Slip to landing on PPG practical test

Judy Ruprecht wrote in message Ask your CFI to have a heart-to-heart with the DE.
If he/she is 'hard over' on slipping all the way to
the ground irrespective of aircraft and airport concerns,
find another DE.

Judy
====================================
I agree with Judy.

Terry Claussen
DPEG AZ

How about reporting this DPE to the FSDO? There is little quality control
on the DPEs if pilots do not report problems. Just because they do well on
their DPE checkrides with the FAA does not make them a good DPE!

"Terry Claussen" wrote in message
om...
Judy Ruprecht wrote in message Ask your CFI to
have a heart-to-heart with the DE.
If he/she is 'hard over' on slipping all the way to
the ground irrespective of aircraft and airport concerns,
find another DE.

Judy
====================================
I agree with Judy.

Terry Claussen
DPEG AZ

I'd only "report" him/her if this request persists to the bitter end.
Perhaps it would be good to take some of these posts and share them with
the DE before your meeting and suggest that while it's part of the PTS,
you have concerns about the safety of such a maneuver. Outright
reporting and subsequently ticking him/her off might be a poor move.
Additionally you can suggest that a no spoiler approach is essentially a
maneuver that is only required if you have an in-flight spoiler failure
and that the pre-flight and "positive" checks should find a control hook
up issue. Furthermore, it's an extremely rare failure.

I've only seen this maneuver attempted once and the CFIG who attempted
to do it flew an L-23 the length of a 5000' runway before going for the
brakes and then moderately ground looping at the end of the roll to
avoid the ditch at the end of the property. Previously he'd instructed
in 2-33s. I would not chose to do it myself.

Paul Lynch wrote:
How about reporting this DPE to the FSDO? There is little quality control
on the DPEs if pilots do not report problems. Just because they do well on
their DPE checkrides with the FAA does not make them a good DPE!

"Terry Claussen" wrote in message
om...

Judy Ruprecht wrote in message Ask your CFI to
have a heart-to-heart with the DE.

If he/she is 'hard over' on slipping all the way to
the ground irrespective of aircraft and airport concerns,
find another DE.

Judy

====================================
I agree with Judy.

Terry Claussen
DPEG AZ

Thanks to all who replied and especially for the link to the designee
bulletin clarifying the intent of the task. I'll be talking with the
examiner soon.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 05:50:43 GMT, "Roger Worden"
wrote:

I'm preparing for my Private test, and in discussing it with the local FAA
examiner, he indicated that one item on the test is a landing with no drag
devices, using only a turning and forward slips. As he explained it, the
task in the PTS is to demonstrate the ability to land totally WITHOUT
airbrakes, to simulate a landing wherein the airbrakes have failed.

This requirement is one of the major bull**** things I ever had the
pleasure of reading on RAS.

My advice - get some other FAA examiner. This one obviously doesn't
know anything about gliding.


Throughout my training I've practiced many turning slips to FINAL APPROACH
(to lose altitude) without airbrakes, but I have always ended the slip and
landed normally by using the airbrakes.

I bet that this FAA examiner has never done that either in a modern
glider with an L/D over 30 - otherwise he's know that it's going to
take a runway of *at least* 6.000 ft and a sideslip to *very* low
altitude to be able to land without using the airbrakes.




Bye
Andreas

Andreas Maurer wrote:
I bet that this FAA examiner has never done that either in a modern
glider with an L/D over 30 - otherwise he's know that it's going to
take a runway of *at least* 6.000 ft and a sideslip to *very* low
altitude to be able to land without using the airbrakes.

Considering the L/D is increased by ground effect, even doubled
according to some, you have a point.

But even with an L/D of 1:80, if you sideslip to 1 m off the
ground you'll only float 80 m, about 260ft, from there, and
quite a bit less with a headwind.

Agreed that the precision needed to slip it down that low
is probably too much to ask of someone just about to get their
licence, but it does not sound too crazy as an exercise at
a more experienced level. In case you get it wrong you should
of course be ready to abort and pull the brakes well before
there is any danger of going off the far end.

Cheers CV

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:52:15 +0100, CV wrote:

But even with an L/D of 1:80, if you sideslip to 1 m off the
ground you'll only float 80 m, about 260ft, from there, and
quite a bit less with a headwind.

You are correct, but the problem is not the L/D in ground effect, but
the speed. Minimum safe approach speed is about 50 kts, touchdown with
the tail wheel first in ground effect will happen at maximum at 35 kts
- to bleed off 15 kts in ground effect takes amazingly long - I'd
estimate about 3.000 ft for the ASK-21.

Of course you can put her down with force onto the nose wheel at
higher speeds, but this is probably going to result in an PIO.


Agreed that the precision needed to slip it down that low
is probably too much to ask of someone just about to get their
licence, but it does not sound too crazy as an exercise at
a more experienced level. In case you get it wrong you should
of course be ready to abort and pull the brakes well before
there is any danger of going off the far end.

Been there, done that, using Ka-8 (landing with sideslip only is
possble if the speed is correct), DG-300 and ASK-21. Neither the 300
nor the 21 could be brought down without flaps on our 1800 ft runway,
altough I was low (3 ft) and slow (50 kts) at the beginning of the
runway.

Sideslipping below 50 ft is hazardous - the slightest mistake while
pulling out of the sideslip might result in an unwanted and hard
impact, not to mention the fact that it's hard to judge the ground
clearance of the lower wing tip. And a final glide from 50 ft with a
fictious L/D of 45 will eat up 2250 ft of the runway, even not
counting the fact that you still have to bleed off your speed.


Sorry - landing with sideslip only is an interesting stunt, but
doesn't have a lot to do with safe flying.


I think it's percetly sufficient to ask for a sideslip down to 150 ft
and then a normal landing with flaps.


Or does the FAA guy in question also demand to fly without another
primary flight control, say, the elevator, if you want to pass his
test?






Bye
Andreas

CV wrote in message ...
Andreas Maurer wrote:
......it's going to
take a runway of *at least* 6.000 ft and a sideslip to *very* low
altitude to be able to land without using the airbrakes.


While it seems a excessive for a private rating, most pilots can train
to safely and repeatedly conduct this maneuver in considerably less
airport than 6000 ft.! I have done it a lot and some of my friends
could do it consistently. Success requires a very high degree of
speed discipline - even in extremely "slipped" attiudes, a very good
understanding of slips and adverse yaw, and a different mindset
regarding pattern altitudes and shapes. One also must slip to very,
very low altitudes - e.g., through the flair. Sounds bad but it is
not really that bad.

Remember that AS-W12 pilots routinely (1000's of flights) slipped a
50:1 glider to a landing in considerably less than this in extreme
conditions including Appalachian ridge days(Schuemann), wild thermal
days in TX (Scott, Greene) and monster wave days in NV (Herold).

I have landed 100's of flights in glass in Tehachapi, CA without drag
devices. These landings were typically over a 30 ft obstacle at
density altitudes 5000 ft, and ALL stopped in less than 2500 feet.
More than 50 if those were in an AS-W12. Other gliders involved:
AS-K21, AS-W20, AS-W17, G-103, G-102, LS-4, and Caproni (not
recommended!).

Mark Grubb wrote:
CV wrote in message ...

Andreas Maurer wrote:

......it's going to
take a runway of *at least* 6.000 ft and a sideslip to *very* low
altitude to be able to land without using the airbrakes.


While it seems a excessive for a private rating, most pilots can train
to safely and repeatedly conduct this maneuver in considerably less
airport than 6000 ft.! I have done it a lot and some of my friends
could do it consistently. Success requires a very high degree of
speed discipline - even in extremely "slipped" attiudes, a very good
understanding of slips and adverse yaw, and a different mindset
regarding pattern altitudes and shapes. One also must slip to very,
very low altitudes - e.g., through the flair. Sounds bad but it is
not really that bad.

Remember that AS-W12 pilots routinely (1000's of flights) slipped a
50:1 glider to a landing in considerably less than this in extreme
conditions including Appalachian ridge days(Schuemann), wild thermal
days in TX (Scott, Greene) and monster wave days in NV (Herold).

I have landed 100's of flights in glass in Tehachapi, CA without drag
devices. These landings were typically over a 30 ft obstacle at
density altitudes 5000 ft, and ALL stopped in less than 2500 feet.
More than 50 if those were in an AS-W12. Other gliders involved:
AS-K21, AS-W20, AS-W17, G-103, G-102, LS-4, and Caproni (not
recommended!).
I must take issue with that Mark. I am a much less experienced pilot than you,
but let's look at this from my perspective. As safety officer at my club I would
exercise my prerogative of referring anyone who wanted to perform slips into
the flare for any reason to the CFI for review of their permission to fly.

A few comments -
1] I know it can be done, and even reasonably safely.
2] I know it is dangerous to do this in anything with long wings, and we have a
sloped undulating runway with long grass near the runway.
3] Given the remote probability of ever experiencing this I think the standard
way of testing here, is better. Student gets to find airbrakes frozen at some
point in the circuit, and needs to demonstrate decision making, and execution.
(but the landing is carried out normally)
4] Show that you can perform slips, and S-turns and low approaches by all means.
5] Decision making is far more important than demonstrating a dangerous manouever.
6] Experience is less indicative of safety than is attitude, ask someone like JJ
where most of the repair jobs come from.

For what it is worth - My glass experience is restricted to the Std Cirrus and
Grob 103 Twin II. The Cirrus slips if you want her to, but turbulence over the
tail and pitch sensitivity make low slips highly undesirable. The Grob is heavy
and predictable, but roll rate is not exactly electrifying at low speed. In both
cases the extra speed you would be carrying for control would negate any
advantage. Since it does not benefit you, I can't see any justification for
doing something dangerous.

Our club's founder - Dieter Henschell learned to fly in the 1940s. His favorite
demonstration to pupils who insisted on too high approaches was to make a normal
approach in the Blanik and then proceed up the 2km runway with the brakes closed
from around 10m height and 100km/h. All the way reciting in his gentle German
accent, look the speed is X and I am still flying.. Look the speed is now x-5
and I am still flying...
Most students got the point in one. And that was with a Blanik. Tried something
similar with my Cirrus - the only way to get her stopped on tar without brakes
is to be dangerously slow over the numbers 2m up and 80km/h. That is 10kt
above stall. Eventually touched down tail first - a gentle full stall landing
indicating around 60km/h nearly 400 m later. Work it out, effective L/D is
probably around 70, and I have to lose 15-20km/h - that is a fair amount of
energy. My wingtip on the ground has less than one metre clearance, from a 2m
height I only have 3m clearance, over a length of 7.5m - do the trigonometry
that is a serious cartwheel type impact at a slip angle of less than 21 degrees.
The Cirrus does not seem to lose much in a slip of less than 30 or so degrees -
then there is the fence at 1.2m to consider - what am I achieving, other than to
demonstrate my poor judgment by practicing slips into the flare?

Just because it was standard procedure some years ago, with a glider that had
design faults with inadequate drag controls does not mean it should still be
standard practice. The discussion about spin demonstration in the circuit is an
example. Eventually the BGA dropped this after a number of fatal accidents. Why
do people have to die demonstrating something that is marginally useful, and has
so low probability of happening, relative to the probability of injury
demonstrating it?

Imagine a fighter pilot having to demonstrate a successful ejection at each
flight review. Same question, why on earth would you expect that?

I must take issue with that Mark. I am a much less experienced pilot than you, but let's look at this from my perspective. As safety officer at my club I would exercise my prerogative of referring anyone who wanted to perform slips into the flare for any reason to the CFI for review of their permission to fly.

Hopefully, your CFI is competent and experienced enough to actually
decide based on real evidence that this is "dangerous". Or, if he
does not have adequate experience in this mode, go to altoitude and
try it? As a CFI,this is what I do when faced with the unknown.

I slip Pawnees through the flair many times per day when towing -
probably 5000+ landings worth. All one has to do is maintain adequate
energy - kind of like most other landings.

A few comments -
1] I know it can be done, and even reasonably safely.

2] I know it is dangerous to do this in anything with long wings...

Not true. Remember all those 1000's of documented landings in
AS-W12's in horrendous conditions? The '12 is 19m. Is that not long
winged? The AS-W17 is 20m. i have slipped these to landings several
times. Based on actual experience, it is difficult to keep the wingtip
below the bottom of the main gear in a Steady-State slip in any of
these ships.

Do not believe? Go fly a steady-state slip at altitude and measure
the bank angle. Go get a pile of real DATA! Go fly and judge for
yourself.

While all of this sounds extreme and dangerous, it is most definitely
not. The techniques were developed by some of the most experienced,
analytical and conservative pilots in the sport. As I said
previously, I have actually tried all of these techniques, first at
altitude and then in many gliders to full stop landings. While it is
considerably more difficult than conventional landings, it is not
superhuman nor dangerous. If this were the case, most of the 12's
would be scrap of balsa and glass and the pilots dead. Neither is the
case! There is a very large amount of empirical evidence from many
different locations in the wildest weather to support this theory!


Stalling in severe slips results in the nosefalling through and out of
the slip to a wings level recovery with very little effort or altitude
loss. Dragging a wingtip in glass during a Steady-State slip is
difficult as the wingtip is never lower than the main wheel. These
gliders are severely rudder-limited. If the ship touches down in a
slip, it bounces up and straightens itself out (at least for the '12.
Never had it happen in any other ship!)

While I am high-time in power and glider and was flying more than
full-time (7 days /week for many months, for many years) when I was
training for the '12, I do not consider myself a super pilot and
several of my less experienced friends were able to consistently land
their 15m / std glass ships spoilerless in less than 2000 ft. It
became something to practice so that our skill set and experience was
incresead - a Good Thing.

6] Experience is less indicative of safety than is attitude, ask someone like JJ where most of the repair jobs come from.

Heck, ask JJ about the ships HE busted! From that data set, one would
argue that racing and flying X-C was extremely dangerous and thus
should be avoided. He has not quit flying X-C or racing. Neither
have I.

Our club's founder - Dieter Henschell learned to fly in the 1940s.
His favorite demonstration to pupils who insisted on too high
approaches was to make a normal approach in the Blanik and then
proceed up the 2km runway with the brakes closed from around 10m
height and 100km/h. All the way reciting in his gentle German accent,
look the speed is X and I am still flying.. Look the speed is now x-5
and I am still flying...Most students got the point in one.

What is the point? That a Blanik glides along way with the brakes
closed? What has this got to do with high approaches? You already
established that all modern gliders glide very flat in ground effect.

It is possible to turn downwind abeam the touchdown point at 10,000 ft
AGL (3000 m AGL) in Blaniks, G103, and K21 (among many others) and fly
a normal size pattern by applying full brakes and mantaining
maneuvering speed or higher (a 3:1 glide +/-). What would then be too
high a pattern? 15,000 ft (5000 m) AGL?

I would propose that wafting along at very low speed very close to the
ground exposes you to significant hazard of getting puonded into the
ground by turbulence or falling to the ground when the gust dies or a
thermal breaks loose in front of you. Should your mentor have avodied
this exercise due to these hazards? I have personally seen perhaps
5-10 gliders that were damaged this way.

What am I achieving, other than to demonstrate my poor judgment by practicing slips into the flare?

That you have additional control and mastery of your aircraft? That
you more fully understand its limitations and therefore its
possibilities? that you have more experience that may one day save
you from the unexpected?

And again, Empirical evidence DOES NOT support your hypothesis that
slipping through the flair or landing via slips is dangerous. I have
watched tow pilots and Ag pilots slip through the flair routinely for
several decades. I have done it myself for several decades and
thousands of landings accident-free.

This real-world DATA.

However, You should certainly Believe and Fly as fits your needs,
skills, mind set, and risk tolerance.

Come to California and we can go fly!

Best, Mark