Scary approach.

[x-wind]

MichaelIP, I used to teach flapless landings to start. It's the way the CFI wanted it. It worked out for all my students, perhaps worn out seats? 70kts is the highest end of the approach but that keeps the nose a little lower. But I don't think this has anything to do with almost killing yourself short final.

Rule when learning to land- power controls altitude, pitch controls airspeed.

I've seen some pretty silly short feild landing Demos. Hanging off the prop to get TOO slow then choping it. Very silly.

[Rudder Bug]

Many instructors don't understand the power curve

You bet, and apparently they no longer teach and practice engine failure after takeoff or below a thousand feet.

[. ._]

I'm getting really tired of all of you armchair quarterbacks critiquing my approaches and landings!

-istp

[Cat Driver]

Lets have a look at the wheel landing.

In another thread I offered some thoughts on how to judge height and situational awareness during a landing in nose wheel airplanes and figured what the hell I might as well offer some suggestions on how to perform a wheel landing.

During the training for crossover from nose wheel airplanes to tail wheel airplanes there is a tendency on the part of instructors to focus on full stall three point landings.

Why there is this concentration on three point landings is interesting because in almost every tail wheel airplane that is available the wheel landing gives best directional control, especially with a X/wind.

So first lets look at the Flight Training Manual and see what that has to say regarding wheel landings.

There is not really much there except a short paragraph that is fuzzy at best in describing how to perform a smooth safe wheel landing.

In fact I find the description for this landing to be quite interesting.

Quote:

( From the Flight Training Manual.)

The approach should be normal with or without power according to the conditions of the day, to the point where the descent is checked. The airspeed is then decreased to the point at which the aircraft settles. Adjust the power at this point so as to descend in a level attitude at a slow rate ( approximately 100 to 300 feet per minute).

You will not be able to watch the vertical speed indicator during this stage, but with practice you can easily estimate the descent rate. A fast rate of descent could cause a hard contact with the surface, followed by a downward rotation of the tail through inertia and a subsequent bounce back up into the air. Small control adjustments only should be used as the aircraft settles to assist in descending slowly and maintain a level attitude. As the wheels smoothly contact the surface , apply gentle but firm forward pressure to hold the wheels on the ground and decrease the angle of attack. The aircraft should be held on the wheels nearly level, until it has slowed sufficiently to ensure full control in a three point attitude under existing conditions.

I high lighted the reat of descent comment to show just how out of touch with reality whoever wrote that really is.

I teach the wheel landing a little differently, especially with regard to the rate of descent issue prior to wheel contact with the surface.

From a normal approach attitude and airspeed you commence the flare at a height which will result in the airplane being in the level attitude as the flare is completed and at the same time making contact with the surface, at wheel contact with the surface you lower the nose attitude sufficiently enough to change the angle of attack to produce zero or negative lift.

This can be done in two ways, my preference is to have the airplane trimmed hands off for the approach speed to make the approach less work and at surface contact use a slight forward movement of the elevator control to pin the airplane to the surface by dumping the lift vector.

Some pilots use nose down trim and just relax the back pressure at wheel contact, however that can pose a bit of an irritation if you need to go around for any reason as you now have a nose heavy airplane to start the climb out with.

The best prescription for a good wheel landing is quite simple…..flare at the correct height so as to not have to extend the landing distance and time in the air adjusting the rate of descent in the level attitude getting rid of height you didn’t need in the first place.

[artw]

As a new pilot, I have been following this thread closely - I would like to learn, and always strive to improve my flying. There isn't much in the 150 POH just a short paragraph on Page 4-19 about approaching with power-on or power off between 60 to 70 KIAS with flaps up, or 50-60 KIAS with flaps down. (I assume thats 40 degrees of flaps it doesn't say)
Short field landing it says to use 40 degrees at 52 KIAS with enough power to maintain the glideslope.
I also went into the FTM and on Page 106 it says quote

"It is considered that the last 500 feet (152 metres) of a normal approach should be straight, without any slipping or turning, and that the height should be controlled by the use of flap."

Another resource I find extremely helpful is Gene Whitt's website, some of you may already have his website but for those who do not it's a great resource : http://www.whittsflying.com/web/page4.1 ... ndings.htm
From that website, in reference to post #1 in this thread

"Other opinions to the contrary, small additions of power can cause a pilot to enter into a condition known as 'the constantly decelerating approach'. As the power is added, the speed drops until there is not enough power to maintain altitude. You are behind the power curve and with the ground close by you have run out of options. The worst thing that could happen to a low-time pilot is to 'get away' with small additions of power that lead to the decelerating approach. Next time you may not get away with it."

in the Katana we always use flaps for landing.(thats how I was taught) in the 150 or the 172 I don't usually use flaps - should I be? maybe that is for a different thread? I can see over the top of the planes just fine(I am 6' tall)

[Tim]

Many instructors don't understand the power curve

You bet, and apparently they no longer teach and practice engine failure after takeoff or below a thousand feet.

They are in fact still taught, however I wouldn't be surprised to learn that certain schools don't teach them due to the precieved danger. Maybe they don't trust their instructors - who were probably poorly trained to begin with. It is quite easy to see a difference these days in the mentality of new pilots (what the hell is an NDB?). Not that it's their fault, because they simply aren't taught, but few have the ability for critical or outside the box thinking. The demand for instructors accross the country seems to be taking its toll in some cases.

[scopiton]

As the power is added, the speed drops until there is not enough power to maintain altitude. You are behind the power curve and with the ground close by you have run out of options.

so why is slow flight tought : is it the best way to understand the link between commands and thrust at high angle of attack ?
why not keeping approach speed - by pushing on the yoke - untill flare (even at power iddle) when treshold has been passed , that's not so complicated

[Cat Driver]

Hi oldtimer long time no see, how is life going?

Some comments on your last post:

IMHO the flight instructor was taught by a flight instructor that was a student pilot the day before who was trained by a flight instructor who was a student pilot the week before. So I think we can only blame the system rather than the individual.

Exactly, the flight instructors are victims of a very flawed flight training system...so who is to blame for that?

I will ask you this. Would you come out of retirement to teach the flight instructors properly and attempt to live on the wages flight instructors are paid?

To answer your question...yes....but it would not be for the money as that would not be my motivation.......flight instructor pay is one of the biggest reasons why the level of instruction is so low generally speaking. Common sense dictates no one can live properly on what they are paid.

If flight instructors were paid the wages they are entitled to, the cost of learning to fly would skyrocket but the level of training would improve.

Only if the whole system is changed and that has to be done by TCCA....lots of luck there.

The armed forces have it right. Go out and show us how good you are, do your best and then we will take the very best of the top dogs and make flight instructors out of them.

Agreed, and that would produce pilots who you do not have to teach how to fly when they are first hired.

[Cat Driver]

I read the link that was posted and have some questions regarding the advice I high lighted in red.

Landings in a Nutshell
Below is a listing of my web site topics related to landings. Somewhere among them is the answer/cause for most any situation.

Briefly the basics are:
1. Winds and temperatures are the uncontrollable variables.

2. Airspeed control is the universal necessity in liftoff, climb, turns, level, descent, with flap applications and flare. Best taught aloft.

3. Power control is the easiest constant available. Full power for climb, cruise power downwind, set power from 1500 to off abeam the numbers but be consistent while learning.

4. Learn your trim settings so that you don't 'fiddle' from takeoff/climb, leveling off, flap changes. power changes and trim changes. Once behind the aircraft in the pattern it is difficult to catch up. Always trim for hands-off airspeeds.

5. Fly constants of airspeed, flaps, and power with power the variable on final.

6. Visually note the space between your aircraft nose and the end of the runway. At constant settings you can quickly see if you are high or low.

7. Being high you have four options, more flaps, power back, slower speed, or slips.
8. Being low is best corrected by full power while holding approach speed constant. Taught at altitude. Used for brief periods. Keep the nose straight with rudder.

9. The flare is just an after the facts of a stabilized approach. Level off over the runway while looking to the end of the runway. Raise the nose to cover the runway and keep it there.

[Hedley]

Holy Divergent Thread, Batman. There are at least 5 different
topics being discussed

In no particular order:

1) use of flaps during landing: Back up a moment, and ask
yourself, what do flaps do? Well, they lower the nose at slow
speeds, which might seem to be a Good Thing (tm) during
the landing flare, for visibility. But they also increase lift,
and drag. As a rule of thumb, flaps on light trainers tend
to increase both lift and drag up to around 15 degrees, and
after that, they just increase drag. So, to maximize lift,
which minimizes stall speed (and thus touchdown speed)
I tend to use 15 degrees of flaps for a so-called "normal"
landing. Your mileage may vary on different types, but
you get the idea. I only use more than 15 flaps when
I need the extra drag - over an obstacle, for example.

2) wheel landings. As a tailwheel instructor, I teach
3-point landings first, then wheel landings, because
all the student has to do after touchdown in a 3-pt
is to try to stay straight. With a wheel landing, he
additionally needs to control the aircraft in pitch
during the rollout, and he may not have many
percent cpu left over for that task. Also, a classical
wheel landing requires a greaser, which cannot
be guaranteed. A classical wheel landing with ANY
descent rate will result in the center of mass behind the
main gear pulling the tail down, increasing the
AOA and launching you into the air with no
airspeed. Not good. I rarely do classical wheel
landings, I prefer to slip and touch down on
one main, even if there is no crosswind, so if
I don't get a greaser, the other main comes
down instead of the tail. This is the secret to
a good wheel landing, and as a result is guarded
like the crown jewels. Who knows, a moderator
may even decide to edit this post to keep it
a secret!

3) Engine failures below 1,000 aren't really
a big deal, mostly because you don't have
a lot of options. Lower the nose, don't
stall/spin, and keep flying it UNDER CONTROL
until touchdown. Don't stop flying.

4) If I had one pet peeve to mention, it would
be POOR AIRSPEED CONTROL. The
ubiquitous C172 can be approached at any
speed between 50 mph and 100 mph, but
that doesn't mean that you should. Figure out
what your airspeed should be, and NAIL IT.
Not 5 mph fast. Not 5 mph slow. Oddly
enough, very few people are interested in
this level of precision flying, which isn't really
very precise. More often than not, you will
see light aircraft whistling in on final, 20 mph
fast, their nosewheels low, and they burn
the first 2,000 feet of runway. Doesn't matter
because they never have less than 6,000 feet
of runway. You can get away with this dreadful
piloting technique on a 172, but it gets more
interesting in say a Mooney, which has a reputation
as a "hard to land" aircraft amongst 172 drivers

[scrambled_legs]

Cat, you got it all wrong. The student was practicing glassy runway approaches.

[Cat Driver]

Cat, you got it all wrong. The student was practicing glassy runway approaches.

That would account for the way they are being taught I guess, teach the glassy runway approach and that will save the student having to perform all those other actions that can be used to land an airplane.

(1) Stabilized final approach.

(2) Flare to the level attitude at approximately 10 feet above the runway.

(3) Hold off just above the runway to allow speed and lift to decay.

(4) Touch down on main wheels just at the point of stall. ( Nose wheel airplanes. )

I don't have a recent copy of the Flight Training Manual so please forgive me for being out of touch with the new age training methods.

[Meatservo]

., this is an interesting thread. I would like to know who is teaching the new pilots out there. I wonder who it is that decides that we don't need to teach certain things anymore. It almost seems like Transport Canada's response when they find that a significant portion of applicants are having trouble with a certain subject is just to drop that subject altogether. Pilots are quickly devolving from expert professional navigators to being trained apes who are saved from the worst possible consequences of their lack of knowledge of the world around them by computers and "safety" devices.

Over the years I have been presented with new pilots or copilots who actually cannot fly an aeroplane. I'm not talking about having a bit of trouble physically mastering an aircraft that is higher performance than the trainer they are used to, I'm talking about people who have their commercial, multiengine, IFR ticket, who actually CAN NOT aviate. My first and unfortunate reaction is to be angry with the individual, and my urge is to scorn and mock them. But then I realise that somewhere before they met me, there must have been someone in their life who was accepting their money, and who was responsible for teaching them, and who must have told them at some point that they were performing at an acceptable level, and who passed them on till they eventually wound up at a place where they are expected to do things they can't do. In my opinion, there should be a way to expose these instructors, and examiners, and make sure they are charged with a crime and put in jail. You can call it fraud, or you can call it public endangerment. There are people out there who know so little about flying that they are not even aware of what they don't know. I can't decide in my heart whether it is my responsibility to call the chief pilot's attention to a copilot who can't even tune a VHF radio, and have them fired, whether it is my responsibility to try to take this individual under my wing and try to fix them (I'm no instructor), or even (I hate this but have done it), just ignore the problem and hope some other captain can decide what to do.

[Cat Driver]

., this is an interesting thread. I would like to know who is teaching the new pilots out there

Finally someone actually understands why I start these topics.....thank you for taking the time to respond.

Over the years I have been presented with new pilots or copilots who actually cannot fly an aeroplane. I'm not talking about having a bit of trouble physically mastering an aircraft that is higher performance than the trainer they are used to, I'm talking about people who have their commercial, multiengine, IFR ticket, who actually CAN NOT aviate. My first and unfortunate reaction is to be angry with the individual, and my urge is to scorn and mock them.

Isn't that a sad comment on what aviation is dumming down to?

But then I realise that somewhere before they met me, there must have been someone in their life who was accepting their money, and who was responsible for teaching them, and who must have told them at some point that they were performing at an acceptable level, and who passed them on till they eventually wound up at a place where they are expected to do things they can't do.

That is so true it is frightening.

In my opinion, there should be a way to expose these instructors, and examiners, and make sure they are charged with a crime and put in jail. You can call it fraud, or you can call it public endangerment

.

I agree with you.

Unfortunately most of their instructors are also victims because they actually believe they are doing it correctly.

So that leaves the examiners and TCCA.

I wonder if you and Oldtimer are the only ones out there who are finding poorly trained pilots coming into commercial aviation?

[cplpilot]

I once sent a letter to TC asking why instructor don't have an experience requirement. I was paying 40$/hour for someone with no experience!!!
In Europe, most of the instructor are military/airline retired pilot and i learn a bunch of things from them!!! ...they are a bit harsh but having someone that can pass his experience to me was priceless (actually was the same money than here).
TC answered me with a bla bla saying basically that that is the way Canada teach, the sistem works for them as long the instructors are supervised...
I was though in Europe, for example, to do the approach up to the flare with a little bit of power in. At the flare, retard the power and just keep the nose up a bit... Here in short final, cut the power and glide to the runway.
To me seem that doing like this you steepen the approach very close to the ground...unless is a obstacle landing, i don't see why i should do that... what you think Cat?
I wish i have the money to pay some lessons with you and Hedley! (i love the Pitts)

[Cat Driver]

TC answered me with a bla bla saying basically that that is the way Canada teach, the system works for them as long the instructors are supervised...

First of all one has to remember that asking a bureaucrat a question is guaranteed to get a reply that no one can understand because the bureaucrat dosen't understand the subject.

Maybe the Canadian system is the best on earth and all that is needed is better supervision of the instructors who are just learning how to fly themselves?

[MichaelP]

We are back on Chucks pet peeves... They are valid, but what do we do about them?

I for one invest time in my instructors, it's my responsibility to ensure the quality and content of the training of this company.
I do my best, and my people are willing students as well as instructors and the quality of instruction we provide is IMHO very good.
There's always room for improvement of course and so this work is ongoing.
I see other schools where the Class IV comes in, might get one flight with the busy CFI, and then is out there... Where's the quality control? Are we not complying with TC's 'responsibilities of the Chief Flight Instructor'?

As for the flap issue, it is one thing that really annoys me. I have had so many occasions where I have had to fix students who were not getting to solo in reasonable time.
Incorrect speed, and the inability of the instructor to try other methods to achieve the objective.
I always start a Cessna 152 student with 20 degrees of flap, there's no detent for 15!, and this has always been successful.
Unlike the other organisation, my students were competent with 20 degrees, full flap, and no flap, short and soft before they went solo and nobody took more than 15 hours.
But the first method you teach has to produce success for the student and so we must make it as easy as possible for the student to achieve success.
With the confidence gained from the initial success the student will find it easier to learn all the different types of landings we have to teach.
In my opinion, zero flap and the top end of the approach speed range is not making the student's life very easy.
The Cessna was designed with flaps for a reason, use them!

This argument is academic in the Diamonds... No flap and you need to plan very carefully and be very precise in speed control or the efficiency will take you into the next province!

[Hedley]

An overshoot with 15 flap is easy. An overshoot
with 40 flap is can be tricky for a low-time pilot,
who may likely forget to raise them.

[Doc]

Meatservo, I feel your frustration. I have flown with an individual, who not only could NOT fly, but had actually been a flying instructor! This boggled my limited mind. I would not have considered cutting this individual loose in a 150! I have flown with MANY different pilots. Some good. Some, er, not so good. But, this pilot left me in a state of total shock. How do "they" slip through the system? And, this "pilot" is still "out there" probably with a flying job, endangering lives, as we speak.

[Hedley]

But, this pilot left me in a state of total shock. How do "they" slip through the system?

Doc, you're old enough to know that it doesn't matter
how well you fly an aircraft. What matters is who you
know.

Scenario: two pilots are applying for an opening with an
organization. One is a superb stick that doesn't know
anybody at the company, and the other is substandard
but his uncle is chief pilot.

Now, who gets the job?

[MichaelP]

who may likely forget to raise them.

This argument goes against "teach it right the first time".

I don't agree with dumbing things down. A student should be taught from the beginning the need for procedure.
If we took that point of view, we should never train pilots in the Katana since you have to remember to put the propeller lever forward before going around... The procedure is to put the prop into full fine/max rpm on finals.

We did have a student call mayday when the aeroplane failed to perform downwind... He'd climbed out with full flap, then cancelled his mayday when he put the flaps up
I of course had to explain that to TC, and the TSB

These things will happen, but dumbing things down, whereas it avoids the above mayday, does not set up the student to take flying seriously and learn and practice correct procedure until it becomes habit.

[Hedley]

Agreed, but students do make mistakes, and when they
do, we should try to make it as safe as possible for them
to survive the experience.

[Doc]

Hedley....it's not always who you know, but, sometimes. who you bl*&!

[ragbagflyer]

Maybe they were doing a glassy runway approach. You said it was calm right?

[Cat Driver]

Maybe they were doing a glassy runway approach. You said it was calm right?

Yes it was calm.

However are you suggesting that an approach at near or below the power curve is O.K. from 200 feet in a Cessna 150?

What next, should they teach incipient spins at 200 feet?