Cessna 172 landing techniques - what is the difference?

[Cows getting bigger]

I think we're actually saying the same thing, more or less.

[Pace]

CowsGettingBigger
I am aware we both know what we are talking about
Instructors tend towards the pitch for speed in low powered singles as the most important factor is to keep the student away from high AOA situations.
Me? I like to regard the whole thing as energy management,throttle and column.
In the citation we don't even pitch for stall recovery!
It is nose on the horizon and power out

Pace

[englishal]

Do you stall the Citation regularly

Actually it really depends where you are on the drag curve. If you are getting on the back of it then pitch for speed is the main thing. If you are flying an ILS at 100 kts you pitch for glidepath.

I learned about landings from my CPL examiner, he showed me a very short field in a C172 (then made me repeat it), coming in right on the back of the drag curve at about 50 kts for a precision landing at the end of the runway. He then stomped the brakes and had us stopped in 100m (172SP).

(He also "failed" my flaps just after turning a tight base and wouldn't let me go around and said that if I touched the runway early I'd failed Used floated along about 4500' of runway after crossing the threshold at about 100 kts . He said he was hungry and didn't want to waste time taxying....oh and that I'd passed!)

[Pace]

Englishal
Not on day to day ops I have annual recurrents sometimes in the sim sometimes in the aircraft. In the aircraft I have an old style examiner who puts you through the works including stall recoveries in different configs.
It goes against the grain to hold the nose up in a stall and just to go for full thrust! You power out but that's how it's done.
Short landings In a single I prefer high drag high power as you get a more precise touchdown point and more definate touchdown rather than missing the numbers and floating down the strip in an engine off glide approach.

Pace

[Pace]

As an addendum

I never understand pilots who claim gliding distance in the event of an engine failure as an arguement to support this method.

The least likely period for an engine failure is in the relatively low powered approach and landing phase.

Infact in a glide approach with the throttel closed you wouldnt know that you had an engine problem until you needed the power?

You are more likely to misjudge your glide and end up missing the numbers or too fast trying to get the numbers or floating down the runway admiring the scenery than in a powered approach.

I fully understand that instructors dont want students in high power high drag situations so the safest way for the inexperienced is a glide approach well away from HAOA situations.

For more experienced pilots juggle airframe potential energy and engine energy and drag to your advantage. It is far more accurate precise and ultimately safe method as well as giving more airfow over the wings, elevator, and rudder!

Pace

[Mark1234]

I tend towards a 'glide', approach by default because of primacy - it's what I was taught from the get-go. I can do whatever, but I really hate seeing aircraft dragged in on a long flat approach against full flap at (it seems inevitably) high airspeed. I've heard this described as a 'stabilised' approach, but to me it just looks like bad flying. Sorry.

Getting that off my chest, there was a point Two actually!
1) For me, the gliding range arguament is more about keeping the circuit sensible, rather than leaving the ATZ on every lap.
2) Given my 'primacy', I'm quite happy putting the plane where I want it (almost) every time off a glide. Usually I start somewhat high, and sideslip the excess. I'm actually more inclined to make a horlicks of it if I try the powered variant - so is it that the powered variant is more/less accurate, or is it just that you do what you're used to better than what you're not?
2.5) Airspeed and AOA ought to be entirely independent of the glide vs powered arguament. Pick an airspeed and stick to it either way, and know why you picked that..

[FlyingKiwi_73]

Infact in a glide approach with the throttel closed you wouldnt know that you had an engine problem until you needed the power?

This to me is the crux of the disscussion, glide aproaches have their uses for practice (i do em, and they are fun), but do it all the time as your landing technique and one day on short final you may find some sink (on my airfeild we cross a river on short final and this often happens) you need to use that throttle, cold engine? (are you using carb heat on these glides) what happens if it fails? you'll land short and won't feel so clever.

Considering this guy is a student i'm surprised you instructors aren't all over this as a potentially dangerous practice.

[Pilot DAR]

what happens if it fails? you'll land short and won't feel so clever.

Letting alone for the moment, my sensativity to over cooling, or shock cooling engines, I do not see it as much of a risk, in this sense - as long as your "aim point" is a little down the runway. If you open the throttle find it has quit (like a cub I used to fly), you're just going to land more short than you'd planned - there should still be some runway there. If the runway is so short that you are aiming for the button, I'm thinking that you want a power on approach for a precision touchdown, so you're covered.

It is always a choice to fly a slightly faster glide, and burn off the extra few knots in a last minute sideslip, or the flare. The effect will be similar to carrying power all the way down, though the plane will still slow down more quickly in the flare, so be ready, and not high.

If in doubt, carry some power. Particularly if the plane is unfamiliar, or the eye height is different to what you're used to. The power will give you time to "feel" for the runway, and if you muff it, the power is already resulting in the nose being higher, so the plane will be more tolerant of a premature touchdown.

[SNS3Guppy]

We are back to the old arguement of pitch for speed or power for speed neither which is totally correct as it should be pitch for energy power for energy.

That argument is largely perpetuated by airline pilots who fly big airplanes that do require such thinking. In a half-million pound airplane, one doesn't have the operational flexibility that one has in a 172, when landing. Stable approaches are critical, and one is more rigidly locked into concepts such as power for speed and pitch for the glidepath. These debates end up trickling to a light airplane discussion, and it's not nearly so critical a subject (it's also worth noting that while pitch and power are very interchangeable on a light airplane while conducting an approach, they're a lot more interchangeable in a big airplane, too; more so than most of the airline-types who create these arguments may realize. It's also worth remembering that a lot of those folks do far more of their approaches and landings through automation, so their view of what you should or shouldn't be doing in a light airplane may not necessarily be your best source when learning to land the 172).

If you're high on the glidepath, you may elect to reduce power, or you may elect to pitch down, or you may elect to reduce power and pitch down. You already know that decreasing your angle of attack (pitching down) will result in a speed increase, but then if you're also pulling power back, perhaps not. Flying is the art of managing the responses you can expect from the airplane in the context of the environment in which you're operating. For example, on a calm, cold day you might expect the airplane to nose over slightly and go down when you pull the throttle to idle during an approach. On a hot day in the desert, you may find that due to the environment and thermals, you're going up and speed is increasing. So it's what you expect the airplane to do, coupled with the reality of what's really going on.

Don't get locked into a rote formula of pitch for this, power for that. Don't get locked into a practice of always landing with flaps, or full flaps. You've got all kinds of flexibility in a light airplane. Use it.

Be careful with slips. I was a slipping fool for years. I grew up as a kid flying airplanes with no flaps; slips were the order of the day. I also grew up working on airplanes, and have seen what little bit holds the vertical stab onto the airplane, and the damage that can be done to that little bit. I've seen cracked bolts and vertical stab attach brackets. I've seen damage to the airplane, fatigue, cracking stress. There's a lot of stress on that vertical stab when you're slipping.

I used to slip large, four engine airplanes, fully cross controlled, down canyons while working fires. I threw them around like a super cub. I don't do that anymore. In fact, if I do slips any more in any airplanes, they're mild at best. I learned after many years, many thousands of hours, and a lot of hands-on inspection and maintenance that what I believed as a kid isn't necessarily the best or safest way. You should be able to slip, you should understand the slip, but you shouldn't have to slip, if you can help it. It's better to plan ahead so that you don't have to.

When you do slip, however, remember that unlike adding flap (assuming you're in an airplane that has flaps), the slip is "free." You can throw sink into that approach and pull it out with abandon with a little cross-control action. Don't want the drag and the sink any more? Release that rudder and aileron, and it's instantly gone. You can't do that by retracting flaps; you lose lift and increase sink. Coming out of a slip does just the opposite; you're increasing lift without the penalty that comes from retracting flaps.

The notion of always being in a position to glide to the runway has always struck me as a foolish idea. There are many aircraft and many situation in which one can't glide to the runway. I've heard a lot of instructors insist that their students always be in a position that they can glide to the runway. While I'll fully support the position that one should always be able to glide to a landing in a light airplane, there's absolutely no reason why one should always be able to make the runway. Think about it; two minutes after you take off, unless you're staying in the traffic pattern and flying a tight downwind, you're not going to "make" the runway. Why should it be an issue when you're approaching to land?

[subsonicsubic]

I fly my mates 172 around the Philippines. We land at RPLC ( 13000 feet plus) and at Woodland (1000 feet approx) and lots in between.

I have never considered pitch alone or power for that fact. On final I'm adding/ reducing pitch and power dependant on conditions, view, airspeed and what my "pants" are telling me.

Light GA singles react very well to a burst of power if needed and I enjoy the options this give me on approach.

At RPLC I'll often spool in under power and have that wonderfull option of trading a long boring taxi for a long, sweet greaser and a quick run to the ramp.

Saying that, I almost topped myself getting under the wires and below the power curve in a 172 that "tempted" me with 40 degrees during a spot landing competition...

Every landing is and can be markedly different. It's something I celebrate in the 172.

Best,

SSS

[Pilot DAR]

Interesting as these comments are, they seem to me to somewhat perpetuate the "fly it by rote" approach, rather than "being at one" with the plane. I entirely accept that there comes a size, class, and purpose of aircraft where flying by rote is the most appropriate way. A C 172, or most other GA aircraft, are not in this category.

A 172, like most light aircraft, will respond very well to being flown by feel. So feel it, and use all the elements of flying available to you, in harmony, to get the result you want. I agree that it is unwise to actually fly the aircraft so as to conflict with good airmanship, or the recommended techniques for the aircraft, but other than that, try a varity of techniques - don't just fly it by rote, or "the numbers".

[Pace]

I've heard this described as a 'stabilised' approach, but to me it just looks like bad flying. Sorry.

Mark

There must be an awful lot of bad pilots flying heavier stuff around the world.

Its nothing to do with the size of the aircraft but being in harmony with all the forces drag and energy that is available to your aircraft.

I can understand a student whoi is not in harmony with all those factors where the instructor says push for speed as that keeps the student on the right side of the drag curve but as he gains experience he should practice energy and drag management and getting a true feel for his aeroplane?

Pace

[FlyingKiwi_73]

I agree with Pace - Thats why gliding is an excellent opportunity to learn kinetic energy management, you learn very quickly about how to manage the 'profile'.

My issue with this post was that a student is closing the throttle to perform a glide approach to land, he prefers this, maybe he has speed management issues? has trouble trimming with idle power on at 70 knts? i know i did.

Aside from the shock cooling issue, A student i'm not sure would know what to do if encountering sink on short final, especially with first stage or worse 2nd stage flap deployed, the natural reaction would be to add power and raise the nose, and i can guarantee this won't be a gentle application increasing the likely hood of losing the power right at the point you need it

At my airfield landing short on almost every runway would probably kill you, this may not be the same on some of the larger tarmac airfields in the UK, but I'm sure those drains, gutters or runway edges would bend a nose wheel quite happily.

[Mark1234]

Pace: I suspect we're talking about different things - I've seen (or rather not seen) plenty of aifcraft being dragged to the field with full flap, heaps of throttle, on such a flat approach that they're hidden behind the hedge. That's certainly not 'in harmony'. No issue with being 'on profile', but there's a matter of where, and how.

If you're flying something that approaches at circa 150kts and the engines can't go below flight idle of something like 50% thrust (and it weighs a few 100 tons..) you're going to need to be 'on profile' a hell of a long way further back than in a 172 cessna - I don't really see how 'one size fits all'.

[SNS3Guppy]

Every landing is and can be markedly different. It's something I celebrate in the 172.

Perhaps celebrating arriving at a point when you can make all your landings as similar as possible would be a better goal.

I can do whatever, but I really hate seeing aircraft dragged in on a long flat approach against full flap at (it seems inevitably) high airspeed. I've heard this described as a 'stabilised' approach, but to me it just looks like bad flying. Sorry.

Whomever described that to you as an example of a stabilized approach has provided you with an incorrect understanding.

A stabilized approach means that you are configured and stable, ready to land. How it's applied may vary, but if you're passing through short final fully configured, at a stable speed, at a stable rate of descent, with the airplane under control, then you're flying a stabilized approach to landing.

If you're making that approach to land under instrument conditions, then you should be on speed, configured, and stable by a thousand feet above the field at a minimum. This frees you to concentrate on flying the approach precisely at a critical time, rather than trying to get the airplane under control.

Most airlines use stable approach criteria that require the aircraft to be in a stabilized state by a thousand feet in instrument conditions, and five hundred in visual conditions. The aircraft may be slowing to it's final speed until that point, and one may be configuring the airplane during the approach (indeed, standard practice in most transport category airplanes for a precision approach is to apply the final configuration at the glideslope intercept point, or for non-precision, to be fully configured before reaching that point).

This works well in light airplanes, too. Unless you're an ag pilot, you probably shouldn't be rolling wings level at 50' above the field as you hit the threshold in a tight turn, while snapping out flaps and pulling power to idle. That would be an unstabilized approach.

It's hard to make a good landing out of a bad approach to land. Make a good approach to land, and you greatly increase your chances of making a good landing.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

If you're making that approach to land under instrument conditions, then you should be on speed, configured, and stable by a thousand feet above the field at a minimum.

Not how I was taught to do approaches on my IMCr course, not least because it would take about a day and a half to come down the approach with full flap.

[Piltdown Man]

A powered approach will generally be a flatter approach and appears to be the normal approach a most airfields. They appear to be flown a bit faster and a the circuit a little wider as a result. At many busy GA airfields this will allow more traffic to be circuit at the same time. So far all of these are upsides for the flying club and airfield operator. One of downside happens when it all goes quiet up the front. Where will you go? The other is when conforming to a traffic pattern, you'll often conform to the speed. In my opinion, most G/A aircraft are flown far to fast on approach. Long runways mask the real problem and that is, you may not have learnt and practiced the correct technique for performance landings. So when you HAVE to do one...

A glide approach is a nifty procedure for keeping the circuit small and tight and the noise to a minimum. When flown correctly, you are insured against engine failure (by definition) and the result will generally be well aimed touchdown and a short ground roll. The downside will often be seen when someone pulls one of these out of the bag, unannounced, in the middle of a crowded circuit. Potentially they'll be descending over the top of people on finals and be totally unaware of their presence. Cooling could be another problem as could carb. ice under the right (wrong?) conditions.

Give me the choice, and I go for something between the two. But no matter which approach you do, getting the picture and numbers right is what its all about.

PM

[SNS3Guppy]

A powered approach shouldn't be any "flatter." A standard glide path should be used. Vary it with flap use, slips, etc, but don't fly flat simply because you've got power.

Whether you're flying a flapless glide or a full-flap power on approach, your arrival to the runway should look remarkably similar each time.

Not how I was taught to do approaches on my IMCr course, not least because it would take about a day and a half to come down the approach with full flap.

Never overlook the possibility of having been taught incorrectly.

[FirstOfficer]

YouTube - What a scare!

Talking About landings...

[subsonicsubic]

Perhaps celebrating arriving at a point when you can make all your landings as similar as possible would be a better goal.

I think my post explains quite clearly why I employ differing techniques...