it just means you misjudged when to remove the power
And how or when do you presume one judges right to remove power?
The almost forgotten art of sideslipping works on every aircraft I have flown, although I haven’t flown microlights
It works on the three axis ones…..
There is an implicit assumption that the CDFA technique for flying an NPA is safer than the “Dive and Drive”. For turbine class of aircraft and airline operation, this is well demonstrated to be true. However, in the MITRE study with piston GA aircraft, there wasn’t any statistical correlation to support this and in fact, the DnD had a slightly lower accident rate than the CDFA, although not statistically significant.
Hmm, I have never heard of CDFA or DnD. Sounds very "Boeing"to me, but maybe it isnt, what it is?
They are two methods of flying Non Precision approaches.
DnD = Dive and Drive – descend from the FAF straight to the MDA and fly level waiting to see something, then going around at the MAP. May require a fair bit of non standard manoeuvring to make the runway if and when you see it.
CDFA = Continuous Descent Final Approach – descend from the FAF on the path defined on the plate (normally 3°.) If you get visual you will be on a sensible path to land without adjusting the flight path significantly. You add say 40ft to the MDA to ensure you don’t go below it during the missed approach if you don’t see anything.
CDFA = Continuous Descent Final Approach – descend from the FAF on the path defined on the plate (normally 3°.) If you get visual you will be on a sensible path to land without adjusting the flight path significantly. You add say 40ft to the MDA to ensure you don’t go below it during the missed approach if you don’t see anything.
I should add that you descend on what you estimate is the path defined on the plate. Jeppesen plates have advisory altitudes at various distances to help you with this.
A piston engine gives you full power immediately
Full power is within a second from idle
Negatory. Try flying a turbo-charged piston engine. I’ve seen 8 seconds before the engine develops full power.
Throttle at idle only means only exactly that. You have thrown away your throttle margins and have to adapt with side-slipping, wider turns, slight s-turns and so on.
I thought we were talking about standard, straight & stable approaches. Having to side-slip, turn, s-turn on finals isn’t exactly straight and stable. In fact you are upsetting the aircraft. But anyway. Having the throttle margin available as well means more margin, plus a more manageable approach.
in difficult windy situations you want to get down on the wheels and cut lift as fast as you can.
Fair point. Still more power (propwash) and/or more airspeed means more controllability. You too add a gust factor to your finals approach speed, don’t you. In my experience the wind pretty much disappears at the flare. I do fly into a lot of airstrips that have trees around them.
the worst landing method in existence that is way too often used for short field; the creeping landing (full flaps, lots of power, shallow approach and cut power at the threshold).
Sounds like one of those awesome C206 STOL landings. :-) Mind you I agree on the shallow approach. That’s bad practice. But it is perfectly possible to fly a C206 full flaps, slow, draggy, lots of power, and still fly a 3.5 degree approach to a STOL landing.
- Again yes, but some practice you can do it without power control. Besides, this advocated probably the worst landing method in existence that is way too often used for short field; the creeping landing (full flaps, lots of power, shallow approach and cut power at the threshold). Quote
I disagree. In a really tight spot, this is the best way to get the plane down and stopped in the space available. This technique requires skill, and if the engine falters along the final approach path, you are going to damage the plane, a glide landing will not be possible, but you’ve already made that choice, in choosing to land there in the first place.
In landing here, it was a power cut from about 45% power over the threshold, the aircraft was otherwise already flared. In the case of a more steep, power off approach, a much larger margin (about 1/3 of the total runway available) would have had to been allowed for the transition from approach to touchdown. This aircraft has a 20 flap, power off approach angle of 12 degrees, that’s a lot to arrest in the flare! Drag it in negates this….
I am a strong proponent of steep approaches when they are appropriate, but they will require a greater acceleration upward to flare, which means more speed and distance required at the flare entry. Often water landings over trees or shore topography dictate a steep approach, to get onto the more calm, near shore area of the body of water, while still landing toward off shore. I am not a strong proponent of the drag it in approach, but sometimes you have to, it is the landing with the least change between flying and rolling out – really only the power.
For operations with less margin for error or space (either vertical or horizontal), it is vital that the pilot understand what type of approach to fly.
