Having trouble flaring?

[C-GGGQ]

One of the biggest errors I have noticed with (licensed) pilots, is their approach speed is to fast. Makes things a bit more of a challange when you get close to the runway.

In any event, as was wisely suggested by others, the internet is not the place to get advice.

This. Just did a check ride in a school and they asked me "what speed do you use for a 172 normal and short"
I told him what I had used for years 65 and 55. He told me "we like to use 70 and 65 here for a safety buffer" then would say "just know a 172 floats a long way" yeah... When you come in way too fast....

[pelmet]

For most small airplanes, I think this pretty much sums it up.....

" Pulling back on the yoke is NOT a continuous, smooth pull. It is done in increments. Pull back and let it stabilize, pull back a little more, stabilize, pull back a little more..."

Try it.

And just so you know, it doesn't always work. First landing today....not so nice. 33 degrees C and a bunch of birds looking like they were going to hit me in the flare didn't help.

Interesting airport though....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJlfZCmQ04U

[pianokeys]

One of the biggest errors I have noticed with (licensed) pilots, is their approach speed is to fast. Makes things a bit more of a challange when you get close to the runway.

In any event, as was wisely suggested by others, the internet is not the place to get advice.

This. Just did a check ride in a school and they asked me "what speed do you use for a 172 normal and short"
I told him what I had used for years 65 and 55. He told me "we like to use 70 and 65 here for a safety buffer" then would say "just know a 172 floats a long way" yeah... When you come in way too fast....

+1 The second time I flew solo I thought it would be a "safe" idea to land 5kts faster than the normal approach speed in the DA20, 70kts, anyways it led to two "landings" where I bounced/almost porpoised it and had to go around. I told the instructor what I did with the speed and he said that was the exact reason I bounced it so much.

Throw a rock fast enough across water and itll skip. Land a plane fast enough and itll do the same thing.

[pelmet]

Just fly the normal approach speed. And frequently, it can be slower as the published speed might very well be for maximum weight. One only adds speed if there is a reason to do so such as turbulent conditions.

[PilotDAR]

Throw a rock fast enough across water and itll skip. Land a plane fast enough and itll do the same thing.

You're not really "landing" if you're forcing the aircraft onto the ground at too fast a speed. Indeed, you're asking for a world of hurt if you're trying that in a tricycle. A taildragger can be wheel landed a little too fast, and get away with it, but it's still unwise. An aircraft can only be "landed" at the speed for that airframe, at that weight, and flap setting. You can't invent a different landing speed because you either like a faster speed, or simply are not controlling your speed well. The airplane won't skip like a stone on water, though very certainly, if brought to contact the runway too fast, the slightest pitch up, either from a flare or a bounce, is going to make it use the excess energy to climb away from earth again. The idea is that when you contact the runway, you do not have excess speed, so the plane cannot climb away. If you're hearing the stall warning peep as you touch, you're doing it right.

If you're feeling nervous about an approach in gusts, sure, fly it faster than normal BUT, fly to a longer runway than you would normally require, cross the threshold too fast, and then hold the plane off the runway as it slows to the proper speed for landing - don't try to force it on early (too fast). If you've got the runway length to spend, spend it. If you float 1000 feet down the runway, people might look at you funny from the clubhouse, but your really good touchdown and no bounce further down will justify your holding off as you did.

The aircraft gives you the aerodynamics, control systems, and recommended techniques (speeds), just use them as provided.

[youhavecontrol]

You can't learn how to walk by reading a book, or certainly not on the advice on the internet. Same with flying. You need someone experienced along-side you.

I've been teaching people to land for almost five years now. As one of our school's supervising instructors, I often have to fix teaching mistakes and strange habits that our students picked-up. When students get nervous and start seeking advice, you'd be amazed the different 'theories' they learn from who knows where. They're just trying to figure out what they are doing wrong, but it's more the fault their instructor than anyone else.

A 'smooth pull' or a 'series of back-pressure,' where you aim for, how steep you approach, what your approach speed is... it all depends on the speed of the aircraft, the weight and balance, the type of landing you are doing, the wind conditions, the runway conditions, and the type of aircraft you are in.

You need to build judgement, not a template.

A person struggling to land a Diamond Eclipse might be getting advice from someone flying a Navajo.

[PilotDAR]

A person struggling to land a Diamond Eclipse might be getting advice from someone flying a Navajo.

Would that be a problem? The Navajo pilot might say to the Diamond pilot: "Read the flight manual, and fly it that way." 'Good advice! The Navajo pilot might say to the Diamond pilot: "During your practicing, some of your landings should be power off, to practice forced approaches, so learn to adjust your technique accordingly."

I agree that it's difficult to teach a technique like landing from a book, or from the internet, this must be taught first hand. However, if a new pilot is taking the time to read and research, that's a good thing (rather than getting better 'cause they practiced on MS FS), and though the reading can't impart certain skills, it can certainly dispel some erroneous thinking! In particular, pilots thinking that they can invent techniques contrary to the flight manual recommended technique!

[youhavecontrol]

Would that be a problem? The Navajo pilot might say to the Diamond pilot: "Read the flight manual, and fly it that way." 'Good advice!

But.. there's no landing technique published in the DA20-C1 flight manual. Nor should there be. Nor do I recall landing instructions published in any of the aircraft flight manuals I've used. There's configuration recommendations, such as flap settings and approach speeds, but nowhere will it tell you when to flare, where to aim, where to look, what your touch-down attitude should be, how much back-pressure to use or anything like that. Those are the things students actually struggle with... and the things people write varying opinions about.

The closest thing to written instruction on landing technique can be found in the Flight Training Manual, but even there, they keep the instructions general, knowing there's a large variety of aircraft with different landing techniques required. This is why I don't respond to a damaged aircraft with, "You need to read more." ..but instead, "Let's go do some circuits."

[PilotDAR]

But.. there's no landing technique published in the DA20-C1 flight manual.

I admit that I have never flown a DA-20, and am unfamiliar with its flight manual. My only Diamond experience is the DA-42, and I have reviewed its flight manual with these questions in mind. The DA-42 flight manual states specific speeds and flap configurations, and states: "Higher approach speeds result in a significantly longer landing distance during flare". I view that more as cautionary, to remind the pilot that if they approach too fast, don't rely on the landing distance charts any more! Yes, I do note, that there is no specific "technique" for landing presented. In hindsight, perhaps this explains why, during my third flight test program in a DA-42, the instructor who was sent to check me out was insisting that I three point the plane on, to prevent banging the tail. I demonstrated a three point landing to him to satisfy him, and once on my own with it, landed it properly on the main wheels first the whole time.

Nor do I recall landing instructions published in any of the aircraft flight manuals I've used. There's configuration recommendations, such as flap settings and approach speeds, but nowhere will it tell you when to flare, where to aim, where to look, what your touch-down attitude should be,

In every Cessna flight manual I have, approach speeds and recommended flap settings are provided, and for tricycle Cessnas, the common phrase: touchdown should be made on the main wheels first..." That's touchdown attitude being recommended. It will not be possible to touch down a tricycle plane on the main wheels first, unless it has been flared for landing. The flare could be anywhere from "Oh my god!" late, to drag it in on the stall warning from 200 feet up, as long as you touch the main wheels first.

For the taildragger Cessna 170, the recommended touchdown attitude for a minimum run landing is: "Make a normal three point landing".

Following flight testing I accomplished on a modified Cessna Caravan, it was understood that special landing techniques should be used. The flight manual supplement I wrote stated:

"Though full stall landings have been demonstrated, pilots should operate the aircraft during takeoff and landing, with nose low attitudes to the greatest extent practical, with the greatest flap settings appropriate for the conditions."

Doing so would prevent damage to suspended equipment under the plane.

Of course, training is a vital element in pilot training, as the pilot must be trained to flare! Advice as to where to look and how to judge, is of course, an important element of training. I agree that much older aircraft tend to have less technique information in their flight manuals (if they even have one), that is from a time when training was everything, typically military. But it is important that today's pilot, and in particular a student pilot, read the authoritative information provided by the manufacturer/modifier as to how the plane is to be flown - after all, that's who it was written for! Much too often I'll be chatting with pilots who are flying aircraft for which I have provided an approved flight manual supplement with a modification on the aircraft. I'll casually ask if they've read the flight manual supplement, and the answer is usually "no", but there they are flying it, and not understanding the changed systems, techniques, or performance, which I have documented just for them. If you'd fly a STOL equipped Cessna 182 amphibian with a gross weight increase in accordance with the original Cessna flight manual for a 182, you'd get it wrong.

Read the flight manual.

[youhavecontrol]

Of course, training is a vital element in pilot training, as the pilot must be trained to flare! Advice as to where to look and how to judge, is of course, an important element of training. I agree that much older aircraft tend to have less technique information in their flight manuals (if they even have one), that is from a time when training was everything, typically military. But it is important that today's pilot, and in particular a student pilot, read the authoritative information provided by the manufacturer/modifier as to how the plane is to be flown - after all, that's who it was written for! Much too often I'll be chatting with pilots who are flying aircraft for which I have provided an approved flight manual supplement with a modification on the aircraft. I'll casually ask if they've read the flight manual supplement, and the answer is usually "no", but there they are flying it, and not understanding the changed systems, techniques, or performance, which I have documented just for them. If you'd fly a STOL equipped Cessna 182 amphibian with a gross weight increase in accordance with the original Cessna flight manual for a 182, you'd get it wrong.

Read the flight manual.

It sounds like we both agree on the same things. There definitely can be exceptions to a general practice, as can be published in the flight manual, but for the average student flying standard aircraft looking for advice I cringe when someone writes a blanket statement on landing techniques. The internets are awful for that sort of thing!

On a side-note, I watched a pilot, doing his solo night re-currency circuits last weekend, porpoising a turbo Cessna 206. Not sure what he was flying before he got his hands on the 206.. but that freaked me out. Bouncing 4 times before coming to a stop.. I thought he was going to lose his nosewheel.

[PilotDAR]

Bouncing 4 times before coming to a stop.. I thought he was going to lose his nosewheel.

It's certainly happened. 206's seem a little more vulnerable to this error than other Cessnas. A blanket statement for landing tricycle airplanes: Don't allow the nosewheel to touch at all, until the main wheels are well established on the surface. The only tricycle type I've flown which tends to allow you to make a controlled landing on the nosewheel is a Twin Otter with full flaps. A lot of Twin Otters have had to have a "station 60" repair following a nosewheels landing.

If a tricycle airplane pilot is smoothly, gently trying to prevent the main wheels from touching, and thereafter, gently trying to prevent the nosewheel form touching, it was probably a good landing, though I admit, discussion of the techniques of the actual landing is thread drift from the technique of the flare.

[newt82]

Go back to the basics, attitudes and movements. Nose down attitude transitions to the cruise attitude, then slight nose up attitude while focusing your eyes on the far end of the runway. Aim point and airspeed control are crucial components for setting up that stabilized approach. I find students that are having trouble with the landing transition are focusing on the runway just beyond the cowling and all the sudden they get the sensation of the ground rushing up so they flare early and high causing a bounce once the speed bleeds off. Sometimes it just best to go back to the practice area and review the basics. The simple things are all linked in the big scheme of things!

[C.W.E.]

I have a question.

If you are doing aerial application on a field with trees on the approach and you have to apply the chemical at two feet above the crop do you look at the far end of the field to judge your flare?

[HiFlyChick]

Eyes to the end of the runway helps too when youre in the flare.

This advice has been around for years and I have never been able to figure out just what advantage looking into the far distance gives you for judging your relation to the the runway either in closure rate or height.

Can you please explain it to me?

I must confess, ., that I was surprised you asked this question because I thought that was how everyone did it... I guess we all use whatever makes sense to us when applied to our individual way of thinking. If I listen really closely, I can still hear my instructor's voice in my head "Eyes to the far end, eyes to the far end..." and it works for me. At night, if the landing lights are the type that spotlight directly in front of the nose, that's when it can be easy to fixate on the spot and not get the big picture.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate why this technique works for me is to to take the technique to the extreme and say that when you are parachuting, you gauge when to flare based on having your eyes on the horizon and our amazing brain will automatically allow us to tell when we will touch. I've only parachuted a few times, but learned this the hard way by forgetting on one of the jumps and looking down at the ground during the landing. The closing rate is much harder to judge when looking directly at it, vs. our natural ability to gauge a touch by the angle decreasing to (almost) 0. The end result was I anticipated ground contact, subconsciously reached with my right foot, thus locking my ankle and spraining it - lesson well learned!

Notice that I said an almost 0 angle, though, because even without being in a cockpit, we have our own built in eye-to-feet height We judge it naturally because all of our lives are lived with that eye-to-feet height, so when we start in an aircraft, our brain needs to learn a new eye-to-wheel height. After a few hundred/thousand hours, it becomes as natural as our eye-to-feet height.

What I'd like to ask you, ., is based on all of your heavy metal experience, is the eye-to-wheel height such a factor that you couldn't use this technique do you suppose (even if you had started out using it)? I've never flown anything bigger than a King Air, so I'm curious as to whether flying techniques that have become ingrained in me, and which I took for granted as being "how to do things" need to sometimes be discarded when going to airliners...

[lownslow]

Flaring to land is overrated anyways.

[PilotDAR]

Flaring to land is overrated anyways

Yes, someone was demonstrating this fact to me today, with three three point landings in a Cherokee as they passed (once) in front of me while I waited to backtrack today. I think that the first clue was that I was holding midway along the runway, and their first "landing" was right in front of me! Pilots, approach at the published approach speed for the aircraft!

And, the brakes are on the mainwheels, so if you're thinking that the brakes will be useful to help you stop, put the mainwheels on the ground, hold the nosewheel off!

[C.W.E.]

What I'd like to ask you, ., is based on all of your heavy metal experience, is the eye-to-wheel height such a factor that you couldn't use this technique do you suppose (even if you had started out using it)? I've never flown anything bigger than a King Air, so I'm curious as to whether flying techniques that have become ingrained in me, and which I took for granted as being "how to do things" need to sometimes be discarded when going to airliners...

Hi:

I will try and answer your question as best I can.

Over the years I delved into how I personally learned to judge flare height and wheel height for touch down.

So I made notes on where I was looking when judging height.

I finally came to the conclusion that there was another factor at work in the process of judging height and that was closure rate.

I ended up with a method of where to look and what you are seeing at each phase of the approach and landing and once you have this picture it is easy judging height in any airplane.

For me the best airplane to use to learn judging height was the DC3 because making good wheel landings power off required good closure rate and height judgement.

When I teach height judgement I use the simple method of explaining to the student where to look during the approach and touch down and at the same time call out the exact height so the student can learn the picture as they do it.

Here is a post I made a few days ago in the flight training forum.

An article I wrote about landing some years ago.

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************


#1 Post by C.W.E. » Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:05 pm

The point at which apparent movement ceases.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

O.K. I will try and describe how I teach correct height judgement for the flare and height judgement after the flare.

First the flare:

I use a definable point on the runway as the flare point, usually the first big hash marks and runway numbers. This is the aim point on final, during the last fifty feet in a small airplane the aim point will start to grow in size and also appear to spread out in your vision, at about twenty feet the picture will become quite clear that you are about to fly into the runway. It is at this point that I start the flare with most light aircraft.

Note:

Rather than describe to the student what I am seeing I count down the height from fifty feet to the flare and have them memorize what they observe up to and at the flare point, this avoids any misunderstanding of what I am trying to describe. By using this method the student will quickly imprint the picture that she / he is seeing.

Once the flare is started you then look straight ahead down the runway to the point where apparent movement of the runway markers stop.

What is................... " Apparent movement of the runway " ..........

There is a point ahead of the airplane where apparent movement of the runway towards you ceases. This point will change with the speed of the airplane and eye height above the runway.

For light aircraft that approach in the 50 to 70 knot speed envelope the apparent movement of the runway,,, runway marks, will be approximately five hundred feet ahead of the airplane.

That is the distance ahead of the airplane that your centre of sight should be aimed at. This will give you the proper picture that will allow you to best judge height.

The reason that this works is you can "see" the runway get closer in your peripheral vision as the runway movement close to the airplane changes. Also you can "see" the far end of the runway in the top of your peripheral vision, this is your attitude guide that allows you to change the attitude as speed and lift decays.

Ideally the airplane should contact the runway in the attitude that the stall occurs. ( Except wheel landings in taildraggers. )

If the nose blocks out your view ahead as you increase the nose up attitude during the hold off all you need do is move your head and sight line to the side and look along the side of the nose at the runway still using the same distance ahead that gives the picture that you need. Where apparent movement stops.

Note as you slow down the runway movement picture moves progressively closer. ( About three to five hundred feet ahead is just about right at touch down.


I have an excellent movie that was taken at Airbus Industries during my A320 training and I use it when describing what to look for when determining where the apparent runway movement stops. The beauty of the movie is I can stop it and show the point on the runway where this occurs, then start it up again.

Also the movie is perfect for the flare picture, the A320 approaches at a higher speed than a light aircraft but the picture remains the same when looking at the flare point, it just happens faster. ( oh by the way you don't actually flare an A320 like you do a Bug Smasher but the height judgement is the same. ( aided by the computer voice giving you exact height.

I am willing to keep answering any and all questions about how I teach height and speed judgement, all I wish to do is make flying safer and easier for those who fly for the love of it.

My system works because I have been perfecting it for fifty years and I used to teach crop dusting where if you do not know how to accurately judge height and speed you die.

So if you all want me to keep explaining my method I am willing to type until everyone understands how I do it.

By the way:::

I use a camcorder for all my advanced flight training, when the student fu..s up it is easy to review it right after the flight and explain where it started to go wrong and how to prevent repeating the fu.. up

[PilotDAR]

For me the best airplane to use to learn judging height was the DC3

'Could be ., though the perception challenge with DC-3's is that as you lift the tail on takeoff, you go down! You can't use the stationary three point attitude or visual to calibrate your eye height, you gotta do it on the roll!

[HiFlyChick]

...I finally came to the conclusion that there was another factor at work in the process of judging height and that was closure rate....

Although you express it differently, I'm not sure that we're necessarily doing things differently, .. Obviously 500 ft down the runway isn't exactly the horizon, but it isn't immediately in front of the nose, either, I see where you mention your peripheral vision to get the big picture of how close you are to the ground, too, so we're doing the same thing essentially.

And I just had a flashback to my instructing days...

Funny you mention judging closure rate, because nowadays I'm just looking for a lovely landing for the paying pax, but I remember when I was instructing and had to develop the sense of "will the aircraft break if I allow this to continue". Eventually you have to allow the student to just land the plane and see that he/she will adequately correct the mistakes when you aren't there, but I can recall having that dropping elevator feeling and quickly deciding that the airplane wouldn't be damaged but muttered under my breath "Oh this isn't gonna be pretty...!"

[C.W.E.]

You can't use the stationary three point attitude or visual to calibrate your eye height, you gotta do it on the roll!

Yes for sure, in the three point attitude it is quite a bit higher than in the level attitude and the R4D-8 is even higher.