You control speed with elevator/vario with speed ??

[VNA Lotus]

Hello!

You definately do not like most of european countries lol (driving on the left, pounds etc) lol just kidding.

well, I have bought the Patter Manual, very nice.
and during the descent exercice, it is written that you control speed with elevator and vario with power... very different from france for instance, b'cause we use elevator for vario and power for speed, a lot easier and rationnal.
Ok maybe you are used to do it, but I guess it is logical to think : power as speed.
Do you still teach this ?
Do you do that with jet ? it'd be a challenge... response time is not the same as a piston engine.

I do not critizize but I am just surprised. I wonder how many countries do like that in fact...
I am a FI but I think I'd need a bit of training before handling your method. :}

[Whopity]

it is written that you control speed with elevator and vario with power...
This could be described as the traditional method however, there is an alternative method often referred to as Point and Power.

This months GASCO Flight Safety Magazine GASCo - Flight Safety Magazine (http://www.gasco.org.uk/pages/page.asp?i_ToolbarID=3&i_PageID=115)
contains a very good description of An Alternative Approach.
b'cause we use elevator for vario and power for speed, a lot easier and rationnal Many of us would agree with you.

[ShyTorque]

The Patter Manual? That's just one book! Not everyone in UK uses that method, even for light, propellor driven aircraft.

We were taught to fly the aircraft to the landing point with elevator and to control speed with power and we later taught the same technique; it was required by the syllabus (RAF) to fly that way.

[Put1992]

Power for vertical speed, Elevator for speed yes, but when you think about it, elevator is going to control vertical speed as an effect of changing the speed, so I kinda smooth both methods out together! Just means fewer irrational power changes, and pitch movements.

E.g. Too high on approach, reduce power slightly, and lower nose slightly. It's alot smoother than Killing a load of power, and waiting for the speed to decrease, and thus vertical speed decrease, or vice versa with the elevator.

Cheers

[what next]

Hello!

We used to learn and teach it the "old" way (so to say) - elevater for airspeed / power for sinkrate - till a few years ago. Simply because it is the safer way for inexperienced pilots to fly an approach: Trim the aeroplane to a safe speed and you won't stall, whatever you do with your power!

But since our school now mainly has future commercial pilots as clients who do integrated ATPL courses, we teach it the other way round from the beginning.

Greetings, Max

[homeguard]

Well we all agree that Power plus attitude = performance, I'm sure.

The primary effect of the elevator is pitch. Changes of pitch will always result in a change of speed. Changes in power (thrust) will result in a change in pitch, however the further effect of pitch from power changes will result in a change of height with the trimmed speed remaining pretty much the same. Power for height could be claimed. So in the ab-initio demo this can be easily demonstrated.

The students dilemna is to how to relate the two. So, we teach them a particular power setting that they will use and also a particular attitude relative to the horizon for each phaze of flight. Climbing, level flight and descending etc. The setting of the power is reasonably straight forward with reference to the tacho but the attitude is more complex to set with an ever changing horizon. With the correct power set they may have to adjust in pitch a number of times to discover the correct attitude relative to the horizon.

It is possible to make it simple for the student to confirm the correct attitude by reference to the ASI. If an attempt to maintain height is undertaken by using only the elevator then speed will be lost and the aircraft becomes set on a poor drag curve at a constant height or descent but at a lower speed or higher speed and out of trim. With many of the early low powered trainers this over simplified explanation worked well. It dosn't in the modern less draggy more powerful trainers being flown today, well under max weight.

Point and power is effective on the approach when a fixed visual reference (always the same) - the runway, is available. If height is lost on approach it will be owing to a loss of speed. the pilot then lowers the nose (keeping the constant picture) to maintain speed and also adds power. Speed is recovered and the aircraft maintains the glide path. If the speed increases the aircaft will go above the glide path, once again the pilot lowers the nose (keeping a constant picture) but reduces power maintaining the glide path. Note that in this method the student is unlikely to pitch up closer to the stall. The angle of attack does not always remain constant using the point and power technique as some claim. However the technique works well in my view although mis-understood and I also teach it. As with all methods there are of course downsides.

[BigEndBob]

I let all my trial lessons have a go at an approach.
Just show them the attitude or 'picture' on the approach, tell them to image a gun sight cross hairs on the windscreen to keep the runway in the right position, then i just adjust speed with power.

Whats more important for the approach is not travelling a couple of miles downwind past the end of the runway before turning base, as some instructor do in the mistaken belief that a longer approach gives the student more time to practise the approach.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

If you teach that power = airspeed, how then do you teach the student to do a glide approach and stall recovery without power?

[Pace]

I think you are getting lost. The whole thing revolves around energy management. There is the thrust from the engine and the potential energy in the airframe.

An engineless Glider on a still day with no up or down air currents relies totally on the potential energy in the airframe. Ie the aircraft trades height for forward speed.

The danger to a student in a low powered aircraft is that relying on the energy from the engine could lead to a situation where at slow speeds and high angles of attack the energy from the engine may not be enough to counteract the drag.
That for an inexperienced student pilot is a dangerous situation.

hence the safer way for a student in a low powered single is to make sure that he doesnt get into a high drag/stall situation by being taught to pitch for speed.

To put it in simple terms imagine the aircraft has two engines. The first the thrust the second engine being the potential energy available to the pilot through the elevator.

Again think of two throttles the one for the conventional engine and then think of a second throttle being the elevator.

A cyclist riding along a flat road will expend energy to maintain a given forward speed.

He comes to a slope maintaining the same energy to maintain that speed. He now has that energy plus the kinetic energy from him and the bike rolling down the slope.

He will accelerate and can only maintain his flat ground speed by either reducing the angle of the slope back to level or reducing the energy from his legs.

The engine is the primary energy source with the airframe as the second energy source so following on from that the engine is the primary speed source.

There was the old joke about the student sitting on the runway pumping the elevator up and down. The instructor asked him what he was doing? The student said " well you told me to pitch for speed".


Pace

[woodcoc2000]

I reckon you can teach it either way after all power+pitch=performance. either method will work as you are simply manipulating the aircraft to get it to do what you want.

however for single engine a/c it is probably more consistent to teach pitch for speed because at some point you will need to teach them PFL's, glide approaches and EFATO. Much easier to do these exercises i think if they are already using pitch for speed.

just my very humble opinion.. http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif

[Pace]

however for single engine a/c it is probably more consistent to teach pitch for speed because at some point you will need to teach them PFL's, glide approaches and EFATO. Much easier to do these exercises i think if they are already using pitch for speed.

Really you are talking about engineless situations or going to the basic glider.
Going up from that we have light aircraft which are low powered and draggy
With those pitch for speed comes next to the glider. Hence pitching is more relevant especially with low experience students where you need to keep them away from the stall spin situation.

As you get to more powerful aircraft pitching for speed becomes less important while using all the energy available and playing with the two becomes more important.

At what point do you teach the student to identify and use both energy supplies? because both theories are incorrect in total ie pitching for speed or power for speed.

The only correct principal is a combination of both and the correct instincts to use both as one.

Pace

[RSFTO]

I teach both methods, and I emphasis the difference between first regime and second (reverse command) regime. According to power required/drag versus speed curve.
below minmum drag speed (vglide for pistons aircarft) you are in reverse command regime where is better to control speed with pitch and altitude with power, above that speed you have to use the opposite: speed with power and altitude with pitch.