…but still crap.
And that, I suspect is why your two instructors are teaching differently. The CPL/IR guy is preparing you to fly IFR, while the other one is preparing you to drop over some trees or power lines into a shortish field. You don’t need to do either at this stage, you just need to land on an ample length of runway without bending undercarriage. That’s plenty to begin with, so I’d be inclined to pick whichever technique you prefer and politely ask your instructors to get their act together. Same goes for crab vs. slip for crosswinds…
Interesting question. No, I don’t.
Medewok, the steep approach isn’t a bad thing per se but it’s bad to learn it as ‘the’ way to land. But you should learn proper approach technique and for that I would take the IR guy’s advice.
Diving down because “there’s water” (a little river called Ems), with full flaps and idle and then somehow flaring it will bite you sooner or later, because it’s success depends on your weight, and your CG, and on density altitude and temperature, if with passengers or not, on the runway length and also if it’s not flat, etc – so before you haven’t learned to nail any stabilised approach and landing with the plane at different weights and altitudes, you won’t develop the skills to do a steep approach in the first place.
My 2 cents
Fuji_Abound wrote:
In my book in a SEP you should always be above the PAPIs in normal circumstances for the obvious reason that if the engine quits you will land short – why wouldnt you?
The approach is a very small part of a typical flight and the risk of engine failure in that low power situation is even less than otherwise. So I don’t see what that should be a factor at all compared to other considerations.
Do you plan your flights in SEPs so that you are certain to reach a suitable field 100% of the time in case of engine failure? If not, why care about the very short approach phase?
@EuroFlyer: I didn’t mean to say that a steep approach was ‘the’ approach. I guess every method has its merits for different situations. What I did not yet fully understand is how to perform a ‘stabilised approach’ as you call it.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
Anyone experienced a faulty ASI or suspecting a faulty ASI?
I took off once with an inop ASI. The static was blocked, it seemed to work OK until I started to climb, then the needle went all over the place. Made a circuit and landed using the GPS.
Peter wrote:
Aerodynamically the GS is irrelevant until touchdown, isn’t it?
Yes; correct.
Not at all, but it depends on the aircraft. This is one of the first thing you learn when flying gliders, because there the effect is large. At the ground the wind speed is small, then it gradually increases up to 10m maybe before it is fairly constant. The boundary layer near the ground. What happens in final, just before touch down is that you go from high wind velocity to low wind velocity, and as a result the IAS decreases, and you risk simply falling to the ground, stalling, or landing too short.
MedEwok wrote:
What I did not yet fully understand is how to perform a ‘stabilised approach’ as you call it.
Stabilized approach is a CAT thing. It really has nothing to do in light GA (IMO). One of the good things about (light) GA, is that we don’t need all these procedures. Just learn to land the “VFR GA way” until you can do it blind folded (sometimes you have the sun straight in the face, and you have to look out on the sides). Then train with no engine until you can touch the mark every time. Train steep “bush plane style” approaches until you can take the first taxi way out each time. Then make turning approaches. Nothing impresses people more than a turning approach with a perfect touch down, for some reason, but there is nothing to it really (engine off requires more practice IMO). When coming back to ENVA, I was suddenly cleared for a short approach due to a SAS B737 waiting. I just dived in with a turning, sliding final, very steep and landed just in front of the Boeing. “The boy can fly” said one of the pilots on the radio 
I mean seriously. When you fly a light GA plane, then fly it like it is meant to be flown. Don’t pretend it is a Boeing, because it isn’t, it’s just silly. (IFR in IMC is something else I would guess, and requires a stabilized approach. I have never done it though)
In GA terms the stabilized approach means that you should be able to trim the airplane to the right approach speed. That you understand how the power should be used to set the right descent rate and the elevator/trim for the speed.
While a bush flying style approach in the turn might be “impressive” it is more important that you learn how to make a safe approach and landing.
Once you have perfectly mastered this you can start learning other types of approaches or how to deviate from the standard when necessary.
Just have a coffee at your local airfield and watch pilots of light airplanes arrive 30 knots too fast, bounce and come to a stop with smoking tires … at the end of a 1000 m runway … and you’ll understand how important it is to get these basics right.
LeSving wrote:
Stabilized approach is a CAT thing.
I agree - but - when you are learning, setting up a stable approach makes things sooo much easier – and I think this is where it comes from. It is fun turning onto final hot and high but you need good skills to quickly get the speed under control and the height right, and these skills are a lot to ask early on in flying. So by establishing at the correct height and at the correct speed on “longish” final there is plenty of time to settle down and fly a smooth approach. Once mastered ….. well, the world is your oyster.
I well recall when I first went onto flying twins the old ways came back – after a few poor approaches I was reminded to just take a little time, set up as above, repeat a few times and quickly I could have as much “fun” in the twin.
I think being able to nail a stable approach is as important in a SEP as anything else – if you cant get that right you will struggle with anything more adventurous.
BTW and the original question, only with experience do you get a sense when things arent right. Again, on a stable approach you often very quickly get a sense that the approach speed is too high and exactly that happened with a partial pitot block that was resulting in a good 20 knots IAS to low, when in fact the approach would have been 20 knots too fast, relying on the IAS. (and hence my original question) and possibly not so easy to pick up lying a hot and high approach with a short turn onto final or with less aircraft familiarity.
