WHAT?!

So backwards, I landed fine last time doing it my own way. And now today he introduced this pitch controls speed and power controls attitude. Is it MANDATORY? Or is it a widely used technique?

It's not carved in stone; it's more complex than that. But setting pitch for speed, power for rate of ascent / descent is a good way to learn.

Once you are qualified and start to gain experience you'll find a lot of what you were taught in the PPL process is just the beginning. You have to start somewhere, and doing it by processes and numbers works well until you have the experience to do it from first principles.

It's just a method to break it down into easy chunks when you are learning how to establish a constant steady approach.

A lot of civvy schools teach this method, if high or low adjust power to fix it, if fast or slow adjust pitch attitude. This is really just a way of thinking which to adjust first. If you are high you would reduce the power, but you would soon need to lower the nose or the speed will bleed off. One way of imagining this pairing of attitude and power is that your arms are linked by a piece of string, like you were wearing mittens as a kid. If you adjust one thing, e.g. reducing power, you do the opposite with the other hand, in e.g. pitching forwards.

The military tend to teach the opposite, power for speed and pitch for rate of descent, as this method works a lot better when you come to fly an instrument approach or fast jet. Either way it amounts to the same thing and is just a way of breaking it down in your mind into something more manageable.

Thank you very much. It made it more complicated for me, definitely won't be using that technique ever again, it was like adding unnecessary steps.

EGKB,

Pitch does control speed.

Power does control rate of climb or descent.


Some instructors will elect to teach it the other way around, and this does seem to work as well for instrument approaches in particular.

The reality is that they are inexplicably tied to each other because power also has a pitch effect, and pitching also creates a rate of climb or descent. In the vast majority of aeroplanes increased power causes a pitch-up and a reduction in trim speed, whilst a reduction in power causes a pitch-down and a consequent increase in trim speed.

So:

Correct approach angle / too slow = pitch down + more power
Correct approach angle / too fast = pitch up + less power
Correct speed / too high = reduce power + pitch down
Correct speed / too low = increase power + pitch up.

(And at the current stage in your training = if both are wrong, probably go around and try again next time; if feeling braver AND there's plenty of height to play with, sort out airspeed first, then flightpath).

G

That all means nothing to me, I'm a practical guy, everything sort of is simultaneous for me, doing several things at once...

I wonder how my other instructor teaches as I have't done any landings with him yet!

Once you start IFR flying you'll find that on the ILS, your position on the glideslope (pitch) is controlled by elevators and your speed (to keep the CAT behind from going up your chuff) is controlled by throttle (Power).

Confusing innit?

Cusco

Are you saying different instructors at the same school are teaching different techniques at this early stage in your training?
If so I suggest you seek clarification from the head of training.

That all means nothing to me, I'm a practical guy, everything sort of is simultaneous for me, doing several things at once...

It will help a lot to separate the effects out in your mind.

It is a foolish arrogance to think that you don't need these simplifications. I have a PhD in flight mechanics, and still find it vital to keep coming back to these simplified models in my flying.

I wonder how my other instructor teaches as I have't done any landings with him yet!

Personally I think that switching instructors is a bad habit and you are better sticking with one so that you are learning consistent method. However, if they teach in the same school then they should be standardised on the same technique.

The pitch for speed approach I described is pretty much standard across VFR flight training worldwide. It works.

G

It's not arrogance at all, it's completely subjective, some methods work for some, some for others.

I'm not saying pitch doesn't control speed, it does. But to me everything is backwards, there's a reason why there's an elevator on the plane to control pitch, it worked for me perfectly on all approaches/landings so far except for today when I tried the opposite technique....

I'm not sure if they teach the same technique, I haven't landed with the other instructor, he was on my first lesson and I wasn't taking much no on the landing as to what he was doing.

You appear to have stumbled upon what's referred to as the "point and power" technique - much loved by instrument instructors and very relevant to a big jet like a 737.

But in VFR in a single engined light aeroplane, really I'd stick with the classic pitch for speed and power for rate of descent. If this takes a little getting used to after developing an initial bad habit - live with it!

And as I said, I would stick with one instructor and their way of doing things as far as you can. Neither will be wrong, but you don't need the chopping and changing.

G

Once you start IFR flying you'll find that on the ILS, your position on the glideslope (pitch) is controlled by elevators and your speed (to keep the CAT behind from going up your chuff) is controlled by throttle (Power).

I've heard this one before, not saying it's wrong but on an ILS approach I always use the throttle to control glideslope.

I disagree with everyone :E and I will explain why!!!

Think of two power levers the throttle and the elevator.
The throttle will tap into engine power.
The elevator will tap into potential energy inherent in the airframe.

Take the simplest form! remove the engine from the equation ie a glider on a still day and there is only one form of potential energy to tap into to maintain speed and that is the potential energy in the airframe.
In that situation you have one power lever and that is the elevator.
Add an engine and you have two power sources available the airframe and the engine.

So really neither is correct as it is using both sources which is accurate.
Take a light draggy trainer with a low powered engine and pitching for speed becomes more important.

Take a high powered slippery aircraft and pitching for speed becomes less important while power for speed more important.

Really its a play between using two power sources both equally important! Ignore one or follow one rule at your peril!

Take an inexperienced student in a low powered draggy single and the priority has to go to pitch for speed as that will keep the pilot away from a stall situation.

but I repeat you have two throttles to tap into energy why use one????
Ignoring one has the potential for real danger.
Both principals are flawed!

Pace

Can't really argue with that other that in a light draggy trainer on an instrument approach using throttle for glideslope control maintains the airspeed, needs no movement on the yoke (always handy when on instruments) and requires no trim change. It works for me anyway, use whatever works for you.

Surely, for a given configuration, your airspeed is set by the trim wheel :)

All the engine does is control the rate of descent. This means that if you are happy just to go down, you don't need an engine.

This is an interesting debate... partly due to the number of different views/experiences....

If you are learning to fly and land a light aircraft, VFR and are still doing your PPL then you need to set aside all talk of ILS - it's too early for that.. you need to learn to fly the aeroplane first.

The principle that works for me...

Base leg and long final... get the aircraft properly set up, power/attitude/trim - you need to establish a stable approach at the right speed.

All the way down the approach, one hand on the throttle and scanning between the runway and the ASI you are trying to keep this initially stable approach going

As you descend, the runway perspective may start to flatten out... you are sinking! The aircraft needs more energy so apply a little more power and adjust attitude to maintain airspeed.... (as stated the two go together).

If the runway perspective starts to lengthen you are getting too high... the aircraft needs less energy.. reduce the power and adjust the attitude.

This needs to be practised until it is instinctive... the day will come when, at 300' on a gusty day, you might suddenly start to sink rapidly... at this point you need power!! So once you have this habit you are going to avoid hitting the caravans at Caernarfon or the factories/hedge at Hucknall etc etc...

As stated - if your career goes on to bigger beasts, jets and/or Instrument approaches there are new things to bring in but all of these will be better if you learn the basics now.

Agree with Geng about one instructor... I was the "son of many instructors" and it confused the life out of me (I guess putting a question on here could do the same - but I learned without t'interweb).... as you get experience the differing views/techniques are easier to cope with but at first... one set of techniques will do...

Good luck... happy flying... Mike

Surely, for a given configuration, your airspeed is set by the trim wheel

Peter

What if you don't have one ?:{

Pace

I think this is one of the more fascinating pprune discussions.

I'm in the Genghis/Pace camp in that the two controls are linked. In the early days you have to give a student something to hang his hat on and we break down the mechanism used into easy chunks. The reality is that you will have to use both controls when adjusting speed or rate of descent on approach.

But surely your speed is already stable by the time you intercept the glideslope? It's all hanging in there at 105 kts or whatever and just knocking 2-300 rpm off the donk will have you sitting on the glideslope at 105 kts as well, no elevator or trim input needed. Or maybe I have a unique body mass/fuel mass and it's just luck that it works for me? Genuine question.

Thing

That will be because you are now tapping into both energy sources!
You have a set power to give you a set airspeed.
You then reduce that power.
If you attempted to hold altitude on the reduced power the airspeed would reduce but you let the aircraft descend hence making up for that lost power by tapping into the inherent energy in the airframe.
That is a simplified view as we all know that AOA and drag come into it but the principal is that you have two energy sources available one from the powerplant the other from the airframe.
Take your scenario you have reduced power and allowed the aircraft to descend which maintains that airspeed.
All going well till you hit a rising or sinking pocket of air what happens then?

Pace

Firstly, we're not talking about a glideslope, we're talking about a student pilot on a visual approach.

Secondly, I think it's you thing. I reckon you are pushing or re-trimming to maintain speed in most light aeroplanes with a 300 rpm reduction.

G

Thing, there are some aircraft that will react as you describe, under certain circumstances. However, the overriding point is that if you change one of the controls, it is highly likely (nay, almost definite) that you must do something with another.

Looking at this another way, if you choose to fly 'point and power' and discover you are too slow, you will add power. In order to counter the subsequent change in attitude (dare I say AoA) you will need to change the pitch. In reality, you are actually reducing AoA to counter the increased speed you have given yourself. You could get exactly the same effect by firstly changing pitch (thus increasing airspeed) and then increasing power in order to retain/attain a particular rate of descent.

One final point. After a few hours you tend not to think about this and you just fly the aircraft as you would drive a car. You don't 'think' about gear changes, do you?

Thing

I go with Genghis on that. I am sure you have tried an exercise at altitude of flying an airspeed in the descent?
You cruise at 100 kts and push the nose over! To maintain that 100 kts you have to bring back power. Note descent rate.
Now push the nose over even further! again to maintain your 100 kts you will have to bring back power even further. Note descent rate now!!
Push the nose even further and you maybe back on the stops with power you can no longer maintain 100 kts clean without chucking out some drag as now the energy you are getting from the airframe exceeds the amount required to maintain the 100 kts.
You can no longer play the two energy sources as your powerplant is at idle and you cannot reduce that further.
To maintain the 100 kts all you can do is to reduce the power from the second energy source by reducing the descent.
Of course you could hang out drag but thats another subject.

Pace

It's not arrogance at all, it's completely subjective, some methods work for some, some for others.

I'm not saying pitch doesn't control speed, it does. But to me everything is backwards, there's a reason why there's an elevator on the plane to control pitch, it worked for me perfectly on all approaches/landings so far except for today when I tried the opposite technique....

I'm not sure if they teach the same technique, I haven't landed with the other instructor, he was on my first lesson and I wasn't taking much no on the landing as to what he was doing.

EGKB What are you going to do then when you are short final and a little high and fast, pitch the nose down at the ground and pull the throttle to idle? In a Piper or Cessna you can be pretty sure that isn't going to get you down any time fast.

Conversly pitching up away from the runway ( yep its counter intuitive ) to get your speed under control, and reducing the throttle to idle to increase your rate of decent and you will start coming down pretty sharpish.
..Remember also that pitching up is also going to increase your AoA which is going to also create more drag and help slow you down. Pitching down is going to decrease your AoA.

My advise, don't presume that you know better than your instructor, and don't give up on this technique just because its counter intuitive...are you going to do this with all other elements in the syllabus as well? Pitching for speed will give you a much greater control of your approach speed and save you endless balloons / floats down the runway.



Your elevator is your AOA control not your pitch control.

EGKB, please don't take this the wrong way, this is friendly advice.

Questioning your instructor on Pprune at an early stage of your training and then declaring after 2 responses to the thread that you are never going to use the landing method taught does not in my view show an appropriate willingness to learn.

You cannot pass a PPL solely from advice on here. You need to develop trust in your instructor. Why not ask him/her to explain on the ground and then demonstrate in the air the reasons for the methods taught?

Well Mariner9 got there before me. Two bits of advice (both already mentioned) from me:
1. Ask your instructor to explain and demonstrate (he or she will respond well to such a request). Then do what you are told.
2. Get a copy of "Stick and Rudder" by Langeweische and read it several times.

Oh alright three bits of advice:
3. Don't confuse yourself by asking folk on the Internet to give you advice unless you know their credentials

Have fun

H

Well Mariner9 got there before me. Two bits of advice (both already mentioned) from me:
1. Ask your instructor to explain and demonstrate (he or she will respond well to such a request). Then do what you are told.

Yes

2. Get a copy of "Stick and Rudder" by Langeweische and read it several times.

No, for a student pilot at this stage in EGBK's training, use a current training book such as that by Jeremy Pratt. Stick and Rudder, which is old, and does not reflect latest thinking is well worth reading - for an experienced pilot who has a frame of reference to hang it on. It's the wrong thing for a student PPL.

Oh alright three bits of advice:
3. Don't confuse yourself by asking folk on the Internet to give you advice unless you know their credentials

Have fun

H

I'm very happy to state mine (indeed I do in my profile, but can add 64 types as PiC and 4-figure hours if that helps), but I'd also comment that nobody's paying for my advice here, and therefore it's worth approximately what you paid for it.

The bit about having fun on the other hand I agree with utterly.

G

Mariner Heston

Please feel free to point out any incorrect information from whoever in the thread as in any forum discussion that is how we get to the truth.
I for one am happy to stand corrected?

Pace

GtE - yes of course you are right about reading current PPL training books as the main source of reference (I made the assumption that a PPL student would already be reading them, but on reflection I see that that may not be so). But I can't agree with steering clear of Langeweische because its the only book I know of that actually explains in sufficient detail most of the answers to questions that learning pilots ask that are phrased something like "Yes, but WHY does it do... ?" As L says somewhere in the the intro, its written for pilots to understand, with only enough aeronautical theory and no more.

Pace - its not about incorrect information: its perfectly possible to be confused by multiple explanations all of which are correct in their own way.

H

Pitch does control speed.

Power does control rate of climb or descent.

So gliders cant fly?

So when you flare with the throttle closed you cannot control ROD by pitch?

So in a low level go around just above the runway after a large bounce you will pitch down to increase the speed?

So if the engine stops you cannot control ROD at all?

Thats the problem with making unqualified statements!

You need to understand what the PRIMARY method of controlling ROD/height and airspeed on finals is but also understand that a combination may need to be used, such as in the Go Around. You also need to understand that both can be used the other way round as a secondary method of controlling height and speed!
.

Please feel free to point out any incorrect information from whoever in the thread as in any forum discussion that is how we get to the truth

I was not questioniong your (or indeed anyone's) responses Pace, I was questioning the OP's stated intention to use a Pprune thread to disregard his instructor.

At early stages of learning to operate any machine, you use your very modest judgement to figure out what you need it to do, then you use your even more modest skill to control the machine to do it. So you're figuring out what to make your hands and feet do to make the machine move. Two stages. This demands a simple understanding of "do this to make that happen". This is particularly true of aircraft, which are subject to more forces and variables than most machines. That's what instructors are taught to teach you, and you're paying for it, so you may as well listen.

When you reach the stage of hundreds of hours of flying skill, you'll find that you can control the plane with your mind directly, and thinking about what your hands and feet are doing is not necessary. These understanding aids will not be needed anymore, but you're not there yet.

When your instructor demonstrates slow flight, pay particular attention to these characteristics. (Really, landing is slow flight anyway, at its later stages). With the aircraft flying level with full flaps, lots of power, and very little of Pace's very important potential energy, the elevator control will control pitch attitude very nicely, because there'll be no energy to turn into a climb. Power changes will cause the aircraft to climb or descend with surprisingly little pitch attitude change. If you're really neat about doing this, the effects of P factor can be observed too.

When you're flying faster, the effects are more subtle, and likely to be seen to overlap each other. Follow your training......

Heston

But that is the whole point re these discussions is that we do dissect subjects ! Some information is wrong and is usually corrected at some point.
That is why it is important to look at the whole thread and postings and never take one opinion as Gospel. In the end there is usually a concensus
As for students of course their main contact is their instructor and they cannot fight the instructor by going off on their own tangent! That does not mean the student should not question or ask for more detailed explanation as to why??
I totally agree that with an inexperienced pilot in a low powered draggy aircraft pitch for speed has to be the safe way as that is the most secure way of keeping away from a high AOA high drag situation.
My only point is that the true picture is energy management and pitching for speed is not the full picture and neither is power for speed.

Pace

It is disappointing though that a student has to come onto a forum to discuss something that should be discussed with the instructor. If you cannot communicate with your instructor how can you learn to fly properly?

It is disappointing though that a student has to come onto a forum to discuss something that should be discussed with the instructor. If you cannot communicate with your instructor how can you learn to fly properly?

A bit of a design characteristic of the OP I think. He has previously expressed strongly some rather incorrect views concerning, for example, how many landings are likely to be needed before solo. Not atypical behaviour of male homo-sapiens in the 16-25 bracket.

G

Negative Genesis,

I was simply shocked at how many T&G's one pilot needed, 118 I think it was. And I simply questioned why it was so high, and some people agreed that it's quite high...

Mariner9,

Thanks for the post, I disagree. I have a great willingness to learn. And I did speak to my instructor about the technique, he said it's the way he teaches it. And as others have said it's not a law, you don't HAVE to use that technique, each to their own, that makes things harder for me. For some it might make it easier, but it's not mandatory is it?

"You need to understand what the PRIMARY method of controlling ROD/height and airspeed on finals is but also understand that a combination may need to be used" - This is what I agree with, I know you guys are more experienced than me, and I guess I might sound a little arrogant, but I'm simply investigating a technique and stating my opinion on it.

I pulled the yoke back to go higher and forward to go lower, increased power to increase speed and visa versa. That has worked for me, instructor said my app was perfect, then I tried the opposite and everything was fine except my mind got clogged up thinking about opposites/doing things in the reverse order.

I pulled the yoke back to go higher and forward to go lower, increased power to increase speed and visa versa. That has worked for me, instructor said my app was perfect, then I tried the opposite and everything was fine except my mind got clogged up thinking about opposites/doing things in the reverse order.


Again I echo what I said before and when you find yourself high and fast on short final, the above technique is only going to cause you more problems!

I'm not an instructor but I've been trained various ways and fly jet transport aircraft now.

Like the original poster, I found that concept utterly confusing in the early days, to the point that I would sit and think about what needed to be done given what I was seeing out the window and confirmed with the ASI. It left me massively behind the aircraft and as such, I haven't entertained the concept since.

The easiest way I found to fly an approach that works in your C150 to your heavy jets is use pitch and power in unison. Imagine a piece of string connects your hand on the throttle to the hand on the yoke. If you move one, you move the other in the opposite direction. A bit like when you swing your arms when you run; when one arm goes forward, the other goes back. Of course, in this case, those movements can be as minimal as a squeeze of pressure or a 2mm move in throttle.

If you're high, you lower the nose slightly and simultaneously reduce the power slightly. Once you're on the correct path, you'll raise the nose slightly, not forgetting that you'll need an increase in power to maintain the speed. The same goes for being too fast or too slow. If you alter one, alter the other.

Two caveats to that. One is that you'll find, as you get more experienced, that you can work combinations of that technique to be more efficient and effective but it's a good process to hang your hat on to start with. Particularly, you'll find that a small change in power on an approach that is spot on in pitch requires, in some cases, no change in pitch if you were looking to alter your approach speed by a few knots.

The second is that you should be wary of bringing your own techniques, and those of people on an anonymous forum, to your training regime. It can in some circumstances do more harm than good, especially if you haven't consulted your instructor or the school. That said, it's a recognised technique that works for most but can be fairly dependent on experience.

Good luck!

each to their own, that makes things harder for me. For some it might make it easier, but it's not mandatory is it?

When you've got a few hundred hours is the time to start deciding what technique suits you best. When you have a few tens and haven't soloed yet, the person best equipped to make that decision is the instructor.

G

Indeed.

I'd also suggest that you need to understand Angle of Attack and its relationship to what the aircraft is doing, and which of your controls affect AoA. That understanding will help you to visualise what is going on and to make sense of it all.

H

Disagree, get over your whole instructor is in charge listen, be a good kid...

If I can run 100m in 11.5s using my own technique and can only do 13s using the trainers technique, which technique do I choose. It's black and white, I've explained this to my instructor, I'm ill equipped to deal with reverse/opposites.

Go on say it.

EDIT: My own technique isn't even my own technique, it's a method used by many people whom have expressed that in this thread. Simply the opposite, power=speed and pitch=altitude

EGKB,

EGBK, seriously old chap, you are going to take a very very long time to learn to fly if you don't accept that your instructor knows the best ways for YOU to do things. The fact that most people here seem to agree with your instructor only surely re-inforces that.

This is nothing to do with age, but does have a lot to do with experience. Your instructor has it and, as yet, you don't. In all likelihood you will initially do things less well his way, but with practice you'll do it better than you ever could your way. The same with running - your self-made technique may initially be faster, but a good coach will in time make you faster still, even if they have to change your technique to do it.

Eventually, if you get that far, you'll be introduced to "point and power" for instrument approaches. But for now, yes, your instructor is in charge, and listen to them. If most of the rest of us happen to agree with him, that's just a bonus.

G

Lets agree to disagree. You're acting as though I'm rebelling against all his techniques, at the moment the only thing I can't master is power=altitude and so on, it's opposite and doesn't make sense at all. And learning to fly has nothing to do with student mentality, it's about money, so it depends it could take a while. Aiming for 4 hours a month, try to get 5/6 in on some months

Well if you've the money to take longer because your instructor doesn't trust you to do things as he's teaching them, so won't let you progress, then fair enough.

Personally I never really had that sort of spare cash back when I was doing my PPLs (or any other licence to be honest, learning's an expensive business).

As an instructor and student of various things (not just in flying) I have seen few, if any, occasions where somebody who insisted on doing it their own way learned as fast as somebody who grit their teeth and tried to do everything the instructors way.

G

And learning to fly has nothing to do with student mentality

Utter crap.

Right mentality and a bit of talent = 2-3 weeks ppl 45 hours.

Wrong mentality and bad attitude plus bit of talent = a year of bollocks and 100 plus hours.

Personally as I don't have to instruct if I don't want to. You would have been told to combine sex and travel to find another instructor.

MJ - Well said, it's a two way thing as well between instructor and student. If the student tries hard to follow what the instructor advises then the instructor in turn works harder to getting the student through. If the student just wants to argue, then whats the point of some know all idiot being there in the first place.

Student pilot, a word to the wise - your instructor has the pieces of paper to prove that he can do what he says, you are only acting on hearsay and third hand info rather than personal experience. Dont waste your hour a week, listen and try to get the best out of it rather than reinventing the wheel with square corners....

PAT (power attitude trim) APT (attitude power trim) do come to mind, as does setting the speed required with the elevator and position on the runway (by climbing or decending) with the power, with adjustment of the elevator to balance the speed where you want it.

I pulled the yoke back to go higher and forward to go lower, increased power to increase speed and visa versa. That has worked for me, instructor said my app was perfect,

Probably luck and happenstance, rather than aerodynamics and physics. If you apply up elevator, and do nothing else, you will go up for a short time, slow down, and depending upon how you did it, you could descend further than you started from to go up.

To demonstrate my example, I found last summer while out with the flying boat on a local lake, that I had stumbled upon the power setting that let me do it all, without a change in power at all. I could fly in water effect (like ground effect, but away from land!) a feet up at 70 MPH. Were I to push the stick to go down, the resulting contact with the water would be very not good. However, by pulling a little, the nose came up a bit, the plane slowed a little, it tried to leave water effect but could not, so it descended until I gently contacted the water in a nice landing on the step. It would not return/recover to flying in water effect again, as I had upset the balance of power, drag, and Pace's potential energy. I then ran along a little, without touching the power setting, accelerated on the step, and was able to takeoff again, and remain flying in water effect. I could repeat this as much as I wanted, until I approached shore. At all times the speed remained between 72 and 67 MPH, and the "altitude" within a three foot band, but I was not touching the power.

There's a lot more to this than what you are observing now. Rather than taking the "easy for me" way out, spend some more time perfecting the more challenging aspects of flying, in the way you are being instructed - it will make you a much better pilot.

The instructor let me land on my first lesson, he trusts me very well. And no he wasn't following through. Personally I think you should just go a pester another newbie, I'm not claiming to be the best/perfect, I'm just stating I don't like the technique and it makes lfie harder for me, if I HAVE to learn it I WILL, if not then I won't :)

I wouldn't say spare cash, it's my only cash! I usually have about £80 at the end of the month. I'd love to drive, but at my age insurance is too expensive, would make getting to the airfield a lot easier!

Right mentality and a bit of talent = 2-3 weeks ppl 45 hours.

Wrong mentality and bad attitude plus bit of talent = a year of bollocks and 100 plus hours.

Actually, I'd say right attitude and no talent will still get there faster than wrong attitude + talent.

G

EGKB,

I am not certain, you could just be a troll, alternatively you could be someone who knows everything better than anyone else. I do know one thing though - if your attitude in life is the same as your written attitude then you might have a long wait before your instructor considers you safe to go solo.

You seem to have a little knowledge about flight, do you fly anything else?

Luck? Perfect app and landing 6 times? Doubt it. Not even boasting, I love flying and I think landing is the easy part. Hardest thing for me is the exterior checks, maybe I'll memorize it at some stage, rather than going bit by bit.

Yes, so obviously if you're pulling up you're going to go slower so you add some power, why over complicate things? I don't see what the problem is? No-one is telling me what the problem is, all people are saying is "DO AS YOU SAY, OR ELSE!!! "

He thinks I'm safe, I am a very safe pilot. I still don't see how this has escolated to my attitude. My flying lessons are fantastic I have a great rapport with my instructor, and I have a great student mentality. If I don't get something I'll ask why/how it benefits me.

This has nothing to do my my attitude, I'm a direct, up front and straight to the point person, I don't like ambiguity/confusion.

And no I'm not a troll lmao :S

The instructor let me land on my first lesson, he trusts me very well. And no he wasn't following through. Personally I think you should just go a pester another newbie, I'm not claiming to be the best/perfect, I'm just stating I don't like the technique and it makes lfie harder for me, if I HAVE to learn it I WILL, if not then I won't http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

I wouldn't say spare cash, it's my only cash! I usually have about £80 at the end of the month. I'd love to drive, but at my age insurance is too expensive, would make getting to the airfield a lot easier!


EGKB the technique you claim to not like is called piloting an aircraft.

If this isn't a Troll I'll eat my hair. Honestly what 80 years of flight training, between the people that have posted in this thread probably 20,000 hours of teaching people to fly and the guy doesn't listen.

Either way it's a waste of energy.
:)

All the old chaps are coming out now, look what I've done.

We will see if I take 100 hours +

I'll make a thread when I go solo actually :)

Remember me, EGKB.

You are going to have to spend a fair bit of time later in the course flying the aircraft with the throttle closed.

Doing things the way your instructor wants now will make it a lot easier later.

D.O.

EBKG Noone but you and the search function will care or remember.

Good luck to you and enjoy your course :)

If this guy isn't a wind-up he must be that Greek chick's brother. More attitude than experience - not conducive to safe and successful operation of aircraft.

Ahh. Someone has actually gave me a reason why it's beneficial to learn that technique from the get go, thank you.

And I guess so, guess I came off a bit big headed. I'm just confident and my confidence/forwardness has helped me get where I am today at such a young age.

I've landed myself 4 times successfuly, I know about flaring, maintaining speeds. This isn't about flying ability. All of this has stemmed from the fact I don't agree with a specific technique for ME.

The technique clearly works as most people use it, but it doesn't work for me. It makes me a worse and more unsafe pilot. So why make me do it still?

I think one of the reasons why attitude = speed and power=rate of climb is thought to new students, is because of the inerita of most aircraft.

The concern being that an inexperienced pilot finds themselves veryslow on final, and attempt to correct the situation simply by adding a bit of power. Even adding lots of power will be of no use in most aircraft, unless you fix the attitude of the aircraft.

If you get attitude=speed right in your head, then your first reaction will be to push the nose down which will be the quickest way of increasing your speed. (If you are experienced you'll also fix the power at the same time in anticipation of changes needed as a result of the pitch change.)

If you learn power=speed, then your first reaction might just be to increase power and it could end in disaster.

As you get more experienced you'll find yourself able to use both and thinking about both all the time (and eventually as PilorDAR says, eventually not thinking about either, but doing both by instinct).

Your instructor doesn't want you to do one item, then wait before doing the other. They want you to do both at the same time, but want you to get your instinct to be "if slow push the nose down" as it's the action that is likely to result in the fastest acceleration. Increasing power alone might be ineffectual if your nose is already too high.

I don't like the technique and it makes lfie harder for me, if I HAVE to learn it I WILL, if not then I won't

So you HAVE to learn to fly then? (but only the techniques you like.....)

One day you'll be alone in an airplane, with things going wrong, and you'll be very very scared. You'll be trying to remember the wisdom offered you along the way, to help you out of the situation, but it will be muddled in the tangle of your vigorous retorts.....

Keep things clear, learn what you're taught, it's easier to remember fast and right, later...

" use both and thinking about both all the time "

Thanks for your post sir, I think confidently what I've quoted is what I'm doing already. What happened is I thought about it and it became more difficult.

"You are now breathing" - Weird how you notice yourself breathing and it's almost unnatural and forced...

The somewhat simplified "pitch = airspeed, power = climb/descent rate"-idea might not appeal to you, but IMHO there are two good reasons for teaching it (besides the fact that it is largely correct).

First, in the usual low-performance PPL-training airplane, pitch has a more immediate effect on airspeed than power, so if you need speed quickly, pitching down will produce the desired result faster than adding power.

Secondly (and relatedly), it's a safety net. If you ever get too slow ("mushing regime" or "back side of the power curve", in case you want to search for more detailed explanations) on one of your first solo approaches (which is of course a purely theoretical assumption for an outstanding top gun in the making ;-)) and get too low, instinctively adding power to gain airspeed and pulling back on the yoke/stick to arrest the descent can turn out so bad as to produce a power-on stall and probably even a spin in adverse circumstances, almost certainly resulting in the loss of a low-performance airplane and a high-potential student. If you acquire the habit of countering a too-low airspeed by lowering the nose first and adding power later (and that is something you need to consciously train), you unload the wing and get out of the mushing regime, greatly reducing the risk of terminally damaging yourself and the airplane.

In typical SEP aircraft, speed is much more easily controllable by pitch attitude than power. With draggy, often low powered light aircraft, speed response to throttle control may be laggy and ineffective, whereas changing the pitch attitude will instantaneously create an acceleration or deceleration as required. After that, the rate of climb or descent is related directly to the power setting. In a low / slow situation on an approach pulling up to correct the vertical profile and adding power for speed could result in a worsening situation by getting on the wrong side of the drag curve and even stalling on approach.

The pitch for speed technique is taught because it is far more appropriate for the handling properties of SEP aircraft than the alternative. These are the foundations of all your future flying, so it's a good idea to take onboard what the instructor teaches and not devise your own alternatives. After a short while you'll be moving the stick and throttle fairly instinctively anyway.

The thrust for speed technique is appropriate to certain other classes of aircraft that have rather different handling, performance and stability qualities compared to SEP. Don't overcomplicate things at your early stage.

And seriously, a top tip, be very wary of overconfidence and an I know best attitude. History has shown that it often leads to smoking craters.

EGKB,

It's about getting your instincts correct.

Someday you may find the stall warner go off unexpectedly. Perhaps you had your head down looking at the map, or trying to replan in nasty weather, or diagnose a problem. Doesn't matter really....you'll have fecked up and let the speed get too slow.

If you've got your instinct to be speed is set by attitude, then your first reaction will be to push the nose down...this will happen by instinct before you've even looked up and started to diagnose the problem.

If your instinct is to increase power it might not end well.

This is why your instructor wants you to try and get your instinct to be to push the nose down for speed.

As I said, they do not want you to change pitch, then wait for a change in rate of desent, then change power. They will be happy for you to change both at the same time provided you get your instinct right.

Instead of being confrontential about it and refusing to work on your instinct, why not have some fun with it?

Have a go with your instructor, where once you get onto final, you have to maintain your approach speed -2kt/+5 kts, but you are only allowed one throttle change before reducing power fully for the flare. This will help build your instinct to control your speed with pitch changes.

If you really want to you could try doing the same the other way around later. (but best not to until you are comfortable withthe first way). ie. Hold a constant pitch, and change power for speed. You'll see that you need large power changes to hold the speed within such a narrow band.

I'm reminded of an accident I was involved in investigating a few years ago. Type was a Rans S6: smaller and lighter but basically the same shape and performance as a C150, pilot was a low hour PPL, maybe 100 hours. He got too slow on approach, and also somebody taxied onto the runway in front of him.

So he put on full power to go around. The aeroplane pitched up (due to pitch change from power) through the critical angle of attack, stalled and yawed, and hit the ground just to one side of the runway in what was probably an incipient spin. Fortunately he, his passenger, and the bystander he hit all lived - although the CAA sponsored prosecution for reckless endangerment was unpleasant.

I've landed myself 4 times successfuly, I know about flaring, maintaining speeds. This isn't about flying ability. All of this has stemmed from the fact I don't agree with a specific technique for ME.

Gosh! 4!

Look around PPrune and you'll find threads where people with several thousand landings each are arguing with each other about the best way to do it. And taking useful things from the discussion.

G

If I can run 100m in 11.5s using my own technique and can only do 13s using the trainers technique, which technique do I choose.


I can see your reasoning, however, that is as it stands now. It could be that by learning by the trainers technique you could eventually do it in under 11.

Just a thought. :)

Thanks guys, nope I'm all ears! Probably doesn't sound like I'm taking anything away, but I am! :)

Well I hope for your sake that you are a troll.:rolleyes: you certainly don't understand how an aircraft flies - and the point is that techniques are developed by people who do understand how aircraft fly.:ugh:

Would you care to tell us what aircraft you are learning on, and what approach speed you were using?

H

I know how aircraft fly/what inputs do what and so on.....

I know how aircraft fly/what inputs do what and so on.....

No, you don't.

You have been shown the very basics, and got a simple initial understanding which, if you show some intellectual humility and put in some hard work, you may build upon over the next few hundred hours to start to develop a reasonable understanding.

You do not know. Nobody at your stage of training and education "knows". Indeed, there are people with 10,000 hrs who still have stuff to learn about effects of controls - and would be very happy to admit it.

Just like the very simplistic schooling in subjects like maths and science you'll have seen at GCSE level, the early parts of flying training are massively dumbed down - and certain things are just taught "this way" to make early training survivable and efficient.

There are people posting on this thread with thousands of hours, commercial licences, and degrees in aeronautical engineering. At-least three people have all three. I'm willing to bet that none of them are prepared to post here claiming that they have as full an understanding of how aeroplanes fly as they would like to have, and that there are no gaps in their knowledge which could bite them.

G

I know how aircraft fly/what inputs do what and so on....

EGKB, I'm going to call you on that, and challenge you:

What follows are charts of my flight test results of a modified Siai Marchetti 1019. They show why that aircraft could demand great piloting skill during a STOL takeoff (specified as to be done at flaps 30). What would the pilot of this aircraft experience right after liftoff flaps 30?

To help your understanding; "Tq" means engine torque, which equates to the engine power selected. "pounds" is the control force the pilot experiences in pitch.

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/Jims%20DAR%20Testing/ControlforceSM1019Flaps0_001.jpg

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/Jims%20DAR%20Testing/ControlforceSM1019Flaps30_001.jpg

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/Jims%20DAR%20Testing/ControlforceSM1019Flaps60_001.jpg

Firstly, we're not talking about a glideslope, we're talking about a student pilot on a visual approach.Ah sorry, my mistake. By the way the thrust of my post was that I don't really understand the 'push forward for glideslope' point of view when it seems better to just reduce power and let the nose sink. However I bow to the collective experience of those far more experienced than me which of course is one of the benefits of this place for new PPLs like moi.

After a few hours you tend not to think about this and you just fly the aircraft as you would drive a car. You don't 'think' about gear changes, do you?

I don't think about it, it's just what I perceive I'm doing. Geng is probably right, I'm unconsciously doing all the other stuff as well.

That's sporting DAR ! Once EGKB has given his opinions, I'd be interested in your role relation on that and where you placed it relative to 23.175

G

What follows are charts of my flight test results of a modified Siai Marchetti 1019. They show why that aircraft could demand great piloting skill during a STOL takeoff (specified as to be done at flaps 30). What would the pilot of this aircraft experience right after liftoff flaps 30?


Pilot DAR too easy! Obviously if he had to flap the wings 30 times he's going to be pretty tired!!

It'd be interesting to retract 30 degrees of flaps quickly on that Turbo Bird Dog at 50 kts. Good thing the delta is only 6 lbs.

I suspect that taking flaps from 60 to 30 in a full power go-around would be considerably more than just "interesting"!

G

when it seems better to just reduce power and let the nose sink.

And here we have the crux of this discussion - not aimed at you personally thing ;) just a convenient quote. That technique may have worked for you so far, but as a way to fly an ILS point & power works better across the board. Using power to control pitch attitude is fundamentally incorrect, since pitch attitude can only be controlled (as opposed to affected) by elevator. Imagine flying the approach in something with rather less pitch & power couple than you're used to, or on an excitingly unstable day - point & power would require far less work & be more accurate.

It makes me a worse and more unsafe pilot. So why make me do it still?

Next... Again, not a personal attack, but a fundamental misunderstanding. Your instructors are attempting to make sure that you can master several different techniques effectively, rather than being so bound into one technique that the idea of using anything else turns you into a shaking wreck. You will find point & power somewhat tricky during glide approaches, for example :E

And here we have the crux of this discussion - not aimed at you personally thing http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif just a convenient quote. That technique may have worked for you so far, but as a way to fly an ILS point & power works better across the board. Using power to control pitch attitude is fundamentally incorrect, since pitch attitude can only be controlled (as opposed to affected) by elevator. Imagine flying the approach in something with rather less pitch & power couple than you're used to, or on an excitingly unstable day - point & power would require far less work & be more accurate.I'll bring that up at the club, I'm sure you are probably right. Thing is I can't remember now what technique I was taught!! I just kind of fly down the glideslope and it all comes together. Not a very technical description I know but I don't have degrees in Complicated Things.

Edit: But having just thought about it, aren't I doing the same thing the other way around? Instead of point and power I'm doing power and point. I think.

EGKB: Think back to when your instructor was teaching you how to do forced landings. Here, elevator definately has to be used to control airspeed since power (by definition is not available) So, ingraining this connection is a safe basic technique which can ALWAYS be applied. Now, fast forward to circuit work and now you are adding power to achieve a desired glidepath angle to land.

As many others have pointed out, other techniques also work but in the early days the elevator/speed connection is the easiest consistant way to go to cover normal + forced landings.

My autopilot does an amazing piece of work flying the ILS of course it pitches for speed and I have to use thrust to control the descent ;)
As stated both arguments are not correct.
Take the situation where you are on the glide and hit a bad area of sinking
Air. You are now low and slow do you pitch further into the trees for speed or use power.
It is all about managing the energy available to you from the power unit and airframe and being aware of how to play both.

Pace

My autopilot does an amazing piece of work flying the ILS of course it pitches for speed and I have to use thrust to control the descent ;)
As stated both arguments are not correct.
Take the situation where you are on the glide and hit a bad area of sinking
Air. You are now low and slow do you pitch further into the trees for speed or use power.
It is all about managing the energy available to you from the power unit and airframe and being aware of how to play both.
But the less engine power you have right down to no engine in a Glider the more pitching for speed takes dominance

Pace

I have about 25 years on gliders so maybe some ingrained habits are coming out in my power flying. Never thought of that before.

I don't really understand the 'push forward for glideslope' point of view when it seems better to just reduce power and let the nose sink.

It would also depend how fast you're flying the ILS wouldn't it? - up here, I've been doing them at 120kts down the glideslope to keep the speed up as there is *always* a queue of CAT and helicopters waiting to get in, and keeping the speed up helps the ATC guys with sequencing.

At 120 kts, with about 1900-2000rpm set on a 172, you definitely push for the glide. I flew an NDB-ILS at Dundee today at 80kts and flaps 10, and that let me use the more traditional way.

You know, I'm wondering whether EGKB is suffering from the traditional "rush the student through Ex 4-9 scenario"?

If someone had really taught him about secondary effects, how to handle the aircraft at various speeds, how to manage energy and how to set-up and manage descents, maybe he wouldn't be in the position where he is still thinking about the basics during approach and landing.

I'm sure there are a load of instructors out there who, like me, cry when they find that their student has reached circuits about 5 hours too early.

We always fly them at cruise speed+ as well for the same reasons. Apart from anything else the control response is obviously better.

Must be hell of a 172 if it manages 120kts at 1900 rpm :)

180HP fuel injected 172S - goes like a moon rocket compared to a 100HP 1974 M. :) (and it is descending at 500 fpm, which helps).

CGB has maybe hit it on the head.

Again I'll put it in the simplest terms. Cessna 152/172 final approach, full flap, trimmed for correct speed. Put on full power and it will pitch up and SLOW DOWN.

Get it now?

D.O.

What happens with aircraft which pitch down applying full power :E

Pace

What happens with aircraft which pitch down applying full power :E

Pace

I have owned shares in three that did that - a Thruster TST and before that a Eurowing Goldwing and an Ultraflight Spectrum. Both had very high thrustlines so increased power increased trim speed.

In the Thruster and Spectrum actually it worked rather well, the aircraft wouldn't quite stall with the throttle closed, but in level flight the aeroplane would generally stay roughly level with changes in power, changing speed only - at-least for around 50-80% power. In both to fly a glide approach, you did have to positively hold the stick forward to fly an appropriate speed - not an uncommon experience in weedhopper derived microlights.

The Goldwing was actually quite dodgy, and would never get certified now. If you stalled it with power at idle, it wouldn't recover without power - the elevator alone wouldn't do it. I tended to land it with moderate power then, leaving the stick in the middle, flare by closing the throttle which pitched it up towards the stall whilst it sunk onto the ground. (A glide approach in the Goldwing neeed the stick virtually on the front stop).


But still, in all of those, it was stick for speed and power for rate of descent on approach (Unless you wanted a very high speed approach in the Goldwind - very high in that deeply disfunctional aeroplane being anything above about 55 knots). But all three you tended to hold the stick forward to maintain approach speed. (None had pitch trimmers you'd want to take home to meet your mother.) Ditto the original Chotia Weedhopper that the Thruster was loosely based upon, and I've had the privilege of flying a few times, same again the AX3, AX2000 and X'Air which were later developments in the same family.

The advantage of all these aeroplanes is that at-least a full power go-around tends not to stall you into the ground.

G

Genghis

A lot of jets pitch down too :E But going back to the original question you pitch for potential energy from the airframe which has to mean a loss of altitude to get that energy and you power for energy from the engine.
In my minds eye elevator and throttle are both connected to an energy source which is available to the pilot.
In some situations you need more from one less from the other or max from both.
So both pitch for speed or power for speed are false statements unless you happen to be a glider pitching for speed.
I think it is misleading to not train pilots to use all the controls and energy sources available to them.
Using one method is false training although I fully understand pitching for speed with students in low powered aircraft but it is still incomplete training.

Pace

D.O.

But obviously if you apply full power you'd OBVIOUSLY stop it pitching up by pushing on the yoke. Who does things 1 by 1? It's all simultaneous!!

The runway is at 4000 ft msl, aircraft is at gross weight and the air temperature is 35 C.

I know this is not the correct answer but I had to laugh when I saw that....:). This is England after all...

I do appreciate that people from different parts of foreign land have to fly under those conditions.

DO

Doing lots of glide approaches ? Other than practicing forced landings I never see the logic or benefit of glide approaches in SEP.
There are far more benefits to a powered approach even in SEP!

Pace

You will be doing lots of glide approaches. You will have to control your speed with the elevator. As one poster has already pointed out this must be second nature.

If the pilot in the AF Airbus had remembered that all these people would still be here today.

D.O.

D.O.

I know how to control the speed using the elervator, I'm just saying it's a waste of time and very backward when you're engine is on and giving you power. Yes, glide approaches it wil be mandatory, as I've done a couple so far. And decents as well, maintaining 65 knots requires nose up/down movement... not hard

But that's not my point, my point is when the engine is working and you have power, why not use it...

EGKB

Its NOT a waste of time using pitch to control speed or than it is to use power to control speed.
You have two energy sources pitch for that energy power for that energy ignore one at your peril!

Pace

It's not about only considering POWER!

I's about doing everything simultaneously, not about using one or the other.

You've had about 100 posts of valid reasons to learn and use the tried and tested, standard, taught technique rather than devising your own methods on the basis of zero experience. Here's another one.

You want to develop instinctive reflexes for controlling the aircraft correctly under all circumstances. You can't be switching from one method to another under times of stress like an engine failure.
Speed control of SEP type aircraft is far more directly and responsively controlled by pitch attitude than by throttle.
Pitching up to correct vertical profile in a low and slow situation in an SEP aircraft is potentially dangerous.
You do not yet know it all, and will make your flying training easier, more successful, cheaper and quicker by ABSORBING what you're being taught and not going freestyle. 4 landings and PPL pre-solo stage is as close to zero flying experience as you can get. Some of us with far greater experience are still actively trying to absorb information from our trainers and senior colleagues. In aviation, unless you are a test pilot, there is rarely a need to deviate from conventional wisdom which has often been hard learned over a very long time. Good luck to your instructor!

Just trying to make it easy for you to understand.

[Whoa, posts are going out of sequence again] 10:25

And yes fairly quickly the movement of the controls will become simultaneous and instinctive, but one control retains primacy, depending on technique appropriate for the aircraft type.

Who said I'm not using the technique, pretty sure earlier I said I'm using the technique efficiently without even thinking about it, but when you think about it you start doing things in steps. I'm always trying to take stuff in, askign questions and so sorry if I come across a bit ignorant in this thread.

You did. Many times.

Sorry are those abrupt full-stops supposed to make your post look a bit more reinforced, because it didn't :)

EGKB

Are you really so insecure?

If you happen to be the proud owner of a Lightning then you can forget pitch to control your speed as you will hit 40K standing on your tail.
If You are the proud owner of a Glider on a still day then only pitch will control your speed.

There is a whole spectrum in between! The less power you have the more pitch becomes the dominant force. The more power you have and the equation balances out.

When the Citation I fly is locked onto the ILS the autopilot using pitch to follow the glide power controls the speed.

As you are flying a Phut Phut Bang trainer with loads of drag and little power where do you think your emphasis should lie especially as you are not experienced and we all do not want you as a hole in the ground?

Pace

EGKB, you have been asked by your instructor to use power for glide and pitch for speed and have been advised by the majority of posts on here to do likewise (while explaining that the two are linked, but that immediately and instinctively changing pitch when speed gets low can save your life) Any basic flying training book you read will say the same.

You are going to have to convince the instructor that you are safe to fly before he sends you off on your 1st solo. Doing things "your" way rather than the way taught is likely not going to inspire him with confidence.

Good luck with the rest of your training anyway.

" Doing things "your" way rather than the way taught is likely not going to inspire him with confidence. "

I'm not doing things my way, I AM using the technique he suggested. I'm just saying it seems odd to do things backwards?

And what "things" I do everything as taught, please read...

Attitude = speed control/power = pitch
WHAT?!

So backwards, I landed fine last time doing it my own way.

That's your first post. Here's your last post:
I'm not doing things my way

My last post to you was short and sweet because considered and detailed responses seem to be unwelcome. Good luck to you and your instructor. That's all you're getting from me.

There is no backwards about it EGKB, you are the one doing things backwards.

And another quote:

...definitely won't be using that technique ever again

Stick with it mate. It will become natural and instinctive before you know it. These are the building blocks for all your future flying. Make sure your foundations are sound.

The mistake I made was...

I am actually using the correct technique, however. When instructed to do it by my instructor it all became a blur of steps, where as before it was natural.

As said before when you breathe it's natural, no thinking about it. But now you've realised you're breathing it becomes a chore and unnatural....

I suspect EGBK = TROLL,

If not my sympathies to the instructors.... No doubt (if) he/she gains a licence we can expect to read another chapter of the EGBK chronicle published by the AAIB at some point in the future.

There is a "fantastic" instructor who could help - FAA Training - BFR FLYERS (http://www.bfrflyers.t83.net/)

I seem to remember his post echoed the thoughts of EGBK when he was learning to fly!!

I give up.:ugh: There is soooo much you don't know and I don't just mean hands on skills.

The basic skills and mindset you are taught in the beginning are the building blocks for the more advanced manouevers. Shortcutting them now will leave a gap in your training. The precise order of some of the early training is important. When mastered it makes understanding the big picture easier.

We had an expert here in Scotland a couple of weeks ago who new better than his instructors. He's dead now.

D.O.

'EGKB' reminds me of 'Dariuszw'

Could he be a reincarnation?

Don't overfil.....

Thanks, which is exactly why I'm using the recommended technique.

EGKB :),

Ah, the old argument. I would say cut the guy some slack. There are quite a few schools and instructors that teach with the attitude primary method and it works very well. Some of you guys are giving him the impression that airspeed primary is the only way that is ever taught, which is incorrect. EGKB this discussion is almost as old as powered flight itself.
Part of the reason that flying was often taught with power as an altitude control and elevator pitch as a speed control was a hangover from the days of early underpowered aircraft, when they often made glide or low power approaches because of the higher probability of engine failure. This often put them dangerously close to the underside of the lift/drag curve if they got too low and pitched up even a little so they would need lots more of the available power to make it to the runway, so the thinking was....why not apply the power first before the airspeed got too low when you pitched up, kind of an insurance policy against excessive angle of attack.

I don't think he's as naive and arrogant as some of you guys think, he knows airplanes don't fly around like spaceships in a video game, right EGKB?

I'm not going to get into the technical aspects of attitude flying here as I'm not an instructor and these are things he needs to sort out between him and his instructor(s).

At the end of the day the important thing is that pilots need to develop an innate understanding of angle of attack and most do develop this whichever method they initially learned with.

Bottom line, ALWAYS listen to your instructor but if you're really not happy find another one or another school because there are schools that teach attitude reference flying, but it's not something you can learn solo, you have to be shown how to do it properly.

Pilot DAR, is the flaps 30 case on that modified Siai Marchetti 1019 purely down to slipstream?

What I consider the best instructor I ever had (though he was a cowboy in every other way, and eventually vanished to get away from a number of people who were looking for him) taught me the single most important thing I ever learnt (for the sort of flying I do which is non-aerobatic and flying mostly from A to B, with some cloud hole drilling thrown in) which was that one should always TRIM for the desired airspeed in all phases of flight.

Yes of course it is true that not using the trim wheel and just pushing or pulling the elevator back and forth will most definitely change your airspeed :) because that is what the elevator trim wheel ultimately does anyway, but if you don't TRIM you are flying an aircraft which wants to fly at an airspeed that is different to your present airspeed, and this is going to bite you when one day you get distracted and lose concentration and don't watch the ASI and you happen to be trimmed for some low speed and you have also reduced the engine power for some reason..... :=

If one is going to teach somebody to fly "instinctively" then there are empteen ways to achieve that, and provided he is on the ball at all times none of these should kill him. But, and with the disclaimer that I have only 12 years and 1500hrs, all that I have seen over that time supports my view that the safest way to fly is to fly by numbers i.e. know what power settings should give you what speeds, and trim to achieve those speeds. If you don't do that, flying a plane is a lot more work and you are constantly chasing the thing.

Take that solo student who got killed when Southend ATC asked him to do an orbit. I don't really think his instructor ever taught him to fly to his plane's performance numbers. He was probably like me - in all of my PPL training nobody ever explained to me what the trim wheel does. I was told that it is used to reduce the pressure on the elevator, so your arms don't get sore. Well, that's true, but that is not the primary function.

Not all instructors are good - by a long way. The first one I had had 150hrs TT at the time (or so he told me).

Peter

But what causes you to need to trim? When you are trimmed straight and level at say a lowish power setting and you advance the power levers fully forward what happens that causes the aircraft to need trimming to maintain the altitude? What is the initial thing that has to happen? Before as many claim you pitch for speed? (which is not the true picture!)
We are trying to dissect something into black or white chunks rather than the whole hence why I repeat both are wrong there can technically only be one right?
Trimming while vitally important is a bit of a Red Herring in this discussion some aircraft dont even have a trim wheel.

Pace

A final thought. If a pilot understands the lift equation, he will have a far better idea as to how an aircraft works.

When you are trimmed straight and level at say a lowish power setting and you advance the power levers fully forward what happens that causes the aircraft to need trimming to maintain the altitude?The aircraft then climbs because the engine power is being translated into extra potential energy. The engine power has to go somewhere, and it cannot go into an increased speed because the aircraft prevents that (ignoring cases where pitch attitude is very power sensitive because the thrust is excessively out of line with the hull).

and it cannot go into an increased speed

Peter

Not trying to be funny with you ;) but what makes it want to climb? It is important.

Pace

Pace; Power tries to accelerate the aircraft, the aircraft is trimmed for a speed therefore if the speed tends to increase, the aircraft will climb to maintain trimmed speed.

If you displace a correctly trimmed convential aircraft from its speed then release the controls it will return to its trimmed speed after a few phugoid excursions without any control inputs. Try it sometime in the cruise.

but what makes it want to climb?Just physics :)

If you displace a correctly trimmed convential aircraft from its speed then release the controls it will return to its trimmed speed after a few phugoid excursions without any control inputs.

Exactly.

M

As you add power the aircraft will accelerate (speed) as it accelerates the increase in airflow will cause lift as simple as that. The primary action of adding power to a trimmed aircraft in level flight has to be an acceleration and hence increased airflow over the wing.... as simple as that.


If you displace a correctly trimmed convential aircraft from its speed then release the controls it will return to its trimmed speed after a few phugoid excursions without any control inputs

What the heck has that got to do with it try doing that and at the same time shove in a fistful of throttle and see what happens?



Pace

Lots of aircraft that doesn't work on :) a change in power in an aircraft that has a moving stabiliser that sits inside the slipstream as a trim method will not hold the same speed. A large change in power will produce a large change in attitude that will almost certainly correspond to a large change in speed.

The pitch change is caused by a change in the lift moment created by the difference in pressure across the tail and the wings right? So if the trim method automatically compensates for power changes in the way that it does in the tomahawk, warrior, C152/C172 etc and TB series then that principle works (a relatively small trim tab that isn't that greatly affected by more airflow relative to the size of the tail, with the exception of the tommie which has an elevator that lives outside of the slip stream so only Airspeed initiates a change in trim). But in the case of the cub for instance it's the AoA of the entire stabiliser that changes so a change in power alters the lift balance between the wings and the tail in a larger way, it requires a different attitude towards trimming but it does still come down to the same basic principle that if you desire a certain RoD and Airspeed then you must set the power and attitude to achieve that and trim to maintain it without having to push and pull your way down :).

Probably not a great explanation but I think that's what Pace is getting at.

If it's not clear what I mean is this,

In the cub, if I trim for 65kts with zero power and then apply full power, I will not retain 65kts, the nose will pitch up way too much and the aircraft will slow down quite rapidly and no amount of waiting will bring it back to 65kts, it will wallow around the stall at 47-48kts I must push quite hard to keep the attitude to maintain 65kts and will consequently climb, I then trim to hold the attitude.

Trimming for an airspeed as such works for a boat load of aircraft though :)

There's no one method that works for everything but it all starts at the same place.

Power + Attitude = Performance, Select Hold Trim.

Pace: One last post from me despite your petulant response........

On all aircraft the Lift Vector is displaced from the Weight Vector.
The Thrust Vector is usually displaced from the Drag Vector.

The act of trimming resolves the moments between the four forces to achieve a stable situation. Change any one parameter and the aircraft will need to be retrimmed if it is to continue to fly at the same speed as before. Do you still not see why the application of power will tend to make a conventional aircraft climb (stick-free)??

Not sure I'm with you there. The act of trimming the elevator only resovles the difference between turning moments created by the lift vectors of the stabiliser/stabilator and the wing. Basically you're changing the effective angle of attack on the tail to maintain a given attitude. A change in power will only necessitate a change in trim for a given airspeed if the tail plane generates more or less lift, which would require a change in relative airflow - the primary change of this comes from either the slipstream or from a change in trim :).
So if the tailplane lives outside of the slipstream the aircraft ought to settle at the same airspeed as it was trimmed for at any power setting. The tomahawk does this beautifully (as does the T tail arrow). The Jetstream does this really nicely as well :) although I haven't really had the opportunity to investigate all it's characteristics.

The application of power will ultimately lead to a pitch change but not necessarily a speed change or a change in RoC/RoD it depends very much on the design and position of the tailplane and the trim system.

this is of course my opinion :) and not necessarily correct.

And of course where the propulsion unit sits. In my plane if i add power i get a strong pitch up moment and speed will decay. If i reduce power there will be a strong pitch down moment and speed will increase. Simply because the thrust line is way below the CG. So any power change will lead to a trim change for the same speed.

Meikleour

Do you still not see why the application of power will tend to make a conventional aircraft climb (stick-free)??

Totally but that is the point I am making it is increasing speed or airflow from an increase in power which achieves that! The trimming for speed is secondary.

My apologies for being petulant "bad hair day :E

Pace

Silvaire

I totally agree with your comments but the OP started the thread taking about not agreeing with pitch for speed. My point is that he is partially right as both concepts pitch for speed or power for speed in their own right are wrong.
If you look at my previous posts I talked about Gliders in still air relying totally on pitch for speed and light powered aircraft more towards pitch for speed. aircraft like the lightning are at the other end of the scale power for speed being able to vertically go up to 40K on thrust alone.
With especially students the emphasis has to be pitch for speed for just the reasons you point out.
Having said that why does the Citation I fly use pitch for descent on the glideslope autopilot engaged and thrust to control speed? Obviously that works too.
It is really energy management two sources of energy from the airframe in pitch and from the engine. Both are best suited in different situations and relying on skills for one alone is asking for trouble.
Somehow I dont think I am getting my point over very well!! :ugh:
It is the juggling of both sources as needed which is the correct way.

Pace

Silvaire

I totally agree with your comments but the OP started the thread taking about not agreeing with pitch for speed. My point is that he is partially right as both concepts pitch for speed or power for speed in their own right are wrong.
If you look at my previous posts I talked about Gliders in still air relying totally on pitch for speed and light powered aircraft more towards pitch for speed.
With especially students the emphasis has to be that way for just the reasons you point out.
Having said that why does the Citation I fly use pitch for descent on the glideslope autopilot engaged and thrust to control speed? Obviously that works too.
It is really energy management two sources of energy from the airframe in pitch and from the engine.
It is the juggling of both sources as needed which is the correct way.

The old joke of the student sitting on the end of the runway on his first solo pumping the elevator up and down. His instructor approached to ask what he was doing? "I am pitching for speed but not going anywhere ;)

Pace

Having said that why does the Citation I fly use pitch for descent on the glideslope autopilot engaged and thrust to control speed? Obviously that works too.

That's a very different situation because the aircraft is artifically constrained into a lateral+vertical flight path.

When you are flying a coupled ILS, the autopilot pitch and roll servos are driving the ailerons and the elevator to maintain the localiser+glideslope. The pitch trim servo is concurrently trimming out the elevator trim tab so as to minimise the pitch servo torque. And the yaw damper is also doing its own thing with the rudder...

The autopilot doesn't care what speed you are doing. It will drive the control surfaces purely to maintain the LOC+GS. You don't have an autothrottle...

This brings many gotchas e.g. it is easy to end up on the back of the curve and then you may not have enough power to recover while maintaining the glideslope. Turkish 737 in Amsterdam... Thompson did it with a 757 at Bournemouth but they got away with it.

You get funny things happening when on autopilot e.g. you are flying along and suddenly your airspeed has shot up. But your altitude is constant (obviously). This is because you are in an updraught, so the AP pitches down to maintain altitude, so the airspeed goes up as a consequence. Or the reverse, in a downdraught.

But I am sure you know all this. The autopilot scenario is a total redherring.

In a 152, which the OP seems to be flying, there's nothing wrong with "point and power". All you have to do is aim at the runway, and the ASI tells you what to do with the power.

On the other hand, on a nice calm day, it's quite satisfying to be able to set one power setting, or no power at all, and make it all the way down only using flaps and attitude to control the speed. As long as you meet Vref, it's all good.

But I am sure you know all this. The autopilot scenario is a total redherring.

Peter

Its funny how I am totally agreeing! but not if you get my Gist! Yes I do know that ;) But dont agree the autopilot is a red herring.

It shows that in descent pitch for descent rate power for speed works I would even go as far as stating that in some aircraft pitch for climb! power for speed works too!

In another situation such as a high AOA you may need not only pitch but power too to save the day! What is your stall recovery? pitch alone?

Ie it just confirms that my argument that neither method pitch for speed or power for speed is right and I hold that you are asking for trouble following one method.

It has to be pitch for energy power for energy and both are so linked that you cannot divorce them. It should be a skillful blend of the two!!!

Pace

I think the OP would be best advised to listen to his instructor! Sorry EGKB but you are demonstrating all the signs of " I know best", you will get away with it 999/1000, but that arrogance will see you in a smoking hole one day I'm afraid....you are 17 years old with very,very low hours, listen to the qualified instructor who is teaching you how not to kill yourself or your unfortunate passengers..I am 31, & have held my PPL for 7 years, my instructor was 23, so we are not all old miserable gits!


However, if you carry on as you are...
EGKB, Coming to you via an AAIB report within 5 years, I would put money on it :(

Works great until you accelerate past flap speed and can't slip because you're going too fast. Sometimes you need to get past terrain then descend. Its not a Lear 35

Silvaire

Do they actually allow modern students to do potentially dangerous things like slipping nowadays? Thought the training was all incipient this and that and just aircraft drivers at the end not pilots?
Its ok just stirring :E Again! A joke ;)

Pace

I got taught slipping during my PPL and find it both great fun and useful. I can't imagine being able to do consistently good pfls without it and like Silvaire, I like being able to stay high until final approach.

That said, a few people have seemed surprised when I used the technique...

To me, the fact that a normal plane climbs, at a relatively constant speed, when power is increased, is simply the consequence of the pitch stability mechanism which every certified plane has.

The elevator has what is called decalage which AIUI means that the turning moment due to the change of elevator AoA about the pitch axis has to exceed the turning moment due to the change of wing AoA about the pitch axis. If you didn't have this pitch stability (which is in effect a negative feedback control system where airspeed is the setpoint) then the plane would be virtually uncontrollable manually.

I think that the cases where you are flying at say 65kt, trimmed, at low power, and increasing power causes the plane to nearly stall, are because one is flying on the back of the curve at 65kt (on that particular type). Otherwise, can a plane with such a large moment (due to power changes) about its pitch axis get certified?

Peter

I think we get lost in the detail and the science rather than the basics,
We have two energy sources available to us potential energy we have created by dragging the airframe into the sky and the energy from our engine.
The glider having no power plant as such has to be towed ,carapolted or whatever into the sky to get the potential energy to be able to control airspeed by pitch on the way down.
Let me use the Citation as an example as using power for speed and pitch for speed and them both being right in a climb where we are not using the potential energy from the airframe.
Low level at Max N1 I may climb at 2500 fpm. I may elect to only want to climb at 1000 feet per min. Climbing at 1000 fpm I may decide that I don't want to go too fast so I reduce thrust and now am using power to control speed ,
High mid 30 FLs I am at max Ni coaxing a climb and only have pitch to control airspeed,
Eventually at max N1, climb rate is decreasing speed is decreasing AOA is increasing drag is increasing and I have nothing left to play with,
I have all the potential energy available but as I am still trying to coax a climb I am stuffed on going higher.
So as I say pitch for speed or power for speed are your tools which are for your use, both are important and both create the complete picture of controlling the aircraft
Coming Down from FL 350 I know have tons of potential energy available and tons of thrust available. I juggle the two energy sources maybe closing off engine power and just using the potential energy in the airframe to stop breaking VNE .Hence why Hence why saying I belong to the pitch for speed or power for speed brigade is such a nonsense ! Sorry for grammer written on I phone .

Pace

Good points Pace and Peter, though perhaps on the edge of being relevent to the original post.

We have a very simple, basic question, posed by a new pilot of yet to be proven receptive attitude.... who has been absent from the discussion lately (since I posed a challenge to his (her?) self described knowledge......). EGKB?.....

Good discussion but miles away from the point. I see the speed with pitch in the PPL as an exersize which needs to be mastered early in the course and repeated in other exersizes until it is second nature. He may use the combined method eventually.

It's like the flight at minimum speed exersize. Flying around with a high power setting on the wrong side of the power curve. It is only a demonstration. Not an everyday technique.

D.O.

Pilot DAR?

Absent from the discussion? You mean eating, sleeping for 8 hours, and working....

I can't sit at my comp 24/7.

And people STILL don't listen. I am using the technique the instructor mentioned. I think that's the 4th or 5th time I've mentioned that!

Dont Overfill

I do take your point and have stated the same in all my posts.
The glider only has pitch for speed on still days.
Attach a tiny motor to said glider and you still have pitch for speed with some power for speed but the dominant principal has to be pitch for speed.
Our original poster who is BACK :D needs to keep away from a high AOA and high drag situation thinking he can control his speed with power because he probably cannot.
He nevertheless has to be aware of both power sources and their relevance as he may at some time require not just pitch for speed but power too.

Pace

Well I have taken away a few things from this dicussion and no, I'm not a troll. That term is thrown around too loosely!!!

The auto throttle pulled back the power because of a radalt failure telling it the aircraft had landed (or something like that) while the autopilot was maintaining the glideslope.

Peter

To me that is a lesson in never trusting any Gizmo autopilot or otherwise or being lulled into a false sense of security as these things have a habit of going wrong when you least expect.
Hence why piloting skills are so important even in our day of technology ;)
Flying older Citations I tend to get more system and autopilot failures than I want :{ all good for the soul ;)

Pace

I've had more autopilot failures (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/kfc225/index.html) than I can recall, but I still think that during the 99.9% of the time that the system works, you are a safer pilot using it and using the now copious spare brain power to monitor everything, than to hand fly and perhaps make a major cockup in another department.

I can hand fly in IMC fairly well, and have hand flown the TB20 most of the way down to Santorini (LGSR) and back, as well as parts of some N European airways flights, but I make simple mistakes during hand flown IR training (instructor or examiner in the RHS watching and issuing instructions) which I have never made when flying on my own, using automation at my discretion. In fact I have never made a major error or had any significant self inflicted "event" flying on my own, IFR, in CAS, and that's a good enough record for me...

The bit about letting the autopilot stall the aircraft when going down the ILS is just stupid. One can dress it up (the way that 1,000,000 posts elsewhere have tried to dress up the AF447 muppet-pilots) but the fact remains that if the pilot is not watching the speedo then all bets are off, and this is true on AP or off AP. Airspeed awareness is the absolutely #1 thing in flying. Well, alongside obstacle clearance ;) I suppose.

Peter in that situation, the aircraft flirts with the stall but the stall in an L18C cub is barely a stall, it's more of a light buffet with a bit of nose down which unstalls the aircraft very quickly - it's not a CofA aircraft any more, but it was and there are ones just the same that are so I see your point. 60-65kts in the bottom of the curve as opposed to the speed unstable section but it is an extremely draggy machine.

Nonetheless a change in power doesn't automatically cause the aircraft to pitch for the speed that it has been trimmed to, equally if I'm flying a little faster and trimmed for say 75kts (top cruise speed being about 85) and pull the power completely it accelerates fairly quickly and I think it's not wise to assume that you will automatically pitch for an airspeed if you're in trim and change power but it is a technique that does work very nicely for a hell of a lot of aircraft and is unquestionably the basis for understanding the couple between, pitch, power, trim and airspeed.

It might be an interesting Q whether trim=speed (regardless of power) only when on the right side of the curve?

I think that is self evidently true, because if you let the speed decay too far then you are looking at the scenario where a given power setting is capable of holding either of the two speeds and, if you were careless enough to let the speed decay to the lower one, that's where you will end up.

Peter

You don't have to justify yourself ! This is only a forum discussion and I know you are an excellent committed and very detailed pilot!
You also have a wealth of knowledge which exceeds my own so please don't take any of this discussion the wrong way.
Sometimes I will post to encourage discussion just my style so no offence ;)

Pace

Nope, does't work that way at a higher speed with cruise power set if closing the throttle the aircraft pitches down and accelerates beyond that speed.

I'll do a few tests at altitude next time I get the chance to see if it settles down slowly to the trimmed airspeed.

Our original poster who is BACK :D needs to keep away from a high AOA and high drag situation thinking he can control his speed with power because he probably cannot.
I wonder whether he has done the slow flight exercise yet, where you discover that to fly as slowly as possible you need full power?

Yes, but you still have to vary pitch to maintain just above stall speed or 5 knots above or however they teach you...

Absent from the discussion? You mean eating, sleeping for 8 hours, and working....


Fair enough, I have been similarly absent (including crossing the Atlantic).

I am using the technique the instructor mentioned.

Execellent.

Are you keeping your mind opened to the wisdom of others? I sense that some [very experienced] participants here think otherwise. It's up to you, they don't have to fly with you! Yours to win or loose - they don't really care that much!

And, what would you like to tell me about the surprize I had during an early STOL takeoff in the aircraft for which I offered the control force charts? If you were to fly that plane, what would you be expecting you'd experience? Might you run out of something?

It definitely depends on the aircraft type. For example IME the Cherokee 140 will maintain a trim speed while using throttle to adjust descent rate much better than will a Warrior.

Pilot DAR?

Family visit? Or you were flying across?

I still think you guys are a bit too "black and white" if you will. If don't use the technique you'll crash and die, and aaib will have reports on you and well laugh... lmao

EKGB - a couple of simple question's, How many hours have you got in your log book and what lesson numbers have you covered?

Do you have any other experience of flight? For example radio controlled model aircraft or flight simulators?

- 6 hours logged

I have great flight sim experience, I was flying on VATSIM online with a microphone when I was 11, using SIDS/STARS and chart reading and cold starts in PMDG 747 and so on....

It's kind of a hinderence to the beginning of my learning because he was going through all flight controls, and wouldn't listen to me when I told him I knew what the rudder/ailerons where..

however what I've realised is that it's not a rush, and either way I'm going to need 45 hours minimum regardless of how fast I learn things.

Going flying this saturday, and then on the 20th :)

If don't use the technique you'll crash and die

I have one AAIB report to my name, because of a combination of poor airmanship (mine, not anybody else's), contributed to by not being trained to fly the aeroplane properly - rather some club pilot's incorrect beliefs of how to do it when they checked me out on a new type, not helped by my relative inexperience at the time stopping me forcing the issue and making damned sure I was flying it as it should have been.

I am very keen to keep that score fixed, but have also spent considerable time over my 23 years in aviation trying to help other people to score lower than me.

Feel free to get judgmental about that.

G

- 6 hours logged

I have great flight sim experience, I was flying on VATSIM online with a microphone when I was 11, using SIDS/STARS and chart reading and cold starts in PMDG 747 and so on....

It's kind of a hinderence to the beginning of my learning because he was going through all flight controls, and wouldn't listen to me when I told him I knew what the rudder/ailerons where..

however what I've realised is that it's not a rush, and either way I'm going to need 45 hours minimum regardless of how fast I learn things.

Going flying this saturday, and then on the 20th http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/report.gif (http://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=7182403)

Thanks for that, now I understand where your obvious superior experience and knowledge comes from. Perhaps it should be a mandatory requirement for the future, that all students should be able to fly STARS/SIDS and cold start a 747 on a flight sim before starting their PPL training.

How to connect to VATSIM - YouTube

Perhaps if you had played an online game as a soldier you would have had a great future in the army - knowing all the "tricks" to keep you alive. I trust you also tried cybersex and that has made you fantastic with girls!!!

:mad::mad::mad:

Family visit? Or you were flying across?


I'm working for a German client on their turbine DC-3 for a few days.

I still think you guys are a bit too "black and white" if you will. If don't use the technique you'll crash and die

It's true, nearly always, you can "get away" with mistakes while piloting. Occasionally, it takes every bit of skill you have. It's those times you have to have the insticnt right as a foundation of your skill. When something goes wrong, something else is right behind it, and you will be overwhelmed. that is the worst time to be trying to recall the unpractised "right way" of doing things.

Why are new soldiers made to march around the parade grounds for hours? Stiff body marching is really not an element of warfare - but following instruction is!

My observation is that you present a bit too much rebellion for my comfort. Now, I don't have to fly with you.... But, I still care. Every oppportunity I have to make our industry more safe, by "redirecting" a pilot to the better way, I will, 'cause it benefits all of us. I don't know who you are, but if you make a smoking hole somewhere, and I could have had a small part in influencing better skills and attitute for you, and preventing it and did not, I let you, and our whole industry down.

Readers here get an awesome amout of free wisdom here. Why are the experienced pilots spending so much time providing it - 'cause we like to type? Old pilots don't like to type! But we do feel a responsibility to grow and mentor a safe industry, and prevent careless or REBELLIOUS behaviour when we think we see it. If I heard you say what I have seen you write, would I rent you my plane? Not a hope! There is a world full of "keener" new pilots who seek nothing other than an opportunity, and they'll be very co-operative to get it - I was one. They sure are not going to rebel. So why would the provider of airplanes and flying want to endure a rebel?

When I fly with new pilots aboard, I pay particular attention to not fall into my casual flying habits, and demonstrate poor airmanship (which I should not be doing anyway, of course - but did I say I was perfect here?). Thus I will write here - the right way, which are your stage of flying, is the way you are taught. Maybe I agree with it, maybe not so much, but I'm not going to give you standing to "buck the system" at this young age - no one let me, when I was flying at 15! You have to march the drill first for a while!

But, after all of that, I'm not distracted - I have not forgotten that I challenged you... Are you up for it!

6 hours logged

I have great flight sim experience, I was flying on VATSIM
online with a microphone when I was 11, using SIDS/STARS and chart reading and
cold starts in PMDG 747 and so on....

And there, my friend, is your problem. End of story. (GEP - irony is going to be lost on this guy:))

H

The most important practical concept when teaching the early ab initio students is to make sure they can recognize by looking at the natural horizon through the windshield what the pitch attitude of the aircraft should be to fly level for that airspeed. The ability to go directly to the correct attitude is the corner stone of the ability to fly accurately. Sadly many licensed pilots can't do this and compensate by chasing the instruments.

What does this have to do with the thread topic ? Well IMO, everything. The pitch for airspeed power for rate of descent or point and power styles share one defining nexus. The ability to set and hold a desired pitch attitude.

Personally I teach a blended method. I start with a pure pitch for airspeed and power to control the flight path because it is consistent with what is taught in the early climb/descent lessons and because it builds a life saving reflex, lowering the nose when the airspeed is too low. As student skills develop I find the students naturally gravitate to a point and power technique because it is provides a smoother final approach. But by this time they fully understand the interrelationship between changes in power and changes in attitude and can fly accurate airspeeds at different power settings.

Finally there has been much discussion about the back side of power curve. The point of the slow flight exercise should not be to fly in the slow flight regime because unless you are into serious STOL work there is no reason to be there unless you are in the landing flare, but rather to teach early recognition of the fact that the aircraft is entering the slow flight regime and effective recovery into normal flight without a loss of altitude.

I'm not saying my experience is superior.

But CLEARLY having prior knowledge of flight is beneficial, no?

I knew exactly what you guys would say when I had prior sim experience, so no irony there. At least I can admit it's a hinderence to the early stages of my progression, but so far I've done everything perfectly, but more importantly I love flying and that's all that matters!

- 6 hours logged

I have great flight sim experience, I was flying on VATSIM online with a microphone when I was 11, using SIDS/STARS and chart reading and cold starts in PMDG 747 and so on....

It's kind of a hinderence to the beginning of my learning because he was going through all flight controls, and wouldn't listen to me when I told him I knew what the rudder/ailerons where..

A word to the wise on the subject of teaching and learning. I have learned and taught three main subjects in my life. Flying, aeronautical engineering, and Jiu Jitsu. I have high level qualifications in each, and am qualified to teach each.

I've learned with all of these that there's not necessarily a single right or wrong, and that some adaptation is needed. But, any expert practitioner has a complete set of practice and understanding that work really well together.

So if I go and spend time with another martial artist, or pilot, or engineer, I take time to take and use their understanding of the core subjects. Some compartmentalisation is very necessary - so I do not talk about stability when I have my pilot hat on in the same way as I do with my engineer hat on. Equally I practice Aiki Kempo Jiu Jitsu, but if I'm away from home and say go and play with the local Shorinji Khan Jujitsu club, I'll put a white belt on, listen hard to their instructor's view on how to throw, punch, breakfall, etc - and I get far more from it if I take their entire package of knowledge as a whole, and not go in saying that I understand lots of it already. Because I don't, not within their frame of reference.

Plus, even if I do have the same frame of reference for the beginners stuff, I don't necessarily know at what point our paradigms diverge, so I listen from the beginning.

This is across the board. There are engineers with a full frame of reference to their subject that I am better taking from the start, not from my personal starting point. And if I am learning a new flying skill - as I seem to most years - I listen to everything, and take the complete set.

It really really works better that way.

So, in your case, you are best in my opinion taking the full picture as understood and explained by your flying instructor - even back to something as basic as how the flaps and ailerons work, and use that as part of the lead in to the completely new knowledge that he'll reach soon enough.

however what I've realised is that it's not a rush, and either way I'm going to need 45 hours minimum regardless of how fast I learn things.

Going flying this saturday, and then on the 20th :)

If you can get the learning process right, which I suspect you do need to work on, you do have the advantage of youth. At 17 you should learn faster than most of us are capable of - and as such you are a lucky bastard. So if you do do really well, consider for example than you can do night, tailwheel, possibly some basic aerobatics, within those 45 hours. Don't bank on it, although if you are reasonably sharp, a night qualification at-least should be achievable within the 45.

Right now work on the learning process - which is very much about absorbing the complete paradigm being used by your instructor, rather than trying to cherry pick it material and paste that into your autodidactic past.

G

G,

What part of training requires the most hours? For example circuits? I'm trying to deligently plan leave of work to make my flying lessons more effective at the most important stage..

For example take 3/4 days of work in a week and fly 5 hours in that week ~
What do you suggest?

G,

What part of training requires the most hours? For example circuits? I'm trying to deligently plan leave of work to make my flying lessons more effective at the most important stage..

For example take 3/4 days of work in a week and fly 5 hours in that week ~
What do you suggest?

That's a bit like "how long is a piece of string" to be honest.

Generally however there are things I can offer by way of suggestion:

- Turn up fresh and prepared for each lesson, ideally having read into it and mentally rehearsed, and you'll use a lot less hours on everything.

- If working and flying on the same day, always go flying first. It is much more productive to be thinking of flying at work, than thinking of work whilst flying.

- Don't skimp on basic principles and handling technique. Get all of that right, and the rest comes together very quickly and easily. Go too fast into the full exercises, and it may never really come together properly.

- But yes, keep current. Fly at-least once per week, ideally twice, if you want to progress fairly quickly. Twice per week is probably enough however.

G

Thanks G,

Probably make a thread when I solo in 6 months

EDIT - 6 months, sorry I mean 2/3 so hopefully augustish

Genghis - well put.

My only concern is the wisdom of his thoughts (is it "perfect" to MS flight sim standards or to real world flying) I have yet to meet a student pilot who did everything "perfect"

but so far I've done everything perfectly

Youth might help, but in my opinion respect that others might have greater experience (gained from flying real aeroplanes in real weather) would help even more.

Golden eagle..


I think perfect cannot be applied in either sim or real world. I just think safe operations of the occupants others and the aircraft are key. And that's what I've been doing so far. When I say perfect I'm generally refering to the fact that I don't need to be told how to trim, after being told once it's embedded in me.

EGKB

There isn't any 17 year old blokes who can go for a piss and do it perfectly never mind fly a plane.

Usually most don't even have a clue what they are doing wrong.

Complete oppersite to the women who are actually doing it correctly but think they are doing it wrong.

EGKB

There is nothing wrong in challenging concepts it is a way of questioning your own beliefs, listening to others and learning from each other.
There is one thing that worries me.
Most aircraft accidents occur because pilots do not fly within their own or the aircraft limits.
The secret of that is to know those limits.
A pilot who thinks he is better than he is suffers the danger of getting into a situation where one day he steps out of those limits, scares himself silly in which case he usually learns or worse crashes and kills himself.
I have now lost seven friends in aviation crashes. When such an event happens we as pilots like to think that the guy was an idiot in an aircraft which was a wreck.
We hate it if the pilots are good experienced guys because that makes us aware of our own vulnerability.
Sadly for me a majority were good experienced guys.
With your attitude at present I would hate you to be someone who may fly outside their own abilities because they know best.

Pace

Bit that takes the longest to get right?

Come on guys, that's easy :)

Straight and Level!

Complete oppersite to the women who are actually doing it correctly but think they are doing it wrong.

Yes.

Ignoring flying for the moment, as I have had a grand total of one woman student pilot, but in the dojo it's noticeable that men who can't crack a technique usually try to deal with it through speed and force (and a certain amount of overconfidence), whilst women who can't crack a technique usually try to deal with it by thinking really hard, but may sometimes give up because they just don't believe in themselves.

So long as I can maintain their self-confidence, women are almost always easier to teach martial arts to.

That seems to match your opinion of teaching flying.

G

Bits that take the longest?

S&L TRIMMED
In balance at ALL stages of flight
Airmanship

Most people don't really start achieving the above until after they have their PPL.

women are almost always easier to teach marital arts to.

Did I read that wrong ;)

Dan the W,

Not sure if that straight and level part was sarcasm or not?

But if you're being serious then... :S

I would never attempt to teach marital arts to anybody, I only hope that I'm getting them about right myself.

G

Dan the W,

Not sure if that straight and level part was sarcasm or not?

But if you're being serious then... :S

I think he's right - consistently flying at the right speed, altitude and track is a difficult and demanding task. Particularly once you add in managing the aeroplane, navigating, communicating, looking out, and keeping an eye on what your passengers are up to. It took me quite a few years, and I notice that my accuracy in hand flown S&L is, along with punchy RT, one of the first things to degrade if I've not flown for a while.

G

Not sure if that straight and level part was sarcasm or not?



Well he was being serious - that's how much all those hours on the flight sim game taught you...

H

It's kind of a hinderence to the beginning of my learning because he was going through all flight controls, and wouldn't listen to me when I told him I knew what the rudder/ailerons where..

I think maybe the problem is not that your instructor would not listen to you, but the other way round - The problem with guys who teach themselves, be it Flying via the Sim or anything else, is that they get it wrong!! This is why most instructors WILL start at the begining and cover the complete syllabus! What will happen though is that if you actually listen to him and pick up the bits you have got wrong, rather than sit there thinking you know it already, you will learn much quicker.

but so far I've done everything perfectly,

How? None of us have?

I assure you that you very certainly have not analyszed your performance perfectly!

EGKB, people are being pretty hard on you now :) might be better to duck out :).

Ease up a little people he really has chilled out and seen the error of his ways and understand that instructors have to start somewhere.

Also, I am deadly serious. The bit that people take the longest to master is unquestionably straight and level. So many things can happen to disturb it and you're always busy trying to make sure you're in the right place or on the right track. You're rarely flying with the ball in the middle which means you're not tracking straight towards stuff, the power isn't quite right, the trim isn't quite right. Straight and Level is difficult because your aircraft changes height and heading without being obvious and you'll often find yourself trying to stay straight and level for long periods. It doesn't change when you get into an airliner (that doesn't have fancy things like AP and AT and AutoTrim).

Trust me, your instructor will be driving you bonkers with calls of "heading" "altitude" :).

Good luck.

Dan,

My skins thicker than 99% of people, otherwise I'd have left a long while ago. It's all interesting to me, the fact people don't listen.

Pilot DAR,

Look at post #190

Or if you're too lazy:

"Golden eagle..


I think perfect cannot be applied in either sim or real world. I just think safe operations of the occupants others and the aircraft are key. And that's what I've been doing so far. When I say perfect I'm generally refering to the fact that I don't need to be told how to trim, after being told once it's embedded in me.

EGKB"

Evidently you have proved you're trying to belittle me. If you was actually trying to give help then you'd read my posts, but seems to me like you're nit picking.

He was being serious about straight and level being difficult?

It's probably the easiest thing I've done.

Told me to climb/descend to XX altitude and I did it just fine, no assistance and stayed +/- 20ft of the given altitude.

DAR is a test pilot, nit picking is his job. A good test pilot is quite capable of writing a ten page report about how badly their toaster works, then to conclude that it actually works quite well. It would not occur to a bad test pilot to even analyse his toaster.

DAR is a good test pilot, with an impressive professional reputation.


We are many of us here also aerospace professionals. There is a basic mode of communication amongst aerospace professionals, it goes something like this: "you idiot, why on earth did you do that?". Fell free to go and search out the number of occasions people have said that to me on Pprune, there are a fair number.

Good aerospace professionals also have another mode which is to listen bloody hard to even the mildest comments, with massive humility, and take everything on board.


Nit-picking, again, is basically a survival strategy in aviation. The search for perfection is another, even if we all know it's a fiction.


Where you wish to sit on this spectrum, is ultimately up to you.

He was being serious about straight and level being difficult?

It's probably the easiest thing I've done.

Told me to climb/descend to XX altitude and I did it just fine, no assistance and stayed +/- 20ft of the given altitude.

Whilst doing the radio, navigating, in or close to cloud, managing the aeroplane systems, looking out, staying on track, talking to your passengers, and for potentially several hours at a time?

Just when people are trying to defend you, you really do manage to dig another hole for yourself over and over again. The people telling you, a 6 hour pre-solo student, that you don't understand, have thousands of hours, on hundreds of aeroplane types, across half the planet. Listen to them.

G

He was being serious about straight and level being difficult?

It's
probably the easiest thing I've done.

Told me to climb/descend to XX
altitude and I did it just fine, no assistance and stayed +/- 20ft of the given
altitude


Wonderful, wonderful, just wonderful :D

H

Don't suppose you were looking out the window were you?

Or were you looking at the instruments all the time to keep that +-20ft?

EGKB,

You might feel its nit picking, many of us on here come from a background where the devil is in the detail. It may be in written format or through certain actions. Make a mistake and it can have serious consequences. The one thing that is common to all the people that have offered you advice is that they are further along the learning curve than you. They have also learnt to listen and absorb / apply what they are being told.

You talk of being able to fly +/- 20' of selected altitude, what about the other varibles? What happened with the heading, what was your airspeed? was that constant? where was the ball with respect to balance, was it a turbulent day? and was the accuracy maintained for a decent time (say 20 minutes).

At the moment your written responses show poor attitude, perhaps thats not what you want - if that's the case, then don't be in such a hurry to respond, consider your response and then act.

EGKB

When you first started up in this thread I supported a certain principal of pitch for speed or power for speed as I felt it warranted further discussion and clarification.
Since then I am puzzled by your responses and dare I say immature attitude? Can I ask you a question?
What are you hoping to get from the thread for yourself or your flying as I am at a loss now as to why you posted?

Pace

Okay, shouldn't have been drawn in, total troll, or idiot, or both :)

Told me to climb/descend to XX altitude and I did it just fine, no assistance and stayed +/- 20ft of the given altitude.

That's always a useful skill. What did the oil temperature do throughout that exercise?

The more I learn about flying the less I feel that I actually know. EGKB, I'm sure you're going to feel the same way in the future. At the moment it's easy to feel that you know a lot because you've played around on a simulator, and had a go at the basics in the air, but as you get experience and particularly when things start to go wrong in the air, you're going to start asking questions of yourself. You'll only discover you're own limitations through experience so while you have less than an abundance of experience you need to rely on your instructor to recognise those limitations for you and to spoon feed you at a pace that you can keep up with, and they will likely do that with tried and tested techniques. You shouldn't feel the need to critisice those techniques at such an early stage in your training. Enjoy yourself and don't over-reach. The fundamentals are important and believe me, there will be plenty of times that you struggle to stay straight and level in the future! :)

there will be plenty of times that you struggle to stay straight and level in the future!
Me, taking a club check ride a couple of days ago, after several weeks not flying. Downwind leg, correct power, heading fine, level fine, speed fine, trim fine, no visible problems.

Me: "Yes, I can tell when I haven't been flying for a few weeks, can't I".

Instructor: "Eh? You're doing fine."

Me: "Yes I know, but I'm having to think about it."

EGKB - It's a big bad world out there away from your computer screen, I have tried to find something in terms you might understand. Please forgive me if I have not hit the nail on the head. The two guys in the video clip are flight instructors!!

Troll Massacre - YouTube

Okay, shouldn't have been drawn in, total troll, or idiot, or both :)

Sad to say I have to agree with you. EGKB figures he has it all figured out with a whole 6 hours of flying experience :ugh:

I have had to deal with a few flight simmers over the years. The only way to break them of the habit of staring at the instruments and never looking outside, was to cover them up.

The general consensus from my students that at the end of the day their flight simming did not help them with the core flying skills.

I had one very opinionated student who was convinced like EGKB, that he already had all the skills he needed courtesy of a large ego and 1000 hours on MSFS. I got him passed on to me as a "problem student" with about 8 hours of dual logged. On the first flight I gave him a challenge.

I would start straight and level at cruise speed cover all the instruments and then reduce power and let the airplane settle down announcing what the new airspeed was and noting that the altitude had not changed uncovering the instruments to prove I was right and then recovering them. I would then resume cruise power and again uncover the instruments to show the same altitude and the predicted airspeed.

I then promised that if he could do the same thing he would get all their instruments back and I wouldn't comment on where to look :E

Not surprisingly he didn't do very well. At that point I told him the deal. If he wanted to continue with me we were going to start over with attitudes and movements done totally visually and progress through all the foundation exercises with the instruments only uncovered when appropriate.

There was no second lesson :hmm: He went to another instructor and finally soloed after 22 hours in the circuit because despite his best efforts he found it impossible to land only by looking at the instruments and practice landing the aircraft on MSFS didn't really help him when it came to landing a real airplane :{

Ghengis - as a former karate-ka I found that martial artists made the best lovers, so maybe there is a connection between martial and marital arts after all?

mad_jock - I can only speak from carrying passengers but I've generally found that when I offer "control" to passengers (followed through, and usually yoke only), women are much more gentle and try to feel what happens, while men tend to be more aggressive and shove without waiting to see what the effects are. Not always the case, but it supports what you're saying.

Pilot-DAR - I have my own (non-t.p.) thoughts regarding your charts, but I'll wait for your explanation to see if I'm even remotely close!


Ref the OP, bear in mind that he's still only 17. It's obvious that he is still quite immature so cut him some slack. He will learn and grow both as a pilot and as a human being. He's had a reasonable roasting already, but his learning, both in aviation and in life, will take more than a few threads and a few weeks on PPRuNe.

As far as women pilots go, I usually find they are either excellent or rubbish, very rarely average. IMHO this is because they either have the ability and try extra hard because of feminism or they are rubbish and never will be any good (a few men manage this as well).

Women are definately better students, they pay better attention at the brief, and as said in an ealier post they tend to suffer from under confidence, so their flying ability is far better than they think it is, much safer having it that way round. On a trial lesson I've only every had women say "so what can this plane really do?" and then keep asking me to pull more and more G :ok:

I've had 3 or 4 flight sim addict teenagers as students, one of whom presented me with a log book of all the real time sim journeys he'd done. I just laughed, he was actually trying to impress me with this!?!

I'm sure EGKB will look back on this thread in years to come, and realise how little he knows right now. Just hope he makes it out of the danger zone of 150-200+ hours before his confidence really overpowers his ability.

One of my instructors always said you start with an empty bucket of knowledge and a full bucket of luck, the trick is to fill the bucket with knowledge before the other bucket runs out of luck. Unfortunaltely, EGKB seems to think he's got two full buckets :}

He will learn and grow both as a pilot and as a human being.

Yes, I see your point. However, regardless of age, if one wants the privilage of freedom in the sky, one must rise to a minimum maturity to earn it. Like many here I'm sure, I was out and about on my own in planes when I was 16, and before I learned to drive. One has to meet the mark for the privilage. I have to hope that the provider of the aircraft will keep that under control. I remeber one winter day, off on a solo cross country (I used to make them up, while I was waiting to be old enough to take the flight test). I reminded myself that out over the fozen lake in central Ontario, I was probably 30 miles from the nearest other person. No help for me if I got myself in trouble, so better not. It matures you up quick! EGKB has yet to show that they are there - in my opinion. As long as he/she begins to get a hint that there is so much to be learned.

How do I communicate to EGKB that with well more than a thousand times his/her flying time, I still have occasions where I worry about what's happening during a flight, and remind myself to sharpen up, and pay attention. My challenge is that I really have no excuse for a stupid beginner type accident any more, so if I mess up, I'm going to have to have a really good reason, or I'll look like a fool! (and deserve it!).

Pilot-DAR - I have my own (non-t.p.) thoughts regarding your charts, but I'll wait for your explanation to see if I'm even remotely close!



Yeah, I have not forgotten. I'm trying to give EGKB every opportunity to rise to my challenge - perhaps it's taking time to program this into MSFS to have the simulator model it - to figure out what it is! When EGKB declares their intentions I'll come back to it!

By the way Genghis, Happily the SM1019 is not type approved in Canada - they fly on a flight permit here. I was required to gather post modification flight test results and data for a flight authority reissue, but not an approval, so previous non conformances could be left as is. The mod was not suspected as having any effect on pitch stability at all, so I was not expected to investigate this characteristic - I just found it anyway!

In the mean time, here's a hint photo. I was in the back seat this flight, training the company pilot with what I had found during my testing. Conditions: Completely stable, level, unaccelerated flight, 60 degrees of flap, mid C of G range, mid weight, trimmed for 60 knots, and 70% power. The company pilot was very surprized! (EGKB - he had run out of something he needed!)

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/Jims%20DAR%20Testing/IMG_3777.jpg

- 6 hours logged

I have great flight sim experience, I was flying on VATSIM online with a microphone when I was 11, using SIDS/STARS and chart reading and cold starts in PMDG 747 and so on....

Cold starts in a PMDG 747 in FS are of F all use in a real Cessna. And if you think you can do instrument approaches with no issues - get an instructor to take you on a REAL one (an NDB/DME would be fun), under the hood, in real convective IMC, while doing the radio, flying the procedure.

And watch as you're instantly overloaded.

You really need to listen to your instructor, it's a prerequisite of becoming a pilot. Those who don't listen don't get there, or at least, not for long. Remember - it's a licence to learn - don't start questioning it after a measily 6 hours!

Flying is a team game. Worth remembering. :)

DAR that's a very cool picture, of course you have to understand the context of what you're looking at. :)

It's kind of a hinderence to the beginning of my learning because he was going through all flight controls, and wouldn't listen to me when I told him I knew what the rudder/ailerons where..

however what I've realised is that it's not a rush, and either way I'm going to need 45 hours minimum regardless of how fast I learn things.


Woah! Ok I take back my previous comments that he may not be as arrogant and naive as you think. Seriously that's.....what I would expect from a 10 year old, and a rather annoying one too.

Either that or he is indeed a Troll.

DAR that's a very cool picture, of course you have to understand the context of what you're looking at. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

It certainly is a good photo... I'd be interested to hear more about it.

That photo - nice!

Well, I was hoping that EGKB would accept my challenge, but it seems not...

DAR that's a very cool picture, of course you have to understand the context of what you're looking at. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif

Yes, some of my projects offer me facinating lessons - I still have so much to learn!

This project was the testing of the modified SM1019, which carried wingtip booms I had previously tested on a Cessna 206. They are used for magnetic survey of underground material.

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/Jims%20DAR%20Testing/IMG_6672.jpg

Sorry about the super sized photo - I could not get Photobucket to resize this one....

I had no prior experience flying this type. I do admit that since I was 11 (decades before MSFS!) I dreamed of flying one of these - the photo in Jane's all the world's aircraft of it taking off on its tailwheel wound me right up!

During my checkout, I was expecting it to fly like a Cessna - nope, its pretty different! Totally different controls, extreme power to weight ratio for this type of aircraft, no stall warning system at all, 60 degrees of flap available,

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/Jims%20DAR%20Testing/IMG_3776.jpg

and it is so cool to be able to back up on the ramp! (it already sits on its tail!:ok:)

The fact that this aircraft does not have a Canadian Type Certificate means that my test flying was not to support an STC, but rather a flight permit, which has a lower "bar". Add to that that the mod is not expected to affect pitch control much, so there was not much delving into that aspect planned.

As I got used to the plane, I would employ ever increasing performance takeoffs - in accordance with Flight Manual procedures (30 flaps). Once I put the survey operator in the back, and started wringin the plane out - it bit me hard.

I was going out of a very familiar grass runway, and just as I got airborne the nose pitched way up, the pull to get airborne was suddenly not at all what was needed. With no stall warning system, and the airspeed indicator barely indicating, this is not where I want to be decellerating! It took full nose down control, held for many moments to maintain the desired pitch attitude. As the plane acellerated, the pitch control could be moved toward nose up again, though was still a "push", rather than a "pull". This is the ideal set up for pilot indiced oscillation - nearly zero control force, through a wide control displacement exactly in the range you need to have the controls. There was no flying this plane by feel at slow speed, this was by recognizing the pitch attitude visually below 70 KIAS. Most helicopters I have flown have more pitch "feel" than this did!

After exploring this more, and discussing this characterisitc with two test pilot mentors, I set out to document this characteristic. The result was the previoulsy posted graphs of control force. 30 Flap will get you zero or negative control force below certain speeds. Also, retracting the flaps from full to none, will pass you through this range, and you've got to be ready for lots of control force change! This is a non certifiable characterisitc. I had the aircraft checked for conformity in the controls, and everything was as it should be. I am hardly an expert with this type, but no one could offer any advice to suggest that I had it wrong. I was just flight testing it in accordance with the accepted techniques.

I ended up writing advisory material for pilot training on this aircraft, and rode back seat to train the company chief pilot in what I had found. He confirmed all of it. My training material for this read:

"11.2.7 Pitch Control Forces

During flight testing, with flap settings from 30 to 60 degrees, and in particular at a more aft C of G, pitch forces were found to reverse in some cases. This was more pronounced with high power. This was most noticeable, and startling, right after becoming airborne on takeoff, when the pull force to break ground, might suddenly need to reverse to a push force to prevent the nose rising too sharply. Be aware that with the very low pitch control forces in the "null" spot between nose up, and nose down, the control forces are very low, so a pilot induced oscillation, or over controlling could easily result. It is particularly important for the pilot to recognize that with no stall warning system, and very light pitch control forces approaching the stall, that an accidental stall is very possible. "


I never did get to the point where I could not lower the nose with pitch control, but there were many occasions where prolonged application of full down pitch control was required to maintain control at all. As a new pilot, doing freedom of control checks before takeoff, I use to wonder how one would ever use the full nose down control available. Well, I have learned! I've needed, and held in, full nose down pitch control in the Cessna 185 amphibian, 206, 207, Grand Caravan and Twin Otter.

This goes to show that there is lots to learn, even for experienced pilots. The very experienced ag pilot who initially checked me out, ended up taking type training from me! And I had less time flying it than he did. I had just been doing a whole bunch of differing types of flying that he had not got to yet.

Normally EGKB, I would be apologizing for hijaking or drifting your thread. Not this time! You have yet to earn that much of my respect. Not that my respect is hard to earn - just about everyone else on PPRuNe has it, but you're a ways back yet....

Back before computers, when many of us were mentored into being good pilots, it was in person. We neophites were privilaged to breath the same air as the sky gods, when on poor weather days, pilots would chat in the club house. If we newbies were particularly inoffensive, we would receive the occasional invitation to the back seat, or with extreme luck, right seat. Our personality became a key element in success with this - act like an arrogant jerk, and you're probably not even in the club house again, much less the aircraft. I spent a lot of teenage time filthy on my back, scrubbing the belly of a plane, for the privilage of a ride in it...

Now, apparently, personality is much less a factor, anyone who can log on has a chance of being taken seriously and finding wisdom for nothing. And, some of us are putting it there for nothing. EGKB, have you any idea the cost of what I have written, were it to be a flight test report?

So EGKB, don't think I have written all of this to respond to you, so far, you are peripheral. However, I know that a lot of really worthy new pilots read all of this, and they win, because you stirred the pot, and made a specticle of yourself. There have been others of you before, and there will be more later. The PM's fly in the background, with us amusing ourselves about specticle posts.

I remember when I had six hours, how proud I was! I remember going first solo (first person in Canada to first solo a C 152, 'cause my club had the first) how proud I was - I thought I knew it all! After a few hundred hours, I began to question how much I knew... After a few thousand I started to go for more training, to fill in blanks, and grow my skills. Now, I regularly exchange thoughts and ask advice of pilots who are sky gods to me - some here.

Six hours... Just put your hand over your mouth, and listen, read and obey lots!

Ahhhhh......

Excellent post DAR in all respects, very fascinating story (we need more of this sort of info on PPRuNE) and excellent points raised all round. :ok:

Great post DAR as usual. You ought to write a book. Seriously.

I may have mentioned it before actually....:)

Thanks... Enjoyed that.

Excellent post PilotDar.

Perhaps EGKB has become miserable and sulked away from the adults. He has gone very quiet!! Still no great loss, I think we gave more to him than he contributed to us

Perhaps his mum has sent him to bed.

But at least he did encourage discussion inadvertently on an interesting subject which has been argued over for decades.
Pitch for speed or power for speed.
I would be interested to hear Pilot Dars take on this one in more detail from his test flying abilities (Great pics btw)

Pace

As an aside, I remember being startled (aged about 14) to learn that pitch/trim should be used to control speed and power to control rate of climb/descent. It took me a few days to come to terms with it.

Funnily enough I learned it from Microsoft Flight Simulator which has (or at least had) some simulated 'flying lessons' where it was explained.

I don't know if it's right but I've always had it in my mind that pitch controls speed and power altitude. I mentioned in another thread (might have been this one actually) that being a glider jock primarily it takes a lot of unlearning that pitch=speed.

Well, it is more intuitive for a glider where it's obvious that pitch controls both speed and height.

It would be possible to build an aircraft where power influenced speed substantially and where you wouldn't be able to change altitude without co-ordinated use of the elevator and throttle. The fact that we don't build aircraft to fly like this is ultimately a design decision.

It depends on the available power though. On something like an F16 engaging the burner makes the world go in reverse without a massive increase in lift whereas doing it in a powered snot rag (or flexwing...:}) merely makes you go up a bit.

ABDG ;)

Take yourself off to South Africa! Take a ride in a Lightning and see a demonstration going from almost zero to 40,000 feet straight up and then say that power does not equal speed :E
Or even come in the Slowtation jet I fly and I will demonstrate it for you!!!
You will bust VNE in seconds low level if you advance thrust to anywhere near Max or trade that thrust for climb.

Pace

Point taken - I should have specified 'spamcans'. Is that offer for real :E

DAR - thanks for that. I, too, was lucky enough to be knocked into shape by some wise old pelicans whose respect it was important to gain (purely selfish - you don't respect them, they'll just spit you out 'cause they can't waste their limited time, and then you've lost a golden opportunity).

I always knew I didn't know a lot, but I thought I knew a heck of a lot more than I actually did know (after all, I'd read and understood the books... no flight sims back then).

Thankfully I had the sense to realise, when these guys spoke (let alone when they flew) I really was at the bottom of the slope. That was 34 years ago, a lot of taildragger, aeros, and strip time ago... But, that learning mountain still stretches upwards in front of me. I guess it always will.

I thought the Lightning rides were all bets off now in SA since the F6 piled in? I heard that there's a group out in the States that are getting a T5 back into airworthy condtion, I think in Mississippi somewhere.

I had the dubious pleasure of being in at the demise of the Lightning in '88. I remember speaking to (I think it was ) Dave Roome who told me he took a Lightning up to 88,000 ft over Singapore and could see from Vietnam all the way down the Malay peninsula.

Mind you, that was back in the day when we had an Air Force. There aren't enough guys in the RAF to half fill Old Trafford now. Literally.

I've just reminded myself I know an excellent story about a Hunter spinning over Singapore but is far better told by the culprit.

Thing

You are right the Lightning flights are not available in SA anymore but what a machine :E I know a BA Captain who used to fly them.

I was up at Doncaster and saw them Roll out the Vulcan Bomber another creation from a previous era then picked up the Citation and flew to Filton where Concorde sits on the end of the runway.

What a crime selling off Filton to be turned into housing.
Never mind I am sure they will call the streets Concorde Avenue, Airport road etc :{

Think we have lost a lot in creativity, imagination and pure passion from those pioneering days and superb creations which were made all those years ago.
Just imagine what the test pilots from those eras were like?

Oh well progress?? I expect give it a few more years and we will have priced and regulated GA out of the market too in our big brother and liability society!
As for the RAF maybe we might all be recruited as some sort of call up Dads Army to patrol our shores in 152s :ok:

pace