Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

S-turns

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    I agree Ed 100% and Vance / Wasp you are not getting the point of my issue. Student pilots neither have 3000hrs or 3000 landings and most will never even see an A&S18. Neither would or do any of my students fly in 28G34!! Yet it takes a challenge to a view for it to be put in the correct context.

    Nobody is taking about high speed on the ground the question was the actual speed at touchdown. The ASI is not the focus of any pilot at that stage of the flight and it took a review of a video to see a rough idea of my own touchdown speed. It is around 35-40mph and the rate of deacceleration at this point is high so 1 second later it is <20mph. By no means is that high speed and for want of a piece of film demonstrating how the nose wheel doesn't actually touch down until almost zero ground speed you can watch this film

    https://youtu.be/2AFsmU2er2A

    The actually touchdown is not that nose high but that can be developed once you are on the ground in order that you can stop. That is very far from having some high speed roll out which I think is a point of misunderstanding.

    I agree poor piloting technique is just that but if you look at the venue and that in one case a student pilot, they get ideas from somewhere. Pilots are not pre-programmed to fly with any particular technique, that surely gets learned?

    Wasp if I could come and fly in an A&S18 easily I would to learn the differences, you might find it easier to have a trip in a MTO-Sport or M16. However what you or I maybe able to do OR if your students are already pilots then that is an entirely different context to a student pilot with no prior experience or knowledge. I agree the general point about landing into wind but for very many, especially in the higher population density areas of the UK those venues just do not exist. I saw this and I can't think of very many equivalent airfields in the UK where you can operate.

    https://youtu.be/EqwvfWsrkmM

    Incidentally I found this film and I'm not sure that this technique is all that kind on the airframe! Hey Ho.


    https://youtu.be/9oC_zJe5aAI

    Comment


    • #47

      It doesn't matter to me whether anybody ever touches an 18A; I still advocate landing into wind, at minimum speed, even at busy towered airports, without thousands of hours of experience.

      We see the world very differently. With my background of typical touchdowns between zero and 10 mph, 40 mph IS high speed.

      Sure, you can hold off the nosewheel for a very long time from a very rapid arrival, but why would one want to land fast (in my terms) in the first place? There are reasons wholly apart from nosewheel design that make slow (in my terms) touchdowns desirable.

      I see you have found images of a grass strip, where I dropped in one time many years ago. It is very, very rare for me to land on a grass strip (a few trips to 1C9 come to mind but that's about it). The sod spot on which I was landing in the previously posted video was used for compliance with requested procedures for a non-standard operation during an airport event at KE16 (EAA Young Eagles airplane rides for children) but I use the runway under all other conditions. I routinely operate at tower controlled airports such as KPAO (among GA airports with runway shorter than 2500 feet, it is the busiest in the United States), plus KRVH, KSQL, KSNS, KLVK and other local region paved tower controlled airports, where I angle into the wind to remove crosswind components and touch down with zero ground speed as a matter of course. I do the same at KSJC, a nearby international airport (served by major carriers like Alaska Airlines, Southwest Airlines, and Delta Airlines), without complaint from ATC. My point here is that I imagine my airport situation is at least as complex as what you face in the UK, and the techniques I favor work just fine there. It is not a matter of population density or airport design to make it possible, and not something to do just out in the empty wild west far from civilization. The San Francisco Bay Area is pretty dense with people. I wonder if you are imagining something far more extreme for these operations than is necessary or is actually practiced by me.

      It's too bad you couldn't see the 18A landings in your clip from the outside; your opinion might be different. I imagine they're no worse than this one, which the airframe handles just fine, as designed.

      https://youtu.be/_sjbmSMf1mA?t=397

      Comment


      • #48
        It looks a great aircraft and it is surprising in some ways that it wasn't a bigger commercial success.

        Video is nice a historical reference but seriously in the film at 6m43s I'm not interested in having students giving me a passenger ride with that pitch attitude and those teaching in a Magni you just could not achieve it anyway. When operating off over 1km of pavement I can not see the upside to the typical 20-40 hour student and a lot can go wrong the reasons I explained

        That isn't all that comfortable for new guys, it also promotes ballooning as they haul back on the stick too early and because the tailplane isn't working as well lateral stability isn't as good so yaw becomes a bigger issue - especially in a crosswind as the component is larger.


        All that before I mentioned wind speed!! The issue with that is because now we are looking out of the window the perception of speed is ground speed now. So now two things can bite. Either the wind stops blowing or the wind on the day is significantly less than the day before and they feel they are faster than the ASI is showing because the ground speed looks high. (it is high on a relative basis) and now the aircraft runs out of energy before they are ready and it falls out of the sky. OR the wind is high so the energy is relatively high. The ground speed is low, they haul back on the stick to flare only to balloon and loose all the energy at the top of the balloon... hard landings are assured.
        Some of those issues are less for you in an aircraft 300kgs heavier, with reasonable suspension on top of the fact you are not a student pilot.

        I would 100% agree that landing into wind is the perfect solution but as you say we are limited today with the guy who set the pavement in the direction he did. So what to do in a training environment where we ideally give some form of standardised solution so that we can then train instructors to deliver a standard training course that will work regardless of where he is training and the variety of equipment being used to deliver it. The student needs a technique that will work for him/her all of the time.

        I hear you not having issues at major airfields and I'm sure your experience is the case. People are usually polite in aviation and if the degree to with which you are offset to the centreline isn't so extreme perhaps nobody even notices. But you start landing across runways in the UK regularly and someone will come and have a word there is no question. Indeed in the UK at some airfields gyroplanes are forbidden. It is set in that context that I suggest a freestyle approach and landing across the active runway as a standard technique is poor airmanship.

        Perhaps I am overstating the degree to which the landing into wind is to be taken and I think you are overstating the degree to which the gyroplane in my landings roll post touch down. I am happy we can agree to disagree.

        Comment


        • #49
          Phil, I do get your point about “flying like a gyro pilot””. Landing into the wind when there’s a crosswind appears to be a part of that culture, at least for some. And that is NOT “flying a gyro like a gyro”, especially for gyros such as the Magni and Autogyro, which have published limitations and procedures for crosswinds.

          The “Flying like a gyro pilot” culture/reality is why insurance for my Magni is $4,800/year vs. $486/year for my Warrior - for identical limits but $8,000 deductible on the gyro and $0 on the Warrior - despite me having a Comm rating in the gyro and not in fixed wing.

          And for the record, my touchdown speed is also quite low and ground roll with no wind is short; I just do the published procedure. Jeez - it seems like, umm, hand size inversely correlates with landing distance or something...

          I’d be curious if anyone has done the “landing crossways” during their checkride and how the examiner responded. Although there may be some DPEs who would accept that, I’m not sure an FAA examiner would but I may be wrong.

          If one is not ready to handle crosswinds it seems they’re not ready to solo, let alone get a certificate. That was and is absolutely true for fixed wing, even with their lower crosswind limits.

          Just me....

          /Ed

          Comment


          • #50
            What strikes me about this discussion is that there appears to be ZERO compromise of the various positions. Irrespective of what a DAR or FAA require, the most important consideration is what is the safest way to land any aircraft. I would argue that it is with the least possible crosswind component whilst assuring there is adequate distance in front of the aircraft for any rollout, and possible go around. Just because a trainee has permission to solo does not mean he is yet an experienced pilot, able to handle more difficult crosswind situations that can arise at any time. Teaching a pilot to utilize the width of the runway in a diagonal fashion at least, in addition to the cross controlling maneuvers can be a helpful tool, rather than the rote approach to sticking directly with the centerline under all conditions.

            Comment


            • #51
              Loftus, I respect your opinion on this and point out another thread I stared about "general thoughts re gyros". What strikes me is we seem to be applying "dirt bike" rules to "street bike" situations. I have ZERO PROBLEM with someone on their own property, etc. landing a gyro any place and way they want to. That's just not for me personally.

              Towered fields are towered for a reason. They typically have significant volumes of fixed-wing traffic and often have big, expensive corporate jets coming and going as well. The first time a gyro lands sideways on a runway and nicks a fixed-wing on a taxiway because they overshot the runway and crossed onto the parallel taxiway, the root beer will be turned off. That's especially true if the gyro pilot is uninsured and the airport has to pay to fix the taxi lights and the jet owner's insurance pays for the gyro pilot's damage to their multi-million dollar jet. Even at non-towered fields the principles are the same. And I suspect the FAA would rightfully declare a pilot’s actions “reckless” if they had a mishap while landing diagonally on a public runway. They'd refer to the operating limitations for the gyro and ask if the pilot adhered to them either by flying the crosswind process or not flying when conditions exceeded the limits.

              Again, I have no problem with people using dirt bike rules in dirt bike situations but saying those rules are the best on city streets is incorrect. Landing at a 30 degree angle on my 60ft wide home airport runway converts the runway from a 3800 foot one to 120 feet - and pointing at hangars and houses on both the approach and departure ends. And ours is not a unique place by any stretch.

              Gyros are in the significant minority in the flying world and have a terrible reputation among the fixed-wing community - I'd contend in no small part because of this kind of thinking. A fixed-wing CFI would never sign a student off for solo without good, standard-procedure skills in crosswinds to at least some level; why should gyro instructors be different? Frankly, I think saying that landing diagonally into a headwind is "safer" is unproven and incorrect - and SEEMS to suggest people are nervous about doing so the correct way. And again, crosswind landings are not that difficult once they're mastered, just like any other piloting skill.

              I personally may have more skin in this game than others (including possibly yourself; not sure): mine is the only gyro on the field and the last thing I want is for the community to kick gyros out because others start coming here doing non-standard things. I'm nestled in among four golf courses and have literally a 12-cable power transmission line within 500 feet of the south end of the runway I must cross. Fortunately only a small number of non-flying people want our field closed and I don't want to increase that number by having gyros coming in here doing things not safe. Incidentally, I bet there are more gyros within a 30-mile radius of me than almost anywhere in the country, and fortunately they all behave well when they come here. To be fair, I've only seen "Eurotubs" coming and going here.

              I apologize if any of this seems argumentative - not my intent. I realize I'm probably in the minority on this chat but would note (again) gyros are the minority in the flying world. I'd bet my opinions are definitely mainstream in the larger flying community - for good reason.

              /Ed

              Comment


              • #52
                From the Rotorcraft Flying Handbook directly from the FAA:

                CROSSWIND LANDING Crosswind landing technique is normally used in gyroplanes when a crosswind of approximately 15 m.p.h. or less exists. In conditions with higher crosswinds, it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to maintain adequate compensation for the crosswind. In these conditions, the slow touchdown speed of a gyroplane allows a much safer option of turning directly into the wind and landing with little or no ground roll. Deciding when to use this technique, however, may be complicated by gusting winds or the characteristics of the particular landing area. On final approach, establish a crab angle into the wind to maintain a ground track that is aligned with the extended centerline of the runway. Just before touchdown, remove the crab angle and bank the gyroplane slightly into the wind to prevent drift. Maintain longitudinal alignment with the runway using the rudder. In higher crosswinds, if full rudder deflection is not sufficient to maintain alignment with the runway, applying a slight amount of power can increase rudder effectiveness. The length of the flare should be reduced to allow a slightly higher touchdown speed than that used in a no-wind landing. Touchdown is made on the upwind main wheel first, with the other main wheel settling to the runway as forward momentum is lost. After landing, continue to keep the rotor tilted into the wind to maintain positive control during the rollout.

                I have never been chastised for not landing on the centerline at any towered airport I have flown into.

                The pilot community at most of the non-towered airports I regularly fly into is entertained when I fly in winds they would find disquieting.

                I teach my clients to land on the centerline in a crosswind up to 15kts. My training limit is 17kts so it is unusual to allow the gyroplane I am training in to turn into the wind.

                I often demonstrate this procedure when the winds come up and put a halt to our training.

                For advanced training or a flight review I might teach landing across the runway if conditions permitted.

                In my experience it is not possible to avoid crosswind landings beyond my personal wind limits because things change quickly and a more suitable runway is not always available.

                In my San Carlos example Palo Alto had similar winds and runways (13/31) and Half Moon Bay was IFR. I don,t land at SFO. The winds had increased from 15kt to 28 gusting to 34 over about ten minutes. It is a towered airport and I made them aware of what I was going to do.
                Regards, Vance Breese Gyroplane CFI http://www.breeseaircraft.com/

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by EdL View Post
                  Frankly, I think saying that landing diagonally into a headwind is "safer" is unproven and incorrect - and SEEMS to suggest people are nervous about doing so the correct way. And again, crosswind landings are not that difficult once they're mastered, just like any other piloting skill.

                  /Ed
                  Please note I did not say land diagonally into a headwind, it's crosswinds we are talking about. But I think it's pretty fair to say that it's safer to land into a headwind than a crosswind, so if one decreases the crosswind component and thus increases the headwind component, it is safer. I am also not arguing against 'the correct way' as you say of landing into a crosswind. But there are situations where the strength and direction of crosswinds can certainly approach or exceed the ability of any given aircraft no matter how well trained the pilot in conventional techniques. I am simply saying that in any aircraft, fixed wing or gyro, angling the flight path of the aircraft to decrease the crosswind component to the degree possible can only increase the margin of safety. For example - I fly an Aircam with a stated 12kt maximum crosswind component. If I am approaching the runway and the crosswind component is 14 iks, and I can partially direct my flight path towards the crosswind so that the crosswind component decreases to say 10 -12 knots, I am clearly increasing my margin of safety. And I will still have to perform a conventional cross controlled landing, just to a lesser degree. Clearly every situation is different, and your airport situation may be much more restrictive in terms of surrounding structures. My airport on the other hand has one runway of 4000 feet and the other of 6000 feet, with no real limitations due to surrounding structures. and I can routinely touchdown and be off the runway by the first turnoff. I would also add that it is quite OK in my opinion to land with the aircraft at a diagonal across the runway up until touchdown, and then once safely having all wheels on the ground, redirect the aircraft along the direction of the runway.
                  It is my belief that this technique should be taught to pilots of any aircraft capable of a low speed touchdown and rollout; not suggesting touchdowns directly across the runway, simply maximal utilization of the width of the runway when necessary and possible to lower a high crosswind component and decrease the degree of cross controlling. Obviously this is not an option for aircraft that land at higher speeds and requiring longer rollouts. Just so much more sensible to me than being concerned that some external observer will see me follow the centerline of the runway precisely.
                  The other technique unique to gyros is the use of the rotor drag as a brake, which is really Gyro Instruction Rotor Management 101 in my opinion.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Vance

                    Not 100% sure how to take your post above. The quote you provide from the handbook seems to suggest an into-the-wind landing is reserved for when the crosswind exceeds the safe performance of the regular process they describe next (above 15mph is the figure they use); it seems to say, if only by the depth of description, that a more typical crosswind landing procedure is the norm/preferred. Do you agree?

                    From “On final approach...” onward the description is exactly as I understand the appropriate procedure to be, gyro or fixed wing.

                    I do not disagree there are circumstances where a non-traditional landing is the safest option; I disagree it is the PREFERRED option for ALL crosswind landings.

                    I’ve never been “scored” for how closely I land on the centerline either (except maybe in a Flight Review). Angling 20+degrees on a runway adds new risks, even if people on the ground can’t even see that it’s happening.

                    Again, not trying to be argumentative. We do seem to be applying processes typical for “legacy” homebuilt gyros (and therefore instructing?) to the entire category when, in fact, the newer gyros do have differences. In some ways it feels like generalizing about fixes-wings when, in fact, there are differences between tricycle gear and taildraggers, ultralights vs. a King Air, and even high-wing vs. low-wing. My understanding is some gyros, such as a stock RAF 2000, have fairly low crosswind limits (7kts, I believe). It makes complete sense safety-wise to use “extraordinary” techniques for them at lower winds than in my Magni. But the broad-brush and unsubstantiated statement that it’s always better to land into the wind in a crosswind is where I disagree.

                    /Ed

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Just a final clarification, not implying that this is a 'PREFERRED option for ALL crosswind landings' simply an adjunctive technique to enhance the safety of crosswind landings in high crosswind situations, that pilots should not be scared to embrace.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by EdL View Post
                        Landing at a 30 degree angle on my 60ft wide home airport runway converts the runway from a 3800 foot one to 120 feet - and pointing at hangars and houses on both the approach and departure ends.
                        No, you're apparently picturing a long skewed final approach over houses and hangars that nobody here is advocating. The diagonal path limits only the on-pavement rolling to 120 feet and then only if you don't have any taxiways to aim for, but even so that's not quite the same thing as having a tiny airport with only a 120 foot runway. You still have a broad open area of airport over which to do all your approaching and descending. You can fly your final in full coordination with a wind correction angle in your heading (I hate the term crab, because it improperly suggests uncoordinated yawing to many) just on the downwind side, until lined up for your touchdown path, when you adjust slightly to point parallel to the windsock and put it down with very, very little groundspeed and no need for more rolling distance (and certainly no risk to houses and hangars). If the wind is significant enough to require that correction, you can have a truly small ground speed, and you will find that 120 feet is a pretty big target, while the hangars look very distant at that slow rate of closure.

                        There may be a perception problem here from never having seen it done, and from the specific aircraft you fly and touchdown speeds with which you are accustomed, which may be why you consider this to be a non-standard dirt-bike sort of operation. From my perspective, using the slip technique instead is the cowboy maneuver, needlessly risking control loss, runway excursions, rollovers, and such. Personally, I find a 25 kt. demonstrated crosswind component to be nothing short of silly for a gyroplane. If the wind is that strong, I can always land with zero roll by just pointing into it. Nobody will care about your orientation to the pavement if you're not moving on it, and you won't be thought a madman for using minimal runway.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by loftus View Post
                          Just a final clarification, not implying that this is a 'PREFERRED option for ALL crosswind landings' simply an adjunctive technique to enhance the safety of crosswind landings in high crosswind situations, that pilots should not be scared to embrace.
                          We’re in furious agreement! 😉

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by EdL View Post
                            Vance

                            Not 100% sure how to take your post above. The quote you provide from the handbook seems to suggest an into-the-wind landing is reserved for when the crosswind exceeds the safe performance of the regular process they describe next (above 15mph is the figure they use); it seems to say, if only by the depth of description, that a more typical crosswind landing procedure is the norm/preferred. Do you agree?

                            From “On final approach...” onward the description is exactly as I understand the appropriate procedure to be, gyro or fixed wing.

                            I do not disagree there are circumstances where a non-traditional landing is the safest option; I disagree it is the PREFERRED option for ALL crosswind landings.

                            I’ve never been “scored” for how closely I land on the centerline either (except maybe in a Flight Review). Angling 20+degrees on a runway adds new risks, even if people on the ground can’t even see that it’s happening.

                            Again, not trying to be argumentative. We do seem to be applying processes typical for “legacy” homebuilt gyros (and therefore instructing?) to the entire category when, in fact, the newer gyros do have differences. In some ways it feels like generalizing about fixes-wings when, in fact, there are differences between tricycle gear and taildraggers, ultralights vs. a King Air, and even high-wing vs. low-wing. My understanding is some gyros, such as a stock RAF 2000, have fairly low crosswind limits (7kts, I believe). It makes complete sense safety-wise to use “extraordinary” techniques for them at lower winds than in my Magni. But the broad-brush and unsubstantiated statement that it’s always better to land into the wind in a crosswind is where I disagree.

                            /Ed
                            Thank you for your thoughtful input Ed.

                            For me personally flying any of the gyroplanes I have flown allowing the gyroplane to turn into the wind and touching down at near zero ground speed is in my opinion the safest way to land a gyroplane.

                            In my experience with most of the gyroplanes I have flown as my airspeed drops below ten knots my rudder authority becomes limited unless I have some power in. With hard linked steering I feel this is a hazardous condition because I am misaligning my steering with my direction of travel.

                            I have limited time in a Magni M16 so I don’t have an opinion on how to fly one well. I found the flying characteristics to be similar to The Predator and none of my clients have had trouble transitioning into a Magni M16.

                            Don Bradley who instructs in a Magni M16 and has done many proficiency check rinds for my clients concurs. He didn’t have any difficulties flying The Predator.

                            I teach to use the rudder to align with the direction of travel and on the centerline up to about fifteen knots of crosswind component because that is what the FAA wants.

                            It is difficult to put numbers on when I will allow the nose to turn into the wind. I land near a wind sock so I have a visual on what the wind is doing and I get a feel for what to do during my round out. In my opinion in challenging conditions this is the best approach.

                            It would be reasonably accurate to say that the finish of my landing rollout is almost always very near the centerline even if I allow her to turn into the wind unless I am intentionally landing on the ramp.

                            I tailor the approach and wind limits to the client’s experience and abilities.
                            Regards, Vance Breese Gyroplane CFI http://www.breeseaircraft.com/

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              By contrast, the Magni (and the AR-1 and the Titanium - and it even looks like WaspAir's A&S) have a trailing axle, which means the nosewheel tends to "auto-correct" on roll-out because of the craft's inertia. Which makes me wonder why other manufacturers don't do the same? So many accidents I've read about appear to be directly related to that.

                              Except for the nosewheel issue, I'm not sure I see an advantage of the "stop and land" technique; there is no gyro (other than maybe a Carter Copter) that can take off in less runway than it can land, so one still must land somewhere with enough runway to take off again. Disadvantages seem significant, as Phil notes (and I've noted previously), especially in gusty conditions. Seems to me, remaining as close to the bottom of the "total drag curve" (generally, around Best Rate of Climb speed) for the landing for as long as possible gives far more options.

                              Can anyone help me understand why big players such as Autogyro and ELA have the nosewheel configuration they do?

                              Sure, "nosewheel design is moot if you have no speed when you put it down". But it's the cause of an accident if you DON'T put it down with no speed and the gyro darts off the runway because of the design. The accident reports sure seem to back this up. And when the accidents occur, they seem to be blamed on "poor pilot training/performance". I'd contend they're "poor pilot training/performance in a poorly-designed aircraft". Again, I'm at a loss to understand the benefit of the axle-forward design, especially in craft designed for low-time pilots.
                              EdL, as I understand it, the AR-1 trailing link took its inspiration from the TAG, which took its inspiration from Jim Vanek's many excellent Sport Copter models.
                              I've recently been flying a lot of Sport Copters in preparation for getting my new M2, and the nosewheel difference is huge (especially compared to my RAF).

                              The AutoGyro and ELA "big players" find it easier to mfg. a cheap nosewheel fork, and their customers generally don't know to demand anything better or safer.
                              Except when that NW bites them on the butt (e.g., Mentone 2017, MTOsport).

                              Regards,
                              Kolibri
                              PP - ASEL complex (C172RG, Piper 180, C206, RV-7A), SP - Gyro (Calidus, RAF, Sport Copter II, M912), soloed in gliders

                              "
                              When an honest but mistaken man learns of his error, he either ceases to be mistaken -- or he ceases to be honest."

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                The "big players" clearly understand rake, trail, and offset design in lieu of using the same design of a grocery cart wheel. Properly designed, either geometry will perform quite well. I'm sure Vance can chime in on the geometry of vehicles with a forward rake front wheel. I guess the owners of millions of motorcycles, bicycles, trikes, and countless other vehicles with a single front wheel are not smart enough to demand a rearward leaning front wheel. (roll eyes)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X