Hi Guys,
Those who think they "can't" are ALWAYS right! BUT...a few words inspired by Richard Bach's Jonathan Livingston Seagull.
If the engine quits in the pattern (or anywhere else, I think a large percentage of us would prang the coupe (or worse) because we have never practiced (or are not current on) extremely low power setting landings. Traffic at many airports makes us much more familiar with flying extended patterns and long finals from extended downwinds. But the "bottom line" is that if you don't think it out, practice, and keep the results ever in mind you're going to have to make everything up FAST on the way down with very little practical "frame of reference". I call this the "head in the sand" approach to flying. It leaves a huge part of the manner and place of emergency arrival to luck or divine providence. This is distinctly not the "professional mind set" we should encourage.
The reason knowing a glide ratio (or "typical angle of glide" for your coupe as it is rigged and as normally flown in terms of weight) is that you can practice translating that information into a visual "frame of reference", maybe even a scribed line on the windshield that immediately helps you know which fields, etc. are likely within your power-off reach and which to exclude from such consideration. It doesn't help to hit the GPS and head for the nearest field if it is too far away. The GPS doesn't know how far you can glide either. Work out possibilities in advance on the ground and you're more safe and efficient aloft.
Some don't want to "work" when they "play", and there are many recreational pursuits safer and cheaper for them than aviation. Lake boating for example (but venture onto a large body of water and they are at similar risk to being aloft). I find comfort in KNOWING what my maximum usable fuel is and being able to accurately monitor actual fuel consumption in flight. Cross country preparations include pre-selecting places to fuel for the next leg. There's an "average range" one, another for a good tail wind, and a third for a good(?) head wind. Working it out is flying FUN on the ground...a bit of time and no $$$!
The lazy mind wires the mixture full rich so they need not concern themselves with proper leaning. This increases their fuel consumption (presuming they venture more than 100 miles from home), yet they complain about the "cost" of flying. Decide never to use any fuel from your header tank and you don't "think" much about range. OK, but the weight of unneeded fuel on every flight decreases your performance. You miss the pure joy of getting full measure of the safe capability of your coupe and the confidence while aloft that only competence can nuture.
There isn't a one of us whose landings are ALWAYS so smoothly that the "chirp" of the tires spooling up to ground speed is the only sensation of arrival. Those who place value on such skill and find enjoyment in its pursuit (and resulting increased frequency of achievement) are what aviation should be all about. We see many each day on a road posted for 65+ that go 60 mph in the fast lane. They may have no confidence (and may not be safe) going faster, yet express irritation should the rest of us challenge their God-given right to occupy that lane. You DON'T want advice from THESE people.
Yes, the pursuit of safety and excellence aloft is a never-ending quest, but a worthwhile and even enjoyable one. Class is for the kids who listen, not those who would much rather be elsewhere. We are all born ignorant. The antidote is knowledge. The conscious avoidence of knowledge is stupidity.
So there's one more opinion.
WRB
--
On Nov 27, 2004, at 8:09 AM, Beverly Deaton wrote:
From: Tim and Martha Briggs
I can't really judge distance accurately in terms of miles anyway, so the bottom line is that I probably won't even be thinking about all this stuff. Rather, I'll be "eyeballing" my landing site and sizing up my glide by visual reference the same way we judge our approach to a runway
Tim,
Thanks for that.
I was afraid there was something seriously wrong with my not thinking about using all the numbers the others have been discussing. My head just does not work that way. I would pick an off field landing site immediately and go for it using the usual power off landing sight picture (it changes due to your referenced wind, turb, etc factors) which I have practiced many times at the airport.
Here in the Sierras of Northern California there is no time to pull out the old calculator and use the info being discussed. Of course, when we depart the runway, we are already twice as high as some of these guys cruise.
Unlike my C-172, my Coupe seems to have only one thing on her mind when I pull the throttle....DOWN!!!
Bob
