Be a Better Pilot

This forum has been developed to discuss flight instruction/University and College programs.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore

digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5919
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Be a Better Pilot

Post by digits_ »

Pop n Fresh wrote:The big airport tower would ask if 2640' was enough. I would answer, "roger." That seems like half a mile
So why didn't you answer his question ?

"Roger" is a reply that means you understood the transmission. "Affirm" or "negative" would be two possible answers to the question.

Might be an important distinction some day.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
User avatar
Pop n Fresh
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1270
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 3:46 am
Location: Freezer.

Re: Be a Better Pilot

Post by Pop n Fresh »

Ignorance I suppose. I don't remember for certain but I think it was pretty much acceptable to ATC at the time.

Edit: after reading a bit of that radio phraseology document from the UK I never would have thought to shorten "Affirmative".

"Affirm" Sounds like I'm asking you to tell me you are sure of something you just said.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Be a Better Pilot

Post by pelmet »

xysn wrote:Great post.

Interesting points about intersection takeoffs. I've opted for 3 800' of a 10 000' runway (And used maybe 1 200') and never even considered requesting more (Maybe one more intersection down?) until CpnCrunch pointed the possibility using the remainder for landing in case of efato.
The problem is that some have the idea that they must never leave any runway behind them and then it starts to become ridiculous as the runways get longer. If you are in a light aircraft, I rally don't think you need full length on a 10,000 foot runway and taxi forever. Yet the person who might actually do this won't hesitate to use a 2400' runway. Be reasonable. I was in Chicago the other day and 28R is in use at 13000 feet long. A lot of airliners are using the CC taxiway intersection takeoff about 3000' down the runway including a 747. Would you insist on taxiing all the way down for a full length takeoff.

I can see an argument for wanting to start with enough runway to be able to turn around and land the opposite direction in the event of an engine failure if it is the only runway or be high enough to be able to turn and land on another runway.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5860
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: Be a Better Pilot

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

pelmet wrote: The problem is that some have the idea that they must never leave any runway behind them and then it starts to become ridiculous as the runways get longer. If you are in a light aircraft, I rally don't think you need full length on a 10,000 foot runway and taxi forever. Yet the person who might actually do this won't hesitate to use a 2400' runway. Be reasonable.
There are not many runways 10,000 feet long, but there are many that are 5000 ft long. Most of those have a mid field intersection. I see people taking off from those intersections all the time and personally I think that is foolish. Taxing down to the end only takes a few minutes and IMO the extra options that using the full length gives you is worth the extra time.

For the 10,000 footers than yes I agree. A mid field intersection take off is a reasonable compromise.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Pop n Fresh
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1270
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2014 3:46 am
Location: Freezer.

Re: Be a Better Pilot

Post by Pop n Fresh »

This is probably not funny but I think it's lightly humorous.

I took my private out at YBW spring bank and then flew out of YYC for a while. When I returned to YBW they had extended one of the runways. One day I was taxiing to the run up area but instinctively went to turn to the old one. The instructor who may not have been born back when I started flight training explained in nearly a Mayday tone. "Runway behind us won't do you any good."

I acknowledged that it was prudent to take the whole runway but.. Sorry if I can't get frightened, I've just become jaded taking off hundreds of times from that spot when it was all of the available runway.
---------- ADS -----------
 
LousyFisherman
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 8:32 am
Location: CFX2
Contact:

Re: Be a Better Pilot

Post by LousyFisherman »

Big Pistons Forever wrote:There are not many runways 10,000 feet long, but there are many that are 5000 ft long. Most of those have a mid field intersection. I see people taking off from those intersections all the time and personally I think that is foolish. Taxing down to the end only takes a few minutes and IMO the extra options that using the full length gives you is worth the extra time.
For the 10,000 footers than yes I agree. A mid field intersection take off is a reasonable compromise.
And so we agree :0. I would not choose an intersection takeoff with only 5000' total. And just to prove that it all depends. Cranbrook, -19, and I taxied all the way down to the end because I wanted to guarantee the engine was as warm as possible. I was off the ground about 200 feet before the intersection. Don't really understand why they paved the other 2/3 of the runway :) Oh, I might have wanted an even longer taxi if it was even colder? I understand now :)

LF
---------- ADS -----------
 
Women and planes have alot in common
Both are expensive, loud, and noisy.
However, when handled properly both respond well and provide great pleasure
stol701
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:41 pm

Re: Be a Better Pilot

Post by stol701 »

Oxi wrote:I seem to see this more and more now and cannot remember if its in a POH or not. It is putting the flaps down to full during the walk around, particularly in the winter. Checking the tracks and pins can be done without this and can be done with the engine on. Thoughts?
this is to check if the flaps are too tight when extended. They need to be loose. Otherwise they may get extended but if the electrical power is just not enough you may not be able to put them up again (if you need to).


A site that is full of good advice (for Cessna 150/172 flyers and instructors): http://www.whittsflying.com… not the best formatting but if you excuse that then it's great.

And this one: http://www.av8n.com/how/
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
pianokeys
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 285
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: Be a Better Pilot

Post by pianokeys »

Big Pistons, this is an excellent post. I really liked reading it, and as cheesy as it sounds, it speaks to me as I am a student, and I'll definitely take these lessons and pointers with me.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5860
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: Be a Better Pilot

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

I got asked about some tips for new PPL. I pointed him towards this post which has prompted me to bump it up.

As always my advice represents one data points worth of personal opinions and is meant to offer some ideas to think about the next time you go flying.

Constructive additions to this thread are always welcome.
---------- ADS -----------
 
JungianJugular
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 237
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:09 am

Re: Be a Better Pilot

Post by JungianJugular »

This is awesome! Thanks!
---------- ADS -----------
 
CenterOfGravity
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:56 pm

Re: Be a Better Pilot

Post by CenterOfGravity »

Chris M wrote:Excellent info, thanks for posting. I know my engine instrument scan is a bit of a weak item for me, so that's a good way to get some practise in.

One question: On approach, should priority go to maintaining attitude or airspeed? The reason I ask is that at my field we get a decent amount of wind shear. Just part of having large buildings around and a predominant crosswind. Chasing an airspeed can result in quite a lot of pitch movement, while maintaining attitude can result in some fairly sharp airspeed drops before I gain the momentum back. I try to aim for the best middle ground, accepting a +/- range in my approach speed in order to minimize the ups and downs, particularly with passengers on board.
So, Airspeed is more your priority, especially dealing with winds shear and winds.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Zaibatsu
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 602
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:37 am

Re: Be a Better Pilot

Post by Zaibatsu »

Your airspeed should be +1/2 the gust and -0. Fly faster during gusty conditions since it will give you more margin above the stall and more positive control. Plan a longer round out and roll out and try to time touchdown between gusts.
---------- ADS -----------
 
cgzro
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1735
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:45 am

Re: Be a Better Pilot

Post by cgzro »

My decision to back track would depend on a number of factors that I have not seen discussed.
What terrain is like off the end of the runway, was maintenance just performed etc.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CenterOfGravity
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:56 pm

Re: Be a Better Pilot

Post by CenterOfGravity »

Taxing:

- there is no one universal taxi speed. The airplane speed should be adjusted to suit the situation. Slow down for corners or tight spots, speed up on the straight parts and when crossing runways.

An aircraft should be taxing no faster than a light jog no matter if it's straight or tight spots. Just because there is a straight path doesn't mean you should go faster. It's also probably not good for the Oleo Strut. Crossing a runway or backtracking should be the only reason for moving fast on the maneuvering area.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CenterOfGravity
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:56 pm

Re: Be a Better Pilot

Post by CenterOfGravity »

Zaibatsu wrote:Your airspeed should be +1/2 the gust and -0. Fly faster during gusty conditions since it will give you more margin above the stall and more positive control. Plan a longer round out and roll out and try to time touchdown between gusts.
Not necessarily 'fly faster'. You are however right about the gust factor. If it's for example: 10G20, you want to take half the gust factor. So if your approach is 80Mph on final, When the 20 gust becomes 10, you'd increase your speed +5Mph to compensate for losing 10knots of the headwind.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CenterOfGravity
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:56 pm

Re: Be a Better Pilot

Post by CenterOfGravity »

cgzro wrote:My decision to back track would depend on a number of factors that I have not seen discussed.
What terrain is like off the end of the runway, was maintenance just performed etc.
Backtracking makes it easier if you want to save time, for example: after landing, exiting onto a taxi way will take more time as you would have to follow it all the way around and then cross the runway. If there is no aircraft on approach and there is time to backtrack it's the best way to save your time.
---------- ADS -----------
 
CenterOfGravity
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 4:56 pm

Re: Be a Better Pilot

Post by CenterOfGravity »

When you are landing in strong winds, your distance from final to the runway becomes shorter than in normal flying conditions. You should always be aware of the gust load factor and fly 10kts/mph below the (Va)

The headwind is slowing you down, therefore, your descent rate or glide slope becomes steeper and shorter (also depending on the degree of flaps you are using for approach)
---------- ADS -----------
 
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5860
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: Be a Better Pilot

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

Zaibatsu wrote:Your airspeed should be +1/2 the gust and -0. Fly faster during gusty conditions since it will give you more margin above the stall and more positive control. Plan a longer round out and roll out and try to time touchdown between gusts.

Adjusting airspeed by applying the gust factor correction is a large aircraft SOP and so care should be taken when applying it to small aircraft. Large aircraft have lots of inertia and therefore take time and distance to recover lost airspeed or shed extra airspeed. Light aircraft have much less inertia and therefore less requirement to have a speed buffer.

The gust factor formula is also not recommended or supported in any of the light Cessna or Piper POH's that I have ever seen. The only mention of increasing speed I have found is in the Cessna POH. It notes that for short field approaches slightly higher approach speeds should be used in turbulent conditions.

For the Cessna 172 which is the airplane I referenced as an example in my original posts, the POH "Normal Operations" section gives a range of recommended approach speeds. They are 65 to 75 knots with no flap and 60 to 70 knots with 30 deg flaps. Therefore in my opinion this aircraft should never be flown at an approach airspeed faster than the upper range of the recommended values as they will provide a adequate margin above stall on all circumstances. If control at these upper range speeds feels doubtful then I would suggest that conditions are so extreme it is time to find another place to land.

I think it is also important to note that these speeds are for gross weight. They will be to fast at lower weights. A pretty good rule of thumb is for a typical landing in a Cessna 172 or Piper Cherokee with 2 persons and half tanks reduce the gross weight approach speed by 5 knots. If you use the formula to adjust approach speeds you will find that the 5 knots reduction will pretty close to the calculated speeds for all your typical light fixed gear singles.

Watching landings my observations is that most landings I see are flown too fast resulting in excessive float and/or flat or even nose wheel first landings. Adding extra speed to the approach does not make it safer, in many case it increases the degree of difficulty and the likelihood of aircraft damage.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5860
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: Be a Better Pilot

Post by Big Pistons Forever »

CenterOfGravity wrote:Taxing:

- there is no one universal taxi speed. The airplane speed should be adjusted to suit the situation. Slow down for corners or tight spots, speed up on the straight parts and when crossing runways.

An aircraft should be taxing no faster than a light jog no matter if it's straight or tight spots. Just because there is a straight path doesn't mean you should go faster. It's also probably not good for the Oleo Strut. Crossing a runway or backtracking should be the only reason for moving fast on the maneuvering area.
There are many things in aviation that have more than one "right answer". I would suggest the "right" taxi speed is one of them. However I have a personal dislike for one size fits all diktats such as
An aircraft should be taxing no faster than a light jog no matter if it's straight or tight spots.
Since my original post referenced the Cessna 172 we can talk about what is appropriate for that aircraft. I think there will be times that it is entirely appropriate to taxi faster than a light jog ( ie about 10 miles per hour). If for example there is no or light winds and the taxi way surface is smooth and straight a faster taxi speed is IMO perfectly fine especially if a bit of up elevator is held. If the taxi way surface is rough or the winds strong than a quite slow taxi speed should be used.

In other words the speed of the aircraft should be proactively adjusted by pilot intent to suit the conditions and what maneuvering needs to be done, not just accepting whatever taxi speed the power setting gives you or mindlessly following a taxi speed "rule"

Finally while we are on the subject of taxi speed, a personal pet peeve; riding the brakes. I see way too much of this. If the aircraft is gong to fast reduce power if that doesn't achieve the desired result than use light braking until the desired speed is achieved. If you find that you repeatedly having to use brake to slow then you have set the taxi power RPM too high.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Zaibatsu
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 602
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:37 am

Re: Be a Better Pilot

Post by Zaibatsu »

CenterOfGravity wrote:
Zaibatsu wrote:Your airspeed should be +1/2 the gust and -0. Fly faster during gusty conditions since it will give you more margin above the stall and more positive control. Plan a longer round out and roll out and try to time touchdown between gusts.
Not necessarily 'fly faster'. You are however right about the gust factor. If it's for example: 10G20, you want to take half the gust factor. So if your approach is 80Mph on final, When the 20 gust becomes 10, you'd increase your speed +5Mph to compensate for losing 10knots of the headwind.
That sounds like flying faster. :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Flight Training”