Airborne_Again wrote:
But it certainly is stabilised in the sense of having a predictable flight path and a predictable airspeed
I think we agree actually, but I’m not sure what you mean by predictable. Landing a Cub is more like a predictive controller algorithm where stick, pedals and throttle are free variables used to “hit the spot” and airspeed is the constraint 
LeSving wrote:
(It’s not like I don’t have practice from flying Cubs, and countless landings in the Pawnee while towing gliders)
I don’t lack that kind of experience either. The final approach of a Pawnee after a glider tow is not a stabilised approach in the sense discussed above. But it certainly is stabilised in the sense of having a predictable flight path and a predictable airspeed. At least that’s how I fly it.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Do you really think the point is to “feel cool”? In recent post you wrote about making a very unstabilised approach to the admiration of an airliner crew. Apparently you felt that made you look “cool”.
I don’t see any point in it whatsoever for a light GA plane flying VFR. IFR will be different (I guess), because you have to follow a “line” so to speak, but I wouldn’t really know, I don’t fly IFR. However, the aircraft itself is still highly maneuverable in both speed and direction, we are not flying heavy jets.
Besides, the approach was not unstable, in the sense of risky or complex or out of control or whatever. It was still a very standard approach in a flapless Cub (all the checks done, aircraft in landing configuration, accepted a request from ATC to do a short approach, sideslipping is the standard way in a Cub) – but very far from a stabilized approach as the definition goes. It has nothing to do with it at all. It’s not my fault that such an approach looks cool and receiving nice comments on the radio from a SAS crew is always nice. Coming in steep in a curved path for a perfect 3 pointer in a tailwheel aircraft simply looks cool. (It’s not like I don’t have practice from flying Cubs, and countless landings in the Pawnee while towing gliders)
It still is just “fly the aircraft you fly”. In (recreational GA at least) we are free to fly as we please. If we want to fly a “stabilized approach”, we can do that also. It’s just this “stabilized approach is the better approach” that I think is utter nonsense.
the landing phase is still the most dangerous part of the flight.
That’s not quite the whole truth. In the NTSB database, there are 17,703 airplane landing accidents, of which 312 fatal. In the same database, there are 13,930 airplane accidents on take-off, of which 2,149 fatal.
According to those figures, airplane passengers and crew are almost an order of magnitude more likely to die when taking off than while landing.
For helicopters, the NTSB figures are 911 landing accidents of which 24 fatal, and 875 take-off, of which102 fatal.
I agree.
I think there is some confusion about a stable approach. Nothing wrong with being above the g/s, 3 whites or even 4 is good, and no need for long finals, but turn final to give sufficient time to be settled on the approach with a constant rate of descent, on speed, on centreline, gear down, flaps set. Obviously it will probably be slightly longer final depending on the type. In a twin you are probably flying the approach at 100 knots or more so you are entitled to extend a little further and may need to do so for spacing.
It is interesting if you watch approaches how many you will see oscillating down the track, speed and rate never under control and never stable on the centreline, inevitably they almost always end in a bad landing. It is also interesting to see more than a few dragging it in, with what must be four reds clearly showing, you just know they will be 100s of metres short if the engine quits. Thank goodness it almost never will, but you wonder how an actual x-country forced landing would work out.
Peter wrote:
I also support the idea of flying a steep approach. It has a number of advantages
For VFR, absolutely. The standard final approaches at my home airfield have a 5-6° slope. But those can also be flown as stabilised approaches. Less than a one mile final is enough if you want to be stabilised at 500’ AGL – hardly a huge circuit.
One problem with flying a stabilised long final is that it can be a very long final and it causes problems for other traffic. One recent thread is here and concerns the widespread practice of teaching huge circuits. One can understand that in the basic PPL one has to try to teach the student to land safely within a budget of say €10k, and this is reasonable given that most people who get a PPL don’t use it anyway afterwards, so teaching the finer points of flying would demolish the PPL training business.
I also support the idea of flying a steep approach. It has a number of advantages
etc
but it does need practice on the type and probably should not be expected within PPL training.
LeSving wrote:
OK, if we can’t resist the urge to squeeze the stabilized approach terminology into light GA (because it makes us feel somewhat cooler or whateverDo you really think the point is to “feel cool”? In recent post you wrote about making a very unstabilised approach to the admiration of an airliner crew. Apparently you felt that made you look “cool”.
The point is not trying to emulate CAT for the sake of it. The point is that even though light GA aircraft are more maneuverable, have less inertia and quicker engine response than transport jets, the landing phase is still the most dangerous part of the flight.
As the saying goes: “A superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid having to use his superior skill.” To me “cool” is having a professional attitude and avoid accidents.
If you had an IR I think you would have a very different view on this.
Maoraigh, it’s a Bonanza, I had ca 1350 kg, and it was a bit rough…
I agree with LeSving. The aircraft in the landing video looks to be big and stable, Pa28 or Cirrus size. And it’s a nosewheel aircraft. There doesn’t appear to be much turbulence.
Lighter and more responsive aircraft may be different.
At under 600kg landing mass, and a crosswind gusting to over 20 kts, I don’t find “stable” appropriate for the stick-stirring and footwork I do to get a gentle landing and to remain on the runway as speed decreases.
I wonder how many landing accidents are caused by pilots afraid to make big control inputs at round-out.
PS max AUW 750kg, empty 410.6 kg.
