Jaybird180
Final Approach
This seems a bit shallow for my taste. Is this common in Jetliners? Relevant material starts at 6m42s
This seems a bit shallow for my taste. Is this common in Jetliners? Relevant material starts at 6m42s
This seems a bit shallow for my taste. Is this common in Jetliners? Relevant material starts at 6m42s
GoPro-style cameras set on a wide angle have a tendency to make approaches seem much lower/flatter than they really are.
Hadn't considered that.
I've linked to this before, but in the below video I attempted to fly identical approaches, with three different camera settings - and I think the difference in perspective is readily apparent:
In my estimation the last one with the narrowest field-of-view most closely corresponds with reality.
A 3 deg glide slope is nominal for a precision approach (ie ILS) and GPS approaches with vertical guidance (eg LPV) regardless of aircraft type
I've linked to this before, but in the below video I attempted to fly identical approaches, with three different camera settings - and I think the difference in perspective is readily apparent:
In my estimation the last one with the narrowest field-of-view most closely corresponds with reality.
Next, you need to do them with 3 cameras mounted atop your head. Thanks for posting that.
I should try that! I'm going for max dorkiness!
Let me again reiterate that a 3° glidepath virtually guarantees an off-airport landing if a single engine pilot loses power on final.
I like to be well above that, conditions permitting.
I'm not so much concerned about the engine quitting (why is it going to die on approach rather than any other time in the flight), but other than being on a surveyed and charted glide path, it's safer to maintain a bit of altitude until you're closer in. Less chance of things rearing up suddenly in your way. Even some instrument approaches aren't quite clear of these challenges.
Aside from running out of fuel, I would think that you've got a pretty low percentage chance of the engine quitting on approach at low power.
Aside from running out of fuel, I would think that you've got a pretty low percentage chance of the engine quitting on approach at low power.
You mean most SE airplanes can't maintain a 19:1 glide ratio? I suppose you'd have to have quite a bit of excess airspeed during the approach to be able to make the runway. The other option is to fly a 6 degree approach at normal speeds.
I personally don't like dragging a plane in on the backside of the power curve. I think it's bad technique.
I personally don't like dragging a plane in on the backside of the power curve. I think it's bad technique.
A three degree glide slope doesn't mandate the "back side of the power curve." There's a difference between having to carry power and being on the back side of the power curve.
A three degree glide slope doesn't mandate the "back side of the power curve." There's a difference between having to carry power and being on the back side of the power curve.
Thank you for the correction.Yes. You're not on the back side of the power curve at 90 KIAS in a typical light single. It's not synonymous with having power. The back side means the controls are "reversed." That is, pulling back on the yoke loses (more) altitude. You'll have to be below 60 KIAS in a 172 to do that.
I'm not so much concerned about the engine quitting (why is it going to die on approach rather than any other time in the flight), but other than being on a surveyed and charted glide path, it's safer to maintain a bit of altitude until you're closer in. Less chance of things rearing up suddenly in your way. Even some instrument approaches aren't quite clear of these challenges.