General Aviation Landing Flare Instructions

摘要: The present paper discusses the ability to determine low altitudes and challenges effectiveness of current general aviation landing flare instrucfions. Conclusions are based on literary review from a variety sources such as flight instruction manuals, literature, scientific publications. Key findings suggest that instructions inconsistent, ambiguous, limited helpfulness pilots wishing learn how altitude before initiating flare. General Aviation Landing Flare Instructions transition controlled descent actual con-tact with runway h c e is known flare, roundout, leveloff, or flareout special maneuver within phase operation (Jeppesen, 1985). Successfd flares essential smooth safe landings (Grosz et al., 1995; King, 1999) frequently used evaluate pilot performance (Collins, 1981; 1998). Hence, consequences improper fiu reaching include both physical integrity aircraft (see Christy, 199 1 ; Jorgensen, & Schley, 1990) mental efficacy Collins, 1998; Matson, 1973). purpose this documented in literature. critical successll (Love, 1995) may distinguish between proper tantamount braking an automobile preventing collision wall 1995). Whereas too late would result unpleasant impact, early stop wall. Similarly, flaring 1; Jeppesen, 1985; Kershner, 198 Love, impact surfice (Federal Administration, Revised 1999), bouncing (Kershner, 1998), "wheelbarrod' (Butcher, 1996; Conversely, 1991 Gleim, 1999; Quiilan, will not midair, but lead stall hard 1999). Recognizing mechanism by which Above Ground Level (AGL) paramount success any instruction. According title 14 Code Federal Regulations (CFR), altimeter tolerance set at 9.14 m (30 ft), it uncommon for (GA) altimeters be off much 22.86 (75 ft). Apparently, GA initiate 3.05 6.10 (1 0 20 ft) AGL cannot rely must resort alternative cues. Such cues consist ground effect, time-to-contact Grosz Mulder, Pleijsant, van der Vaart, Wieringen, 2000), kinesthetic information Menon, 1996). Nevertheless, appears use vision more than other tool their during Green, Muir, James, Gradwell, Thom 1992). In particular, monocular rather binocular approach, landing, (Benson, Bond, Bryan, Rigney, Warren, 1962). An in-depth discussion beyond scope paper. distinction two vital discrimination effective ineffective instructions. Binocular @i=two, ocular=eye) combines sensory eyes. disparate visual signals each eye fked produce threedimensional depth perceptions Goldstein, 1980). Fusion also stereopsis thought "pure" three-dimensional vision. As Table shows, accommodation convergence. JAAER, Winter 2002 Page 3 Benbassat Abramson: Published ERAU Scholarly Commons, Unlike vision, (mono=one, does require eyes Benson, Bond 1962; 1988; 98 Langewiesche, 1972; Peter, Reinhart, Reinhardt-Rutland, 1997; Riordan, 1974; Tredici, 1996), generates perception fiom two-dimensional environment (Hawkiis, 1993; example see Nagel, 1988). generate dimensional depends perceptual we refer "monocular cues". Exemplars presented 2 along concise descriptions. At stage appropriate consider hdamental differences First, innate certainly exists very age