Holy Steep Approach Batman

Justin172 said:
Not to mention the guy in the OP lands about 4 feet off centerline. So with centerline, aimpoint, and flare out the window, the only objective was to be slow and steep close to the ground? What a turd.
Click to expand...

It's part of the Fraternal Order of Bush Pilots' Code. They're required to land 4 feet off centerline. Here.....see?



Perfect Landing ! Exactly 4 ft off.
.
 
jhugz said:
It's an airplane, no more, no less.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We train people to drive cars so that they can drive a car safely, abide by rules, but be ready to act if something comes up. Eventually people get bored and figure out that "Woah, I can screech my wheels, or Woah check out that sweet 360". I feel like its the same thing for us pilots. They train us to be safe, get from point a to b, abide by all rules, and what to do if an engine fails. But then again, boredom sets in and "betcha I can taxi with the nosewheel in the air tlewis95).

Nothing looked too unsafe, maybe the one guy who should've been buckled up!
 
Qutch said:
Oh, give me a break. That chalk line/bare patch of dirt is clearly defined by the Guatemalan FAA as a "runway centerline."

Check your copy of the Guatemalan FARs. It's right there on page 3 of the 5 page manual.
.
Click to expand...


I'm missing that page...dang!
 
spoolinup22 said:
Exactly. We train people to drive cars so that they can drive a car safely, abide by rules, but be ready to act if something comes up. Eventually people get bored and figure out that "Woah, I can screech my wheels, or Woah check out that sweet 360". I feel like its the same thing for us pilots. They train us to be safe, get from point a to b, abide by all rules, and what to do if an engine fails. But then again, boredom sets in and "betcha I can taxi with the nosewheel in the air tlewis95).

Nothing looked too unsafe, maybe the one guy who should've been buckled up!
Click to expand...

Hahaha, I must say I never pass up the opportunity for a good burnout or running through the first 3 gears to redline down an on-ramp! :cool:

There's a time and place for different kinds of hooning around is all I'm going to add.
 
jhugz said:
This concept killed a bunch of people in buffalo. It's an airplane, it will fly just like a skyhawk.

I'll agree that I wouldn't do this with people in the back, for obvious reasons, but nothing they did was unsafe. Abnormal to the realm of airline ops, sure, but where did they exceed any airplane capabilities and or limitations?

It's an airplane, no more, no less.
Click to expand...

Hell, sometimes you do do it with passengers in transport catagory airplanes!

Look at airports like Kai Tak, London City, the noise abatement climb at SNA (the "space shuttle climb"), Courchevel (the ski jump airstrip from Goldeneye in the French Alps), the aforementioned St Bart's photos, or the Pilatus PC-6 jungle airstrips reminiscent of the movie "Air America," from Alec's "Flying Wild Indonesia" thread. British Airways even had airline service (on a Twin Otter) to a Scottish island called Barra whose airport was literally a beach - and you could only land when the tide was low and the wet sand was packed hard enough.

So I guess my point is that all these places are totally non-standard and there is a heightened level of risk involved with operating at every one of them (some more than others obviously). Yet they are all still served with airline service, in many cases by transport category airplanes.

Thus, it's not that the guys in the OP were doing something that should never be done in a transport category airplane, because look at the above cases. Their problem was that they practiced that procedure in the wrong place, where it wasn't necessary. "Dangerous" flying in one place is just business as usual in another place, depending on whether the company decides that the profit margin is worth accepting the higher risk. Plus there are usually some extra checks and balances, like additional training and certification required to serve those airports and mitigate some of the risk.

RightSeatGirl said:
Aviation will always be full of hot doggers....The day that stops is the day I'll worry. As that will mark the death of actual pilots vs. automation systems operators.
Click to expand...

Preach it RSG! :)
 
jhugz said:
This concept killed a bunch of people in buffalo. It's an airplane, it will fly just like a skyhawk.

I'll agree that I wouldn't do this with people in the back, for obvious reasons, but nothing they did was unsafe. Abnormal to the realm of airline ops, sure, but where did they exceed any airplane capabilities and or limitations?

It's an airplane, no more, no less.
Click to expand...


What concept is that?
 
Cruise said:
What concept is that?
Click to expand...

I'm not speaking for jhugz, but based upon my own recent experience, the "concept" I had in mind was an aversion that I see at many civilian flight schools I visit to including 'unusual attitude' training, even when a student requests it and will pay for it. Spin training for example.

I could be wrong, I often am. However, the glider/bush pilot/former military CFI's who trained me as a teenager all emphasized things like spin training. My sailplane instructor required that I meet his own standard of spin proficiency before he soloed me at 16. That included a dozen spins in which the rollout was concluded on a heading that he called out during the spin. The challenges of aerobatics/spin/upset-recovery/STOL training made my later transition to Air Force training seem natural. But many flight schools tell me they now discourage or prohibit spin and upset/recovery training until much later in training (often CFI level), and even then, only as brief familiarization training by comparison to decades before. New CFI's that I urge to get spin and aerobatics training look at me puzzled and ask "why?"........"it's not required." It could be that the statistics justify eliminating all the training I was required (and was thrilled) to go through as a teenager. I don't know. Perhaps someone can educate me on the reasons for the change in civilian philosophy/concept over the past few decades. There might be a good reason for it, but I have not heard one that impresses me yet.

I'm not an expert on this subject. But when I saw jhugz's reference to Buffalo I thought of Colgan, and 2 tired young pilots not adequately conditioned to auto-respond properly to stall indications.

RightSeatGirl said:
.......As that will mark the death of actual pilots vs. automation systems operators.......
Click to expand...

Yes.

.
 
Derg said:
Sad it's gotten to this, but if the person that signs your paycheck says to fly the aircraft a certain way, fly it that way and leave the lift vectors and sideslips to save approaches for the weekend in your Cub.
Click to expand...

Man, that is a standard approach for what I fly. I'd be scared to be any more shallow than that, what with the 200' rope off the back just itching to catch the 150' trees at the end of the runway.

2.5 Vs1 is my standard approach profile, full slip as necessary to the numbers, no flaps, grease it on the mains, drop the tailwheel to make the first turnoff. And try to never use the brakes, you never know if they will actually work - so just assume they won't. (That is what the book says for me though. I think the guy that changes the brake disks wrote it.)

Different world I fly in though ;) I did to land the 74 in the sim that way - doesn't work out so well, think I destroyed about 200K in virtual brakes and tires.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Different world I fly in though ;) I did to land the 74 in the sim that way - doesn't work out so well, think I destroyed about 200K in virtual brakes and tires.
Click to expand...
All airplanes do have one thing in common: "See that spot? Do whatever you have to do to put the airplane there, on a speed and in a configuration from which a safe stop may be made with minimum hazard to the airplane's occupants/the aircraft itself/people around, and do so in a manner consistent with the rules you must operate under."

Qutch said:
I'm not speaking for jhugz, but based upon my own recent experience, the "concept" I had in mind was an aversion that I see at many civilian flight schools I visit to including 'unusual attitude' training, even when a student requests it and will pay for it. Spin training for example.

I could be wrong, I often am. However, the glider/bush pilot/former military CFI's who trained me as a teenager all emphasized things like spin training.
Click to expand...
I think that this training should be a requirement. I've had it. I've had very good spin, unusual attitude and aerobatic training. But not everyone has. Everyone should.

My sailplane instructor required that I meet his own standard of spin proficiency before he soloed me at 16. That included a dozen spins in which the rollout was concluded on a heading that he called out during the spin. The challenges of aerobatics/spin/upset-recovery/STOL training made my later transition to Air Force training seem natural. But many flight schools tell me they now discourage or prohibit spin and upset/recovery training until much later in training (often CFI level), and even then, only as brief familiarization training by comparison to decades before. New CFI's that I urge to get spin and aerobatics training look at me puzzled and ask "why?"........"it's not required." It could be that the statistics justify eliminating all the training I was required (and was thrilled) to go through as a teenager. I don't know. Perhaps someone can educate me on the reasons for the change in civilian philosophy/concept over the past few decades. There might be a good reason for it, but I have not heard one that impresses me yet.
Click to expand...
Beyond being really fun (some of the most fun I've had in an airplane), upset/aerobatic training is good for you, because it gives you a greater awareness of the energy state of the airplane.

Talk to some folks with gray hair sometime - you might be surprised at when this trend started. (A few of the gray hairs in my family will complain about anyone certificated under the Practical Test Standards being incomplete, because coincident with the PTS came the death of primary aerobatic training.)

Airplanes are all attitude vehicles, and you should at least experience all attitudes before you are turned fully loose.

I'm not an expert on this subject. But when I saw jhugz's reference to Buffalo I thought of Colgan, and 2 tired young pilots not adequately conditioned to auto-respond properly to stall indications. (That "concept.").
Click to expand...
A lack of grasp of angle of attack, combined with teaching "minimum altitude loss"—minimum altitude loss is useless if the wing isn't flying. You might want to look into high-altitude jet stall incidents, including Air France 447—the accidents demonstrate a failure to aviate, and speak to a deeper trend in the industry to emphasize system management/automation managers above pilots. (I don't like this. At all. But it IS the trend in the airlines.)
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Airplanes are all attitude vehicles, and you should at least experience all attitudes before you are turned fully loose.

A lack of grasp of angle of attack, combined with teaching "minimum altitude loss"—minimum altitude loss is useless if the wing isn't flying. You might want to look into high-altitude jet stall incidents, including Air France 447—the accidents demonstrate a failure to aviate, and speak to a deeper trend in the industry to emphasize system management/automation managers above pilots. (I don't like this. At all. But it IS the trend in the airlines.)
Click to expand...

When I started out as an instructor I was impatient and unappreciative of the advice I received from senior military IPs regarding the importance of your observations here. They told me that the most important chapter in AF manual 51-37 (our instrument training manual) for example, was the chapter dedicated to the Control-Performance concept. That didn't seem very exciting. But after teaching a while, and suffering through too many unnecessarily "exciting" instrument sorties where my students accomplished little learning, I realized they were too busy wrestling with an aircraft nearly out of control (failure to aviate) :bang:. I finally concluded that the senior instructors were probably correct. The chapter dedicated to the Control-Performance concept was perhaps the most important chapter in the book.

Back to basics. I was finally ready for a little less cockpit excitement and ready to heed the advice you cite.

Attitude control. Aviate first.
.
 
Qutch said:
When I started out as an instructor I was impatient and unappreciative of the advice I received from senior military IPs regarding the importance of your observations here. They told me that the most important chapter in AF manual 51-37 (our instrument training manual) for example, was the chapter dedicated to the Control-Performance concept. That didn't seem very exciting. But after teaching a while, and suffering through too many unnecessarily "exciting" instrument sorties where my students accomplished little learning, I realized they were too busy wrestling with an aircraft nearly out of control (failure to aviate) :bang:. I finally concluded that the senior instructors were probably correct. The chapter dedicated to the Control-Performance concept was perhaps the most important chapter in the book.

Back to basics. I was finally ready for a little less cockpit excitement and ready to heed the advice you cite.

Attitude control. Aviate first.
.
Click to expand...

Flying the airplane is always a good place to start. It hasn't failed me yet in fact.

But I am also a young guy that doesn't know s-word from shinola.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Flying the airplane is always a good place to start. It hasn't failed me yet in fact.

But I am also a young guy that doesn't know s-word from shinola.
Click to expand...

Many tow pilots are a combination of glider pilot and bush pilots. Very good at dealing with unexpected situations. I cut my teeth learning from you guys. As I mentioned earlier, when I started AF training the IPs jumped all over me for making steep approaches with extra airspeed and routinely slipping off the extra energy during the flare. They were clutching their seat, gnashing their teeth, and yelling at me all the way down, predicting that I would overshoot. I didn't.

Finally one day I was saved buy a senior instructor who knew drunkenbeagle technique, asked me where I had learned that "stunt". When I confirmed that I had been trained by you guys, he ordered the other IPs to lighten up on me.

Now I see that both the Air Force and Naval Academies have started sailplane programs for their aviation bound cadets. I've had a few write to me, and apparently they'll change the culture during that early phase of AF flight training. A little extra airflow over the wing and the ability to slip it off gracefully is a pretty sight. I was always greatful that I trained with you guys first.

"Oh my God ! What's he doing?" (I used to hear this a lot)

.
 
drunkenbeagle said:
2.5 Vs1 is my standard approach profile, full slip as necessary to the numbers, no flaps, grease it on the mains, drop the tailwheel to make the first turnoff. And try to never use the brakes, you never know if they will actually work - so just assume they won't. (That is what the book says for me though. I think the guy that changes the brake disks wrote it.)

Different world I fly in though ;) I did to land the 74 in the sim that way - doesn't work out so well, think I destroyed about 200K in virtual brakes and tires.
Click to expand...

Works in the CRJ sim. Minus the tailwheel part and making first turnoff part. Speed brakes work the same too. Handy with no engines...
 
There are currently two problems with spin training in the civilian world. The first is the lack of qualified CFI to teach an actual spin training course. The second is the Cessna 172.

Spin & upset attitude training is all about prevention and not being afraid to fly the airplane at the absolute edge of the envelope. It's scary to think about how you can work as a jump pilot, tow banners, or aerial survey/patrol (low or high) with only having demonstrated knowledge in stall/spin AWARENESS twice in your career.... There are even some Ag pilots I've flown with who never had any real stall/spin training.
 
jhugz said:
This concept killed a bunch of people in buffalo. It's an airplane, it will fly just like a skyhawk.

I'll agree that I wouldn't do this with people in the back, for obvious reasons, but nothing they did was unsafe. Abnormal to the realm of airline ops, sure, but where did they exceed any airplane capabilities and or limitations?

It's an airplane, no more, no less.
Click to expand...
I'd be concerned about an excessive sinkrate when pulling into the flare. I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that an ATR isn't as forgiving as a skyhawk in that respect...I'm not saying one can't have a little fun (I frequently perform power off 180 slipping approaches just for the hell of it),but don't so something that increases the risk of you breaking an airplane that's not your's. This has nothing to do with not being able to recognize and recover from a stall. I don't recall you ever mentioning any ATR experience, so how would you know how it behaves in a high sinkrate condition?
 
jhugz said:
This concept killed a bunch of people in buffalo. It's an airplane, it will fly just like a skyhawk.

I'll agree that I wouldn't do this with people in the back, for obvious reasons, but nothing they did was unsafe. Abnormal to the realm of airline ops, sure, but where did they exceed any airplane capabilities and or limitations?

It's an airplane, no more, no less.
Click to expand...

A transport category plane with 2000+ shp per side isn't that comparable to a skyhawk.


This post brought to you by beta from my iPhone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top