midlifeflyer

Exactly how does that end the story for someone who wants to continue to rely on paper charts? Or are you anti-paper for some reason the way some silly people are anti-electronic?

I think it depends on where you go. Sometimes convenience is king and the AirBoss discount can mean the difference between using the airport close to where you want to be or the further away. Or even a choice between FBOs at the same airport.

Have you looked at http://airnavcharts.com/? They claim "Flat standard shipping for any order size of $4.95." Back when I used paper charts, I had a subscription with https://www.pilotshop.com. As I recall (it's been over 4 years since I last used paper charts), they had a free shipping option.

LOL! As soon as I read your post, a visual immediately came to mind. Some years back I watched a spot landing event. One of the pilots, flying a 152, had the longest landing, and there were both HP singles and twins in the group. He did a very steep approach, but it involved lowering his nose and diving at the numbers, building up enough energy that we were worried he'd float all the way off the far end of the runway (almost but not quite). OTOH, I've seen folks do normal not-so-steep approaches, level off to very little vertical speed and drag it in, dropping it on a spot and almost immediately coming to a full stop. In theory, yes, I think you are correct. But it depends a lot on pilot technique. Airspeed + descent rate gives us a total energy package that needs to be dissipated for touchdown. The issue, whether steep or not, is still going to be the pilot controlling pitch and power to produce a combination that gives a comfortable stall buffer and control, but results in the smallest combined energy package.

I was a member for a few years, mostly as a way to support AirNav. I thought it was worthwhile and the $39 captured back fairly quickly.

I think a lot of people approach short field (and especially the related "spot" landing backwards. They try to "make" the airplane land on the spot rather than "let it" land on the spot, usually giving up approach stability or potentially wheelbarrowing in the process. Short field, like any other thing in aviation, is a learned process. When I teach it, I have the pilot set up in a short field configuration that is both stabilized and repeatable, and do some landings. Not to put it down on a spot. In these first few landings I don't care where the airplane touches down. What I want is stability of airspeed and descent rate and =observation= of the difference between the aiming point and the touchdown point to learn what the airplane does when properly set up. After a few landings learning that, it's a pretty simple thing to choose an aim point that will result in a touchdown in the chosen location, with fairly small adjustments for wind conditions, density altitude, etc.

7B2, Northampton MA.

Definitely. If I used a written checklist for preflight, I'd use hardcopy.

It slopes upward. It is also, like many mountain airports, one with opposite direction traffic. Land of 32, takeoff on 14. The slope is one of the reasons. It also helps for both takeoff and landing given the 2900' length and 4432' msl altitude (just under 7,000' D-Alt as of the time I write this) Not quite the Rocky Mountain west, but doing performance calculations is important. non-HP Mooneys, for all their attributes, are not know as great takeoff performers.

I'm another one who suffers from checklist schizophrenia I even change my format every couple of years. When I was using them in paper, I used the military spec vinyl pages from PDI Pueblo instead of laminating them.

Sorry, but I've been using personally customized checklists for almost 25 years and really never heard of a special service that did that.

Mountain Air requires permission to land and, due to a number of accidents on approach over the years, permission generally requires an invitation and discussion with one off their pilots. I think the invitation to come and play is probably easier than the permission to land. My landing at Mountain Air: https://youtu.be/T-hszP7P9GE

Seems to me there used to be a website or app that had a search for fly-in golf courses. But it seems to be gone; can't even Google one.

It might be the exact opposite. Based on his apparent rejection of the effect of distractions on human behavior, PTK might simply be convinced that he has insulated himself from such things and can't understand how others are affected. He is absolutely correct, though, when he says There is no excuse. There are reasons but there is no excuse. The proof is that it happens to some but not to many others in similar situations.

Me too. But I do fly in and out of a good number of towered airports (based at one for 20 years; standard pattern about 25% of the time, excluding touch & goes. I was curious mostly because of posts that at least sounded like there was no standardized plan other than abeam on downwind.

You can start your research with this relatively simplistic 1998 article on distraction in the cockpit from NASA http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/publications/directline/dl10_distract.htm Then you can use google to find multiple articles dealing with everything from driving to operating room procedures that discuss how and, from a psychological and physiological standpoint, why distractions can interfere with performance of almost any task. Keep in mind, of course, that "distraction" simply means "something that diverts attention". It includes other tasks in a situation in which we are called upon to multi-task or, worse, add an extra level of stress.

For those who say they always out the gear down "abeam." It sounds very systematic and I know a lot of pilots are taught that way. But what do you consider to be "abeam" on a VFR straight in or base approach? Is it equally systematic?

I don't generally describe it (mostly because I don;t want people to change what already works) but since you are looking for a "new" point to consider, this is my procedure: For VFR, my gear down point is within 3 miles of the airport and at pattern altitude. "Normal" pattern, base entry, crossover pattern, straight in. It doesn't matter. It's become almost second nature and it even requires me to consider putting the gear down pretty far out since I need to be at the right airspeed once I get there. True story - I was getting checked out in a Bonanza. Real fast bird, C33A with a 300 HP conversion. Trued out at 173 KTS and I typically flew it at 165. Gear extension speed similar to the Mooneys. As I usually do when getting checked out in a retract. I told my instructor my procedure to avoid surprises on both of our parts. So, anyway, we are descending to the airport and got down to pattern altitude a bit early, maybe 5 miles out for a 45-degree entry. Suddenly, my instructor stated laughing. I looked at him to ask why and he pointed to my right hand. I wasn't even aware of it but my right hand had moved to the gear handle and was hovering over it, shaking in anticipation since I had reach pattern altitude but was not yet within 3 miles. I leave it to the psychologists but I think that's the power of habit at work.

It could mean you should consider whether you should be further ahead of the airplane in terms of planning power reductions to begin the process of slowing down further out. But if you are getting the gear warning at 18" MP, it might mean it is out of adjustment. 14-15 inches is pretty standard. I've rarely had to go below 16-17" to get down to the speed I want for gear extension unless I was expediting a descent.

And the gear lever is right there in line of sight. And the process of adding drag to slow down is the most normal part of flying I can think of. And the blare of a loud warning device is even designed to grab your attention when you are not paying attention. It's a distraction issue. Checklist use is as subject to distraction and simple human error as anything else. Maybe more so for most pilots. Are you thinking that pilot don't lower the gear on a retract they fly 200 hours a year without a checklist? Or than pilot who regularly use a checklist can never have a gear incident? If you are, I'll simply disagree,

Love it! My worst "almost" (actually, my only "almost" after my initial training) was after I flew with another pilot. He was also an airline guy and flew the same make/model as me. I watched his gear-down procedure and it looked so smooth and otherwise good that I decided to change mine and try to adopt his. Second flight with the "new" procedure and a very, very minor distraction led me to forget and the gear warning blared me to attention. Scared the crap out of me and I immediately returned to my prior procedure. And adopted my Landing Gear Rule #1 - establish an SOP that works and never vary it so it becomes a habit. (Rule #2 is the corollary: i"don't screw around with it after you have one)

No. But acknowledging (which just about everyone will) there is no good reason or excuse doesn't solve the problem, since pilots do in fact miss it. And, while I am definitely a proponent of using written checklists, the failure to lower the gear is not really a checklist issue.

I think just about all retracts made since the 50's have some sort of audible warning system when power is below a certain level with the gear still up. One thing I do when I do complex training is insist it never gets heard. I explain that (1) even if he or she knows what it is for, a significant other will absolutely be terrified of the sound, so if you want him or her to fly with you, don't let it go off and (2) letting it go off regularly makes it a "normal" rather than "emergency" sound, adding to the likelihood it will be disregarded. Like these guys... https://youtu.be/2hMn7ZweF6s

Ha! I'm guessing most pilots already know they are close to the ground when they land. And all the warnings around don't help the humans who don't pay attention to them. All you are describing is yet another human-dependent crutch.

You fly a turboprop? I ask because I've seen turboprops used in Part 135 operations (with all the extra pilot training, experience and flight hours than entails) that have landed unintentionally gear up. I think it was Rod Machado who once said that the only difference between tuning in the wrong frequency on the radio and a gear-up is the consequences. Psychologically, he said, they are identical. And I suppose the worst thing one can do is think it's "almost impossible."