Forced Approach.

[MichaelP]

Do figure eights on it until you are ready to turn final.

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

This is the very procedure I hate and what I never want to see a student of mine or anyone wishing to fly aircraft I'm responsible for do.
The procedures I teach have been used almost as long as aviation has been in existence. Read the 1931 RAF training manual and you will see a familiar procedure that was proven to work then and still works now.

I will go so far as to write here that figure of eights at one mile from the field is dangerous and stupid.
If you are asking the student to go out and practice this procedure solo then you had better look at your insurance, it's only a matter of time.
You had also better take note of the other thread about spin and incipient spins and make sure your student is fully capable of recognising the approaching stall/spin.

If you have height, fly over your field and take a look at it.
Fly a familiar circuit if you can.
Take your time and try to fix the problem... Flying figures of eights is a coordination exercise, the Americans like such things because they take concentration, concentration that makes flying the aeroplane the one task you can do, leaving problem solving a poor second.

Straight, trimmed flight is the safest condition for a student or licenced pilot to solve the problem, and/or make the call, and prepare for the upcoming arrival.
The high key low key approach takes more 'flying' of the aircraft but is 'do-able' by a student.
The figure of eight approach outlined above is the worst thing you can put a student through and IMHO it's bloody dangerous.

"Oops I'm a bit low", steeper turn to the field, stall warner, bang...

Do what has been proven, don't repeat the mistakes of the pre First World War years that lead to the safe procedures that have been taught since and are outlined in the FTM.
We should be teaching in accordance with the FTM of course!

[square]

Best glide is 20 knots above the max gross stall. If your student is in danger of stalling at best glide then no, he isn't ready to solo. But what's the problem with forced approaches? Why do so many students fail them? Is it because they stall spin it into the trees? Is it because they break the -5kt limit on their airspeed control? No, it's because they pile it right into the trees, wires and cows because they can't judge their glidepath.

So since we don't have to do any turns right now, let's try to do some problem solving on this. What would make it easier for your student to judge his glidepath? A) Being overtop a field, that he doesn't know the elevation of, mapping out his little circuit and pointing the opposite way at some random altitude, or B) A mile to a mile and a half back the whole time, ready to turn final. And he doesn't actually need to do any problem solving because my way doesn't require him to divide altitude minus the elevation by his legs of the circuit remaining corrected for windspeed times e=mc^2. And it's also pretty unlikely you're going to have 5+ minutes before you hit the ground in anything other than a training drill.

[Hedley]

What would make it easier for your student to judge his glidepath?

Flying a circuit, which he has done hundreds of times before.

It's really too bad that people stopped teaching power-off
circuits. It's especially bad for CPL candidates, who have
to demonstrate one on their flight test now (and I understand
they have a VERY low pass rate of this very simple task).

For low wing aircraft, what works very well is to put some
point of the lower wing, on the desired touchdown point,
during the power-off circuit. Exactly which point is a function
of how well the particular aircraft glides.

A perfectly normal (in fact, strongly recommended) approach
in a Pitts is to pull the throttle to idle on downwind abeam
the numbers. Immediate turn left 45 degrees, nose down
about the same. If you do it right, you are not "power dependent"
and don't need to touch the throttle until after landing, to
taxi. Stay a tiny bit high on final, sideslip as required on short
final. Turn your base early if there is a howling wind down the
runway.

I'm not sure why all the avoidance of power-off approaches.

I've done thousands of them, and I'm still here to talk
about it. Go figure.

[Old Dog Flying]

Like my old Granny used to say "There is more than one way to skin a cat"! And here we have good old MichaelP shooting his face off again...his way is always the only way bacause he's British you know!.

I've taught the "Figure 8" , the overhead 360, and the "S" turns on final and the only procedure that really scares the hell out of me is the "S" turn that I was taught back in the dark ages. The "8" method works very well and the only accidents resulting from using this procedure were from engine mismanagement resulting in carb icing or engine failure due to very rapid opening of the throttle.

His square pattern also works and I have also taught that method when the opportunity presents itself. Hedley's PFL also works well in teaching good judgement but unfortunately cannot always be accommodated due to traffic in the pattern...but it can be practiced over a farm field.

Each and every student is different when it comes to learning new procedures and it is the flight instructors responsibilty to see that the student is given the best training possible and the instructor needs more than one tool in his toolbox.

So MichaelP, go learn something new today...it might save someone's ass tomorrow!

[iflyforpie]

I have to say I'm with MichaelP with using a high-key low key descending turn as the preferable method to do a forced approach because:

-It is a familiar procedure as it resembles a circuit.
-It doesn't require turning away from the field or losing sight of the field.
-It can be flown with minimal attention by the pilot if the aircraft is properly trimmed.
-It can be instantly adjusted to correct for a too high or too low approach without any wild maneuvers.
-You can observe the field from overhead and use wind drift to determine landing direction at the high key rather than looking for non existent wind cues.
-From any point in the procedure you can make a b-line for the threshold.

A figure eight is a very compromised maneuver. If you do rate one turns, the figure eight becomes too big and risks putting you too high or low when you go to the field. If you do turns too tightly you will lose excessive altitude, again risking winding up too high or low. And you either have to turn directly away from the field to keep from crowding it, or gradually crowd yourself in.

You don't see gliders doing figure eights in the pattern before landing do you?

If I am in a place where I don't have the altitude to get directly over the field, then it is S-turns or a b-line to a low key position, then approach to the field.

[MichaelP]

So MichaelP, go learn something new today...it might save someone's ass tomorrow!

I think I've seen it all Barney... Yes, I am sure someone will show me something different again... But the figure of 8 idea I have seen from people who learn this at another place at Boundary Bay, the place where they stop flying if there's wind and/or rain, and who teach flapless approaches prior to solo...

As instructors we are supposed to teach to the FTM and in that document the figure of 8 idea is absent.

There is one thing I am ADAMENT about and that is the SAFETY of the aircraft and occupents.
When people have shown me the figure of 8 approach I have had to take control as I am not prepared to stall off a steep turn at low altitude.
Yes best glide is maybe 20 knots above the stall, but the stall is higher together with the drag in a turn. And why when you've made your point would you use best glide in any case?

And here we have good old MichaelP shooting his face off again...his way is always the only way bacause he's British you know!.

I like you Barney, always have, but sometimes your little attacks begin to annoy me. Let's stay friends.

I stand on my credibility on this one... I absolutely do not want to see this figure of 8 procedure taught, it is dangerous.
There are better methods and has been written again and again you can practice glide approaches from the downwind and get it right.
The glide approach from downwind practice will help your judgement at whatever altitude the engine fails.

[trey kule]

When I learned to fly gliders, it was in a TG1 and TG2. No flaps. No spoilers. No dive brakes. Every approach was a forced approach. It becomes very routine after a while. And when I learned to fly planes, we did in fact, learn power off approaches. Reduced to idle at the base turn. As to your lament Hedley, while it is a great teaching method, there were some problems during the cold winters when a couple of students got a little short and then did not have the engine response and landed a few feet short of the runway. It is my understanding that was the reason the practice was discontinued, though for the life of me, I could never understand why it was not used during the summers.

It is surprising how many CPL's really cant judge their landing point or understand very basic glide path control...to much adding a bunch of power....reducing it to idle....adding a bunch of power...you get the idea. It is something instructors should be watching for and correcting with proper technique. Which brings me to the content of the thread. I have learned a couple of different ways and they seemed to work fine for flight tests...never had to do it for real so not sure how they would work when the adreniline is flowing and the landing spot is less than ideal But I was taught and had it drilled through my head never, never turn away from the field. You cant see it, A turn particularily if there is wind in play is hard to judge, so I second Micheal P's opinion. Even if you are shuttling down VFR from altitude to avoid engine shock or whatever, a square pattern works best. Continual circling with the wind blowing you and losing sight of the field is simply a recipe for disaster.

But , what the hell do us old guys know when there are those fine instructors out there who have all the answers.

I do see the results of your work and am not always impressed.

[MichaelP]

I've made muted 'complaints' about the way students are taught at another company on my field.
This place is teaching the figure of eight approach with students picking the field in front of them rather than looking around.
I am tempted to make a formal complaint to TC about it.
I get some of these students flying my aeroplanes and I want my aeroplanes to survive. Students go back to the way they were taught first, it's hard to break a habit however dangerous it might be.
The figure of 8, even if it was a good idea, should not be taught while what is supposed to be taught as written in the FTM is ignored.

"Always have a field in mind" is what I write on the board when I give the briefing. At least have a plan for an engine failure and your best outcome if no suitable place to land is available.
A field left or even right of you is always more desirable than the unknown field ahead unless you absolutely know the condition and clearance of that field.

Being able to fly circuit style has huge advantages in picking your spot and your line... When landing at an airstrip we always like to inspect it first right?

I have not seen a training manual from any country that suggests doing figures of 8 at one mile from the field.
Accidents often happen because we ignore the lessons learned the hard way in aviation's early days, and fail to teach in accordance with the flight training manuals developed from that experience.

[Shiny Side Up]

I have not seen a training manual from any country that suggests doing figures of 8 at one mile from the field.

To that end you should be careful, not all the knowledge and experience that is there to be had from airplanes is summed up on paper.

To the point, you're right in that the "figure eight manuever" isn't the most desirable position to put one's self into while conducting a gliding approach. I would suggest that if you feel it is dangerous then you have to put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate why to a student. Does it put you closer to that bad spot of a possible low altitude stall turn/spin? Yes. Is it unsafe though? Only if you make it that way. The airplane can be fully controlled through a steep descending gliding turn, but what the pilot needs to be aware of is how close they are to that edge and the increased rate of descent if they do it right.
The problem here occurs with most pilots and especially student pilots because they've never had a demonstration of the stalling turn, and never did much practice in the basic "climbs/turns/descents" lesson of doing both powered and gliding descending turns at various angles of bank.

Here's where I find most people fall down on the forced approach excersise.

-Planning ahead. Too many are never prepared for the worst. There's especailly no excuse on the flight test, since you know its comming. I make a point of showing the students, when we first start talking about the possiblity of engine failures, that should it occur, I've got a plan for where we should be going, and so should they.

-Not knowing their airplane. Know how it glides and about how far. Know how much time you have when that prop stops turning. Know its turning abilities, know what those flaps are going to do. Cessnas glide well, Diamonds glide even better, Short wing pipers have all the gliding properties of pianos.

-Panic. The minute the pilot panics, all is lost. You're the pilot in command, do your job till the airplane stops flying.

Anyhoo, that's my two cents. Which I probably wouldn't have put in today if it wasn't snowing.

[iflyforpie]

And when I learned to fly planes, we did in fact, learn power off approaches. Reduced to idle at the base turn. As to your lament Hedley, while it is a great teaching method, there were some problems during the cold winters when a couple of students got a little short and then did not have the engine response and landed a few feet short of the runway. It is my understanding that was the reason the practice was discontinued, though for the life of me, I could never understand why it was not used during the summers.

It is surprising how many CPL's really cant judge their landing point or understand very basic glide path control...to much adding a bunch of power....reducing it to idle....adding a bunch of power...you get the idea. It is something instructors should be watching for and correcting with proper technique. Which brings me to the content of the thread. I have learned a couple of different ways and they seemed to work fine for flight tests...never had to do it for real so not sure how they would work when the adreniline is flowing and the landing spot is less than ideal But I was taught and had it drilled through my head never, never turn away from the field. You cant see it, A turn particularily if there is wind in play is hard to judge, so I second Micheal P's opinion. Even if you are shuttling down VFR from altitude to avoid engine shock or whatever, a square pattern works best. Continual circling with the wind blowing you and losing sight of the field is simply a recipe for disaster.

Power on approaches are taught because it has proven to be far more healthy for engines and more representative of real working conditions where virtually all normal approaches are flown with power.

On Cessna's anyways, you can simulate a no power approach by carrying some flap to decrease the glide ratio and not letting yourself correct with power. You just have to experiment with flap and power settings. It is rare now that I have to adjust power until just before the flare.

[Old Dog Flying]

I fail to see how the "8" procedure is dangerous...if taught properly!..like any other exercise! Las summer, to satisfy the insurance company, I was required to do a full card PPC with a qualified instructor and one exercise was the Forced Approach. I executed it into a controlled airport using the "8" procedure, I did not exceed Rate One in the turns and when at the appropriate altitude turned final. The landing area was made... in spite of the fact that my little Grumman has all the glide properties of a laminar flow anvil!

Some have talked of steep turns on final and the only time I have seen this was with the old "S" turn on final with no set base leg line. I too have flown with students and instructors from other schools and the problem lies squarely on the sholders of the inexperienced instructors who continue to degrade the pilot skills required to survive. I've had 2 instructors in my Yankee, who after a thorough briefing on the aircraft, damned near bent the thing on take-off because of the fall-back to what they were used to..the friggin' plastic lawn dart...Katana!

Mike: The only time I take shots at you is when you go overboard with your self-righteous rants!

[Hedley]

Mike wrote:

I am tempted to make a formal complaint to TC about it.

Please don't do that. Let's try to settle matters amongst ourselves,
rather than asking others to do it for us.

[trey kule]

I agree with Hedley. Besides TC will do bugger all about it. The students are obviously passing their flight tests and who cares what happens after that. If it will make you feel any better Micheal I see the results of this kind of training on a regular basis. Good potential pilots. Trained wrong. It takes a heck of a lot of time, money and effort to get them back on the right track and one always has to wonder if things get really interesting if they may not revert back.

Now, very specifically to Old Dog Flying:

I was required to do a full card PPC with a qualified instructor and one exercise was the Forced Approach

I dont fly in Canada anymore but darned if I have heard of the terms
a "full card PPC"...is there a partial PPC
b. why you are doing a PPC with an instructor???
c. I am assuming as part of the "PPC" included a forced approach, it was a single engine PPC...VFR?

Can you please explain this all to me. When I left Canada PPC's were either intial or recurrent, and they were , for all practical purposes the same. They were done by TC or a company approved check pilot, and not by an instructor,
and I really cant recall any Caravan or Pilatus IFR PPC rides that included a full forced approach...but hey, maybe thngs have changed.

Anyway, your explanation would go along way to helping my understand what has obviously changed in Canada..particularily the "full card" thing.

[Old Dog Flying]

Trey Kule: As I stated in the previous post, the insurance company wanted a full PPC...I used a slightly different phrase but it was a FULL flight test card by an instructor...their requirement...even though I have over 4000 hours in a very wide assortment of single engine aircraft and nearly 3000 hours instructing.

All of this because I am over 70 years of age...73 actually. This has nothing to do with the Feds only insurance companies who think all of us old codgers are a bigger risk than the 250 wonders with instructor ratings.

I currently own a 1972 Grumman AA1A Yankee Trainer with nearly 800 hours on type but I still had to do the Flight test or no insurance.

Hope this clarifies the comments

[trey kule]

Thanks. I actually thought PPC's only referred to commercial operations so you have cleared it up......I am getting up there and I am doomed if they ever want me to demonstrate competence.

[Shiny Side Up]

I've done this for a few insurance companies and it is usually referred to as a PCC or Pilot Currency Check, rather than a PPC (Pilot Proficiency Check) the difference between the two being that the PCC is pretty much like the PPL flight test, while a PPC is closer to the IFR flight test.

[trey kule]

Well now, I am still confused. I have seen PPC's that were VFR only on aircraft like islanders and twin otters, so I am wondering why they would necessarily be like an IFR ride.

The sense I am getting is that these are simply competency or currency checks and the whole PPC/PCC thing is wrong use of the terms.

But who knows. Maybe there is only !FR PPCs now.

[Old Dog Flying]

Shiny and Trey: The flight test card sent by the insurance company was the same as the PP test and was termed by the insurer Pilot Proficiency Check. So nothing is ever written in stone in this business.

I was a DFTE and also did PPC/PCC reviews and failed a couple of pilots only to have them covered by the insurance company even though they did not get remedial training.

Now because of my age, I'll have to be flight tested every year if I want to keep flying my own aircraft. My big problem with this is there is no one here familiar with the aircraft type and because of the low useful load I need a very small instructor...weight is a real problem with the Yankee Trainer!

[trey kule]

My big problem with this is there is no one here familiar with the aircraft type

ODF..Over the last few years, I have noticed that most instructors dont seem to consider this an issue..Money and logged time for them...but then I am a little jaded.
I really care about flight training and try to take a somewhat extreme position in some instances to counterbalance the "I am an instructor, I know all and can fly anythng" culture.

I understand your comments as to the PPC. Interesting problem with finding a small instructor. I used to know a very petite lady who was familar with your type and a class 1 instructor to boot, but I think she has retired now. Good luck.

[MichaelP]

I would suggest that if you feel it is dangerous then you have to put your money where your mouth is and demonstrate why to a student.

I put my money where my mouth is, absolutely!
On a check flight I am not there to teach but there to observe, it's like a flight test and so I try not to say anything
Every time I see the figure of eight used I see the newly trained PPL holder who's come to fly our aeroplanes do a steep turn at low level when they realise the field is over there and they are already low!
Excuted at a proper distance using gentle turns as Barney did it is not a problem. Going into a known field like Barney's runway, is also not a problem.
Students get too close to the field and then they do steep turns!

So yes.
1. I don't really have to demonstrate the danger, they do it themselves every time.
2. Yes, we do a stall off a steep turn, at a safe altitude.
3. Yes, I teach it again properly and in accord with the FTM in the way instructors in Canada are required to do it.

The figure of 8 used by inexperienced pilots/students into unknown fields is both dangerous and not as effective as being able to fly over your field and check it out rather than committing to a straight in appraoch to the unknown.

I stress that we should be teaching to the FTM first and apply our own 'new' ideas second.

On the subject of PPC's...
I agree with the idea of the occasional check flight... as an instructor I get these myself from time to time.

One old pilot who flew in the war and should be respected for the experience he had, had however aged as we all do.
I was with a student and we were making our crosswind turn off 07 here when I saw a Seneca coming towards us. We stopped the turn and let the twin flash by the nose of the Citabria and enter the downwind. It was a close call, and if we weren't looking both ways the risk of collision if we had continued our turn was high.
Old chaps are given a lot of leeway, but perhaps they shouldn't be.
This chap later had a landing accident at his home field... There was a chain of incidents that led to a fatal crash departing the international airport.

Once over 60 I do not agree that the medical should be valid two years... You can go downhill very quickly and two years is too much time not to see an aging pilot.
One pilot I knew who was very fit at 61 (the doctor had suggested he had at least another ten years flying) died suddenly. He was at the dinner table.

A TC inspector asked me if I had set a date, an age, when I will stop flying... I never want to stop flying! But when I get to 'an age' I hope I'll have the sense to take a safety pilot along with me.
I have myself been a 'safety pilot' for elderly pilots, I like their good examples.

I have done a couple of dubious 'fitness to fly' flights... Once I did circuits without my glasses Once I did circuits in the Citabria after the long journey back from Thailand But on these occasions I took a safety pilot with me

[hairdo]

I don't think that there is any one perfect way for every situation. I personally like my new-found 360 method. I will be honest, I've struggled with the circuit method, although I refuse to drop it out of my bag-o-tricks. If I have lots of altitude to play with, I will do the 360, as I can plan/setup and do my checks before I have to start the orbiting descent. By the time I get to the orbit, I can focus solely on the approach as everything else has been taken care of (not meaning that I disregard the approach before, just that I am doing more stuff with it). However, at lower altitudes, the circuit method has proved more useful sometimes. One method is not the king of all.

[MichaelP]

The common mistake with the high key low key approach is not giving yourself enough room.
The gentle gliding turn works well, but students tend to be too close to the point and so end up turning with more bank than is ideal and with insufficient space for a reasonable straight final approach.

The one thing I stress in the forced approach from 3,000 feet AGL is taking one's time and doing it right.
In a descending turn your rate of descent is higher and so you have less time. If you are on fire you want to get down quick, but otherwise you want as much time as possible to sort things out and have a better idea of what you are going to do.

[AuxBatOn]

The common mistake with the high key low key approach is not giving yourself enough room.
The gentle gliding turn works well, but students tend to be too close to the point and so end up turning with more bank than is ideal and with insufficient space for a reasonable straight final approach.

Then it's YOUR job, as an instructor, to TEACH him how to get proper spacing and how to vary bank depending of wind conditions, and more importantly to teach him a picture that will work on every field (personally, I like, in the final turn, to try to fly a constant angle descent and fly it with the picture.

You can modify the High key/low key/final key orbit any way you want from any altitude, as long as you can make a key on altitude. If you fly directly to low key, it looks like the circuit method.

[MichaelP]

In my position I get the results of other school's instruction and I have to sort them out.

The reason I state these things is that I see the results of bad instruction.

I teach it right myself

[Old Dog Flying]

In my position I get the results of other school's instruction and I have to sort them out.

The reason I state these things is that I see the results of bad instruction.

I teach it right myself

I've heard exactly the same thing from other instructors about your teaching methods as well

Take the blinders off Mike! Like I said there is more than one way to skin a cat...in other words, there is more than one way to teach and each student has to be given the chance to decide which method works for him!

And every aircraft has different handling requirements. In the Chipmunk either a circuit type or a 360 overhead type works well. In a CF-104 at 285 knots the high key at 19000 feet was the only way with bleeding off at final key to 175-200 knots depending on weight. In the general aviation type of aircraft either way works well depending on the methods/attitude of the instructor.

In case you raise an eyebrow over my military aircraft comments, yes I have flown the Chipmunk, Harvard, Muskateer, T-33, Tutor and 104 Dual as well as others...and yes I have flown your "Plastic Lawn Dart" as well.