Don you certainly have some valid
points, I wasn't as clear as I could have when I spoke of 'my aircraft'.
I'm flying a twin turboprop where 130[min] to 175knts on final is normal,
160 to the FAF is standard and my landing weight is nearly four tons. I've got
no worries about making it to the runway with an engine down, however if I have
two down my only recourse would be to fly my downwind overhead the runway at
several thousand feet and practicaly split 's' to make the runway [an
exageration, but only slightly]. Again, somethings translate to higher
performance aircraft, I would strongly argue it does not apply to 'any
aircraft'. I will continue to fly a larger than standard [light single] pattern
because I believe it to be the safer option with my flight operations.
Fwiw
Jarrett Johnson
235/320 55% [and holding]
On Tue, 15 May 2012 15:44:53 -0400, Don
Karich <donkarich@gmail.com> wrote:
As an instructor for many years, i've noticed that pilots in general(As the
years go by) tend to use wider patterns and more airspeed in landing
approaches resulting in longer landings and brake pad replacement at more
frequent intervals. personally I regard the pattern and the appropriate speeds,
bank angles and decent rates cardinal and unique to each aircraft and if
practiced to adnausem to not only promote consistency, safety and a standard
which dovetails in to other phases of fllight. In checkout things to be aware of
(any aircraft) are width of downwind leg must be adjusted for width based on
ability to safely land the plane power off from a position downwind abeam the
numbers. memorize that and make it standard. I recall in my bonanza it was
to position the gas cap on the runway from pattern altitude. anything
other than that meant not making it or overshooting final. secondly was arriving
at an airspeed which would for sure get me to the numbers(needs to be
faster in a lancair that wants to fall out of the sky). of course layering in
gear and flaps. as far as bank angle in pattern, Anything over 30 degrees is
considered acrobatic. The real bonus to mastering this exact technique is in an
emergency situation or powerfailure requiring one to spiral down and accurately
put the plane on the ground one can predetermine how to set up based on a
position downwind abeam.
I find that my legacy is no different than my Bonanza. Same rules apply
only I usually add about 100ft to pattern altitude.I try to practice pulling
power off downwind abeam the numbers just to verify that I could make it if
necessary and usually I find I need to narrow the pattern abit. ( also
don't forget to factor in a crosswind). Above all STAY Coordinated
throughout and practice.
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:09 AM, Gary Casey <casey.gary@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I agree with Jarrett completely. Simply looking at the video to
establish root cause is overly simplistic. But to look at it as a learning
tool to see the potential result of using wishful thinking on the (skidding)
turn to final is, I think, very dramatic. If I were teaching ground school
I wouldn't hesitate to show it as a learning tool. I apologize if I
interpreted the comment incorrectly, but I've heard similar things so many times
I guess I'm overly sensitized :-). As for the comment on the rounded turn
to final, that might be one of picking the lesser of two evils. Squaring
off the base leg certainly gives more visibility of the possible traffic,
but it forces the turn to final to be more abrupt and less forgiving. I
think it depends on the circumstances as to which is safer.
Gary Casey
The problem with a rounded turn from downwind to
final is this is your last chance to visually clear the traffic possibly on
final
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Jarrett Johnson <hjjohnson@sasktel.net> wrote:
Morning Gary, I guess my main concern was simply to attribute an accident
from a grainy video to a finite control input is probably not sound "cause of
crash" assessment technique. There is simply too many variables here to
finitly say what caused this crash. I'm certainly not rejecting the possibility,
but I wouldn't limit it to that possibility either. The misalignment of the
a/c with it's direction of flight is certainly interesting but
does not eliminate a single engine [right failed]/ VMCA possibility, I've
seen video in the past of similar approaches where due to camera angle it looks
very missaligned but in reality is probably much less so. I noticed the smoke
did not drift so there was limited wind on the field at least in the vertical
range shown by the camera, this would lead me to think a tailwind turn was not
likely a contribution to the crash.
Something else I'd like to mention... I did not intent to project the "
I'm so good" personna. Although I've some reasonable experiance and training,
I'm no 'mind boggling' pilot, nor would I like to project that I am
[if that was the case, ie; interpereted from my prior comments]. In the end
we're all human and we can get into senarios where we never thought we'd get..
seeing them for what they are becoming is the name of the game in accident
avoidance but it doesn't always stop us from getting there, I've scared the crap
out of myself a couple times and was just lucky enough to live through and learn
from it.
Btw, I'm w/ you on the rounded base/final turn, it makes for a smoother
approach/landing and I find one can spot the possible overshoot much
earlier [and adjust] in the larger turn vs a short/tight turn to
final.
Best Regards
Jarrett
Johnson
|