lenthamen wrote:
To throw in a real world example. Suppose you’re a passenger in a DA40 and you’re faced with a turn to final like this
Isnt the bank a little high for the current speed? Airborne_Again wrote:
A skidding turn to final at low altitude… A classic spin situation.
Skidding as in not coordinated?
Snoopy wrote:
Isnt the bank a little high for the current speed?
No. It banks about 45 degrees, which results in a load factor of ~1.4 and a stall speed increase of about 20%. Stall speed straight and level with flaps extended (assuming they are) seems to be around 50, +20% = 60, while they’re still flying at ~80. So still ample of margin, furthermore they don’t even attempt to maintain altitude, but are in a rather steep descent.
Snoopy wrote:
Skidding as in not coordinated?
Yes – and with excess in-turn rudder. The pilot overshoots the centreline, doesn’t want to bank more and applies in-turn rudder to “help” the turn.
furthermore they don’t even attempt to maintain altitude, but are in a rather steep descent.
To achieve a sustained wing unloading, one has to accelerate vertically, not just descend at a constant VS.
Looks benign to me. Airborne-Again may be right about “helping” with rudder – on the other hand, the DA-40 has no rudder trim and will fly ball left in a low-power descent unless corrected. As an instructor I might or might not comment at the time, but there is no indication of anything that would make me interfere, especially since the DA-40 is so docile. As a passenger, I would not say anything on the basis of what is seen in this picture alone. In a slightly steeper bank, I would probably just say “bank angle”.
I regularly see much worse than this when doing training circuits, both with students and PPL’s.
But I do note that the person in the right-hand seat grabs the top of the glare shield with his right hand – might be an indication of uneasiness.
The picture shows a turn to final at EGKB where I was a passenger.
Before the flight we talked about the division of tasks, and the pilot flying indicated he wanted to do all tasks by himself. That’s perfectly fine with me…
The pilot went to EGKB for the first time and experienced a high workload: Other traffic in the circuit, unexpected joining instructions, ATC talking fast, crosswind, etc. He flew a too tight circuit and overshot the centerline.. It was corrected with a steep turn.
I didn’t make a comment about it because the airspeed was OK. I think I would have gone around because that takes the stress out of it.
Peter wrote:
To achieve a sustained wing unloading, one has to accelerate vertically,
Yes sure, but that’s what you’re normally doing if you “duck under”…
I didn’t make a comment about it because the airspeed was OK. I think I would have gone around because that takes the stress out of it.
Which I have mentioned in a couple of posts.
I would only reiterate that often more can be gained from a go around, and lets have a look at that again, than continuing with a poor approach even if it could be salvaged. In the commercail world how often do we hear of the emphasis that the approach should be stable, on speed, on height – all for good reason.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
n the commercail world how often do we hear of the emphasis that the approach should be stable, on speed, on height
How often do you fly commercial in a DA40?
If you insisted on commercial stable approach criteria, you could simply give up on mountain flying, backcountry flying, most VFR traffic patterns would be out as well.
There may be good reasons for the stable approach criteria, but there are also good reasons why they aren’t applied to VFR ops in a DA40.
tomjnx wrote:
If you insisted on commercial stable approach criteria, you could simply give up on mountain flying, backcountry flying, most VFR traffic patterns would be out as well.There may be good reasons for the stable approach criteria, but there are also good reasons why they aren’t applied to VFR ops in a DA40.
I don’t see why you couldn’t apply stable approach critiera to SEP VFR ops. Different criteria than commercial ops under IFR, certainly, but nevertheless.
OTOH, what is the need? It seems more of a bother than it is worth.
