Home made procedures

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2907
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Home made procedures

Post by PilotDAR » Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:26 pm

Elsewhere, a poster has postulated a procedure which is really not accepted practice, and in my opinion (having nearly died riding through a not so different event), a really risky idea. Yeah, I'll go along with the theme that the only stupid question is the one you didn't ask, but I see, hear and read some ideas, which if attempted would be really risky.

For just about everything in piloting has a procedure, sometimes a few procedures for the same operation, pick the one you like, but procedures, none the less. Aside from some avionics innovations, I can't really think of a need for a new procedure in flying a certified GA plane - it's been done before, someone has died doing it wrong, it's been refined and documented. Most established procedures are well described in training material. Frequently, there are reasons for these procedures, or limitations within them, which are not evident. So, curious pilots are out there trying things, because they don't know enough yet to realize the other factors in what they're trying, and how they are going to have zero safety margin if the slightest thing goes wrong, where otherwise, the established procedure has adequate, or the most available safety margin build in to it.

When I learned to fly (and the pedestrian means of recording was super 8 movie film), there were not too many stupid things being done in planes to be watched later - a few, but not many... So new pilots had less opportunity to get "ideas" from watching videos. We were happy just to fly the way our instructors taught us, and refine those skills as experience grew. Yes, we'd take on a stronger crosswind with more experience - but the procedure was still the same. We'd land shorter, but the procedure was still the same.

Now, we have endless videos, many, of pilots doing things which are outside the norm of procedures. Most of these pilots seem to get away with it (and then go and try it again :shock: ), perhaps never realizing how close they came to not surviving the first time. And, of course there are new pilots reading here, perhaps taking seriously what some posters postulate. That worries me! I have, during training, had to disappoint a few owner/pilots by explaining that no, they should not be attempting what their imagination presented to them. They just have not imagined yet why it's a bad idea! Thanks to the experienced posters here who will leap to point out that something may be dumb to attempt.

So, if you don't know, ask. If you know, but don't know why, ask. If you imagined up something different, and you have to ask, well... okay, but how about asking: "What is the really good reason that we don't do x instead of y?" There'll be a reason, and someone will explain it!

Happily, I have zero experience and qualification using flight simulator software on my computer, so I won't even speculate if some wild ideas about piloting originate there!

Edited to add:
How many do this? Is it ever taught in schools? Do YOU do this for every type of small A/C you fly? Have you practiced engine out 180+ degree returns to airport using an aerobatic procedure to accomplish the task?
Yes, I have and do practice pitch control failures - because the flight manual for my plane provides a procedure in the POH, which is FAA approved.

Yes, I have landed an airplane with a massive pitch control failure, found during the maintenance check flight I was asked to fly.

Yes, I practice 180 degree gliding returns to touchdown, 'last one three days ago. I have not found aerobatics necessary to accomplish this, I just follow the POH procedure and my training. Demonstrating such power off approaches was a requirement for my helicopter license.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by PilotDAR on Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1047
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Home made procedures

Post by C.W.E. » Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:19 pm

And, of course there are new pilots reading here, perhaps taking seriously what some posters postulate. That worries me! I have, during training, had to disappoint a few owner/pilots by explaining that no, they should not be attempting what their imagination presented to them. They just have not imagined yet why it's a bad idea!
Exactly, glassy water landings " MUST " be done correctly because if you do not do it correctly the end results can and most likely be catastrophic.

Thanks to the experienced posters here who will leap to point out that something may be dumb to attempt.
I feel confident that my background flying sea planes gives me the credibility to comment here in the hope it may help someone resist the urge to try a better method than what we have used for many many decades and when done carefully and using the proper technique it is very safe.

I have done thousands of glassy water landings and there were days I did over a hundred in one day and never had a problem because done correctly they are 100% successful.
---------- ADS -----------
  

jakeandelwood
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:45 pm

Re: Home made procedures

Post by jakeandelwood » Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:07 am

Funny, I knew exactly what post you were talking of when I started reading this. I've always thought the idiotic pilots who post videos of themselves skimming the surface of a lake in an aircraft with tundra tires was about as stupid as you could get. Not only are you doing something high risk, dangerous and completely unnecessary except for entertainment reasons but you're then putting that on the internet for everyone to see including your insurance adjuster.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Meatservo
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2422
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Negative sequencial vortex

Re: Home made procedures

Post by Meatservo » Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:48 am

What the guy in the other post thinks is that he's invented some super-duper way to get as low as you can before crossing a shoreline onto glassy water, with the goal of using as little lake as possible for the landing. He proposes approaching the shoreline with a high angle of attack, slow speed, and high power setting, the way one might if one was attempting to land as short as possible on land. He then proposes, once having approached the shoreline as low and slow as possible, re-configuring to a more conventional attitude for the actual water-landing part. The whole point of his "back side of the power curve" initial approach seems to be to position the aircraft at as low an altitude as possible before getting out over the (invisible) water.

Here's where the logic breaks down: Let's say your typical "glassy water" approach style for your particular plane is flaps twenty, seventy knots, and two hundred feet/min. If'f you're not capable of crossing the shoreline as low as possible IN this configuration, then you surely aren't skillful enough to change your plane's configuration at the last minute, a couple of feet over a surface you can't see. There is simply no point in the whole "back side" first part.

I suppose I might have written this in the other thread and avoided insulting the man, but there is something that gets me a little annoyed about people who make up dangerous and silly procedures and then casually toss them out there along with a description of some high-faluting qualifications they have. Somebody might be inexperienced enough to try it, and that would be a shame.
---------- ADS -----------
  
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself

goldeneagle
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 582
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:28 pm

Re: Home made procedures

Post by goldeneagle » Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:26 am

Meatservo wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:48 am
What the guy in the other post thinks is that he's invented some super-duper way to get as low as you can before crossing a shoreline onto glassy water, with the goal of using as little lake as possible for the landing.
If the lake is that small, then you dont have a glassy problem to begin with, no place to land that doesn't have you close to a shoreline for reference...
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7723
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: Home made procedures

Post by iflyforpie » Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:02 pm

Also... there’s likely few lakes where you’d need to use the back side of the power curve to get into that you’d be able to get out of unless you’ve got a Draco on floats or something.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?

valleyboy
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am

Re: Home made procedures

Post by valleyboy » Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:09 pm

This whole thread is confusing, maybe I flew floats in a simpler time. In my mind only 2 ways to land, power on or power off. Glassy water was always done with visual reference to a shore line or any object for reference. Most piss pot lakes had swampy shore lines so you could get within inches of the ground before over the water. Small lakes with shore lines of trees it was always big enough to establish a glassy water landing configuration. Oh ya with no instruments trying to quote pitch angles and rates of decent was still by the ass of your pants. It's like on windy days, look for the biggest gust and land in it dead stick.
---------- ADS -----------
  

digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2157
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Home made procedures

Post by digits_ » Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:36 pm

PilotDAR wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:26 pm
For just about everything in piloting has a procedure, sometimes a few procedures for the same operation, pick the one you like, but procedures, none the less. Aside from some avionics innovations, I can't really think of a need for a new procedure in flying a certified GA plane - it's been done before, someone has died doing it wrong, it's been refined and documented. Most established procedures are well described in training material.
Yes and no. Someone had to be the first to try out a procedure or come up with the idea. Maybe there is a more efficient or optimal way of doing something, that we have been doing for years. Don't forget that aviation is a fairly young industry, a lot has changed in just over a hunderd years. So people exploring new procedures is part of the journey and/or appeal for some. Try out new things.

That doesn't mean everything that pops in your head should be attempted without some logical thinking.

The glassy water technique that was suggested by the poster definitely sounded "original" to say the least, and it did look like a terrible idea to try.

The waterskiing with tundra tires as mentioned in a post in this topic, could be described as a terrible idea as well, but then you realize people are actually using the water as an extended sort of runway to land on short sand banks. It happens fairly often, and with good success rates. That makes that activity justifiable as a means of practicing "touching down on the water with wheels" if you wish.

Then you are evolving into the discussion as to what kind of risk you are willing to accept. The sterotypical grumpy city airline pilot might find short strip operations on gravel ludicrous, the corporate jet operator might find off strip activities dangerous, the borek pilots could find waterskiing insane, and the alaska bush pilot hopping around sand banks might wonder why anyone would every go skydiving, etc. As long as anyone involved know the risks, and they don't put other people in danger, I don't mind people trying out new "procedures" if you wish.

Is any of that stuff really necessary? Not really. Is flying in itself really necessary? Not really.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Heliian
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1465
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: Home made procedures

Post by Heliian » Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:40 pm

digits_ wrote:
Wed Jul 17, 2019 1:36 pm
PilotDAR wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 7:26 pm
For just about everything in piloting has a procedure, sometimes a few procedures for the same operation, pick the one you like, but procedures, none the less. Aside from some avionics innovations, I can't really think of a need for a new procedure in flying a certified GA plane - it's been done before, someone has died doing it wrong, it's been refined and documented. Most established procedures are well described in training material.
Yes and no. Someone had to be the first to try out a procedure or come up with the idea. Maybe there is a more efficient or optimal way of doing something, that we have been doing for years. Don't forget that aviation is a fairly young industry, a lot has changed in just over a hunderd years. So people exploring new procedures is part of the journey and/or appeal for some. Try out new things.

That doesn't mean everything that pops in your head should be attempted without some logical thinking.

The glassy water technique that was suggested by the poster definitely sounded "original" to say the least, and it did look like a terrible idea to try.

The waterskiing with tundra tires as mentioned in a post in this topic, could be described as a terrible idea as well, but then you realize people are actually using the water as an extended sort of runway to land on short sand banks. It happens fairly often, and with good success rates. That makes that activity justifiable as a means of practicing "touching down on the water with wheels" if you wish.

Then you are evolving into the discussion as to what kind of risk you are willing to accept. The sterotypical grumpy city airline pilot might find short strip operations on gravel ludicrous, the corporate jet operator might find off strip activities dangerous, the borek pilots could find waterskiing insane, and the alaska bush pilot hopping around sand banks might wonder why anyone would every go skydiving, etc. As long as anyone involved know the risks, and they don't put other people in danger, I don't mind people trying out new "procedures" if you wish.

Is any of that stuff really necessary? Not really. Is flying in itself really necessary? Not really.
And Alaska has the highest accident rate in North America, if not the world for a reason.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
---------- ADS -----------
  

GhostRider6
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:14 am

Re: Home made procedures

Post by GhostRider6 » Wed Jul 17, 2019 6:18 pm

This ...

I tried to teach myself mountain biking a few years back... the results were less than ideal..

In the end, I usually take a few lessons per year to refine things... My propensity dropped off nicely .. when I start to get lackadaisical/ have a long day / or push too far beyond my skill set I usually have a wake up call..and I get bit

I see flying similar in many ways..

Generally, there’s a way of doing things professionally / properly and I feel like learning the proper way reduces risk and increases safety margins . Chances are, someone before me has done the exact same thing and got bit too...

Guess that’s why it’s called professional piloting...

Like riding a mountain biking I’m always trying to improve , up my game and learn the safest and most efficient way of doing things.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2907
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Home made procedures

Post by PilotDAR » Wed Jul 17, 2019 7:39 pm

One of the things I see too frequently, which terrify me are amateur pilots flying "STOL" takeoffs, which then continue into very steep, slow climbouts, where there is no obstacle. Sure, your STOL plane (and yes, I have one) can leave the ground in an impressively short distance, but once you've escaped earth, climbing away at that silly slow speed for no reason other than to show off is just huge risk with no benefit.

Sure, if there's an obstacle ahead, climb away at Vx, until it's cleared, and then accelerate to Vy. But otherwise, flying at low altitude, even climbing, slower than Vy, is exposing yourself to a huge risk in the case of an engine failure. Most flight manuals provide a speed to climb away at following takeoff, and it may be a speed faster that you expect. 'Good chance that speed is not a "best climb" speed, but closer to a speed from which an entry to a gliding forced landing ahead can be safely made. It's sad, but for fixed wing airplanes, there is not requirement to declare an "avoid curve" as a helicopter flight manual is required to present. But airplanes are subject to these laws of physics similarly to helicopters. Published procedures (a climb away speed) are presented to promote safety - but pilots are not told why.

As I work through aircraft certification, and listen to wise advice of my mentors, I realize that procedures are already in place, which are there to promote safe flying. Inventing your own may overlook important elements that you just have not thought of...
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2907
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Home made procedures

Post by PilotDAR » Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:49 pm

My reply to corethatthermal's post from the other thread:
Trying to modify your statements after the fact by implying that you were referring to a final glassy water landing is disingenuous in the least!
I did not try to modify, nor modify my statement, it stands as written: I have, on rare occasions, flown a back side of the power curve approach to a runway and water landing, and consider that to be of higher risk, but needed in that case. I have never, and would never consider, flying a back side of the power curve approach at any point where a glassy water approach were appropriate, the transition would be entirely destabilizing, and defeat the whole purpose of flying a very stable approach to the glassy water!
.....the coordinated use of controls (transition) to come out of a spin (unstable ) and finally the recovery (stable) AND we practiced those for decades and no one laughed at us !
On the topic of spins;

We practiced them for decades, and there were so many accidents, the authorities progressively reduced actual spin training in the name of maintaining safety in training.

The dive following a spin recovery cannot be considered "stable". The accelerations associated can make it distinctly unstable. The fact that many single engine planes are not able to be spin approved is more a matter of the difficulty in keeping within limitations during the recovery dive, than stopping the rotation and getting the nose down - though those are also factors. During spin testing I did in a modified Cessna Grand Caravan years back, the repeatable and compliant recovery dive reached very near Vne, and more than 2 G's (yes, I had an accelerometer installed for reference during the flight testing.) Though compliant with the design requirements for spinning, this could hardly be considered stable, nor suitable for pilots of average skill. I demonstrated that the modified Caravan was approvable for the requirements of a spins prohibited plane, but it was not a stable recovery.

I read corethatthermal's replies and steer my mind through the indirect thought paths to try to find meaning. I compare that to POH's, flight manuals, training material, and the flight manual supplements which I submit for approval by TC. It is of the highest importance that the procedures in the descriptive material for the aircraft, and for training in general, be clear, direct, brief, and unambiguous. Use as few words as possible to convey the idea correctly, and don't go off on tangents, nor into the weeds. Similarly, effective mentoring from one pilot to another, should not have the recipient having to think their way through an irregular path of diverging thoughts, conditions, and other unrelated topics. If I were right seat to a pilot who was giving me a briefing such as some of what I have read in corethatthermal's posts, I think that I would decline that flight. I just could not be confident that I understood what was intended, nor how it was compliant and safe.

If, with the luxury of time and quiet at the computer, information I consider about piloting really does not fit, it really won't fit when things are going wrong in the cockpit. Our industry best serves itself by uniting around established procedures for whatever is being done. Even flight testing to establish new procedures, has established procedures as to how to do it! Mentor the new pilot to expect a clear and understandable procedure from an authoritative source.

Perhaps, as C.W.E. opines, corethatthermal is a troll who is trying to wind me up... I don't know core's motivation. And, I'm not wound up. I'm just repeating what I have said before: Understand and apply the existing written procedure, don't try to invent your own. And, treat anonymous internet posts with great caution, they may be worth no more than you paid for them. In the old days, it was learning to discern if Ace McCool around the flying club was really skilled, or just really lucky, before you took to heart what he said. Now, people have to make those determinations about internet posts. 'Just a new skill to be learned to sift the wheat from the chaff....
---------- ADS -----------
  

C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1047
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: Home made procedures

Post by C.W.E. » Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:05 pm

Perhaps, as C.W.E. opines, corethatthermal is a troll who is trying to wind me up...
The more I go back and read his/her posts I am left with two possible scenarios as to the reasons behind the weird delivery and even weirder ideas about how to fly, either he/she is a troll or he/she is totally ignorant of the subject being discussed.
---------- ADS -----------
  

corethatthermal
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Home made procedures

Post by corethatthermal » Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:26 pm

The dive following a spin recovery cannot be considered "stable"
Perhaps a better word is "predictable"

If an aerobatic pilot does 10 loops or 10 rolls in a row, all pretty much identical and well within limits, I would consider the maneuver predictable, safe and stable but not stable according to the aviation meaning of the term "stabilized approach" from where we get our root word stable

"A stabilized approach is one in which the pilot establishes and maintains a constant angle glidepath towards a predetermined point on the landing runway. It is based on the pilot's judgment of certain visual clues, and depends on the maintenance of a constant final descent airspeed and configuration."
---------- ADS -----------
  

Schooner69A
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: The Okanagan

Re: Home made procedures

Post by Schooner69A » Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:48 pm

"A stabilized approach.... etc"

And then the pilot destabilizes the approach by slowing to touchdown speed.

(;>0)
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2907
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Home made procedures

Post by PilotDAR » Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:49 pm

Is it the 60 degree bank and 30 degree pitch exceedance that may be erroneously thought of as aerobatic flight?
I agree, I think I agree that exceeding 60B 30P is considered aerobatic by regulation.
If doing a 70 degree bank and stuffing the nose down gets me back to the runway safely, I would do that. Is it classified as an aerobatic maneuver? I don't know.
Egads! 70 bank in a gliding turn to a forced approach! I hope that I would have chosen a spot in a better position, as I was trained to do, and procedures state.
If an aerobatic pilot does 10 loops or 10 rolls in a row, all pretty much identical and well within limits, I would consider the maneuver predictable, safe and stable.....
I would too...
"A stabilized approach is one in which the pilot establishes and maintains a constant angle glidepath towards a predetermined point on the landing runway. It is based on the pilot's judgment of certain visual clues, and depends on the maintenance of a constant final descent airspeed and configuration."
A very worthwhile observation in this context. I was trained to fly a stabilized approach which included a 180 degree turn from downwind to touchdown. I believe that such an approach can be considered "stabilized" even though there is a constant heading change. I believe it is stable, because the heading change is constant and stable in and of itself. But there are those who would state that an approach should be one a single heading to be stable. I can see the argument going both ways. Photofly???

A 180 degree heading change power off approach is described in the TC airplane and helicopter standards, so it's an approved procedure, I guess the discussion would be is it considered "stable" if smoothly executed?
---------- ADS -----------
  

corethatthermal
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Home made procedures

Post by corethatthermal » Sat Jul 20, 2019 9:47 pm

Every float pilot KNOWS that there must be a transition from a normal approach to a glassy water approach. (You do not start a glassy approach from 2000 feet above the lake surface.)
Every wise pilot knows that this transition must be complete and the approach stabilized BEFORE there is any possible uncertainty about your float height above the smooth water.
Whether your glassy water approach technique is stabilized BEFORE you lose height above water certainty ( like over known 50 foot high trees ) OR whether you rely on a combination of timing from a known fixed height ( tower top) and/or altimeter, comparing it to a known lake elevation, ( repeated flights the same day ) you MUST be stabilized at a point where there is complete safety and no uncertainty as to how high you are above the lake surface.
I would not fault a pilot IF all the safety criteria is met and the pilot is using a backside initial approach as a tool for increased safety !

When I used a marshy area on a small lake to judge height, I naturally transitioned into a slightly backside approach over the weeds ( drag it in) in order to provide the exact pitch ( float) angle . Weeds will get you down close but you are most likely landing on glassy water, so a transition to glassy water technique is unwise at this low of an altitude going towards smooth weedless water! That is WHY your final approach in THIS specific circumstance is on the backside ( not far into the backside but slightly into the backside. In this condition, ground effect and the forward pitch is lessened and you have much less need for a higher descent rate that is found in a glassy approach due to float ( ground effect) Your throttle is basically the only tool in the shed for the job at this point.

A normal glassy water approach in a stabilized condition has the throttle AND pitch "locked" and at touchdown, the throttle comes off and the "stick" comes back 3.7 inches ( a specific amount on a specific A/C under the same conditions) I used to have my students hold the control yoke shaft against the panel with their fist to demonstrate and to stop them from changing pitch and my hand was over the throttle
---------- ADS -----------
  

corethatthermal
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Home made procedures

Post by corethatthermal » Sat Jul 20, 2019 9:51 pm

ASK "I fly for pie" what he did when he had an engine failure in the C-182 after take-off. I flew with him for 2 summers.
---------- ADS -----------
  

corethatthermal
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Home made procedures

Post by corethatthermal » Sat Jul 20, 2019 10:01 pm

I believe that such an approach can be considered "stabilized" even though there is a constant heading change. I believe it is stable, because the heading change is constant and stable in and of itself. But there are those who would state that an approach should be one a single heading to be stable. I can see the argument going both ways.
For the IFR types, A gps curved approach or FD vectored approach should be considered a stabilized approach, otherwise, how would it be approved?

When is an approach both stabilized and unstabilized ( unwanted power/pitch changes ) and be acceptable? Under mod/high turbulence ?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2907
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Home made procedures

Post by PilotDAR » Sun Jul 21, 2019 4:19 am

I would not fault a pilot IF all the safety criteria is met and the pilot is using a backside initial approach as a tool for increased safety !
If the backside approach speed is slower than the airplane manufacturer's recommended short field approach speed, approaching at that speed is not as safe as flying at the recommended speed - that's why it's recommended. Flying on the back side is not as safe as the normal faster approach, in the case of engine failure, for example. If there is a determination that the backside approach is needed to get down and stopped in a very sport landing area, perhaps the pilot has chosen an area too short for the conditions, and thus it is less safe.

I'm not saying that a back side approach cannot be flown, but they cannot be proposed as being a tool for increased safety - they are less safe than not trying to land into a too small place. The flight manual provides speeds, and perhaps landing distances, and if you're flying at less than those, you're less safe. If you're flying less safe, you could have to explain to the TSB, insurance adjusters, and your spouse why you were doing that - was it really worth it?
Every float pilot KNOWS that there must be a transition from a normal approach to a glassy water approach. (You do not start a glassy approach from 2000 feet above the lake surface.)
Every wise pilot knows that this transition must be complete and the approach stabilized BEFORE there is any possible uncertainty about your float height above the smooth water.
Agreed.

So let's say that the lowest safe altitude for the completion of the transition to the glassy water approach is just above shoreline treetop height. And, it will take a few hundred feet for completion of transition from normal to glassy water approach. Prior to descending to the
top
of transition to glassy water approach, what advantage would there be in flying that part of the approach on the backside of the power curve? It's less safe to do that [than flying the recommended speed] in case of engine failure, the air may be less stable up there, further reducing ease of flying on the back side with some safety, and back there on the approach you have more options to adjust your approach within the description of a "normal" approach. Why not just fly the recommended procedure?
---------- ADS -----------
  

corethatthermal
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Home made procedures

Post by corethatthermal » Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:21 am

I agree with everything you say !
And, it will take a few hundred feet for completion of transition
If i can recall, the transition involves a pitch up to the proper attitude, then power adjustment to obtain the correct descent rate. I don't recall transition taking a few hundred feet.

BTW, where on the LD curve is an established glassy water approach?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2907
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Home made procedures

Post by PilotDAR » Sun Jul 21, 2019 12:40 pm

BTW, where on the LD curve is an established glassy water approach?
The front.
---------- ADS -----------
  

corethatthermal
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Home made procedures

Post by corethatthermal » Sun Jul 21, 2019 1:58 pm

Most piss pot lakes had swampy shore lines so you could get within inches of the ground before over the water. Small lakes with shore lines of trees it was always big enough to establish a glassy water landing configuration. Oh ya with no instruments trying to quote pitch angles and rates of decent was still by the ass of your pants
Do IFR pilots fly by the "ass of their pants" until they touch something firm?

You are not talking about a standard glassy water approach above.

Under identical conditions, pitch and power will give you a certain descent rate but what if 1 day you are empty and another day you are at gross ?

Once stabilized, a glance at the VSI will provide you with information as to whether you need to add or reduce power
Out in the lake with NO references to height, your only option is to establish touchdown attitude then adjust power for the proper descent rate, too little and you burn up distance and float when entering ground effect, necessitating a powered down flare! ( now, it's no longer a glassy water landing ) Too much descent rate and you stand a chance of A/C damage or nosing over from a bad pilot reaction .
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2907
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: Home made procedures

Post by PilotDAR » Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:05 am

Elsewhere (my bold);
...........I have introduced many simulations on check-outs I have given and I never hear that these specifically were being done in other places. I also do not recall that anyone was displeased although some were a little feather ruffled!.................

.........

This cracker is going to get someone killed. I don't think that requires any explanation.
I read that a person providing "training" is introducing "procedures" which that person believes are not trained anywhere else. This is a problem. It's kinda like "watch this" spoken in the cockpit. Why is the trainer not content to train to established procedures? Is the trainer aware of the peripheral safety factors which may reduced safety of their "home made" procedure, compared to the industry accepted procedure? Are these differences being briefed before the training? Is anything being briefed before the training? Training candidates have a right to expect their trainers to base the training on standardized procedures, most importantly for training safety, but also importantly, so that the training that they have received will be accepted in their next piloting environment (employer/insurer/TC/peers).

This goes to the heart of this topic: Students, your training should be briefed before it is flown, and the base procedures to which that training will be conducted, and the standard of success should be clear. If the trainer cannot show you in accepted training publications and the flight manual, the basis for the proposed training, you should question it!

As for moderation, this website is not a nation, or a political inclusion/exclusion area, it is a private "place" where the host may accept, or not, the conduct of participants. The fact that someone is able to type out whatever they want does not entitle them to post it wherever they want. Short of reporting posts suggesting piloting habits I know to be very high risk, I am powerless to delete the posts (here), but I sure have the ability to serve other pilots by posting to them my mentoring that they should be very cautious when considering some posted information.

I've done my share of not so bright things as a pilot. Where it can serve to mentor and educate, I have sometimes posted about it. The only time I was ever hurt in a plane, the training was exactly by the book, in ideal conditions, with a briefing and a briefed escape plan. Nothing is prefect, but we must try our best....
---------- ADS -----------
  

corethatthermal
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:27 pm

Re: Home made procedures

Post by corethatthermal » Mon Jul 22, 2019 9:53 am

I read that a person providing "training" is introducing "procedures" which that person believes are not trained anywhere else
.

This is what I mean, nothing to do with procedures.
I have set up MANY students for a sim. forced approach, where the ONLY POSSIBLE SUCCESSFUL reaction to an immediate engine failure is to IMMEDIATELY turn HARD towards the most suitable landing spot and then figure out what the hell is happening! I have NEVER seen a student ( 100 hr or 10000 hr) do the only right thing. When they finally turned, most never "made" the field. MANY have thanked me for the very realistic check-outs I have provided for them.
Mind you, these are check-outs, not training 30 hr students I am speaking about. I include within the check-out, a scenario like the above to encourage the pilot to think about his/her own currency and in providing a real world scenario, I am hoping to instill a mindset of constant thinking of " what should I do now and how do I do it" Below 1000 feet on take-off , the pilot automatically knows every second his/her options of a dead stick landing, if not, are they a really good pilot or just along for the "accident"
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”