What Is The Lowest AGL You Will Slip Prior To Landing

MauleSkinner said:
So what kind of slip am I doing in ground effect to bleed off the 50-60 mph so I can land?
Click to expand...

I guess that would be the other "sole" purpose or maybe you want to do both or maybe you want your nose and your track to align with the runway. A slip is a slip no matter how you cut it.
 
Clip4 said:
Fools slip. If you need to bleed off that much speed, do it before the plane experiences a drag reduction in ground effect.
Click to expand...
That would just require occupying the runway longer, and possibly sending an airliner around.
 
Slide slip to 0 AGL. Front slip into the flare at least. When you take out the slip, you're going to gain a little bit of float, especially if you're in ground effect. So you don't want to take it out until it looks like you're actually short of your intended touchdown (for precision landings). And you shouldn't be building speed when in a slip. If you are, get the nose up.
 
Forward slip until the landing is assured or I've started the go around. I hate going around, the airplane goes through huge pitch movements and I have a devil of a time raising the gear. So I do slips when I wind up on the high side. I have a really bad habit of stuffing it in instead of going around.
 
I've slipped from altitude all the way to rollout.
 
Some of the Cessna 172s that had the 40 deg flap capability supposedly had a tendency to pitch forward under heavy slip inputs. I was vaguely aware of that, but never found it in 30 years of flying our 172M. Close to the runway, yes - but not too close just in case.
 
I love reading comments from folks who think all planes look like their planes and the only way to do it is the way they were taught.

Fly the plane. Use the flaps and the power you need or want (if available) and slip as much or as little for as long as necessary to as low as necessary to land where you want to land. Just do the needful.
 
Slip away. If you hit the ground, you have slipped to far.
 
Wow, more comments than expected.

I am very comfortable with slips. Striving to setup landings to not need them. Of course when needed, it's usually just after turning base to final and high. The 182 with flaps 40 really drops fast. Just did one last night. A Citation touched down ahead of me so flew above his path, noted his touchdown and did a pretty strong slip to come down last minute and touchdown a bit farther out.

Kari has a ton of tailwheel time with no flaps so its probably second nature to her. For me that was the first demonstration down that low.

I am definitely a "lefty" though LOL! If winds aren't strong ill always slip rudder left, right wing down to drop altitude.

I have been practicing power off 180s more regularly. If I've been fast, I've managed to bleed off speed with flaps but need to practice this to get the speed down quicker to not burn up so much runway.

Its funny, maybe I've even done this naturally, lower down, and just don't recall it? But pretty sure not down to 10agl or lower. Another thing to practice!
 
MauleSkinner said:
So you’re saying it’ll take less time to go 3000 feet down the runway to the turnoff if I’m going slower and land sooner?
Click to expand...
I am saying if you do what ever you are doing above ground effect you will land shorter than taking the plane into ground effect and trying to lose the speed because your induced drag is greater outside ground effect.
 
Clip4 said:
I am saying if you do what ever you are doing above ground effect you will land shorter than taking the plane into ground effect and trying to lose the speed because your induced drag is greater outside ground effect.
Click to expand...
But since I need to get 3000 feet downfield to clear the runway, that would extend my time on the runway.
 
MauleSkinner said:
But since I need to get 3000 feet downfield to clear the runway, that would extend my time on the runway.
Click to expand...

+40 in slipping ground effect is not a stabilized approach and certainly not a procedure to promote to anyone.
 
Clip4 said:
+40 in slipping ground effect is not a stabilized approach and certainly not a procedure to promote to anyone.
Click to expand...
I don’t recall promoting it.

And technically, any forward slip on final would probably be considered an “unstable approach”.
 
I must be reading this incorrectly, as to me it looks like some folks are not distinguishing between a forward, and a side slip. You certainly don’t want to land in a forward slip, and a side slip for crosswind, well, taking it out before touchdown kind of defeats the purpose.
Perhaps I’m reading things incorrectly.
 
Sinistar said:
I have been practicing power off 180s more regularly. If I've been fast, I've managed to bleed off speed with flaps but need to practice this to get the speed down quicker to not burn up so much runway.
Click to expand...
If you're practicing them to a spot landing, one benefit of slipping over flaps is that a slip is infinitely variable, and you can put it in and take it out all the way 'till the end. Try putting in half the flaps you think you need and making up the rest with a slip until you think you're going to under shoot; then relax the slip. And if you're going too fast, pick the nose up.
 
Last edited:
MauleSkinner said:
I don’t recall promoting it.

And technically, any forward slip on final would probably be considered an “unstable approach”.
Click to expand...
If that were true, the FAA would have to fail every private pilot applicant because stabilized approaches and a slip to landing are required on the PT.
 
Clip4 said:
If that were true, the FAA would have to fail every private pilot applicant because stabilized approaches and a slip to landing are required on the PT.
Click to expand...
What definition of stabilized are you using that includes going into and/or out of a forward slip?

the FAA makes us do quite a few things on checkrides that violate FAA guidance simply because they want to see certain skills demonstrated.
 
MauleSkinner said:
the FAA makes us do quite a few things on checkrides that violate FAA guidance simply because they want to see certain skills demonstrated.
Click to expand...

The word violate is dangerous. o_O

When we take the stance that the FAA's "guidance" means "prohibited except on checkrides" then we might as well let the robots take over our flying for us. Flying represents a really wide range of things we do with airplanes in a wide range of places. What's suitable in some planes in some places are viewed as unsuitable in others. Less FAA hard lines is better for aviation.
 
Pugs said:
The word violate is dangerous. o_O

When we take the stance that the FAA's "guidance" means "prohibited except on checkrides" then we might as well let the robots take over our flying for us. Flying represents a really wide range of things we do with airplanes in a wide range of places. What's suitable in some planes in some places are viewed as unsuitable in others. Less FAA hard lines is better for aviation.
Click to expand...
How about “completely disregarding certain FAA guidance because the FAA requires us to do so, and therefore considering the normalization of deviance to be acceptable”?

I’m in no way implying that a forward slip to landing is a bad thing. I’m simply pointing out that a forward slip doesn’t fit any definition of a stabilized approach that I’ve seen unless it’s slipped all the way to the flare. And the FAA requires this non stabilized approach on checkrides.
 
Last edited:
How many light plane pilots routinely do a true stabilized approach? In heavier and faster aircraft, sure, where the wind is less significant, but in a slow plane in uneven winds, I always plan to be high, and slip as necessary.

The steeper the approach, the less effect small errors in glide angle will have on touchdown point.

Yesterday I even started a slip at maybe 25' and held it right into the flare, to use up that last bit of excess energy.

Of course my home field is on a hilltop where there's often a sudden downdraft on short final as the wind follows the ground contour. If you're a bit too low you might find yourself looking up at the runway threshold.
 
MauleSkinner said:
What definition of stabilized are you using that includes going into and/or out of a forward slip?

the FAA makes us do quite a few things on checkrides that violate FAA guidance simply because they want to see certain skills demonstrated.
Click to expand...

A stabilized approach is one in which the pilot establishes and maintains a constant angle glide path towards a predetermined point on the landing runway. It is based on the pilot’s judgment of certain visual clues and depends on the maintenance of a constant final descent airspeed and configuration. Putting an airplane in or out of a slip is not changing its configuration.

Then land within 400 ft of the specified point centerline with the proper pitch attitude.
 
Clip4 said:
A stabilized approach is one in which the pilot establishes and maintains a constant angle glide path towards a predetermined point on the landing runway. It is based on the pilot’s judgment of certain visual clues and depends on the maintenance of a constant final descent airspeed and configuration. Putting an airplane in or out of a slip is not changing its configuration.

Then land within 400 ft of the specified point centerline with the proper pitch attitude.
Click to expand...
But putting an aircraft in or out of a slip is changing the angle of the glide path (beyond any reasonable definition of bracketing, just to head off that argument), and therefore does not meet that definition of a stabilized approach.
 
MauleSkinner said:
But putting an aircraft in or out of a slip is changing the angle of the glide path (beyond any reasonable definition of bracketing, just to head off that argument), and therefore does not meet that definition of a stabilized approach.
Click to expand...

If you hold the slip to ground effect, it a stabilized approach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top