Teaching someone how to land

[MichaelP]

Back in WW2 and probably beyond, the RAF washed guys out if they didn't solo a Tiger Moth in 7hrs.

No radio, runup against the chocks, chocks away, little taxying, do your checks from memory, (get them right or you taxy back again!), look down the approach path, one Tiger a half mile finals, no problem we'll be gone in no time, turn into the wind, takeoff climb to altitude, do your exercises, land, talk about it, go again...
This after a lot of groundschool of course and sitting in the 'simulator' (a chair and a stick and a couple of erks to move the thing around)... 7 hours chock to chock time. No crosswinds, no runway changes, no Comm failures, no ATC... No problem at all.

2008

Hobbs time (how I hate Hobbs time!), listen to ATIS, get taxy clearance, taxy a mile to the end of the runway, do your checks from the checklist, oops did you miss a line?, join the queue while the Hobbs ticks over the time, wait for the aircraft on two mile finals, ATC tells you to line up and wait, cleared, takeoff, fly to the practice area 15 - 20 minutes away, do some of the exercises, there's three of them to be signed off in the PTR, do about 8 hours like this before you get into the circuit, then there's another six items to be signed off in the circuit before you go solo.

I've had one student solo at 8.5 hours... But for most 12 - 15 hours is average.

If we could do it WWII style from a grass field into wind every day without the restrictions of an ATC unit, we'd have people solo in the Cessna, the Citabria, and the Katana easily within the seven hours oft quoted for the Tiger Moth.

[Hedley]

without the restrictions of an ATC unit

The NavCan ATC here crap on me every time I mention
this, but when I am flying cross-country, I will almost
always choose a quiet uncontrolled airport over one
with a Tower/Approach control.

Faster in, faster out, no landing fees, and almost always
the gas is MUCH cheaper.

When you're young, you think talking on the the comm
radio is really neat, you want to use it all the time, but
when you get older, you just want to turn the damned
thing off. I'd rather hear my MP3 via the intercom aux
input to my ANR headset.

[Cat Driver]

Time to solo is as poor a measure of a pilots ability as total time is.

There are just to many factors that come into play that determines when you solo.

I learned on the Cessna 140 and Fleet Canuck and soloed at 14.1 hours....

......then some years later when I did my helicopter training after flying in the crop dusting business for three years I soloed a Hughes 269 in 3.6 hours, so time to solo really is meaningless as to a pilots over all ability.

[MyMeowCat]

Huh? 15 hours is plenty. It depends upon the student, the airplane
and the airport.

I think I soloed in 2.4 hours (no typo - less than two and a half hours
of dual) in a tailwheel aircraft, on pavement (grass is a LOT easier
for tailwheel).

I can dig out my first logbook and check if you want. That included
spin training, btw. How much spin training have you received so far?

In response to Hedley's question -- Have 1 hr spins training about 2 months ago. Insructor basically demoed it and I tried spin recovery twice that day.

The airport is extremely busy and is controlled.

I'm just wondering that if your solo was just once around a circuit or if you booked an hour of flight time -- you just do solo circuits for the full hour?

[Cat Driver]

I'm just wondering that if your solo was just once around a circuit or if you booked an hour of flight time -- you just do solo circuits for the full hour?

My opinion is the first solo should be one circuit, that gives the student the thrill of having soloed.....then you gradually expand their solo time as required.

[MichaelP]

I'd rather hear my MP3 via the intercom aux input to my ANR headset.

It's good to see that someone is making money at this business...

It really annoys me when I fly with a student who merrily carries on downwind hanging on the mike to make that very important downwind call while everyone behind is looking for their maps!
Aviate, Navigate, and Communicate is very important.
Forget the radio, fly the aeroplane.

My solo was just one circuit in G BBUO...
This aeroplane was on the front cover of a meteorology book that was on the shelf at Aviation World... Jacquie has saved this for me as a present
It was in the deepest Devon winter, early in 1974...

I'd done spins at six hours, and being aware of the Cessna 150's construction I was worried sick... literally
We did four of them...
At 15 hours I did spins again, this time I told myself I'd enjoy them and I did, happily doing five of them.

[Hedley]

... spins ... aware of the Cessna 150's construction I was worried sick... literally

Huh? I am no particular fan of Cessnas, but the 150/152
does GREAT spins! Only problem I know with it and spins
was the rudder stop AD.

Heck, I know a guy who spun a 150 into the ground and
lived to tell the tale with no permanent injuries.

If there's one thing Cessnas do well, it's descend

Michael, I gotta ask, did you have an unpleasant non-consensual
sexual experience in Wichita? I realize that Cessnas are
about as exciting as vanilla pudding, but they're not as bad
as you always make them out to be. Do Cessnas have a lot
of inflight structural failures in BC or England that the rest of
us don't hear about? Or is it just fashionable anti-American
sentiment?

[MichaelP]

I was 19 when I spun that Cessna 150, I was used to aeroplanes built strong... My model aeroplanes always crashed eventually and so they had to be strong.
The thin aluminium structure of the Cessna 150 did not fill me with confidence then.

I've spun Cessna 150/152s at least a thousand times by now... They only do one turn of a spin then they spiral unless you keep the power on and go to the left.
I don't agree with the rudder stop AD! It's only in Canada you know...
It's my belief that they lost all spatial awareness doing maneouvres over unbroken snow.

If you hold full rudder in the direction of the spin in a Cessna 150 or 152 loaded within the Utility category, (no stuff in the back), you can do three things:
1. Apply opposite aileron and roll it out after the first turn. You are in a spiral after all.
2. Move the control column forward, and roll the aeroplane out of the spiral...
3. Let go of the control column, then roll out of the spiral dive.
You can fly all the way home in a Cessna with full rudder deflection, it's not pretty but it's possible...
But I don't see why you should, there's no way the original rudder stop will jam in the way they said it did, no way at all.
If you work out how much force your feet can put through the rudder control circuit it adds up to tons, You'd have to put the bolt through the stop to cause trouble, and then I'm willing to bet that bolt would strip through the stop with foot pressure.
Of all the thousands of Cessnas out there, no one else has had the Canadian problem.

But we digress... Spinning into the ground is not the best way to land an aeroplane, though I agree that many people have survived a spin into the ground... Nobody survives a spiral into the ground, and often to an onlooker the spiral can be mistaken for a spin.

[Louis]

Michael, in case you didn't read it yet, here's a link to the TSB report of the accident that lead to the rudder stop AD:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/199 ... 8q0114.asp

I read it some time ago and skimmed it again, and there's no mention of loss of spatial awareness anywhere in there.

My understanding is that a bit of improper maintenance aggravated an existing design flaw.

Let's try to get back on the topic of landings now...

I too agree that the first solo should be limited to a single circuit.
And no further flying until the proper ceremonies are completed...

One student at my school has always had a very hard time with his flares. (A bit of a particular case: he's not currently pursuing the license and only goes for a dual flight every now and then, though we still maintain his PTR) After reading some posts on here about proper eye height in GA trainers, I did a quick check of what he managed to see outside by lowering my head... I told him right away that I wanted him to try using a cushion or two for our next flight. I'll try and post an update as to how much of a difference it makes.

Goodbye,

Louis

[Cat Driver]

Louis, when you get him seated higher call out the height from 50 feet to touch down until he gets the picture correct.

[MichaelP]

Michael, in case you didn't read it yet, here's a link to the TSB report of the accident that lead to the rudder stop AD:

I read it... But FYI I don't agree with it.
I look at the rudder control stop on the Cessna 150 and 152 and there's no way it can jam such that a bit of foot effort wouldn't dislodge it. As I say, you can recover from the C152 spin into spiral with the rudder fully deflected.
I know the aircraft well enough...

But I suggest people do not do aerobatics or intetional spins, or spirals over the water, or over unbroken snow.
You have no depth perception, and no spatial awareness if all you can see is one colour, especially white!

In Canada it is common to go for the quick PC fix for things.
The Canadian AD does not apply in the rest of the World and I have never heard of any more instances of such an accident to a Cessna 150 or 152.
AD's are normally applicable to things that occur more than a few times...

We had a Cessna 152 takeoff from 12 here, the student said the rudder had jammed, he came around and landed on 25 and went off the right hand side and ended up in a 'ditch' besides the windsock in the elbow of 07/12.
They could find no probable cause as to why the rudder jammed.
The Canadian AD was fitted.

[Hedley]

I suggest people do not do aerobatics or intetional spins, or spirals over the water

ummmm ... every year, to renew my ICAS card I
perform a low-altitude aerobatic sequence over
the water in the aerobatic box off Mallory Square
in Key West. Why I have to travel all the way to
Key West to renew my ICAS card is another story.

I've personally flown solo and formation aerobatics
at the Oswego, NY airshow, over the water, and it
was quite enjoyable because of the lack of turbulence.

The Famous Air & Sea show at Fort Lauderdale
is of course held over the water, as are many
other airshows both in the USA and around
the world.

It helps if you're near the shore for orientation,
but I've done aerobatics miles out over the
ocean. I guess it's all what you're used to.

btw, I do surface-level aerobatics over snow-
covered farm fields all winter, and it's no big
deal.

[MichaelP]

You're a better pilot than most Hedley.

If I have no points of reference I don't know how good my aerobatics are...
I used to fly aerobatic airshows in my distant past.
I never did low level aerobatics that involved pitch at low level unless the pitch change was upwards.
A half loop and roll off the top was alright, but a loop from low level to low level was a little too dangerous for me. Low level stall turns/Hammerheads, were also a no no for me.
Roll was alright provided I had some reference ahead and a plan for where to go if....

Low level over unbroken snow there's no depth perception at all, vertical downwards maneouvres can therefore be subject to a form of whiteout....
The float guys will tell you that it's imposssible to judge their height off the water when it is glassy...
I've demonstrated to students here how VMC is in fact a form of IMC when the sea and sky grey into each other with no definate horizon. Loke either side and there's land and a good five miles vis, look ahead and there's nothing.
For the inexperienced, looking out the side while in the vertical or during a spin, is not common.

When I teach aerobatics I will continue to 'suggest' the students do not do aerobatics over open water without a shoreline reference.
I'm an old pilot though I have been somewhat bold!

[Hedley]

You're a better pilot than most Hedley

That's horsesh1t. People are as good a pilot as they
want to be. I read somewhere that the average North
American spends 5 hours every evening watching the
idiot box.

Instead of watching TV for 5 hours a day, spend it
flying, or earning money at a 2nd job so that you
have some money to spend on flying on the weekend.

Before I had either a driver's licence or a pilot's licence,
I had 2 jobs in high school that I worked at. People
who complain that they're not concert pianists, but
refuse to practice, piss me off.

You can buy a used Pitts S-1C for half of what a fancy
new SUV will cost you. Get a used Honda or Toyota
instead, so you can afford to put more 100LL through
your aircraft engine.

Anyways ... I see where you are coming from, on
low-altitude aerobatics. First you learn to do
"horizontal" aerobatics (eg rolls only, with no
vertical uplines or downlines) then you learn to
do vertical uplines from the surface, but no
downlines. Next, you learn to fly vertical downlines
to the surfact. The way you do this is with
a "gate". A "gate" is a combination of airspeed
and altitude which assures you, for your airframe
and density altitude, that you can pull through.

The infamous reverse 1/2 cuban-8 from the
surface comes to mind. Free advice: if you
don't see 1,000 feet on the altimeter while
inverted over the top, don't pull through - just
drop the nose to the inverted 45, and 1/2
roll upright, just like a nice, safe 1/2 cu-8.

I rather like doing loops at the surface. It's
all about having enough energy at the entry,
and sufficient power, to make the top gate.
View it as two entirely separate maneuvers -
the pull to inverted at the top, and the
pull from inverted back to the surface. What's
really cool is when you have enough runway
to land out of the surface loop. At my last
airshow, for my solo I did a reverse 1/2 cuban
eight and landed out of it. 180 mph on final
is neat!

What I personally find pretty cool is aerobatics
at night, well away from any cities so that there
is no horizon. You can even get it added to
your ICAS card! Personally, I find night aerobatics
FAR more disorienting than daytime aerobatics
during the day over water, or snow, or with
reduced visibility.

[MichaelP]

That's horsesh1t. People are as good a pilot as they want to be.

I stand by my remarks... Whether you like it or not, most of the people on this forum would not have the ability to do low level aerobatics in a Pitts.

One point of contention though, is I never recommend doing aerobatics in a Cessna 172 over doing them in an aerobatic certified Citabria

[Hedley]

I never recommend doing aerobatics in a Cessna 172 over doing them in an aerobatic certified Citabria

You misunderstand me. I never recommended any such thing.

What I said was that as a graduate engineer and airshow
pilot, paperwork aside, I would personally feel more comfortable
performing aerobatics in a 172 than a wood wing Citabria, from
a structural standpoint. I think that makes my point.

I am NOT recommending that people perform aerobatics in a
172. However, I believe that I am entitled to hold the opinion
that the wood wing Citabria is a very poor choice for aerobatics.

I know people love paper. Paper, paper, paper. It makes
the world go 'round. I get it. Really.

However, very skilled and smooth aerobatic pilots such
as Bob Hoover have flown surface level aerobatics
in the Aero Commander, and Bobby Younkin used to
fly amazing surface level aerobatics in the Beech 18
and Learjet 24 which probably don't have a whole lot
of paper about aerobatics.

most of the people on this forum would not have the ability to do low level aerobatics in a Pitts

I remember being interviewed by a TV reporter
after landing from a solo surface level aerobatic
performance in the Pitts. The reporter asked
me, "Is that hard?" to which I replied "Anything
is easy if you know how".

A very smart man called Richard Bach once
said, "Argue for your limitations, and sure
enough, they are yours".

Try negative G formation aerobatics, if you
want to try something difficult. It is literally
about 100x as difficult as solo surface level
aerobatics.

Charlie Hillard once opined that the art of
the solo airshow pilot was to aim at the
ground, but to not hit it

[TTJJ]

Back on topic to landings:

I just got back from a flight to New Zealand.
While I was there I went to visit some Flight Schools at the Ardmore Airport.
One of them had a simulator for a C-172 that had high resolution day VFR programmed into a big plasma screen over the aircraft's panel. They used the sim to teach ab inito approach and landings. They could get about 20 in per hour showing normal approach clues, flat approaches...etc. verses 7 touch and goes per hour. It was a thing of beauty...but VERY expensive to buy.

Why couldn't someone just go out and film a couple of approaches (in the same type of aircraft and same airport that they use...just to look familiar), say a normal one, a high one, a low/flat one... to show what the thing looks like (aiming point, ground rush...), program them to run at the same time on the same screen in different windows on a computer for the student to compare with each other, let the student watch it for free until their eyes bleed, and then blast off to do touch and goes with the instructor.

They wouldn't even need an instructor nor even sound/naration on the tape.

It would seem to be a low tech way of clearing up some of the mystery and might even save them a buck or two.

If you were really gung-ho you could put the whole shebang in a cardboard trainer probably for a hundred bucks (photos of the cockpit on wood/cardboard) so they could see the swiches and knobs etc while watching the landings. (Before anyone makes fun of a cardboard trainer, I used them in DC-10's and MD-11's...so why on Earth not a C-152?)

[_dwj_]

Back on topic to landings:

Why couldn't someone just go out and film a couple of approaches (in the same type of aircraft and same airport that they use...just to look familiar), say a normal one, a high one, a low/flat one... to show what the thing looks like (aiming point, ground rush...), program them to run at the same time on the same screen in different windows on a computer for the student to compare with each other, let the student watch it for free until their eyes bleed, and then blast off to do touch and goes with the instructor.

I'm sure someone has already done this...have a look in the dvd section of your local pilot supply shop and I'm sure you'll find it.

And getting back to the topic of "where to look". The last few landings in the 172 I've found that I need to look about 30-50 feet in front of me (when 3 feet off the ground) in order to accurately judge height. If I try to look 400 feet in front I muck up the landing because I have no idea of my exact height. And as someone noted in an earlier thread on this topic, I think that my height perception comes from my peripheral vision, although it's very hard to tell (and probably doesn't really matter).

Anyway, you really just need to figure out for yourself where you need to look in order to accurately judge your height.

Dave

[MichaelP]

In China the German Diamond DA40 FTD was very useful for teaching the circuit, and the landings were easy enough.
It had a 180 degree screen and it worked very well.
We're getting one! It'll be in Aberdeen mall in Richmond soon.

We're also getting a DA40-180 with the G1000, TAS, A/P etc but you'll have to wait maybe ten days to try it!

[alctel]

Bit of a bump here, but I soloed yesterday (once round on the circuit) and it was ace. It was at 23 hours, mainly because its been 2 years in the making(did 4 hours the first year then work became too much, next year I did 10ish hours then nearly got deported so had to stop, and then this year have done about 9-10 hours before soloing)

I was having a lot of trouble with the landings until I realised that I was underestimating the distance the aircraft travels at the descent speed and so was consistantly coming in too high, once i flattened out the approach it all got a lot easier!

[Pilot101]

Michael, what I find frustrating about a lot of instructors is their parroting all these useless bits of information about how the human eye works and such stuff.

We know that friction produces heat, but do we need to know how long it would take a dog to fu.k a pail of water to a boil?

Anyhow I'm off to California and Arizona with my motorhome this afternoon to get away from here for a spring break.

Ok now thats a classic quote!