atmilatos wrote:
Am I the only one who would have stayed on the ground with this (metar) wind data?
No. Me too.
But it can happen that you find this wind by surprise when you come back to land. Then I would give a try, for sure.
Regarding the PAPI I’m surprised that anybody uses it for VFR approach. It leads you to an unnecessary flat final. My typical traffic pattern includes throttling back at key point and fly the rest of the approach (base and final) with no power.
Good idea to reflect on that flight. Asking others for their opinion is a well observed personality trait for a pilot.
I think you did fine (obviously), but considering your experience level, the background of your flight (returning from vacation?, friends and family aboard, heavy plane at performance limit), and the weather conditions I think your stresslevel matched your current ability (if not exceeded it by a little bit). So if something had gotten wrong I don’t think you would have had a lot of resources/capacity left.
That is fine and happens to all of us and is also important to gain confidence (that feeling when after something uncertain/demanding you sit at the airport cafe and sigh of relief, “…ah great it worked”)
What I am saying is maybe to focus more on your judgement/decisions and take a step back once in a while (example: do not load the plane up to max. weight, do not get trapped by “having to return the plane on time” gethomeitis and set yourself hard limits for
- Thunderstorms within X miles of the field – don’t go there (have plenty of alternate fuel to wait it out or divert – something unlikely after a long flight with a c172 and 4 people on board).
- Wind below 30kts
etc..
- Turbulence
In your specific case (and that goes for a lot of pilots), the least you have to worry about is your flying skills, they are good and sufficient. What bites most of is our non technical skills.
Safe flights! Snoopy
I do not remember a single time, in my 14 years of TB20 ownership, that I cancelled a flight due to wind.
Admittedly I have a 25kt “max demo” crosswind, which is unusual in GA, but to cancel with wind more or less down the runway, with an airport which is not surrounded by particular turbulence-inducing terrain (some such airports in e.g. Greece), is usually not justifiable on technical reasons.
That said, I know of a TB20 pilot who bent his plane by landing with a 50kt reported surface wind, down the runway. You would be looking at 80+ kt at say 100ft so a lot of wind shear, so one would need to be eagle-eyed on the ASI and be very ready to advance the throttle as required. As well as flying all the way to the flare at a higher speed. And he had a huge runway to land on. He still bent the front of it…
dublinpilot wrote:
What a steeper approach does for me, is that it means once I flare, I’ve got to stop a steep descent, so it saps the energy from the aircraft and I’m ready to land. So no float in turbulent conditions.
Peter wrote:
more power is needed to fly a shallow approach, which reduces power available to deal with surprises
Peter wrote:
a go-around is harder because you are doing it from lower down
lenthamen wrote:
With winds 20G30 on the runway I would also have flown the approach with a higher speed. The rule is to add half of the wind gust factor to your approach speed.
20G30 means only adding 5 kts to your approach speed.
Re. the landing. Well done! Except for the float… and getting low on short final… the latter is forgiveable due to the conditions, and you fixed it. 
I agree with the comment regarding using partial flap on a long runway with these conditions.
noopy wrote:
In your specific case … What bites most of is our non technical skills.
If you do not pay attention to the visual glideslope indicator, this can happen to you
In fairness, there is a lot more going on there than not following the PAPIs. The reason that I say it’s not normal to follow the PAPIs on a VFR approach, is because you should be well above the 3 degree approach. Not below it 
Flying a 3 degree approach in the case in the video, would proably have put them into the side of the hill.
don’t you think a visual approach should and could be flown precisely? Weird reasoning, but hey, each to his own
A precision approach is an IFR approach. A 3 degree approach is suitable for aircraft flying IFR so that they don’t have to make a large attitude change just before touch down (which large transport aircraft almost never do).
A typical VFR circuit will see you turn onto final way above any PAPI indications.
I suspect those who suggest that following a PAPI on a VFR approch, as more used to doing IFR flight where they follow the ILS. In VFR fligh this is called “dragging it in” and isn’t good practice. There is no good reason to arrive at such a flat angle when you can clearly see what’s going on. There is a reason that there is a significant flare. It’s to lose energy just at the point that you need to lose it. Flying a flatter approach robs you of that advantage.
dublinpilot wrote:
The reason that I say it’s not normal to follow the PAPIs on a VFR approach, is because you should be well above the 3 degree approach.
Another reason is that we aren’t really aiming 1000’ in, are we? PAPIs only get you to the 1000’ markers. If you are aiming for the numbers, PAPI becomes pointless. And if you are doing both, may I suggest that your approach will be one of diving down to the numbers on short final?
atmilatos wrote:
Am I the only one who would have stayed on the ground with this (metar) wind data? The wind data indicate that the wind could become a straight 90 degrees (or more!) at 30 knots one second before touching down.
No, I agree with you and disagree with most other comments. :-) The original question was whether to divert and I would say YES.
The wind was 175V280 20G30 and the true direction of 17C in LOWG is 169°. When the gusts are caused by an unstable airmass which seems to be the case here as there is no significant terrain close by, the wind will veer (turn clockwise) in connection with the gusts. That means the between the gusts the wind will be essentially straight down the runway at less than 20 knots (the mean wind). That is absolutely no problem as we could see in the movie.
However in a gust the wind could veer to a direct crosswind (259°) — or even past that to a tailwind — and increase in strength to 30 knots. A landing in those conditions would not have been safe, in my opinion.
The actual approach and touchdown was nicely done and my only comment (which other people also had) is that the high speed led to an excessively long flare. That exposes you to the risk of gusts longer than necessary. In these conditions it is important to get the wheels on ground ASAP and had I done the approach in these conditions I would have gone for only 10° of flaps and flown the aircraft on rather than making a full-stall touchdown.
boscomantico wrote:
I guess what he wanted to say is that a VFR pilot, in day VFR conditions should be able to fly a proper glidepath even without a PAPI.
Something like that. I find it strange that using these lights is common practice for VFR today because it goes against everything I have learned and how I fly. One of these things is to compensate for different (head) wind, following the PAPI will ruin that compensation, as well as making the descent much too shallow.
172driver wrote:
Of course. Part of flying a stabilized approach.
I don’t see the connection. Besides, when following the PAPI you are not flying a stabilized approach in a light aircraft. A stabilized approach is one where you touch down exactly where you want without floating 1000 feet or more.
People can do whatever they want as far as I’m concerned. I’m looking forward to doing “GLS” approaches with my MGL EFIS (which is certainly not practiced at any flight school). Anyway, here is a video of an alternative landing done by professional pilots (the one in the left seat happens to be my neighbor). Perfectly stabilized, perfectly executed (including the apparent overshoot). Nevermind the ATC comm, which is obviously taken from somewhere else.
Archie wrote:
dublinpilot wrote:
What a steeper approach does for me, is that it means once I flare, I’ve got to stop a steep descent, so it saps the energy from the aircraft and I’m ready to land. So no float in turbulent conditions.
Not quite applicable. A shallower approach achieves this too, because you carry more power, meaning you can chop the power at the right time achieving touchdown.
Peter wrote:
more power is needed to fly a shallow approach, which reduces power available to deal with surprises
Not quite true. A steep approach means you’ll fly at pretty much idle, which gives zero margin on the throttle… could easily lead to an overshoot.
Peter wrote:
a go-around is harder because you are doing it from lower down
Not quite true either. For one you already carry more power, and two the pitch change will be less, so the go-around becomes actually easier from a shallow approach.
Agreed Archie….I’m glad someone (else) refuted those dubious assertions!
Not quite applicable. A shallower approach achieves this too, because you carry more power, meaning you can chop the power at the right time achieving touchdown.
But if you fly a steep approach at x speed, and a shallow approach at the same speed, you lose a lot of that energy in the flare. You don’t lose any of that energy by chopping the power….you just stop adding energy.
