Old Hangar Debate

[astanley]

I was cleaning out a closet when I found a stack of old notebooks. One had musings post a flight lesson in 2002, after which we were given the option to land now or land about 45 minutes later. Here was the situation:

Returning from the practice area, a transient C-310 declared an emergency (fuel leaking into cockpit) and landed at BED. We were communicating with the tower and instructed to remain clear of the Delta, over the NW quadrant (we did, circling above a pond). We did so for about 20 minutes, until the tower gave us the option: Make best speed to the fence or wait while all the stacked up IFR arrivals got metered through (this was about 8:30 in the morning, the peak of the early crush of bizjets at BED).

We opted to make best speed to the fence, holding 120 KIAS in our 172, descending with the flaps up and the throttle firewalled. We chopped the throttle over the fence, and kept the airplane in a nose down attitude while we slowly bled off speed. We landed long (of course), but made the third taxiway and turned off, with a GV landing pretty close behind us. (Actually, as we finished our post landing check and started up with ground I could hear the reversers fire off behind us).

My CFI asked me if what we did was considered safe, why or why not, and beyond that, how would I personally choose to manage that situation? Is it less safe to make best available speed in a situation like this?

My notes scribbled that while the risk for an accident was potentially higher (non standard approaches equal a higher potential risk, in my mind), overall that this was not an inherently risky activity, as it is potentially "required" if you fly in a congested terminal environment. However, upon rereading I wonder if it is inherently more risky - when we fly a nonstandard approach, mixed with high speeds and tighter tolerances (as we are burning up more usable runway due to our high speed), and we are operating at a higher speed closer to the ground (less room for control error, more likely to balloon and potentially stall close to the runway).

I'm still not sure where I stand on this, primarially because I do believe that it does carry more risk but shouldn't be any more risky than any of the unsual things we may have to do when pressed.

What are your thoughts? Would you act differently, and why?

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[SCCutler]

Absent other contributing factors (weather being key), I see nothing wrong at all. Nothing was done which was in any way beyond the capabilities of the pilots in the aircraft, or the aircraft itself. Is one, slightly "outside the box" landing more dangerous than the alternative, two landings and a takeoff as would have been otherwise required?

Doubt it.

If at any time y'all had determined, in your judgment, that "the successful completion of the maneuver" was in any doubt, you would have aborted, moved on and remained safe.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think I would have explored other options first, like taking the cross runway and getting slipped in between IFR arrivals, before flying a C-172 at 120 KIAS to the fence.

 

[AdamZ]

First question is did you have anything in the WSM that needed tending. If not, I guess it would be ok if the runway was long enough. But again depends upon other factors, Fuel, Wx etc.

 

[deafsound]

Sounds like every thursday,friday and sunday afternoon at BED (minus the C310 emergency). Personally, I have no problem with best forward speed, and I will often offer that to the controllers if I hear them getting busy, and a bit tied up with all the different arrivals and what not during those busy times. I might not offer that if the wind was gusting like crazy, but if it's a pretty calm day, and it means getting on the ground 20 minutes sooner, why not?

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I can't really comment on speeds in a 172; just been too long since I've been in one, but in congested airspace, you sure should have some higher approach speed options in your repertoire.

In the P-Baron, my blue line is 115 knots. Disparity of speed can be a real challenge to keeping traffic separated. Many of the jets are approaching at 140 knots.

Don't do anything dangerous or where you stretch your personal limit or those of the plane, but if you can approach a little faster with incoming traffic that is moving faster, it's a real help to those lined up on final.

I've hit the end of the runway at El Paso at 180 knots in an A-36, nosed it up as I reduced power, lowered the gear at 150, put down full flaps at 110 landed at 70 and made the intended turnoff to the FBO just fine. A commercial jet behind me had no problem getting in behind me.

Not recommended to all, but as your skill set grows, this can be very helpful. I also practice IFR approaches at 150 knots instead of my normal 120 so I can be more flexible if it's needed. If the appoarach were to minimums, I would slow down, but an approach to 600 to 800 foot ceilings is more common and I can assist approach with separation if I can use these speeds.

Best,

Dave

 

[Steve]

I'd have taken the extra time (fuel permitting) and landed after the rush. My insurance company likes to see more logged time between renewals.

Besides, if I'm in a 172 I'm not in much of a hurry to begin with.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

We opted to make best speed to the fence, holding 120 KIAS in our 172, descending with the flaps up and the throttle firewalled. We chopped the throttle over the fence, and kept the airplane in a nose down attitude while we slowly bled off speed. We landed long (of course), but made the third taxiway and turned off, with a GV landing pretty close behind us. (Actually, as we finished our post landing check and started up with ground I could hear the reversers fire off behind us).

My CFI asked me if what we did was considered safe, why or why not, and beyond that, how would I personally choose to manage that situation? Is it less safe to make best available speed in a situation like this?

I'm still not sure where I stand on this, primarially because I do believe that it does carry more risk but shouldn't be any more risky than any of the unsual things we may have to do when pressed.

What are your thoughts? Would you act differently, and why?

Andrew,

I think this should be a maneuver you practice. Sooner or later, we'll all be asked for best forward speed so that we can fit into the traffic flow, and I believe it's an important skill to have.

That said, you should NOT have to land long if you practice. The only reason you land long is if you're carrying too much energy down to the runway. After I was dissatisfied with my performance after being asked for best forward speed on an ILS several months ago, I began practicing best forward speed approaches and now I can take the 182 down the glideslope at 135 knots to 400 feet AGL. At that point, throttle comes out, prop goes in, first notch of flaps comes down, trim trim trim, 40 degrees flaps at the top of the white arc, and I have enough time to get the plane down to a reasonable landing speed without floating way down the runway.

Granted, the old 182 with its 40-degree barn door flaps is a very draggy airframe, and I doubt you could do the same thing with a cleaner plane like a Cirrus or a Mooney. However, that's part of the reason for practice is to determine how long it takes to slow your plane down while you're descending on the glideslope. Once you figure that out, you'll know when to pull power and dirty up the plane for when you need to do this for real.

 

[wsuffa]

If you go into major air-carrier airports, it's likely that you'll be asked for 'best forward speed'. It's a good thing to know how to do it safely as a time saver, but you can always say "unable" and ATC will send you around.

 

[Bill]

If you go into major air-carrier airports, it's likely that you'll be asked for 'best forward speed'. It's a good thing to know how to do it safely as a time saver, but you can always say "unable" and ATC will send you around.

As a PP, I would have balked, and waited it out. But, it wasn't long after starting approaches during IR training that we were asked for best forward speed, and I've done many since. If the runway is of sufficient length, I have no problem maintaining 120-125kts in a 172 to 400agl or so.

 

[ScottM]

What are your thoughts? Would you act differently, and why?

Cheers,

-Andrew

I was flying a C172RG into KSRQ when Tampa approach asked me for best forward. I was able to get to 142knots and approach actually asked me to slow down and then said "just what type of 172 are you" I think he was hoping for 115knots to fit me in. But I did clear the fence at 110knots. Eased the throttle back, dropped the gear, eventually got to the white line and down came the flaps. It took a lot of the runway but I had more than enough. As long as you have figured out your touchdown point and know when to go around plus you keep flying the plane until the wheels are on the ground and you park you are fine.

 

[bbchien]

I was flying a C172RG into KSRQ when Tampa approach asked me for best forward. I was able to get to 142knots and approach actually asked me to slow down and then said "just what type of 172 are you" I think he was hoping for 115knots to fit me in. But I did clear the fence at 110knots. Eased the throttle back, dropped the gear, eventually got to the white line and down came the flaps. It took a lot of the runway but I had more than enough. As long as you have figured out your touchdown point and know when to go around plus you keep flying the plane until the wheels are on the ground and you park you are fine.

ORD's app. controllers are much more compliant when I tell them on first callup, "Seneca XXYYZ, 8000, Have Tango, we can give you 170 knots to the marker"....and they fit us right in.

It's amazing looking down the 33 miles of GS and seeing the little grey aluminum spots all evenly lined up....from big to small.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

ORD's app. controllers are much more compliant when I tell them on first callup, "Seneca XXYYZ, 8000, Have Tango, we can give you 170 knots to the marker"....and they fit us right in.

It's amazing looking down the 33 miles of GS and seeing the little grey aluminum spots all evenly lined up....from big to small.

Especially after one warmup PCT to final, it's rare that we don't use Va/Vne/redline as limiters for speed to short final then reduce throttle with aggressive slips and/or flaps to landing speed, unless the pilot needs the extra time. If the PIC lands long though, they've misjudged and should practice more until proficient.

 

[spiderweb]

Not a big deal if one practices this type of approach. 120 to the fence is a bit extreme, but certainly can be managed if there's a long runway. When I'm asked for best speed in a C172 I do 120 until 200 feet, then it is power off and full flaps. Works like a charm, and I have practiced this a lot.