Watching Airplanes

dmccormack

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
10,945
Location
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Display Name

Display name:
Dan Mc
After the tailwheel checkout John and I had lunch at the airport restaurant. We sat next to the large window where we could watch traffic.

It was pretty slow for a while, until a C172 showed up. He was probably 300' AGL at the threshold. Full flaps were visible, and we wtached as he dove for the runway.

"Do you think he'll consider slipping?"

"Of course not. He's in a Cessna and he'll die if he slips with flaps -- says so right on the placard..."

"Oh yeah..."

Of course he reached the runway -- but now he had about 35 knots to bleed off. So down the runway the airplane proceeds -- float, float, float.

"Oh no..."

The nose drops, the nosewheel is about to hit, the nose pitches up, the engine remains quiet.

"Power, power..."

The engine roars, the airplane flies about 5' AGL another 100 feet.

By now 3000' feet of pavement are behind the Cessna. He touches down, bounces, touches down again, sideways (winds were 30 degrees from the left at 5 or so).

"Whew... I hope he doesn't do a --"

The engine roars, the nose comes up (gee, I wonder where the trim is set?) and the airplane drags itself down the runway, breaking contact with earth about 500 feet from the far end of the runway (there's a nasty drop-off another 100' or so after the edge of the pavement).

We watched in awe as this scenario was repeated several more times -- each time the barely-salvaged landing ending with a roar and a hurried takeoff with 500-1000 feet of runway remaining.

If it was a training flight, how about taking 30-45 seconds or so to stop, clear the active, or even back-taxi on this slow day, and discuss what just happened? Why rush to repeat near-disaster?

If it wasn't a training flight, then this pilot is either practicing a very bad drunken-pilot routine or has this touch and go mindset so engraved on his frontal lobe that he doesn't realize there's another way.

Either way, the 172 provide how sturdy and forgiving and airplane it is.
 
We watched in awe as this scenario was repeated several more times -- each time the barely-salvaged landing ending with a roar and a hurried takeoff with 500-1000 feet of runway remaining.

If it was a training flight, how about taking 30-45 seconds or so to stop, clear the active, or even back-taxi on this slow day, and discuss what just happened? Why rush to repeat near-disaster?

If it wasn't a training flight, then this pilot is either practicing a very bad drunken-pilot routine or has this touch and go mindset so engraved on his frontal lobe that he doesn't realize there's another way.

Either way, the 172 provide how sturdy and forgiving and airplane it is.

You've all heard that "practice makes perfect" but it's a lot more accurate to say that "practice makes consistent" and if you practice badly, that will make you consistently bad.
 
You've all heard that "practice makes perfect" but it's a lot more accurate to say that "practice makes consistent" and if you practice badly, that will make you consistently bad.

Yep.

When I coached Basketball and baseball, I used the improved adage: "Perfect practice makes perfect."
 
It is examples like this why we decided to "ban" the practice of Touch-n-Go landing practice in our flight school (unless prescribed by the Gleim course syllabus for that lesson). There are far more accidents in the landing phase than anywhere else. Learning to stop, taxi clear, and clean up the airplane is far more valuable than a touch-n-go.
 
Did the pilot ever call for T&G or were these maybe just botched landing attempts leading to balked landings?
 
Did the pilot ever call for T&G or were these maybe just botched landing attempts leading to balked landings?

We were in the restaurant, thus not listening to 122.8

Anyway, why would this guy be working on "balked" landings before he could do a regular, plain-ole landings?
 
That sounds exactly like what happened one fine day at Fullerton CA in 1969, when a 50-hour PPL in a C-172 botched a go-around, drifted off the 3200' runway, "flew" through our tie-down spot and hit my 1966 VW Beetle, went through the boundary fence and into the street where it hit another car. Had I not been flying our C-150 at the time, our airplane would have been toast.
 

Attachments

  • c172_vs_vw.jpg
    c172_vs_vw.jpg
    114.6 KB · Views: 61
That sounds exactly like what happened one fine day at Fullerton CA in 1969, when a 50-hour PPL in a C-172 botched a go-around, drifted off the 3200' runway, "flew" through our tie-down spot and hit my 1966 VW Beetle, went through the boundary fence and into the street where it hit another car. Had I not been flying our C-150 at the time, our airplane would have been toast.

He just "overshot the runway." :mad2:
 
Maybe he's just needed the 9500x150 at PHL or the or the 11758x200 at PBG. Not everyone is comfortable with short runways.
 
Yeah... those C172s need at LEAST 10,000 feet of pavement. :rofl:
In the wrong hands they sure do... I've seen a lot of that kind of Skyhawk mishandling lately, myself. High, hot, and soooo desperate to at least touch down. Not really very useful landing practice. :frown2:
 
Back
Top