Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 23
User avatar
By Pete L
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1884007
Agreed. Horses generally fine with aircraft they can see but someone did a PFL into our paddock when the horse was in the stable with my wife - thing went mental.

There's a good reason to leave at least 500' from structures and keep PFLs for really open spaces.

Low enough to read the reg so the CFI at the relevant flying school got a polite call.
User avatar
By flyingearly
#1884010
I always did my EFATOs during training at my home airfield but never went lower than 300 feet; on my GST the examiner cut the throttle pretty much directly overhead a private strip that I hadn't seen and which wasn't that visible to me on the LHS. When I picked a field to land in (and made an OK-ish approach that I felt I would have got into) to around 50 feet, we climbed out and he asked me, 'why didn't you just land it on that strip'?

I told him that a) I hadn't seen it until quite late in the descent and that b) by that stage, I felt it was better to commit to the field I'd chosen than risk changing plans getting into the strip, which was at that stage a bit iffy.

Consequently, we climbed out and he asked me to do another one into the strip this time, which we did down to 50 feet before climbing away.

I assumed that he knew the strip owner, or had chosen it precisely because it would eliminate vexatious complaints given we looked like any other landing aircraft.
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1884014
flyingearly wrote:
I told him that a) I hadn't seen it until quite late in the descent and that b) by that stage, I felt it was better to commit to the field I'd chosen than risk changing plans getting into the strip, which was at that stage a bit iffy.
.


That was the correct response.

(And note that it's harder to judge the approach into a narrow strip - with a wide field you can use the width of the field to get your height/position right by making your final turn a bit earlier or later. )
StratoTramp liked this
User avatar
By Lockhaven
#1884015
flyingearly wrote:I always did my EFATOs during training at my home airfield but never went lower than 300 feet; on my GST the examiner cut the throttle pretty much directly overhead a private strip that I hadn't seen and which wasn't that visible to me on the LHS. When I picked a field to land in (and made an OK-ish approach that I felt I would have got into) to around 50 feet, we climbed out and he asked me, 'why didn't you just land it on that strip'?

I told him that a) I hadn't seen it until quite late in the descent and that b) by that stage, I felt it was better to commit to the field I'd chosen than risk changing plans getting into the strip, which was at that stage a bit iffy.

Consequently, we climbed out and he asked me to do another one into the strip this time, which we did down to 50 feet before climbing away.

I assumed that he knew the strip owner, or had chosen it precisely because it would eliminate vexatious complaints given we looked like any other landing aircraft.


You were probably correct with sticking to field you first found rather than changing at the last minute to a grass strip.

In this AAIB report that's exactly what happened which didn't end well.

https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-in ... -52-g-yakb
JAFO liked this
User avatar
By MattL
#1884021
@David Wood the same low energy aircraft would then be also be subject to the low level turbulence you allude to on the climb out from 100ft, in an unknown area with unknown obstructions.

I remain convinced that any perceived training value of descending much below 500’ AGL off airfield does not outweigh the risks; in any case the whole reason we do PFLs to an airfield as part of Ex 16 is to expose our students to and practice the final glide descent and landing.

The following accident report is a good read and the BGA advice is:

As soon as the base leg is commenced, it should be obvious to both instructor and student whether the approach will be successful, so there is very little reason to continue lower, into the high-risk area. EVEN WHERE LEGAL, LOW APPROACHES CARRY TOO HIGH A RISK TO BE JUSTIFIED ON TRAINING GROUNDS. If a student cannot successfully fly the approach, the airfield is the right environment for remedial action. With more experienced pilots practicing field approaches, the exercise can usually be abandoned at low key, or earlier as the selection is likely to be the major learning point for them.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _07-19.pdf
Last edited by MattL on Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By flyingearly
#1884024
Interesting that there is a common theme between that report and the original one that provoked this thread: it is human nature to attempt to avoid harm, to the point where as humans it becomes so incredibly difficult to pro-actively choose an outcome that carries some risk or some harm, even if it is the best option.

Recognising that it's better to land in a field, with associated risk, than to change a plan late in the day for a potential payoff of no harm, on a strip
Recognising that it's better to run out of runway and hit the hedge, than to continue the takeoff and come a cropper
Recognising that it's better to look silly and lose face, than to take an option to try and save face, that is actually high risk

Spinning this on its head a bit; I can hypothetically emphasise (and I think someone else alluded to it earlier) that if I was being bashed and berated on a regular basis - or made to look embarassed in front of my passenger - that a very human response might be to try and shrug it off and prove someone wrong, rather than say 'you know what, you're absolutely right'.
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1884025
David Wood wrote:@MattL , we may have to agree to disagree on this. But there's nothing really wrong with that.


Actually there is. When I'm examining I expect the candidate to be confident below 500' , indeed much lower, out in open country demonstrating a PFL.
If we get to 500' and they expect me to say "OK full power, let's climb away now," they are likely to be quite upset when I don't do that - and hence
Ikely to screw up/fail.
That's before we start to think about what's going to happen when it's for real.
However I agree with @MattL that once confident low down, a PFL done every flight is ok down to no lower than 500' - field selection, planning and so on will be clear by then.
User avatar
By David Wood
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1884028
@MattL , I've been thinking about this.

At the risk of sounding as if I'm starting an argument (and I'm not) might it be worth noting that the advice that you quote in capitals is from the British Gliding Association and I presume relates primarily to gliders, albeit motor-gliders. My experience of gliding is very very small and from a long time ago but I think I'm right in saying that they [mostly] have spoilers that act as air-brakes. I think I'm also right also in recalling that that, unlike flaps, spoilers can safely be retracted at very low level on a final approach in order to extend a mis-judged glide. I recall doing some gliding aeons ago and finding that the spoiler lever acted in a similar way to the throttle (but obviously to a more limited degree); ie, if I had misjudged the approach and was too fast I pulled it back and deployed more drag; if I was too low I pushed it forward and benefited from what I recall was a remarkable 'boost' in performance in terms of the glide.

If my recollection of that is correct then the advice from the BGA makes more sense because a glider pilot (or motor glider pilot) has potentially more capacity to influence his glide-path positively (ie, to extend it) compared to the pilot of a GA aeroplane. Consequently it might be less important for the FI to take the approach as low in order to demonstrate the effect of wind-gradient.

Just a thought...
User avatar
By Lockhaven
#1884032
Does the SERA ruling for flying below 500ft apply to the UK since Brexit.

I understood that we went back to the original CAA rule 5 that allowed flight below 500ft provided you didn't come within 500ft of any person, vessel, vehicle or structure, therefore flight at sea level would not be breaking the law unless a submarine popped up in front of you, or a person popped up from behind a hedge whilst practicing your PFL's.
By patowalker
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1884034
If you're old enough to have flown early microlights, you have a different perspective on PFLs. We didn't need to practice, as it happened for real often enough. :)

I was banned from turning the Quantum's engine off in the down downwind leg at ELMD, because it alarmed the neighbours. :(
lobstaboy, David Wood, HedgeSparrow and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By StratoTramp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1884035
Pretty sure skyway code published after this. Just states 500ft. Not agl. Separately mentions SERA in footnote. Basically (Check each European country you visit).
By Bill McCarthy
#1884036
PFL exercises into your chosen landing area are good for getting your approach height right - whether by banked turns or sideslipping. One drill that I never liked was low level turns - that moving mass of air ‘n all that ……
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1884038
I just checked what the BMAA guide for instructors and examiners says. These are the key points I think (and obviously I accept the emphasis may be different for other types).

EFATO - if you're above 300' it counts as engine failure in the circuit, not EFATO. It also says EFATO isn't normal aviation practice and so rule 5 does apply when training.

PFL without power - doesn't state a height that you should go down to but it does say approach must be established and flown at the correct speed and until landing in the chosen spot is assured. Given that you're likely to be completing the final turn lower than 500' then you need to be lower than that to meet these requirements.
Further, the guide DOES give a height to which you should descend when practicing forced landing WITH power. 100'. So clearly I'm expected to train students to be able to fly an approach out in the country down to 100' agl.
StratoTramp liked this
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1884041
Lockhaven wrote:...we went back to the original CAA rule 5 that allowed flight below 500ft provided you didn't come within 500ft of any person, vessel, vehicle or structure


Yes.
https://www.caa.co.uk/Our-work/Make-a-r ... ation-law/
And note the CAA specifically say that FR24 et al cannot be used to determine height agl in terms of rule breaking or not.
T6Harvard liked this
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 23