@Skydriller once posted how when he side slipped into his local airfield he was told off by his club president saying we don’t side slip.
Like many others, I was a critic of the club president, especially as I had learnt to side slip a Jodel when I did my PPL training.
Now, I think perhaps I was wrong. Talking with a DGAC examiner and someone heavily involved in the training of instructors in safety matters, it seems that the DGAC together with the BEA looked at a range of accidents in French clubs with a concentration on those during landing. After investigation it appeared that at certain fuel levels on certain Lycoming engines on Robins, during a sideslip the fuel became unbalanced and for the engine to cough or cut out, sometimes only for a few seconds but enough to cause a poor landing resulting in damage to the aircraft and in one or two cases to serious injury.
It is for this reason that instructors at French clubs now prefer the S method rather than the sideslip to be recommended practice when teaching PPL.
I still think Skydriller’s club president was over the top and could have explained the situation, however, I now wonder if the stabilised approach comes from a similar type of research and maybe we should investigate a bit further before saying such instruction is for the big birds only.
That’s a very good point. I was once told to make sure that if I sideslipped a Cub, to make sure the wing supplying fuel was high. But in an aircraft with a centre tank it isn’t an issue. “Always fly the aircraft you’re flying”.
Good point about awareness, I guess like many things it’s about that high level awareness, of course one has to sideslip to some extent in gusty crosswinds (crabbing require smooth and gentle winds), was there a limitation in Robins POH for min fuel for sideslip? (I had one for Mooney M20J which was 8USG, I think the real number is about 12USG)
Obviously, one does not need engine power if they are on sideslip on short final as likely to be high & fast? so it’s only about being surprised or distracted by the engine cough? now if people sideslip when they are low & slow bellow the glide path, then that is a different story…
As always know your aircraft 
I don’t recall there being a min fuel level for side slipping in the Robin, and I don’t have one to hand a present. I do remember the Robin360 POH advising take off and landing on the middle tank, I think it was. I think that the DGAC and others were surprised by the results and did many test flights to try and get more exacting results but couldn’t narrow the problem enough and in the end went with the change of PPL instruction advice on a more general level.
Yes I did get bollocked at my Aeroclub many years ago now for side-slipping while practising for the French Precision Pilot Championships – but it was by a previous (now deceased) CFI, the Aeroclub President (ex Mil & TP) actually argued with him and defended me over it 
gallois wrote:
Talking with a DGAC examiner and someone heavily involved in the training of instructors in safety matters, it seems that the DGAC together with the BEA looked at a range of accidents in French clubs with a concentration on those during landing. After investigation it appeared that at certain fuel levels on certain Lycoming engines on Robins, during a sideslip the fuel became unbalanced and for the engine to cough or cut out, sometimes only for a few seconds but enough to cause a poor landing resulting in damage to the aircraft and in one or two cases to serious injury.
This is interesting, and Ive not heard this anywhere – @gallois is there a link somewhere to this study to read about this because Im all for learning.
But I do have questions: How does this happen – especially with center tanks? Id say the vast majority of aeroclub Robins have ONE fuselage tank. Both our DR400s have center fuel tanks – one only a100Ltr Main fuselage tank and the other an additional 50Ltr Reserve in the fuselage, the DR300 we had before this also had a center tank. I understand that the ’-180s have additional wing tanks, but thought they drained to the main fuselage tank for use (like the 50Ltr reserve tank on our 2nd Robin)? I think the metal HR series have wing tanks, but are they that common?
Regards, SD..
@skydriller I have no idea how this happens and I’m not sure the DGAC testers could figure it out either. Yet it did happen during the tests, occasionally, but they could not find out why. The fuel levels and its movement within the reservoirs sometimes leaving the pump high and dry was their best estimate as far as I could tell which is I suppose why they gave the advice they did.
I heard it at a meeting of club presidents and safety officers for the region which I was invited to sit in on 11th Sept.
I’ll try to find some documentation on the tests because some papers were being shown around, I didn’t get to see them.
Another interesting thing that came up in the meeting was a phone call to one of the Presidents. A light aircraft had crashed at Dijon, killing 3 people, something to do with bad weather. I heard nothing more about it, have you?But if I heard correctly its a sad addition to the others this year.
The Robin 400s and 300s that we have owned all had both fuselage and wing tanks. In the case of the 360 IIRC there were 2 wing tanks and a fuselage tank.
In an emergency you can instantly stop sideslipping, very quickly raise manual flaps, but raising electrical flaps will be slow, perhaps impossible with electrical failure.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
It is Honningsvåg Norway (I had to look up the code, I only remember names.). It’s not the only place I know which obstructed approach paths, but it’s a good example of the need to not constrain one’s self to “straight in” thinking.
I have landed there once, and I agree, it’s a good example of having to be flexible on how you do your approach and take off. I remember taking off the direction your picture is showing, thinking back that during my PPL my instructors said not to turn before you reach 500’, while turning at about 100’ to avoid digging a tunnel :-)
I wonder how many hours, if any, before feeling at ease in the Pitts?
A while ago I knew someone who owned one and flew competition aerobatics every weekend. He said, “It took me several hundred hours before my first thought after every takeoff wasn’t, now I have to land the (&(&($# thing again”.
The Pitts is delightful to fly, and incredibly responsive. It also handles surprisingly well on the ground. But coming down at 2000+fpm and having to time the flare to within about 1/4 second never gets truly easy. As for glide ratio, I think in reality it’s more like 3:1. For idle power landings we would start the descent when the runway was “right down there”, and even so occasionally need to add a touch of power on short final.
WingsWaterAndWheels wrote:
I have landed there once, and I agree, it’s a good example of having to be flexible on how you do your approach and take off. I remember taking off the direction your picture is showing, thinking back that during my PPL my instructors said not to turn before you reach 500’, while turning at about 100’ to avoid digging a tunnel :-)
I have never been there. My neighbor, A Widerøe Captain, brings his “office” there from time to time Here is a video of an approach to 08 (landing in the opposite direction of the picture above). The length of the “final” is perhaps a meter or two
