ILS approach to near minimums - Video

On Sep 28, 1:36*am, D Ramapriya wrote:
On Sep 28, 8:36*am, Clark wrote:

D Ramapriya wrote in news:2f5fa47a-a9a0-4d76-897e-
:

Jeez, in most videos I've seen of yours, the stall horn has sounded
just before touchdown. I bet you like hairy landings

Just an educational point: a perfect landing includes a full stall about a
foot off the ground. Typically the stall horn will sound about 5 to 10 knots
above the actual stall. Alan's landings appear to be quite good.

In other words, there is no harm in stalling within a few inches of the
runway. On the other hand, there can be great harm in attempting to land way
to fast.

Thanks, mate. Won't this lead to dodgy finals in a situation where the
headwind tails off for some reason (a gust or some such)?

Ramapriya
In most of our SELs the stall warning sounds 5 or 8 knots before the
stall. That's a nice margin. The only time I am not going to want the
stall to sound is if there's a big cross wind and I am running out of
rudder authority at low air speeds. Too much airspeed in the flair is,
in this pilot's opinion, the sign of an airplane driver who has not
been trained well. Ditto, for that matter, for the guy who touches
down in a SEL 2000 feet from his turn off, then finds himself driving
the airplane on the ground for an extra 1000 plus feet. A good landing
in my view is where there's a stall warning, throttle aft, touchdown,
and make the turn off without using throttle or break.

"a" wrote

A good landing
in my view is where there's a stall warning, throttle aft, touchdown,
and make the turn off without using throttle or break.

Or without using the brakes, in case nothing is broken. ;-)
--
Jim in NC

On Sep 28, 6:44*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"a" wrote

A good landing
in my view is where there's a stall warning, throttle aft, touchdown,
and make the turn off without using throttle or break.

Or without using the brakes, in case nothing is broken. ;-)
--
Jim in NC

Nice catch! But it is good not to break anything and if you brake too
hard you may. It IS Monday, I think it's going to be a bad weak.

On Sep 28, 10:00*am, Clark wrote:
D Ramapriya wrote in news:e238c979-3550-4a59-87f1-
:



On Sep 28, 8:36*am, Clark wrote:
D Ramapriya wrote in news:2f5fa47a-a9a0-4d76-897e
-
:

Jeez, in most videos I've seen of yours, the stall horn has sounded
just before touchdown. I bet you like hairy landings

Just an educational point: a perfect landing includes a full stall about
a
foot off the ground. Typically the stall horn will sound about 5 to 10 kn
ots
above the actual stall. Alan's landings appear to be quite good.

In other words, there is no harm in stalling within a few inches of the
runway. On the other hand, there can be great harm in attempting to land
way
to fast.

Thanks, mate. Won't this lead to dodgy finals in a situation where the
headwind tails off for some reason (a gust or some such)?

Final is typically flown at 1.3*Vso which translated means 30% above stall
speed. The extra velocity is lost in the roundout at the bottom of the
approach. If the winds are gusty then 1/2 the gust factor is added to the
approach speed. The gust factor is the difference between the base wind
velocity and the maximum gust velocity.

Folks have been doing this for a long time and the numbers work really well.


Correct me if I'm wrong but there may also be the possibility that in
aircraft where the computer doesn't correlate data from the AOA
sensor, you'll probably get a slightly slower airspeed indication than
actual during the flare, in which case even the stall horn would be a
kind of false alarm

Ramapriya

"D Ramapriya" wrote in message
...
On Sep 28, 10:00 am, Clark wrote:
D Ramapriya wrote in
news:e238c979-3550-4a59-87f1-
:



On Sep 28, 8:36 am, Clark wrote:
D Ramapriya wrote in
news:2f5fa47a-a9a0-4d76-897e
-
:

Jeez, in most videos I've seen of yours, the stall horn has sounded
just before touchdown. I bet you like hairy landings

Just an educational point: a perfect landing includes a full stall
about
a
foot off the ground. Typically the stall horn will sound about 5 to 10
kn
ots
above the actual stall. Alan's landings appear to be quite good.

In other words, there is no harm in stalling within a few inches of
the
runway. On the other hand, there can be great harm in attempting to
land
way
to fast.

Thanks, mate. Won't this lead to dodgy finals in a situation where the
headwind tails off for some reason (a gust or some such)?

Final is typically flown at 1.3*Vso which translated means 30% above
stall
speed. The extra velocity is lost in the roundout at the bottom of the
approach. If the winds are gusty then 1/2 the gust factor is added to the
approach speed. The gust factor is the difference between the base wind
velocity and the maximum gust velocity.

Folks have been doing this for a long time and the numbers work really
well.


Correct me if I'm wrong but there may also be the possibility that in
aircraft where the computer doesn't correlate data from the AOA
sensor, you'll probably get a slightly slower airspeed indication than
actual during the flare, in which case even the stall horn would be a
kind of false alarm

Ramapriya

Small aircraft do not use any computers to actuate the stall horn. Instead,
there are ports on the leading edge of the wing in a precise location so
that the air moves from one to the other at stall only, which blows a reed
horn, or some have a little flap that blows over at the leading edge that
turns on a switch to sound an electric horn. In either case, it is
aerodynamic airflow that triggers the stall horn.
--
Jim in NC

On Sep 30, 3:13*am, Clark wrote:
D Ramapriya wrote in news:2c0fab6a-a8d4-4889-a0ef-
:

As for the accuracy of the airspeed indicator, well we generally stall the
aircraft in training and proficiency flights so we know exactly when the
stall occurs even if the indicated airspeed might be in error. As an aside,
the aircraft will usually tell you through handling characteristics and
vibration that it's going to stall. The aircraft that don't tell you about
the impending stall are the ones with which to be very careful.


Thanks, especially for the above bit. Don't know if it's because
someone once told me or something I'd read somewhere but I was under
the impression that when flying and if you didn't have external visual
references of the ground, there's NO way that a pilot can know the
airspeed of his aircraft.

On another matter, everything I've read so far about the AF447 crash
suggests that the aircraft was upset because it flew too slow (iced
pitot leading to erroneous airspeed readings) and pretty much went
down like a bag of cement and possibly hit the water at a nearly level
attitude!

Ramapriya

On Sep 29, 9:29*pm, D Ramapriya wrote:

Thanks, especially for the above bit. Don't know if it's because
someone once told me or something I'd read somewhere but I was under
the impression that when flying and if you didn't have external visual
references of the ground, there's NO way that a pilot can know the
airspeed of his aircraft.

Visually, you are correct and even "sensually" (feeling), while IMC
there is no way to tell speed or what direction the nose of the plane
is pointed (up, down, right or left). The instrumentation is the only
source of information you have telling you what direction the ground
and sky points to.

With regards to airspeed, there are other clues to be watched for
airspeed besides the airspeed indicator and one is engine RPM.
Generally speaking, under normal flight attitudes, the engine RPM will
increase as you point down which subsequently means your airspeed is
building. You hear this increase just as if you hear the engine noise
level go down, that would normally indicate the nose of the plane is
pointed up and your airspeed is decreasing.