Again... +1

Whatever works for ya, bottom line is go burn gas and practice and experiment, and have fun doing it.

Gump

Hawaii and Oregon have a strong probability of wind shears in the Fall and Winter. Frontal passages and convection are a huge contrast to the trade winds. And it's easy to become complacent on operations.

I remember a 40 kt headwind @ 3000' and wind reported calm (variable 5 kts) at 500' (ATIS) at Molokai. I elected to return to Honolulu and the tower agreed. That would have been a 40kt shear in 1500' vertical feet!

My point being..

I would never trust my ground speed at 1000' if there was any convection in the area. Also, mountain passes will accelerate/ decelerate wind in Oregon. Creating shears.

The real world takes a realtime computer/formula if numbers are needed. It is surprising how dynamic even the last 1000' AGL can be.

I did, and your formula still doesn't account for the way slower than stall speeds found in low ground effect flight that a lot of us use for STOL ops.

I made that point in my OP, and in the accompanying spreadsheet - albeit perhaps not sufficiently clearly. We all make use of ground effect for STOL ops, but the effect is airplane-dependent so we have to allow for that, knowing our own machine. A D140 Mousquetaire "gains" more from ground effect than my high-wing Maule. In the Maule, ground effect knocks 15% off the 1,000 ft stall GPS GROUND speed no matter what, allowing for wind shear whichcan be gauged from the high and low passes (ASI not accurate at those speeds). One can either "bank" that as a safety factor, or allow for it and then add an SF to suit the circumtances.

As for only ever landing where others have, I just don't see the point of that - it's only half a step away from landing at Prestwick airport. Why put up with a crappy-handling Maule that won't even spin or do flick rolls if all we're going to do is follow like sheep in other people's tracks? That said, there was a dead PA-18 below the Chamois runway for quite a while to remind those of us who use it that even an official "altiport" demands some respect:

Like I said, whatever works for you. Me, I'll take experience.



Gump

GumpAir wrote:Like I said, whatever works for you. Me, I'll take experience.

Code: Select all

[youtube]h-9RPJDoC5E[/youtube]

Gump

Yep. Practice makes perfect.

A computer does not care if it dies. Ask Airbus about that.

8GCBC,

+1 about wind shear. We get that in Europe too, especially on the one-ways. That's one reason why we do passes at 1,000, 500 and 200 ft (where terrain permits). On the low pass we climb out along the take-off and landing flight path, so that gives a good indication of what to expect once we're committed.

As Gump wrote, there's no substitute for experience gained by burning gas, but if I'm going somewhere that no one else has tried, I like to do some - no, a LOT of - homework and a little math as well. I'm sorry but as an engineer, I can't help it...

Ha Ha, engineer, that explains it!!!!! Carry on N-Jacko. [emoji1]. Glad to see brains figuring out new stuff, and explaining old.

Gump

N-Jacko wrote:8GCBC,

+1 about wind shear. We get that in Europe too, especially on the one-ways. That's one reason why we do passes at 1,000, 500 and 200 ft (where terrain permits). On the low pass we climb out along the take-off and landing flight path, so that gives a good indication of what to expect once we're committed.

As Gump wrote, there's no substitute for experience gained by burning gas, but if I'm going somewhere that no one else has tried, I like to do some - no, a LOT of - homework and a little math as well. I'm sorry but as an engineer, I can't help it...

I am a "Numbers person" AKA programmer. I respect anyone who tries to represent a situation via a digital formula. Without binary reasoning we would be watching analog TV and listening to stamped records!

N-Jacko wrote:As for only ever landing where others have, I just don't see the point of that - it's only half a step away from landing at Prestwick airport. Why put up with a crappy-handling Maule that won't even spin or do flick rolls if all we're going to do is follow like sheep in other people's tracks? That said, there was a dead PA-18 below the Chamois runway for quite a while to remind those of us who use it that even an official "altiport" demands some respect:

Can I come visit you?

I'm with Gump on experience over math. I have never trusted my math anyway. Last math I did was the TOL card on Huey for landing at 14,000 with med-evac crew. I had my co-pilot go over it real good.

N-Jacko,

I appreciate the mention of the apparent rate of closure approach. Most non-helicopter pilots here won't say those words. Even the ones who actually use it. Don't mess with my analog gauges, however. My calibrated brain can interpolate between the ticks for greater accuracy, and quicker, than a computer. Digital guages just spin. You have to break the thing to get a current reading.

Contact

ZZZ, of course you can. This is my home field, but I ought to warn that the sky isn't always that color



JIm, I have your book and love the Vietnam stories as well as the CAROC approach and energy management turn (sort of a gentleman's wingover?). My first school was in Saigon, before the war, we used to go for weekends in Dalat...

N-Jacko,

My brother wasn't an engineer, but he was a nuclear physicist and learned computers so early he still uses DOS. I was Sherlock Holmes' dumber brother. It's not that I dislike you guys, I just don't speak the same language.

Contact

N-Jacko wrote:ZZZ, of course you can. This is my home field, but I ought to warn that the sky isn't always that color

He lives in western Oregon, he should be used to gray.