Odd? landing technique (PA28) wanted by school

[foxmoth]

Mach Jump - looked in a few books and it did not say that, also, if you read in the landing technique it says approach with power but it does not say when to reduce it, when they say "power off" they could easily mean after the roundout, certainly it is easier to get a better landing in that way, and AFAIK the discussion was not talking about short field anyway.

[9 lives]

For my experience, flying faster will afford more crisp control, which might seem like better control for gusts. I have only ever had one circumstance in which I aborted an approach (still at 100 feet up) because it was so gusty that I did not feel I had adequate control of the plane. That was a type with "heavier" ailerons, and in hind sight, I was just not skilled enough with that plane at the time.

Low wing planes react better to ground effect, so flaps may seem less important, but I still like full flaps for landing, and "takeoff flap" for takeoff, rather than less.

In my opinion, if pilots are to be trained the techniques for landing an A320, they should be training on an A320 or sim. The fact that you can abuse a GA trainer to emulate an airliner, does not mean you should!

[Sillert,V.I.]

Originally Posted by Step Turn

In my opinion, if pilots are to be trained the techniques for landing an A320, they should be training on an A320 or sim. The fact that you can abuse a GA trainer to emulate an airliner, does not mean you should!

I couldn't agree more - I'm just observing what seems to be happening in certain European schools and suggesting an explanation as to why someone is being taught what most here are agreeing is an incorrect technique for landing a warrior.

Personally I think if we are going to put folks into the RHS of a jet airliner with a couple of hundred hours or so, they should never be let anywhere near a light aircraft - we need to use all those hours to teach them what is actually relevant to the job they are ultimately going to be doing.

[Johnm]

Personally I think if we are going to put folks into the RHS of a jet airliner with a couple of hundred hours or so, they should never be let anywhere near a light aircraft - we need to use all those hours to teach them what is actually relevant to the job they are ultimately going to be doing.

That's precisely what led to AF447, two light aircraft pilots wouldn't have crashed that aircraft, they'd just have flown power and attitude S&L until they could sort themselves out

[9 lives]

I feel a new topic coming on... I'll post in A&CC....

[foxmoth]

No matter what they are teaching future airline pilots the instructors should know the correct technique and be able to cope with someone who is not looking to fly commercially using it!

[Mach Jump]

Foxmoth.

when they say "power off" they could easily mean after the roundout,

I don't think so.

If they did, it would introduce an uncontrolled variable.

Without the assumption of 'power off' at the screen, the graphs are meaningless.


MJ

[Talkdownman]

Originally Posted by foxmoth

if you read in the landing technique it says approach with power but it does not say when to reduce it, when they say "power off" they could easily mean after the roundout,

As long as it doesn't say "take off power"...

[9 lives]

if you read in the landing technique it says approach with power but it does not say when to reduce it, when they say "power off" they could easily mean after the roundout,

Being a "they" sometimes, from the right seat, I will require that the power be reduced to idle somewhere around the downwind to base turn, and remain so until a gentle touchdown for some landings, until that skill is second nature. My candidates will not solo until this is demonstrated with repeated skill onto the runway and the water.

The aircraft is required to be able to safely land this way, so should the pilot be! AKA a forced approach. Full control of a certified aircraft is assured up to its maneuvering limits power off, down to the stall speed - or it will not be certified. Power or "Slipstream" are not factors in maintaining control of a well flown GA aircraft, within it's intended operational envelope.

GA aircraft are not permitted to be designed to require power to safely land. The only thing that power should be doing for a pilot on final approach is allowing "adjustment" of the point along the runway where the plane will touch down as gently as it would have with a full power off approach.

Otherwise, for poor flare entry, power may be used to recover, but if this is needed, the landing was not great to begin with. I agree that some types like to be landed carrying a bit of power, but this is a crutch to fully capable pilot technique.

I may encourage the application of full flap from half to be late, or in the flare, as on some types, that can speed things up a lot, and introduce an opportunity to undershoot - so best be nicely over the landing surface before full flaps power off in some types.

Sec. 23.143

General.

[(a) The airplane must be safely controllable and maneuverable during all flight phases including--
.........
(6) Landing (power on and power off) with the wing flaps extended and retracted.]

[TheOddOne]

I agree that some types like to be landed carrying a bit of power, but this is a crutch to fully capable pilot technique.

Personally, I find the P28R Arrow IV requires more back pressure in the flare than I can comfortably achieve (and I'm of above average build and not weak in the arm!). A 'trickle' of power does aid immensely, as does trimming in the flare, neither is desirable in my view; the first extends the landing distance and the second diverts attention away from other matters (and gives an unwanted pitch up trim in a full power go-around). Altogether an unpleasant though certified aircraft in the circuit.

TOO

[Cows getting bigger]

I prefer to think of power as another control, rather than something that should be on/off.

As far as landings are concerned, there are numerous reasons why power should/could/shouldn't/couldn't be used and one size certainly doesn't fit all. A competent pilot should be able to land with or without power depending upon the circumstances which include aircraft type, stability of approach ('cos all of us get it wrong sometimes), LDA, etc etc.

[mary meagher]

all of which reminds me of the time I was flying the final approach to Annapolis in a Piper Cruiser, into a 20 mph headwind.

A hotshot Navy pilot, probably most adept at carrier landings, got impatient and cut in front of me! (OK, the road traffic was overtaking as well, but he was quite rude!)

I was at the time flying with a local instructor. It gave us a certain amount of satisfaction to watch that Navy Warrior land fast and firmly on that short runway.... as his undercarriage was not up to Navy standards, and his wheels gave way.
We had to go round until they dragged the poor Warrior out of the way.

[Pace]

As CGB says there are a number of landing techniques which are required for different conditions not one.
1.3 X stall is just a number allowing enough energy to transition to a flair and then to hold off to touchdown as near the stall as possible.
An AOA is far more accurate but not carried on most light aircraft.

That technique would not be advisable in strong gust winds and with a good headwind component it maybe that you fly it on at higher speed.

Pace

[Pull what]

In my opinion, if pilots are to be trained the techniques for landing an A320, they should be training on an A320 or sim. The fact that you can abuse a GA trainer to emulate an airliner, does not mean you should!

Not sure what the point is you are trying to make but having flown the A320 (and the A319 and A321) I can assure you that all aircraft land in tbe same way.

Landing an aircraft is generally the product of 3 attitude changes and a power reduction, there could not be anything simpler (even a guy who had never flown an aircraft did it at Humberside at night after the pilot died).

You stabilise the approach, you cross then threshold at tbe correct airspeed and height and you flare at the appropriate height.

Unless you fully understand and can master those attitude changes you will never land an aircraft well.

Most instructors are never shown how to teach landings and as a result can only show landings and there is a big difference between showing someone how to land and teaching them how to land.

So, my tried and tested (overseas) way of landing a Warrior: Approach 65kts with full flap, roundout and power to idle (apply crosswind correction as desired), flare....keep the aeroplane flying 6 inches off the ground for as long as possible..touchdown at minimum flying speed on the mains with a squeak from the stall warner and warm applause from the passengers. This seems in line with the POH.

Ive never seen a POH call for flying an aircraft at 6 inches above a runway although a lot of women say many males have very bad judgement where 6 inches is concerned

The Warrior has to be one of the most simple aircraft to land (apart from the A319) so why complicate it with bull****?

Being a "they" sometimes, from the right seat, I will require that the power be reduced to idle somewhere around the downwind to base turn, and remain so until a gentle touchdown for some landings, until that skill is second nature. My candidates will not solo until this is demonstrated with repeated skill onto the runway and the water.

Also being a 'they' (sitting in both seats), I require power to be reduced to idle at an appropriate place, dependant on the type of approach and height and I am not too bothered about a gentle touchdown but insist on excellent go around awareness and execution and my candidates will not solo until that is demonstrated. Landings can bust nosewheels, go arounds can save them!

[Pace]

i agree with Pull Whats post above I also state that I do not understand the reference to many of trundling down the approach at a set speed and with full flap?

I would only take full flap when assured of landing and may use a higher speed initially on the approach progressively reducing till taking full flap brings me back to my VREF speed for landing with as constant a power as possible.

stalling on may give you the published stopping distance but with a 20/gusting 40 kt wind do you really want to be hanging above the runway 6 feet up near the stall floating merrily down that runway with a gust maybe lifting you to 15 feet near the stall while your waiting for it to sink on the runway or field alongside ?

I think not! There are time when you fly it on and times when you bang it on there are times when you will use the full flap VREF! times when you will use less than full flap with the appropriate VREF for that setting and times when headwind and gust factors determine a higher VREF speed. As stated VREF is just a number a formula.

Landing an aircraft is not about stalling it on. It can be but there are other ways and a rounded pilot should be comfortable using a number of methods to suit the conditions of the day

Pace

[rarelyathome]

Pace.

Using your brain to use a technique appropriate for the aircraft and conditions - that'll never catch on

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Not sure what the point is you are trying to make but having flown the A320 (and the A319 and A321) I can assure you that all aircraft land in tbe same way.

Now, now, now don't go confusing these people.

[9 lives]

I can assure you that all aircraft land in tbe same way.

Well... All aircraft should be landed gently, and under control, there might be some nuances as to how this is achieved. The approach to that can vary greatly. The pilot must understand and be able to execute an approach, which is appropriate to put the plane at a place and speed which will enable a good landing.

I suspect that some airliner pilot training focuses more on get the plane on the ground in the touchdown zone, rather than get it to the touchdown zone, and then finesse a good landing.

I worry that students are not willing to pay for the proper instruction, which they therefore do not receive on many topics, including landing. The instructor brings the student to the skill level where they can get the plane on the ground damage free, and leaves it at that. On budget, skills and inspiration lacking. When I am training, I will be training the owner in their aircraft. Thus, it is not difficult to convince them to apply more effort to a good landing to reduce wear and tear, once I demonstrate the difference. I can't blame a flying instructor, if the system and the student don't demand better training. I will blame them if they don't apply themselves to be at least inspire really good landings by demonstration.

[Wirbelsturm]

I suspect that some airliner pilot training focuses more on get the plane on the ground in the touchdown zone, rather than get it to the touchdown zone, and then finesse a good landing.

I can assure you that, after many years of flying 'flying machines', I take as much pride in finessing the landings of an Airliner at 250+ tonnes and 145kts as I do in landing a small GA aircraft. For me it comes down to pride, professionalism and applying the correct technique for the class of aircraft flown.

FWIW I think the OP has a nice technique and is exactly what I use in GA aircraft. If an instructor told me to 'plonk' it on because 'that's what the airlines do' I would politely suggest that the PA28 isn't an airliner!

Happy flying.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Each airplane will have its own approach speed and stall speed.

Fly the airplane as outlined in the operating handbook and be accurate in your flying and you will be safe.

Using power after the round out only extends the time it stays in the air.

If the attitude for that airplane is correct for the touch down and the rate of descent is correct the landing will be safe....as long as the thing is not drifting sideways.

Each airplane has its own touch down attitude, think of the space shuttle compared to a light airplane.

P.S. the space shuttle pilots did not use power after the round out.