A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Undershoot Vs. Overshoot airport landing accidents



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 18th 19, 07:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Piet Barber
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 58
Default Undershoot Vs. Overshoot airport landing accidents


Go and try that with a DuoDiscus.


Pfft.

https://youtu.be/Yc-oTfr5Zwc?t=525
  #22  
Old April 18th 19, 07:42 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected][_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default Undershoot Vs. Overshoot airport landing accidents

‘No 360s please. That has disaster written all over it.’ T8

Disagree once the pilot is proficient and not a student. I consider a 360 circling pattern to an off field landing preferable, especially when field elevation is unsure.
S K makes a mistake, to ‘Preach’ to him not to use a proven technique to improve knowledge of the field condition because some can’t make a coordinated turn below 1000’ agl a bit of snake handling.

R

  #23  
Old April 18th 19, 07:54 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default Undershoot Vs. Overshoot airport landing accidents

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 2:43:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
‘No 360s please. That has disaster written all over it.’ T8

Disagree once the pilot is proficient and not a student. I consider a 360 circling pattern to an off field landing preferable, especially when field elevation is unsure.
S K makes a mistake, to ‘Preach’ to him not to use a proven technique to improve knowledge of the field condition because some can’t make a coordinated turn below 1000’ agl a bit of snake handling.

R


Hi Henry:

There's nothing wrong with a 360 degree pattern (that is, one that completely encloses the landing area). The 360 I am taking issue with is the tight 360 that happens on final because the pilot thinks he's hopelessly high. As previously noted, better solutions exist.

best,
Evan
  #24  
Old April 18th 19, 08:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Whisky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 402
Default Undershoot Vs. Overshoot airport landing accidents

Yes. Anytime.
  #25  
Old April 18th 19, 08:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Whisky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 402
Default Undershoot Vs. Overshoot airport landing accidents

What's your point? That was an easy situation.
How about you're too high on a field 700 ft long? 750 ft is about what I can expect as a field where I fly. And I've got away with 300 ft.

Bert TW
  #26  
Old April 18th 19, 10:14 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Paul Agnew
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 306
Default Undershoot Vs. Overshoot airport landing accidents

Lots of great insight to digest...Dive and Drag is an interesting solution, if you have enough runway to scrub off the excess speed and/or your spoilers are effective. My ASW19 stock spoilers are just not effective enough for me to try the Dive and Drag method.

Reverse Base Method = 180° turn to reverse + 90° turn to final = 270° (two turns & wind corrections).

Why not just make a stable, descending 270° turn when crossing the final? In powered, fixed-wing aircraft, it's not unusual to get assigned a right or left 270 to final by tower to improve spacing on departing aircraft. It's a basic ground reference maneuver that could be adapted for gliders so you roll out aligned with the runway.

We're supposed to be able to turn back to land above 200ft with a rope break, which is based on our collective understanding that we can safely execute a turn, maintain speed, and align with the runway from that minimum altitude. That requires 180° of turn, if the towplane drifted downwind and you turn into the wind (ideal, but our guys don't). Or, 210-270° total if you have to reverse course, angle for the runway, then turn back to align with the runway. The second scenario requires multiple, low-altitude turns. Is that ideal?

Performing a stable, 270° or 360° turn for altitude correction should be within out skillset, but only if the excessive altitude is above a certain threshold for your ship. 100-200ft high? Maybe not the best option. Clear knowledge of your ship's descent rate in a turn is critical for decision making.

That said, I've always been successful with a little slip to correct for any excess altitude. Starting the correction on the base leg and performing a slipping turn to final burns off a lot of excess altitude. (I learned to do this with Phil Beale on my CFI-A checkride back in 1986.)

Paul A.
Jupiter, FL
  #27  
Old April 18th 19, 10:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jonathon May
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 82
Default Undershoot Vs. Overshoot airport landing accidents

At 21:14 18 April 2019, Paul Agnew wrote:
Lots of great insight to digest...Dive and Drag is an interesting
solution,=
if you have enough runway to scrub off the excess speed

and/or your
spoile=
rs are effective. My ASW19 stock spoilers are just not effective

enough
for=
me to try the Dive and Drag method.=20

Reverse Base Method =3D 180=C2=B0 turn to reverse +

90=C2=B0 turn to final
=
=3D 270=C2=B0 (two turns & wind corrections).

Why not just make a stable, descending 270=C2=B0 turn when

crossing the
fin=
al? In powered, fixed-wing aircraft, it's not unusual to get

assigned a
ri=
ght or left 270 to final by tower to improve spacing on departing
aircraft.=
It's a basic ground reference maneuver that could be adapted

for gliders
s=
o you roll out aligned with the runway.

We're supposed to be able to turn back to land above 200ft with

a rope
brea=
k, which is based on our collective understanding that we can

safely
execut=
e a turn, maintain speed, and align with the runway from that

minimum
altit=
ude. That requires 180=C2=B0 of turn, if the towplane drifted

downwind and
=
you turn into the wind (ideal, but our guys don't). Or, 210-

270=C2=B0
total=
if you have to reverse course, angle for the runway, then turn

back to
ali=
gn with the runway. The second scenario requires multiple, low-

altitude
tur=
ns. Is that ideal?=20

Performing a stable, 270=C2=B0 or 360=C2=B0 turn for

altitude correction
sh=
ould be within out skillset, but only if the excessive altitude is

above a
=
certain threshold for your ship. 100-200ft high? Maybe not the

best
option.=
Clear knowledge of your ship's descent rate in a turn is critical

for
deci=
sion making. =20

That said, I've always been successful with a little slip to correct

for
an=
y excess altitude. Starting the correction on the base leg and

performing
a=
slipping turn to final burns off a lot of excess altitude. (I

learned to
d=
o this with Phil Beale on my CFI-A checkride back in 1986.)=20

Paul A.
Jupiter, FL



When we flew K7 and K13 you could dive against the brakes,
provided you open the air brakes about 50kn then lowered the
nose the speed gain was not too high.If you put on 70Kn then
opened the airbrakes the speed would not reduce much.
However if you try that in a Mk 1 Duo discus you will be zooming
down the runway at 120+kn waiting for the boundary fence.


  #28  
Old April 18th 19, 11:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Matt Herron Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default Undershoot Vs. Overshoot airport landing accidents

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 11:54:32 AM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 2:43:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
‘No 360s please. That has disaster written all over it.’ T8

Disagree once the pilot is proficient and not a student. I consider a 360 circling pattern to an off field landing preferable, especially when field elevation is unsure.
S K makes a mistake, to ‘Preach’ to him not to use a proven technique to improve knowledge of the field condition because some can’t make a coordinated turn below 1000’ agl a bit of snake handling.

R


Hi Henry:

There's nothing wrong with a 360 degree pattern (that is, one that completely encloses the landing area). The 360 I am taking issue with is the tight 360 that happens on final because the pilot thinks he's hopelessly high. As previously noted, better solutions exist.

best,
Evan


Tight 360s are much safer than shallow 360s. Much harder to stall/spin. I just finished a winch launching class, and was taught that in the event of a rope break you can find yourself at mid field at 300' -400' and your best option is a tight 360 turn or two- to the downwind side, tangent to the runway, then land from mid field once below 300'. (this is for a shorter 2700' runway). It seemed very unintuitive at first, but it worked just fine.
  #29  
Old April 19th 19, 12:16 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dave Nadler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,610
Default Undershoot Vs. Overshoot airport landing accidents

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 5:14:05 PM UTC-4, Paul Agnew wrote:
...My ASW19 stock spoilers are just not effective enough...


Yup, do the -19 spoiler upgrade that adds an additional panel,
nice to have that additional drag and safety margin!
  #30  
Old April 19th 19, 02:37 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default Undershoot Vs. Overshoot airport landing accidents

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 6:33:47 PM UTC-4, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 11:54:32 AM UTC-7, Tango Eight wrote:
On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 2:43:00 PM UTC-4, wrote:
‘No 360s please. That has disaster written all over it.’ T8

Disagree once the pilot is proficient and not a student. I consider a 360 circling pattern to an off field landing preferable, especially when field elevation is unsure.
S K makes a mistake, to ‘Preach’ to him not to use a proven technique to improve knowledge of the field condition because some can’t make a coordinated turn below 1000’ agl a bit of snake handling.

R


Hi Henry:

There's nothing wrong with a 360 degree pattern (that is, one that completely encloses the landing area). The 360 I am taking issue with is the tight 360 that happens on final because the pilot thinks he's hopelessly high. As previously noted, better solutions exist.

best,
Evan


Tight 360s are much safer than shallow 360s. Much harder to stall/spin. I just finished a winch launching class, and was taught that in the event of a rope break you can find yourself at mid field at 300' -400' and your best option is a tight 360 turn or two- to the downwind side, tangent to the runway, then land from mid field once below 300'. (this is for a shorter 2700' runway). It seemed very unintuitive at first, but it worked just fine..


Thanks for pointing that out. Winch training on my todo list, maybe I'll change my opinion in light of new data. Winch trained pilots have some advantages: namely, a lot more landings and more low altitude maneuvering and decision making. That's got to make a difference.

-Evan
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Preventing Landing Accidents Glider Safety Webinar Tom[_12_] Soaring 0 January 18th 12 07:49 PM
Overshoot in Honduras? Mike Isaksen Piloting 12 June 2nd 08 01:53 PM
Hawk overshoot [1/1] Peter Twydell Aviation Photos 0 March 25th 08 08:20 PM
Preventing Landing Accidents DVD [email protected] Soaring 0 March 26th 07 04:56 PM
Preventing Landing Accidents Video Thomas Knauff Soaring 0 March 21st 04 03:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.