1、NASA M 00 N O? n z c 4 w 4 z TECHNICAL NOTE, LANDING PRACTICES OF GENERAL AVIATION PILOTS IN SINGLE-ENGINE LIGHT AIRPLANES Maxwell W. Goode, Xhomus C. OBryun, Kenneth R. Yenni, Robert L. Cannaduy, and Marna El. Mayo Langley Research Center Hanipton, Vu. 23665 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTR
2、ATION WASHINGTON, 0. C. OCTOBER 1976 Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-2. Government Accession No. I 1. Report No. NASA TN D-8283 4. Title and Subtitle LANDING PRACTICES OF GENERAL AVIATION PILOTS IN SINGLE-ENGINE LIGHT AIRPLANES 9. Sec
3、urity Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) Unclassified Unc las s i f i ed - 7. Author(s) Maxwell W. Goode, Thomas C. OBryan, Kenneth R. Yenni, Robert L. Cannaday, and Marna H. Mayo 9. Performing Organization Name and Address NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23665 2
4、1. No. of Pages 22. Price 48 $3 75 2. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, DC 20546 5. Supplementary Notes TECH LIBRARY KAFB, NM Illllll11#1111111111111111111111111111ll11 013405b October 1976 6. Performing Organization Code 8. Performing Organ
5、ization Report No. L-10878 10. Work Unit No. 505-10-11-01 11. Contract or Grant No. 13. Type of Reportand Period Covered Technical Note 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Technical Film Supplement L-1208 available on request. 6. Abstract The methods and techniques used by a group of general aviation pilots
6、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 (152
7、4 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-W
8、ords (Suggested by Authoris) ) Light aircraft landing Light aircraft pilot performance 18. Distribution Statement Unclassified - Unlimited Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-LANDING PRACTICES OF GENERAL AVIATION PILOTS IN SINGLE-ENGINE L
9、IGHT AIRPLANES Maxwell W. Goode, Thomas C. OBryan, 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 con
10、tains 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 typi- cal of
11、 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 pr
12、ogram 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-e
13、ngine, light airplanes flown for pleasure. In the vast majority of these accidents, the pilot is the cause or at least a contributing factor. Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-Many factors influence pilot performance to varying degrees;
14、 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
15、 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
16、 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
17、3. available on loan. A request card form and a description of the film will be founb at the back of this report. A motion-picture film supplement has been prepared and is TEST EQUIPMENT The airplanes used in this study (fig. 1) were chosen as being representative of the most widely used airplanes i
18、n 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
19、 and specifications for each airplane were obtained from the respective airplane owners 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 stabil
20、ator, 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 Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-high-wing one was not; and (3) the
21、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 airsp
22、eed, 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-wi
23、ng 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 a
24、irplanes 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.
25、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 indi
26、cated 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 pilots indi- cated airspeed with the recorded indicated airspeed as measured by the test boom. The airspeed calibrat
27、ion 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-leve
28、l, power-off, stall speed range of each airplane was documented for various flap settings. These tests were conducted 3 Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-in accordance with the procedures specified in part 23.201 of the Federal Aviation
29、 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 duri
30、ng-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
31、 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
32、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
33、 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
34、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 neg
35、ligible for the purpose of this study. A field survey of a typical grid installation indicated a tracking accuracy within k0.3 m ( however, for various reasons, this intent was not completely met, as can be noted, from table 111. AIRPORTS AND RUNWAYS The airports chosen for this program were selecte
36、d primarily because they were considered representative of airports used by gen- eral aviation pilots, and secondly, because they had a clear area adjacent to the landing runway to accommodate the ground-tracking system. controlled field serving a metropolitan area. A photograph of this field (fig.
37、5) shows two, hard-surface runways (2-20 and 6-24). All landings were made on runway 2-20 which was 1524 m (5000 ft) long and 45.7 m (150 ft) wide with significant clear areas leading to the thresholds. Field elevation was 12.5 m (41 ft). The airport handled a significant amount of traffic, both civ
38、il and military. At times the traffic was heavy; this necessitated modifications of The airport chosen for the long-runway landings was a large 5 Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-the standard traffic patterns, usually an extended downw
39、ind with a long straight-in final. ing a rural area. The photograph of the field (fig. 6) shows a single, hard-surface runway (18-36). All landings were made on runway 18 which was 762 m (2500 ft) long and 15.2 m (50 ft) wide with an elevation of 9.1 m (30 ft). The approach to the runway was over wa
40、ter with a tree line approximately 402 m (1/4 mile) from the threshold. The area between the tree line and the threshold was an open field under cultivation. The airport had very light traffic; consequently, the test subjects could fly the pattern without interference. The short-runway airport was a
41、 small uncontrolled field serv- TEST PROCEDURES All the pilots were briefed on the purpose of the study and the operation of the equipment prior to participating in the pro- gram. They were asked to make normal landings based on their training and experience. They were also asked to turn the airborn
42、e data system on just prior to or just after turning onto the final approach; however, the operation of the airplane and the piloting techniques were left completely to the discretion of the individual pilot. Each pilot was scheduled to make a maximum of six landings in any one day without prior pra
43、ctice on that day. This situation was imposed to minimize practice effects and to obtain data for each pilot under different wind conditions. If for some reason the pilot failed to turn the airborne data system on during some of the landings, the maximum was extended to cover six data land- ings. In
44、 order to help alleviate traffic congestion on the long runway, touch-and-go landings with a significant ground roll were permitted. These landings were permitted on the assumption that this procedure would not significantly affect the normal landing performances. All the landings on the short runwa
45、y were completed to a full stop. 6 Provided by IHSNot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-,-RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of this landing performance study cover a total of 616 landings made in both airplanes at both runways. A total of 299 landings were
46、 made in the low-wing airplane (144 on the long runway and 155 on the short runway) and 317 landings were made in the high-wing airplane (163 on the long runway and 154 on the short runway). Flight Conditions All landings were made essentially at sea level with an ambient temperature range from 21 C
47、 to 32 C (70 F to 90 F). The wind conditions for each landing are presented in figure 7. The data were recorded at the time of each landing relative to the active runway as measured at 3.05 m (10 ft) above ground level. These data are presented to show that the landings were made with a wide range o
48、f wind conditions, including variable winds that resulted in some landings being made with a tail-wind component. The short-runway airport was located a considerable distance from the normal base of operations; consequently, it was more difficult to conduct tests there under favorable wind condition
49、s than it was at the long runway which was the normal base of operations. As a result, more landings with a tail-wind component were made at the short runway than at the long runway. The pilots were informed of the wind conditions at the time, and tests were continued only when the pilots judged that the tail winds did not adversely affect their landing performance.
