I have tried to introduce multi-crew tasks during the Coupe Breitling event one year within our team (as the team captain). On final, there would be a pilot flying and a pilot monitoring, being the person on the right doing the ATC as well. We had a very short checklist with about 5 items for the pilot monitoring to call out and the pilot flying to confirm. We even tested this during a weekend where we simulated the competition in the south of Belgium and the north of France. My findings are that in the heat of the battle (moments of stress) all the pilots in our team would revert back to old habits and do things their own way. So the SOPs we established and agreed on were thrown out of the window as soon as some stress was introduced during the competition flights. I learned from that and abandoned this strategy in the next years.
I fly regularly with other pilots and then have no problem sharing tasks like “I fly and you do the radio” as long as it is clear who is PIC. I have no problem sitting on the right hand side (also as PIC letting the other fly), but I stopped sitting in the back as a passenger as that doesn’t comfort me at all.
On turning steep (no base to final turn should be greater than 30 degrees) while skidding on base to final…this is the most dangerous way to correct overshooting because the load factor will increase and pulling the nose up in the turn to maintain altitude can cause a stall close to the ground.
If far enough out flatten the turn and use rudder to center the ball and push the nose down and fly back toward the center line in a descent. If there is not enough room go around.
One efficient technique when in single pilot mode is to have the right-seat pilot make frequency changes on request, or if they are anticipating the next frequency have them call out what is in active and what is in standby after any change. Also, if the right-seat pilot is helping with see-and-avoid always make sure you verify what they say they are seeing.
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.
I think there should remain elements of “fun” in GA. The difference is a SEP can be very responsive and react very quickly. Therefore in can be “thrown” into and around a circuit, flown very tight in a circuit, with a tight and very short roll out onto a very short final – all safely, and totally under control – the key being under control.
Of course that would never be a good idea for an instrument approach and always a recipe for disaster.
Yes, that’s why I implied there isn’t really much point even if it is possible.
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.
Eugh… I think my first thought was that the aircraft seemed awfully far out and a bit on the low side – perhaps partly the wide-angle lens at work. I don’t see any reason for such a steep bank angle – there’s still oodles of room to fix the approach. If the pilot’s letting the nose drop through I’d be reasonably relaxed; if they’re pulling the stick back, less so.
Personally I tend to fly a much tighter circuit and approach in a slip, which I ease out of not too high off the runway. Yes, I fly lots of go-arounds – but you can go around whilst in ground effect if you need to. Utterly no reason to worry about an unstabilised approach or to go around at that point.
While the stabilised approach is an important building block for flying heavier, jet aircraft, some might argue that teaching the landing in a turn skill might avoid the sort of skid on final in the earlier photo.
http://tailwheelersjournal.com/2013/72-in-defense-of-the-landing-in-a-turn/
Utterly no reason to worry about an unstabilised approach or to go around at that point.
With respect you are missing the point, which might be more clear if you read both my posts above.
I am not advocating that an approach in VMC always needs to be stable in GA all the way down. I was suggesting that if for example this was a low time pilot who was “demonstrating” to another pilot a good controlled approach, or the other pilot felt it was seriously going wrong (which we cant judge from one photo) then there is no harm in suggesting a go around and lets have another look together. Of course it all depends what was going on at the time.
My point was that there is rarely any harm between two pilots who are likely to be “friends” for the non flying pilot to say “I dont like the look of this” why dont we do something else, have a chat what was going on, and give it another go. If he was that uncomfortable whats wrong comforting him? Maybe he was right anyway. Maybe a good opportunity to practice a go around. Lots of pluses and few minuses, other than in this case a go around fee or a schedule not met, which you probably didnt have anyway.
So in short almost certainly utterly no reason to worry about the approach not being stable, but if the other pilot feels differently a good opportunity to explain why you were comletely happy the approach was not stable, why you were totallly in your comfort zone, that you knew you were on speed, on balance etc., and that next time you can both feel confident all is well. You could even go off and fly some steep turns etc to prove the point. After all if you are flying with another pilot, then they are qualified and are entitled to an opinion, even if you think they are wrong, and if they are, hopefully they will thank you for taking the time to run through it with them.
Just another point of view.
@RobertL18C,
Thanks for posting that, it looks like a trick well worth perfecting.
This is an interesting discussion. I think there are different stories, but I think delegating tasks in the cockpit is something that has to be learned. I read all different scenario’s here, but I think they are the sum of different flights where you first learnt what you are comfortable with.
I am used to do everything myself. And more so: I prefer to do everything myself. But you have to give other situations also a chance before you know it can work for you or not. Every time you try a new setup you will learn something until you end with the situation you want to proceed with. All those finetuned scenario’s are the result but not the beginning.
I am still wondering what you would do if the PIC brings you in an unsafe situation.
I am still wondering what you would do if the PIC brings you in an unsafe situation.
In most cases, I would not sit in the back… is the short answer.
