ILS approach to near minimums - Video

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.

On Sep 30, 9:42*am, BeechSundowner wrote:
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.

Even under the hood as one approaches the stall or slow flight in
general aviation airplanes the controls are really soft -- little bits
of pressure make for large excursions. One should not depend on those
kinds of clues when there is no outside visual reference (that by the
way is LOT different than being in IMC) but it from a sensation
standpoint is pretty much like waving an oar in air instead of in
water. At cruise speeds the yoke has a certain 'stiffness' that is is
largely gone at lower airspeeds. Absent a working airspeed gauge
because you might have driven the pitot tube into a seagull of
something, the link between manifold pressure, RPM, and pitch attitude
is a pretty reliable indication of airspeed for a given airplane
configuration.

On Sep 29, 5:28*am, "Panic" wrote:
That crab "correction" was the hardest thing to get used to when I flew the
B-52H back in the early 60s. * We had a little chart near the rudder control
knob to enter the angle and velocity of the crosswind, then we pulled up on
the knob and cranked it to the chart value to hydraulically move the main
gear so that it would be aligned with the runway even though we landed still
in a crab. * We could crank up to 20° of alignment correction.

All of my previous years, once we finally saw the runway at very low
altitude we'd kick out the crab and use wing low cross control for landing.
GCA minimums were 100' ceiling. *You had to psyche yourself ahead of time to
insure that when you finally spotted the runway you'd leave the crab in and
land that way. *(but...make sure you entered the crab correction in the
right direction)

"BeechSundowner" wrote in message

...
On Sep 26, 8:46 pm, a wrote:

On Sep 26, 11:10 am, " wrote:
I noticed when you broke out at 500 feet agl you aligned the axis of
the airplane with the runway then tended to drift a little left, and
coordinated turned yourself onto the center line again. Absolutely
nothing wrong with that, but my habit is a little different. I
continue to fly the localizer at whatever crab angle I need to keep
the needle centered and when much lower drop the windward wing, kick
the airplane into alignment and transition to a cross wind landing.
It would be interesting for the thread to address the advantanges and
disadvantages of each method.

A,

While IMC, I do exactly what you say, fly the crab all the way down.
Problem and why you see me drift left when I break out was I was 1/2
dot off fthe localizer to the right, so in order to find the
centerline, it required a slight turn to the left when I broke out 512
MSL or *200 AGL.

You can see my "reintercept" of the centerline from 7:20 to to 7:30 by
watching the point of the cowling in relationship to the runway
centerline. *During this 10 seconds, I was correcting the right of the
localizer problem.

Couple of thoughts, as I did not even realize until breaking out that
I had that much of a crab as I was so focused on maintaining the
localizer. . *It took several adjustments of the header bug on descent
to find that sweet spot in tracking. *When I broke out, needless to
say I was surprised at my crab angle (like, oh crap, where's the
runway!), and thus the sharp "response on the yoke" *My subsequent
approaches were not that abrupt on the yoke as I was better prepared.


Didn't you know the x-wind factor for the runway you were using?

Cheers

On Oct 1, 2:42*am, BeechSundowner wrote:
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. *

Yes, for a fixed pitch prop. With a CSU its not so. Airframe noise
does increase but that's subtle for small speed excursions and I have
no idea if you can pick that up with noise cancelling headsets..

Cheers

On Sep 30, 10:48*pm, "Flaps_50!" wrote:

Didn't you know the x-wind factor for the runway you were using?

It changed as I was descending. The only thing I need to know is that
the x-wind is not above my capabilities before executing the approach.

My job is to keep the localizer centered and deal with the WCA
visually when I break out.

On Oct 1, 8:37*am, BeechSundowner wrote:
On Sep 30, 10:48*pm, "Flaps_50!" wrote:

Didn't you know the x-wind factor for the runway you were using?

It changed as I was descending. *The only thing I need to know is that
the x-wind is not above my capabilities before executing the approach.

My job is to keep the localizer centered and deal with the WCA
visually when I break out.

To support Sundowner's observation -- I simply don't worry about the
crosswind component once I start an approach. The DG and runway
heading tell me where to look for the runway environement when close
to minima, and the final decision regarding landing or going elsewhere
is dependent on, among other things, if I have enough rudder to keep
the airplane aligned with the center line at reasonable touch down
speeds. I don't remember ever having to go to an alternate because of
an excessive cross wind. I have, at oncontrolled airports, had to
because all I could see at mimimums was the inside of a cloud.

It's worth noting if there is a strong crosswind there is no
obligation to land with the airplane axis aligned with the centerline.
On a wide runway touch down closer to the downwind edge with the
airplane aimed on a diagonal -- you can steal up to 8 or 9 degrees of
cross wind that way. But don't try that without adult supervision, you
(or at least I) need a lot of hours in a given airplane and have to
know its characteristics very well to pull that off.

..