Landing Any Good Books on it ?

[eniranjanrao]

Are there any good books on landing in all types of weather?

[TSC.]

Not sure about books - but my boss says i'm very good at landing myself in the s**t.



TSC.

[EGNX]

Not sure about books - but my boss says i'm very good at landing myself in the s**t.



TSC.

LMAO!!!!  ;D

And sorry eniranjanrao I don't know if there are any books about landing in all weather, but I guess someone round here will.

[RitterKreuz]

if its a book about flying... its probably here

http://www.aeroplanebooks.com/

though i doubt it if anyone has taken it upon themselves to write volumes about the ONE aspect of landing.

hope your search yields results

[beaky]

Offhand, I'd say if you can see the runway and aren't carrying ice, it doesn't matter what the weather's like... nothing intrinsically different.
I've landed VFR on cold days, hot days, windy days, cloudy days, on wet runways, icy runways, in snow, in rain...
A wet or ice-patched runway requires some foresight to prevent skidding or hydroplaning when you brake, but other than that, it's all the same. Visualize, stabilize, and correct.

Most "how-to" books on flying cover weather concerns throughout; I don't think there's a book dedicated solely to weather as regards landings.

[DaveSims]

You can read a book on how to ride a bike, but you still have to actually do it to know how.  

[Boss_BlueAngels]

[quote]You can read a book on how to ride a bike, but you still have to actually do it to know how.

[OTTOL]

Offhand, I'd say if you can see the runway and aren't carrying ice, it doesn't matter what the weather's like... nothing intrinsically different.

 Take this guy's advice. He's right, once you've transitioned to a visual approach, landing is exactly the same.

Landing, itself, really comes down to two basic factors: wind (direction and variation) and thrust.

I can't say that I know of any books that cover good landing techniques but the King video on the subject is outstanding. Once you get past the crazy little ladie's afro, you'll see that they use a simple and effective technique. They fly an airplane down a runway, in ground effect a bunch of times, with a camera placed at the approach end, pointing down the runway. They do a bunch of passes; some demostrate rudder effects and some demonsrate aileron effects. Then they combine the two. I used to take my students out to an abandoned runway and do the same thing (after watching the King method).

Thrust comes into play to a greater degree when you transition to larger aircraft. Moving to a heavier plane may mean an aircraft that requires power all the way to the runway. The same goes for a twin, with the added effect of accelerated slipstream. On jets (especially one's with rear-mounted engines) the novice pilot has to un-learn some of the most basic fundamentals of landing technique. When I first started flying Lears, one of the toughest things I had to learn was to push forward (instead of holding the airplane in the flare) when I chopped the power!

The only other bit of advice I might add is; make sure you get stabilized (fully configured and at approach speed) as soon as possible. This would be the one true difference between an instrument approach and some visual approaches. And even for a full-visual approach, I recommend getting stabilized early.

Just ask these guys.....  http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/AAB0204.htm

[beefhole]

[quote]The only other bit of advice I might add is; make sure you get stabilized (fully configured and at approach speed) as soon as possible. This would be the one true difference between an instrument approach and some visual approaches. And even for a full-visual approach, I recommend getting stabilized early.

Just ask these guys.....

[OTTOL]

[quote][quote]The only other bit of advice I might add is; make sure you get stabilized (fully configured and at approach speed) as soon as possible. This would be the one true difference between an instrument approach and some visual approaches. And even for a full-visual approach, I recommend getting stabilized early.

Just ask these guys.....

[hollywood]

From my experience every time you land its pretty much the same, just sometimes you cant see the ground until your mains are rolling.

[Boss_BlueAngels]

Just to throw a wrench into this all too calm thread....

When you get into short field, high-elevation airfields landing isn't just, "landing."  There is a very fine science to it.  Not only do you have to know the precise airspeed/power settings for an approach, but you have to learn how to judge the terrain.  Coming in over a river bed?  Expect a bit of a sink as you pass over it... over some very hot rocks/ground?  Expect some rising air.  

Coming in over some hills with a significant headwind?  Expect some downdrafts to quickly shift to updrafts as you cross the ridge.  No landing in the back country is ever a "normal" landing.  

Those are just a handful of scenarios you may encounter if you're flying in mountains.  Not only do you have to acquire the skills to adjust for these with power/control, but be able to anticipate them.  Flying by reaction gets people killed.  Flying by anticipation keeps you alife.  

[beaky]

The only other bit of advice I might add is; make sure you get stabilized (fully configured and at approach speed) as soon as possible. This would be the one true difference between an instrument approach and some visual approaches. And even for a full-visual approach, I recommend getting stabilized early.

Just ask these guys.....  http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/AAB0204.htm

Well, the same NTSB guys will tell you, in the same breath, not to get established TOO early (if you're flying something like a 172).  Basically, just fly the pattern, follow SOP and you're golden  ;)

You're right, you shouldn't be fully-configured in your 172 when you're 5 miles from touchdown.  ::)

I said stabilized....not stupid....

So true. But having only flown bug-smashers, and mostly at uncontrolled fields where straight-ins are not encouraged, I can safely say that almost every not-so-great landing I've ever made went wrong either at the top of final or even abeam the numbers on downwind. You can salvage a poor approach most of the time, but it's better to not have to.

None of it is carved in stone, especially at tricky landing sites such as Boss describes, but getting set up right makes all the difference. Even in a situation where you have to dogleg around a tree on final and be ready for downdrafts off a nearby cliff or changing air over various surfaces, if you are near your desired airspeed/sink rate target as soon as you're committed to the approach, it will all go better for you.

[fighter25]

I think any landing you live from is a good landing.

[beaky]

I think any landing you live from is a good landing.

You've never landed with me...  :D