OP:

Watching the videos I'd say you are way too flat on approaches. It could be a function of camera perspective, but I'm thinking not. A couple time it seemed you levelled out to make the runway. A stabilised approach is always better than a staircase to the runway. Also, the stall horn was going off WAY out on final. That can't be good. Find an instructor quick, before you fly again. I would never let anyone I know fly with you until these HUGE issues were fixed.

Motoadve,

Watching your videos made me cringe ... I used to fly right seat with a friend who liked to drag in his landings, with a real flat approach to the threshhold, and it made me very nervous ... if I were the praying sort, I'd have been praying that his engine would run strong all the way to the runway. The video made me feel like, if I were with you, I'd have to check my ass for grass stains from the last couple hundred yards of your approach to touchdown! That's especially risky when flying in a high density developed area like the airport in your videos ... any hickups in the engine or inadvertant stall, and you're suddenly lodged in someone's attic or back yard.

Here's one fact to keep in mind - if your approach to the landing spot is too high, it's very easy to to lose altitude with full flaps or a slip ... and in worst case, you just go around.

But if you're too low, and there's any problem at all, your flight may be terminated very suddenly with a very bad outcome, with no opportunity to recover.

Several others have commented on the same thing, so I may not be adding much to the discussion on that point ... but if your goal is to make real short landings on short/soft fields in the backcountry, then you're way better off with a high/steep approach, some flaps (less than full if you need to slip), and depending upon your aircraft, some pre-determined amount of power (MP or RPM) on the engine ... and then practice hitting that spot on the end of the runway every time.

I'm not really in agreement with LowFlyBye's opinion on the importance of using power in controlling the approach to landing ... I believe that power management is a major factor to a well-controlled approach to landing. Sure, you've gotta know your wing, but your wing is only part of a multi-part story .. you've also got your tail surfaces (i.e., the effectiveness of your elevator and rudder at various airspeeds, aircraft loadings and c.g.s, the effects of prop wash, and the effects of deck angle) to consider also, as well as your power management and overall attitude of the aircraft ... that all have to be controlled together. It's not any one part of the aircraft that overrides everything else.

On the other hand, I'm in full agreement with LowFlyBye about the importance of keeping sufficient altitude at every point in the pattern and approach to landing so that, if the tach suddenly drops, you can still make the runway without the engine. Your extremely flat approaches in the videos are the complete antithesis of that practice ... if you have even a brief engine hickup, such as carb ice (if carbureted), a slug of crap in your fuel filter, or you suck a little air on a low tank (cause you forgot to switch to the fuller tank on approach), then you're suddenly an accident statistic.

You appear to need some additional instruction on how to fly safe approaches to any airport, as well as on short/soft field landings.

Fly safe!

nmflyguy wrote:Fly safely!

I fixed that for you, ya NM hillbilly!

Gump

The 182 is a nose heavy airplane. Nose heavy = poor slow flight = fast approach speed = not desirable for short landings. You need to examine your W&B form, add as much weight to the baggage compartment as allowed to move the CG aft and go practice again. A guy on my field keeps 60lbs at all times in his baggage compartment to assist with landings. He would run out of elevator effectiveness and have trouble getting a nose nose high flare with out using power. Not anymore. Proper CG is more important than light weight.

Dragging it in is a horrible habit to get into. You need to be able to make the runway from any point in the pattern if the engine fails. A 182 is not an airplane you want to make a habit of doing power off approaches in either. It's bad for the engine and makes it more difficult to get a stabilized approach set up. You should work on making approaches with a decent angle that allows the wings to remain level. Slow down, go to full flaps right away. Trim nose down so you need to hold just a tiny bit of up elevator to maintain your airspeed 1.3 *** INDICATED *** VSO (You need to go do approach stalls in a landing configuration first to find out what that is) You need to have your airspeed locked, pitch attitude locked, and control your decent with power. Get set up before you even turn final so all you need to do is control your glide with power. You'll find that you can fly a stabile approach slower and hit your touch down point easier than if you try to drag it in nose high and slow. A 182 can develop a high sink rate that requires lots of power to stop so practice at altitude. Once you are comfortable making approaches at 1.3 INDICATED vso then work on slowing it down from there. The pitch attitude should stay about the same but the sink rate will go up and will require more power to stop the sink and get you going forward again. Do not use POH numbers when flying slow approaches. Your ASI probably does not read accurately so that is why you need to go through a series of stalls to find out what the indicated stall speed is. Since your working on slowing down your approaches you need to stall the plane in landing configuration approach type glide, do not try to hold altitude or more than 1500 rpm. Of course practice at altitude first.

Jason

It is not an habit , I m practising and trying to learn Im glad asked , never thought was that dangerous still low time pilot.will try to practice higher approaches, like a normal landing , but slower speed pitching for speed and throttle for alt.And spot landing method.
Thanks

Moto,

I'm not an instructor, but I have about 800 hours in 182's and a lot of that time is backcountry/mountain flying. My recommendation is that you fly your patterns much closer-in to the runway. Assuming a left-hand pattern, on downwind, when looking out the left side window, you should be close enough that the centerline of the runway intersects the wing strut about half-way between the wing and the bottom of the window (move out a little further at first if you need to be more comfortable). Begin your turn to base when you can glance over your left shoulder and the runway numbers are at a 45 degree angle behind you. At that point you should also be slow enough to have added 20 degrees of flaps. Your base leg will be short - just long enough for you to quickly raise the left wing to check for traffic. On final you can add in 30 or 40 degrees of flap depending on altitude and how short you're trying to land.

Flying the pattern in-close to the runway will get you close to the approach angles you are trying to achieve. In a 182 slowing down will cause the sink rate to increase - not so slow that the stall horn comes on, but about 1.15 to 1.2 Vso (eventually, when you get really good at it even 1.1vso on short final). When coming in high, there is a tendency by most pilots learning the technique to dive towards the runway; instead slow down and let the sink rate increase (slip if needed). When you first try this you'll think you are much too high so don't try to make short landings; just get the feel for the plane and learn how to bring it down at a steep approach angle. Then gradually work to hit a spot on the runway - move the touch down spot further down the runway away from the numbers at first. You can add power before touch down to slow the sink rate.

In finding an instructor, choose one that really knows how to do short-field landings. There are a lot of instructors out there, but many do not know how to work a plane for short, backcountry type landings.

I have stayed quiet on this thread, as there are much more experienced pilots than me who can give better advice, but I think I can add something here. I have never flown a 182, but the aerodynamics are the same as any plane, with the variable of weight+ballance as discussed above. For the record I fly a 150 Aerobat (I think someone posted a video of me and a friend doing some off field flying earlier in this thread).
This is hard to explain without being able to draw a diagram, but I will do my best. Visualize a velocity diagram similar to a x-wind chart turned into the vertical plane. When on a high approach, the velocity arrows show more velocity distributed between the horizontal and vertical axes. When on a flatter approach, most of the velocity is horizontal. Now visualize the final moments before touchdown. On a shallow approach, when you flair, it may only rotate a few degrees before touchdown. On a steep approach, your plane will rotate farther into the flare, allowing you to use your wings like air brakes. Also, with more energy directed down, there is less horizontal energy to bleed off.
Another way to think of this is by looking at the way you see the runway on final. On high final, the touchdown zone covers several degrees in your windshield, allowing you to make large pitch changes for small adjustments to your touchdown point. On low final, the touchdown zone is only a small sliver on the windshield. Now only micro adjustments in pitch can make a huge difference on where the aiming point is in the windshield and will make hitting your point much more difficult.
One thing that I like to practice when I have the opportunity is to see how high I can come in and still hit my point. With 40 degrees of flaps, full slip, and pitch for 60 mph (obviously a different airplane will use different speeds but the principal still applies), I can come down almost like an elevator and actually have to add power to pull some of the vertical velocity into the horizontal to round out my flare if I want to soften the touchdown.

200hrs later I found out weight makes a big difference.
Also no need to come in that low.
I continue practicing.
I added 40 pounds to the cargo area and in fact makes a difference.
Now an MT prop 16 pounds lighter and get rid of the 40 pounds in the cargo area, would make it behave even nicer.
Im contemplating buying an MT prop.

I'm still bothered by your stall warner coming on so early on the approach. You don't need to be going that slow to make a very acceptable short field landing.

Again, for the weight you're carrying at the time, figure out at altitude what your indicated airspeed is at the stall, multiply that by 1.3, and use that as your indicated approach speed. As you begin to round out "over the fence", then your airspeed will decay to 1.2. Typical stall warners come on only 7-9 knots above stall speed, and that's just too close, I think. My guess is that you're at 1.1 Vso while still way out on the approach.

I think a lot of practice approaches at altitude would be a good idea, at different weights, so that you can get the feel of how much you'll need to trim to maintain your desired airspeed. Yes, the nose drops when you pull the power, but that's controllable with pitch, and then trim to take off the pressure.

I have hundreds of 182 landings, and they land very well without power. But when the CG is way forward, such as no rear seat passengers and no baggage, it's a tug to keep the nose up. But it's essential to do that, because the firewall of even post 69 models isn't as strong as it ought to be (pre-70 models are even more fragile). It's a lot easier to do that if you're maintaining a bit more airspeed than you are apparently using, so that the stall warner doesn't go off until you're in the last of your flare before touchdown.

Cary