Remove a similar amount of engine thrust on a flat approach to the amount of gravity thrust you remove on a steep approach and the rate of decay of your forward pointing vector will be exactly the same.
People tend to think that flat approaches are long because most planes are flown with power on into ground effect which reduces drag.
Cut the power before ground effect sets on and it’ll slow down exactly the same.
Otherwise Newton would have been proved wrong by now.
All at the risk of blowing up the server with a non-EuroGA-management-aligned view!
I should be flattered to hear that some think there is a certain level of “management” here 
Well, you could have moderators who don’t participate in the forum (and this has come up before) but given human nature you have very few options with that:
Also anonymity is very bad for accountability and openness.
IMO the difference is you have to change the direction of the velocity vector, Doing this will drain energy. If the IAS is the same and one is going steeper, the steeper approach will drain more energy because the vector changes more. A shallow approach will not drain any appreciable amount, and the result will be higher velocity after the “flare” and a longer float.
Exactly, and a steep approach makes one really slow down fast during the flare.
AnthonyQ wrote:
Anyway, I believe I was correct in stating that the energy lost in executing the flare from a greater descent rate is equal to the additional vertical component of kinetic energy…
IMO the difference is you have to change the direction of the velocity vector, Doing this will drain energy. If the IAS is the same and one is going steeper, the steeper approach will drain more energy because the vector changes more. A shallow approach will not drain any appreciable amount, and the result will be higher velocity after the “flare” and a longer float.
Dublinpilot wrote:
Not if they are both flying the same IAS.
Maybe it’s the pedantic engineer in me, and I was hoping someone else would step in here, but that is not technically correct. The velocity (not speed) of the aircraft with the greater descent rate that experiences a greater change (ie vertical deceleration)…which means a greater energy change (E = 1/2 mv^2)…to make it easier to understand, because velocity is a vector, we can split it into orthogonal (say vertical and horizontal) components…we can assume the horizontal components of the two aircraft are about the same (not quite, but close enough) but the vertical components are quite different. At a descent rate of say 500fpm vs say 150fpm prior to flare initiation, the steeper aircraft has a vertical velocity component some 3.5 kts greater (2.54 m/s vs 0.76 m/s)…. for a 1000kg aircraft it means the steeper aircraft has to dissipate an additional 9kJ of energy. If the IAS at that point is say 60kts then this represents about 2% of the aircraft total kinetic energy… Maybe not that significant, but not zero!
Anyway, I believe I was correct in stating that the energy lost in executing the flare from a greater descent rate is equal to the additional vertical component of kinetic energy…
All at the risk of blowing up the server with a non-EuroGA-management-aligned view!
Peter wrote:
But there is a time for everything in flying, and stuff takes a bit of time to learn. I wasn’t doing steep approaches when I got my PPL…
Exactly. I didn’t really think about getting the wheels on the ground ASAP in gusty conditions until I started towing gliders in the mountain. Even then, not until a seasoned tow pilot told me he preferred coming in steeper and slower and bleed the speed off in the flare, after watching me fight the gust at 1 feet, half the strip.
I think steepness of approach is a matter of personal preference. There are views both ways and different types suit different ways to do it. Different pilots prefer certain type of approaches in the circuit. I think there is little to be gained by talking about one being wrong and one right in this context.
All I know is the way I fly in gusty conditions like this I want the aircraft on the ground quickly so prefer less float and a more positive landing.
Archie wrote:
Also in a turbocharged aircraft you will want to fly shallower, to achieve turbo spool up ready for go-around. (off-topic)
Won’t work in the C182T as the throttle gives you NA power until you push it enough to engage the turbine (i.e. at least 25" which you will never have on approach)
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.
Actually good catch…
I did go flying in similar conditions with a C182T for “release” on the aircraft and we ended up overboosting on the planned full stop landing to actually go around because the wind shifted during the flare and we ended up at about 80 degrees from the runway track while still pushing rudder and aircraft not climbing with 30" MAP.
LeSving wrote:
Do people here really look at those lights? In visual conditions in a light airplane?
yes, if you’re IFR, I was failed for that (did not seem important to me, my instructor seems to have failed in making that sink in…) and one or 2 other things for which I also blame my instructor for not explaining properly (and I could not find a textual reference for).
A shallow approach exposes you to turbulence for longer.
However I see most people do shallow approaches (dragging it in at high power, often so low that the shadow of the aircraft is visible to me on the ground from further back up the final approach path) so maybe this is training or maybe people find them easier.
I just see it as unnecessary exposure to more risk.
As well as cutting off options in case of an engine problem.
But there is a time for everything in flying, and stuff takes a bit of time to learn. I wasn’t doing steep approaches when I got my PPL…
dublinpilot wrote:
Not if they are both flying the same IAS.
You seem to be making the point that a steep approach followed by a well timed flare (out of necessity) is easier in gusty conditions. I say it increases the risk. It is one of the reasons I am wary of conducting a practice glide approach in gusty conditions. Because you’ll be deliberately flying with a greater rate of descent you have just increased your collision risk with the earth, in a situation where there maybe quite severe downdrafts.
That is why I suggest a shallow approach may be better, because a swift touchdown can be achieved by chopping the greater amount of power carried, and avoiding a pronounced flare.
Also in a turbocharged aircraft you will want to fly shallower, to achieve turbo spool up ready for go-around. (off-topic)
However as someone pointed out there maybe situations where you want a steeper approach to avoid a cliff for example. There are not too many of those however.
