Tail Strikes

[Big Pistons Forever]

I don't know if it is just me but there seems to be a rash of tail strikes in training airplanes recently. A lot of them seems to be practice short/soft landings with a way too high flare and then the panic full back on the wheel.

Personally I think this is a result of introducing the short and soft field landing exercise too early, before the student can demonstrate consistent normal landings with the flare initiated at the correct height, aircraft straight and with a touchdown in the correct landing attitude.

[Float_lover]

In 1,000 hours of instruction, it happens only once when I forced a student to do a soft landing in bad weather during his class 4 training, he was about to reject and I told him that he could do it.

I took the blame but otherwise, I don't let the student go up to that situation, I will either push the nose or add power depending on the situation. As far as my students told me, they did it solo.

[notwhoyouthinkIam]

I don't know if it is just me but there seems to be a rash of tail strikes in training airplanes recently. A lot of them seems to be practice short/soft landings with a way too high flare and then the panic full back on the wheel.

Personally I think this is a result of introducing the short and soft field landing exercise too early, before the student can demonstrate consistent normal landings with the flare initiated at the correct height, aircraft straight and with a touchdown in the correct landing attitude.

Not to mention TC now pushing examiners to require landing at the slowest possible speed with full flaps on all runway conditions except gusty winds.

[CpnCrunch]

Not to mention TC now pushing examiners to require landing at the slowest possible speed with full flaps on all runway conditions except gusty winds.

So basically every landing is a short field landing.

I can see how you could bang the plane onto the ground during a short-field landing, but how do you bang the tail during a soft field? Isn't the entire premise of soft-field that you use power to cushion the landing? I think if you're in a high-alpha state with lots of power and a high nose during a soft-field landing, that's kind of defeating the purpose of the entire exercise.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Not to mention TC now pushing examiners to require landing at the slowest possible speed with full flaps on all runway conditions except gusty winds.

From the PPL flight test guide

A. Normal Approach and Landing
Aim
To safely execute a normal approach and landing with a degree of accuracy as recommended by the POH / AFM or the techniques in the Flight Training Manual.

Description
The candidate is expected to conduct a normal approach and landing using the correct recommended procedure and technique for the actual wind conditions, landing surface and length or those specified by the examiner, to assess the possibility of further conditions such as wind shear and wake turbulence.

Performance Criteria
Assessment will be based on the candidate’s proficiency to:

--------
establish the recommended approach and landing configuration;
maintain a stabilized approach at the recommended airspeed,

---------

My copy of the C 172 P POH says

Normal Landing approaches can be made with power -on or power-off with any flap setting desired

In the "Speeds for Normal Operation" section it states

Normal Approach Flaps 30 Deg ........60 to 70 knots

I do not think it is unreasonable to have the PPL candidate demonstrate a procedure, a flap 30 landing, which is specifically allowed for in the POH and in which a specific speed range in the POH is quoted. If the candidate can't execute a normal landing with full flap in accordance with the POH they should not pass the flight test.

Unfortunately I have seem too many flight schools teach excessively fast approaches which has led to flat landings and damaged firewalls. Instead of correcting the approach speed it seems many chose to mandate reduced flap landings, usually 10 deg's as the "normal" landing. This leaves the student unprepared for full flap normal landings and results in poor flight test performance as the Pilot Examiners apply the flight test guide standards to this maneuver.

[lownslow]

They should put a little wheel at the back of the plane to act as a bumper and so that there’s no weight penalty involved, move the main wheels forward until the plane rests on the back wheel when on the ground. The nose wheel could probably be removed if they did this.

[notwhoyouthinkIam]

Not to mention TC now pushing examiners to require landing at the slowest possible speed with full flaps on all runway conditions except gusty winds.

From the PPL flight test guide

A. Normal Approach and Landing
Aim
To safely execute a normal approach and landing with a degree of accuracy as recommended by the POH / AFM or the techniques in the Flight Training Manual.

Description
The candidate is expected to conduct a normal approach and landing using the correct recommended procedure and technique for the actual wind conditions, landing surface and length or those specified by the examiner, to assess the possibility of further conditions such as wind shear and wake turbulence.

Performance Criteria
Assessment will be based on the candidate’s proficiency to:

--------
establish the recommended approach and landing configuration;
maintain a stabilized approach at the recommended airspeed,

---------

My copy of the C 172 P POH says

Normal Landing approaches can be made with power -on or power-off with any flap setting desired

In the "Speeds for Normal Operation" section it states

Normal Approach Flaps 30 Deg ........60 to 70 knots

I do not think it is unreasonable to have the PPL candidate demonstrate a procedure, a flap 30 landing, which is specifically allowed for in the POH and in which a specific speed range in the POH is quoted. If the candidate can't execute a normal landing with full flap in accordance with the POH they should not pass the flight test.

Unfortunately I have seem too many flight schools teach excessively fast approaches which has led to flat landings and damaged firewalls. Instead of correcting the approach speed it seems many chose to mandate reduced flap landings, usually 10 deg's as the "normal" landing. This leaves the student unprepared for full flap normal landings and results in poor flight test performance as the Pilot Examiners apply the flight test guide standards to this maneuver.

In bold, "Unless strong crosswinds or gusts are present, all landings will be executed with full flap."

The Cessna 172 POH does not recommend having 40 degree flap landing every landing. In fact, there were many instances (landing at Toronto Island) where 10 degrees was perfect to slot myself in front of a Q400. I had to take over from a student and do a 100 knot landing once because ATC was insisting on us keeping maximum forward speed until the last minute. Never before and never since have I flown an approach close to Vne until 300 feet.

[PilotDAR]

In a 172 (for example, though common to many types), the lesser the flap setting, the greater that a careless landing will result in a tailstrike. I have always preferred full flap landings in all types I fly, unless there is an unusual reason for a lesser setting (very rare). he plane is certified for that. A well trained pilot should be able to demonstrate a landing somewhere around the stated landing distance, while using full flaps, and they should be able to demonstrate a zero flap landing when runway length is not a concern. Neither should result in anything other than the mainwheels touching first, then the third wheel touching gently shortly after.

Flying is a skill of many "balances" - not too much, not too little, just enough.... Landings and pitch attitude too! No excuses for any over/under, which results in airframe hitting the runway, or wheels being slammed on the ground. That's the skill - touch the mainwheels on, assure they're firmly on, balance the plane on them with pitch control (they are close to the C of G), and lower the third wheel, under control, and gently....

If you are considering flying an abnormally fast approach in mixed traffic, that's your decision, but that makes you responsible for turning an abnormal approach into a good landing. If you cannot do that, it's your responsibility to tell ATC that. It's their job to coordinate traffic, not yours' Of course, no one flying a Cessna wants to send a Dash 8 around, but damaging the Cessna will be more costly than one of the two planes not doing the landing in the present order. If "C-Gxxx, keep the speed up" doesn't work for you/the conditions/your skill set/comfort in that type, just say you're going to overshoot, and follow the Dash 8 instead. 'Nothing wrong with that, it's probably good decision making!

[Big Pistons Forever]

Every touchdown should be at the speed that allows for the proper tail low attitude. In low inertia light aircraft how you get there can be quite variable. As a skill building exercise for CPL students when traffic permitted I would set them up on a 5 mile final at 1500 AGL and cruise power. The challenge was to make a full flap touchdown at a selected point with the power being reduced and aircraft deaccelerating and adding flap on final all while maintaining a constant flight path to the selected touch down point.\

Large aircraft with lots of inertia have to have a constant speed and descent rate establish in the landing configuration well back on the approach. This is not necessarily the case for safe operation of a light aircraft. In this context "stability" for the approach means that at every moment of the approach the airplane is doing what the pilot wants and any deviation from that desired performance is immediately corrected. Obviously you don't want to do this on a flight test but it is a useful skill to develop and allows light aircraft to better fit in with faster traffic at busy airports.

However like Pilot DAR said. Knowing when to go around is just as important as knowing how to land.

[Donald]

I had to take over from a student and do a 100 knot landing once because ATC was insisting on us keeping maximum forward speed until the last minute. Never before and never since have I flown an approach close to Vne until 300 feet.

I hope I am mis-reading this, but if you are allowing ATC to push you into maneuvers as described above, then you need to re-assess your decision making.

If this occurred on a ride, automatic fail.

Worse, if you damaged the aircraft in the subsequent landing, what would you have to say? "They made me??"

[notwhoyouthinkIam]

I had to take over from a student and do a 100 knot landing once because ATC was insisting on us keeping maximum forward speed until the last minute. Never before and never since have I flown an approach close to Vne until 300 feet.

I hope I am mis-reading this, but if you are allowing ATC to push you into maneuvers as described above, then you need to re-assess your decision making.

If this occurred on a ride, automatic fail.

Worse, if you damaged the aircraft in the subsequent landing, what would you have to say? "They made me??"

I chose to approach at 110 knots. In my professional opinion at the time, with the situation around me and my experience, I felt it safe and appropriate. I was not forcing myself into the landing. If the approach didn't work, I would have gone around.

ATC asked me and it was my decision to comply.

In hindsight, I realize that my decision making while working at that flight school was below my standards today. I am happy that I had that experience and I learned a lot about where my limits are and why I should not approach them. I am a better pilot and person today because of it.

[rookiepilot]

I had to take over from a student and do a 100 knot landing once because ATC was insisting on us keeping maximum forward speed until the last minute. Never before and never since have I flown an approach close to Vne until 300 feet.

I hope I am mis-reading this, but if you are allowing ATC to push you into maneuvers as described above, then you need to re-assess your decision making.

If this occurred on a ride, automatic fail.

Worse, if you damaged the aircraft in the subsequent landing, what would you have to say? "They made me??"

Yep. Don’t allow ATC to push you. Ever. Many Pilots have died from not appreciating this, passively following…while they sit behind a computer. Your a$$ is up there, not theirs.

Needs to be said.

[fish4life]

They should put a little wheel at the back of the plane to act as a bumper and so that there’s no weight penalty involved, move the main wheels forward until the plane rests on the back wheel when on the ground. The nose wheel could probably be removed if they did this.

Hahaha

[PilotDAR]

I chose to approach at 110 knots. In my professional opinion at the time, with the situation around me and my experience, I felt it safe and appropriate. I was not forcing myself into the landing. If the approach didn't work, I would have gone around.

Is entirely fair, as long as you're certain of your skills, and certain that you would go around if it did not look good near the end. I have certainly done this. I recall a couple of occasions telling ATC that I may choose to go around, just so that I did not surprise them should I make that decision, and if the frequency was busy, I was going anyway, and figure the clearances out after....

I recall landing in YOW a couple of years back in my client's Caravan, during airliner busy season at the end of the day. ATC asks if I can fly 150 kts to two miles back. I agreed, with the go around option, and it worked out just fine - but, I would not train that to a student pilot!

[Donald]

I had to take over from a student and do a 100 knot landing once because ATC was insisting on us keeping maximum forward speed until the last minute. Never before and never since have I flown an approach close to Vne until 300 feet.

I hope I am mis-reading this, but if you are allowing ATC to push you into maneuvers as described above, then you need to re-assess your decision making.

If this occurred on a ride, automatic fail.

Worse, if you damaged the aircraft in the subsequent landing, what would you have to say? "They made me??"

I chose to approach at 110 knots. In my professional opinion at the time, with the situation around me and my experience, I felt it safe and appropriate. I was not forcing myself into the landing. If the approach didn't work, I would have gone around.

ATC asked me and it was my decision to comply.

In hindsight, I realize that my decision making while working at that flight school was below my standards today. I am happy that I had that experience and I learned a lot about where my limits are and why I should not approach them. I am a better pilot and person today because of it.

Good on you for recognizing that. I doubt anyone who's done this for a long time hasn't done something that they regretted afterwards, or at least decided they wouldn't be quick to repeat.

Keep filling up the bag of experience, without emptying the bag of luck

[pelmet]

I don't know if it is just me but there seems to be a rash of tail strikes in training airplanes recently. A lot of them seems to be practice short/soft landings with a way too high flare and then the panic full back on the wheel.

Personally I think this is a result of introducing the short and soft field landing exercise too early, before the student can demonstrate consistent normal landings with the flare initiated at the correct height, aircraft straight and with a touchdown in the correct landing attitude.

While there was a bit of a difference in the reasoning for tailstrikes in small typical Cessna type trainers in the opening post of this thread as compared to the one I have provided a link to…….there are some in the linked thread that seemed confident that a tailstrike could not happen.

But of course they can…..
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... Tailstrike