Safe Landing Distance

[gsxrpilot]

 

 

I think I'd find a different CFI. Ask him to try that method in Denver, then ask him how many times he gets the stall horn on final.

 

Ok so this particular CFI has more instructing hours than most retired airline captains have total time. He also has more Boeing hours as well. I'm a relatively low time pilot myself, but have found the technique to work with every aircraft I've ever flown and no matter where I'm landing. It even works well with unpowered aircraft such as the gliders, hang gliders and paragliders I fly as well.

 

My first landings in my Mooney were on a 2200 ft strip that runs down hill. With the prevailing wind requiring a down hill landing, you have a very precise touchdown zone or the runway will drop away from you. I just flew the approach and landing like any other light single, looking out the window.

 

We're not trying to land a Boeing, it's just a little light single. And any Private Pilot should be able to easily land one.

[atn_pilot]

Ok so this particular CFI has more instructing hours than most retired airline captains have total time. He also has more Boeing hours as well.

And yet he's still giving awful advice.

There are guys I flew with in the airlines who I would get off their airplane if I saw them up front when I walked on to nonrev somewhere. Hours and type ratings are usually a good indicator of skill, but not always. Some guys just have bizarre ideas about how to fly an airplane.

Intentionally ignoring a required flight instrument is not a wise move. It's there for a reason.

[midlifeflyer]

I'm not sure how you can say that you're a "fly by the numbers guy" when you aren't even looking at the numbers. Getting used to a sight picture and using it if you lose your airspeed indicator is one thing. Not looking at your airspeed indicator as a normal course of business is just a bad idea all around.

Who said I'm not looking at the numbers? I'm just using visual cues as my primary approach information. With glances to determine whether what I see out the window is accurate.

Would it be fair for me to say you are fixating on the numbers and never looking outside? Sure sounds like it based on your comments.

Question: have you covered the instrument panel and done landings as a training exercise? That's what it sounds to me like the CFI in question is doing. Of course, if one doesn't like the idea, one will always make up ways to mischaracterize it to attack it.

[atn_pilot]

Who said I'm not looking at the numbers? I'm just using visual cues as my primary approach information. With glances to determine whether what I see out the window is accurate.

Would it be fair for me to say you are fixating on the numbers and never looking outside? Sure sounds like it based on your comments.

Question: have you covered the instrument panel and done landings as a training exercise? That's what it sounds to me like the CFI in question is doing. Of course, if one doesn't like the idea, one will always make up ways to mischaracterize it to attack it.

 

In fact, the original poster who brought this up (and who you're supposedly agreeing with) said that he deosn't look at the numbers. Here is what he said his CFI told him: "His response was to ignore the ASI, just look out the window and land the airplane"

 

There is no ambiguity about "ignore the ASI." That's dangerous, reckless, bad advice. What you're saying now that you do makes perfect sense, and is what just about every pilot does: looking outside and also scanning the instruments. But that's not what his CFI was advising, and that's what we're talking about here.

[PTK]

For God's sake! What is the argument? And I'm fresh out of popcorn too!

Fly the numbers...all the numbers the particular flight calls for!

The Mooney is a fly by the numbers airplane!

Flying by the numbers will make you a good disciplined pilot in any airplane.

[Hank]

Learn the right numbers for your plane, and get comfortable landing it. When you are consistent with touchdown spot and rollout distance, go somewhere a little shorter. When you're good there, find somewhere shorter.

I trained, bought and was based for seven years at an obstructed 3000' field, and made periodic trips to a nearby 2000' grass strip. So I'm good most places. I'm just careful with weight on short grass strips. Now in the land of 5000' fields, I occasionally seek out shorter ones to make sure I don't get too rusty. One flight review took me to a paved field 2440 x 40, complete with simulated engine out to a full stop.

Your Mooney will do it. The question is always about pilot proficiency. Have fun!

[midlifeflyer]

In fact, the original poster who brought this up (and who you're supposedly agreeing with) said that he deosn't look at the numbers. Here is what he said his CFI told him: "His response was to ignore the ASI, just look out the window and land the airplane"

 

There is no ambiguity about "ignore the ASI." That's dangerous, reckless, bad advice. What you're saying now that you do makes perfect sense, and is what just about every pilot does: looking outside and also scanning the instruments. But that's not what his CFI was advising, and that's what we're talking about here.

 

But I think we are making two completely different assumptions about "ignore the numbers." Yours is that it was a recommendation to always fly that way and never consider expected performance.  My assumption is that it was a training exercise designed to help with landing issues by teaching how to land with eyes outside the cockpit.

 

I've used "cover the instruments" for years with everything from landing issues to student pilots having problems flying ground reference maneuvers. Most of the time those issues seem to be based on chasing one numerical parameter or another, Covering the "offending" instrument does not fail to produce a better maneuver so that, when the pilot returns to having all the instruments available he doesn't . If you doubt it works, it just means you haven't done it.

[midlifeflyer]

For God's sake! What is the argument? And I'm fresh out of popcorn too!

Fly the numbers...all the numbers the particular flight calls for!

The Mooney is a fly by the numbers airplane!

Flying by the numbers will make you a good disciplined pilot in any airplane.

No body is arguing that the numbers should not be flown. The disagreement is how to get there. "Fly the numbers" is a nice mantra but I think folks will take that as and excuse to fixate on one or another rather than fly the airplane. 

 

I recall the first time it was done to me. Make/Model I never flew before. Also one where it is unforgiving if you don't fly the right numbers on approach. Two landings and then the CFI took out a newspaper and covered the panel. I thought it was nuts until short final just before the flare and he pulled away the newspaper.

 

For God's sale. Fly the airplane.

[atn_pilot]

But I think we are making two completely different assumptions about "ignore the numbers."

Seems that way. But reading his post, I don't really see any other way to take take it. Perhaps he will post to clarify.

[bonal]

What I like best about this sort of discussion is it makes me think about my oun flying and what I am doing. My home is 3500 but I fly to many locations that are under 3K I would have to admit that I am more out the window than ASI but each segment of my approach to a field is tied to a specific air speed gear flaps downwind base etc. I have no doubt that if I had an ASI failure I could nail these numbers based on my feel for the airplane and what the site picture was telling me not to useful in IMC but I don't fly in that realm.

After reading this I will be even more attentive to all the points made here.

[Shadrach]

This thread has kind of degenerated...I feel for the OP.  He was asking about runway margins.  It his clear from the 1st post in this thread that he understands the need to fly the numbers.

 

What is evident from the following posts is that this is a diverse forum with diverse opinions.  The pilots here use any number of techniques...from coming over the numbers with significant margins over Vso to using "the force" to get their planes on the runway.

 

Pilots that are "new" to an airframe, have no frame of reference for "feel", this is why they ask questions like the one posed by the OP.  His inquiry was essentially, "if I F#^& up how much extra margin should I have to ensure that I don't end up in the weeds" He received some good answers.  My recommendation would be to use the longest runway that is convenient to you and then practice trying to use as little of it as possible.  

 

There is a contingent of what must be very skilled aviators on this forum that have superb abilities early on in their transition training. These folks can intuitively understand a new airframe from shape and smell.  They land by "feel" at shorter strips that would make some of the more highly seasoned though less current members nervous.  They are the Mooney Aces. If you know that you're one of these Aces then consider yourself lucky. If you don't know that you're one of these Aces, then you're definitely not. A big part of being an Ace is absolute confidence. 

 

If you're not an Ace, FLY THE F#^%ING NUMBERS...specifically cross the threshold at 1.2 times stall for whatever configuration you've chosen.  It's a proven method of achieving consistency under all conditions.  It's easy to calculate before flight and it's easy to reference in the plane.  It will give you the best chance of staying out of trouble and you'll look almost as good as the Mooney Ace that you and I will never be...

[bonal]

Shad, I hope I did not say something to upset I only was commenting on the question of visual vs numbers. I try to do both and no matter how good an approach or landing I always try to find fault for improvement. I know I only fly a little short body but I know when I don't hit my numbers I will get a BAD result.

[Shadrach]

Negative, no reason to get upset on my end!  My last post had nothing to do with yours; in fact, I started composing mine before you even posted.  My last post was tongue and cheek, and not directed at you or anyone else specifically. It was meant to be directed at certain types of posts.  

 

Airplanes fly based on physics.  These physical properties, actions, interactions and reactions can be measured, defined, quantified and qualified.  I think the latter is a far more useful way of conveying information, especially over an internet forum than telling someone to "look" and "feel" it.  Some of these post contain nothing in the way of actionable information and it's not very useful to anyone who's trying to learn...unless of course that person is trying to learn which posters think they're "Aces".

[PTK]

No body is arguing that the numbers should not be flown. The disagreement is how to get there. "Fly the numbers" is a nice mantra but I think folks will take that as and excuse to fixate on one or another rather than fly the airplane.

I recall the first time it was done to me. Make/Model I never flew before. Also one where it is unforgiving if you don't fly the right numbers on approach. Two landings and then the CFI took out a newspaper and covered the panel. I thought it was nuts until short final just before the flare and he pulled away the newspaper.

For God's sale. Fly the airplane.

The op is asking about safe landing distance margins and predictable landings.

If the goal is to fly disciplined and stable approaches to a predetermined touch down point predictably with reproducibility then there's only one way to do it.

Fly the numbers the approach dictates. It's not a mantra. It's a requirement.

Without them be prepared for lots of go arounds or worse...the weeds!

Look out the window all you want but the numbers are going to set you free!

Is there any other way to fly?

[Shadrach]

Use "The Force" Peter!

 

Ignore that heading bug, just fly the airplane and you will find your destination...

[PTK]

Use "The Force" Peter!

Ignore that heading bug, just fly the airplane and you will find your destination...

A billiard ball will eventually make it into a pocket too!!

[Mooneymite]

A billiard ball will eventually make it into a pocket too!! Just put some force behind it!

It'll take a while aimlessly bouncing all around but sooner or later it'll get there!!

 

And that, sir, is the guiding light behind all of Darwinism.

 

However, for some to be free, some must die and that is the Darwin effect.

 

All errors are (eventually) self-correcting.

[Guitarmaster]

In fact, the original poster who brought this up (and who you're supposedly agreeing with) said that he deosn't look at the numbers. Here is what he said his CFI told him: "His response was to ignore the ASI, just look out the window and land the airplane"

There is no ambiguity about "ignore the ASI." That's dangerous, reckless, bad advice.

Unless you have AOA... but that's whole new topic!

[Shadrach]

Unless you have AOA... but that's whole new topic!

You must have missed the earlier post.  Apparently some pilots can derive AOA from the aircraft's pitch site picture. Who needs an AOA indicator when you've that kind of talent.  

[PTK]

And that, sir, is the guiding light behind all of Darwinism.

 

However, for some to be free, some must die and that is the Darwin effect.

 

All errors are (eventually) self-correcting.

  

This is wisdom! Brilliant

Unless you have AOA... but that's whole new topic!

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

[midlifeflyer]

You must have missed the earlier post. Apparently some pilots can derive AOA from the aircrafts pitch site picture. Who needs AOA when you've got that kind of talent.

Flying pitch and power and using visual cues doesn't take special talent. It's Student Pilot 101. Do we really forget how to fly when we move to more complex aircraft?

No one has said not to fly the numbers. But some of us apparently insist on fixating on one instrument only.

[atn_pilot]

Flying pitch and power and using visual cues doesn't take special talent. It's Student Pilot 101. Do we really forget how to fly when we move to more complex aircraft?

No one has said not to fly the numbers. But some of us apparently insist on fixating on one instrument only.

I don't know where you're getting this "fixating" idea. Scanning instruments should be a normal part of every maneuver you do in an aircraft, just like looking outside should be a normal part of every maneuver (unless you're IMC).

[Shadrach]

I like gsxrpilot's comment about forgetting the ASI and looking out the window. That works great if one learns the visual sight picture that produces the approach speed you are targeting.

This is what you said midlife. It has nothing to do with the straw man that you've constructed above. Let's agree to disagree.

[bonal]

I'm certainly no Ace and compared to my fellow pilots on a scale of 1 to 10 I would rate myself below a 5 but let me ask this question. Your flying along in your framilier steed what tells you first that there may be a problem all the little numbers on the panel or all the little hairs on the back of you neck. I'd bet it's a human perception that gets you looking at the gauges quicker than a reading on an instrument that alerts you to a problem. And don't misunderstand I have a real love affair with my 6 pack (sadly it's not my tummy) I did mention my experience with runway length in response to the OP and I think that once one becomes practiced a Mooney is very capable of short field operations

[Shadrach]

I'm certainly no Ace and compared to my fellow pilots on a scale of 1 to 10 I would rate myself below a 5 but let me ask this question. Your flying along in your framilier steed what tells you first that there may be a problem all the little numbers on the panel or all the little hairs on the back of you neck. I'd bet it's a human perception that gets you looking at the gauges quicker than a reading on an instrument that alerts you to a problem.

 

When it comes to noise, vibration and harshness, I totally agree. I have lost 2 mags while in cruise (at different times ;-) ). Both of those times, I felt the mag drop out before confirming that my EGTs had all increase about 200 degrees.  

 

However, I have also been in IMC where the little hairs on the back of my neck were lying to me in the worst way. The tug of war between them and the gauges was quite intense.