able to fly a "de-stabilized"
(non-constant
=
airspeed) approach in gliders, so that energy can be maintained until
late
=
in the approach, and used or gotten rid of as required. Also should be
able=
to fly an approach from just about anywhere around the intended point of
l=
anding. Always flying the same pattern into the same airfield pretty
much
=
guarantees that your first landout will be exciting! Power pilots are
taug=
ht to fly "stabilized approaches" because that is how you land a big
airpla=
ne. Totally unnecessary in small planes, and IMO downright dangerous in
gl=
iders.
=20
As far as watching the ASI, after reaching the TLAR point where I want
to=
start the turn, I look just to the inside (11 or 1 o'clock) when
initiatin=
g the turn, monitor the ASI for trend (glider is trimmed slightly fast),
mo=
nitor the yawstring, then check how the turn is progressing, then back to
A=
SI - yawstring - turn, etc until time to roll out. If it's a busy runway
I=
might roll out momentarily to check the extended final, then roll back
int=
o the turn - those would be pretty aggressive rolls with lots of speed.
=20
Kirk

Agree with your three points of how pilots get into trouble. I also agree that training is important, and that it's never a bad idea to take a ride with an instructor.

I'm not sure I buy your theory of an optical illusion in your peripheral vision causing your central vision and inner ear to start giving you bad data, though. It takes time (probably a minute) without good visual cues for your inner ear to start disconnecting from reality. Your central vision looking over the nose will provide good feedback to your inner ear even if there is a peripheral mirage, so I think your balance and motion sensation will remain OK.

That said, I can understand someone deciding to focus with central vision on something seen peripherally, but unless they decide to fixate on it (thus causing your errors 1 and 3) I don't see it as a problem because if you look over the nose again you'll perceive that you're OK. Thus my comment many messages before that "Just because you perceive something doesn't mean that you have to pay attention to it".

Perhaps you and I should take rides with instructors this spring, see if wing motion reversal down low causes either of us problems, and then compare notes.

-John, Q3

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 3:33:08 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 12:24:51 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Visual perception is certainly not the only thing. I do think it is how most pilots interpolate between references to the airspeed and yaw string.. Generally that scan cycle is a pretty rapid loop and wandering into stall/spin is not a big risk. I do believe that pilots get into trouble because, for one reason or another, they: 1) don't update the scan, 2) misinterpret what the instruments are telling them or 3) fail to act. I'd bet that #1 is the main thing - possibly due to distraction, fixation, overload or other reasons. When this happens your central and peripheral vision (and your inner ear) are how you maintain attitude and airspeed and that can drift, but also can be fooled if the visual cues are different than what you get 99% of the time when you are flying above a couple hundred feet. Why is this important to know? Because if you know and train to recognize that the cues will push to towards a skidding turn that is too slow you have a better chance of checking yourself before you do something based on instincts honed by flying at altitude that down low can kill you.

I do not know how strong these effects are but a ride with a competent check pilot/instructor might be able to inform how strong the tendency is.

That's my theory anyway.

9B

BTW, that's one reason why I tend to carry a bit more airspeed until I'm on final (like Kirk). I know that if I get a surprise or distraction on the turn to final with a bigger speed margin I will have more time to sort the distraction before airspeed bleeds off. That works in my -27. I don't do it in a Duo.

9B

Yes, indeed! That was just one of several "interesting" experiences I had a that contest...

-John, Q3

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 3:37:08 PM UTC-5, firsys wrote:
Always check for that low airplane dragging it in on a long final.

JMF

At 18:08 05 March 2014, John Carlyle wrote:
I tend to keep high until on final, just to keep my options
open,
but my speed stays pretty much constant. Being high has helped me on
severa=
l occasions to delay a bit (once a person behind me with no radio landed
un=
der me, another time someone drove onto the field).

-John, Q3

On Tue, 04 Mar 2014 17:45:10 -0700, Dan Marotta wrote:

It's not just the view, though with experience you get to recognize
rates of change, there's also sound and control feel. But I think
everyone (including myself) steals the occasional peek at the airspeed
indicator as well.

Yes, and I like to have the ASI top and centre in the panel because this
way the airfield remains in my peripheral vision when I glance at it.



--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |