final approach technique: pitch vs power
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stick the power up which is becuase your below profile the airspeed will stay the same.....
Could it be that the aircraft is below profile in the question asked because of the "sink"? and perhaps it was 100% on profile and speed until that point so the power and the trajectory must have been correct. So increasing the power at 5ft above the tree tops will fix it?
-----------
Lets pause 12/13 for a minute and go back to 6.
We are flying straight an level in trim at 100Kt.
maintain straight and level flight while slowing to 80Kt.
Hands up those that will straight away pitch up to slow down?
maintain straight and level flight while increasing speed to 120Kt
Hands up those that will pitch down to speed up?
I hope that no instructor has their hand up.
Straight and level at different speeds-
Accelerate;
1. Increase power
2. Prevent yaw, pitch and roll
3. as aircraft accelerates adjust attitude to maintain constant altitude
4 at desired speed set power and trim
Decelerate;
1. Reduce power
2. Prevent yaw, pitch and roll
3. as aircraft decelerates adjust attitude to maintain constant altitude
4 at desired speed set power and trim
Simple.
That exercise should not change just because the trajectory is something other than horizontal.
Next deviations;
Aircraft is established straight and level at 100Kt, 2000ft in trim
Instructor "makes" aircraft 100ft low and askes student to regain 2000ft.
Student simultaneously pitches up slightly to cause a climbing trajectory and increases power slightly to prevent speed loss. Aircraft is re-established at 2000ft in trim straight an level.
Instructor "makes" aircraftv 100ft high and asks student to regain 2000ft
Student simultaneously pitches down to cause a descending trajectory and decreases power slightly to revent speed increase. Aircraft is re-established at 2000ft in trim straight and level.
All very easy.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adding my 2p to the discussion.
I only learned PnP during my FIC training, until then I was definitely a Pitch for Speed kind of a guy.
The problem is that it really doesn't matter a jot what method gets the studen to 6ft off the deck, because there won't be two instructors around that will teach the flair with the same technique.
The interesting thing is that PnP will get the students to that 6ft, and the same 6ft above the runway everytime on every approach. Then they can have the good old schoolboy hash at trying the flair. And with a PnP student, who can now hold an aiming point and watch a speed they can use the same technique into the flair by changing the aiming point to the end of the runway and holding the point whilst monitoring the speed.
So those who are agast and worry about the aircraft suddenly rearing into the stall don't worry PnP guys will notice it first, whether they do something about it...well depends how loudly you shout across the intercoms as with all students
For the other method, and I'll admit I was guilty of this even through my CPL training, the student will get to a safe 6ft off of the runway, the problem is that until they have a good few hours in the circuit it will be a random safe 6ft above the runway. And that's no good for effective training because we don't want students stuck in the circuit, well I don't anyway, for a good few hours before they go solo, only to get stuck in to a good few hours of consolidation afterwards.
MJ, I'm a little bit confused. You said that you use PnP but teach the other method. Now presumably you don't tell your students that you actually use a different landing technique from them.
That strikes me as bit of "There are two ways to stay ahead in business, one is to not tell everything you know..."
I only learned PnP during my FIC training, until then I was definitely a Pitch for Speed kind of a guy.
The problem is that it really doesn't matter a jot what method gets the studen to 6ft off the deck, because there won't be two instructors around that will teach the flair with the same technique.
The interesting thing is that PnP will get the students to that 6ft, and the same 6ft above the runway everytime on every approach. Then they can have the good old schoolboy hash at trying the flair. And with a PnP student, who can now hold an aiming point and watch a speed they can use the same technique into the flair by changing the aiming point to the end of the runway and holding the point whilst monitoring the speed.
So those who are agast and worry about the aircraft suddenly rearing into the stall don't worry PnP guys will notice it first, whether they do something about it...well depends how loudly you shout across the intercoms as with all students
For the other method, and I'll admit I was guilty of this even through my CPL training, the student will get to a safe 6ft off of the runway, the problem is that until they have a good few hours in the circuit it will be a random safe 6ft above the runway. And that's no good for effective training because we don't want students stuck in the circuit, well I don't anyway, for a good few hours before they go solo, only to get stuck in to a good few hours of consolidation afterwards.
MJ, I'm a little bit confused. You said that you use PnP but teach the other method. Now presumably you don't tell your students that you actually use a different landing technique from them.
That strikes me as bit of "There are two ways to stay ahead in business, one is to not tell everything you know..."
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The landing technique is the same either method.
But as for the approach yes I tell them if they ask. If they don't and are getting on well I don't bother even mentioning it. If they don't "get" either one of them I will swap to the other method. I have inherited just as many PnP students having issues as I have Pitch for speed, if the basic skills are there (ie the intial lessons) I swap to the other one and see if that one clicks. 90% of the time with both methods its because the student has been rushed into the curcuit and needs to do some refresher training.
Its not a case of there is right way and a wrong way of doing it. Both methods are right. Some situations PnP is best ie rough air approaches, ILS etc. And other times, calm air, visual, NPA pitch for speed is best.
Now as I teach for visual flying in relatively calm air the pitch for speed suits me best as a starting point. Now if you did a check on one of my old students you wouldn't have a clue which method they were using because just because they have gone solo doesn't mean the approach teaching has stopped there. It is refined and polished until they go for the skills test so that adjustments to profile are a combination of simutanious control inputs (which is actually what experenced IR pilots do on the approach its not PnP but a combination of both methods)
The PnP or Pitch for speed is just the starting point. But I do like the idea that I have trained my students to be able to operate without working instruments if god forbid they had a pitot system failure.
I really don't care what other instructors use for thier starting point. It can be either method. I am sticking up for Pitch for speed because it does have some good points.
But as for the approach yes I tell them if they ask. If they don't and are getting on well I don't bother even mentioning it. If they don't "get" either one of them I will swap to the other method. I have inherited just as many PnP students having issues as I have Pitch for speed, if the basic skills are there (ie the intial lessons) I swap to the other one and see if that one clicks. 90% of the time with both methods its because the student has been rushed into the curcuit and needs to do some refresher training.
Its not a case of there is right way and a wrong way of doing it. Both methods are right. Some situations PnP is best ie rough air approaches, ILS etc. And other times, calm air, visual, NPA pitch for speed is best.
Now as I teach for visual flying in relatively calm air the pitch for speed suits me best as a starting point. Now if you did a check on one of my old students you wouldn't have a clue which method they were using because just because they have gone solo doesn't mean the approach teaching has stopped there. It is refined and polished until they go for the skills test so that adjustments to profile are a combination of simutanious control inputs (which is actually what experenced IR pilots do on the approach its not PnP but a combination of both methods)
The PnP or Pitch for speed is just the starting point. But I do like the idea that I have trained my students to be able to operate without working instruments if god forbid they had a pitot system failure.
I really don't care what other instructors use for thier starting point. It can be either method. I am sticking up for Pitch for speed because it does have some good points.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now if you did a check on one of my old students you wouldn't have a clue which method they were using because just because they have gone solo doesn't mean the approach teaching has stopped there
Its a bit like giving somebody a fly fishing rod and telling them to throw the hook at the water. You might not realise but there is a lot more to it.
I cannot imagine EVER hiding information that is that important from my students. You mention that the learning process doesn't end just because they have gone solo. My point is that not telling them how they are flying will prevent them from going solo sooner. And lets face it, surely it would be nice to know that "Pitch for speed" is the name of the method, why because it IS the method. And likewise for "Point and Power"
After all isn't it more important that we get people to a safer standard sooner?
And as for the pitot failure circuits I'm sorry I think I am failing to understand your point here. For a PnP student they will be able to keep the same aiming point and the same RPM and the picture will stay the same and they'll trim.
And then in a nil wind day they will fly with a constant airspeed all the way down to flair point and then they will flair. On a windy day they will probably come in with more power and faster which will keep them safer anyway.
Surely that is easier than the Pitch for Speed guesswork?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where did that come from?
Of course the student will know what technique they will be doing they will have sat through a brief on it.
Its you as the checking pilot won't have a clue what they are using because they will be linking there control inputs for cause and affect.
A PnP instructor will think they will be doing that and a pitch for speed instructor will think they are doing that. When in fact they are doing neither.
Its not really easier for every student or pilot for that matter.
Its blinkered instructors who cause the issue demanding a single method is the only correct way which to operate.
Anyway when one of your students has an instrument failure they can roll out the fire engines and give enough runway they will get it in or maybe stall on finals. If they have the wrong angle to the point they are aiming at the have no reference to the speed they are doing. If they are high and to steep they will be to fast and low they will be to slow. They have no way of correcting the profile.
Set the attitude for the configuration and students will quite happily sit at +- 2 knts off the desired approach speed if they are too high they sort it maintaining that speed and if to low the same thing all without the use of the ASI. Also means they have their head out the window more.
Mind will (and one has in the past) will think what was it that fat bastard said? O aye stick that rpm on and that attitude in the window. Wait for a bit until the controls don't feel firm, stick a bit of flap down get that attitude sorted again trim. Approach looks normal stick another bit of flap down sort the attitude again trim. Play with the knobs a bit. Land.
Think o bugger I forgot to declare, h'mm, those folk on pprune are going to not like that. But I wasn't any danger I knew what I was doing, it was just like doing no instrument circuits in my PPL.
And the reason why I feel it is such a good skill to have is because i have had exactly the same failure myself and it really was a none event flying for half an hour in class G through the cairngoms looking out the window with the ASI reading zero. Landed in Dundee pipe reattached or what ever they do to fix these things.
Crack on with teaching your method though the PnP fantics won't listen to the good points of pitch for power. Myself I can and do teach both methods but the over riding method choosen is because it suits the student. Over 80% of my students when i was teaching full time did less than 3 hours in the ciircuit before solo. Mainly because i was anally retentive about making sure the intial lessons had sunk in properly.
If you having students in the circuit for more than 5 hours without going solo have a look at your own methods and philosophy of instructing.
What pilots do and the techniques we use flying heavier hardware is a skill in itself and mostly its to do with energy managment and configuration over a speed range of some 100-200 knts over the approach phase. Yes it is a slightly different skill set and one that takes a bit of getting used to. But forcing pilots to use a skill set appropriate to heavier hardware in spam cans is self defeating and does nobody any favours.
The list is huge
Adding stuff on for gusts
Flying the PAPIS
Using checklists in the air
And the one I loved last year one pilot announced that it was illegal to use more than 5 deg's of bank below 1000ft in a spam can flying VFR. Which you might not know is actually a stabilised approach critrial for CAT on a IMC approach.
Everyone seems to be determined to fly a spam can like its a 747
Of course the student will know what technique they will be doing they will have sat through a brief on it.
Its you as the checking pilot won't have a clue what they are using because they will be linking there control inputs for cause and affect.
A PnP instructor will think they will be doing that and a pitch for speed instructor will think they are doing that. When in fact they are doing neither.
Its not really easier for every student or pilot for that matter.
Its blinkered instructors who cause the issue demanding a single method is the only correct way which to operate.
Anyway when one of your students has an instrument failure they can roll out the fire engines and give enough runway they will get it in or maybe stall on finals. If they have the wrong angle to the point they are aiming at the have no reference to the speed they are doing. If they are high and to steep they will be to fast and low they will be to slow. They have no way of correcting the profile.
Set the attitude for the configuration and students will quite happily sit at +- 2 knts off the desired approach speed if they are too high they sort it maintaining that speed and if to low the same thing all without the use of the ASI. Also means they have their head out the window more.
Mind will (and one has in the past) will think what was it that fat bastard said? O aye stick that rpm on and that attitude in the window. Wait for a bit until the controls don't feel firm, stick a bit of flap down get that attitude sorted again trim. Approach looks normal stick another bit of flap down sort the attitude again trim. Play with the knobs a bit. Land.
Think o bugger I forgot to declare, h'mm, those folk on pprune are going to not like that. But I wasn't any danger I knew what I was doing, it was just like doing no instrument circuits in my PPL.
And the reason why I feel it is such a good skill to have is because i have had exactly the same failure myself and it really was a none event flying for half an hour in class G through the cairngoms looking out the window with the ASI reading zero. Landed in Dundee pipe reattached or what ever they do to fix these things.
Crack on with teaching your method though the PnP fantics won't listen to the good points of pitch for power. Myself I can and do teach both methods but the over riding method choosen is because it suits the student. Over 80% of my students when i was teaching full time did less than 3 hours in the ciircuit before solo. Mainly because i was anally retentive about making sure the intial lessons had sunk in properly.
If you having students in the circuit for more than 5 hours without going solo have a look at your own methods and philosophy of instructing.
What pilots do and the techniques we use flying heavier hardware is a skill in itself and mostly its to do with energy managment and configuration over a speed range of some 100-200 knts over the approach phase. Yes it is a slightly different skill set and one that takes a bit of getting used to. But forcing pilots to use a skill set appropriate to heavier hardware in spam cans is self defeating and does nobody any favours.
The list is huge
Adding stuff on for gusts
Flying the PAPIS
Using checklists in the air
And the one I loved last year one pilot announced that it was illegal to use more than 5 deg's of bank below 1000ft in a spam can flying VFR. Which you might not know is actually a stabilised approach critrial for CAT on a IMC approach.
Everyone seems to be determined to fly a spam can like its a 747
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Falz,
You are correct.
As every instructor knows - if your trajectory and power are correct then you will not stall.
On approach there are two main performance indicators - the runway and the airspeed.
One method keeps the runway picture constant while varying power to maintain the speed.
The other moves the runway piture up and down the window to maintain the speed while varying the power to keep the runway picture constant.
One method says - at top of descent put the constant point on the aiming point and keep it there while adjusting the power to maintain the approach speed.
The other says - lower the nose to x attitude and set about x rpm and wait and see what happens. If you are too low then increase the power and of course pitch up to counteract the speed gain. If you are too high then reduce the power and pitch down to prevent a speed loss - sooo simple eh?
The talk of engine failure, pitot failure and even Non Precision Approach (NPA) is just distraction.
After all we are all teaching CDFA for the non precision approach so we fly non-precisions like ILS these days.
For engine failure both "methods" have the same problem - they have lost one of the inputs but one method spends so long dealing with the constant point that those who learn that way easily recognise where the constant point is.
As for pitot failure? Someone needs to remember that Performance = velocity = path through the air and speed = trajectory and speed = attitude plus power. Look at the last two again!!
You are correct.
As every instructor knows - if your trajectory and power are correct then you will not stall.
On approach there are two main performance indicators - the runway and the airspeed.
One method keeps the runway picture constant while varying power to maintain the speed.
The other moves the runway piture up and down the window to maintain the speed while varying the power to keep the runway picture constant.
One method says - at top of descent put the constant point on the aiming point and keep it there while adjusting the power to maintain the approach speed.
The other says - lower the nose to x attitude and set about x rpm and wait and see what happens. If you are too low then increase the power and of course pitch up to counteract the speed gain. If you are too high then reduce the power and pitch down to prevent a speed loss - sooo simple eh?
The talk of engine failure, pitot failure and even Non Precision Approach (NPA) is just distraction.
After all we are all teaching CDFA for the non precision approach so we fly non-precisions like ILS these days.
For engine failure both "methods" have the same problem - they have lost one of the inputs but one method spends so long dealing with the constant point that those who learn that way easily recognise where the constant point is.
As for pitot failure? Someone needs to remember that Performance = velocity = path through the air and speed = trajectory and speed = attitude plus power. Look at the last two again!!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey MJ I do seem to have poked you with a stick.
Go back to my post; all through my training I was an attitude for airspeed. So no I am not unable to see the benefits of using it. As has been said before it is much easier to use it for FLWOPs.
However you seem to want to hold up the fact that you can and do patter both as all brilliant. I'm saying its confusing especially if the student has been pattered both and they get good enough that you can't tell what they are using anymore.
How on earth do you help them once you aren't quite sure what technique they are using? For that matter do you put it on the training records so that if you are ill and they come in to do some work so the next instructor knows how to help them?
POWER and POINT, what was that about it not working?
I've never been called a fanatic before, thanks.
As for being determined to fly traumahawks like they are 747s...meh. I have no desire to fly the heavy metal I just want to be the best instructor.
[SARCASM] Oh and I think I know how they fix the pitot system when it isn't working, the engineers go out and remove the cover [/SARCASM]
Go back to my post; all through my training I was an attitude for airspeed. So no I am not unable to see the benefits of using it. As has been said before it is much easier to use it for FLWOPs.
However you seem to want to hold up the fact that you can and do patter both as all brilliant. I'm saying its confusing especially if the student has been pattered both and they get good enough that you can't tell what they are using anymore.
How on earth do you help them once you aren't quite sure what technique they are using? For that matter do you put it on the training records so that if you are ill and they come in to do some work so the next instructor knows how to help them?
Anyway when one of your students has an instrument failure they can roll out the fire engines and give enough runway they will get it in or maybe stall on finals. If they have the wrong angle to the point they are aiming at the have no reference to the speed they are doing. If they are high and to steep they will be to fast and low they will be to slow. They have no way of correcting the profile.
O aye stick that rpm on and that attitude in the window.
I've never been called a fanatic before, thanks.
As for being determined to fly traumahawks like they are 747s...meh. I have no desire to fly the heavy metal I just want to be the best instructor.
[SARCASM] Oh and I think I know how they fix the pitot system when it isn't working, the engineers go out and remove the cover
[/SARCASM]
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Near the end of a long, long road
Age: 76
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Of course the student will know what technique they will be doing they will have sat through a brief on it'.
I'm not sure about that. When I was doing my PPL training there was NO briefing before a flight (admittedly this was on Saturday afternoons when the place was manic).
In fact the only proper ground briefing I got was for PFLs and that was only because I was having trouble with them!
To find out more detail, I used to visit the airfield on a rainy day and grab an instructor.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't patter both at the same time
And you put the one you are currently doing in the training records.
The point is that either method could be the best one for that particular student. And your job as a instructor is to be able to adapt to take into account your students mind set (don't know if mind set quite the right way of putting it)
Pitot covers on a tommy that would be a novelty.
The point that you start polishing the approaches is after solo and your getting them to link the control inputs. I must admit I don't put anything in the records about that. But as the approaches will be more than acceptable I havn't had an issue with a fellow instructor querying it. They get to just sit back and enjoy the view as the student takes them back.
Miroku thats unfortunate. I must admit that briefings thankfully have come back more into vogue these days. 10 years ago when I was instructing full time alot of the old school instructors were definately along the lines of brief on the taxi out which is crap. Yes I sometimes had to do it because the boss decided to squeeze an extra trial flight into the brief and debrief time of 2 lessons. In the end it was one of the reasons why I resigned.
And you put the one you are currently doing in the training records.
The point is that either method could be the best one for that particular student. And your job as a instructor is to be able to adapt to take into account your students mind set (don't know if mind set quite the right way of putting it)
Pitot covers on a tommy that would be a novelty.
The point that you start polishing the approaches is after solo and your getting them to link the control inputs. I must admit I don't put anything in the records about that. But as the approaches will be more than acceptable I havn't had an issue with a fellow instructor querying it. They get to just sit back and enjoy the view as the student takes them back.
Miroku thats unfortunate. I must admit that briefings thankfully have come back more into vogue these days. 10 years ago when I was instructing full time alot of the old school instructors were definately along the lines of brief on the taxi out which is crap. Yes I sometimes had to do it because the boss decided to squeeze an extra trial flight into the brief and debrief time of 2 lessons. In the end it was one of the reasons why I resigned.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What pilots do and the techniques we use flying heavier hardware is a skill in itself
The only difference between flying a B747 and a 3 axis microlight it the distance ahead of the aircraft one's brain has to be. Pitch, Roll, Yaw all work the same.
If you are maintaining a constant profile, the throttle(s) are closed and you want to slow down quicker then you need to add some drag - not raise the nose which straight away gets you away from the pitch for speed no matter what type you are flying......even if it is a glider.
That is why some people are very lucky to progress as far as turboprops and will never get beyond that. Others struggle with keeping up with a C172 and others are quite at home in a heavy jet. It has nothing to do with "flying" and more to do with keeping ahead of the game i.e. managing the flight. I know a few very skilled pilots who could no doubt fly a B747 but they would not be able to manage the operation.
This debate is not about flight management it is about flying the approach.
But forcing pilots to use a skill set appropriate to heavier hardware in spam cans is self defeating and does nobody any favours.
The list is huge
Adding stuff on for gusts
Flying the PAPIS
Using checklists in the air
The list is huge
Adding stuff on for gusts
Flying the PAPIS
Using checklists in the air
Flying the PAPIS - mandatory as a minimum for most airfields that have them. The CFE recently had to warn instructors about the dangers of teaching students to make flapless approaches at an angle less than the PAPI's and even if there are no PAPI's then the student should be taught how to judge the runway aspect so that the same approach angle is flown as a minimum.
Unsing checklists in the air - provided that the person who designs the SOPs and checklist has done the job correctly then this should not be a problem. If you find yourself flying something larger than a spam can and get the opportunity to practice the PIC incapicitation scenario in the sim you will find that while operating single pilot (with the autopilot failed
) you are still expected to complete the required checklists from the checklists. Note that I am talking checklists and not the usual crutch do-list of 1,000 items that is prevelent at most FTO's.
And the one I loved last year one pilot announced that it was illegal to use more than 5 deg's of bank below 1000ft in a spam can flying VFR. Which you might not know is actually a stabilised approach critrial for CAT on a IMC approach.
Approach Path
Speed
Configuration
Power setting
Limiting bank angle to 5 degrees during the approach phase would cause chaos on gusty days. Yes is can be such a low limit during landing/ touchdown to account for underslung engines, large wingspans vs short undercarriage and of course the effct of wing sweep.
At Vref in the landing configuration it is safe to apply up to 15 degrees angle of bank and you will find that the safe bank angle is a function of indicated speed and not altitude with the exception of the usual 2 wingspans / 50ft above the surface limitation.
This relationship between bank angle and minimum safe speed you will find is applicable to all aeroplanes. An Aeroplane is an Aeroplane. We teach students to fly aeroplanes.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJ you said 80% of your students were solo in 3 hours.
In that time you managed to patter attitude for airspeed, disregard it due to the student and then patter PnP.
In 3 hours, really?
Seems a bit like you pattered both at the same time to me. For example I've got a student who wants to hear the patter for the climbing lesson twice before we move on. That's about an hour and a half of flying 7.1 and 7.2. If I was suddenly to change the sequence wouldn't it seem to them I was pattering two different methods side by side?
Anyway, yes if PnP wasn't working with a student I would change the technique that I was using to teach the approach. However I couldn't see myself doing it inside three hours unless the student just looked completely baffled throughout the whole circuit lesson.
In that time you managed to patter attitude for airspeed, disregard it due to the student and then patter PnP.
In 3 hours, really?
Seems a bit like you pattered both at the same time to me. For example I've got a student who wants to hear the patter for the climbing lesson twice before we move on. That's about an hour and a half of flying 7.1 and 7.2. If I was suddenly to change the sequence wouldn't it seem to them I was pattering two different methods side by side?
Anyway, yes if PnP wasn't working with a student I would change the technique that I was using to teach the approach. However I couldn't see myself doing it inside three hours unless the student just looked completely baffled throughout the whole circuit lesson.
Gender Faculty Specialist
A question for the pitch for speed gang.
During an approach you encounter a suddenly increasing tailwind, leading to a loss of airspeed and increased sink what do you do?
- Lower the nose to maintain the speed?
- Increase power to maintain the flight path?
- Crash at high power with a lot of nose down stuff going on?
Please ignore the fact that you might go around if it got too unstable, I'm just curious.
During an approach you encounter a suddenly increasing tailwind, leading to a loss of airspeed and increased sink what do you do?
- Lower the nose to maintain the speed?
- Increase power to maintain the flight path?
- Crash at high power with a lot of nose down stuff going on?
Please ignore the fact that you might go around if it got too unstable, I'm just curious.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't do anything different.
The plane will quickly sort its own airspeed out. You will drop below profile and power applied.
I spent a day doing circuits with airbus hardware doing go arounds at 500ft due to wind sheer warnings. I don't know if it was just the fact that we were light or the students were that good we didn't have any problems.
Christ if I can get the Pink Aviator landing consistantly using Pitch for speed it can't be all that hard.
And it was very very rare if at all I did have to resort to PnP the 80% in 2 hours then solo in the third will have all have done it pitch for speed. Its the 20% where you have to start working for your money. And also of course the inherited students with issues.
But to be honest if you have completed the intial air exercises correctly either method will allow you to do 2 hours then solo in the third. There isn't an issue teaching either method intially. The real issue is talent limited instructors taking students into the circuit before they have the basic skills sorted
The plane will quickly sort its own airspeed out. You will drop below profile and power applied.
I spent a day doing circuits with airbus hardware doing go arounds at 500ft due to wind sheer warnings. I don't know if it was just the fact that we were light or the students were that good we didn't have any problems.
Christ if I can get the Pink Aviator landing consistantly using Pitch for speed it can't be all that hard.
And it was very very rare if at all I did have to resort to PnP the 80% in 2 hours then solo in the third will have all have done it pitch for speed. Its the 20% where you have to start working for your money. And also of course the inherited students with issues.
But to be honest if you have completed the intial air exercises correctly either method will allow you to do 2 hours then solo in the third. There isn't an issue teaching either method intially. The real issue is talent limited instructors taking students into the circuit before they have the basic skills sorted
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christ if I can get the Pink Aviator landing consistantly using Pitch for speed it can't be all that hard.
2 hours in the circuit then solo - why the rush to solo?
How do you cover the normal circuit, glides, flapless, efato's, recoveries from bounces and baloons, go-arounds properly in 2 hours which is probably 1 hour 40 in the air? never mind how you can fit the various pre-flight briefs in.
I think that you have been reading too much from the patter manual:
Instructor Demonstrates Glide Approach
Student Practises
"Good, lets move on"
Instructor Demonstrates EFATO
Student practises
"Good, lets move on"
In the real world it runs more like - Instructor demonstrates / student practises and makes mistakes / instructor either provides verbal instruction / stiudent does a bit better / student practises again and agin and they get it right......werl done let's take a break.
---------------
Anyone know an operator who permits base checks to start or continue when there is windsheer?
Oh lovely, lets get these guys straight off the type rating course and put them in the circuit with some extra challenges. Silly me for thinking that a TRI/TRE always complies with the Part D and the specified limits on VMC, windspeed, crosswind, gusts and turbulence. Not to mention the prohibition on anything unusual in the base check.
Talk about living in dreamland?
You are entitled to your opinion regarding pitch for speed vs point and power so you don't need to put in all this extra rubbish which detracts from your argument.
Of course you can't answer what I have asked about your pitot failure comments, NPA comments and so forth so in the presence of silence from you on these matters I rest my case as they say!!!!
Last edited by DFC; 18th Aug 2010 at 22:34.
I've only just looked at this as It has been done to death on more than one thread in the past.
My take is that it's "Horses for courses". Most of my instruction was done in the RAF where the P and P technique was the SOP in nealry all cases. This was due to the fact that the product was ultimately (ideally) destined for fast jets where the usual technique is to put the VVIP (Velocity Vector Impact Point) of the Head Up Display on the point you want to touch down and drive it down on power, usually with the AoA (Angle of Attack) as the main reference. A true P and P technique.
The one exception in the inventry was the aircraft I spent three years reaching on - the Chipmunk. This was largely because the full flap limiting speed of 71 knots was quite close to the approach speed of 60 knots (65 in some cases) and there was small margin with ptoential for an overstress if the P and P technique were used. The students then went on to the JP/Tucano and learned the P and P technique, in a coule of circuits usually. It was certainly quite relevant in the Tucano which actually had an eye level AoA guage and an AoA indexer - which due to a monumental cock up was still referenced to the much lighter Embraer version and didn't work properly.
Later, at my first civilan club we used P and P (in PA28s) as the CFI favoured it. Personally, I find it is easier for the student to get their heads around, particulalry if they weren't born Chuck Yeager. I have also tought pitch for speed in the flying club environment, I have found it's much harder. In fact, with one student who couldn't grasp the concept and we were spending ages in the circuit just trying to sort out her final approach, I then tried P and P and she got it straight away with the comment "Why didn't you show me this earlier?".
And in my experience, P and P leads to more consistant landings at the desired touchdown point.
My take is that it's "Horses for courses". Most of my instruction was done in the RAF where the P and P technique was the SOP in nealry all cases. This was due to the fact that the product was ultimately (ideally) destined for fast jets where the usual technique is to put the VVIP (Velocity Vector Impact Point) of the Head Up Display on the point you want to touch down and drive it down on power, usually with the AoA (Angle of Attack) as the main reference. A true P and P technique.
The one exception in the inventry was the aircraft I spent three years reaching on - the Chipmunk. This was largely because the full flap limiting speed of 71 knots was quite close to the approach speed of 60 knots (65 in some cases) and there was small margin with ptoential for an overstress if the P and P technique were used. The students then went on to the JP/Tucano and learned the P and P technique, in a coule of circuits usually. It was certainly quite relevant in the Tucano which actually had an eye level AoA guage and an AoA indexer - which due to a monumental cock up was still referenced to the much lighter Embraer version and didn't work properly.
Later, at my first civilan club we used P and P (in PA28s) as the CFI favoured it. Personally, I find it is easier for the student to get their heads around, particulalry if they weren't born Chuck Yeager. I have also tought pitch for speed in the flying club environment, I have found it's much harder. In fact, with one student who couldn't grasp the concept and we were spending ages in the circuit just trying to sort out her final approach, I then tried P and P and she got it straight away with the comment "Why didn't you show me this earlier?".
And in my experience, P and P leads to more consistant landings at the desired touchdown point.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloody hell, not this old chestnut again...
For aircraft with high inertia, Point and Power works best.
For aircraft with low inertia, Pitch works better.
However in reality, you never actually do one without the other on a "normal" approach and so I struggle to understand why it becomes such a hotly debated issue. Fly the damn aeroplane in the best manner that suits it, don't over complicate it and force it to respond to something that doesn't suit it.
When flying a powered approach, then the throttle needs to be adjusted everytime the pitch is, if you want to fly a steady approach.
If you are flying an unpowered approach, then what's so difficult about having to use just the pitch attitude to control everything?
For aircraft with high inertia, Point and Power works best.
For aircraft with low inertia, Pitch works better.
However in reality, you never actually do one without the other on a "normal" approach and so I struggle to understand why it becomes such a hotly debated issue. Fly the damn aeroplane in the best manner that suits it, don't over complicate it and force it to respond to something that doesn't suit it.
When flying a powered approach, then the throttle needs to be adjusted everytime the pitch is, if you want to fly a steady approach.
If you are flying an unpowered approach, then what's so difficult about having to use just the pitch attitude to control everything?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding 3hrs to solo.
I was just perusing my first logbook. It would appear that a chap called Norman Buddin sent me solo after 2:10 of cct training and 7:45 in total - I appear to have survived. (No, I was never a SkyGod).
It does make me wonder why we now spend weeks getting student pilots to solo standard. Has the standard changed, are people less capable, or are we (instructors) more risk averse?
I was just perusing my first logbook. It would appear that a chap called Norman Buddin sent me solo after 2:10 of cct training and 7:45 in total - I appear to have survived. (No, I was never a SkyGod).
It does make me wonder why we now spend weeks getting student pilots to solo standard. Has the standard changed, are people less capable, or are we (instructors) more risk averse?