Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: hitech on November 05, 2012, 09:21:04 AM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xU2HxqXUtk
What the film does not say is also there is a big pilot screw up. That runway has a 500 foot displaced thresh hold. The pilot was landing well short of the end of the runway.
The road is the reason for the displacement.
http://maps.google.com/maps?z=14&q=33.0498447+-97.2322375&ll=33.0498447+-97.2322375&iwloc=near
HiTech
-
Had the same thing happen at KLOM in about 1980, although I believe it was a Navajo. Plane made a fine landing.
- oldman
-
wow
i think there was error in both parties. the people driving should have been able to hear that plane coming in.
i also see what your talking about with him trying to land way short of the runway
-
I'm a trucker not a pilot, from the driver point of view, maybe i would have missed a poorly marked stop sign like this also ,especially in low light conditions, night, wet road reflections or snow covered.
-
wow
i think there was error in both parties. the people driving should have been able to hear that plane coming in.
i also see what your talking about with him trying to land way short of the runway
I agree , also I have never thought about it, but the markings are sorta written in pilot speak, I.E. hold short line. As a pilot of course you stop and look for planes on final before crossing the runway. Almost impossible not to look both ways when crossing a runway. But the thought of looking for a plane on final would be very foreign to a non pilot.
A few years ago this happened at the other end of the runway.
http://www.airport-data.com/images/aircrafts/small/180/180913.jpg
No one was injured.
After which they finally cut down the trees that blocked your view when taking the runway for take off.
HiTech
-
Wow. Glad nobody was seriously injured.
To me, it's new pilot + clueless drivers = near disaster. I think there's enough blame for all of them to take.
-
has anyone thought of putting an actual stop sign and secondary sign with it that warns of planes landing? i live close to an airport, i've had jets come over my head while driving and only saw them because i have t-tops. i can see it being easy not to hear that plane.
-
I disagree about hearing an idling airplane coming in. They can be really quiet with the power pulled to idle. In a car with the windows up, you'd be hard pressed to hear it. There are usually signs around roads where they cross the approach end of runways (caution low flying aircraft) and, if there wasn't in this case, it's an airport management fail.
The news story says he was a student pilot on a solo. His wife being @ the airport with video running tells me he was based there. This tells me he should've been aware of the displaced threshold and the reason it was there. Pilot error IMO unless he was going to hold a long flair till he passed the threshold which would make it a show off type thing and also pilot error. Can't remember an FAR that states the minimum altitude above a displaced threshold though so he can argue he wasn't going to touch down till he was past the marker.
Maybe he wasn't really ready to be a solo pilot in which case it would be an instructor fail.
I tend to put more blame on everyone that wasn't in the car but the stop sign was painted on the road for a reason.
Looking at the sat image on Google, there's no way he should've been that low with the threshold that far out.
-
Doh! We have the same discussion going in the O'club.
I agree Mak - if he was flying solo, he should of had a knowledge of airport markings, especially at his home airport, and that is the point I made in the other thread. I too looked at google earth and the pilot was most definitely way too low, barely dragging it across the threshold (or what he thought was the threshold). Hopefully that is not what his instructor taught to be a "stable approach".
-
That must have really sucked for the pilot and the instructor. What a defeat for the pilot if it was his first solo. Didn't like the airport manager instantly getting in the face of the driver, good way to make sure you get sued. Its a stupid setup, is it the usual: development encroaching on a small field?
-
That must have really sucked for the pilot and the instructor. What a defeat for the pilot if it was his first solo. Didn't like the airport manager instantly getting in the face of the driver, good way to make sure you get sued. Its a stupid setup, is it the usual: development encroaching on a small field?
Probably not his first solo as the article mentioned he has left the airport envoronment (first solo cross-country). nonetheless, it still sucks.
-
the people driving should have been able to hear that plane coming in.
Not very likely. Short final the power is going to be way back, probably idle. The only real noise will be wind noise off the airframe. Windows in the car up, music on and you'll never hear it.
That being said, folks need to use the peripheral vision a little bit.
-
Reminded me of the stories my mom told of riding in a car out in the middle of nowhere in South Dakota during WW2. The training pilots would come along and roll their wheels along the roof of the car and then land in front of the car and take off again. probably couldn't get away with that today :)
What a lousy way to end a flight for that pilot and the folks in the truck
-
A few years ago this happened at the other end of the runway.
http://www.airport-data.com/images/aircrafts/small/180/180913.jpg
No one was injured.
After which they finally cut down the trees that blocked your view when taking the runway for take off.
HiTech
How does someone manage to do that? I'm not a pilot or an expert on landing a plane, but to me it seems like you'd have to be a complete idiot to do such a thing.
-
How does someone manage to do that? I'm not a pilot or an expert on landing a plane, but to me it seems like you'd have to be a complete idiot to do such a thing.
Without reading the NTSB report, I would guess the red plane taxied out while the plane on top was in his flare just about to touch down.
-
You need a 3000'+ displacement imho.
(http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/current/airport_diagrams/thumbnails/00680AD.jpg)
I think there's a third party involved that many have not been mentioned elsewhere yet (4th if you want to give credit to the airport management), the pilot was a student, and while he may completely not be at any fault, some responcibility should be put on this student's instructor, but really only other CFIs should be able to criticise that aspect of involvement.
-
Without reading the NTSB report, I would guess the red plane taxied out while the plane on top was in his flare just about to touch down.
Even that doesn't make sense. Iv'e been in small airplanes before and know that it'd be hard to miss a 4 ton aircraft flying at you from a mile away, and if it wasn't visible what did the guys in the control tower say to the guy in the red plane (possibly) knowing that the other one was on the same runway coming in for landing?
-
Just curious, who put a road in the path of the runway
Or, who designed a runway in the path of a road?
Not a pilot, but it just seems....well.....stupid?
Or, is this a road that services the airport?
Here nor there, but is there a stop sign? Or just the pavement markings.....Its hard to tell from the Video.
-
Maybe this can be incorporated into the game when trying to hit the supply convoy? :bhead
-
How does someone manage to do that? I'm not a pilot or an expert on landing a plane, but to me it seems like you'd have to be a complete idiot to do such a thing.
No external view in real life....you can hide a lot under the nose of many aircraft, especially if flying a power on, slow, nose high approach.
-
seems like a very inexperienced pilot...the cessna was landing flapless; it was also close to the stall (check body-angle) and lateral control.
If the runway was short he or she should of had at least some flaps - better vis, better lateral control, better opportunity for a go aound had he seen the SUV.
Always remember, a good landing is one you can walk away from.... a Great Landing lets you use the airplane again.
-
Even that doesn't make sense. Iv'e been in small airplanes before and know that it'd be hard to miss a 4 ton aircraft flying at you from a mile away, and if it wasn't visible what did the guys in the control tower say to the guy in the red plane (possibly) knowing that the other one was on the same runway coming in for landing?
neither aircraft in the picture are four tons. In fact, both combined do not weigh four tons. The incident most likely did not happen at a towered airport (most airports are not controlled).
-
neither aircraft in the picture are four tons. In fact, both combined do not weigh four tons. The incident most likely did not happen at a towered airport (most airports are not controlled).
I'm not an expert on aircraft weight, so my guesses were clearly off but if you ask me I think it was still possible to see a plane coming in for landing before taxiing onto the runway. Planes aren't that hard to spot from my experience.
-
I'm not an expert on aircraft weight, so my guesses were clearly off but if you ask me I think it was still possible to see a plane coming in for landing before taxiing onto the runway. Planes aren't that hard to spot from my experience.
Spotting other aircraft can be very difficult. Spotting aircraft in the pattern (while you are still on the ground) is easier than spotting other aircraft while in the air, but both can be challenging. It is very possible the red plane on the bottom didn't even bother looking before jumping out on the runway, though. I don't want to assume anything as I have not read any reports on the accident.
-
Spotting other aircraft can be very difficult. Spotting aircraft in the pattern (while you are still on the ground) is easier than spotting other aircraft while in the air, but both can be challenging. It is very possible the red plane on the bottom didn't even bother looking before jumping out on the runway, though. I don't want to assume anything as I have not read any reports on the accident.
I am also going to guess that the guy in the red plane hadn't looked before he went and caused the accident. I know that just by looking at a plane in game while landing, its hard to see what's under your nose because it covers your FOV but I believe it was mostly the guy in the red plane who had caused the problem.
-
I am also going to guess that the guy in the red plane hadn't looked before he went and caused the accident. I know that just by looking at a plane in game while landing, its hard to see what's under your nose because it covers your FOV but I believe it was mostly the guy in the red plane who had caused the problem.
Yeah, that's what I mean. The red aircraft could very well have jumped right out there while the other was on short final, beginning his flare. In that case it would have been impossible for the landing aircraft to see him. My guess, FWIW (probably not much :0).
-
if i remember right, I thought it was min 50 at threshold
-
On the plane on plane incident.
The red plane had started his take off roll.
From the run up spot on runway 35 it was impossible to see planes on short final due to trees. I used to spend extra time before taking runway to make sure that the blind spot was clear. You could see downwind base and long final with out a problem.
Obviously there also must have been some type of communication issue that the red plane did not hear the landing plane make his final call.
After the incident they removed a lot of trees to clear the blind spot.
HiTech
-
on the original post, anyone that has flown in a small plane knows how much of a blind spot the nose is. the pilot can see in front and off to the left, the co-pilot/passenger, straight and off to the right. if i were a passenger in that plane, i would've yelled about that car coming. if he had no one in there, i believe he said it was his first solo, he would've been totally blind on that right side. therefore he would've never seen the car coming.
now the guy in the car, like most morons on the road, assumed that the plane could see him. the car also figured that he in his all powerful SUV could either make it or figured that the plane would fly over him. Guess he was wrong on both counts. and the wench in the passenger seat, well, ill leave that alone.....
i fly in planes, i drive big rigs, i have a boat captains license and run large vessels, i run heavy equipment and i ride a motorcycle. based on my experiences there are 2 things i alway remember.
1 the guy in the 4 wheeler will always do something stupid and cause an accident.
2. always assume that the car is going to do something stupid and be ready for it.
when you're on a motorcycle, it doesnt matter if you have the right of way, or did the right thing, you will be the one to suffer.
in a boat or truck or plane, again even if you right, it doesn't matter if you're dead! always assume the other guy will do something stupid.
-
I know when I was practicing short field landings I would touch down just after grass. Maybe....?
-
On the plane on plane incident.
The red plane had started his take off roll.
From the run up spot on runway 35 it was impossible to see planes on short final due to trees. I used to spend extra time before taking runway to make sure that the blind spot was clear. You could see downwind base and long final with out a problem.
Obviously there also must have been some type of communication issue that the red plane did not hear the landing plane make his final call.
After the incident they removed a lot of trees to clear the blind spot.
HiTech
That place has had a bad run here lately.
-
I thought Hitech had just bought his own airport and we were all invited to stay over..........
:airplane:
-
52F is one of the busiest small airports around. I think is has around 600 aircraft based there.
About 2 months ago, there was an engine outage on take off causing a fatality.
And 1 month ago, one plane based out of 52F crashed with all killed in west Texas. (my guess was weather, never heard final report)
HiTech
-
And 1 month ago, one plane based out of 52F crashed with all killed in west Texas. (my guess was weather, never heard final report)
Sounds like an engine problem, coupled with someone trying to make that impossible turn:
On September 22, 2012, about 1330 central daylight time, a Piper PA-28R-180 airplane, N4567J, impacted terrain and trees approximately one-quarter mile south of the Northwest Regional Airport (F52), Roanoke, Texas. The commercial rated pilot and certificated flight instructor (CFI) were fatally injured and the airplane sustained substantial damaged. The airplane was registered to and operated by a private individual. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight.
Initial reports from witnesses indicate that the airplane departed the south runway; however, the takeoff roll was noticeable longer than airplanes typically perform, with an unusual engine sound. The airplane was observed to start a left turn, before it descended towards a grove of trees and disappeared out of sight.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and National Transportation Safety Board responded to the accident site. The airplane impacted several trees off the south end of runway 17. Both the left and right wings separated near their roots and remained suspended in the trees. The fuselage was located about 60 feet beyond the wings, nestled amongst the base of several trees.
After documentation of the crash site, the airplane was retrieved for further examination.
http://www.aopa.org/asf/ntsb/searchResults.cfm?identifier=52F&helicopter=BOTH
-
Spotting other aircraft can be very difficult. Spotting aircraft in the pattern (while you are still on the ground) is easier than spotting other aircraft while in the air, but both can be challenging. It is very possible the red plane on the bottom didn't even bother looking before jumping out on the runway, though. I don't want to assume anything as I have not read any reports on the accident.
on 2 occasions, i had people pull out on the runway in front of me while i was on short final. i was lucky though, as i was in position to power up, and go around.....
-
<snip>
A few years ago this happened at the other end of the runway.
http://www.airport-data.com/images/aircrafts/small/180/180913.jpg
No one was injured.
After which they finally cut down the trees that blocked your view when taking the runway for take off.
HiTech
What this picture doesn't show is off to the left are the two pilots arguing about the collision model.
:bolt:
-
What this picture doesn't show is off to the left are the two pilots arguing about the collision model.
:bolt:
Actually it is how spitfires are made>>> :bolt:
-
Sounds like an engine problem, coupled with someone trying to make that impossible turn:
On September 22, 2012, about 1330 central daylight time, a Piper PA-28R-180 airplane, N4567J, impacted terrain and trees approximately one-quarter
Different incident then the one killed in west texas it was a Bonaza. The Piper you speak of was an engine out on take off.
This is the 2nd one I am speaking of.
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/denton/Bad-weather-may-be-factor-in-plane-crash-173047891.html
HiTech
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xU2HxqXUtk
What the film does not say is also there is a big pilot screw up. That runway has a 500 foot displaced thresh hold. The pilot was landing well short of the end of the runway.
The road is the reason for the displacement.
http://maps.google.com/maps?z=14&q=33.0498447+-97.2322375&ll=33.0498447+-97.2322375&iwloc=near
HiTech
Anyone notice that a low time student was landing down wind. That may account for his batched approach and total lack of the displacement.
-
Anyone notice that a low time student was landing down wind. That may account for his batched approach and total lack of the displacement.
Not really enough wind to matter either way...and a tailwind will make you land long, not short.
-
Anyone notice that a low time student was landing down wind. That may account for his batched approach and total lack of the displacement.
I'm more curious as to why he was making a no-flap landing.
-
Different incident then the one killed in west texas it was a Bonaza. The Piper you speak of was an engine out on take off.
This is the 2nd one I am speaking of.
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/denton/Bad-weather-may-be-factor-in-plane-crash-173047891.html
HiTech
(http://cbsdallas.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/plane-crash-thurs5.jpg?w=300&h=225)
Did you know about this one a few weeks ago?
-
I'm more curious as to why he was making a no-flap landing.
Why not? You get a flatter glide and your timing doesn't have to be as good in the flare as with full flaps. There is plenty of runway there for a no flap landing. When I learned to fly I was taught a normal pattern is 10 degrees of flap for landing, full flaps only for a "short field".
However, a no flap approach means a higher deck angle vs using flaps. With a good power off approach and full flaps the nose is low allowing a much better view of the approach end of the runway and your intended touchdown point -- something which might have prevented this accident.
-
Why not? You get a flatter glide and your timing doesn't have to be as good in the flare as with full flaps. There is plenty of runway there for a no flap landing. When I learned to fly I was taught a normal pattern is 10 degrees of flap for landing, full flaps only for a "short field".
However, a no flap approach means a higher deck angle vs using flaps. With a good power off approach and full flaps the nose is low allowing a much better view of the approach end of the runway and your intended touchdown point -- something which might have prevented this accident.
I'm not sure why he would intentionally come in faster and chew up more runway gliding down it with no flaps. Those 172s will float in ground effect for a long time if flaps aren't used.
-
When I learned to fly I was taught a normal pattern is 10 degrees of flap for landing, full flaps only for a "short field".
You were taught wrong. I say that with 30 years of giving flight instruction.
-
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/popcorn.gif)
-
I'm not sure why he would intentionally come in faster and chew up more runway gliding down it with no flaps. Those 172s will float in ground effect for a long time if flaps aren't used.
Almost all training in 172's is now no flap approaches. All my normal field training was with no flaps in a 172.
RV I typically use 10 deg just for a tad slower stall speed. Full flap landings make it more difficult to have a feather soft touch down by rolling the wheels on.
HiTech
-
Slashe27: That does not look like 52F North West regional to me.
HiTech
-
I don't know why in a 172 people wouldn't use full flaps. You don't float as much, you are carrying less energy (so less energy in the event of a crash - like this one) and less runway usage. Since your touchdown speed is slower it's also less wear on the tires & brakes.
-
I use full flaps every time, but then I mainly operate out of a short field in the 172.
-
You were taught wrong. I say that with 30 years of giving flight instruction.
Cessna doesn't agree with you. Flap use is optional.
-
I really liked the 40 degree flaps we had in the aerobat.
-
Cessna doesn't agree with you. Flap use is optional.
Colmbo, this is what you originally said "When I learned to fly I was taught a normal pattern is 10 degrees of flap for landing, full flaps only for a "short field"."
I was just saying that if your instructor taught you that, he/she was wrong.
are you saying that cessna taught you to only use 10% flaps for every landing?
I’m looking at the POH for 172 Normal Procedures. Landing , Normal Landing the very first sentence reads: “ Normal landing approaches can be made with power-on or power-off with any flap setting desired.”
I'd be insterested if you could direct me to the Cessna manual, teaching guide or any Cessna document that instructed you to limit flap usage to 10%. Because that's what you said, you were taught, instructed to only use 10% flaps for a normal landing. That is wrong.
thanks.
-
Put your nit picker away.
He was taught a technique, which is acceptable with the manufacturers allowances. His technique doesn't make it your or anyone else's procedure.
And you oughta know that.
Personally I liked flaps 20 degrees at my home 5500' field once upon a time.
-
Why not? You get a flatter glide and your timing doesn't have to be as good in the flare as with full flaps. There is plenty of runway there for a no flap landing. When I learned to fly I was taught a normal pattern is 10 degrees of flap for landing, full flaps only for a "short field".
i was taught 10 degrees at initial decent, turn base, go to 20, turn final, stabilize, and when field is definitely made, go 30 degrees. was told i can go to 40 on short final if necessary.
i was made to practice no-flap landings when practicing simulated emergencies. all of my training was in c172n's, and some in c172p's. oh yea.....have about 12 hours in a 1962 c172a? i think it was? 6 cylinder with manual flaps.
not a single one of those was i taught to normally land with less than 30 degrees in normal conditions
-
Traveler, of what I know of Columbo, "calling him out" which I feel you may have just done, will not end well for your ego sir.
Don't get mad or even a bit irate at me, I speak from years of flying sims with Columbo sir.
And traveler, <S>
-
Slashe27: That does not look like 52F North West regional to me.
HiTech
It was. Guy lost power and ran through the fence on the south end.
-
Cap,
The neat thing about technique vs procedure is it allows for the million ways to skin the cat of operating an airplane safely. If you're changing configuration on short final I'd critique against changing anything when you're in that tight. If the difference between being okay and making it is between flaps 30 and 40 in a trainer then take it around and be on target for your next pass. This is double super duper especially so for student pilots where one technique at a time is all they should have.
You were taught to do things the same way each time and that repetition is a good thing. On my first flight as an instructor I babysat a certificated private pilot on a cross country. Things went fine and we entered the pattern at the destination on the 45 which made life easy for him. Upon returning home we were told to report a 3 mile right base. He was lined up fine and when we were still outside the local D airspace he added 10 degrees of flaps. 6-7 miles from the field. I was curious so I asked why he did that. "I was taught to have flaps 10 when turning base and and add 20..." (here, 30 here, etc. Hard to argue that logic but I asked if he wouldn't mind pulling the flaps up and trying it "this way" adding the flaps in the same distance from landing just in different points in space. He was actually noticeably uncomfortable and I was scratching my head at this. Well he soldiered through, flew a successful approach and landing. When we got on the ground we chatted a bit about it and it turns out he never had flown or had been asked to fly a modified pattern at any point. Doing all his instruction at even a towered airport he only approached from the west or south when it came to the practice area and cross countries. His flying since passing his checkride had been more of the same. We talked about it a little more, he was excited and asked to fly some more with me going forward.
The point of the story is that repetition and a consistent technique are great training aids. In the real world there are times you'll want to amend that technique for any number of reasons and even though they way you may have even initially taught something doesn't mean it's the only way.
This isn't just toward you. Pilots have gotten into disagreements in airline and business jet cockpits alike over procedure vs technique.
-
I don't know why in a 172 people wouldn't use full flaps. You don't float as much, you are carrying less energy (so less energy in the event of a crash - like this one) and less runway usage. Since your touchdown speed is slower it's also less wear on the tires & brakes.
if you've got an older model with 40 degrees, you can get yourself into a lot of trouble with those barn doors hanging down that low.
-
Colmbo, this is what you originally said "When I learned to fly I was taught a normal pattern is 10 degrees of flap for landing, full flaps only for a "short field"."
I was just saying that if your instructor taught you that, he/she was wrong.
You're correct in that it's okay to use any flap setting so using full flap for a "normal" landing is as correct as using zero flap.
I don't agree that my instruction was "wrong" -- See Golfers reply. :D
In my personal flying I always use full flaps for landing be it 150, 206 or B-24.
-
if you've got an older model with 40 degrees, you can get yourself into a lot of trouble with those barn doors hanging down that low.
Not really. You can get yourself into just as much trouble using no flap settings if you fail to use proper technique.
-
It was. Guy lost power and ran through the fence on the south end.
Do you know when that was?
HiTech
-
if you've got an older model with 40 degrees, you can get yourself into a lot of trouble with those barn doors hanging down that low.
I've got almost 600 hours in my 172 using full flaps almost all the time - it's got 40. The only thing I could see someone getting into trouble is if they get into an airport they can't get out of. That happened to the owners of the 172 before me but then they put the big engine on it and never had that problem again.
-
I've got almost 600 hours in my 172 using full flaps almost all the time - it's got 40. The only thing I could see someone getting into trouble is if they get into an airport they can't get out of. That happened to the owners of the 172 before me but then they put the big engine on it and never had that problem again.
i didn't say you would, but rather you could.
-
Cap,
The neat thing about technique vs procedure is it allows for the million ways to skin the cat of operating an airplane safely. If you're changing configuration on short final I'd critique against changing anything when you're in that tight. If the difference between being okay and making it is between flaps 30 and 40 in a trainer then take it around and be on target for your next pass. This is double super duper especially so for student pilots where one technique at a time is all they should have.
You were taught to do things the same way each time and that repetition is a good thing. On my first flight as an instructor I babysat a certificated private pilot on a cross country. Things went fine and we entered the pattern at the destination on the 45 which made life easy for him. Upon returning home we were told to report a 3 mile right base. He was lined up fine and when we were still outside the local D airspace he added 10 degrees of flaps. 6-7 miles from the field. I was curious so I asked why he did that. "I was taught to have flaps 10 when turning base and and add 20..." (here, 30 here, etc. Hard to argue that logic but I asked if he wouldn't mind pulling the flaps up and trying it "this way" adding the flaps in the same distance from landing just in different points in space. He was actually noticeably uncomfortable and I was scratching my head at this. Well he soldiered through, flew a successful approach and landing. When we got on the ground we chatted a bit about it and it turns out he never had flown or had been asked to fly a modified pattern at any point. Doing all his instruction at even a towered airport he only approached from the west or south when it came to the practice area and cross countries. His flying since passing his checkride had been more of the same. We talked about it a little more, he was excited and asked to fly some more with me going forward.
The point of the story is that repetition and a consistent technique are great training aids. In the real world there are times you'll want to amend that technique for any number of reasons and even though they way you may have even initially taught something doesn't mean it's the only way.
This isn't just toward you. Pilots have gotten into disagreements in airline and business jet cockpits alike over procedure vs technique.
understood sir.
and flaps 7 miles out?
-
i didn't say you would, but rather you could.
I'm just not sure what you meant. What makes them more able to get you in trouble?
-
I'm just not sure what you meant. What makes them more able to get you in trouble?
those barn doors are pure drag at 40 degrees. you're gonna have to be on your game if anything happens unexpectedly.
-
Even if you didn't know what 'hold short' meant (if that was what the sign said), I find it so hard to imagine crossing that close to the end of a ry that you don't look ~ if not anything else, just for the fascinating possibility that you may see a plane that close to you.
-
Even if you didn't know what 'hold short' meant (if that was what the sign said), I find it so hard to imagine crossing that close to the end of a ry that you don't look ~ if not anything else, just for the fascinating possibility that you may see a plane that close to you.
Well.... you know how women are :p
:neener:
-
I love the "we didn't pull in front of a plane" comment then the "yes you did" Looks like that road need to be moved or stop lights like this (http://roadsafety.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/6.jpg)
-
those barn doors are pure drag at 40 degrees. you're gonna have to be on your game if anything happens unexpectedly.
What, specifically makes it worse than 30 and why?
-
What, specifically makes it worse than 30 and why?
lets see if i can remember.
go arounds. not going to happen with 40 degrees of flaps out. those things are HUGE. at 40 degrees, they are pure drag. wonderful for short field landings, and/or when a steep approach is necessary.
but if you have a missed approach, the airplane just doesn't have the power to climb out with 40 degrees of flaps hanging out. so now, you've got to kill carb heat, firewall the throttle, and reduce flap setting to 20 degrees, all in a second or two. it's a recipe for an NTSB report.
i know later model 172's only have 30 degrees at maximum flaps, but i don't know why. i'd presume that safety is a big part of that reason.
-
ALL of the single engine Cessna's I've flown (150, 152, 172, 177, 182, 206 and 208) will climb with full flaps. My initial CFI had a habit of making you fly a pattern with full flaps. Field elevation there was 1350', it was May and June in northwest Arkansas so density altitude was up there a bit. The airplanes will do it, it just isn't a lot of fun.
The reduction to 30 degree max on the later 172s was in part due to the increase in certificated gross weight and the need to be able to climb with flaps out, part of the certification requirements IIRC.
****Edit. Part 23.77 requires the aircraft to "be able to maintain a steady gradient of climb of at least 3.3%" using takeoff power, flaps in the landing position.
-
Traveler, of what I know of Columbo, "calling him out" which I feel you may have just done, will not end well for your ego sir.
Don't get mad or even a bit irate at me, I speak from years of flying sims with Columbo sir.
And traveler, <S>
I was not calling anyone out. I was questioning his statement on being trained to limite his flap setting to 10% for every approach except to short field. My only comment was that if that was true, if a flight instructor taught him that flap settings are limited to 10% for a normal approach. That instruction is incorrect.
-
I don't agree that my instruction was "wrong" -- See Golfers reply. :D
If as you stated that you were taught to limit your flap setting for a normal approach to 10% flap settings, the FAA would say that instructor was wrong.
-
.
-
Do you know when that was?
HiTech
Oct. 11th
-
My only comment was that if that was true, if a flight instructor taught him that flap settings are limited to 10% for a normal approach. That instruction is incorrect.
My CFI didn't say that, I didn't mean to imply that he did. The hazards of a time-delay text-only conversation. :)
I was just trying to point out that a no-flap landing in a Cessna isn't a big deal, some were questioning why the accident aircraft made a no flap approach.
Sure glad no one mentioned the "slips with flaps prohibited" thing. :devil
-
Sure glad no one mentioned the "slips with flaps prohibited" thing.
Heh. Probably no one has a pre-1972 172 manual.
- oldman
-
Heh. Probably no one has a pre-1972 172 manual.
- oldman
i had one for the 62 i flew.
-
Almost all training in 172's is now no flap approaches. All my normal field training was with no flaps in a 172.
RV I typically use 10 deg just for a tad slower stall speed. Full flap landings make it more difficult to have a feather soft touch down by rolling the wheels on.
HiTech
I have to question the instructors on this one....
Simplest question....ever wanna fly anything high performance or bigger?
As a former check pilot, I would expect to see all config landings demonstrated and consider a flapless landing an abnormal config.
-
Had the same thing happen at KLOM in about 1980, although I believe it was a Navajo. Plane made a fine landing.
- oldman
Strange how that "Low flying aircraft" sign on Stenton Ave. makes me look up...
-
I don't know why in a 172 people wouldn't use full flaps. You don't float as much, you are carrying less energy (so less energy in the event of a crash - like this one) and less runway usage. Since your touchdown speed is slower it's also less wear on the tires & brakes.
From what I've been hearing from instructors that I talk with, the state your flaps are in is not what they want you to focus on when landing (as is being discussed here), but what your energy state is and particularly having enough energy/speed to abort or maneuver if need be while still maintaining a steady decent rate (aka: technique). I have no time in a 172, but lets play your scenario, one of your typical aproaches and you do have low energy + full flaps, but then what if someone pulls out on the runway 50-feet infront of you (and this is something happening more frequently these days as more pilots enter aviation while more ATCs "retire"). If you try to react immediatley in that state (turn or power-on), will also the plane?
-
I have to question the instructors on this one....
Simplest question....ever wanna fly anything high performance or bigger?
As a former check pilot, I would expect to see all config landings demonstrated and consider a flapless landing an abnormal config.
Where did I ever say that was the only way I was trained to land the 172? It was jut the normal touch and go practice configuration.
On the RV I change settings depend on what end of the field I am on and depending on conditions. When landing 35 at 52F I like to trying to make the 450 ft turn off to my hangar hence full flaps. When landing 17 I never even touch the brakes after landing except to stop at the hangar.
HiTech
HiTech
-
From what I've been hearing from instructors that I talk with, the state your flaps are in is not what they want you to focus on when landing (as is being discussed here), but what your energy state is and particularly having enough energy/speed to abort or maneuver if need be while still maintaining a steady decent rate (aka: technique). I have no time in a 172, but lets play your scenario, one of your typical aproaches and you do have low energy + full flaps, but then what if someone pulls out on the runway 50-feet infront of you (and this is something happening more frequently these days as more pilots enter aviation while more ATCs "retire"). If you try to react immediatley in that state (turn or power-on), will also the plane?
I would apply full power and sidestep, my 172 has plenty of power to go around with full flaps, and I've practiced the maneuver before.
-
Strange how that "Low flying aircraft" sign on Stenton Ave. makes me look up...
There used to be (not sure it still exists) one of those residential airports in Ramona and each stop sign had a small sign that read, "Look left, right and up for oncoming traffic".
ack-ack
-
There used to be (not sure it still exists) one of those residential airports in Ramona and each stop sign had a small sign that read, "Look left, right and up for oncoming traffic".
ack-ack
that sign would confuse the average nj driver. :noid
-
.... and particularly having enough energy/speed to abort or maneuver if need be while still maintaining a steady decent rate (aka: technique).
Really? Short final should be the most "low energy" portion of the flight....unless you like driving off the departure end of the runway. Not once in 6000+ landings have I wondered if I have the "energy" to maneuver when landing. My only real energy concern has been having enough to arrest the sink rate (sometimes on a steep, short field approach you need a bit of power in the flare to "cushion" the landing).
The odds of someone pulling out in front of you are pretty low (but I've had it happen), I'm not going to carry any extra speed "just in case". The hazard of the extra speed outweighs the hazard of what "might" happen.
-
I was taught to and do use full flaps in a 172 (40 degrees in the aircraft I have most of my 172 time in). The 172 will climb with full flaps, just not very quickly. I have always thought it sloppy airmanship to come in with no/minimal flaps and fast (as a biproduct). That is just my opinion though - people do things differently and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not flying the trusty 172 much anymore which I am fine with. They feel slow and broken now that my time has been spent in Bonanzas and Barons lately.
-
I would apply full power and sidestep, my 172 has plenty of power to go around with full flaps, and I've practiced the maneuver before.
Ah yeah, you've mentioned the upgraded powerplant the previous owners installed a couple times, good deal (how fast can it climb with full flaps?).
Really? Short final should be the most "low energy" portion of the flight....unless you like driving off the departure end of the runway. Not once in 6000+ landings have I wondered if I have the "energy" to maneuver when landing. My only real energy concern has been having enough to arrest the sink rate (sometimes on a steep, short field approach you need a bit of power in the flare to "cushion" the landing).
The odds of someone pulling out in front of you are pretty low (but I've had it happen), I'm not going to carry any extra speed "just in case". The hazard of the extra speed outweighs the hazard of what "might" happen.
Again, I have no 172 experience, but how much runway does it need to stop at 80knts? The reason I even brought this up is coincidently just as you mentioned, I see 172s at least once a day with full flaps ~60knts (maybe less sometimes) and then having to really gun it to cushion it on the flare. Maybe they're practicing techniques, but I'm not counting those more obviously practicing power-offs and such.
Buster jogged my memory a bit, someone before once told me a couple years ago full flaps on a 172 isn't really much defelction (due to I recall surface area and the 40deg limit) at full. Funny coincidence again, that same person hasn't flown a 172 in a while as he also enjoys his BC a metric-ton more these days too (particulary the days that it doesn't need any fixing or work).
-
Ah yeah, you've mentioned the upgraded powerplant the previous owners installed a couple times, good deal (how fast can it climb with full flaps?).
Again, I have no 172 experience, but how much runway does it need to stop at 80knts? The reason I even brought this up is coincidently just as you mentioned, I see 172s at least once a day with full flaps ~60knts (maybe less sometimes) and then having to really gun it to cushion it on the flare. Maybe they're practicing techniques, but I'm not counting those more obviously practicing power-offs and such.
Buster jogged my memory a bit, someone before once told me a couple years ago full flaps on a 172 isn't really much defelction (due to I recall surface area and the 40deg limit) at full. Funny coincidence again, that same person hasn't flown a 172 in a while as he also enjoys his BC a metric-ton more these days too (particulary the days that it doesn't need any fixing or work).
it's been about 4 years since i've been in the air.......
downwind about 80 to 100kts. no need to rush things. do midfield check, then when abreast of my aim point, pull engine to 1500rpm, as necessary to slow down a bit, 10 degrees flaps, re-trim for 500/ft descent, around 70. when the aim point's at about my 5 oclock, turn base. if everything looks right, 20 degrees flaps, re-trim to maintain descent. picture still looks good, clear long final(i can't tell you how many times i've had people come in flying a 1.5 mile final), then turn onto final. at this point i generally like to be doing about 65kts. re-trim as necessary to keep the picture looking good, and maintain my 500ft descent. short final, slow to 60kts, 30 degrees flaps. as my aim point starts to vanish under the nose, pull throttle to idle, hold nose off for the flare, touch down on the numbers, and take the first turn off.
that of course is on calm wind days. crosswinds change things some, and headwinds change them too. i landed ONCE with a 5kt tailwind. it was me being stupid, and although i'd listened to AWOS, saw the windsock favoring the opposite runway, rather than say something, i got stupid, and entered the pattern #3 in line. none of us had problems. i floated a bit longer than i'm accustomed to, and that was why. as i was taxing back to the runway, someone else mentioned the winds, and we all had to taxi to the other end of the runway.
the power difference between the "N" models with 160hp, and the "P" model we had with the 180hp engine was actually surprising. it threw off my sight pictures the first time i flew it. i was airborne a couple hundred feet quicker, hit 500ft way earlier than i was used to, and was much more sensitive to throttle adjustments when landing or cruising.
i had landed the "N" models with 40 degrees of flaps, but i never truly needed them. 30 was always enough. the CFI i spent a lot of time flying with was constantly throwing "emergencies" at me, so believe it or not, on a landing without electrics, landing with no flaps was no big deal. i flew final just as if i had flaps, just with less throttle, and floated for a lot longer than i wanted to.....but still well before the decision point of a go-around(that was the windsock at this particular airport...on the ground, good to go...still in the air, was gonna feed in the throttle, and head over to pne where they've got really long runways.)
almost forgot........40 degrees of flaps is a lot. and those suckers are pretty big too.
-
Ah yeah, you've mentioned the upgraded powerplant the previous owners installed a couple times, good deal (how fast can it climb with full flaps?).
Again, I have no 172 experience, but how much runway does it need to stop at 80knts? The reason I even brought this up is coincidently just as you mentioned, I see 172s at least once a day with full flaps ~60knts (maybe less sometimes) and then having to really gun it to cushion it on the flare. Maybe they're practicing techniques, but I'm not counting those more obviously practicing power-offs and such.
I'd never land a 172 at 80 knots...way too fast. I don't have a POH handy, IIRC short-field approach speed is down around 60 knots. As for how much runway, will depend on your technique. In my 182 (heavier, more power) I've landed and taken off in under 300' at mid weights for the airplane. That was a measured distance at a short-field clinic I attended. (My shortest landing was 265', my longest takeoff was 295') I was flying short-final at about 60 MPH IAS, using power to fine-tune the glide slope as needed. No reason a 172 couldn't be flown at those same speeds, even a bit less.
Here's the kind of places I've landed and the series will show a bit what my approaches looked like:
Strip is about 600' long but only about 400' really usable. Right where that little kink to the right is there is a big bump, you need to be very slow when you cross it - at least in a tricycle gear airplane. First pic just turned final, full flaps, speed 60ish.
(http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flypics/ghlongfinal.jpg)
Nest pic about 1/2 way down final, keeping airspeed nailed, using power to adjust glideslope.
(http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flypics/ghmidfinal.jpg)
Third pic short final, everything has to be right on here or go around and do it again. Notice the strip is only as wide as the main gear on a Cessna, you land on the centerline or you break things.
(http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flypics/ghshortfinal.jpg)
Last pic on the ground.
(http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flypics/ghgroundlevel.jpg)
Photos taken by my wife, the worlds bravest airplane passenger.
-
Where's the ILS antenna?
-
I'd never land a 172 at 80 knots...way too fast. I don't have a POH handy, IIRC short-field approach speed is down around 60 knots. As for how much runway, will depend on your technique. In my 182 (heavier, more power) I've landed and taken off in under 300' at mid weights for the airplane. That was a measured distance at a short-field clinic I attended. (My shortest landing was 265', my longest takeoff was 295') I was flying short-final at about 60 MPH IAS, using power to fine-tune the glide slope as needed. No reason a 172 couldn't be flown at those same speeds, even a bit less.
Here's the kind of places I've landed and the series will show a bit what my approaches looked like:
Strip is about 600' long but only about 400' really usable. Right where that little kink to the right is there is a big bump, you need to be very slow when you cross it - at least in a tricycle gear airplane. First pic just turned final, full flaps, speed 60ish.
(http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flypics/ghlongfinal.jpg)
Nest pic about 1/2 way down final, keeping airspeed nailed, using power to adjust glideslope.
(http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flypics/ghmidfinal.jpg)
Third pic short final, everything has to be right on here or go around and do it again. Notice the strip is only as wide as the main gear on a Cessna, you land on the centerline or you break things.
(http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flypics/ghshortfinal.jpg)
Last pic on the ground.
(http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flypics/ghgroundlevel.jpg)
Photos taken by my wife, the worlds bravest airplane passenger.
Envious of your locale man. Just beautiful!
-
Where's the ILS antenna?
Not equipped, this is an LGA procedure.
Look at Glacier on Approach.
-
Envious of your locale man. Just beautiful!
Yeah. Came up here as a paratrooper in '73....still here.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xU2HxqXUtk
What the film does not say is also there is a big pilot screw up. That runway has a 500 foot displaced thresh hold. The pilot was landing well short of the end of the runway.
The road is the reason for the displacement.
http://maps.google.com/maps?z=14&q=33.0498447+-97.2322375&ll=33.0498447+-97.2322375&iwloc=near
HiTech
Wow, talk about bad luck.