@tjjohn1001 An ancient 172 with plenty of dings, cracked fairings, no wheel pants and acres of rivets can come down pretty steeply, so I stay more focused on gliding range to the nearest emergency field. If you are in Europe as your profile indicates, many of the popular airplanes there are far more efficient gliders than a 172, so I can imagine it looks even more pronounced. Why don't you give up your armchair status and come out and join us? We'd love to have you!
Thanks for your comment. I'll agree to "way above the glideslope", but in a single-engine plane with nothing but trees for 50 miles, I'd rather be way up there. I just hope nobody tries to start the "shock cooling" argument. :)
Wow, good glide management! I thought that approach started high but you managed the glide perfectly! Smart when you dont have many emergency options....cool airport on that plateau...looks like they cut off the top of a mountain to build the airport.
The 150 and 172 will come down pretty steep with maximum flaps (and conversely will NOT maintain a 3 degree glideslope with a failed engine) so my CFI taught me to do stay above the glideslope when there's plenty of runway, and it makes sense to me. When I move to more slippery airplanes, I'll have to do things a little differently. And yes, it's quite a sight coming into that airport when you're used to flatlands.
Thanks. Yeah, there are not too many choices there if you were to have an engine problem. That's why I habitually stay quite high until I can easily glide in. On takeoff, there are highways close enough to each end to potentially land on, but that's about it. The terrain drops away quite rapidly off the ends. The perpendicular runway was closed while I was there, so I didn't get a good look at it.
I took the original comment to mean the plateau leaving no overrun area around the pavement. The runways at CRW are certainly quite luxurious for a 172. It was actually my first Class-C airport, so was bigger than anything I was used to.
@tjjohn1001 An ancient 172 with plenty of dings, cracked fairings, no wheel pants and acres of rivets can come down pretty steeply, so I stay more focused on gliding range to the nearest emergency field. If you are in Europe as your profile indicates, many of the popular airplanes there are far more efficient gliders than a 172, so I can imagine it looks even more pronounced. Why don't you give up your armchair status and come out and join us? We'd love to have you!
swpctx 7 months ago
Way to high
Keagkid 2 years ago
Thanks for your comment. I'll agree to "way above the glideslope", but in a single-engine plane with nothing but trees for 50 miles, I'd rather be way up there. I just hope nobody tries to start the "shock cooling" argument. :)
swpctx 2 years ago
Okay. Cool.
Keagkid 2 years ago
Wow, good glide management! I thought that approach started high but you managed the glide perfectly! Smart when you dont have many emergency options....cool airport on that plateau...looks like they cut off the top of a mountain to build the airport.
helobelow 3 years ago
The 150 and 172 will come down pretty steep with maximum flaps (and conversely will NOT maintain a 3 degree glideslope with a failed engine) so my CFI taught me to do stay above the glideslope when there's plenty of runway, and it makes sense to me. When I move to more slippery airplanes, I'll have to do things a little differently. And yes, it's quite a sight coming into that airport when you're used to flatlands.
swpctx 3 years ago
About as tiny as a runway will get, great landing.
Rawr454 3 years ago
Thanks. Yeah, there are not too many choices there if you were to have an engine problem. That's why I habitually stay quite high until I can easily glide in. On takeoff, there are highways close enough to each end to potentially land on, but that's about it. The terrain drops away quite rapidly off the ends. The perpendicular runway was closed while I was there, so I didn't get a good look at it.
swpctx 3 years ago
nah that runway is 6,300ft. the other is 4,500ft. and the one at chicago midway is 6.400ft.not being mean or anything though!!
interceptorcrj 2 years ago
I took the original comment to mean the plateau leaving no overrun area around the pavement. The runways at CRW are certainly quite luxurious for a 172. It was actually my first Class-C airport, so was bigger than anything I was used to.
swpctx 2 years ago