Parachute will not substitute good training What do you think?
Good training is needed with or without a parachute. The parachute does not land the plane for you under normal circumstances.
In reply to:
The airplane touched down around 85 to 90 knots…
What’s wrong with THAT picture.
It’s amazing how musch less dramatic things are with a 60k (or less) touchdown.
There’s a reason I emphasize that for my students.
Let’s give the pilot the benefit of the doubt and assume he doesn’t always land like that!
Yet another of Radek’s scams to get hits counted for his web site…
In reply to:
The pilot slowed the airplane to approximately 100 knots, set the flaps to 100 percent, and continued to follow the PAPI to touchdown. The airplane touched down around 85 to 90 knots, left of centerline, and bounced once before departing the left side of the runway.
It’s not just the touchdown speed, it’s the approach speed as well. You have to have a stableized 80 knots over the fence and slowing as you approach the numbers.
I haven’t seen any other sources for this accident but the emphasis on the PAPI seems to indicate that the pilot thought he could just fly the 3 degree path and it would all work out fine. It seems to appear that the approach was flown at 100 kts. until the very end and touchdown occurred shortly after whatever deaccellaration occurred. The fact that the plane bounced is not surprising, since 85 to 90 knots is still flying speed and the “touchdown” did nothing except to perturb the flying path. The fact that the bounce was to the left simply indicates that the plane was probably drifting to the left before the touchdown, bounced and continued to drift left once the flying speed disappated.
Also not discussed is the effect a night landing. Airspeed has got to be even more tightly controlled and a stableized approach is even more important at night.
The parachute has nothing to do with this accident. The real headline should have something to do with the failure to go around if the approach is not going well.
This one was not going well in 2 out of 3 particulars:
-
The approach speed was way out of range at 100 knots.
-
The approach was not stable in runway allignment. The plane touched down left of centerline and was apparently moving left at the time of touchdown.
-
The only thing that appears to be on target was the approach path. The pilot presumably was on the PAPI approach slope guidance.
However, with only 1 of 3 under control, the solution was to go around, fly the pattern and make another approach.
The second approach would give a chance to start at 100 kts. downwind abeam with 50% flaps and then fly a downwind at 100 base at 90 and final at 80 like the pilot was presumably taught at some point. With a night landing I might fly a little bit longer downwind so as to have a little longer final to get everything stabelized before I got to the runway.
The emphasis on the parachute is misplaced. This accident could just as easily have occurred in a Money, Bonanza, Cessna or Piper all of which will bounce just fine if forced to touchdown at 85 to 90 knots.
The focus of this article should be along the line of being prepared to do a go around if the approach does not look right and being aware of the special problems of night landings. Something along the lines of GO AROUND IF IT DOES NOT LOOK RIGHT, ESPECIALLY AT NIGHT might be a better title.
If you were slowing and passing 80 knots over the fence and stabelized both vertically and horizontally and the engine is at idle, the proper technique, particularly in the Cirrus is to try and not touch down. Don’t worry about the runway length at this point. This airport apparently had plenty of runway. Just try and keep it flying 1 foot off of the runway and it will touchdown like Ed says at 60 or less. I don’t actually know my touchdown speeds as I am not
watching the airspeed indicator at that stage of the landing, but it has to be 60 knots or less since I frequently hear the stall warner.
In reply to:
Parachute will not substitute good training What do you think?
Nor is it intended to! Are autopliots supposed to substitute for training? Are seat belts and airbags substitutes for driving skills? Are ejection seats substitutes for airmanship? Are live jackets substitutes for seamanship?
Safety devices are to SAVE LIVES. They are not designed or intended to remove responsibility from the pilot (driver or captain).
I think that the headline is the product of a lazy opportunist who indicates his prejudice and uses unrelated issues to further his own interest.
I think that that it is intellectually dishonest.
I think that the guy giving instruction should know more about flying and good flying judgement than his marketing and skills and judgement.
There’s another element in this story that exists in many botched takeoffs or landings. it’s about when knowing to stick to your original decision, even if perhaps it was a bit flawed.
This fellow obviously was too fast…probably decided to add to extra speed because of the weight…but what really caused the damage seems to be the failed attempt to go around after he was already in the grass…that shot of extra power he gave it and then cancelled, I would bet, is what sent the plane on into the truck, etc.
Reminds me of the plane a few years back that crashed at Catalina Island…the hump in the runway fooled the pilot about how much runway remained, so very late in the landing process, he changed his mind and decided to take off again, only to go over the hump, see all the additional runway and chop power again. By then he was too fast, and went over the edge of the cliff, killing everyone aboard. Should have either committed to his original landing (having some advance knowledge of the runway conditions would have made this easier), or at least committed to his late go-around decision. But he changed his mind twice (go-around, cancel go-around) and so it was his wishy washy decision making that actually caused the accident.
In reply to:
I think that the headline is the product of a lazy opportunist who indicates his prejudice and uses unrelated issues to further his own interest.
I think that that it is intellectually dishonest.
I think that the guy giving instruction should know more about flying and good flying judgement than his marketing and skills and judgement.
I think that I agree with you completely ---- you only left out the descriptive word COWARD !
His theft of COPA membership email addresses, and backanded marketing expose him as the slime of the industry, in my opinion