The cult of flying the whole final approach at the minimum speed

skydriller wrote:

why would you drag it in low and slow on power (annoying the neighbours even more) when you can do a low power/glide approach??

That’s my thought.

Ibra wrote:

Yes I agree, but that means there will be no single engine IFR for you nor flying over extended water to see those islands in the first place (of course between us you can put the big worry on single engine failures for one single flight and go ahead and enjoy it, just once…)

I’m not keen on single engine IFR in IMC anyway, just my preference. But, at least, at altitude, you’ve got time to manage a failure, and if need be prepare for a ditching. If you’re flying your dragged in single engine over water approach, wearing your life jacket, and prepared to ditch short, that’s good, but it’s still an un-necessary risk. I’ve only had five actual power off forced landings, but only one was from altitude. Each of the rest occurred low enough that the only action was to land (no time to manage the failure). In each case, I was flying such that there was a suitable landing area, and no harm done during the landing. But I never take a running engine for granted!

MedEwok wrote:

Was at 800ft or so over the threshold, in a C172, then deployed full flaps, power to idle and landed exactly on the “light aircraft touchdown markings”.

When in need, do not forget about the slip. They are fun and effective. And make a cool sound on the ground.

arj1 wrote:

@Ted, you’d break many rules at Elstree!

Indeed I would However these are noise abatement rules that I did suggest still need to complied with, even though in many cases they are advisory, along with following ATC which never is. Hopefully if learning at a school based there you get a chance to fly at an aerodrome where you are responsible for planning you own circuit, which forms part of your toolkit for more advanced flying. In which case the goal would be fly a nice tight circuit, adjusted as required for traffic.

Learning to slow down rather than flying faster and ever wider is often more successful strategy anyway, in particular when the aircraft flies faster than your current skill level.

For example a circling approach in IMC is one of the most changeling parts of flying, and relies on these fundamental skills using minimal cues.

IMHO the perennial problem is after one receives a PPL, and how to consolidate and finesse the basics, in a steady progression that is appropriate.

MedEwok wrote:

In Germany at least you are expected to follow this predetermined circuit as far as possible. At my home base, you will get a good bollocking if you fly a “nice tight circuit”.

Even the tight & high with engine off ?

To clear up a couple of points I made in a previous post:

When I said I imagined the majority of light aircraft would fly a 3 degree approach with power on, I didn’t necessarily mean that that is how the majority choose to fly their approach, simply that if they were flying a 3 degree approach, most types would require power on to do so. The reasons for flying a 3 degree approach have been mentioned above, with the key one for me being to stay on the glidepath if flying an ILS.

Regarding stabilised approaches, I fully agree that you can fly a PA28 to less than two miles with no flaps and 100kts and still be at Vapp at 50ft with landing flap set. My point is that in many commercial types you cannot do this, often as a limitation of the type itself and often as a limitation of the operator you are working for. A large amount of schools have a majority of students intending to pursue commercial flying, so rather than teach them to do something in a PA28 which they will then probably not do in a larger aircraft, they teach them in the style of the larger aircraft from beginning.

I do agree that this a shame and that ideally you would teach someone how to fly the relevant type, allowing them to learn the correct ways for a new type as and when required, but this doesn’t really fit with the ‘final product’ student that airlines are often thought to be looking for, and that is the problem.

Peter wrote:

For example a circling approach in IMC

That’s a new one

How come?

Peter wrote:

I realise PPL instruction is done in a particular way because the process must cater for the lowest common denominator but I wonder if there is a better way than what I see happening.

Thtat’s why a good instructor is so important and why a good student/teacher communication is important too.

A good instructor should be able to adapt the training to his/her student. It means teaching things that are outside of the PPL syllabus if relevant and if the level of the student allow it.

From the student part, I think it’s also important to let your instructors know your goals in aviation. If you have let your instructor know you don’t plan to fly commercial aircraft and want to remain GA, you shouldn’t be taught exactly the same things as a wannabee commercial pilot.

Peter wrote:

Circling is never in IMC

It’s never done in clouds that’s for sure but yes seems one can always “circle under VFR/SVFR” when they can’t “circle under IFR” ? combinations depending on aircraft category, speed, visibility, ceiling, terrain, airspace, airfield elevation