John,
I understand how the Aerostar flies very well. I own/fly a 601P/SS700. I also understand that the only configuration that I would make below the normal stabilized approach criteria (1000' in IMC conditions) is the transition from IMC to VMC and from 20 degrees of flaps to 30 degrees of flaps.

However, on a visual approach (i.e.,in VMC conditions), there is no reason that the airplane can not be fully configured to land and at the target approach speed in accordance with the stabilized approach criteria by 500'.

The published Vref for my airplane is 96KIAS. Flying the approach at blue line (117 KIAS) until a mile final (~300' AGL if on a 3 degree path) then configuring to full flaps, power changes and slowing is asking for trouble when you least need it. It creates multiple changes at one time including pitch, ballooning, speed bleeding off, looking at the manifold gauge, etc. is setting you up for a bad day. Now throw in an approach in minimum visibility (1800 RVR for most GA airplane) when many pilots are nervous and your asking for even more problems.

The NTSB records are full of pilots (both private and professional) that go skidding off the end of the runway because the airplane was not stable on the approach.

The next time you go through recurrent training on the airplane (or any airplane for that matter), ask the instructor how many of the students s/he has that does not understand, or fly a stabilized approach. It takes almost no additional effort to fly this or any airplane within this criteria, and might just save your back side some day....

Jason

Thanks for your input Jason. Much appreciated.

Jgreen

I have to say I agree with Jason. I understand the corner you are in when you are full flaps configuration with the Aerostar, but it is simply NOT unmanageable and unstabilized approaches in fast airplanes are a bigger risk IMHO.

If you keep your approach speed proper (even with full flaps), a recovery to a go-around or accommodating a sudden loss of an engine of final is no more demanding than changing configuration, power, pitch, and speed all withing a few hundred feet of the runway. It needs to be practiced, but is very straightforward. Admittedly, maybe easier to deal with in a 700 (which is why that extra power really does matter IMHO).

The concept provides for (among other things) breaking out at approach minimums and having the least amount of destabilizing changes in between you and the runway.

Interesting discussion, might be worth starting a separate dedicated thread.
I was taught stable approaches by a former airline check pilot.
However, he always asked the question. WHY?
Why is a specific technique used? What is the reason? What are the pros and cons?
Then you need to understand how it applies to the airplane you are flying.

Stable approaches came from the airline/turbofan world. And this is where the data showing a stable approach is safer comes from. I have yet to see any studys on stable approaches for small planes taht is not based on anecdotal evidence.

When you takeoff or go missed in almost any multi engine turbofan aircraft; there is a single golden rule. Do NOT touch anything until 500ft or 1000ft AGL (depends on the plane). Why is this? The plane has the power to beat/overpower the full drag configuration.Even the A* 700 does not have that much power.

Now ask why the jet world needs stable approaches, it comes back to reaction time. The planes are just slower to react, and the speeds involved are much faster reducing pilot reaction time, combined with the power/capability to address any issues allows for stable approaches.

For those advocating multiple techniques between VMC and IMC, you are actually increasing risk by not being consistent. We fly a lot based on "muscle" memory, the more you task saturate the mind, and the less you make use of muscle memory, the less capacity you have to deal with the unexpected. This is why you se in my posted technique, it is the same regardless of pattern, IR approach, IMC or VMC.

Even with the close mounted engines, when you are at 75+% with full flaps and gear down at 120 KIAS; you get a lot of yaw when losing an engine (this is what we train for right?) Try simulating losing an engine on approach (make sure you are 3-4K AGL as usual). Watch how much yaw you get, it is a heck of a surprise if it is fast. Way back when doing the transition training with Lester Kyle, he demonstrated this, even though he briefed me, it still surprised me.

At the end of the day, know your plane, know yourself, and know why you do what you do.

Tim

Many good points Tim.

Regarding turbine airplanes, this is not necessarily the case....our go-around procedure at the airline has us adding power, then retracting landing flaps up to 15 degrees, then once positive rate of climb is established gear comes up and configuring back toward clean wing happens as speed increases. Speed is the goal, it is assumed that sink will continue to occur as power comes up and the flaps come from landing (usually 30 or 40 degrees) to 15. This is not altitude dependent. This can occur at 100 ft or 1000 ft.

We also have a specific procedure for engine failures on final approach that involve immediate action items of retracting flaps to 15 degrees from full landing configuration, just like you would have to in the Aerostar.... Add power, retract some flaps, continue in and land.

Is all the above different for an airplane with a much different power / weight? Of course, but it is not irrelevant for the Aerostar. The Aerostar should not (IMHO) be flown like a 172, it flies much more like a jet. If one adheres to airspeed above all else, I think it is actually one of the easiest and most predictable airplanes I have ever flown.

To your exact point, developing a procedure that works identically in low IMC or CAVU conditions favors the stable approach method - for the exact reason you cite.

IIRC. I would usually need to go to about 27" to 29" on deploying full flaps, which I think would be about 50% power I think - so while you certainly need to be aware of the power / drag situation I don't see it as unmanageable.

Regular practice and muscle memory are key to safe operation of any airplane, and none of this stuff is dangerous or threatening if practiced regularly.

I appreciate all inputs. Even if I don't agree with the posters technique, it gives parameters for consideration and sometimes causes me to alter my procedures.

I don't want to sound defensive and don't mean to be. I assure you that I appreciate, recognize, and apply the theory of "stabilized approaches". I also assure you that I apply the concept to my flying of the Aerostar. What I don't understand after rereading the posts of the A* pilots hereon, is how Jason got the idea that "we" are not doing that very thing.

Having been an active instrument pilot now for over 40 years, you may surmise that I have developed procedures that I consider safe and that work for me. And you may also surmise, that when I get into an airplane "new" to me, that I give a lot of consideration as to how to apply my past experiences and techniques to this airplane.

Without being rude or demeaning, the procedure Jason outlined for a stabilized approach literally flies in the face of what I consider to be good procedure. When I set up a "stabilized approach" for an instrument final, my number one consideration is the possibility of a go around. I can teach a one eyed monkey to fly an airplane from FAF to DH or MAP. The challenge comes when you have to transition to the go around, not to landing.

Therefore, my configuration for an instrument final, my "stabilized approach", is one that allows me to transition to "go around" with the absolute least reconfiguration. That is in addition to the possibility of losing an engine or having one flap retract while the other is at full deflection in IMC.

Therefore, I would NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS configure an Aerostar to a full flap "stabilized approach" before becoming visual or DH.

I have never heard of any seasoned Aerostar instructor teaching anything but the application of full flaps WHEN THE RUNWAY IS MADE. To me, that means short final. I do not interpret "short final" to be one mile from the threshold or in instrument conditions.

Again, I will reiterate that I consider the Aerostar to be one of the easiest and most predictable airplanes to land I have ever flown and that is a lot of airplanes. Again, I caution that the transition from 20 or 30 degrees of flaps to full deflection is a major reconfiguration and strongly suggest it be performed only in visual conditions. I shoot instrument approaches into the 3300' field where my mechanic resides and usually make the turn off at 2000', not off the end of the runway or on my back.

Should you choose to fly your A* in a different manner, have at it.

Jgreen

I didn't put this in my explanation:

I go from 20 deg (Approach Flaps) to landing flaps at 500'AGL or when the runway's made.

The little while back I did a ILS to minimums in Baltimore, runway in sight (@200'AGL), - landing flaps.

No big deal.

Going from 20 to 40 degrees at 125 mostly just adds drag, plane slows down, the little bit of balloon just makes up for the speed reduction (retriming isn't necessary).

It's easy to practice, just hold landing flaps until 200'AGL.

If I had to get in 0-0.

I'd configure for 120Kts flaps 20 year down for going down the glide slope and start slowing to 100 at 200'.

Hold the localizer and wait.

The mains will hit first.

I agree with both Forrest and John. The key to safety is not the landing - it is the potential for a missed approach, and a missed with 40 degrees flap is a tenuous exercise. The aircraft is descending at 10 feet per second and weighs up to 6,000 pounds. You need the energy to arrest that and accelerate to 10 fps climb. That's the better part of 1G in acceleration.

The energy can only come from two places - the engines, or trading some airspeed for angle of attack. So best practice is "blue line or better" until "over the fence" or even over the numbers.

Then start the flaps going down. In the perfect landing the flaps are still moving when you are in the flare, power is coming off (not chopped) and the whole thing is a smooth and fluid decrease in speed and altitude. Some A-star pilots start the trim going back in the flare as well with good results - I never found it necessary.

One last observation - when mixing it up with airliners on a 200 by 11,000 foot runway, I seldom used more than 20 degrees of flap. You fly it right on just as you fly it off. Takes longer to stop but you are probably making the same exit as the 737 in front of you. The one behind you appreciates it as well.

Bob Keeping
rak@InnovationTwo.com

Bob,

Thank you for your additional insight and explanation. Into most runways where "we" land, landing with 20 degrees of flap is a non-issue, just not what I want to do everyday for the benefit of my tires .

There is a comparison here that I think sheds light on the subject. I flew a long body Mooney Bravo for seven years. Recommended procedure for approach and landing is full flaps. The problem is that when you trim the long body model for approach with full flaps, you have full up trim (without passengers in the rear seat). Going to full power from this configuration requires more forward pressure than some people can muster. I know one pilot of small stature who was forced into a go around in this configuration and without the help of his right seat passenger could not have kept the nose below ten degrees. Trim?? Well here is a surprise, it takes a KFC 225 auto pilot 26 seconds to go from full up trim to climb out trim with no flaps.

I found that with the use of half flaps in the Bravo, the trim necessary for an ILS approach is exactly the same as for a full power climb out. In a missed, you simply added power, hit the go around button, and retract the gear. The airplane did the rest.

I find the same thing to be true of the Aerostar. From the configuration for approach with 20 degrees of flaps, to perform a go around, you simply come up on the power and retract the flaps: the airplane will do the rest. Making sure that the air speed stays below 130 while the gear retracts.

Before someone comes on here and points out that man airliners make their final approach in a configuration from which it cannot climb out without a major configuration, the airliner has two pilots with precisely defined and practiced procedures. Comparing procedures used in a 727 and a single pilot twin simply does not compute.

Jgreen

Why blueline? Why not be even safer and fly at 150KIAS until over then numbers? That way you'll have plenty inertia for the missed approach?

What function does Vxse have in the landing configuration? Do you really believe the pretty blue line that's permanently painted on the airspeed indicator is an even remotely accurate representation of anything in that configuration other than a physiological target to aim for?

Lets look at a scenario. Your flying a normal two engine approach. You flying the published approach speed and flap configuration for a stabilized approach. At 400', you have an engine failure. You have two options, (1) land straight ahead, and (2) go-around. Which would you choose? I would add a little power on the good engine and land.

So, lets assume for some reason you decided to start playing with knobs and levers and decided to go around. Take a look at your AFM. What speed does your AFM say you need to aim for in a single-engine go around IF you need to clear an obstacle? That's your theory, right? Get away from the ground ASAP? Hint, Vyse is 100 KIAS. Does this speed look familiar? Yes, it's also the published approach speed (Vref for lack of a better term).

The 737 on final behind you agreement means nothing. I'm not going to be the guy sitting in a meeting with the FAA and/or NTSB explaining how I went off the runway because a 737 was behind me.... or how I retracted the gear but I thought I was extending the flaps for the same reason. That will not look good, and will only raise every other Aerostar owners insurance rates...

There is one thing I can guarantee you. You will not find one instructor in the world that will suggest that the flaps extending during the flare is a good idea.

Jason

Why blueline? Why not be even safer and fly at 150KIAS until over then numbers? That way you'll have plenty inertia for the missed approach?

What function does Vxse have in the landing configuration? Do you really believe the pretty blue line that's permanently painted on the airspeed indicator is an even remotely accurate representation of anything in that configuration other than a physiological target to aim for?

Lets look at a scenario. Your flying a normal two engine approach. You flying the published approach speed and flap configuration for a stabilized approach. At 400', you have an engine failure. You have two options, (1) land straight ahead, and (2) go-around. Which would you choose? I would add a little power on the good engine and land.

So, lets assume for some reason you decided to start playing with knobs and levers and decided to go around. Take a look at your AFM. What speed does your AFM say you need to aim for in a single-engine go around IF you need to clear an obstacle? That's your theory, right? Get away from the ground ASAP? Hint, Vyse is 100 KIAS. Does this speed look familiar? Yes, it's also the published approach speed (Vref for lack of a better term).

The 737 on final behind you agreement means nothing. I'm not going to be the guy sitting in a meeting with the FAA and/or NTSB explaining how I went off the runway because a 737 was behind me.... or how I retracted the gear but I thought I was extending the flaps for the same reason. That will not look good, and will only raise every other Aerostar owners insurance rates...

There is one thing I can guarantee you. You will not find one instructor in the world that will suggest that the flaps extending during the flare is a good idea.

Jason

Just went flying to check my numbers and to experiment with a landing configuration (full flap) approach.

1st

John is correct (in a 601P) maintaining altitude with 40 degs is going to be iffy, climbing isn't going to happen.

2nd

In my plane it took 28-9" at 2700 rpm to maintain 120 on the glide slope.
That's take off power.

If it has been a non-precision approach, the drive portion of the approach wouldn't have been possible (or I'd have been very slow -not good for an Aerostar)

3rd

120-135 is a very comfortable speed, it's nice in the climb out, in the pattern and on the approach.

4th

10 degrees of flaps at 120-135 makes a nice stable airplane for the turn from down wind to base. It also makes the next 10 deg and gear easy at GS intercept.
Leveling off with gear and 20 degrees leaves some reserve power.

5th

Switching from approach mode(20 deg) to landing mode (40 deg) is a non-event at 500'AGL or 200'AGL.

6th

Going Missed at 200'AGL with flaps 20 -@120+ is easy.
Pitch, Power, Gear, Flaps - back to 120-135.

Nooooo Jason,

The blue line is not chosen for it's color, there are a number of actual aerodynamic considerations. I have a lot of physics and study of aerodynamics in my background - and the relationship is well established. You are wrong in suggesting that simply the more speed the better - there is no sound basis for that - and I believe you would be alone in suggesting that as an alternative. You can call if you have questions.

Bob

Bob,

I suspect you meant to post in green font?

Forrest,

I be thick headed and when I assume I am often wrong so please elaborate on:

#1: I am assuming no climb with 40 degree flaps and BOTH engines?

#2: Still assuming both engines?