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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I also live in Idaho and had a different examiner than Wayne. I did
my commercial and CFIG check at the Nampa, ID airport, 2,500 asl and about 4,700' long runway at that time. I did it in a Blanik L13 too. I had been forewarned and had practiced this with my instructor and other mentor pilots even before seeing it in the PPG. I was told to get it stopped in the first third of the runway. I started it on downwind and was only a few feet above the ground when I crossed the beginning of the runway. I did not find it too difficult and in fact the vis. from the back seat was better in a slip. The big head of the examiner was out of the way. Tom Idaho "Wayne Paul" wrote in message ... I took my practical flight test in an L-13 Blanik and was required to land without the use of spoilers. When I checked the spoilers on the down wind, the examiner informed me that they were frozen shut. He also picked a spot on the field where he wanted me to land. I started my slip prior to turning base and continued it on final making adjustments as necessary to land on the designated spot. Driggs, Idaho was the location of the examination. The field is a 6,200 feet MSL and is 7,300 feet long. Safety wasn't a concern. The landing spot picked by the examiner was 1,000 feet from the approach end. I didn't find it too stressful; however, I am sure the stress level would have been much greater on a short runway. Wayne http://www.soaridaho.com/ " |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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!). |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tamed by the Tailwheel | [email protected] | Piloting | 84 | January 18th 05 04:08 PM |
VW-1 C-121J landing with unlocked nose wheel | Mel Davidow LT USNR Ret | Military Aviation | 1 | January 19th 04 05:22 AM |
"I Want To FLY!"-(Youth) My store to raise funds for flying lessons | Curtl33 | General Aviation | 7 | January 9th 04 11:35 PM |
FAA Knowledge Test Results | Richard Moore | Instrument Flight Rules | 4 | October 12th 03 07:10 AM |
FAA Knowledge Test Results | Richard Moore | Simulators | 3 | October 12th 03 04:48 AM |