DOCSLIB.ORG

Landing Practices of General Aviation Pilots in Single-Engine Light Airplanes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Landing Practices of General Aviation Pilots in Single-Engine Light Airplanes NASA TECHNICAL NOTE, M 00 N O? n z c 4 w 4 z LANDING PRACTICES OF GENERAL AVIATION PILOTS IN SINGLE-ENGINE LIGHT AIRPLANES Maxwell W. Goode, Xhomus C. O’Bryun, Kenneth R. Yenni, Robert L. Cannaduy, and Marna El. Mayo Langley Research Center Hanipton, Vu. 23665 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, 0. C. OCTOBER 1976 TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. NASA TN D-8283 ~~~~~~ I Illllll11#1111111111111111111111111111ll~11 4. Title and Subtitle 013405b LANDING PRACTICES OF GENERAL AVIATION PILOTS IN October 1976 SINGLE-ENGINE LIGHT AIRPLANES 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Maxwell W. Goode, Thomas C. O'Bryan, Kenneth R. Yenni, L-10878 Robert L. Cannaday, and Marna H. Mayo 10. Work Unit No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 505-10-11-01 NASA Langley Research Center 11. Contract or Grant No. Hampton, VA 23665 13. Type of Report'and Period Covered 2. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Technical Note National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, DC 20546 5. Supplementary Notes Technical Film Supplement L-1208 available on request. 6. Abstract The methods and techniques used by a group of general aviation pilots during the landing phase of light airplane operations have been documented. This report contains the results of 616 landings made by 22 pilots in 2 modern, four-place, single-engine, light airplanes (one having a low wing and the other, a high wing). The landings were made on both a long runway (1524 m (5000 ft)) and a short runway (762 m (2500 ft)); both runways were considered typical of those used in general aviation. The results generally show that most of the approaches were fast with considerable floating during the flares and with touchdowns that were relatively flat or nose-low. 7. Key-Words (Suggested by Authoris) ) 18. Distribution Statement Light aircraft landing Unclassified - Unlimited Light aircraft pilot performance 9. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price' Unclassified Unc lass i f i ed 48 $3 75 - LANDING PRACTICES OF GENERAL AVIATION PILOTS IN SINGLE-ENGINE LIGHT AIRPLANES Maxwell W. Goode, Thomas C. O'Bryan, Kenneth R. Yenni, Robert L. Cannaday, and Marna H. Mayo Langley Research Center SUMMARY The methods and techniques used by a group of general aviation pilots during the landing phase of light airplane operations have been documented. This report contains the results of 616 landings made by 22 pilots in 2 modern, four-place, single-engine, light airplanes (one having a low wing and the other, a high wing). The land'ings were made on both a long runway (1524 m (5000 ft>>and a short runway (762 m (2500 ft)); both runways were considered typi- cal of those used in general aviation. The results generally show that most of the approaches were fast with considerable floating during the flares and with touchdowns that were relatively flat or nose-low. INTRODUCTION The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has undertaken a research program to document methods and techniques used by general aviation pilots to land airplanes. This effort was prompted by the general aviation safety records included in refer- ence 1. These reports indicate that most accidents under visual flight rules (VFR) occur during the landing phase of single-engine, light airplanes flown for pleasure. In the vast majority of these accidents, the pilot is the cause or at least a contributing factor. Many factors influence pilot performance to varying degrees; some of these factors are defined in reference 2 with the degree of influence for each factor. For this study, two modern, four-place, single-engine, light airplanes (one having a low wing and the other, a high wing) were leased from a fixed-base operator (FBO). A cadre of general avi- ation pilots with various backgrounds and experiences was provided by the FBO to perform a series of landings both on a long runway (1524 m (5000 ft)) and a short runway (762 m (2500 ft)). Approach and landing data were collected for approximately 150 landings on each runway for each airplane with ground-tracking and airborne data systems. A summary of the results of this landing progPam is presented to characterize typical private pilot performance during the landing phase of flight in daylight VFR conditions. Prelimi- nary results for the low-wing airplane phase of this program are presented in reference 3. A motion-picture film supplement has been prepared and is available on loan. A request card form and a description of the film will be founb at the back of this report. TEST EQUIPMENT The airplanes used in this study (fig. 1) were chosen as being representative of the most widely used airplanes in general aviation private flying. Both airplanes were leased from FBO and were used in his flight training and rental programs. The test vehicles were single-engine, four-place airplanes with fixed tricycle landing gear. One of the airplanes had a low wing and the other had a high wing. The details and specifications for each airplane were obtained from the respective airplane owner's manuals and are presented in tables I and 11. Other than wing location, there are several basic differ- ences between the two airplanes: (1) the longitudinal control system for the low-wing airplane used a stabilator, whereas the high-wing airplane used a conventional fixed horizontal stabilizer and eleva- tor; (2) the low-wing airplane was equipped with rudder trim and the 2 high-wing one was not; and (3) the low-wing airplane had manually operated flaps with four discrete settings (Oo, IOo, 25O, and 40°), whereas the high-airplane had electrically operated flaps with infinite settings between Oo and 40'. The airplanes were instrumented to measure and record 21 dif- ferent flight parameters including airspeed, pitch attitude, flap position, and altitude. The instrumentation system cons-isted of sensors located throughout the airplane, a signal conditioning package, and a central tape recorder. In the low-wing airplane, the instrumentation package was located in the baggage compartment; in the high-wing airplane, the package was located in the rear pas- senger compartment. The only modification to the instrument panel was the installation of control switches for the recording system; these switches were centrally located in the panel. The only obvi- ous change in the external appearance of the airplanes was the test boom protruding from the left wing tip. This boom was approximately 75 percent of the wing chord in length and was installed to measure airspeed, angle of attack, and angle of sideslip. A weight was added inside the right wing tip to counterbalance the weight of the test boom. The complete airborne data system increased the basic weight of the test airplane approximately 86.2 kg (190 lb). The flight characteristics of both airplanes were investigated by NASA research pilots before and after the modifications for instrumentation. The qualitative results of these tests indicated that the installation of the instrument systems had negligible effects on the handling characteristics of both airplanes. Air- speed calibrations were conducted to correlate the pilot's indi- cated airspeed with the recorded indicated airspeed as measured by the test boom. The airspeed calibration curves for each air- plane are presented in figure 2. The recorded indicated airspeed was chosen as the common basis for comparison; therefore, unless otherwise stated, all airspeeds referred to in this report are expressed in terms of the recorded indicated airspeed. In addition, the wings-level, power-off, stall speed range of each airplane was documented for various flap settings. These tests were conducted 3 in accordance with the procedures specified in part 23.201 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (ref. 4). The stall speeds used in the figures are the measured stall speeds of the respective air- planes at the nominal test weight, whereas the stall speeds in the tables reflect the manufacturers' specified values. A ground-tracking system was used to obtain the flight-path data during-the final stages of the approaches and the touchdown data. This system, shown in figure 3, consisted of a 16-mm motion-picture camera and a large photographic grid. The grid was located parallel to the runway and between the camera and the runway so that both the airplane and portions of the grid were photographed simultaneously during the final approach and landing. The exact location of the system was surveyed with respect to the landing end of the runway. The grid consisted of a series of vertical and horizontal plastic strips fastened at the intersections to form squeres with sides 0.6 m (2 ft) in length. The total system consisted of ten 6.7-m-long (22-ft- long) sections with rigid aluminum poles between each section. The support poles were adjustable to compensate for uneven terrain and to set the desired elevation of the grid. The overall grid system was 3.05 m (IO ft) high and 67.06 m (220 ft) long. Normal photogrammetric techniques were used to obtain the trajectory data from the film. All measurements were based on the positions of the tip of the airplane nose and the vertical tail with respect to the position of the photographic grid seen in each picture frame. These measurements were converted to the attitude of the airplane and the location of its center of gravity with respect to the runway threshold. For photographic analysis purposes, all landings were assumed to be on the center line of the runway. Errors resulting from this assumption were found to be negligible for the purpose of this study.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Guidance for the Implementation of Fdm Precursors
    EUROPEAN OPERATORS FLIGHT DATA MONITORING WORKING GROUP B SAFETY PROMOTION Good Practice document GUIDANCE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FDM PRECURSORS June 2019 Rev 02 Guidance for the Implementation of FDM Precursors | Rev 02 Contents Table of Revisions .............................................................................................................................5 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................6 Occurrence Reporting and FDM interaction ............................................................................................ 6 Precursor Description ................................................................................................................................ 6 Methodology for Flight Data Monitoring ................................................................................................. 9 Runway Excursions (RE) ..................................................................................................................11 RE01 – Incorrect Performance Calculation ............................................................................................. 12 RE02 – Inappropriate Aircraft Configuration .......................................................................................... 14 RE03 – Monitor CG Position .................................................................................................................... 16 RE04 – Reduced Elevator Authority .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Arkansas Aviation Operation Plan Glossary of Terms A
    Arkansas Aviation Operations –March 2014 Glossary of Terms Glossary v1.r1 Arkansas Aviation Operation Plan Glossary of Terms A ABORT To terminate a preplanned aircraft maneuver; e.g. an aborted takeoff 29 ADVISORY FREQUENCY The appropriate frequency to be used for Airport Advisory Service 29 AIR CARRIER A person who undertakes directly by lease, or other arrangement, to engage in air transportation.30 AIRCRAFT CATERGORY The term “category,” as used with respect to the certification of aircraft, means a grouping of aircraft based on their intended use or operating limitations, for example, normal, utility, acrobatic, or primary. For purposes of this order, gliders and balloons will be referred to as categories rather than classifications.30 AIR TRAFFIC Aircraft operating in the air or on an airport surface, exclusive of loading ramps and parking areas 29 AIR TRAFFIC CLEARANCE An authorization by air traffic control for the purpose of preventing collision between known aircraft, for an aircraft to proceed under specified traffic conditions within controlled airspace. The pilot-in-command of an aircraft may not deviate from the provisions of a visual flight rules (VFR) or instrument flight rules (IFR) air traffic clearance except in an emergency or unless an amended clearance has been obtained 29 AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL A service operated by appropriate authority to promote the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic 29 AIRPORT MARKING AID Markings used on runway and taxiway surfaces to identify a specific runway, a runway threshold, a centerline, a hold line, etc. A runway should be marked in accordance with its present usage such as: a.
    [Show full text]
  • United Nations Aviation Standards for Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Air Transport Operations
    UNITED NATIONS AVIATION STANDARDS FOR PEACEKEEPING AND HUMANITARIAN AIR TRANSPORT OPERATIONS (SEPTEMBER 2012) UNITED NATIONS AVIATION STANDARDS FOR PEACEKEEPING AND HUMANITARIAN AIR TRANSPORT OPERATIONS Table of Contents LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.2 Applicability 1.3 Rules of Construction 1.4 Administration and Organization SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS SECTION 3: UN ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF AIR TRANSPORT OPERATIONS 3.1 Organization Structure 3.2 Personnel Requirements 3.3 Personnel Qualification Requirements for Air Transport Management 3.4 Personnel Qualification Requirements for Aviation Safety Management 3.5 Personnel Qualification Requirements for Aviation Quality Assurance Management 3.6 UN Call Signs 3.7 Insurance SECTION 4: AIRCRAFT OPERATOR REQUIREMENTS 4.1 Participation in UN Charter Contracts 4.2 Crew Member Training, Qualifications and Experience 4.3 Operational Control Functions 4.4 Flight Time, Flight Duty Periods and Rest Periods 4.5 The Air Operator Certificate 4.6 AOC Holder’s Operations Management 4.7 AOC Holder’s Maintenance Requirements 4.8 AOC Holder’s Security Management 4.9 Other Requirements 4.10 Crew Member Duties and Responsibilities 4.11 Flight Rules 4.12 Carriage of Passengers and Cargo — — — — — — — — (i) LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Section Page Date Amended Section Page Date Amended by by 1 I‐1 September 2012 IV‐24 November 2007 I‐2 November 2007 2 II‐1 September 2012 II‐2 November 2007 II‐3 September 2012 II‐4 September 2012 II‐5 September 2012 II‐6 November 2007 3 III‐1
    [Show full text]
  • The Pennsylvania State University
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School Department of Aerospace Engineering REAL-TIME PATH PLANNING AND AUTONOMOUS CONTROL FOR HELICOPTER AUTOROTATION A Dissertation in Aerospace Engineering by Thanan Yomchinda 2013 Thanan Yomchinda Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2013 The dissertation of Thanan Yomchinda was reviewed and approved* by the following: Joseph F. Horn Associate Professor of Aerospace Engineering Dissertation Co-Advisor Co-Chair of Committee Jacob W. Langelaan Associate Professor of Aerospace Engineering Dissertation Co-Advisor Co-Chair of Committee Edward C. Smith Professor of Aerospace Engineering Christopher D. Rahn Professor of Mechanical Engineering George A. Lesieutre Professor of Aerospace Engineering Head of the Department of Aerospace Engineering *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT Autorotation is a descending maneuver that can be used to recover helicopters in the event of total loss of engine power; however it is an extremely difficult and complex maneuver. The objective of this work is to develop a real-time system which provides full autonomous control for autorotation landing of helicopters. The work includes the development of an autorotation path planning method and integration of the path planner with a primary flight control system. The trajectory is divided into three parts: entry, descent and flare. Three different optimization algorithms are used to generate trajectories for each of these segments. The primary flight control is designed using a linear dynamic inversion control scheme, and a path following control law is developed to track the autorotation trajectories. Details of the path planning algorithm, trajectory following control law, and autonomous autorotation system implementation are presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Cessna Model 150M Performance- Cessna Specifications Model 150M Performance - Specifications
    PILOT'S OPERATING HANDBOOK ssna 1977 150 Commuter CESSNA MODEL 150M PERFORMANCE- CESSNA SPECIFICATIONS MODEL 150M PERFORMANCE - SPECIFICATIONS SPEED: Maximum at Sea Level 109 KNOTS Cruise, 75% Power at 7000 Ft 106 KNOTS CRUISE: Recommended Lean Mixture with fuel allowance for engine start, taxi, takeoff, climb and 45 minutes reserve at 45% power. 75% Power at 7000 Ft Range 340 NM 22.5 Gallons Usable Fuel Time 3.3 HRS 75% Power at 7000 Ft Range 580 NM 35 Gallons Usable Fuel Time 5. 5 HRS Maximum Range at 10,000 Ft Range 420 NM 22. 5 Gallons Usable Fuel Time 4.9 HRS Maximum Range at 10,000 Ft Range 735 NM 35 Gallons Usable Fuel Time 8. 5 HRS RATE OF CLIMB AT SEA LEVEL 670 FPM SERVICE CEILING 14, 000 FT TAKEOFF PERFORMANCE: Ground Roll 735 FT Total Distance Over 50-Ft Obstacle 1385 FT LANDING PERFORMANCE: Ground Roll 445 FT Total Distance Over 50-Ft Obstacle 107 5 FT STALL SPEED (CAS): Flaps Up, Power Off 48 KNOTS Flaps Down, Power Off 42 KNOTS MAXIMUM WEIGHT 1600 LBS STANDARD EMPTY WEIGHT: Commuter 1111 LBS Commuter II 1129 LBS MAXIMUM USEFUL LOAD: Commuter 489 LBS Commuter II 471 LBS BAGGAGE ALLOWANCE 120 LBS WING LOADING: Pounds/Sq Ft 10.0 POWER LOADING: Pounds/HP 16.0 FUEL CAPACITY: Total Standard Tanks 26 GAL. Long; Range Tanks 38 GAL. OIL CAPACITY 6 QTS ENGINE: Teledyne Continental O-200-A 100 BHP at 2750 RPM PROPELLER: Fixed Pitch, Diameter 69 IN. D1080-13-RPC-6,000-12/77 PILOT'S OPERATING HANDBOOK Cessna 150 COMMUTER 1977 MODEL 150M Serial No.
    [Show full text]
  • (VL for Attrid
    ECCAIRS Aviation 1.3.0.12 Data Definition Standard English Attribute Values ECCAIRS Aviation 1.3.0.12 VL for AttrID: 391 - Event Phases Powered Fixed-wing aircraft. (Powered Fixed-wing aircraft) 10000 This section covers flight phases specifically adopted for the operation of a powered fixed-wing aircraft. Standing. (Standing) 10100 The phase of flight prior to pushback or taxi, or after arrival, at the gate, ramp, or parking area, while the aircraft is stationary. Standing : Engine(s) Not Operating. (Standing : Engine(s) Not Operating) 10101 The phase of flight, while the aircraft is standing and during which no aircraft engine is running. Standing : Engine(s) Start-up. (Standing : Engine(s) Start-up) 10102 The phase of flight, while the aircraft is parked during which the first engine is started. Standing : Engine(s) Run-up. (Standing : Engine(s) Run-up) 990899 The phase of flight after start-up, during which power is applied to engines, for a pre-flight engine performance test. Standing : Engine(s) Operating. (Standing : Engine(s) Operating) 10103 The phase of flight following engine start-up, or after post-flight arrival at the destination. Standing : Engine(s) Shut Down. (Standing : Engine(s) Shut Down) 10104 Engine shutdown is from the start of the shutdown sequence until the engine(s) cease rotation. Standing : Other. (Standing : Other) 10198 An event involving any standing phase of flight other than one of the above. Taxi. (Taxi) 10200 The phase of flight in which movement of an aircraft on the surface of an aerodrome under its own power occurs, excluding take- off and landing.
    [Show full text]
  • Sidestick Controllers During High Gain Tasks
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 8-2002 Sidestick Controllers During High Gain Tasks Brian J. Goszkowicz University of Tennessee - Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Systems Engineering and Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Commons Recommended Citation Goszkowicz, Brian J., "Sidestick Controllers During High Gain Tasks. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2002. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/2060 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Brian J. Goszkowicz entitled "Sidestick Controllers During High Gain Tasks." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Aviation Systems. Dr. R. Kimberlin, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: Dr. U. P. Solies, Dr. Fred Stellar Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Brian J. Goszkowicz entitled “Sidestick Controllers During High Gain Tasks.” I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Aviation Systems.
    [Show full text]
  • On a Supersonic Cruise Research Transport to Minimize Airport
    NASA TP 1742 NASA Technical Paper 1742 c.1 on a Supersonic Cruise ResearchTransport To MinimizeAirport-Community Noise William D. Grantham, Paul M. Smith, a,nd Perry L. Deal NOVEMBER 1980 00b7bb0 NASA Technical Paper 1742 A SimulatorStudy for the Development and Evaluation of OperatingProcedures on a SupersonicCruise Research Transport To MinimizeAirport-Community Noise William D. Grantham Langley Research Center Hampton,Virginia Paul M. Smith KentronInternational, Inc. Hampton,Virginia Perry L. Deal t Langley Research Center Hampton,Virginia National Aeronautics and Space Administration Scientific and Technical Information Branch 1980 SUMMARY Piloted-simulator studies have been conducted to determine takeoff and landing operating procedures for a supersonic cruise research transport con- cept that result in predicted noise levels which meet current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) noise-certification standards. The results of these studies indicate that with the ofuse standard FAA noise-certification test procedures, the simulated aircraft did not meet FAA the traded-noise-level standards during takeoff and landing. With the use of advanced test proce- dures, however, this simulated aircraft did meet the traded-noise-level stan- dards for average flightcrew skills. The advanced takeoff procedures developed involve violating threeof the current Federal Aviation Regulations(FAR) noise- test conditions. These violations are thrust cutback at altitudes below 214 m (700 ft), thrust cutbacklevel below that presently allowed, and configuration change (other than raising the landing gear). Of these rule violations, thrust cutback at altitudes below 214 (700m ft) is of primary importance. That is, only minor noise-reduction benefits were realized by violating the other rules listed. It was not necessary to violate any FAR noise-test conditions during landing approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2: Aerodynamics of Flight
    Chapter 2 Aerodynamics of Flight Introduction This chapter presents aerodynamic fundamentals and principles as they apply to helicopters. The content relates to flight operations and performance of normal flight tasks. It covers theory and application of aerodynamics for the pilot, whether in flight training or general flight operations. 2-1 Gravity acting on the mass (the amount of matter) of an object is increased the static pressure will decrease. Due to the creates a force called weight. The rotor blade below weighs design of the airfoil, the velocity of the air passing over the 100 lbs. It is 20 feet long (span) and is 1 foot wide (chord). upper surface will be greater than that of the lower surface, Accordingly, its surface area is 20 square feet. [Figure 2-1] leading to higher dynamic pressure on the upper surface than on the lower surface. The higher dynamic pressure on the The blade is perfectly balanced on a pinpoint stand, as you upper surface lowers the static pressure on the upper surface. can see in Figure 2-2 from looking at it from the end (the The static pressure on the bottom will now be greater than airfoil view). The goal is for the blade to defy gravity and the static pressure on the top. The blade will experience an stay exactly where it is when we remove the stand. If we do upward force. With just the right amount of air passing over nothing before removing the stand, the blade will simply fall the blade the upward force will equal one pound per square to the ground.
    [Show full text]
  • Flying Light Twins Safely
    Flying Light Twins Safely Note: The graphics and some of the material in this document have been modified from the original printed version. Introduction The major difference between flying a light twin and a single-engine airplane is knowing how to manage the flight if one engine loses power. Safe flight with one engine inoperative (OEI) requires an understanding of the basic aerodynamics involved as well as proficiency in single-engine flight. This booklet deals extensively with the numerous aspects of OEI flight. You must remember, however, not to place undue emphasis on mastery of OEI flight as the sole key to flying light twins safely. The Normal Takeoff For normal takeoff planning, use the manufacturer’s recommended rotation speed (Vr) or lift-off speed (Vlof). If no such speeds are published, use a minimum of minimum control speed (Vmc) plus 5 knots for Vr. As a rule, light twins should not be airborne before reaching Vmc. After lift-off, the next consideration is to gain altitude as rapidly as practicable. After leaving the ground, altitude gain is more important than achieving an en route climb airspeed. Allow the airplane to accelerate in a shallow climb to attain Vy, the best rate of climb speed when both engines are operating. Maintain Vy until a safe single- engine maneuvering altitude, typically at least 400 feet above ground level (AGL), has been achieved. (If Vy would result in a pitch attitude of more than 15 degrees, consider limiting the initial pitch attitude to 15 degrees to minimize control difficulty if an engine is lost.) A transition to an en route climb can then be made as climb power is set.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 13 Transition to Tailwheel Airplanes
    Chapter 13 Transition to Tailwheel Airplanes Introduction Due to their design and structure, tailwheel airplanes (tailwheels) exhibit operational and handling characteristics different from those of tricycle-gear airplanes (nosewheels). [Figure 13-1] In general, tailwheels are less forgiving of pilot error while in contact with the ground than are nosewheels. This chapter focuses on the operational differences that occur during ground operations, takeoffs, and landings. Although still termed “conventional-gear airplanes,” tailwheel designs are most likely to be encountered today by pilots who have first learned in nosewheels. Therefore, tailwheel operations are approached as they appear to a pilot making a transition from nosewheel designs. 13-1 Figure 13-1. The Piper Super Cub on the left is a popular tailwheel airplane. The airplane on the right is a Mooney M20, which is a nosewheel (tricycle gear) airplane. Landing Gear stop a turn that has been started, and it is necessary to apply an opposite input (opposite rudder) to bring the aircraft back The main landing gear forms the principal support of the to straight-line travel. airplane on the ground. The tailwheel also supports the airplane, but steering and directional control are its primary If the initial rudder input is maintained after a turn has been functions. With the tailwheel-type airplane, the two main struts started, the turn continues to tighten, an unexpected result are attached to the airplane slightly ahead of the airplane’s for pilots accustomed to a nosewheel. In consequence, it is center of gravity (CG), so that the plane naturally rests in a common for pilots making the transition between the two nose-high attitude on the triangle created by the main gear and types to experience difficulty in early taxi attempts.
    [Show full text]
  • 90 Degree Nosewheel Rotation on Landing, Airbus A320, February 16, 1999
    90 degree nosewheel rotation on landing, Airbus A320, February 16, 1999 Micro-summary: This Airbus A320 landed with the nose gear rotated at a 90 degree angle. Event Date: 1999-02-16 at 1602 EST Investigative Body: National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), USA Investigative Body's Web Site: http://www.ntsb.gov/ Cautions: 1. Accident reports can be and sometimes are revised. Be sure to consult the investigative agency for the latest version before basing anything significant on content (e.g., thesis, research, etc). 2. Readers are advised that each report is a glimpse of events at specific points in time. While broad themes permeate the causal events leading up to crashes, and we can learn from those, the specific regulatory and technological environments can and do change. Your company's flight operations manual is the final authority as to the safe operation of your aircraft! 3. Reports may or may not represent reality. Many many non-scientific factors go into an investigation, including the magnitude of the event, the experience of the investigator, the political climate, relationship with the regulatory authority, technological and recovery capabilities, etc. It is recommended that the reader review all reports analytically. Even a "bad" report can be a very useful launching point for learning. 4. Contact us before reproducing or redistributing a report from this anthology. Individual countries have very differing views on copyright! We can advise you on the steps to follow. Aircraft Accident Reports on DVD, Copyright © 2006 by Flight
    [Show full text]