Slip to landing

whifferdill said:
Power off slip to land on the numbers seems like good aircraft control to me. I do that every landing and would rather see that than the usual mile long dragged in approach that floats for 1500' before touchdown. Many seem to view slips as mistake correction. I simply view it as aircraft control, and a way to consistently put the airplane exactly where you want without relying on power. I see it as a pilot skill rather than a mistake....a skill that few these days seem fully comfortable and competent with.

Everything's relative, I guess, regarding descent rate and technique. I see over 3,000' FPM coming down in the Pitts, and start removing the slip a few feet from the runway. Done several thousand that way. I think you'd be calling for a go-around as soon as I turned base. :D
Click to expand...

With my Travelair at LGB, tower knew I would take a midfield base around the tower for midfield landing and would routinely clear for 'the midfield option'. When they would clear me I'd roll in the rest of my flaps, cut the power and do a slipping descending turn for the runway. Sure was better, and safer, than being stacked behind a line of 150/2s with a 115kt airplane.
 
James331 said:
Fancy

I've always just called it the back side of the power curve.
Click to expand...

Me too. The pilot for Colgan near buffalo got to know about that. If he were around he could explain it. Alaska bush pilots know it well and often fly right on the edge of it. Fancy it is. Sort of like "human resource dept. " which used to be called personel dept. or "building engineer" , ( janitor ) etc. etc.
 
whifferdill said:
Power off slip to land on the numbers seems like good aircraft control to me.
Click to expand...

By itself, yes.

In a 182, it indicates he was ridiculously high on base, which is itself a screw-up with or without a slip.

The reason I considered, and probably should have called, a go-around was that he pulled out of the slip over the fence about 100 feet up. Were that necessary for conditions, that would be fine. It was not necessary, and therefore was excessively risky.

Some aircraft require slips to land safely. 182s do not. Nevertheless, it would have been fine if he had finished it a bit higher.

And I didn't comment at all on the quality of the slip or the subsequent landing, so you have absolutely nothing to indicate "good aircraft control." Don't assume.

Presuming I would call your slip from base is more than a bit over the top. If you did it stupidly, I might, but not just because it's a slip.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
By itself, yes.

In a 182, it indicates he was ridiculously high on base, which is itself a screw-up with or without a slip.

The reason I considered, and probably should have called, a go-around was that he pulled out of the slip over the fence about 100 feet up. Were that necessary for conditions, that would be fine. It was not necessary, and therefore was excessively risky.

Some aircraft require slips to land safely. 182s do not. Nevertheless, it would have been fine if he had finished it a bit higher.

And I didn't comment at all on the quality of the slip or the subsequent landing, so you have absolutely nothing to indicate "good aircraft control." Don't assume.

Presuming I would call your slip halfway down final is more than a bit over the top.
Click to expand...

Why is slipping risky?:dunno: Do you not land in crosswinds?
 
MAKG1 said:
In a 182, it indicates he was ridiculously high on base.
Click to expand...

But since Cessnas don't slip very well (compared to airplanes that really slip well), he couldn't have been THAT high and still gotten it down on the numbers. I just have a feeling you're comparing this pattern to the typical dragged out bomber pattern.

MAKG1 said:
The reason I considered, and probably should have called, a go-around was that he pulled out of the slip over the fence about 100 feet up.
Click to expand...

Yes, pulling out at 100' is silly - he could have easily continued that slip for another 95'. :)

MAKG1 said:
And I didn't comment on all on the quality of the slip, so you have absolutely nothing to indicate "good aircraft control."
Click to expand...

Agree with you there. It just sounded a bit like you were generally implying steep slips were the mark of a screw up, and not simply commenting on the performance of this particular pilot attempting this type of approach.
 
Henning said:
Why is slipping risky?:dunno: Do you not land in crosswinds?
Click to expand...

Who said slipping was risky?

My objection was that he was not pointed down the runway as he started the round out. And no, I do not land in crosswinds in that manner. I don't like side loading the aircraft.

The risk was eating taxi lights or weeds, or the tires.
 
MAKG1 said:
Who said slipping was risky?

My objection was that he was not pointed down the runway as he started the round out. And no, I do not land in crosswinds in that manner. I don't like side loading the aircraft.

The risk was eating taxi lights or weeds, or the tires.
Click to expand...

The entire point of slipping to land in a cross wind is to avoid side loading. If you are crabbing you risk side loading.

If you are coming down sideways while slipping, you are not doing it right. You should land on one wheel pointed straight down the runway in a cross wind side slipping.
 
whifferdill said:
Agree with you there. It just sounded a bit like you were generally implying steep slips were the mark of a screw up, and not simply commenting on the performance of this particular pilot attempting this type of approach.
Click to expand...

Steep slips are not appropriate under normal circumstances in a $500K public aircraft with a crew of three. At least not without planning it -- such a maneuver at very low altitude affects the ORM. If it were a short obstructed field with an essential time critical mission, that might be different.

Having said that, the screw up was not the slip. It was entering base at twice pattern altitude, and yes, he did slip the aircraft to correct that mistake. Trust me, he didn't plan it ahead of time. As the Observer, I did the planning.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Concur.
It's a slip any time the turn rate indicator and slip/skid indicator are displaced in opposite directions. There are many times (especially crosswind landings) when you'll be slipping without full rudder deflection.
Click to expand...

The turn rate indicator shows zero for most of the slips we discuss here, excepting turning slips. I think you mean the ball is opposite the bank.
 
James331 said:
Dump all the flaps you got and slip the snot out of her if you have to.
Click to expand...
Concur.

I've slipped with 40 degree flap in the older 172s, and full 30 in the newer 172SPs, I've slipped full flaps in a U206, C182, C207, C208B, C120, C152, all with full flaps and I slip aggressively, and those are just the Cessnas,
Click to expand...
The only Cessna to which this oscillation issue applies is the 172. The advisory does not apply to any of the other Cessna models you listed.
I have yet to fly a plane which I haven't slipped.
Click to expand...
I gather you've never flown an Ercoupe, although Howard "Eye of the Examiner" Fried has a method for slipping even a 'coupe which involves lowering the window and leaning out.


A slip is a tool that, given enough flight hours, WILL save your bacon at some point. Anyone fearful of slipping, or against slipping needs to reassess.
Click to expand...
Concur.
 
DFH65 said:
I flew a C172 can't remember if it was the '61 or '69 that was placarded with slips with flaps extended are prohibited.
Click to expand...
If that placard was there within the last 40 years or so, it was because someone wasn't keeping up with the FAA requirements on placards for that aircraft.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Wow. Really? Big deal.
Click to expand...
You can say that without observing the landing? I hope you're a better instructor than that.

Greg Bockelman said:
What exactly was or is the risk?
Click to expand...

Loss of control on landing. A rather common accident scenario.

As it happens, we got a little jarring from side load. Nothing worse than a student landing. It could, however, have been a lot worse.
 
MAKG1 said:
Who said slipping was risky?

My objection was that he was not pointed down the runway as he started the round out. And no, I do not land in crosswinds in that manner. I don't like side loading the aircraft.

The risk was eating taxi lights or weeds, or the tires.
Click to expand...

You did:

The reason I considered, and probably should have called, a go-around was that he pulled out of the slip over the fence about 100 feet up. Were that necessary for conditions, that would be fine. It was not necessary, and therefore was excessively risky.
Click to expand...

In a tricycle plane the direction you're pointing doesn't really matter much to where you are going to go, it's your direction of travel that counts. As long as you land mains first, the plane will correct itself in heading to align it with the plane's inertia. I have been fully crossed up coming over the threshold still burning off energy. The plane maneuvers the same at 3' as it does at 3000', if you have 10+ kts of excess energy over the threshold, tossing in a quick slip is a more viable way to put it on the runway than driving the nose wheel on. Should he have gone around this time? Maybe, but regardless the ability to use a slip to burn off energy is a skill every pilot should have confident mastery of; it is a foundation skill. You should have the ability to slip at any altitude.
 
Last edited:
CTLSi said:
The entire point of slipping to land in a cross wind is to avoid side loading. If you are crabbing you risk side loading.
Click to expand...

First, we're not talking x-winds here. And second...no f'n ****. You seem to feel that your fresh PPL certificate somehow gives you this sage body of knowledge that few others here have. Quite funny that you feel the need to point out why we land in a slip at touchdown in x-wind. Duh. Maybe next you can give us a lesson on how to gain airspeed for takeoff. ;)

CTLSi said:
If you are coming down sideways while slipping, you are not doing it right. You should land on one wheel pointed straight down the runway in a cross wind side slipping.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You can use a full deflection slip to lose altitude while coming down sideways, and then relax the slip a bit to align the airplane for the x-wind landing.
 
CTLSi said:
The entire standard landing sequence is reduce rpm on the numbers at PA on downwind, set landing config flaps, pitch down all the way to roundout, coordinate turns (ball center), turn final on extended centerline, gear down (if not fixed), speed over threshold at 1.3 x Vs, roundout, sink into ground effect, nose up near stall, touch mains first, slow to taxi speed before allowing nosewheel full pressure.
Click to expand...
Some truth, some inaccuracy. I recommend reading either the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook or the 3-part "On Landings" pamphlets for a full, accurate, and FAA-approved discussion on this.

One more fun tip. You should be at half pattern altitude at mid base while maintaining the speed you want when you reach the threshold.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of reasons not to slow to final approach speed until rolled out on final. Again, read the material produced by those with vastly more experience and knowledge than CTLSi.
 
Henning said:
No, a skidding condition is required for a spin, in order for a slip to turn to a skid, the low wing has to come through level and over the plane. As the wing comes up, if you release the rudder, it stabilizes wings level.
Click to expand...
Correct. It is possible to enter a spin from a cross-controlled (slipped) stall, but in the light planes we're discussing, you have to hold the pro-spin controls a long time through a really "yee-hah" maneuver to make it happen.
 
Matthew said:
CFIs - are most of your students scared/nervous about slips to a landing? Just wondering. I never was, I understood what was happening and why, and probably ended up doing more slips during training than really necessary, just because I liked having that kind of control.
Click to expand...
Not if you introduce them to it properly, including full discussion on the ground, demonstrating and practicing slips of increasing intensity at altitude in the practice area, and then demonstrating and practicing slips of increasing intensity on final approach. OTOH, if you let the trainee get high on final, then say "Let me show you how to fix this high approach" while you grab the grab the controls and slam the airplane into a full-deflection slip, you can really scare the daylights out of them. :eek:
 
MAKG1 said:
You can say that without observing the landing? I hope you're a better instructor than that.
Click to expand...

You didn't indicate anything other than being on centerline at more or less the proper altitude. All things being equal, coming out of a slip at 100 feet is not a big deal.

Loss of control on landing. A rather common accident scenario.
Click to expand...

Really? There are a lot of accidents caused by coming out of a slip below 100 feet?

It could, however, have been a lot worse.
Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe. But for someone who is comfortable doing slips, it just isn't a big deal.
 
MAKG1 said:
Steep slips are not appropriate under normal circumstances in a $500K public aircraft with a crew of three. At least not without planning it -- such a maneuver at very low altitude affects the ORM.
Click to expand...

I had to look up ORM - CAP speak. Slipping at low altitude...100'?? affects "operational risk management"?

You fit the negative stereotypes associated with the CAP like a greased bearing.
 
bullwinkle said:
The "region of reverse command" is also called the "backside of the power curve". It's the part of the flight envelope where the lift/power curve for the airplane is so poor that even adding additional power might not be enough to increase speed or arrest a sink. This usually occurs very close to stall speed and/or at high angles of attack.

In other words, things can be "reversed" in that you go to full power and your sink rate continues to increase or speed continues to decay.
Click to expand...
The region of reversed command is defined by whether it takes more power to maintain constant vertical speed at a lower airspeed, not what happens when you add power. Even in that region, if you are in a stabilized condition, adding power will still reduce your sink rate (or increase your climb rate) at the same speed. If it takes 1700 RPM to maintain altitude at 65 knots but 1800 to maintain altitude at 63 knots, you're in the region of reversed command. If your speed isn't stable, you can't tell by throttle movement whether you're in that region or not.
 
Crab and kick doesn't work worth a damn in taildraggers because when your mains touch, you want your tail directly in line with the spinner.

If you're crabbing or slipping all the way down, and have to line everything up at the last few yards, that isn't worth a pecker on a Pope. (in a big TD)

You can get away with it in a cub, they're so easy to fly, but you start kicking a big taildragger around like that and you're asking for trouble. Wing down, hold centerline, touch on one main if you have to, but be straight when you do it.
 
MAKG1 said:
Some aircraft require slips to land safely. 182s do not.
Click to expand...
Other than for a crosswind (in which anything without castering main gear like a Cessna 195, B-52, C-5, or C-17 does require a slip to land safely) can you name one which does? I can't.
 
CTLSi said:
The entire point of slipping to land in a cross wind is to avoid side loading. If you are crabbing you risk side loading.

If you are coming down sideways while slipping, you are not doing it right. You should land on one wheel pointed straight down the runway in a cross wind side slipping.
Click to expand...
Assuming by "coming down" you mean "touching down", all correct. :applause:
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Other than for a crosswind (in which anything without castering main gear like a Cessna 195, B-52, C-5, or C-17 does require a slip to land safely) can you name one which does? I can't.
Click to expand...

Float plane? :D
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Really? There are a lot of accidents caused by coming out of a slip below 100 feet?
Click to expand...

I don't know of any, but it must have happened at least once in the time since Orville took off at Kitty Hawk. ;)
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
Other than for a crosswind (in which anything without castering main gear like a Cessna 195, B-52, C-5, or C-17 does require a slip to land safely) can you name one which does? I can't.
Click to expand...

Ercoupe!

If you call yourself an aviation enthusiast you should be ashamed of yourself. :lol:
 
txflyer said:
Crab and kick doesn't work worth a damn in taildraggers because when your mains touch, you want your tail directly in line with the spinner.
Click to expand...
You don't know what crab and kick is. You kick before you touch the mains. Taildraggers are no different than nosedraggers with regard to this, you don't want to touch down in most without the longitudinal axis pointing down the runway. The exception begin crosswind gear and the trailing link gear like on an Ercoupe that are designed to be able to landed in a crab.
 
Actually I did fly one once for a BFR.

I understand there is a kit to put rudder pedals in em, cool plane for sure, with the looks and windows, but I'd never own one without the rudder kit, just removes options in my flying.
 
Help me out with reverse command. I would think using this method a hundred or so feet above the ground could be hazardous to your health if you encountered an unanticipated wind gust, or shear???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top