As mentioned in the thread need advice plzzzz Hedlyy mentioned:

"I remember, years ago, a student was
going around and around the circuit with
a new class 4 instructor, who was just
learning to instruct. Unfortunately the
student wasn't able to teach himself
how to land.

After one hour with an experienced
instructor, he was sent solo."

I'm in a similar situation, my instructor appears to be relatively new.

I was wondering how you people had your instructors teach you landings?

My instructor is just having me go in on final and just land and does about the same thing all the time. Are there any pointers or something different we can try?

Aren't they supposed to:

1) Get you to do some low and overs before any touch and go's (just to get you used aligning yourself with the runway without actually landing)?
2) Isn't there a trick where the instructor controls the power and rudder and the student controls just the pitch and attitude (makes it easier to focus on the flare).

Meowcat

A lot of learning how to land has to do with figuring it out for yourself, seeing the picture. I usually asked my students after a landing what they would do to improve it. If they were on the right track I let them keep going with a pointer here and there. It's all about muscle memory and the sight picture. If you're having specific problems your instructor will will give you some exercises to deal with your specific problem. It shouldn't take more than a couple hours of circuits to go solo though.

MyMeowCat wrote:
1) Get you to do some low and overs before any touch and go's (just to get you used aligning yourself with the runway without actually landing)?
2) Isn't there a trick where the instructor controls the power and rudder and the student controls just the pitch and attitude (makes it easier to focus on the flare).

Meowcat

I never did any of that and never heard of the second thing. When I learned, my instructor demoed a couple, and explained what was goin on. But for the most part, as the previous poster stated, you have to see it and feel it for yourself

A good instructor can teach you how to land in a very short time...around one to two hours.....
.....the problem is a lot of new instructors can not teach something they do not understand because no one ever taught them.

I just don't understand how flight training came to this point where it is the norm for students to teach them self's how to fly.

No wonder so many take 100 hours to learn something that has a 45 hour requirement.

On some first flights i would talk the person through the take-off and talk them through the landing .Some were pretty some not .But never did understand why some people find it so hard to fly an airplane .It is so easy in a dual controlled Cessna .Made a few solo in about five hours never lost one yet

Seeing it and feeling it is related to the" law of excercise" or in Kung Fu terms 'Time spent practising the form' and when you have mastered that one grasshopper we shall start the lessons on without form

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... =3&t=40117

See my point above... Seating position is very important.

IMHO no-one can teach another person how to land and aeroplane and yes you do have to learn how to do it yourself

But the instructor is there to demonstrate a good landing to you, to suggest where you should look, and how the approach should be made.
Landings are subjective though and people are different... If we were machines then we could be programmed like autoland systems and our landings would be just as good as those systems

Fundamentals:

Make sure the aeroplane is trimmed.
I ask my students to let go of the controls on finals and I expect the aeroplane to continue the approach as before.
I don't want to see the nose suddenly pitch down!

The Cessna POH tells you how to land with the elevator cables disconnected it's not that difficult.

There's a point of zero movement on the runway.
If there's no wind you should smack the ground at this point if you do nothing about it!

Before you smack the ground there's a sudden ground rush as you descend below 100 feet or so... It's an indication that you'd better do something like raise the nose gently... This is the flare.

The flare finishes with the aeroplane a few inches off the surface at which point you hold it off, and off, and off, and refuse to let the aeroplane land!
If the stall warning goes off (assuming it works!) and the wheels contact the ground gently, Michael is very happy... If you let the nosewheel plonk onto the ground you owe Michael $5.

Subjectiveness

Until the ground rush most of your attention is concentrated on the point of zero movement once the correct approach speed has been achieved and trimmed... This point is also your horizon!
Unless there's a lot of windshear, if the point of zero movement stays in the same position in the windscreen, like the attitude maintained with the horizon, the speed will look after itself.
You should be able to land the aeroplane without an airspeed indicator simply flying by attitude and power (Gravity).

In the last 200 feet you should not be looking at the airspeed indicator at all.

The ground rush is pretty obvious, you're going to crash if you don't do something!

Now we divide our eyes between 10:00 o'clock where the periferal vision is keeping track of our height above the ground, and 12 o'clock where we look to the end of the runway to stay straight...
Once we are happy with our hold off height we concentrate more on staying straight.
But what you see, and what the instructor sees may be different on the same approach! As long as the result's good, then all is well with the World.

Method

The club tends to try to teach students to land without flaps in the Cessna 152... Like an Aeronca Champ I was once told! The C152 is not a Champ!
The view is not as good flapless, speed control a little bit more difficult and then there's some instructors who insist on being at 70 in the C152 approach range of 60 to 70.

The POH suggests 20 degrees of flap for the approach with a broken elevator cable... There's good reason.

20 degrees flap at 55 to 60 knots is very stable, it's easy to maintain speed, you can see the whole picture, easily identify the point of zero movement, and the hold off is just long enough.
Flapless at 65 or more is a long hold off, too much float, too easy to get anxious and screw it up!

If I have a difficult student I use the soft field style approach, the C152 is very forgiving with a little power, and the student gains confidence.

Most of my students have soloed within 15 hours and are capable of doing all types of landings with flaps or no flaps...
I don't believe in not giving the students all the tools to execute good landings whatever madness is happening in the Boundary Bay circuit.

I think I'm having troubles deciding when to flare. It's like I'm not realizing how big or wide the runway is and I flare while too high up instead of the usual 15 to 20 ft.

I think there is some runway illusion relating to this -- that if try landing at another aerodrome where the runway is much narrower or much wider than the one you're used to that it might cause you to misjudge your altitude.

Ballooning is something I tend to be doing...It's like I'm trying not to let the nose wheel touch first but I end up nosing up a bit.

I was just wondering -- when the wheels touch -- am I supposed to be at 65 knots KIAS assuming a C172? If I let the speed drop too much I'd probably stall it above the runway...not quite realizing how high above the runway I am -- it could be quite a drop

One of the problems is that pilots transfer their eyes to the far end of the runway too soon!
The nose follows the eyes, and so the aeroplane is flared too high.

It takes practice, and seeing it a few times, but you need to go a little deeper into the ground rush...

There are illusions with wide and narrow runways, and you'll have to adapt to these when you get more experience.
Fortunately for most students, they stay on similar runways until solo.

Ballooning is too much speed and/or too quick on the elevator... What you are looking for is a decrease in the rate of descent rather than stopping it immediately.
It's like approaching a red light, you ease off the speed, and slowly brake to a stop, we don't generally drive fast and slam the brakes on at the last minute.

What's the stall speed of a Cessna 172 with you on board?
42 KIAS or thereabouts, factor in ground effect and you should be at about 35KIAS when the wheels touch. Don't look at the ASI, look outside, and hold it at least until the stall warner sounds!
And don't let the nosewheel drop... The elevator is there for the protection of the nosewheel!

If you land at 65KIAS you are driving the poor thing onto the ground!
If you approach at 65KIAS with 20 degrees flap in a Cessna 172 with 2 people on board, if they don't weigh 500 - 600lbs, and there's not a wind 30G45 then you are too fast!

55 to 60KIAS is enough, throttle closed.

The object is to stall the aeroplane above the runway with the wheels within a foot of that runway surface...

If you are worried, add a little power and the thing will land gently even if you flare a little too high.

You have to know how high off the runway your are ! Without this you are simply guessing each landing, which will probably lead you to drag it on with power. At this point you might want to keep things simple, do your circuits at known runway, and don't introduce a whole pile of other variables until you master the first.

Quit looking at the end of the runway. Look about 400 feet (roughly) in front of you. I believe Cat describes it as the point where everything looks like it stops moving.

If you're really hard up for judging height, have a peek out the side window for a quick second. Don't make a habit of it but it will help you make sense of the sight picture out front.

At the beginning of my career I used to teach the end of the runway thing. The reason is because I didn't know any better and that was the crap that Transport Canada required to be taught to me. Now when I freelance, I teach the 400 feet version. There is a marked improvement between the students I used to teach and odd one I take now a days.

Where do I look when I'm trying to get down and clear in less than a thousand feet? Not 6 thousand feet down the runway, 400 feet.

The easy way to teach landings is to guide the pilot down to the runway by calling out the height from 50 feet and let the student learn the picture from your voice prompt. call in 10 foot increments to 20 feet then 5 foot increments to 5 feet and then one foot increments.

Have a fixed height to start the flare to the level attitude...say 20 feet as an example...when the student hears 20 feet they flare....you then call the height to touch down....and the student listening to the voice prompt learns the picture...

Now comes the easiest way to de briefe.

Video the landings with a camcorder mounted at eye height.

After the flight plug into a TV and de breif by stopping the video when ever you want and have the student use a laser pointer to show where they were looking and what they saw....works like a charm and cuts the learning process way down.

That is how I do it and it works real well.

The reason is because I didn't know any better and that was the crap that Transport Canada required to be taught to me.

It never fails to get me really frustrated when I hear this crap being part of becoming a flight instructor...where did this idiotic way of teaching come from?

Anyhow tired of the ground you are in the right grove with your way of teaching...try my suggestion of calling out height and you will make it even easier.

And for Christ sake as you get better at teaching charge more...way more.

I can charge $350.00 per flight hour and save the student thousands if they are getting screwed by instructors who don't know what they are doing.

The whole flight training thing drives me nuts....but what can you expect with the system overseen by people who shouldn't be allowed near an airplane.


P.S. :

The description I use is " The point where apparent movement stops. "

Thanks for the valuable experience and input everyone.

I'm wondering if I should cheat a bit (at least in the beginning) by using the PAPIs or VASI's. They tell me not to rely on them since not all aerodromes will have one...but in times of difficulty (or when just starting out) -- would it be any value using them to determine your glidepath?

MyMeowCat wrote:Thanks for the valuable experience and input everyone.

I'm wondering if I should cheat a bit (at least in the beginning) by using the PAPIs or VASI's. They tell me not to rely on them since not all aerodromes will have one...but in times of difficulty (or when just starting out) -- would it be any value using them to determine your glidepath?

I don't think it is very useful to rely on the lights either. My own advice would be to learn where in the circuit to begin your base turn, where to begin the descent, and what power settings to use, remembering to vary the length of your downwind depending on the strength of the tailwind. You'll figure this out by experience and with help from the instructor. 90% of a good landing is having a good stabilised approach and coming in at the right airspeed (which you should vary depending on weight).

Once you've done a few circuits at a new airfield you should be able to pick out landmarks to guide your turns, so you always fly the same route over the same landmarks (remembering to extend or reduce your downwind leg as necessary).

And as others have pointed out, the secret to the flare is just looking in the right place so you can judge your height accurately. Bear in mind that binocular depth perception is only effective to about 30 feet in front of you.

It has been MY experience that instructing methods DO matter... I agree with Cat Driver. I did something like 15 landing (at night) on a new plane with low hours and not landed ONE right. I was listening to the instructor but it wasn't working out. A few days later went up with a more experienced guy, the third landing was just for shits and giggles... it all made sense.

Thanks Cat. Although I fly a turboprop for a living now, when and if I do training, it is more the advanced stuff. Multi/IFR and the odd night rating. I Charge 50 dollars an hour and I charge the same for my driving time to and from wherever the plane is. If they balk at that, they aren't worth my time or headache.

MyMeowCat. Don't try and fly down the Vasi or Papi lights. It is going to bring you to a point a thousand feet down the runway and will bring you in at a slope below what you would normally be flying in the circuit. Just fly a stabilized approach. It doesn't really matter what descent rate or approach angle you use as long as your airspeed and descent rate are CONSTANT.

To the one who said to adjust your approach speed based on weight. For reference, a King Air 100, over 1000lbs change in weight, only changes ref by about 5 knots. Don't try and complicate things in a simple airplane, KISS. In a 172 you should be able to approach at anywhere between 60 and 120 knots and still be at your ref of about 50kts (i can't remember off the top of my head) at the threshold. Anyways, enjoy a plane that you can fly by the seat of your pants while you still can. You'll have to fly a jet by the numbers soon enough, have fun while you can.

Flame Alert.

All that crap that transport makes an instructor spew about ref/stall/whatever speeds changing with weight and c/g loading is crap. It changes so insignificantly until you start flying something 705 (12,500lbs and above, and even then probably not till you hit something substantially larger than 12.5). You have to know it to spew back when a DFTE asks but that is about as usefull as it will be for the first while.

And as others have pointed out, the secret to the flare is just looking in the right place so you can judge your height accurately. Bear in mind that binocular depth perception is only effective to about 30 feet in front of you.

We learn something new every day.

So if I'm sitting in an airplane that is quite high off the ground such as the C117 how much will my ability to accurately judge the flare height be degraded compared to say a J3 Cub?

It's true that binocular vision is only good to 30 feet (i heard 40 but it's in the ballpark). Outside of that distance the brain uses learned visual cues and whatnot to judge distance. So in the C17 you wouldn't be using binocular vision to land whereas in the Cub you possibly could be, however if you're looking 400 feet up the runway you're still not using Binocular Vision.

.

It's true that binocular vision is only good to 30 feet (i heard 40 but it's in the ballpark). Outside of that distance the brain uses learned visual cues and whatnot to judge distance. So in the C17 you wouldn't be using binocular vision to land whereas in the Cub you possibly could be, however if you're looking 400 feet up the runway you're still not using Binocular Vision.

Tired of the ground, my comment was made to point out that all this B.S. stuff like bringing binocular vision into a discussion on how to land is just that unnecessary B.S. that does sweet fu.k all to teach someone how to land a fu.kin airplane.

No wonder the training industry is so disfunctional, if some of these experts are so good how come we have so many students looking for advice here?

tired of the ground wrote:however if you're looking 400 feet up the runway you're still not using Binocular Vision.

Yes you are. If you're aiming your eyes 400 feet down the runway, the bottom of your field of vision will be looking at the ground 30 feet in front of you unless you are looking through a pair of binoculars...

What does this have to do with learning how to land?

So if I'm sitting in an airplane that is quite high off the ground such as the C117 how much will my ability to accurately judge the flare height be degraded compared to say a J3 Cub?

If you don't stay current in the J3 it will degrade your ability in this aeroplane a lot!
The worst pilots to train in little aeroplanes are the big aeroplane drivers who come back to their 'youth' after many years... They're terrified of flaring so low
Student pilots have never landed a big aeroplane and so don't have a clue as to how low they really are!

I soloed at 12.5 hours at Exeter... I shouldn't have taken that long really as I landed the aeroplane several times (in an equal number of circuits) the first time I flew... But I was 17, I'd built and crashed a lot of model aeroplanes, I knew the drill!

Then with many hours in tailwheel aeroplanes I went to the club known for its snobbery...
"For someone who has never flown a Tiger Moth before, you fly it remarkably well" said Ian Senior after my first check flight...
Then I listened to all the BS in the club room about how one lands the Tiger Moth... Tried these things, and really screwed up!
One Saturday morning, I bounced along 19 a few times and decided to stop for tea and to think about it.... Geoff Salt was amenable, a nice chap, but he couldn't understand my trouble.

I thought about it... If this Tiger Moth was such a difficult aeroplane to land there wouldn't be many of them flying!
It's only a bloody training aeroplane...

I decided, I'd peg that speed at 55, look out the left side, keep it flying just above the ground as the venturi rose to the horizon, hold it off, and off and off, oops the stick hits the back stop there's nothing left, but nothing needed the wheels and tailskid were rumbling across the grass with a happy Tiger....

A cup of tea and a biscuit, a bit of thought and my second Saturday session was perfection.

You can listen to all the advice, sift through some of it and gain some grains of wisdom, but ultimately you have to find what works for you.

Do look for that point of zero movement.
Do trim the aeroplane for a reasonable approach speed... more speed more trouble! Too little speed trouble too!
Look outside.
Be patient in the hold off.
If too high add some power.
Don't let the aeroplane land! It will, but if you delay it long enough it will be at the right time, not too fast, and with the stall warner.

Always TRIM!
http://www.mpaviation.com/lessn13.htm

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.

You will have to get used to it, I find that sometimes you flare too high, but you can nose down to regain control of the descent and reflare.

I would suggest that you NEVER pitch nose down when very close to the runway. Especially when you're just learning to land. If you find yourself too high, overshoot and set it up better the next time. If you are a little more experienced, make the adjustment by using power to slow or stop the descent and then adjust to reestablish the desired descent rate.