Ken, are you saying every landing prior to 1000 feet down the runway is a potential FAR violation because you are below the glideslope?

I could not possibly disagree more. All landings in any airplane should be as close as humanly possible to the start of the runway VFR or IFR.

Note that leaves it up to the PIC, and that's the argument I like!

That "guidance" came out after a couple of "toe stubs" in the 727 and DC-8, and served well in that type of jet. There was a LOT of discussion about making the numbers bigger on the 747, when it came out. The margins left on the 727 and DC-8 was about 25 feet, and only half that on the 747, but they left it alone, mercifully. That profile is suitable on those airplanes, and I never felt the need to "violate" them.

Ridiculous on the Gulfstreams, and beyond ridiculous with the Eclipse, none of the factors apply that drove it initially. The engines have a very high idle, and the POV from the cockpit is better than a Bonanza (in the Eclipse, at least.)

If you don't know the glide ratio, then you are just flying with the assumption that nothing will go wrong. If you have an engine failure how do you know what airport you can reach? How do you know how high you have to be over water to have gliding distance to shore? I assume you haven't practiced engine out procedures and I assume you haven't created or fine tuned or memorized an engine failure checklist. Maybe you will be lucky and never have a failure or be lucky and pull off a landing without having practiced, but your odds of surviving are much greater with practice and knowledge and preparedness.

Nit-picking here, and I don't think you really mean that?

If you know there's no "Lip" at the beginning of the runway, okay. But otherwise, leave yourself some room for error. Even the best do errors.

An unusually narrow runway can be a sucker-trap, and there are other "false perceptions."

No. Although FAR 91.129 does actually require turbine aircraft to fly the glideslope, it's only to the MAP/DA.

The part of interest here is the section saying that you must fly at or above the visual glide path "until a lower altitude is necessary for a safe landing." BTW that portion of 91.129 applies to *all* pilots, not just those flying turbine aircraft. That's the rule. You can interpret it as allowing you to land on the numbers every time by simply maintaining that your landings would be "unsafe" if you did not touch down on the numbers. Would they be?


There are lots of accidents from guys doing exactly that. Plenty of guys--professional airline pilots sometimes--have nailed the approach lights. We all remember that Asiana 214 at SFO would have been a lot better off if they'd followed 91.129 .

We could discuss all day the "stabilized approach" and whether it's actually a good idea for small jets like the Eclipse, but certainly suddenly leaving the 3-degree glide path to dump into the threshold is the very definition of an unstabilized approach. It's a technique; it's handy when the runway is short. But do it every landing?

Ken

We have 2 other Eclipse type rated pilots on this thread, one who is highly respected on these forums who have both pointed out that the technique taught in the Eclipse is ref +10.

I've flown with around a dozen different eclipse pilots and observed (from the ground) many landings of Eclipse jets. It seems that they all look at ref +10 as the minimum, like it's a stall speed that they have to be higher than. Fortunately, actual ground roll distances in the Eclipse are so short that even coming in fast and high, it's usually not a problem. Even considering that, I'm surprised there haven't been way more overrun incidents than there have been.

On my last 61.58 in the Eclipse, I was flying at exactly ref speed inside the FAF and I had the PPE say- "Watch your speed, you are getting slow!" I explained that ref was 92 knots and my speed had been locked on 92 knots since just inside the FAF and not any slower." He said he wanted to see ref +10 there. In the real world, I will admit that I typically fly my approaches fast and don't even start configuring until the FAF (always slowing to ref well before the threshold) but hey, this was a checkride after all .

I understand that you and the other Eclipse owners don't much care for me Ken, because I've been vocal about my opinion of the jet and the company, and you guys all feel that somehow any negative reports devalue your aircraft and the brand. But honestly, I think the latest project canada is quite awesome. It looks like the Eclipse will finally be the jet that I've been pushing for it to be since I started flying the first one (the changes which have been made, I was always told were not a problem and would be unnecessary or 'bad'- I guess those were just lies of that time?) Now, we just have to start operating the aircraft for what it is, a LIGHT PERSONAL AIRCRAFT, not a certified Transport Category Jet. I mean both in maintenance and pilot technique.

Lotsa folks out there like that, Brian.

Well, Ted, they usually want you to fly the published profile when you do a flight check:



It's Vref + 10 until landing assured and then Vref. ATP standards require that you fly within 10 knots of specified speed and never below Vref until appropriate. You were slow if you were flying Vref before landing assured, and flirting with having to do it over again. If you got below Vref on the approach on a 61.58 check, he's supposed to make you do it again until you get it right. He probably didn't want to do that, so he was gently trying to help you, which is more than they'd do on an actual checkride .

He was right, sorry. You can do it differently when you're flying on your own.

Ken

You can tell whether a guy is flying Vref or Vref + 10 from the ground? How would you even know what his Vref was since it changes so much with weight?

This issue was actually studied some years ago when there was concern that pilots were landing too fast and experiencing blowouts before the tire design was changed. Here's what they found using numbers from the data storage unit:



Two things:

1. As you might expect, landing too fast led to a higher chance of a blowout
2. Nobody was touching down at Vref or higher, and the bulk of the landings were around Vref - 15, which is right where they ought to be.

OTOH, lately we're getting a lot of new owners and new pilots, and it may be that some are not so familiar with the importance of landing speed since it really hasn't been brought out as an issue in years.

Ken

If you don't know the glide ratio, then you are just flying with the assumption that nothing will go wrong. If you have an engine failure how do you know what airport you can reach? How do you know how high you have to be over water to have gliding distance to shore? I assume you haven't practiced engine out procedures and I assume you haven't created or fine tuned or memorized an engine failure checklist. Maybe you will be lucky and never have a failure or be lucky and pull off a landing without having practiced, but your odds of surviving are much greater with practice and knowledge and preparedness.

A pilot operating ANY single engine aeroplane without knowing the engine-out glide parameters, is a hazard to themselves and others. That is a sure sign of an attitude incompatible with safe operation.

This is something that is burned into the memory and cannot be purged. For example, much of the 1960's is a blur in my head, but I can still recall the F86 dead engine glide 185 KIAS yields ~1550FPM and ~460 ft/NM after jettisoning external stores.

I know the numbers and procedures however I think it is unwise to practice dead stick landings in a Lancair or F-86

Lancair is .75nm/1000 ft, 120kts, 1500fpm, 8:1 glide ratio

I hate doing math in public, but...

8:1 is 1.33nm/1000 isn't it?

1000' (down) * 8 = 8000' (forward) (8000/6000=1.33) 1.33nm/1000

.75nm/1000 would be 4.5:1

120 Knots and 1500 fpm works out to about 8:1

Nit-picking here, and I don't think you really mean that?

If you know there's no "Lip" at the beginning of the runway, okay. But otherwise, leave yourself some room for error. Even the best do errors.

An unusually narrow runway can be a sucker-trap, and there are other "false perceptions."