|
We'll likely never know what happened for certain. That doesn't mean
you
can't take what you think may have happened in this accident, compare it
to
what you habitually do, and make changes, if appropriate.
Worst
case scenario in my mind is a familiar scene of a pilot using a very
shallow
approach angle to make the flare easier (I suppose that's why so
many make
shallow approaches -- don't know for sure). Anyway, If that is
your habit,
there but for fortune went you. There is no good excuse for a
dragged in
approach.
I've also heard pilots talk of using a shallow final as a means
of making a
spot landing. Don't know how that works, but I know a picture
book landing
can be made from a normal or steeper than normal approach
angle.
I know this may not be a correct analysis of what happened in this
accident,
but it doesn't matter. If we can become better pilots from a
discussion of
what may have, or probably happened, we win.
One item to consider is the type of prop which may be on the
plane. Since the plane is a 235 airframe, it is a great possibility that
it may have a fixed pitch prop. If that is so, the pilot does not
have the luxury of the benefits of a constant speed prop which helps slow the
plane down on final and allows for a steeper rate of decent. That fixed
pitch prop is always pulling the plane along on final, and throughout the roll
out. I would suggest that a good percentage of fixed pitch prop Lancair
pilots engage is slightly shallower approaches on final
on a regular basis than Lancair pilots with controllable props.
Any constant speed prop Lancair pilots flown a fixed pitch prop plane
lately? How about a fixed pitch prop Lancair?
Gary Edwards
LNC2 N21SN
|