Message-ID: <367713EE.2394@ibm.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 19:59:10 -0600
From: Snowbird <snbird@ibm.net>
Reply-To: snbird@ibm.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: The "Slips with Flaps" t-shirt
References: <74ndcq$b3p$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
	 <11487-36712F1F-13@newsd-172.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
	 <74s02p$96d$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <VA.000006b0.0000c419@hbmltd>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.100.136.87
X-Trace: 16 Dec 1998 02:02:58 GMT, 32.100.136.87
Organization: IBM.NET
Lines: 66
X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy
X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net
Path: news.jprc.com!newsfeed.sgi.net!cyclone.news.idirect.com!island.idirect.com!newsm.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!32.100.136.87
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.student:41986

Dave Mould wrote:
 
> In article <74s02p$96d$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,  wrote:

> > Don't get me wrong, all of this is fun stuff to be sure -- provided > > of course we've decided all along to fly the approach this way (as 
> > opposed to *needing* it late in the approach because we've not been > > paying attention and are now caught jammed in too close and too 
> > high)...

> This is a very major point, and one that is often missed in the 
> majority of arguments.  I don't know why it is missed. 

I don't know that it is missed.  Its relevance depends upon what's
being argued.

In between a clear decision ahead of time to fly an approach high,
and the need for flaps and a slip on every approach to make it down,
there's a large center ground.  It's called extending one's envelope,
learning the plane, exploring what works.  

Folks, there is one way to figure out what the plane will do --
exactly how steep an approach can you make power out full flaps?
How close can you stay to the runway and still get down?  What
happens if you stay up at TPA until final approach?  And that is
to try it.

And sometimes that leaves you in a position where the only 
way to land (if you choose to try it) is something extreme,
like a slip with full flaps.  Who is learning more, the pilot
who always goes around right away in that situation, or the 
pilot who (not planning it in advance) says "aw heck, let's
see what we can do"?  Was the judgement bad?  You betcha.

Only pilots with perfect judgement and perfect knowledge of the
plane can always make the call cleanly ahead of time.  The way
the rest of us work towards that goal is by sometimes getting in
situations where no, we didn't plan it ahead of time because
we're learning the plane and perfecting our judgement.

Rich's comments:
"...but if I'm that high on approach that I need flaps AND a
slip to get on the ground, point me towards an instructor 'cause 
I need some dual!"

are IMO horseradish.  The PPL is a license to learn, and where
is it writ that learning only takes place with a CFI in the
right seat?  Maybe pilots who always make a wide, power-in, on-
VASI pattern with no need to slip (or use flaps for that matter)
ought to get some dual, preferably with a CFI who will stretch
their envelope a little bit.

> It would be  fairly obvious that there is a vast difference between, 
> say, a planned landing at X to refuel, and an emergency diversion into > X because of poor fuel management.  

IMO a decision to slip on final is not analogous to poor fuel
management.  Fuel management is a matter entirely within the pilot's
control while lack of fuel is entirely beyond the pilot's control;
judgement in the pattern is affected by many things beyond the
pilot's control including other traffic, wind, and optical illusions
at an unfamiliar airport while lack of judgement (leading to being
way too high on final) is a situation entirely within the pilot's
ability to control.  Until the wheels touch, he or she can always go
around.  Not at all the same thing.

Regards,
Snowbird

