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

90-100 on the approach, when landing decision is made, pull the power
and glide to the runway.

In a Cherokee you'll be at touchdown speed at the Fixed Distance
Marker, or damn near to it, with one notch of flaps.




On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:14:57 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Jan 17, 1:59 pm, "Barry" wrote:
Applying full flaps when the runway is in sight seems to introduce
overly complex reactions at the most critical phase of flight (low and
slow).

I think it's more important to stay stabilized on the approach while still in
the clouds and on instruments - I don't want to change speed or configuration
until I'm visual. Then the choices a

90 KIAS with approach flaps is nice and stable.


1) Full flaps at 1.3 Vs, stabilized all the way to the flare as a large
airplane would - but that would mean 65 knots or so in a Cherokee
2) Full flaps at 90 or 100 knots - which would require a lot of power and be
much different from all other phase of flight
3) No (or partial) flaps at 90 or 100 knots - my preference.

Barry

90-100 knots to land? In a Cherokee?

The NTSB reports are rife with airplanes wrecked after skidding off
runways after touching down too fast (and there are probably 2x as
many wrecked that the NTSB doesn't hear about).

Landing too fast results in all sorts of bad endings.

1.3 x Vs1 fpr landing works every time, all the time. Add whatever for
gusts and you don't have to change techniques, IFR or VFR.

Dan

"Judah" wrote in message
...

You mean controllers never forget?


No, I mean what I write.

In rec.aviation.piloting Judah wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in news:13osru9nohbb0b0
@corp.supernews.com:

It doesn't work that way.

You mean controllers never forget?

Of course not, all controllers are superhuman beings that never forget,
never get distracted, never make a mistake, never cough, sneeze, or
blink, never have a bad day, always get enough sleep, never get ****ed
at the boss, and don't catch a cold or any other disease that plagues
mere mortals.

If there was a procedural "error", the controller was poorly trained.

QED.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:

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.


That's always worked for me, as well.

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

Some of them are never wrong...



On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:25:03 GMT, wrote:

In rec.aviation.piloting Judah wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in news:13osru9nohbb0b0
@corp.supernews.com:

It doesn't work that way.

You mean controllers never forget?

Of course not, all controllers are superhuman beings that never forget,
never get distracted, never make a mistake, never cough, sneeze, or
blink, never have a bad day, always get enough sleep, never get ****ed
at the boss, and don't catch a cold or any other disease that plagues
mere mortals.

If there was a procedural "error", the controller was poorly trained.

QED.

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..

That was wrong on the controllers part.

Wouldn't it be covered under here? Maybe he forgot to specifically say
"runway xx unsafe?"

3-3-2. CLOSED/UNSAFE RUNWAY INFORMATION
If an aircraft requests to takeoff, land, or touch-and-go on a closed or
unsafe runway, inform the pilot the runway is closed or unsafe, and
a. If the pilot persists in his/her request, quote him/her the appropriate
parts of the NOTAM applying to the runway and inform him/her that a
clearance cannot be issued.
b. Then, if the pilot insists and in your opinion the intended operation
would not adversely affect other traffic, inform him/her that the operation
will be at his/her own risk.

PHRASEOLOGYRUNWAY
(runway number) CLOSED/UNSAFE.
If appropriate, (quote NOTAM information),
UNABLE TO ISSUE DEPARTURE/LANDING/TOUCHAND-GO CLEARANCE.
DEPARTURE/LANDING/TOUCH-AND-GO WILL BE AT YOUR OWN RISK

In rec.aviation.piloting wrote:

Some of them are never wrong...

Of course; those are the ones that were properly trained.


On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:25:03 GMT, wrote:

In rec.aviation.piloting Judah wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in news:13osru9nohbb0b0
@corp.supernews.com:

It doesn't work that way.

You mean controllers never forget?

Of course not, all controllers are superhuman beings that never forget,
never get distracted, never make a mistake, never cough, sneeze, or
blink, never have a bad day, always get enough sleep, never get ****ed
at the boss, and don't catch a cold or any other disease that plagues
mere mortals.

If there was a procedural "error", the controller was poorly trained.

QED.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jan 17, 8:48*pm, wrote:
Approach lights are part of runway environment...

Then you are clearly wrong. The fact that you see the approach lights
certainly does not indiciate that you have any visibility. As I
mentioned before you can see the approach lights through the fog but
not be able to see the ground around the lights. So your statement
that seeing the environment demonstrates the visibility, if you
include the apporach lights, cannot be correct.

-robert, CFII

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