Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 12:25:54 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-354789@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.109.118.184; envelope-from=rkaplan@flyimc.com
From: Richard Kaplan <rkaplan@flyimc.com>
Reply-To: rkaplan@flyimc.com
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Shannon Knoepflein's Legacy Accident
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Wrote:

>If one knows the descent rate associated with one or
>two weight configurations and prop settings and one
>has an autopilot that has altitude management
>capabilities like the Tru-Trak, the descent rate
>could be set into the A/P and the other busy work
>could be accomplished while the plane descended at
>an approximate optimum rate. 

The autopilot would help in this situation, but simply
setting the autopilot to best glide would not
necessarily work because that could overshoot the
runway.

The TruTrak Autopilot does have a VNAV mode which will
track the exact required straight-line descent profile
to reach the airport, but an increasing headwind or
decreasing tailwind could cause that type of approach
to land short of the runway.

Perhaps a better solution if there is excess altitude
is to set up for a steeper than usual straight-in
approach with excess drag from gear or flaps,
basically using gear/flaps as a glider pilot would use
spoilers.  Then the pilot has options to increase or
decrease the glide path as needed to make it to the
runway.

All of this presumes there is enough altitude to make
it to the runway; if not, then landing into the wind
in a field or road is the better option.

Needless to say, this all is a lot easier done on the
ground than in the heat of the moment... my
condolences to all affected by this tragedy.


=====
Richard Kaplan
rkaplan@flyimc.com
www.flyimc.com