hey, that's my job!!!! I not only endanger myself but everyone else in Southern Alberta when I fly!niss wrote: but the fact remains that when I'm flying it's always life or death.
Okay, you're in Onterrible, I suppose I could use the help there
LF
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
hey, that's my job!!!! I not only endanger myself but everyone else in Southern Alberta when I fly!niss wrote: but the fact remains that when I'm flying it's always life or death.
A little thread drift... The CPL standard seems to be a lazy default for the insurer. Yes, if you have access to a CPL who is willing and suitably experienced, that pilot could be a good choice. However, the better choice could be a PPL who has a lot of experience and total flying time, particularly if the aircraft type is uncommon. I earned my CPL more than three decades after being a PPL, and only because I was requested to have a CPL for flying I was requested to do. Prior to having the CPL, I donated my time for many checkouts over the decades, because I had the experience on type, and was locally available. Insurers seemed fine with that. A recently licensed CPL with low experience, and perhaps little on type might not be your best choice.the insurance company are looking for a checkride with a CPL or higher who is familiar with the type.
Don't become too hung up on sight picture. Yes, seeing where you are going is important, but as long as you can see where you are going, learn to understand where the plane is going, over where you see it could go. All certified aircraft meet the requirements for visibility, and they are presented for certifiers in great detail. Some aircraft meet them with what seems to be little excess (Piper Cheyenne II, and DC-3 come to mind), other types with lots (Partinavia Observer, for example). Then there are the taildraggers whose sight pictures change when the tail wheel is down (Cessna 180/185, Stearman or Harvard, for example). And types whose sight picture is really poor at certain phases of flight (most high wing aircraft during a more steep turn to base or final). All of these types meet the requirement for pilot visibility, and are indeed fine to land (though taxiing the taildraggers demands lots of attention), but their sight pictures are different. If I had my way, no high wing aircraft would be certified without skylights, but that's another discussion).since the sight picture on final is radically different from a Cherokee or a 172.
"Stabilized" is a term which can be understood different ways in the context of an approach. I could fly at a constant heading (aligned with the runway centerline ), constant speed, and constant descent rate, and we would all call that stabilized. If I fly a constant rate turn from downwind, through base, to final, straightening out just back of the threshold, with a steady rate of descent, and speed slowing uniformly to the flare, would that be a stabilized approach?And you should always trim the plane for a good approach speed and keep the approach stabilized, in any kind of airplane.
I disagree. What you want is the view of the landing attitude which is the view you have just before the wheels touch. The view you have at the start of the takeoff roll is most definitely not the view you want to see when the wheels touch,photofly wrote:The best way to get a visual appreciation of the landing view is to take a good hard look at things just before you begin the takeoff roll.
"stabilized" approach has unfortunately become a some what debased term. Strictly speaking stabilized approach criteria only apply to large airplanes. Their large levels of inertia mean that deviations from the ideal speed and approach path can't be quickly corrected and can quickly escalate into a dangerous situation. This why all major air carriers have stabilized approach criteria and any significant deviation from those criteria requires a mandatoryAnd you should always trim the plane for a good approach speed and keep the approach stabilized, in any kind of airplane
I didn't say it was the same view. I said it was the best way to get a good appreciation of what the landing view should be.Big Pistons Forever wrote:I disagree. What you want is the view of the landing attitude which is the view you have just before the wheels touch. The view you have at the start of the takeoff roll is most definitely not the view you want to see when the wheels touch,photofly wrote:The best way to get a visual appreciation of the landing view is to take a good hard look at things just before you begin the takeoff roll.
I have to say I am struggling to see what value noting the attitude of the airplane when it is sitting on all three wheels with the oleo's compressed, has. It won't be the correct attitude for lift off and it will be unobtainable for touchdown unless you touchdown nose wheel first. I guess I am missing something so please explain.photofly wrote:I didn't say it was the same view. I said it was the best way to get a good appreciation of what the landing view should be.Big Pistons Forever wrote:I disagree. What you want is the view of the landing attitude which is the view you have just before the wheels touch. The view you have at the start of the takeoff roll is most definitely not the view you want to see when the wheels touch,photofly wrote:The best way to get a visual appreciation of the landing view is to take a good hard look at things just before you begin the takeoff roll.
I stand by what I said.
My comments were specifically in response to the poster "lhalliday's" situation which was making the transition to flying a different but common tricycle geared trainer/tourer. For a tailwheel aircraft the taxi attitude is the landing attitude as I always start with 3 point landings in light taildraggers and therefore I most definitely get the student to recognize that attitude before we go flying and in fact make a note of reminding the student that he/she should make a point of reminding him/herself of the sight picture when they line up for takeoff as that is what they are looking for at touchdown.PilotDAR wrote:
If a taildragger or flying boat, it's going to be just as Photofly says, the landing attitude is the pre takeoff attitude. With those landings eye height, and feeling down the last foot or two becomes critical to a precise landing. (This knowing that I default to wheel landing taildraggers).
Good for you !lhalliday wrote:Last fall for fun I played with a Citabria.
That's precisely what I didn't say. I said that the best way to get an idea of what the view should be on landing is to consider the view before takeoff. I didn't say the views are the same on landing as before takeoff, and I didn't say anything specifically about attitude.PilotDAR wrote:If a taildragger or flying boat, it's going to be just as Photofly says, the landing attitude is the pre takeoff attitude.
This definitely does give you a fair idea of the eye-to-wheel height. Not generally a large difference in this for different GA types but a major factor when moving from large aircraft to smaller ones. Think of an Air Canada captain who decided to buy himself a Cherokee.photofly wrote:That's precisely what I didn't say. I said that the best way to get an idea of what the view should be on landing is to consider the view before takeoff. I didn't say the views are the same on landing as before takeoff, and I didn't say anything specifically about attitude.PilotDAR wrote:If a taildragger or flying boat, it's going to be just as Photofly says, the landing attitude is the pre takeoff attitude.
The view depends on altitude too - if you want to avoid flaring 50' too high in a GA plane or trying to drive the aircraft through the runway, take a look at the runway environment before you take off.
You can reach the correct attitude for landing a tricycle-gear GA aircraft by rounding out to wheels parallel with the ground at an appropriate height and airspeed (so almost the same view as you had when starting the takeoff roll) and holding the aircraft off by raising the nose as it slows down.
I wasn't thinking about tail-draggers at the time but I'll leave PilotDAR's comments on that.
I always practiced three point landings in every tail wheel airplane I ever flew right up to the C117, the Beech 18 was easy to three point if you can't keep the thing on the runway in the three point attitude you should not be flying it in my personal opinion.and I would never 3 point something like a Beech 18 or any other heavy multi engine tail dragger.
That is an interesting comment. I also note on Jan 8 2016 you made the following postCat Driver wrote:I always practiced three point landings in every tail wheel airplane I ever flew right up to the C117, the Beech 18 was easy to three point if you can't keep the thing on the runway in the three point attitude you should not be flying it in my personal opinion.and I would never 3 point something like a Beech 18 or any other heavy multi engine tail dragger.
So I guess we are in agreement after allCat Driver wrote:Yup, same here and for many thousands of hours.Damn -- I guess things change - we always landed 2 point from cub to DC3 and everything in between. Much better control -- even taxi except when coming to the final stop the tail ski was in the air, especially in deep snow and slush conditions.
But apparently we were taught wrong and did it wrong.