Jacobson Flair

[antonts]

The JF recommends a 3 degree approach.

3-4 degrees (3 is 1:20, yes - 2-3 times less than pure glide for average plane) is usual slope for everybody. VASI and ILS usually have this angle. Even if you can do 6 or 1 - better to avoid this!

 

The JF says that the traditional way of controlling descent and speed relies on secondary effects. I don’t care. In Cessnas it certainly worked. Also, if you got too low and added power, then you add energy and don’t risk stalling. In Cessnas, the pitch up that accompanied the increased power automatically meant you gained height, rather than speed, with added throttle, as far as I remember.

Strictrly recommended to read this - http://www.flybetter.com.au/

 

book 2 covers all this in very simple and useful manner.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It’s quite normal for someone not being able to achieve successful circuits in a Cessna after a layoff even after five hours instruction with an Instructor, and exponentially more so in most RA aircraft.

 

Visual judgement, hand and eye co-ordination, spatial awareness all have to come together again. To disregard a competent instructor and reach for theory books ESPECIALLY books applying to heavy, or jet aircraft will just exacerbate the problem and ensure the student fails to get it together for much longer. I’d love to see any recreational pilot perform a 3% glideslope without the necessary instruments and airfield equipment so why the hell even talk about it when the person is not successfully achieving conventional circuits.

 

As others have said, you can’t learn to fly an aircraft on the internet.

 

 

[old man emu]

Sorry. I was using the simplest situation - flapless. You are correct, of course, that the use of flaps will produce a much steeper slope. I doubt if any RAAus airplane would fly a finals starting 10 miles out and from 3000 AGL. 

 

The Aircrew Bulletin takes some time, pen and paper, and a set of trig tables to fully understand.  

 

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

Airspeed on Finals.

 

You have made a mistake here. You have confused Indicated Airspeed with Ground ... The 50 kts approach speed is the still air approach speed.

I did not take headwind into account in my calculations. I am pretty sure our trigonometry agrees. 

 

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

Short answer, you will not learn to fly off the internet, talk to your instructor is the best advice you will get on line particularly in the student stage.

Yeah, but listening to what people on line think is fun! And I think that it is worth thinking about because the individuals here know a lot about flying. 

 

At the moment, I am thinking about doing the JF calculations about aiming points out of interest (for fun), using throttle for speed of descent, and descending with 2200 rpm as a baseline. (The engine is fuel injected and gets too rough below 1800 rpm. As someone here pointed out, if you descend at minimum idle, you can’t use rpm to alter your rate of descent.)

 

Thinking about this is fun. If I want to do the above plan, I can look on the map, see a landmark 4000 ft from the threshold for final, pick a landmark 1500 ft further out for the base leg and use that as a starting point. If I turn onto base abeam the 4000 ft mark, I don’t think that that will be overthinking it at all. That will just be fun. 

 

Thanks for all the comments!

 

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

3-4 degrees (3 is 1:20, yes - 2-3 times less than pure glide for average plane) is usual slope for everybody. VASI and ILS usually have this angle. Even if you can do 6 or 1 - better to avoid this!

Strictrly recommended to read this - http://www.flybetter.com.au/

 

book 2 covers all this in very simple and useful manner.

Ooh. Free books! 

 

 

[antonts]

Ooh. Free books! 

He made money not on books themself, but on flight school, based on these books. The author is founder of my school in Bankstown, and current training manuals are just compressed version of this book. Good approach.

 

 

[old man emu]

Go to this - http://www.flybetter.com.au/ to see this interview to get an idea of the philosophy behind Kruse's training methods. His comments about tenseness in student pilots struck a chord with me.

 

 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

 Landmarks or known points in your usual circuit don't work when you go somewhere else. Make yourself turn in regard to how the strip looks. Just imagine you go to an unfamiliar strip and have to go around because of a conflict with another plane. You have NO known points of reference to aid you. IF you used to relying on them you have a big problem. You can fall back on using a stop watch in parts of the circuit. Some aircraft have poor visibility to the rear. It's even done in the big stuff. A stop watch and knowing how fast you plane goes is valuable. You need it if you are required to "hold" somewhere .

 

   OME in no way did I suggest a U/L do a 3,000 ft final. It's the "Normal" instrument assisted precision approach to a runway and a good way to determine the slope angle easily, by memory. My concept of a circuit is keep it as small as is suitable for the type, WHERE you can. Fitting in with other aircraft that have vastly different approach  and circuit speeds requires a bit of training and we could do  a whole new topic on it..

 

  Noel has his way of doing things. I think he draws lines on the windscreen. That replaces the bracing wires on the DH 82 Tigermoth but I haven't and won't be doing that myself .

 

 Re tenseness in a pupil.  It's the instructors job to eliminate that as much as possible. Appropriate pre and post flight briefings play a big part in that The pupil needs to have confidence in the instructor. It's basic. . Briefing in the air should be  avoided  or kept to an absolute minimum and the instructor should never fly the plane in such a way as to frighten someone. Some instructors can't resist showing you how good they are (NOT). by doing something a little extreme. (maybe because they are bored with instructing) The pupil is not paying to be scared by you. and there should never exist a form of competition  Your standard should be such that they aim to copy, as you have explained and demonstrated it. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Thinking about this is fun. If I want to do the above plan, I can look on the map, see a landmark 4000 ft from the threshold for final, pick a landmark 1500 ft further out for the base leg and use that as a starting point. If I turn onto base abeam the 4000 ft mark, I don’t think that that will be overthinking it at all. That will just be fun. 

This works for calm days only; wind speed will blow it apart. You are likely to be flying over time with winds from all directions and a wide variation is speed, so the turn points are rarely the same when the wind is blowing, and as Facthunter said, if you go to a different airfield you don't have those landmarks, and on top of that the weather will almost never be what you predicted from your starting field, and on top of that the destination altitude can be hundreds of feet higher or lower, some fields are LH or RH circuits only, and just to cap it off you may have to make an in-flight decision to divert to an alternate airfield you have never seen.  Why would you not just knuckle down and learn dynamic circuit decisions like everyone else?

 

 

[old man emu]

I did my training in a high winged aircraft. I was told to keep the runway-side wingtip going along the near edge of the runway, and to make the turn onto Base when the end of the runway was visible 45 degrees over my shoulder. I think that wingtip position works for low winged aircraft, too. The flight across Base, whenever you are going to land into wind, will be with the flight path angled slightly towards the centreline of the runway to allow for the wind from abeam moving the aircraft away from the runway. After turning Finals, I was taught to maintain the flight path along the centreline of the runway with rudder, and to correct any movement to left or right of the centreline by "steering" the aircraft down like I would do in a car. (I learned on a Cessna). 

 

That latter part of the landing approach was the technique I was shown to use because I couldn't get a handle on cross-wind landings. The method works just as well in still wind; wind down the centreline, and wind from right or left. It is just the amount of control input that varies with current conditions.

 

I was also taught to identify the sight picture of the flight path to the aiming point (piano keys, numbers, or bare patch) and use a point on the instrument panel combing as a rear sight. Once established on that constant path, maintaining it is done with the throttle.  If the aiming point seems to drop lower in the sight picture, add power until the correct sight picture is obtained, then come back to approach revs. If the aiming point rises, reduce power until the situation is recovered, then go back up to approach revs.

 

 

[poteroo]

Landmarks or known points in your usual circuit don't work when you go somewhere else.

 Never was said a truer word. Density altitude will also dictate just how close in you should fly the circuit because the last thing you need to be is wide out on a warm day at a medium altitude day. eg, Glen Innes is 3431 amsl,  so on a 30 degree day that makes it 6000 ft DA. Given you are flying a 1000 ft circuit, there is not a lot of climbing ability in your 100HP aircraft from a missed approach. Keep in close and avoid too much reliance on power for the approach. Coasties tend to become complacent about their circuit because there's usually power in reserve.

 

I did my training in a high winged aircraft. I was told to keep the runway-side wingtip going along the near edge of the runway,

 

I was taught to keep the intended runway/strip about half-way up the LH wingstrut on a Cessna. It's worked well for me over several  hours in C170, 172, 180, 182, 185, & 206 aircraft. It works for my students in the Brumby too. From this positioning, it should be possible to make a gliding turn onto the intended runway/strip should the noise cease. For low wings I was taught to locate the strip on/just over the wingtip (wide) or on the mid point of the aileron, (close circuit).

 

happy days,

 

 

[old man emu]

You're probably right about the Cessna. Old Timer's strikes.

 

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

 Landmarks or known points in your usual circuit don't work when you go somewhere else.

I can use that as a starting place to get a picture of where the threshold is in relation to the front and side of the plane. Also, you can look at Google maps of a new strip just as you look at the circuit diagram. I will continue to listen to everything you say. 

 

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

 Why would you not just knuckle down and learn dynamic circuit decisions like everyone else?

I am happy to learn about dynamic circuit decisions. 

 

And just to irritate you all, I will try and work out how much earlier I have to start the turn to base depending on how big the tailwind is! 

 

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

I did my training in a high winged aircraft. I was told to keep the runway-side wingtip going along the near edge of the runway, and to make the turn onto Base when the end of the runway was visible 45 degrees over my shoulder. I think that wingtip position works for low winged aircraft, too. The flight across Base, whenever you are going to land into wind, will be with the flight path angled slightly towards the centreline of the runway to allow for the wind from abeam moving the aircraft away from the runway. After turning Finals, I was taught to maintain the flight path along the centreline of the runway with rudder, and to correct any movement to left or right of the centreline by "steering" the aircraft down like I would do in a car. (I learned on a Cessna). 

That latter part of the landing approach was the technique I was shown to use because I couldn't get a handle on cross-wind landings. The method works just as well in still wind; wind down the centreline, and wind from right or left. It is just the amount of control input that varies with current conditions.

 

I was also taught to identify the sight picture of the flight path to the aiming point (piano keys, numbers, or bare patch) and use a point on the instrument panel combing as a rear sight. Once established on that constant path, maintaining it is done with the throttle.  If the aiming point seems to drop lower in the sight picture, add power until the correct sight picture is obtained, then come back to approach revs. If the aiming point rises, reduce power until the situation is recovered, then go back up to approach revs.

If the whole final is supposed to be stabilised, then using crossed controlls the whole way down seems a good idea. 

 

I would prefer to just use bank/slip to maintain the centreline, but greater minds than mine say to use a component of crab. 

 

I wonder how much crosswind a foxbat could cope with before the upwind wingtip was at risk of touching down? Ot is there something else bad that might happen first? Foxbats have a pretty good roll rate, BTW.

 

 

[silvercity]

As a matter of interest, did you manage to solo 25 years ago?

 

 

[facthunter]

The "stabilized" concept is used in relation to the landing configuration and  speed. It provides a situation where if you don't change anything( pitch attitude, power) the plane will keep  on doing much the same thing as it WAS doing . It's  specified as 400 to 500+ feet on big jets and I wouldn't apply the concept too "absolutely" to Light aircraft and U/L's in particular.  IF you are flying in gusty conditions in a low inertia plane  you keep flying it till "it's safely in the hangar." At least consider the wind at all times you are moving. (Control positions when taxiing) Operating near a big prop or jet plane under power also.

 

   Early aircraft  100 years ago didn't fly if it was windy.  They flew in the morning s or evenings.  Some U/Ls are a bit like that (but less these days).They didn't have enough control authority and had low wing loading  and high drag. A wind gust range could exceed their  normal flying speed envelope..

 

  OK, so when it's windy you don't fly or you are prepared to be pretty active on the controls including ready to go around IF the approach  turns out that it isn't likely to enable a safe landing.. In GUSTY conditions I like to do a powered approach. It's more stable, enables more precise control of where you touch down and you are ready to apply more power if/when needed. A motor that's been idling on  the whole approach is more likely to falter or hesitate when you suddenly need it..  Nev

 

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

As a matter of interest, did you manage to solo 25 years ago?

In the 172 and the 152. I soloed at 13 hrs. The instructor said it would have been sooner if I wasn’t screaming so much during stalls. (I didn’t actually scream). 

 

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

 In GUSTY conditions I like to do a powered approach. It's more stable, enables more precise control of where you touch down and you are ready to apply more power if/when needed. A motor that's been idling on  the whole approach is more likely to falter or hesitate when you suddenly need it..  Nev

More good info. Looks like you can learn to fly from the internet! I suppose another way of saying the same thing is that if I am doing a no-flaps approach, I should use more RPM, and use a flatter approach? My logic being that if it is gusty enough to use a different technique, it is gusty enough to no use flaps? 

 

 

[old man emu]

I am happy to learn about dynamic circuit decisions. 

And just to irritate you all, I will try and work out how much earlier I have to start the turn to base depending on how big the tailwind is! 

Now you are being silly! The first time early in your piloting career that you do a tailwind landing will be the time you find out how much your rectum holds. 

 

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

Now you are being silly! The first time early in your piloting career that you do a tailwind landing will be the time you find out how much your rectum holds. 

No need to be crude, OME. Being so inexperienced, I think that a tailwind turning onto base would translate to landing with a headwind! Furthermore, it is usually better to land uphill with a tailwind than downhill with a headwind. 

 

 

[turboplanner]

Believe it or not some people have been genuinely trying to help you.

 

 

[facthunter]

 Most people don't get exposed to landings with a tailwind until they HAVE to do one and they usually stuff it up by thinking they are going too fast. It's part of the low flying training you are not allowed to do unless you are mustering. Your base leg gives you a chance to assess the wind on final by the drift you encounter  when on base. Nev

 

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

Believe it or not some people have been genuinely trying to help you.

And I am grateful for the input, and enjoy it. But OME called me silly and stuffed up twice in one post. 

 

Three times, actually: fun fact: one’s rectum is only full during the brief periods when you want to do a poo. 

 

If OME can have a LOL, then surely so can I.