Do you fly a 3 deg final approach?

[skidoo]

Well, here is another point I have been struggling with. I have been told that the 182 nose drops significantly when power is cut. I guess that is most important only when close to the ground. So, that leads me to believe that often power is used all the way down until close to the ground. In my approaches, I tend to be high and cut power higher which leads to a high approach angle. Seems fine to me since that was how I used to do it, but my instructor likes the 3 deg approach. In thinking about this, it becomes quite apparent that this 182 can not obtain a 3 deg approach angle with full flaps without power. I tend to like the idea of making it without power. Should I train myself to accept the 3 deg approach to make it easier for an Instrument Rating?

So, any discussion regarding the benefits of flying the 3 deg approach with power, or flying a higher angle approach without, and do you fly the 3 deg approach or some other angle?

 

[gismo]

Well, here is another point I have been struggling with. I have been told that the 182 nose drops significantly when power is cut. I guess that is most important only when close to the ground. So, that leads me to believe that often power is used all the way down until close to the ground. In my approaches, I tend to be high and cut power higher which leads to a high approach angle. Seems fine to me since that was how I used to do it, but my instructor likes the 3 deg approach. In thinking about this, it becomes quite apparent that this 182 can not obtain a 3 deg approach angle with full flaps without power. I tend to like the idea of making it without power. Should I train myself to accept the 3 deg approach to make it easier for an Instrument Rating?

So, any discussion regarding the benefits of flying the 3 deg approach with power, or flying a higher angle approach without, and do you fly the 3 deg approach or some other angle?

First of all, the "nose drops when you cut power" only if you let it. Unless you are flying far closer to stall speed you have sufficient elevator authority to hold whatever attitude you have when the reduction in power occurs. All you have to do is add sufficient up elevator.

Second, for visual approaches, especially in single engine airplanes neither a 3° approach nor a power off approach is optimal. IMO, something closer to 4 or 4.5 degrees is best in something like a 182. Power off and you have to fight with the contrary effects of using pitch to control the descent (pull back and the angle gets shallower initially then ends up steeper than you started with) and/or use a slip to control the descent (which works but is not passenger friendly). At 3 degrees you must carry enough power that you have no chance of reaching the runway should the engine stumble.

 

[Leavitt]

I fly power on approach, I feel that its more stable, but I aim for the captins bars on the runway, most of the runways that I used were longer that 5K so I still had plenty.

If trying to make the first turn for the hanger I would go power off and drop it in.

 

[jesse]

I don't really do a 3 degree approach. I generally do a pretty tight pattern and when I turn final I'm still usually looking at all white lights on the VASI. My angle though has me setup to touchdown generally shortly after the numbers.

Sometimes I'll do the approach poweroff, otherwise I'll set about 15" of MP abeam the numbers, drop the gear, dump in the flaps, and by the time I turn final I'm pretty well setup.

 

[Ted]

3 degree approach is pretty shallow. When doing a visual pattern, I'm generally high and fast and do a tight pattern like Jesse. Still manage to land where I want to just fine. That shouldn't be a problem in a 182.

The examiner will probably like to see you do a nice rectangular pattern with a shallower approach, but I'd think 3 degrees to be a bit too shallow. Your instructor probably knows what the DE he plans on sending you likes, though.

 

[TMetzinger]

It all depends. I practice flying ILS approaches with power. If I'm doing pattern work I fly the same "normal" descent profile (which is steeper than 3 degrees) as I would in any other plane. And simulated engine failures are steeper and tighter still.

The 182 with just a pilot or a pilot and CFI up front can be heavy as the CG is forward (within limits, just forward). This can require a lot of muscle or aggressive trimming so that you can flare properly (use the TRIM!).

I strongly suggest that as you spend more time with the airplane that you go up with the airplane at max gross with the CG in different positions - it feels very different. You don't want to be surprised the first time you take your family and luggage along.

 

[tonycondon]

i usually fly a 3 deg approach when on the ILS, and thats about the only time

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

So, any discussion regarding the benefits of flying the 3 deg approach with power, or flying a higher angle approach without, and do you fly the 3 deg approach or some other angle?

I never fly a 3 degree approach since I do not use an ILS.

The only way to do a 3 degree approach is to drag it in with power - which is fine sometimes, but if you ONLY do it that way you are skrewed in the event your engine quits some day out in the middle of nowhere because you will have no idea how to land without power and you won't make it into that clearing you are trying for.

I use whatever angle gets me to the spot I intend to land on.

I assume you instructor is building time for an airline slot.

 

[Trapper John]

Well, here is another point I have been struggling with. I have been told that the 182 nose drops significantly when power is cut.

It's your plane - you should know what it does, not be hearing from other people what your plane does...

...my instructor likes the 3 deg approach.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but if he's trying to teach you a one size fits all approach path, he's doing you a disservice, IMO.


Trapper John

 

[dillardrg]

This has been a pet peeve of mine for years. When I first started instructing in the mid 60's, when teaching landings I would first make sure my students could glide to a landing from down wind before teaching the recommended, at the time, approach. I did this so that they were prepared if they had an engine problem.

My Chief Pilot did not agree, he told me in no uncertain terms that the FAA wanted new pilots taught an airline type approach, i.e. reduce power, one notch of flaps, fly way out, turn base, another notch of flaps, turn a real long final, the final notch of flaps and drag it in with power.

That technique is fine I suppose if the new student is aiming for a career in the big iron. But if he/she is going to continue flying small airplanes it is silly.

I no longer do initial training, but it looks like nothing has changed. Everyday I watch small Cessnas and Pipers flying the 777 approach at our uncontrolled airport. They turn final so far out that they are hard to see and drag it in on a looong final. The part that really bothers me about this is that on the north side of the airport is a major river and they are dragging in over some very hostile terrain.

I guess the point of my rambling is that you should be learning all types of approaches that are used for different types of landings. A 3 degree approach is only good for an ILS approach. In any other circumstances it is putting the aircraft and occupants at unnecessary risk if the engine should have a problem. If you plan to continue training toward an IPL you will learn to do them then. If you don't plan to get an IPL then you probably will never use them.

I do believe that you should be proficient in practice emergency landings, i.e. reduce power to idle on downwind abeam your intended touchdown point and glide to that point and land. Practice this approach at least once every time you fly. This will stand you in good stead in the future if you should have an engine problem.

The bottom line; though, is you should do what is required to please your instructor and to pass the check ride. Maybe a nonthreatening conversation with your instructor as to what his motivation is in teaching a 3 degree approach might be in order.

Just my opinion.

 

[dmccormack]

This has been a pet peeve of mine for years. When I first started instructing in the mid 60's, when teaching landings I would first make sure my students could glide to a landing from down wind before teaching the recommended, at the time, approach. I did this so that they were prepared if they had an engine problem.

That's the way I learned in a C152. The Chief Instructor was a WW2 B29 pilot.

I fly that way in The Chief -- tight patterns, slip once runway is made. slow it down about 100' AGL.

In more modern airplanes, I fly the AIM recommendation -- turn xwind w/n 300' of pattern altitude, then downwind with the runway 1/2 way up the strut.

I don't think any airplane I've flown can fly an ILS without power, so the power-on approach is not an option -- it's required for an ILS.

 

[whifferdill]

This has been a pet peeve of mine for years. When I first started instructing in the mid 60's, when teaching landings I would first make sure my students could glide to a landing from down wind before teaching the recommended, at the time, approach. I did this so that they were prepared if they had an engine problem.

My Chief Pilot did not agree, he told me in no uncertain terms that the FAA wanted new pilots taught an airline type approach, i.e. reduce power, one notch of flaps, fly way out, turn base, another notch of flaps, turn a real long final, the final notch of flaps and drag it in with power.

That technique is fine I suppose if the new student is aiming for a career in the big iron. But if he/she is going to continue flying small airplanes it is silly.

I no longer do initial training, but it looks like nothing has changed. Everyday I watch small Cessnas and Pipers flying the 777 approach at our uncontrolled airport. They turn final so far out that they are hard to see and drag it in on a looong final. The part that really bothers me about this is that on the north side of the airport is a major river and they are dragging in over some very hostile terrain.

I guess the point of my rambling is that you should be learning all types of approaches that are used for different types of landings. A 3 degree approach is only good for an ILS approach. In any other circumstances it is putting the aircraft and occupants at unnecessary risk if the engine should have a problem. If you plan to continue training toward an IPL you will learn to do them then. If you don't plan to get an IPL then you probably will never use them.

I do believe that you should be proficient in practice emergency landings, i.e. reduce power to idle on downwind abeam your intended touchdown point and glide to that point and land. Practice this approach at least once every time you fly. This will stand you in good stead in the future if you should have an engine problem.

The bottom line; though, is you should do what is required to please your instructor and to pass the check ride. Maybe a nonthreatening conversation with your instructor as to what his motivation is in teaching a 3 degree approach might be in order.

Just my opinion.

Ditto everything Ron said. I also lament the bomber patterns and approaches I see all the time by Cessnas and Pipers at local airports. I can't imagine any of the them would have much luck putting the plane down accurately in the event of an engine failure. Seems learning a fundamental flying skill is being avoided.

I hate to sound smug, but I have to chuckle inside everytime I hear someone mention the high power-off descent rate of some GA single, or how it "falls like a rock" when the power is pulled, as if this makes a safe approach prohibitive. These folks should get a little time in a Pitts. By comparison, a power-off approach in pretty much any other single will seem very flat and lackadaisical. I typically fly power-off and slipped approaches in the Pitts. It's a little steeper than 3 degrees...more like 30 degrees.

 

[dmccormack]

I typically fly power-off and slipped approaches in the Pitts. It's a little steeper than 3 degrees...more like 30 degrees.

When I pull the power to idle, slow the airplane to 60ish, and put in a full slip -- well, The Chief can get down in a hurry. First few times I did it it scared me!

Holy cow!!!

 

[Dave Siciliano]

In a single, I only did 3 degree approaches on an ILS, and even then, I would sometimes stay a dot high in case I lost an engine (if the approach was to a decent length runway). I always wondered why one would touch down on the numbers or near them on a 7,000 foot or longer runway in a small GA plane unless turning off immediately to get where needed on the field. At Addison, where I'm based, I land long because my hanger is on the far side of the field. Probably touch down with about 4,000 feet to go which is plenty of time to go-around if need be.

In the 58P, I do a more bomber like patter. I'm at 115 knots or faster (blue line) until committed to land; so, at least 1/3 faster than a lot of GA traffic. The Baron will really come down with power back, gear and flaps down; so, I still come in a bit steeper visually.

I also have a running debate with some instructors on departure procedure because I accelerate in ground effect until blue line if there's enough runway. Some insist on Vy climb after lift off. We've tested each in sims and if I ever lost an engine, I would much rather be a few feet off the ground to pull back throttles and land than to be at 100 or 200 feet less than blue line. The good folks I've explained that to completely understood and like it. A couple dogmatic folks and folks that want to see the FAA PTS standards demonstrated insist on something different. On long runways, there's just no harm in accelerating longer in ground effect. Short runway is a different story.

Best,

Dave

 

[whifferdill]

When I pull the power to idle, slow the airplane to 60ish, and put in a full slip -- well, The Chief can get down in a hurry. First few times I did it it scared me!

Holy cow!!!

Dan, I've never flown a Chief, but I used to have a Champ, which has the same wing and tail. In a slip, the Champ was very aileron-limited, but still slipped fairly well. Does that sound like the Chief? I sure haven't flown 'em all, but the best slipping and aileron/rudder balanced planes I've flown are the J-3, Stearman, and Pitts. But because of the drag and wing loading, the Pitts has the most dramatic effect by far...seems like twice that of any other airplane. It won't glide far in the event of an engine out, but you can really put it down where you want it. Almost feels like cheating. In contrast, the C-150 must have been the worst-slipping plane I've ever flown...no rudder, not much side area, and not much increase in descent angle. Not many things better in life than a slipped approach to a nice landing on grass in some old tailwheel airplane.

 

[poadeleted20]

Well, here is another point I have been struggling with. I have been told that the 182 nose drops significantly when power is cut.

That happens on any plane as it tries to maintain the trimmed speed, and cannot do so without descending after power is reduced. The same is true when power is added -- the nose tries to rise to maintain trimmed speed. The larger the power change, the greater the pitch change required to maintain trimmed speed.

I guess that is most important only when close to the ground. So, that leads me to believe that often power is used all the way down until close to the ground.

That's what the FAA recommends -- the partial power, stabilized VFR approach as described in the On Landings Part I pamphlet.

In my approaches, I tend to be high and cut power higher which leads to a high approach angle. Seems fine to me since that was how I used to do it, but my instructor likes the 3 deg approach. In thinking about this, it becomes quite apparent that this 182 can not obtain a 3 deg approach angle with full flaps without power.

Not many planes can -- maybe none (except those without flaps).

I tend to like the idea of making it without power. Should I train myself to accept the 3 deg approach to make it easier for an Instrument Rating?

Personally, I like a 4-5 degree glide path for VFR approaches to land. In most liight planes, this will require some power (allowing you to vary power to maintain glide path and manage your touchdown point) but not so much that it is "dragged in" low with a lot of power to annoy the airport neighbors. In a 182, that will probably be around 15 inches through most of the pattern after the abeam position, and down to about 1500-1700 RPM on short final.

This will also help reinfoce the use of trim/pitch for speed control and power for descent rate control which will be even more important when you start instrument training. The only difference is you'll need a little more power to maintain a 3-degree descent on the ILS than you need for the 4-5 degree descent on the normal VFR traffic pattern final, but if you stick with the basic technique (trim/pitch for speed control and power for descent rate control), it will come together easily.

 

[poadeleted20]

My Chief Pilot did not agree, he told me in no uncertain terms that the FAA wanted new pilots taught an airline type approach, i.e. reduce power, one notch of flaps, fly way out, turn base, another notch of flaps, turn a real long final, the final notch of flaps and drag it in with power.

That's not what the FAA wants. See the On Landings pamphlet linked above, the Airplane Flying Handbook Chapter 7, and the AIM Section 4-3-3. They don't want a super-tight, power-off approach, either, for your normal landing pattern. Their recommendation (and the standard for practical tests other than the 180 power-off task for Commercial) is somewhere between the two.

 

[dmccormack]

Dan, I've never flown a Chief, but I used to have a Champ, which has the same wing and tail. In a slip, the Champ was very aileron-limited, but still slipped fairly well. Does that sound like the Chief? I sure haven't flown 'em all, but the best slipping and aileron/rudder balanced planes I've flown are the J-3, Stearman, and Pitts. But because of the drag and wing loading, the Pitts has the most dramatic effect by far...seems like twice that of any other airplane. It won't glide far in the event of an engine out, but you can really put it down where you want it. Almost feels like cheating. In contrast, the C-150 must have been the worst-slipping plane I've ever flown...no rudder, not much side area, and not much increase in descent angle. Not many things better in life than a slipped approach to a nice landing on grass in some old tailwheel airplane.

My Chief is the pre-war Chief (1940) with different wing/rudder than post-war Champ and Chief.

The amount of rudder available is ridiculous -- I watch the runway coming out the side window.

I've practiced at altitude (well, 3000' AGL!) and I can it very slow and still controlled in a slip.

The C205 doesn't slip well -- very limited rudder. A36 Bonanza and -35 didn't slip well either.

 

[fgcason]

At the downwind to base turn point, I can pull the power to idle and still make the runway. Whatever angle that makes is what I do. Assuming there's nothing unusual about the airport in the way of terrain, I can make the runway from anywhere in the pattern except that short bit during climbout.

I recall the DE I use to fly with talking about engine out procedures and said "3 degrees is in the trees."

 

[whifferdill]

That's not what the FAA wants. See the On Landings pamphlet linked above, the Airplane Flying Handbook Chapter 7, and the AIM Section 4-3-3. They don't want a super-tight, power-off approach, either, for your normal landing pattern. Their recommendation (and the standard for practical tests other than the 180 power-off task for Commercial) is somewhere between the two.

On this subject, I don't know why it really matters what the FAA wants or specifies in the AIM as long as you're in compliance with FAR's. It's the examiner you have to please. The AIM is not one-size-fits-all. Each airplane is different, and each examiner is different. In the interest of safety, I will never fly an AIM-style downwind, base, and final in my airplane as long as I'm not cutting someone off in the pattern. There's no requirement for adherence to the AIM. Take from it what you will, but don't consider it SOP. Use your head, do what's safe, and do what you're safe doing.

 

[flhrci]

On this subject, I don't know why it really matters what the FAA wants or specifies in the AIM as long as you're in compliance with FAR's. It's the examiner you have to please. The AIM is not one-size-fits-all. Each airplane is different, and each examiner is different. In the interest of safety, I will never fly an AIM-style downwind, base, and final in my airplane as long as I'm not cutting someone off in the pattern. There's no requirement for adherence to the AIM. Take from it what you will, but don't consider it SOP. Use your head, do what's safe, and do what you're safe doing.

The FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook is a better reference for how to do certain things with the typical aircraft a student would fly. It does not fit everything well, but it generalized yet but specific enough to fit a wide variety of GA airplanes. It is intended for primary training and is a good reference.

The AIM is more like an airline's standard operating procedures to me. It can't be used for primary training like the APFH can.

When I was teaching landing techniques, I taught more using a visual picture on a drawing board to show the student approximately what the landing with pattern should basically look like. Then in the airplane, the student can see varying effects of distance from runway in different parts of the pattern as well as varying airspeeds. This methods seems to be a good way to do it. Cause and effect essentially. It is also a combination of methods.

I am not defending the CFI, but he may or may not know something about that airplane model and the 3 degree approach. I am not justifying it, just saying he may have a legitimate reason for it, or not.

Just keep in mind that EVERY landing is to be treated differently than another. There are too many variables for one specific thing to be the same on every landing.

David

 

[tdager]

I do not fly "777 patterns" but I do follow the "notch of flaps" at each phase, with 30 degrees as my normal final flap setting as I turn final.

I do the usual 45 degree angle at the wing root for my turn from downwind to base and it seems to work, not too far, not too tight.

 

[tdager]

In a 182, that will probably be around 15 inches through most of the pattern after the abeam position, and down to about 1500-1700 RPM on short final.

This will also help reinfoce the use of trim/pitch for speed control and power for descent rate control which will be even more important when you start instrument training. The only difference is you'll need a little more power to maintain a 3-degree descent on the ILS than you need for the 4-5 degree descent on the normal VFR traffic pattern final, but if you stick with the basic technique (trim/pitch for speed control and power for descent rate control), it will come together easily.

Good advice. I am between 1500-1700 RPM's during the the whole landing phase, pulling power just as my wheels (all three) settle on the ground.

 

[SkyHog]

Honestly, if you're not flying ILS or PAPIs (or VASIs), how can anyone really know what angle their approach is at?

My approach is at the angle I need to maintain to hit the runway safely. Call it "Nick Degrees"

 

[brcase]

Honestly, if you're not flying ILS or PAPIs (or VASIs), how can anyone really know what angle their approach is at?

My approach is at the angle I need to maintain to hit the runway safely. Call it "Nick Degrees"

In my glider it is 14.8 degrees. How do I know? I carry a flight recorder and couple years ago I looked at about 20 of my flights trying to determine at what altitude I turned final at. I also evaluated several other pilots flights for comparsion.

What I found is that my base to final turn alititude varied from 200 to 600 feet, with the large marjority of them at 400 feet. However when I looked at the distance from the runway the angle to my touchdown point only varied from about 14.7 to 14.9 degrees. Meaning I am very accurately judging the angle to the runway.

BTW. with my flaps I can vary my glide angle (no wind) from 1.6 degrees to 26.5 degrees.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[whifferdill]

Good advice. I am between 1500-1700 RPM's during the the whole landing phase, pulling power just as my wheels (all three) settle on the ground.

Curious what kind of plane you are flying other than the fact that it's a taildragger? We can rule out 182. This information is meaningless without mentioning the aircraft type and whether or not you have a CS prop. 1700 rpm would be a helluva setting for a fixed pitch prop. If fixed-pitch, how many RPM does it take to sustain level flight at your approach speed? With that kind of power setting on final, in a lightly-loaded plane with a FP prop, it sounds like the technique used for flying approach just above stall speed, behind the power curve for a super short field landing. Say hi to the IAC 3 boys at Tara.

 

[gismo]

Honestly, if you're not flying ILS or PAPIs (or VASIs), how can anyone really know what angle their approach is at?

My approach is at the angle I need to maintain to hit the runway safely. Call it "Nick Degrees"

If you've got a GPS that can show the distance to the runway (or can estimate same based on visual cues) a 3 degree approach will have you 300 ft above the runway elevation for every 1 nm distance to go. Conveniently, 4 degrees is 400 ft/nm and 5° is 500 ft/nm. So for a 4-5 degree "normal" approach angle you should be between 400 and 500 HAT on a one mile final.

 

[poadeleted20]

On this subject, I don't know why it really matters what the FAA wants or specifies in the AIM as long as you're in compliance with FAR's. It's the examiner you have to please. The AIM is not one-size-fits-all. Each airplane is different, and each examiner is different.

That may be true, but it's not supposed to be true. Examiners are supposed to go by the PTS, and the PTS refers to the AIM and AFH.

In the interest of safety, I will never fly an AIM-style downwind, base, and final in my airplane as long as I'm not cutting someone off in the pattern. There's no requirement for adherence to the AIM. Take from it what you will, but don't consider it SOP. Use your head, do what's safe, and do what you're safe doing.

I agree, and the FAA's extensive research into the matter is the background for their recommended traffic pattern. They found that there were far more landing accidents with the tight, unstabilized, power-off approaches they recommended up into the 1970's than there were engine failure accidents in the pattern. For that reason, they changed their recommendation to the partial-power, stabilized approach described in the pamphlet, and the landing accident rate went down. So if the issue is safety, the statistics suggest that the FAA's recommended method is probably your best choice unless your engine is so unreliable that you can't trust it to keep running from the abeam position to the threshold.

 

[poadeleted20]

Honestly, if you're not flying ILS or PAPIs (or VASIs), how can anyone really know what angle their approach is at?

Training and experience.

 

[poadeleted20]

If you've got a GPS that can show the distance to the runway (or can estimate same based on visual cues) a 3 degree approach will have you 300 ft above the runway elevation for every 1 nm distance to go. Conveniently, 4 degrees is 400 ft/nm and 5° is 500 ft/nm. So for a 4-5 degree "normal" approach angle you should be between 400 and 500 HAT on a one mile final.

This can be off somewhat depending on what point is in the GPS. If it's the airport reference point (i.e., you just put in the airport), it can be well beyond the touchdown point -- at some airports, even a mile beyond or more. If it's an approach you loaded, you've probably got the approach end of the runway, which is usually about 500-1000 feet short of where you want to touch down. The best method I've found for judging visual descent angles is knowing the sight picture you should have of the runway over the nose at the proper attitude (i.e., on speed).

 

[dmccormack]

agree, and the FAA's extensive research into the matter is the background for their recommended traffic pattern. They found that there were far more landing accidents with the tight, unstabilized, power-off approaches they recommended up into the 1970's than there were engine failure accidents in the pattern. For that reason, they changed their recommendation to the partial-power, stabilized approach described in the pamphlet, and the landing accident rate went down. So if the issue is safety, the statistics suggest that the FAA's recommended method is probably your best choice unless your engine is so unreliable that you can't trust it to keep running from the abeam position to the threshold.

Wait -- the landing accident rate declined? Or merely the total accidents?

And this delta was completely attributable to a PTS change?

 

[poadeleted20]

Wait -- the landing accident rate declined? Or merely the total accidents?

And this delta was completely attributable to a PTS change?

I realize, Dan, that you don't believe this, but it's what the FAA believes, and my own study of five years of Grumman accident data agrees with them that there is a strong correlation between landing accidents and unstabilized approaches. And it wasn't just the PTS which changed -- the FAA changed all their recommendations in all pubs on how to operate light planes in the visual traffic pattern.

While I still believe that there is a need for SE pilots to achieve and maintain proviciency in power-off approaches in case of engine failure, I also believe that this should be considered an emergency procedure, and practiced only where it will not interfere with normal pattern operations by aircraft operating in accordance with the FAA's recommendations as stated in the AIM, AFH, and other AC's and pamphlets.

 

[dmccormack]

I realize, Dan, that you don't believe this, but it's what the FAA believes, and my own study of five years of Grumman accident data agrees with them that there is a strong correlation between landing accidents and unstabilized approaches. And it wasn't just the PTS which changed -- the FAA changed all their recommendations in all pubs on how to operate light planes in the visual traffic pattern.

While I still believe that there is a need for SE pilots to achieve and maintain proviciency in power-off approaches in case of engine failure, I also believe that this should be considered an emergency procedure, and practiced only where it will not interfere with normal pattern operations by aircraft operating in accordance with the FAA's recommendations as stated in the AIM, AFH, and other AC's and pamphlets.

I didn't say what I believe about this case, Ron.

I don't think the data supports the case that the change in PTS to stabilized, power-on approach reduced the accident rate.

You are confusing "Power to idle" approach with "unstabilized" approach. The two are not synonomous.

 

[whifferdill]

So if the issue is safety, the statistics suggest that the FAA's recommended method is probably your best choice unless your engine is so unreliable that you can't trust it to keep running from the abeam position to the threshold.

Or unless you can't see the runway, the airport threshold (or even the whole airport ) on a straight-in, shallow approach. Of course, I admit this is not an issue for over 99% of airplanes.

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't think the data supports the case that the change in PTS to stabilized, power-on approach reduced the accident rate.

Since they changed a lot besides the PTS, I think you're right -- no telling which document it was, but the FAA is quite sure they enhanced safety with those changes, and my own research supports their position.

You are confusing "Power to idle" approach with "unstabilized" approach. The two are not synonomous.

We've been round this before, and the undisputable fact is that a power-off approach is by the FAA's definition unstabilized, since you are using pitch/speed and configuration changes to manage glide path rather than power. I also know that your definitions of the terms don't match the FAA's, so the lack of common terms prevents useful discussion on the point.

 

[gismo]

This can be off somewhat depending on what point is in the GPS. If it's the airport reference point (i.e., you just put in the airport), it can be well beyond the touchdown point -- at some airports, even a mile beyond or more. If it's an approach you loaded, you've probably got the approach end of the runway, which is usually about 500-1000 feet short of where you want to touch down. The best method I've found for judging visual descent angles is knowing the sight picture you should have of the runway over the nose at the proper attitude (i.e., on speed).

You'll notice I said "distance to runway" not distance to airport. It's not difficult to determine the offset one should apply to compensate for the offset between the runway end and the airport reference point. And knowing where a 3 (or 4 or 5) degree path really is can aid in learning the sight picture which is infinitely more useful if you need to make an emergency landing off airport where you have no GPS reference at all.

 

[dmccormack]

Since they changed a lot besides the PTS, I think you're right -- no telling which document it was, but the FAA is quite sure they enhanced safety with those changes, and my own research supports their position.
We've been round this before, and the undisputable fact is that a power-off approach is by the FAA's definition unstabilized, since you are using pitch/speed and configuration changes to manage glide path rather than power.

Yes, we have... but cursory observation at any GA airport will show the vast majority of GA pilots fly patterns that are far too wide, with attendant clogging, too-fast landings, and excessive ground rolls.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes, we have... but cursory observation at any GA airport will show the vast majority of GA pilots fly patterns that are far too wide, with attendant clogging, too-fast landings, and excessive ground rolls.

I agree, and if they did it the way the FAA recommends, none of that would be happening.

 

[RMCN172RG]

I was taught to fly a tight pattern. If the engine quits here will you make it to the runway. If not you are too far out.

When I turn final I will almost always have four white lights. At that point power all the way out, carb heat off, prop in, GEAR DOWN CHECK, full flaps.

If I see three red add little power to slow the descent. Over the numbers cut power if any is in llevel off and let it down gently.

Works wonderful, unless theres something going on with the wind.

THere's always something going on with the wind so adjust as needed.

 

[dmccormack]

I was taught to fly a tight pattern. If the engine quits here will you make it to the runway. If not you are too far out.

When I turn final I will almost always have four white lights. At that point power all the way out, carb heat off, prop in, GEAR DOWN CHECK, full flaps.

If I see three red add little power to slow the descent. Over the numbers cut power if any is in llevel off and let it down gently.

Works wonderful, unless theres something going on with the wind.

THere's always something going on with the wind so adjust as needed.

What about runways without PAPI?