PDA

View Full Version : Bounce landing recovery technique


Centaurus
14th Dec 2002, 11:56
I would have thought that practice (and patter) at bounced landing recovery - or high round-out recovery - should be part of the instructor course syllabus of training. Was surprised to find out that some flying schools do not advocate training for this manoeuvre and in fact there are a few PPL and CPL holders that have never been taught how to recover and land from a bounce. In turn it means that many instructor graduates have never done a bounced landing recovery yet they are supposed to teach students all aspects of aircraft handling near the ground. A case of the blind leading the blind, maybe?

The feeling is that it is too dangerous and that a go-around is always the best thing. A very low speed full flap go-around after a series of bounces can be a tricky handling manoeuvre particularly if the nose is left cocked high. Surely it is easier and safer to just add a touch of power and land gently off the bounce.

And some flying schools have a policy of never allowing solo stall recovery practice. This means a student has only ever done it dual. If by definition the student has been certified competent via the Day VFR Syllabus (Australia) to recover from all types of stalls then why do some schools prevent solo practice in say the C150, C172, Jabiru, Warrior and suchlike?

cochise
14th Dec 2002, 16:16
I've always found that lowering the nose to level and waiting on the sink to flare again works with Piper Aircraft.
Although I've found with Cessna holding in the back pressure on the yoke seems to kill a fair amount of that lift that keeps you in that long floating period after the bounce. The stall warning horn will be blaring at this time.
That is typically what I've found, but as usual there's no replacement for experience and that's where your judgement will develope.
A typical mistake is usually coming in too fast, you'll notice a student usually bounces after misjudging the sink after making an approach with excessive speed.
hope this helps a little!

DB6
15th Dec 2002, 11:35
The technique you advocate is certainly valid however it requires more than a little experience to carry it off successfully and avoid e.g. a power on nosewheel touchdown - BOINNNNG! As most circuit training tends to be of ab-initio students the experience level is not there so it is by far safer to train for the go-around every time. With more experienced students it would be a good idea but how many people come back for more than the bare minimum of instruction (understandably,££) after they've qualified?

Tinstaafl
15th Dec 2002, 18:05
I always included bounce recovery to land & to go around when I taught.

When I taught instructor-lings I made damn sure it was part of their training so that when, not if, one of their future students did it to them they could 1. recover & 2. teach the student how to correct it.

In previous CFI positions I made sure bounce recovery to a landing and to a go around were included in the school's syllabi.

Tonkenna
15th Dec 2002, 22:12
Hold the T/O attitude and apply full power. For the Tutor that works nicely as otherwise you can lose half the prop which is way more expensive than an extra circuit.

Tonks :)

stillin1
18th Dec 2002, 06:50
Looking at the big picture here: I do believe that you need to show the differenct twixt a mild over flare, whilst a little too fast, at touchdown leading to the ac becoming just airborne again and the cor blimey carrier landing catapulting you back into the sky. Once the latter is seen and N.B.d - GO-AROUND. Bounced landing techniques are possible for all ac types, but: As I can realistically see no reason why you have to land off of a bad landing attempt that has lead to a bouncer - just teach the go-around. Once the student has left you, is flying a different ac and is probably not fully current on bouncy landing practice, the last thing I want them to do is try to salvage an already bu@@ered situation. The go-around applies to all ac types, will prevent the appearance of most of the runway behind you as you float along to the next touchdown / hedge, won't tempt the PIO and will prevent the 10' stall onto the deck causing considerable expense. Taught to a baby pilot it is probably dangerous in the long term. We don't teach em that a crap circuit and approach can lead to a good landing! Why teach that a bad landing can lead to a good one?

Centaurus
18th Dec 2002, 12:03
Stillin1. I think you have overcontrolled - oops!! I meant over-reacted, on this subject. I may have worded the original query badly - so here we go again.

If a student balloons slightly due overcontrol, slight gust of wind etc, he can either open up and go-around (costs another $30 for a circuit) or he can apply a judicious trickle of power and easing the aircraft back down gently, touch down smoothly another 100 yards further on. That is surely a much safer solution than a balls-to-the-wall half stalled go-around with everything hanging down and the skid ball dangerously full scale. People have killed themselves on go-arounds but one hears of few fatalities caused by a recovery and land from a high hold off or a bounce.

Most bounces in the tricycle undercarriage aircraft are not bounces but porpoising - and that is where a very comfortable re-landing can be made providing the student has been taught correctly by a competent instructor.

From where I stand, it appears that few new instructors have been taught the basic skills of high hold off recovery. Yet this technique was taught to thousands of students in Tiger Moth and Chipmunk days. Why is it not taught now?

:)

stillin1
18th Dec 2002, 12:54
Centaurus
I don't disagree with your clarification of what you intended to say - See my previous first sentence.

I Fly
18th Dec 2002, 19:28
Centaurus, as you appear to be from Australia the DAY VFR SYLLABUS applies. Elements 6.1 and 6.2 clearly state that you need to do both. It is also in 19.1 and 19.2 for the CPL. If you are running out of fuel or daylight, or whatever, you will have to convert the bounce into a landing. If you have enough runway left. If you don't have enough runway left, you must go around. I indeed would be surprise if as you state "Was surprised to find out that some flying schools do not advocate training for this manoeuvre and in fact there are a few PPL and CPL holders that have never been taught how to recover and land from a bounce. In turn it means that many instructor graduates have never done a bounced landing recovery yet they are supposed to teach students all aspects of aircraft handling near the ground. A case of the blind leading the blind, maybe?"
Have a look at that school's operations manual I think you will find that some one is just lazy and is telling you bull****. If you feel strong enough, talk to your FOI.

dragchute
23rd Dec 2002, 12:13
If attitude controls airspeed and power controls rate of descent wouldn’t your student apply power to arrest the rate of descent and lower the nose slightly to recover speed? If there is sufficient runway an adept student could attempt to place the aircraft back into the landing attitude, or he could just go around.

But then these new fangled approach techniques condition the student to lower the nose for aiming and apply power to regain speed…interesting!

DFC
23rd Dec 2002, 14:54
My instructor was a firm believer in the always go-arround from a mis-landing. After 600 or more hours of following that advice, I am also a firm believer in that method.

Now teaching students, I also require them to go-arround from a bounce, overly high flare or baloon.

Reasons:

It is always safe to go-arround.......the aircraft will not have reached the end of the runway and will not have stalled and thus will be flying happily.

The same can not be said of the other methond of recovery...aircraft bounces....getting slow, nose high....bit of buffett, runway behind more than runway in front......blast of power...oops too much in the panic.....float...float......oh that hedge sems close.....do I dive it on or go arround...??????......eh SPLAT!

If one is teaching the "add as little power and land" method because there is unsuficient light remaining or the weather is too poor for another circuit then perhaps a lesson in flight planning is required........where would the flight have gone if the runway was blocked.......wherever the answer is, it would be dark!!

As for saving the expense of another circuit....well need I say anymore about that?

With regard to aircraft handling, the ball etc, the student will have practiced several transitions from full Stall with 40deg flap to climbing flight, full power, ball in the middle at all times, getting the aircraft cleaned up...They will laso have practiced go-arrounds in the circuit from 40 flap approaches at various heights.....practice makes better.

To sum up, the go-arround is the only option where there is no doubt about the flight path and safety of the aircraft even if the field is a short one.

Regards,

DFC

Chuck Ellsworth
23rd Dec 2002, 17:22
If there is still thousands of feet of runway ahead of you do you still teach a go around after a bounced landing?

Cat Driver:

DFC
24th Dec 2002, 16:21
Yes.

The idea is to instill an automatic reaction similar to the automatic reaction that is made by an IR pilot on reaching DA but not visual.

The go-arround consists of:

Application of full power while keeping the ball in the middle

Retraction of drag flap......i.e. 40deg to 25deg in PA28

Selection of climb attitude and climbing at appropriate speed.

The above are not variable and are basic handling.

Other recovery techniques are totally variable depending on how high, how slow, was it a bounce or baloon, is the aircraft heavy or light, is there enough runway available or not, will the aircraft bounce again?????????........Too many cheese holes.

Perhaps even more important, after a baloon or bounce, the pilot should take the time to consider what went wrong in the approach/roundout that caused it to happen......and what to do so that it won't happen on the next approach...........it could be a result of a gusty wind......would it be a good idea to divert?

IMHO it complies with the KISS principle......which is ideal for a guy with my brain power!!

Merry Christmas

DFC

John Farley
24th Dec 2002, 18:09
If attitude controls airspeed and power controls rate of descent

When close to the ground, some would say that is quite a big if

Guido
29th Dec 2002, 10:08
It seems to me people are very insular in their ideas based on their airfield circumstances. In my opinion on a very long runway your actions may well be different to those if you were in a similar circumstance on a very short runway. Similarly you may have to deal with a bounced landing asymmetric or indeed counter and react quickly to the bounce from a glide approach with power unavailable.
It has been my experience (instructional 2000+ light single /twin and 5000+ multi military) that most students and inexperienced pilots unfortunately cannot think/reason in a high stress situation. A normal landing is such an event and if they bounce then hand/eye/foot co-ordination invariably fails and a situation akin to panic takes over and all normal handling techniques are abandoned in the attempt to try and bury the prop in the ground. Life is surely worth more than $30 and therefore in the early stages of learning there should only be one course of action until experience is gained and that should always be safety first, ie to initiate a go around.
As experience is gained and depending on the students’ personal ability then they can be introduced to dealing with PROPERLY RECOGNISED AND DIAGNOSED over rotations, flares or minor bounced landings which might still result in a go around.
Horses for Courses and there is always more than way to skin the cat/dingo/possum/gougar!

marshall
1st Jan 2003, 02:50
I am with Centaurus here! (After all he did teach me!) :D :D :D

Throughout my PPL and CPL training I was always taught to make a go-around if the landing was looking shady!

It was only when I did my instructor rating (and I was taught by VERY experienced aviator), did I fully understand and felt comfortable completing a landing that I would have normally done a go-around.

In this industry we are not only concerned about cost but also safety.

Learning the correct method to handle a bad situation can only make us ALL better pilots!

Art E. Fischler-Reisen
1st Jan 2003, 14:50
Speaking from my experience as an ex-RAF QFI, I can't agree that a go-around is always the best recovery from a messed-up landing. Each case is different and sometimes it IS better to keep it on the ground.

Two examples of when attempting a go-around was definitely the wrong thing to do.

First one happened about 11 years back at RAF Cosford. A Bulldog student fouled up his landing and bounced heavily. He opened the throttle and tried to go around. Unfortunately his bounce had caused nose oleo mounting damage, distorting the leg a couple of inches upwards. Unfortunately, the oil pump for the constant speed unit sits just above the top of the oleo on these Lycoming-engined aircraft and it also sustained damage by being hit by the top of the oleo. The CSU could no longer work and so the prop went fully coarse as it was designed to do. The engine therefore couldn't pull many revs and so the aircraft wouldn't climb. Instead, he floated over the airfield. The crash happened just outside the boundary, very fortunately the student wasn't badly injured.

This is quite likely to happen again as many of these aircraft are still in private use.

A second incident happened at Netherthorpe last summer. The student got it all out of shape on landing and damaged the nose oleo and nosewheel steering on his C152 (how many times have you heard that before, it's not difficult to do). In his attempt to go-around, he lost control of the aircraft whereupon it veered to the right and hit another aircraft in the parking area, causing severe prop damage to the wing. It very narrowly missed the two pilots just vacating it and finished up in the spectator enclosure. Another VERY lucky escape for all concerned.

An important rider must be that if any aircraft damage is likely or suspected, the best safe action is to land the aircraft, even at the risk of overrunning the landing area.

Guido
2nd Jan 2003, 09:28
Art Hzn - exactly the point to which I alluded. There has to be correct identification and diagnosis before embarking on a course of action. Until experience is gained this is a difficult decision to make and even then many hours may not always be that experience. Indeed recently a couple of incidents make the point.
1. A relatively experienced RAF QFI went around following a heavy-ish landing by a student and was amazed to find damage to the prop of his Grob Tutor. He knew something was wrong downwind when the power settings did not give the expected performance but did not put this down to touching the prop.
2. A student QFI, ex multi engined aircraft, on his 5th conversion trip on a light aircraft found damage to the prop (Tutor again) following a touch and go on the grass runway at Cranwell. He was unaware he had damaged the prop but admitted he thought the engine noise was a bit different on the circuit he flew after touching the ground.

Chuck Ellsworth
2nd Jan 2003, 22:15
From observing a large number pilots landing in either the flat all three wheels at once or slightly favouring the nose wheel attitude maybe we should go back to basics?

First teach proper landing flare, hold off, and correct touch down attitude.

Then if there is a bounce it is usually quite safe to correct the mistake and salvage the landing.

There will of course be instances where the go around will be preferable.

In my experience in flight training to suggest that all or most bounced landings require a go around is depriving the student of the skills to correct a botched touch down.

But of course that is only my thoughts on this subject.

Cat Driver:

Art E. Fischler-Reisen
3rd Jan 2003, 08:35
I'm out of fixed wing instruction now but I used to tell my students that "mainwheels are for landing on, nosewheels are ONLY for steering with".

I also got them to read the latest CAA accident/ incident bulletins regarding light aircraft and tell me what was the most common type of damage to aircraft with tricycle u/c. It was almost invariably nose leg/prop damage and usually a student pilot was involved.

I saw a flicker of understanding on quite a few faces.

Tinstaafl
3rd Jan 2003, 13:28
I'm with Chuck. Students taught to approach at the correct speed, & hold off long enough to guarantee a main wheels touchdown are quite capable of handling a correction that uses power to cushion a balloon or a bounce.

They are also capable of being taught to choose to go around if necessary.

Regarding rwy. length concerns, it's easy enough to specify a 'must go around if the wheels aren't on the rwy' point.

AviLGH
3rd Jan 2003, 13:44
Hey guys,

Thought I'd give you a student's perspective - I have never been taught to go-around as standard procedure following a bounced landing. I did have some troubles with bouncing initially so one of the better instructors took me out for a ride and gave me some very valuable advice, namely:

1. Keep the correct approach speed and a lot of problems will go away.

2. Flare at the correct height and the landing will be nice - keep looking towards the far end of the runway. (I had the nasty habit of glancing out of the side windows in the flare) Don't be scared to tailstrike. (Knowing that also helped to establish a correct attitude for touchdown - before I somehow felt that if I pulled any harder they would find pieces of airplane down the runway.)

3. If you bounce, ACT! He told me to apply some power and hold the centerline and land normally - going around only if things were really screwed up or there was no runway left.

We did an hour's worth of landings and I shaped up. I'm still in training but a lot more confident about landings now. I really don't see the need to go around following a bounce as long as things are managable - I'd much rather add some power and get her down smoothly then initiating a go-around from low altitude in landing config.

Well, my opinions, for what it's worth.

Rgds,

Avi

Chuck Ellsworth
3rd Jan 2003, 16:00
AviLGH:

Where were you taught to look to judge the flare height, to be more specific where were you taught to look before flaring?

Not a trick question, I am just courious as to what is being taught.

Cat Driver:

:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.:D

chicken6
5th Jan 2003, 01:39
I also agree with Chuck and Tinstaafl

If the students are taught from the start how high and how much to flare and what to do after that, then a ballon, bounce or gust of wind are variations of a theme the student has already learnt.

I also reiterate another point only one person has mentioned so far. Would you rather your student always counted on power being available, or would you rather they were equally comfortable with power on or power off approaches and landings? It seems to me that the student who thinks they are always going to be able to fly away from anything is being led up the garden path a bit. I realise that a modern engine is far more reliable than say forty years ago, but if it does stop, you need for your own life to be able to land it first time because you're definitely not going round. Or your student's definitely not going around while you watch.