final approach technique: pitch vs power

[Skipping Classes]

Gentlemen,

I have a very basic question regarding teaching the final approach technique.

When I learned to fly I was taught to keep the airspeed constant and the aircraft in trim and correct the sink-rate with power. If you are getting high - reduce power, if you are getting low - add power.

This was called "power for altitude, pitch for speed".

I am now in the process of refreshing/converting my FAA CFI to JAA FI(A) and I was just a bit surprised to learn about the "point and power" technique, from a very respectful flying school, stating basically the opposite: you control your altitude with pitch and then control your speed with power.

Well, since all of us landed so far using either of these two techniques, it is obviously they both work.

However, can somebody explain to me the advantage of constantly varying your airspeed during the final approach?

Is it only because some students might otherwise have problems judging their touchdown point?

Kind regards,

SC

[what next]

Good morning!

However, can somebody explain to me the advantage of constantly varying your airspeed during the final approach?Try "power for altitude, pitch for speed" on a slippery jet with slowly responding engines and you will know what the advantage is. And if you do it with some anticipation, then there is not much (unwanted) variation in your airspeed.

As long as your school trains mainly private pilots, there really isn't much difference. But if your school is aimed at ATPL students (like the one I instruct for) it makes a lot of sense to teach it the way they will need it later for their job.

Regards,
max

NB: The search function will find hundreds (maybe thousands) of threads regarding this issue!

[Whopity]

explain to me the advantage of constantly varying your airspeed during the final approach?
There is no advantage, the object is to retain a constant speed whether by attitude adjustment or by small power changes.

The principle of Point and Power is to retain a line of constant angle with the touch down point my means of small pitch changes. Any pitch change will also change the speed, so a comensurate power change is made to retain it at a constant value.

[Skipping Classes]

Try "power for altitude, pitch for speed" on a slippery jet with slowly responding engines and you will know what the advantage is

Can you elaborate please?

[24Carrot]

In a post in an earlier thread on this same topic, Whopity said:
Think of a piece of string over your shoulder joining your right and left hand, when one moves forward the other moves back.Which has improved my approaches beyond recognition. So thanks for that!

[DB6]

1) Do a search for Point and Power. 2) Read for the next three weeks....

[hugh flung_dung]

Clearly both work, but point'n'power (power adjusts speed) tends to give a more stable approach and a more accurate touchdown position. The bottom line is that you have to teach what everyone else in the school teaches or students are going to become confused.
Most SEP instructors seem to teach attitude for speed so I only tend to introduce p'n'p when converting people onto complex types, to twins, or if they ask to do it on a BFR.

(Small error in the OP - the aiming point is held constant in the windscreen until the flare; the power is adjusted to maintain the correct speed - the airspeed is not "constantly varying")

HFD

[Skipping Classes]

Most SEP instructors seem to teach attitude for speed so I only tend to introduce p'n'p when converting people onto complex types, to twins, or if they ask to do it on a BFR.

(Small error in the OP - the aiming point is held constant in the windscreen until the flare; the power is adjusted to maintain the correct speed - the airspeed is not "constantly varying")I do not quite understand why point-and-power method is more suitable for complex types (what does complexity has to do with the flight path?) or larger airplanes.

If you hold the aiming point constant on the windshield wouldn't it result in a different glide path angle every time? (depending on where you initiate you final descend)

It seems to me that to get back on the 3 degree glide (in case of being above it) one has to point the airplane short of the aiming point to get back to the glide path first and then re-aim for the 3 degree.

Am I wrong?

[BEagle]

The basic problem is that a pilot needs to know when the approach needs to be corrected.

The pilot needs to have some sort of 'error-ometer' to assess this. With 'point and power', it's easy - the 'error-ometer' is the ASI if the touchdown aiming point is kept stationary in the windscreen.

But with the 'other' technique, pilots have to assess whether they are above or below their desired glidepath. That is a skill which is MUCH more difficult to learn to the same degree of precision as 'point and power' achieves; most pilots using this 'other' technique take a long time to develop their personal glidpath 'error-ometer' and often leave things until very late, then add a huge amount of power and attempt to get back onto their original glidepath. This is particularly true when landing on a long runway as, unless he/she is grossly undershooting, the approach probably 'looks OK' to the student pilot, although he/she might eventually land anywhere within hundreds of feet of the correct touchdown point.

With 'point and power', pilots rapidly gain the skill of keeping the touchdown aiming point steady in the windscreen. As experience is gained, corrective power changes to correct speed errors become smaller, because they are applied sooner. I used to teach turning final at approach speed +10, then roll out, select full flap, adjust and trim to approach speed before concentrating on 'point and power' all the way to the flare. Dead easy - and that's why 'point and power' students usually solo at least 2 hours sooner than 'other' technique students

But others persist in making things TFD for the student pilot to cope with particularly, regrettably..... They probably teach them a mnemonic as well...:\

When you learn to teach 'point and power', you should also be taught the 'glidpath error' sequence - it is not essential to fly a 3 deg glidepath as 'point and power' can be used over a range of acceptable glidepath angles, which you demonstrate to the student from a long, straight-in approach flown at a constant height of about 4-500 ft.

Probably only those playing airliners and flying long final approaches insist on 3 deg visual glidepaths in light aeroplanes.

[P.Pilcher]

During my many years as a PPL when I taught on single engine aircraft we always used the pitch for speed, power for rate of loss of height technique. Why should we use any other? As time progressed, ILS systems appeared on light aircraft and at more airfields. By this time I had managed to get my IR and can remember the countless times I sorted out PPLs who were trying to fly the ILS glideslope by using pitch for speed and power for rate of loss of height. Converting them to the other technique worked like magic and left them with smiles on their faces as, at last, they had conquered what they had previously considered to be the trickiest of approach manoeuvres.

P.P.

[Cows getting bigger]

Unfortunately there are CFIs out there (mostly the type who have never done anything but instruct) who think PnP is the work of the devil. I would love to be allowed to teach it but our SOPs say not. :ugh:

[DFC]

It's all in the mind.

It is not about technique is is about understanding actions and reactions.

Whopity has it perfect with their piece of string idea.

The best way to look at this is to put 2 people from opposing camps in the sim ( a good sim!!).

get them to stabilise on an approach and then pout them at the correct speed and below the glide path (safe approach path if one prefers).

One will add power (thinking they are low) and will also at the same time pitch up to cancel the increasing speed trend. In other words they will will flatten the trajectory while maintaining a constant speed and by this regain their ideal trajectory.

The other will pitch up (thinking they are low) and also at the same time add power to cancle the decreasing speed trend. In other words they will flatten the trajectory while maintaining a constant speed and by this regain their ideal trajectory.

The difference in the highlighted parts in the above to examples is the difference between the mind-set of "point and power" and "power for altitude".

Having said that, in my experience candidates who think in terms of "point and power" perform better than those that think in terms of "power for altitude, attitude for speed".

Why is there a difference when it is only a mindset?

The answer is that in the power for altitude case there is no real emphasis on learning to recognise where the trajectory of the aircraft is pointing. People who are good at recognising where the trajectory of the aircraft is going to hit the ground will not only do accurate approaches with power but they will also use that information to make critical decisions in PFL / glide approach situations.

-------------

skipping classes,


It seems to me that to get back on the 3 degree glide (in case of being above it) one has to point the airplane short of the aiming point to get back to the glide path first and then re-aim for the 3 degree.



Absolutely correct, and if you find while trying to correct that you have the throttle closed and the trajectory is still beyond the aiming point with the correct speed, you are going to miss the aiming point unless you can add more drag.

As I said above it is this critical ability to recognise the current trajectory of the aircraft and to change it if required that is essential no matter how your mind works. Every pilot should be able to fly a constant angle approach at a constant speed and every time be in a position that if they did nothing else they would smash the nose into the aiming point at the correct speed.

----------


Probably only those playing airliners and flying long final approaches insist on 3 deg visual glidepaths in light aeroplanes.


Probably before your time but I think that you will find that 3 degrees is used because it is a natural approach angle that pilots prefer and enables the majority of powered aircraft flying to make stable approaches while clearing obstacles by a safe margin.

Many palces specify it as a minimum for noise.

It is what the figures in most performance tables/charts are based upon.

As soon as one makes steeper approaches then other factors some into play - for your average light trainer - more groundrush and more positive roundout all of which make the basic approach a bit harder for the student doing it for the first time.

I am all for making a glide approach and being able to say "I don't care if the engine stops because I will get in anyway" but I think that when training one has to start with the easiest method and expand from there.

We agree about "long approaches" though establishing final at about 1.5 miles and 500ft is far enough out and if every one did it there would be some noce and tidy circuits......and that is about 3 degrees!! :)

[BEagle]

A while ago, I had to do some mathematical analysis after some CFS Trapper told us our approaches were too steep. He was a dyed-in-the-wool Jet Provost person...

The analysis proved that the RAF circuit as taught for the Bulldog resulted in an approach angle of roughly 4.4 deg. When presented with that information and an invitation to disprove it, he admitted we were right and he was wrong.

[Flyingmac]

High on the approach (for obstacle clearance) throttle closed. What now?

[Miroku]

Sideslip if the POH allows it or more likely, go around.

By the way, I was recently taught to use throttle for speed on approach and it worked like magic!

[Flyingmac]

The trees won't move. No matter how many times you go around, and power is removed from the equation, leaving only pitch to control speed. Welcome to the real world.

[Whopity]

But then you are not flying a constant sight line to the runway which is fundamental to Point and Power.

[Flyingmac]

Try Point and Power on your next PFL.

[P.Pilcher]

IMHO, using power to control rate of descent and nose position to control speed is the appropriate way of teaching basic approaches in a light single engined aircraft in visual conditions. This is because any angle of approach may be necessary due to the circumstances of the approach be they flap failure, engine failure e.t.c, e.t.c. The approach technique using power to control speed and nose attitude to control rate of descent is another technique in the armoury of an instructor to enable a student to gain the basic principles. "The vital thing is to appreciate the visual picture," as Firefly Bob's Dad used to say. The other technique is however the appropriate way of flying approaches on instruments as I have said previously. From my own experience, it was a number of years after I gained my PPL and instructor rating that I had the opportunity to try and fly a full ILS approach. I was heavily grounded in the nose for speed, power for rate of descent technique then which I taught exclusively. When I had a go" at using such things as ADF's and a full ILS system I found following the glideslope accurately very difficult: "And commercial pilots are able to follow it to 200' AGL - coo they must be clever!" It was only when I was taught the technique mentioned above on my own IR course that I found out how to do it properly.

I used to say that "flying a glideslope is just like flying straight and level - on a bit of a slope" and when you are used to flying the usual 3 degree glideslope, the visual picture of flying a 5.5 degree one at London City is totally wrong - it works though - all you have to do is to follow your instruments!

P.P.

[Flyingmac]

Spot on P.P. Horses for courses as they say.

[Meikleour]

Skipping Classes: Surely the reason that ab initio students are taught airspeed with elevator is because one normally starts flight training on single engined aircraft and hence there is a requirement to learn a technique which will work also for a forced landing with an engine failure. In this situation clearly point and power does not work.
Hence the emphasis in the early days of flying on the glide approach.

To broaden the arguement to discuss heavy jets/swept wings etc. is irrelevant. Both methods clearly work however if I was sending a student off on his first solo I would like to think that he was properly trained to handle an engine out landing.

[P.Pilcher]

You have it precisely in a nutshell Meikleour.

P.P.

[Biggles78]

Thank you Meikleour, that has now made sense (to me) of this thread. Much appreciated and I have learnt something new. :D

[Whopity]

Interestingly on flying scholarships the RAF required us to teach Point and Power to prevent students from going to low on the approach. Many held a nice constant airspeed as they poipoised down the approach path. As someone who was taught P&P from square one, it was going back to what I had been taught; many instructotrs had neither tried it nor even thought about it as a technique.

As DFC said its a state of mind, both power and attitude affect speed, and ideally it should not be possible to tell which method you are using. However, there is quite often a time delay whilst the student reacts. If you are using attitude for speed on a powered approach then that reaction time manifests itself as deviation from the glideslope. By holding the glideslope constant (Point) then you now have only one variable to contend with, Airspeed. (Power) does that quite nicely resulting in a more stabilised approach. Clearly, if you have no power then you can only use attitude to maintain airspeed.
You use Elevator to maintain the vertical position when Straight and Level and when turning so why should it be so different on an appraoch. Many early aircraft had a high nose attitude at approach speeds meaning you could not see the landing area consequently, the only way to control the approach was to use elevator for speed. If you can clearly see the landing area you have two choices, neither are exclusively right nor wrong.

[BEagle]

However, there is quite often a time delay whilst the student reacts.

Exactly. Detection of error requires a system against which such an error can be quantified. Hence my 'error-ometer' description; using 'point and power', an ASI provides such a system if the touchdown aiming point is maintained with zero sightline spin in the windscreen.

It's also MUCH easier to teach!

[hugh flung_dung]

It seems that those if us who have tried teaching both methods have a strong preference for point'n'power whereas those who've only taught attitude-for-speed can't see how the other method works. One of life's perennial problems is that we can't know what we don't know:cool:

Students don't seem to have a problem with the concept of:
- when power is fixed (either max power or no power): attitude = speed
- when power is variable: power = speed
... this applies whether flying a horizontal line, or a straight line to a point on the ground.

SkippingLass asked why it was more appopriate for complex aircraft - the point I was making was that because many SEPL FIs teach attitude for power it's inappropriate to introduce point'n'power until the stude is entirely "yours" and learning something new.

FWIW I think I recall that some years ago the chief examiner recommended p'n'p as the method to teach.

HFD

[Oktas8]

Have taught both ways, and can make my patter work either way whilst flying the opposite way - without the student noticing. Good old bit of string, left hand / right hand moving together.

I see no difference between the techniques in terms of student accuracy pre-solo, as instructor experience and quality seems to be more significant than the teaching method.

Perhaps like BEagle, the one I find easiest is the one I learned first.

[BEagle]

When I learned to fly, I was taught using the 'other' technique in Cessna 150s at Cranfield. I was unable to land consistently at a specific point until I was well beyond the first solo stage - touching down somewhere safe on the long runway was seemingly OK.

I also think that I was taught quite poorly.

I didn't really start using point and power consciously until many years later - probably on the Folland Gnat, if I recall correctly.

But having later been 'taught to teach' by the experts at CFS, I cannot understand why anyone would conceivably still wish to teach the 'other' technique.

[mad_jock]

well I am another one that can patter both.

My thoughts on it are.

I have just finished battering the point across about triming the aircraft.

I have just battered to death that if you set the power and set the attitude in a configuration the aircraft will do xxknts.

To me the pitch for speed and power for profile is just a continuation of the above lessons.

You can take it to the extreme when you do no-instruments circuits with them. Which I can't see you being able to do if they have to look at the ASI with point and power.

But to be honest by the time they are doing x-country's the whole lot is pretty much linked anyway.

Myself if I am flying IMC on a ILS its point and power.

Visual or NPA its the other one. But you wouldn't know the difference by watching me fly it.

[DFC]

This is because any angle of approach may be necessary due to the circumstances of the approach be they flap failure,


This partial quote shows a total misunderstanding of the whole "point and power" mindset.

The "point" is not about where you see the nose to be (attitude). It is where the trajectory of the aircraft is taking you and using the controls to make the trajectory end at the desired aiming point. The attitude of the aircraft is something different and in fact if you have trajectory information (like some modern large aircraft) you quickly forget about what the attitude is because what we are always interested in is the aircraft trajectory and the speed.

Most if not all GA aircraft can fly a 3 degree slope on approach with either land flap or zero flap.

Yes the "attitude" will be higher when making the approach with zero flap however the trajectory will be the same and provided that the trajectory continues along the 3 degree slope to the desired aiming point then the point bit has worked.

In other words, the constant point still has to be placed on the desired aiming point using the controls, the aircraft has to be kept in balance, wings level and the power needs to be set so that the required speed is maintained.

I fear that anyone who sees a difference in point and power between an approach with full flap (land flap) and one with zero flap has missed the whole point.

Students who use point and power will automatically make appropriate corrections when flap is extended without even having to explain it to them..........when flap is extended, the constant point moves and they pitch the aircraft to put it back where it should be and they also adjust the power if required in the appropriate direction to counteract any speed change.

That is the simplicity of the whole idea. It is just like driving a car. What is the trajectory and what is the speed. Soon the position of the steering wheel is not something you even think about.

Or in aviation terms - what is the constant point and what is the speed?

How hard is it to draw an X on the windscreen and say keep the aiming point behind that X with your left land, the ball in the middle with your feet and the speed at 70 with your right hand.

Do you have to mention wings level - no because if they are not then (with the ball in the middle) the aiming point will not stay behind the X (cause you are turning!!). They will do it automatically. Do you have to mention attitude - no because if the aiming point is constantly correct and the speed is correct than the attitude must be correct.

If I want to thred a neddle do I worry about attitude, up down left right or do I get the thred and shove it through the little hole?

[BEagle]

How hard is it to draw an X on the windscreen and say keep the aiming point behind that X with your left land, the ball in the middle with your feet and the speed at 70 with your right hand.

Precisely.

But diehard dinosaurs will never accept that learning to fly can be simple...:\

[mad_jock]

Both methods to be honest are simple. They are just a means to an end until the student starts linking pitch and power at the same time.

As for whats the best one to teach?

Which ever one the instructor is most comfy with teaching, if the instructor is comfy and enjoying themselves that will create a good learning enviroment which will get the job done.

But I still reckon you can't do a point and power with your pitot system shagged. You can with pitch for speed.

My students do zero instrument circuits and a system failure wouldn't really bother them to much. In fact I think its quite a usefull skill for them to have.

[S-Works]

I just point at the ground and play with the knobs and levers until I arrive at the chosen spot. Am I doing something wrong?

[mad_jock]

Nope :p

Knob fiddling is common to both ;)

[DFC]

But I still reckon you can't do a point and power with your pitot system shagged.


So you are trying to tell us that it is impossible to fly straight and level at a constant speed with a failed pitot?

i.e. you can not make the trajectory of the aircraft horizontal (point it at the horizon) and set cruise power?

or that you can not fly a 3 degree approach slope in the landing configuration and appropriate power set?

Aircraft A comes down the glide at 90Kt with gear down, land flap and x power. Why if I point the aircraft down the 3 degree slope (visual or ILS it makes no difference) have the correct configuration and the correct power will the speed not be 90Kt or very close to it?

Point and power does not mean chase the airspeed.

People who can fly accurately will require very small corrections and therefore will not have any significant airspeed deviations cause by large corrections which in turn are cause by not being able to recognise the constant point and keep it where it is supposed to be.

[Flyingmac]

So you get hit by a lump of sink on short final. Which control do you instinctively react with? And which method would it relate to?

[Chesty Morgan]

Both and both more than likely!

[mad_jock]

Stick the power up which is becuase your below profile the airspeed will stay the same.....

Aye another good reason for not teaching point and power, well done Flyingmac. Sink point it were you want to be going, not enough power, flat attitude with drag down. Nice setup for a stall.

QED

I really can't get to fussed with it all. With some students point and power clicks and others pitch for speed clicks. There really is no huge difference in the 2 techniques. If the previous instructor has started with point and power I will continue it but if I start myself I usually use pitch for speed so I can make them do zero instrument circuits. But in the grand scope of things it really doesn't matter a toss.

[Whopity]

Aye another good reason for not teaching point and poweras you feel the sink add power (in anticipation of loss of speed) and keep pointing at the aiming point.There really is no huge difference in the 2 techniques.There is one fundamental difference, if you maintain the aiming point as a constant site line you fly a straight line towards it wheras if you fly a constant speed by changing attitude you will fly a fugoid towards it; the former is much easier to assess.

[mad_jock]

You make it sound like students are doing roller coaster rides down the final approach. Which I will admit does happen in some cases with both techniques.

And again one method clicks with one student and the other with another.

There is no safety issue with either method. And some students find easier/progress faster using one method than the other. Which one the instructor starts with doesn't really matter its just a means to an end to get the pilot linking there control inputs. As you quite righly say start anticipating what the aircraft is going to do for a certain enviromental effect and approprate control input.

Lets start getting the whole of the UK teaching stalling correctly then start worrying about two perfectly safe methods about flying an approach.

[DFC]

Stick the power up which is becuase your below profile the airspeed will stay the same.....


I don't think that a single student would understand that statement. I am not trying to fly the aircraft at the moment and after reading it 10 times I still can't make it out.

Could it be that the aircraft is below profile in the question asked because of the "sink"? and perhaps it was 100% on profile and speed until that point so the power and the trajectory must have been correct. So increasing the power at 5ft above the tree tops will fix it?

-----------

Lets pause 12/13 for a minute and go back to 6.

We are flying straight an level in trim at 100Kt.

maintain straight and level flight while slowing to 80Kt.

Hands up those that will straight away pitch up to slow down?

maintain straight and level flight while increasing speed to 120Kt

Hands up those that will pitch down to speed up?

I hope that no instructor has their hand up.

Straight and level at different speeds-

Accelerate;
1. Increase power
2. Prevent yaw, pitch and roll
3. as aircraft accelerates adjust attitude to maintain constant altitude
4 at desired speed set power and trim

Decelerate;
1. Reduce power
2. Prevent yaw, pitch and roll
3. as aircraft decelerates adjust attitude to maintain constant altitude
4 at desired speed set power and trim

Simple.

That exercise should not change just because the trajectory is something other than horizontal.

Next deviations;

Aircraft is established straight and level at 100Kt, 2000ft in trim

Instructor "makes" aircraft 100ft low and askes student to regain 2000ft.

Student simultaneously pitches up slightly to cause a climbing trajectory and increases power slightly to prevent speed loss. Aircraft is re-established at 2000ft in trim straight an level.

Instructor "makes" aircraftv 100ft high and asks student to regain 2000ft

Student simultaneously pitches down to cause a descending trajectory and decreases power slightly to revent speed increase. Aircraft is re-established at 2000ft in trim straight and level.

All very easy.

[Falz]

Adding my 2p to the discussion.

I only learned PnP during my FIC training, until then I was definitely a Pitch for Speed kind of a guy.

The problem is that it really doesn't matter a jot what method gets the studen to 6ft off the deck, because there won't be two instructors around that will teach the flair with the same technique.

The interesting thing is that PnP will get the students to that 6ft, and the same 6ft above the runway everytime on every approach. Then they can have the good old schoolboy hash at trying the flair. And with a PnP student, who can now hold an aiming point and watch a speed they can use the same technique into the flair by changing the aiming point to the end of the runway and holding the point whilst monitoring the speed.

So those who are agast and worry about the aircraft suddenly rearing into the stall don't worry PnP guys will notice it first, whether they do something about it...well depends how loudly you shout across the intercoms as with all students :}

For the other method, and I'll admit I was guilty of this even through my CPL training, the student will get to a safe 6ft off of the runway, the problem is that until they have a good few hours in the circuit it will be a random safe 6ft above the runway. And that's no good for effective training because we don't want students stuck in the circuit, well I don't anyway, for a good few hours before they go solo, only to get stuck in to a good few hours of consolidation afterwards.

MJ, I'm a little bit confused. You said that you use PnP but teach the other method. Now presumably you don't tell your students that you actually use a different landing technique from them.

That strikes me as bit of "There are two ways to stay ahead in business, one is to not tell everything you know..."

[mad_jock]

The landing technique is the same either method.

But as for the approach yes I tell them if they ask. If they don't and are getting on well I don't bother even mentioning it. If they don't "get" either one of them I will swap to the other method. I have inherited just as many PnP students having issues as I have Pitch for speed, if the basic skills are there (ie the intial lessons) I swap to the other one and see if that one clicks. 90% of the time with both methods its because the student has been rushed into the curcuit and needs to do some refresher training.

Its not a case of there is right way and a wrong way of doing it. Both methods are right. Some situations PnP is best ie rough air approaches, ILS etc. And other times, calm air, visual, NPA pitch for speed is best.

Now as I teach for visual flying in relatively calm air the pitch for speed suits me best as a starting point. Now if you did a check on one of my old students you wouldn't have a clue which method they were using because just because they have gone solo doesn't mean the approach teaching has stopped there. It is refined and polished until they go for the skills test so that adjustments to profile are a combination of simutanious control inputs (which is actually what experenced IR pilots do on the approach its not PnP but a combination of both methods)

The PnP or Pitch for speed is just the starting point. But I do like the idea that I have trained my students to be able to operate without working instruments if god forbid they had a pitot system failure.

I really don't care what other instructors use for thier starting point. It can be either method. I am sticking up for Pitch for speed because it does have some good points.

[Falz]

Now if you did a check on one of my old students you wouldn't have a clue which method they were using because just because they have gone solo doesn't mean the approach teaching has stopped there

I cannot believe that you would teach a technique and then not even have the decency to tell the student what they are actually using. Not only is this important for their knowledge but it might be handy if they ever do some training elsewhere.

Its a bit like giving somebody a fly fishing rod and telling them to throw the hook at the water. You might not realise but there is a lot more to it.

I cannot imagine EVER hiding information that is that important from my students. You mention that the learning process doesn't end just because they have gone solo. My point is that not telling them how they are flying will prevent them from going solo sooner. And lets face it, surely it would be nice to know that "Pitch for speed" is the name of the method, why because it IS the method. And likewise for "Point and Power" :ugh:

After all isn't it more important that we get people to a safer standard sooner?

And as for the pitot failure circuits I'm sorry I think I am failing to understand your point here. For a PnP student they will be able to keep the same aiming point and the same RPM and the picture will stay the same and they'll trim.

And then in a nil wind day they will fly with a constant airspeed all the way down to flair point and then they will flair. On a windy day they will probably come in with more power and faster which will keep them safer anyway.

Surely that is easier than the Pitch for Speed guesswork?

[mad_jock]

Where did that come from?

Of course the student will know what technique they will be doing they will have sat through a brief on it.

Its you as the checking pilot won't have a clue what they are using because they will be linking there control inputs for cause and affect.

A PnP instructor will think they will be doing that and a pitch for speed instructor will think they are doing that. When in fact they are doing neither.

Its not really easier for every student or pilot for that matter.

Its blinkered instructors who cause the issue demanding a single method is the only correct way which to operate.

Anyway when one of your students has an instrument failure they can roll out the fire engines and give enough runway they will get it in or maybe stall on finals. If they have the wrong angle to the point they are aiming at the have no reference to the speed they are doing. If they are high and to steep they will be to fast and low they will be to slow. They have no way of correcting the profile.

Set the attitude for the configuration and students will quite happily sit at +- 2 knts off the desired approach speed if they are too high they sort it maintaining that speed and if to low the same thing all without the use of the ASI. Also means they have their head out the window more.

Mind will (and one has in the past) will think what was it that fat bastard said? O aye stick that rpm on and that attitude in the window. Wait for a bit until the controls don't feel firm, stick a bit of flap down get that attitude sorted again trim. Approach looks normal stick another bit of flap down sort the attitude again trim. Play with the knobs a bit. Land.

Think o bugger I forgot to declare, h'mm, those folk on pprune are going to not like that. But I wasn't any danger I knew what I was doing, it was just like doing no instrument circuits in my PPL.

And the reason why I feel it is such a good skill to have is because i have had exactly the same failure myself and it really was a none event flying for half an hour in class G through the cairngoms looking out the window with the ASI reading zero. Landed in Dundee pipe reattached or what ever they do to fix these things.

Crack on with teaching your method though the PnP fantics won't listen to the good points of pitch for power. Myself I can and do teach both methods but the over riding method choosen is because it suits the student. Over 80% of my students when i was teaching full time did less than 3 hours in the ciircuit before solo. Mainly because i was anally retentive about making sure the intial lessons had sunk in properly.

If you having students in the circuit for more than 5 hours without going solo have a look at your own methods and philosophy of instructing.

What pilots do and the techniques we use flying heavier hardware is a skill in itself and mostly its to do with energy managment and configuration over a speed range of some 100-200 knts over the approach phase. Yes it is a slightly different skill set and one that takes a bit of getting used to. But forcing pilots to use a skill set appropriate to heavier hardware in spam cans is self defeating and does nobody any favours.

The list is huge

Adding stuff on for gusts
Flying the PAPIS
Using checklists in the air


And the one I loved last year one pilot announced that it was illegal to use more than 5 deg's of bank below 1000ft in a spam can flying VFR. Which you might not know is actually a stabilised approach critrial for CAT on a IMC approach.

Everyone seems to be determined to fly a spam can like its a 747

[DFC]

Falz,

You are correct.

As every instructor knows - if your trajectory and power are correct then you will not stall.

On approach there are two main performance indicators - the runway and the airspeed.

One method keeps the runway picture constant while varying power to maintain the speed.

The other moves the runway piture up and down the window to maintain the speed while varying the power to keep the runway picture constant.

One method says - at top of descent put the constant point on the aiming point and keep it there while adjusting the power to maintain the approach speed.

The other says - lower the nose to x attitude and set about x rpm and wait and see what happens. If you are too low then increase the power and of course pitch up to counteract the speed gain. If you are too high then reduce the power and pitch down to prevent a speed loss - sooo simple eh?

The talk of engine failure, pitot failure and even Non Precision Approach (NPA) is just distraction.

After all we are all teaching CDFA for the non precision approach so we fly non-precisions like ILS these days.

For engine failure both "methods" have the same problem - they have lost one of the inputs but one method spends so long dealing with the constant point that those who learn that way easily recognise where the constant point is.

As for pitot failure? Someone needs to remember that Performance = velocity = path through the air and speed = trajectory and speed = attitude plus power. Look at the last two again!!

[Falz]

Blimey MJ I do seem to have poked you with a stick.

Go back to my post; all through my training I was an attitude for airspeed. So no I am not unable to see the benefits of using it. As has been said before it is much easier to use it for FLWOPs.

However you seem to want to hold up the fact that you can and do patter both as all brilliant. I'm saying its confusing especially if the student has been pattered both and they get good enough that you can't tell what they are using anymore.

How on earth do you help them once you aren't quite sure what technique they are using? For that matter do you put it on the training records so that if you are ill and they come in to do some work so the next instructor knows how to help them?

Anyway when one of your students has an instrument failure they can roll out the fire engines and give enough runway they will get it in or maybe stall on finals. If they have the wrong angle to the point they are aiming at the have no reference to the speed they are doing. If they are high and to steep they will be to fast and low they will be to slow. They have no way of correcting the profile.

O aye stick that rpm on and that attitude in the window.

POWER and POINT, what was that about it not working?

I've never been called a fanatic before, thanks.

As for being determined to fly traumahawks like they are 747s...meh. I have no desire to fly the heavy metal I just want to be the best instructor.

Oh and I think I know how they fix the pitot system when it isn't working, the engineers go out and remove the cover :}

[Miroku]

'Of course the student will know what technique they will be doing they will have sat through a brief on it'.

I'm not sure about that. When I was doing my PPL training there was NO briefing before a flight (admittedly this was on Saturday afternoons when the place was manic).

In fact the only proper ground briefing I got was for PFLs and that was only because I was having trouble with them!

To find out more detail, I used to visit the airfield on a rainy day and grab an instructor.

[mad_jock]

You don't patter both at the same time

And you put the one you are currently doing in the training records.

The point is that either method could be the best one for that particular student. And your job as a instructor is to be able to adapt to take into account your students mind set (don't know if mind set quite the right way of putting it)

Pitot covers on a tommy that would be a novelty.

The point that you start polishing the approaches is after solo and your getting them to link the control inputs. I must admit I don't put anything in the records about that. But as the approaches will be more than acceptable I havn't had an issue with a fellow instructor querying it. They get to just sit back and enjoy the view as the student takes them back.

Miroku thats unfortunate. I must admit that briefings thankfully have come back more into vogue these days. 10 years ago when I was instructing full time alot of the old school instructors were definately along the lines of brief on the taxi out which is crap. Yes I sometimes had to do it because the boss decided to squeeze an extra trial flight into the brief and debrief time of 2 lessons. In the end it was one of the reasons why I resigned.

[DFC]

What pilots do and the techniques we use flying heavier hardware is a skill in itself


Flying an aeroplane is flying an aeroplane.

The only difference between flying a B747 and a 3 axis microlight it the distance ahead of the aircraft one's brain has to be. Pitch, Roll, Yaw all work the same.

If you are maintaining a constant profile, the throttle(s) are closed and you want to slow down quicker then you need to add some drag - not raise the nose which straight away gets you away from the pitch for speed no matter what type you are flying......even if it is a glider.

That is why some people are very lucky to progress as far as turboprops and will never get beyond that. Others struggle with keeping up with a C172 and others are quite at home in a heavy jet. It has nothing to do with "flying" and more to do with keeping ahead of the game i.e. managing the flight. I know a few very skilled pilots who could no doubt fly a B747 but they would not be able to manage the operation.

This debate is not about flight management it is about flying the approach.


But forcing pilots to use a skill set appropriate to heavier hardware in spam cans is self defeating and does nobody any favours.

The list is huge

Adding stuff on for gusts
Flying the PAPIS
Using checklists in the air



Ading stuff on for gusts - a good safe practice provided that it is understood and done properly and that the aircraft does not arrive at the flare with the full factor plus a few knots extra.

Flying the PAPIS - mandatory as a minimum for most airfields that have them. The CFE recently had to warn instructors about the dangers of teaching students to make flapless approaches at an angle less than the PAPI's and even if there are no PAPI's then the student should be taught how to judge the runway aspect so that the same approach angle is flown as a minimum.

Unsing checklists in the air - provided that the person who designs the SOPs and checklist has done the job correctly then this should not be a problem. If you find yourself flying something larger than a spam can and get the opportunity to practice the PIC incapicitation scenario in the sim you will find that while operating single pilot (with the autopilot failed :E ) you are still expected to complete the required checklists from the checklists. Note that I am talking checklists and not the usual crutch do-list of 1,000 items that is prevelent at most FTO's.


And the one I loved last year one pilot announced that it was illegal to use more than 5 deg's of bank below 1000ft in a spam can flying VFR. Which you might not know is actually a stabilised approach critrial for CAT on a IMC approach.



I don't know where you read about stabilised approach criteria however, the following are the general criteria for stabilised approach:

Approach Path

Speed

Configuration

Power setting

Limiting bank angle to 5 degrees during the approach phase would cause chaos on gusty days. Yes is can be such a low limit during landing/ touchdown to account for underslung engines, large wingspans vs short undercarriage and of course the effct of wing sweep.

At Vref in the landing configuration it is safe to apply up to 15 degrees angle of bank and you will find that the safe bank angle is a function of indicated speed and not altitude with the exception of the usual 2 wingspans / 50ft above the surface limitation.

This relationship between bank angle and minimum safe speed you will find is applicable to all aeroplanes. An Aeroplane is an Aeroplane. We teach students to fly aeroplanes.

[Falz]

MJ you said 80% of your students were solo in 3 hours.

In that time you managed to patter attitude for airspeed, disregard it due to the student and then patter PnP.

In 3 hours, really?

Seems a bit like you pattered both at the same time to me. For example I've got a student who wants to hear the patter for the climbing lesson twice before we move on. That's about an hour and a half of flying 7.1 and 7.2. If I was suddenly to change the sequence wouldn't it seem to them I was pattering two different methods side by side?

Anyway, yes if PnP wasn't working with a student I would change the technique that I was using to teach the approach. However I couldn't see myself doing it inside three hours unless the student just looked completely baffled throughout the whole circuit lesson.

[Flyingmac]

3 hrs in the average circuit is around 40 landings. If they can't be trusted to fly a solo circuit by then.........

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I had no idea it was this difficult to teach someone to fly an airplane.

[Chesty Morgan]

A question for the pitch for speed gang.

During an approach you encounter a suddenly increasing tailwind, leading to a loss of airspeed and increased sink what do you do?

- Lower the nose to maintain the speed?
- Increase power to maintain the flight path?
- Crash at high power with a lot of nose down stuff going on?:E

Please ignore the fact that you might go around if it got too unstable, I'm just curious.

[mad_jock]

You don't do anything different.

The plane will quickly sort its own airspeed out. You will drop below profile and power applied.

I spent a day doing circuits with airbus hardware doing go arounds at 500ft due to wind sheer warnings. I don't know if it was just the fact that we were light or the students were that good we didn't have any problems.

Christ if I can get the Pink Aviator landing consistantly using Pitch for speed it can't be all that hard.

And it was very very rare if at all I did have to resort to PnP the 80% in 2 hours then solo in the third will have all have done it pitch for speed. Its the 20% where you have to start working for your money. And also of course the inherited students with issues.

But to be honest if you have completed the intial air exercises correctly either method will allow you to do 2 hours then solo in the third. There isn't an issue teaching either method intially. The real issue is talent limited instructors taking students into the circuit before they have the basic skills sorted

[DFC]

Christ if I can get the Pink Aviator landing consistantly using Pitch for speed it can't be all that hard.



How do you know they were using pitch for speed. You told us earlier that you can't tell the different between the two when an approach is flown as you have taught. :confused:

2 hours in the circuit then solo - why the rush to solo?

How do you cover the normal circuit, glides, flapless, efato's, recoveries from bounces and baloons, go-arounds properly in 2 hours which is probably 1 hour 40 in the air? never mind how you can fit the various pre-flight briefs in.

I think that you have been reading too much from the patter manual:

Instructor Demonstrates Glide Approach

Student Practises

"Good, lets move on"

Instructor Demonstrates EFATO

Student practises

"Good, lets move on" :D

In the real world it runs more like - Instructor demonstrates / student practises and makes mistakes / instructor either provides verbal instruction / stiudent does a bit better / student practises again and agin and they get it right......werl done let's take a break.

---------------

Anyone know an operator who permits base checks to start or continue when there is windsheer?

Oh lovely, lets get these guys straight off the type rating course and put them in the circuit with some extra challenges. Silly me for thinking that a TRI/TRE always complies with the Part D and the specified limits on VMC, windspeed, crosswind, gusts and turbulence. Not to mention the prohibition on anything unusual in the base check.

Talk about living in dreamland?

You are entitled to your opinion regarding pitch for speed vs point and power so you don't need to put in all this extra rubbish which detracts from your argument.

Of course you can't answer what I have asked about your pitot failure comments, NPA comments and so forth so in the presence of silence from you on these matters I rest my case as they say!!!! :) :) :)

[Dan Winterland]

I've only just looked at this as It has been done to death on more than one thread in the past.

My take is that it's "Horses for courses". Most of my instruction was done in the RAF where the P and P technique was the SOP in nealry all cases. This was due to the fact that the product was ultimately (ideally) destined for fast jets where the usual technique is to put the VVIP (Velocity Vector Impact Point) of the Head Up Display on the point you want to touch down and drive it down on power, usually with the AoA (Angle of Attack) as the main reference. A true P and P technique.

The one exception in the inventry was the aircraft I spent three years reaching on - the Chipmunk. This was largely because the full flap limiting speed of 71 knots was quite close to the approach speed of 60 knots (65 in some cases) and there was small margin with ptoential for an overstress if the P and P technique were used. The students then went on to the JP/Tucano and learned the P and P technique, in a coule of circuits usually. It was certainly quite relevant in the Tucano which actually had an eye level AoA guage and an AoA indexer - which due to a monumental cock up was still referenced to the much lighter Embraer version and didn't work properly.

Later, at my first civilan club we used P and P (in PA28s) as the CFI favoured it. Personally, I find it is easier for the student to get their heads around, particulalry if they weren't born Chuck Yeager. I have also tought pitch for speed in the flying club environment, I have found it's much harder. In fact, with one student who couldn't grasp the concept and we were spending ages in the circuit just trying to sort out her final approach, I then tried P and P and she got it straight away with the comment "Why didn't you show me this earlier?".

And in my experience, P and P leads to more consistant landings at the desired touchdown point.

[Say again s l o w l y]

Bloody hell, not this old chestnut again...

For aircraft with high inertia, Point and Power works best.
For aircraft with low inertia, Pitch works better.

However in reality, you never actually do one without the other on a "normal" approach and so I struggle to understand why it becomes such a hotly debated issue. Fly the damn aeroplane in the best manner that suits it, don't over complicate it and force it to respond to something that doesn't suit it.

When flying a powered approach, then the throttle needs to be adjusted everytime the pitch is, if you want to fly a steady approach.

If you are flying an unpowered approach, then what's so difficult about having to use just the pitch attitude to control everything?

[mad_jock]

Got it one SAS

[Cows getting bigger]

Regarding 3hrs to solo.

I was just perusing my first logbook. It would appear that a chap called Norman Buddin sent me solo after 2:10 of cct training and 7:45 in total - I appear to have survived. (No, I was never a SkyGod).

It does make me wonder why we now spend weeks getting student pilots to solo standard. Has the standard changed, are people less capable, or are we (instructors) more risk averse? :bored:

[Piper.Classique]

It does make me wonder why we now spend weeks getting student pilots to solo standard. Has the standard changed, are people less capable, or are we (instructors) more risk averse?
Bit of more risk averse perhaps, but what about the time spent taxi-ing and waiting at the hold? Also faffing around on the radio getting r/t procedures right before first solo. I am lucky enough to teach at a quiet grass field, radio not mandatory, no-one in the tower anyway.....no waiting around, just do the checks and go. It means a lot more landings per hour. Just like when I learned to fly, really. Of course, at some point we have to take our students somewhere busy, but by then they are capable of handling the aircraft and have some spare capacity for talking and listening. Oh, and I liked the analogy of the piece of string round the neck!