Landing a Mooney - Safety Culture

[Shadrach]

4 hours ago, MBDiagMan said:

When I say slip, I don’t mean the mold slipping I do to align with the runway.  I mean hard forward slips to lose lots of altitude.

They’re both cross control inputs.  Do you know what happens in the event of a tail stall?

[skydvrboy]

5 minutes ago, MyNameIsNobody said:

When Jordan or any player shoots a jump shot are they trying new ways to release while practicing or are they trying to ingrain a set manner?

From what I've seen, they are practicing many different ways to shoot the ball (although they all have similarities).  They are practicing jump shots from a dribble, from a catch, fade away shots, teardrop shots, layups, dunks, up and under's, etc.  Granted, none of that is necessarily trying something new, but rather perfecting a technique they have been taught for each different shot.  Each one adds another skill to their bag of tricks to pull out when needed.

I think the same would apply to practicing takeoffs and landings.  Every takeoff and landing has similar elements to it and a similar feel, but I think that in addition to a normal takeoff and landing, we should practice crosswind, no wind, short field, soft field, power on, power off, full flap, partial flap, no flap, etc.  Again, not trying to learn something new, but perfecting techniques we've been taught for each.  Each one adds another skill to our bag of tricks to pull out when needed.

Unfortunately, every time we deviate from our "standard" landing to practice another type, we are adding an element of risk.  Is it worth the risk for the skills that are developed?  Answers may vary.

[MyNameIsNobody]

26 minutes ago, skydvrboy said:

From what I've seen, they are practicing many different ways to shoot the ball (although they all have similarities).  They are practicing jump shots from a dribble, from a catch, fade away shots, teardrop shots, layups, dunks, up and under's, etc.  Granted, none of that is necessarily trying something new, but rather perfecting a technique they have been taught for each different shot.  Each one adds another skill to their bag of tricks to pull out when needed.

I think the same would apply to practicing takeoffs and landings.  Every takeoff and landing has similar elements to it and a similar feel, but I think that in addition to a normal takeoff and landing, we should practice crosswind, no wind, short field, soft field, power on, power off, full flap, partial flap, no flap, etc.  Again, not trying to learn something new, but perfecting techniques we've been taught for each.  Each one adds another skill to our bag of tricks to pull out when needed.

Unfortunately, every time we deviate from our "standard" landing to practice another type, we are adding an element of risk.  Is it worth the risk for the skills that are developed?  Answers may vary.

You are not picking up what I am laying down in the first paragraph.  The release is ingrained as is the shot from different locations on the court through practice and visualization.  Practice against other teammates would add in new elements such as a fade away or quicker shot due to influences of defender.  I am all for practice in various conditions so you can gain comfort and set limitations.  I know I can land my plane with no or partial flaps.  Did it for a few years.  Softfield in my Mooney?  Nope.  Know technique, but don’t practice.  Stalls, slips, go arounds, engine out all with instructor.  I want somebody that is doing them weekly and that is GRADING me.  Thompson airline is very boring.  When (IF) I start “sucking at landings” I will get an instructor in the plane to evaluate and provide input/assistance.  I am if anything a little high on approach (which just means I take power out earlier). I shoot for numbers, but down in first third is my personal grade.  I better be flaring by second hash.  I always crab.  I am not a cross-controlled wing low guy.  My plane crabs fantastic.  I have only experienced a cross-wind beyond rudder (my capability) once.  I elected to land on the grass after a go-around. (That I expected)

Edited September 7, 2018 by MyNameIsNobody

[Stephen]

1 hour ago, carusoam said:

Mike Elliot’s team has been writing too many letters lately...  let’s lighten their load...  

Amen

[Yetti]

2 hours ago, marcusku said:

I've only been flying a Mooney for about 8 months and it's certainly more difficult for me to land than previous (C-152, C-72, PA-28) and though I have about 120 hours on the Mooney I still wouldn't call myself "good at landing".  Too me it's less forgiving than other planes I've flown.  I believe my main mistakes are flaring too high and too fast.  Lately I've been doing better to get closer to 70 knots over the fence and that seems to be helping.

One thing I have gotten better at are go-arounds!  Never had to do one until the Mooney though once or twice I should have.

I think this is the best approach.   Always striving to do better and improve.   Putting tricks into the pilot bag so you can pull them out when needed.

 

Can ADM only be learned by experience or can it be taught?

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, carusoam said:

Some thoughts....

• some will just write in a bullet pointed format.

-Some do.

-Some don't.

[Shiny moose]

18 hours ago, steingar said:

So exactly which airplanes would you say it's difficult to land?

For me. The Helio Courier is difficult to land or sometimes take off if you don’t fly it correctly, or haven’t been trained properly. Go try one, try to locate one that has not been wrecked! Most by highly experienced Helio pilots. As stated in the POH The Helio will not stall but a good pilot will recognize the high rate of descent!  

[jlunseth]

23 hours ago, Yetti said:

I started the thread because there has been a disturbing trend in 2018 of Mooneys crashing and killing the pilots.   Somewhere someone said 9 deaths.   That is one per month.   That is abysmal safety culture.   At least two I can remember are stall spins in the landing phase.

We are trying to balance Shadrach's running off the end of the runway with too much speed to getting slow and stall spinning.

What is the best way to change the habits/training so we can change the trend?

The above question is a serious question, but I wonder if it is the question posed that started this thread, and I am not meaning to pick an argument with anyone here.  The original question of the OP dealt with the way Mooney pilots are conducting straight ahead landings.  Now the question seems to be why there appear to be a high number of approach accidents, and the two are different.

It has been a couple of years now, but I spent quite a bit of time with the Nall reports trying to figure out why accident rates were high and what the probable causes were.  I no longer remember what the numbers were but the gist of it was that landing accidents are almost never fatal.  The plane might get bunged up or go off the end of the runway, but those incidents were not fatal.  If you miss your “numbers” during a landing you may have a problem with your insurance company, but the likelihood is very high you will be alive to have that problem.  The highest rate of accidents were low altitude maneuvering accidents, and approach stalls and climb out stalls are in that category.  

The main cause of approach stalls is not how the pilot is going to land the plane, it is getting into some kind of cross-controlled situation at low altitude and approach speed, which is necessarily a low speed.  In Mooneys we have the problem that slips in the long bodies and even the medium bodies can cause a tail stall.  Although the number of times this has been identified as an issue in the mid-body K’s is tiny to non-existent, I do not slip below 85kts. in my K.  We have had that discussion here before. The older birds, F and older, do not have the issue.

But the bigger reason has little to do with being on the numbers.  Being on the numbers means you will be at a relatively slow speed during the approach, that is necessary.  The cause is mainly the base to final turn, blowing through final and intentionally or just by reaction, working a little harder than necessary to get the nose pointed at the runway, and getting into a skid, then a skid stall.  

I don’t discount that straight ahead stalls are possible during approach.  But they are difficult to cause.  You can stall an aircraft straight ahead that is in a descent and I am sure most of us have done it in practice, but you have to work at it.

Yes, you have to maintain your speed on approach, hit your numbers, but the bigger problem is getting into a skid at approach speed, not whether you are at the right speed for the approach.

[Hank]

On those occasions that poor performance and/or crosswinds blow me past final appproach course at 500 agl, I just hold my existing bank angle and turn rate. If I can make it back to final and have time to straighten out before the threshhold, then I keep going. If that looks dicey, or like it won't happen, then I do a go round and pay closer attention on base the next time.

Overshooting final and steepening the bank can cause problems; using rudder to increase the turn rate will kill you. Just keep doing what you are already doing, then either land or go around and try again. But apparently this is a simple concept that some either have never heard or just can't understand . . . . .

[Mooneymite]

There's an old saying:  "A stable approach begins at top of descent".

While many factors can conspire to keep us from attaining a perfectly stabilized approach by 500's AGL, the ADM producing a go-around is much more valuable than the airman-ship to salvage an approach gone wrong.

[Marauder]

There's an old saying:  "A stable approach begins at top of descent".
While many factors can conspire to keep us from attaining a perfectly stabilized approach by 500's AGL, the ADM producing a go-around is much more valuable than the airman-ship to salvage an approach gone wrong.

I remember watching a Richard Collin’s video once on stabilized approaches. He made a comment about how to judge the skill of an airline pilot. He commented that the next time you are on a commercial flight, pay attention to the power adjustments needed. The ones who were on their A games often will make small if any power adjustments and had a smooth transition to landing. Years later I still pay attention to this and he was right.

My hangar faces the final approach course to our runway. Some days, I just sit out front and watch the approaches to landing. Watching these approaches, it’s clear that GA skills are all over the place. I have seen it all; “the power on drivers”, to the “power up power down pilots” to the “you’re so low, you might as well mow the grass before the runway” pilots.

I always thought there was a correlation of how the approach went and the pilot demographics. There isn’t. I have seen student pilots who fly the power on till touchdown style through long time pilots who probably haven’t had a good quality flight review in years.

I do think there is something to how a pilot was trained and how they view this activity which influences their proficiency. I went through a 141 school. Between that training and my own personal beliefs on risk management, I try to stay competent. Where pilots get into trouble is when they forget the old Yeager line “it’s the man, not the machine”.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[Mooneymite]

46 minutes ago, Marauder said:

... The ones who were on their A games often will make small if any power adjustments and had a smooth transition to landing. Years later I still pay attention to this and he was right.

 

This is true if the air is smooth. 

Not so true on a blustery day.  Each airline has guidelines about how much bug plus, or bug minus is permitted to comply with the stabilized approach criteria.  On a blustery day where the airspeed is jumping, a pilot who isn't making power changes is a pilot who has set a speed well above bug and just accepts wide variations outside of the criteria.  He touches down at whatever airspeed he happens to be at when he and the earth collide.

The other factor is that most airliners now have autothrottles.  On some approaches (e.g. CAT III) they are usually required, on others they are optional.  If the autothrottles are engaged, they sometimes chase bug speed pretty aggressively.  Precise pilot?  Bad pilot?  Lazy pilot, or by-the-book pilot?  You can't tell from "back there".

[N9201A]

Lots of tricks in the pilot bag to pull out when needed.

Great thread...True, there are many tricks and techniques. But they will only be in OUR bag if we put them there ... BEFORE we need them!

Flying the same hour 2,000 times or always doing it the same way “because that what my CFI taught me” doesn’t add much more to the bag. Get out and try new stuff (with help and safely).

[N9201A]

So exactly which airplanes would you say it's difficult to land?

[Hank]

17 hours ago, N9201A said:

 

 

What, you don't like looking over your shoulder to land???

[aviatoreb]

No one has mentioned decent planning.  I like to use my second GPS to put one of the indicated fields to be the feet per minute necessary to make home field.  So say many tens of miles out, when it starts to show 500fpm to 700fpm that's when I want to think about come down along a reasonably nice decent path.

Also, here is another tidbit for discussion: if on a straight in approach, then the view of the runway should be relatively stationary in your windscreen.  Just getting larger.  Not creeping up or creeping down in the view - i.e., pick something on the windscreen like a dead bug or. scratch or something and keep the runway at the same position.

Also - for those that suggested using the approaches in the GPS, or if you are using the above as I said, (and you can use both of course, and I have many times) those are mostly for straight in landings.  Vs pattern landings which are the safer way for uncontrolled airports when fitting in with the flow.  And of course the pattern entry is of taught cook book - e.g. when downwind abreast the numbers reduce power to xx inches.  and decent at such and such speed, then turn to base etc.... which is a different concept than stabilized approach isn't it?  But these work well since you nonetheless should roll out on final at an appropriate speed and height or something close enough to adjust quickly and easily.

[aviatoreb]

54 minutes ago, Hank said:

What, you don't like looking over your shoulder to land???

That project looks like it was incredibly difficult to land when hand flying, but why does this concept not come back?  It seems quite workable with digital feedback control computers at the stick landing the thing. Or assisting the stabilization.

[toto]

24 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

That project looks like it was incredibly difficult to land when hand flying, but why does this concept not come back?  It seems quite workable with digital feedback control computers at the stick landing the thing. Or assisting the stabilization.

No idea what the history is for this guy, but I suspect that modern military VTOL implementations (V-22, F-35) depend heavily on computer assist.

[N201MKTurbo]

19 hours ago, N9201A said:

 

 

The madness was unstoppable! The governments of the world were in a vast competition to build the most un-landable plane.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail-sitter

 

Edited September 9, 2018 by N201MKTurbo

[bonal]

37 minutes ago, toto said:

No idea what the history is for this guy, but I suspect that modern military VTOL implementations (V-22, F-35) depend heavily on computer assist.

Not quite as modern but from what I have read and seen on documentaries the Harrier was very easy to land and did not have any computer assist.

[toto]

5 minutes ago, bonal said:

Not quite as modern but from what I have read and seen on documentaries the Harrier was very easy to land and did not have any computer assist.

Yep, the Harrier came of age in the slide-rule era

I saw a documentary a few years ago that showed a Harrier pilot with an inop nose near - carrier crew basically stacked up some boxes on the deck, and the pilot hovered with the nose directly over the boxes, chopped power, and successfully landed a plane with no nose gear and no damage.

[jlunseth]

Couldn’t help but notice the guy has the canopy open just in case.  Probaly SOP.

[toto]

1 minute ago, toto said:

Yep, the Harrier came of age in the slide-rule era

I saw a documentary a few years ago that showed a Harrier pilot with an inop nose near - carrier crew basically stacked up some boxes on the deck, and the pilot hovered with the nose directly over the boxes, chopped power, and successfully landed a plane with no nose gear and no damage.

Thanks, internet:  

 

[toto]

1 minute ago, jlunseth said:

Couldn’t help but notice the guy has the canopy open just in case.  Probaly SOP.

Probably freaking hot in there, if nothing else

It's not like you could bail out in that scenario.  

[Shadrach]

This thread has kind of degenerated.  People are building strawmen and then attacking them in the next sentence. No one has advocated a regimen so closed as to not practice short field, soft field or crosswind landings (or anything else that one ought to prepare for).  Most of these activities require more precision and speed control, not less.  What has been said by me and others, can be boiled down to the notion that there is no operational need to carry surplus energy to the touchdown zone and that doing so is the cause of many embarrassing if not dangerous incidents.  If you want to cross the numbers at 115mph and hold it off for 3000' or fly it on at whatever speed you deem best, go for it.  I think folks should be able to operate as they please.  But I will not agree that it's good SOP because it's not.

The real issue is that a lot of low time Mooney pilots look to this and other forums for operational guidance. If you're advocating poor technique as an "alternative" to good airmanship, I would expect the community to label it what it is...sloppy airmanship.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Shadrach