Question about stabilized approach.. Ron L?

[gismo]

Over on the red board there's a thread in IWW titled "Quick Landing Question" and there are several posts promoting flying the pattern so as to allow making the runway if the engine quits. I pointed out the FAA's stance on stabilized approaches and was subsquently asked to provide the statistical basis for the FAA's position. I've looked around and haven't been able to locate that. Care to join in?

Here's one post about a safety seminar suggesting making power off approaches on "every flight" to maintain proficiency:

"The presenter also encouraged the audience to practice emergency landing techniques on every flight. On-spot, on-speed. Engine-out approaches in the pattern, aiming for a landing point down the runway so as not to land short.

I'd be interested to see the reference to the landing short vs landing long statistics, with a little more breakdown as to aircraft type, runway length, etc."

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Over on the red board there's a thread in LS/RS titles "Quick Landing Question" and there are several posts promoting flying the pattern so as to allow making the runway if the engine quits. I pointed out the FAA's stance on stabilized approaches and was subsquently asked to provide the statistical basis for the FAA's position. I've looked around and haven't been able to locate that. Care to join in?

Lance, I believe the Nall report has landing accidents broken out by overshoot, undershoot, and engine failure. I'll take a peek.

 

[TMetzinger]

I also think there is a difference between flying for proficiency (where one takes every opportunity to develop the superior skills you hope never to use), and flying for transportation, where the point is to get from point A to B with a minimum of fuss.

 

[jesse]

The FAA's opinion...on many issues is well...crap.. (ADIZ, User fee's..etc)

Therefore. I take some of their "suggestions" as well. crap. They are not god. Hell, who knows how qualified of a pilot the guy from the FAA is that said this or that.

When I fly I am more concerned about a safe flight and not ****ing off the feds. Some of the things I do may or may not be agaisnt some FAA employees "suggestion". So far what I do works.

I'm not saying go out their and bust all kinds of FARs. But IMHO there is a big difference between a written federal regulation and what some FAA employee may have suggested in some safety forum somewhere. Personally I take flying stick and rudder type advice from qualified, experienced, pilots that I know and trust. There is a reason they are still alive.

 

[poadeleted20]

There was a lot of analysis back in the 70's when the FAA changed their recommendation from power-off to partial-power stabilized approaches as the normal landing methond in light aircraft. The fact is that you cannot carry any power at all if you fly an "always make the runway" approach, and if you don't nail it, you either have to add power and transition to a partial-power/stabilized approach if you're short, or go around if you're too high/fast. The FAA's recommendations on this are contained in the "On Landings, Part I" pamphlet, including the discussion of "The Stabilized VFR Approach."

As for statistics, I did a study of five years of accident and insurance claim data on Grummans, and found 17 pilot-related landing accidents (nearly all involving unstabilized approaches, the use of excess speed or inappropriate configuration, or both), but only four engine failures. Of the four, two were pilot-induced (attempts to operate with air rather than fuel in the fuel lines), two occurred on takeoff (one of which was caused by owner neglect and the other was unknown), and none occurred in the landing pattern. My conclusion is that making good landings is much more important that remaining within gliding range of the runway while in the landing pattern, and that the FAA-recommended partial-power stabilized approach improves landing quality for the average pilot.

 

[jdwatson]

When I first start flying, I searched high and low for 8740-48 series on Landings. I found web-only copies. I wonder why the FAA didn't seek to keep it in print.

Thanks Mr. Levy for reposting the link.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The FAA's opinion...on many issues is well...crap.. (ADIZ, User fee's..etc)

Therefore. I take some of their "suggestions" as well. crap. They are not god. Hell, who knows how qualified of a pilot the guy from the FAA is that said this or that.

It's not so much about some random FAA guy's opinion as it is about accident statistics such as those Ron posted. So, for this one anyway, the FAA gave good advice.