@what_next: are you seriously telling us a380’s fly vfr patterns? that takes a lot of imagination… 
That said, even I was taught, when flying the circuit, to get the plane in a landing configuration – whatever that may be for the given plane – by the end of downwind. For me, it mostly consisted of pulling some degree of flaps. With experience, on the plane that I fly, I now draw flaps only after turning final.
Dropping the landing gear is beyond my experience however.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
are you seriously telling us a380’s fly vfr patterns?
“Circle to land” is standard practice at places where an instrument approach exists only in one direction (usually due to mountains/obstacles on the other side) but the wind blows the other way. So yes, they do fly visual patterns every now and then.
I was at Newquay when a 787 was doing circuits.
In the C510 I tend to drop the gear on late downwind as that isn’t speed limited and London frequently give me a parachute drop plane descent into Oxford. Normally I would already have APR flaps extended for a VFR arrival. Turning final LAND flaps.
On ILS FlightSafety teach APR flaps on base, one dot high gear down and LAND flaps, Vapr all the way in. In real life I tend to do what What_Next says to avoid being a chicane for CAT behind me and to get there at a sensible speed. Flying at jet at 100kts from the FAF to touchdown will make you very unpopular.
mh 20-Aug-16 00:52 #24
@huv the only RG that I fly regularly is my amphibious flying boat.
@mh So, the question the becomes: how do you make sure, and when do you check “gear up” before water landing?
(“Four blues”?)
From my ample youtube experience, gear down on water is far, far worse than gear up on land.
“…my amphibious flying boat” … can I confess to an ever so tiny bit of envy :-)
@huv: I’ll bet you you are not the only one. But if your finances are stronger than mine, there is one for sale in Southern Germany, as we could read…
Talking of gear-down landing on the water: did I hear a rumour that this even happened to the turboprop-powered Do-24?
In my Buccaneer you just have one light for the gear, that is the first check. The second is to look out of the window and verify the gear position visually. You can see both main gears directly and the nose wheel from a mirror in the sponsons. Then you can check hydraulic pressure when the gear was raised or lowered, but only before you retrim or set flaps. Trim and flaps are hydraulic, too, fed with the same pump/accumulator.
The usual procedure is to actively check “This is a WATERLANDING and the gear is UP” or “This is a LANDLANDING the gear is DOWN”. Although I think at leasg on geass there wouldn’t be much damage if I landed her gear up, if any. In any case the engine stays intact :-)
The Do24 had hit a log in water.
Thanks, @mh.
I can’t help finding an hydraulic system a bit of overkill on such a light plane – but that’s talking from zero relevant experience…
What places are there in Germany that allow water operations? Did I see a mention at EDUY Welzow, on the Sedlitzer See?
Hydraulics do seem to cause people trouble but actually it’s probably the best solution because you get a massive force from a relatively lightweight actuator, which is vital given the often crappy maintenance, lack of lubrication and generally sticky mechanisms. Lots of people find their gear is well seized up at the Annual, but the hydraulics still moved it “OK”. The standard Parker pump used in everything from a Lanc 320 upwards delivers about 1500psi. An electric system would need 3 separate actuators, each with a motor and gears/leadscrew.
A circling approach is AFAIK anywhere where the runway is more than 20 (?) degrees off the IAP final track. On the approach plate, the runway number is then usually/often not given. Usually, however, as stated already, it does mean landing on the opposite runway. It is a procedure under IFR, like any Visual Approach.
Thanks for the “circling approach” explanations, the clearest I saw yet.
Regarding the hydraulics: if once the option to go for powered has been taken, I can well believe hydraulics is the least unfortunate. But I question the need to do anything powered at all on a plane of less than 700 kg MTOW. I cannot know but feel sure that nothing powered is used on the various Chernov designs, which are heavier.
