Angled Cross Wind Landing:

I'll let Contact do the commentary and critique, but here are a few of my thoughts: Pick your imaginary centerline and lock on to a visible reference (the big airplane touchdown marker in this case) and stick with it through the landing. If you are trying to adjust your imaginary centerline (instead of your airplane) at the last second to accommodate an unexpected angle you don't have time to set up a mental lock, and are more likely to land with some sideways movement. Be keyed up for the go-around if it is not working out. I usually turn back toward the real centerline on roll out too, this can actually help because you are pushing the tail into the wind with the downwind rudder.

I agree with CFOT, I have been calling him Shannon, on sticking with the aiming point.

Proficiency and currency in the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach really comes in handy here. We don't want to limit flaps, if we have them use them. We don't want to add airspeed for headwind and gusts. We just move the throttle, as needed, to maintain glide angle. With faster airplanes, we can turn down the runway when near the upwind big airplane touchdown zone marking. With slower airplanes and a significant headwind component of the crosswind, we may be much slower than what appears to be a brisk walk. Hang in there. We don't want to go backwards, but slow groundspeed is desirable. With nose wheel airplanes, we have to take care not to touch down nose wheel first. The greater the headwind, the flatter the pitch attitude to maintain the same apparent brisk walk. Also, the airspeed will be higher. Ignor that; we are concerned with apparent rate and groundspeed is slow.

CFOT wrote:Here is an Apparent Rate approach to a hilltop, and a couple rudder turns. We call this hilltop "The Carrier Deck", and I like the perspective it offers because you can focus on the rate of closure to the hilltop aiming point without all the other distraction of the ground moving under and around you. The rudder turns were thrown in just for fun...don't go out and do this stuff without some quality training, scout the area thoroughly, plan your maneuvers carefully, and stay waaay ahead of the airplane. As basic as it looks, it is very easy to get yourself into trouble quickly with no options. ...

Thanks for this video. I can see that one has to be very careful with rudder turns in ground effect in that type of terrain. Thanks for the warning.

But does this apply to the Apparent Rate approach also? If so, what are the gotchas?

Blue skies,

Tom

Tom,

As with any maneuver or technique, we have to fly the airplane. Using elevator to keep the apparent brisk walk rate of closure until touchdown will cause the airplane to be at or slightly below Vso on touchdown on the numbers. While not dangerous, this is quite different than rounding out over the numbers. We have to get used to being slower than 1.3 approaching the desired touchdown point.

In windy conditions with large gust spread, we will need to use the throttle a lot more than in steady wind. We may want to apply full throttle, in a sink, and then adjust or close the throttle, in a balloon, and then adjust.

When we approach fast, round out, and hold off, we encounter the same problems. They just happen much further down the runway where concerns about getting stopped also come into play. The apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach allows us to get down softly on the beginning of the landing zone without having to drag it in. Win win.

Jim

TommyN wrote:

But does this apply to the Apparent Rate approach also? If so, what are the gotchas?

Blue skies,

Tom

I feel that the AR approach offers some advantages over other methods, here is how it was explained to me:

In a stabilized approach, you are basically committing yourself to a fixed (low) airspeed and glide angle all the way in. To do this, you are making some assumptions about what the conditions might be down close to the ground, and setting yourself up accordingly, then flying down through what might be varying wind conditions at a fairly slow airspeed while continuously looking inside at your ASI for pitch corrections, and back out at your aiming point for power corrections. Then when you get there, you have to worry about timing the flair, and slowing for touchdown before you over run your touchdown point or run out of room.

Another method I was taught is to drag it in behind the power curve at slow speed, and then pull the power at your desired touchdown point. This works well, but has its own set of risks...especially in an airplane that has no extra power to begin with.

The AR approach lets you start the approach with more control at a higher airspeed, and other than a cursory glance at the ASI you have the touchdown point in sight the whole time, with airspeed info being fed to you by the perceived approach rate and the AOA you are seeing out of the corner of your eye (also by the feel of the controls, how the air sounds, etc.). Your glide angle need not be constant, and can be adjusted easily as you descend. In a purely power off AR approach, you would start with a relatively steep glide that would become progressively shallower all the way to the touchdown point where you would arrive with the airplane already in the landing attitude and ready to quit flying. When combined with the use of power as needed (also flaps and slipping), you have excellent control and adaptability over the whole process.

Here is a steeper AR approach:



To eliminate the Gotcha's...: Get comfortable flying the plane by outside reference. Go up high and practice guessing your airspeed by the angle your wing makes with the horizon. Practice stalls (without looking inside) and really pay attention to what the controls feel like, and what your angle of attack looks like where the wing meets the horizon. What does the airplane sound like as you get slower? Fly down the runway as low and slow as you possibly can without touching down. Practice power on slow flight at high AOA. Practice go arounds in different configurations and conditions. Practice as much as you can and be completely comfortable before you go out and commit yourself to something that is too short, or doesn't offer a go around. Identify the point at which a go around is no longer an option and never hesitate to break it off if things aren't working out, this can be a point on the approach to a one way strip, or a point on the run out of a short touchdown zone. When landing somewhere new, or that you haven't been to for a while, make as many practice approaches as you need to get comfortable.

Good explanation CFOT. The power off spot landing is good practice for engine failure. It is much harder than any power /pitch approach including the apparent rate approach. Without power, we have to control both glide angle and apparent rate of closure with elevator. We should learn the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach using power to control glide angle and elevator to control apparent rate. When we get as good as CFOT, using power, then we might work on power off apparent rate of closure approaches.

As I continue to study the Brisk Walk Apparent Rate of Closure approach, I researched a bit and found the following:

Slow Walk = Steepest Descent

Normal Walk = Medium Descent

Brisk Walk = Shallowest Descent

Any thoughts on the above? Thanks

Blue skies,

Tom

I have been noodling with the numbers for a 1/2 mi. pattern, applying this to my home field, KCMA. TPA is 800 ft. AGL. By 1/2 mi. pattern I mean that downwind is offset 1/2 mi. from the runway and from my IP point of the numbers to base is 1/2 mi. I fly a 1977Q Cessna 182 modified with the Petersen nose canard and fuel injected 260 HP IO-470. Vso is 35 kts. As the nose canard lifts with prop blast, unloading the hor. stab and wing, you get more benefit from prop blast down low (and takeoff) so I can land and takeoff very slowly. For example with full yoke back, full power takeoff, I am off the ground and in ground effect very quickly, maybe 30 yards.

On downwind I fly a stable 60 kts. with 20deg flaps. I keep 60 knots around through final,, with descent opposite the numbers around 500 fpm arriving at the 1/2 mi. final at 400 ft. On final, I go to 45 knots and from here would fly the Brisk Walk Apparent ROC approach. This final segment will have an average ROD of around 600 fpm.

Of course, you can apply this to any 1/2 mi. TPA 800 ft. AGL pattern. During busy times, I get extended on downwind where I doodle along at 60 knots at TPA and descend to around 400 ft. AGL on long final to the base/final location above. I also practice at KSZP with a 600 ft. AGL traffic pattern and at KOXR with a 1,000 ft. AGL pattern. So I have some variety that probably covers most airports.

Todd Petersen who provides the nose canard STC, is against landing with 40deg flaps because this complicates a go-around. I respect his opinion. So I continue to land with 20deg flaps.

I will be doing some experimenting soon with Brisk Walk Apparent ROC approaches so any thoughts appreciated. Thanks

Wondering if the patterns in the videos are approx. 1/2 mi. patterns?

Blue skies,

Tom

Tom,

Your understanding of the rates of closure affecting angle of descent are theoretically accurate, but the usefulness of rate of closure occurs close and low to the target. Above 400' or so, any speed appears to be a brisk walk. From more than 1/4 mile out, any speed appears to be a brisk walk. The usefulness of the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach is to slow up continuously from short final to touchdown.

Further out and higher, a normal 1.3 Vso approach is fine. We just don't want to continue at that instrument referenced speed closer than about 1/4 mile out. If we do continue at that speed, we will have to round out and hold off and we will overfly the numbers.

The optical rate of closure we see at 400' and 1/4 mile on a normal approach will appear to be a brisk walk BUT SPEEDING UP RAPIDLY. The trick is to stop any apparent acceleration with elevator while controlling glide angle and rate of descent with throttle.

What I just described for short final on in can be used for the entire approach, but is less effective high and far out. I apologize about my age and the normal powered little airplanes I have flown, but more than 500 feet and a quarter mile is way hhigh and way out.

Jim

Jim,

Thanks for your response. My 1/2 mi. pattern at KCMA would put me on final a bit less than 1/2 mi. from the numbers at 400 ft. (because of the turn) while transitioning from 60 to 45 knots. From here on in, I would no longer look at the airspeed indicator (don't even do that today). But 45 knots is my 1.3 Vso so thus the interest in the Brisk Walk Rate of Closure approach.

The PAPI has been out of service at KCMA for several months; thus, I should not have any Tower staff complain about not flying the glideslope on a 1/2 mi. pattern. Did I notice red lights in the video for their approaches?

I could do a 1/4 mi. pattern at KCMA but this would certainly ring bells in the Tower and maybe even in DC; LOL. I would just be flying over the airport property where most nobody does. But I could do this when the Tower is closed. A 1/2 mile pattern over the water tower is considered as very short and done only by the old timers, of which I am not yet (your age) but getting there.

Thanks again and blue skies. If you ever come to SoCal/Ventura county look me up...

Best,

Tom
KCMA

Tom,

Sounds like you're getting along fine. I had the advantage that I was on pipelines. Tower appreciated my staying low and out of normal traffic crossing on the pipeline or landing.

Jim

Jim,

I guess the only issue that I have with all your teaching is the full flaps on landings. Here is a video by Todd Peterson who does the STC for my nose canard. Todd is a very good pilot and has produced some amazing videos with his aircraft.

You can see them all here:

http://www.katmai-kenai.com/training.php?filter=videos#

and his opinion on flap settings here...

https://youtu.be/NQFXHEmmHUM

According to Todd, full flaps (40 degrees in my case) should only be used when there are obstacles to come down over on short final.

Comments always appreciated.

Blue skies,

Tom

TommyN wrote:Jim,

I guess the only issue that I have with all your teaching is the full flaps on landings. Here is a video by Todd Peterson who does the STC for my nose canard. Todd is a very good pilot and has produced some amazing videos with his aircraft.

You can see them all here:

http://www.katmai-kenai.com/training.php?filter=videos#

and his opinion on flap settings here...

https://youtu.be/NQFXHEmmHUM

According to Todd, full flaps (40 degrees in my case) should only be used when there are obstacles to come down over on short final.

Comments always appreciated.

Blue skies,

Tom

He doesn't go into full flaps settings as to increase the work load for most on go rounds. Heck, those 260 ponies will pull you out of most grounds. Practice it and it's really just some added pressure on the yoke.

The full flap landings will slow your landings down no question. I disagree with the comments there is no difference in speed between 20 & 40 degrees. That's just not so IMO

Aktahoe is very much correct on full flaps allowing us to fly slower. The extra power at the pitch attitude required on short final to put us on the desired spot is our friend. It forces more air over the wing to allow us to keep flying at a slower airspeed and slower ground speed. It allows us to set this heavy airplane down softly on the numbers.

There are many 180 and 182 pilots who can use the more than .3 extra gravity thrust of the 1.3 Vso pitch attitude to round out, fly over the numbers, hold off in low ground effect, and kiss it on with 20 degrees of flap. It is much harder and less safe to get deceleration before the numbers without full flaps. CFOT's Champ does it quite well, but it is much lighter and much dirtier ( parasite drag. )

I teach full flaps in all Cessnas. I teach landing on the numbers every time. By slowing the airplane on short final, I have avoided the type go around this instructor is worried about all together. All my go arounds have actually been go somewhere else for a bit until traffic clears. I have always been slow enough to avoid the airport altogether or to stop short of the problem. The normally fast and late go around is one of the most dangerous maneuvers in aviation.

My experience in the 182: Full flaps on final works best for AR in the 182. (I havent flown one with the canard)...Dont hesitate to add some power to control your sink rate before touchdown. And get comfortable with going around from a full flap approach, cause chances are...when you really need to go around it will be when you are trying to shoe horn it in with full flaps. As far as the approach distance goes...that really can change depending what the wind/terrain is. You are not flying a constant glide slope, so you are going to drop through the vasi/papi if you are landing on the numbers. You can fly a long straight in, or a short drop in and still use the AR approach.

TommyN wrote:As I continue to study the Brisk Walk Apparent Rate of Closure approach, I researched a bit and found the following:

Slow Walk = Steepest Descent

Normal Walk = Medium Descent

Brisk Walk = Shallowest Descent

Any thoughts on the above? Thanks

Blue skies,

Tom

You could also add- more wind, some wind, no wind in there respectively.

Thanks for everyone's comments. Will try the full flap, 40 deg. landings.... and decide for myself.

One plane ago was also a 182Q, same model as now but stock without nose canard. I was in a partnership based at KWHP and usually landed on 12 with a final approach over a lot of industrial buildings. I didn't really like skimming the rooftops so I would come in high and apply 40 deg flaps on short final. To me landing was then like walking down a steep set of stairs. Had the roundout timed well and had no problems with landing. The problem was that this scared my passengers! I guess that they didn't like their track to be pointed at the concrete...

Whiteman is in Pacoima and there is a RR track and main boulevard that parallels the runway. On my approaches and drives to/from airport, I saw more police foot pursuits, car pursuits, flashing red lights, cars escaping on train tracks, you name it. Other than that KWHP, is a very nice airport and usually lets you get out of the LA basin to the North while others are socked in.

Blue skies,

Tom

A big advantage of the apparent rate approach is that the round out is eliminated, unless we allow the apparent rate of closure to speed up on short final.

A big advantage, for an instructor, is that this much easier to perform approach can be taught first more quickly than the difficult round out and hold off.

I like 40 degrees as well, however, have you checked the POH? In the 2000 T206H, the difference in stall speed is only three knots between 40 and 20 degrees. Many people don't like to slow down with only 20 degrees of flaps, maybe due to the flat deck angle, but the aircraft can be flown really slowly on approach with 20 degrees. I personally like the fact that 40 degrees eliminates the float and I can easily put the airplane where I want. I also don't mind the go around with 40 degrees, but it should be practiced.

I feel like I have much better control over those last few seconds and can slow it down much easier (quicker) to hit my spot with 40. The 40 gives you the extra drag so it isn't so floaty/slippery and performs more like the Champ on slow/short final.