Bounce, bounce, bounce

[Airdog]

Had a nasty scare today on my third solo flight in Cessna 172.
Wind was light variable NW-SW.
My instructor mentioned before take-off that previous student had encountered one unusual low thermal which caused sudden upward pitch and veering to right shortly before touchdown on rwy 32.
After completing four or five touch and gos with instructor on rwy 32 and another three or four on rwy 21 (nothing out of the ordinary in landings which I thought ranged from not bad to good), instructor let me go solo for one final circuit on rwy 21.
No problems on circuit but I crossed the threshold a touch fast at 68knots. I applied flare as usual but had a hard landing. Aircraft bounced a couple of feet and then bounced again, and again, the third time probably about eight feet. Fourth bounce was not as high and I managed to keep the plane on the ground after that but had to brake sharply as I was quickly running out of runway.
I pulled up quite shaken, but not as shaken as my poor instructor who had watched all this.
He told me he thought I was coming in a bit fast and that he had noticed the plane's tail had suddenly lifted causing a more nose-down attitude just before touchdown. This could have been caused by a thermal. He agreed a go-around was not an option after the first bounce.
My reaction to the first bounce was to pull back the stick, but it is possible I might not have kept it fully back throughout. I was quite amazed how easily the Cessna bounced (ballooned) and how difficult it was to control and keep on the ground.
This was by far my worst experience as a student pilot so far, but I do want to learn from it. I am flying again on Friday and hope to get my confidence back.
Any advice, suggestions gratefully accepted.

[Flyin'Dutch']

AD,

These things can happen! Am sure you will be soon back in the groove.

Surprised to read that your instructor reckoned that there was no room for a G/A after the first bounce.

The best remedy for a bounce or balloon is usually a G/A.

Can you elaborate?

FD

[Airdog]

FD,

Thanks for the encouragement.

I guess G/A was not an option because first bounce was only a couple of feet? It just got progressively worse from there.

AD

[strafer]

Airdog,

afraid you're probably going to have to wait for another couple of hundred hours or so for every landing to be a corker.

Don't worry about, you're inexperienced and you're learning. It will get better and it will get easier.

[Dale Harris]

172's will do that every time if you are a bit fast. Either that or they'll float forever. They just wanna keep flying....... Keep the numbers right and they will reward you tho.

[FlyingForFun]

Strafer, I have a couple of hundred hours, and I promise you that every landing is not a corker for me. Don't know how long it takes to get to that point, but from speaking to some far more experienced pilots than me, I'd guess the answer is never!

I agree with FD, though - it's very hard to conceive of a situation where you can't go around, even after the wheels have touched. I've done it myself, many times. The only thing I can think of would be if there were obstacles at the end of the field, but I can't believe that would be the case at a field that's used for training.

Have a chat with your instructor, and ask him why he thought a go around wouldn't have been appropriate. And don't worry about the odd bounced landing.

FFF
---------------

[Say again s l o w l y]

That's 172's for you! They can be very twitchy if you are too fast, or have any x-wind. It really should have been a go around after the first bounce. I can't see why it would not be an option. It is a classic Cessna accident to wipe the nose wheel off on the third or fourth bounce. Seen it happen a couple of times, and it is not pretty!

Not sure I buy the 'thermal' theory though. More likely to be pilot induced, especially at the stage of your training. You did the right thing in not pushing forward after the bounce/float however. That invariably would lead to a loss of nose wheel.

Chin up and get back into it straight away. It's only a minor issue and practise is the only thing to cure it.

One little tip, when approaching the flare, make sure you are looking at the horizon, physically lift your head up, it allows your peripheral vision to work and it is much easier to judge vertical rates of descent.

Good luck!

[Circuit Basher]

Airdog - sounds like you got caught out a bit, which is not unknown for pretty well any pilot. Good to hear that you're OK - as others have said already, a 172 can be a bit of a sod if you're carrying too much speed (=energy) into the flare. The sprung undercarriage will also reward an excessive sink rate onto the runway with a nice bouncy landing!

Just a word of caution - not trying to teach you to suck eggs here, but may be worth getting an engineer to do heavy landing checks on the aircraft, just in case there is some latent damage on the aircraft. Just would wish to avoid the person after you (or someone in a few weeks time) having a nosegear collapse as a result of undiscovered problems from today. I was a group owner in a PA28 that had a buckled firewall discovered on a C of A check, with no reported heavy landings in the log. That had 2 concerns - one was, there couldn't be an insurance claim to cover the repairs as no-one owned up to it, secondly, there had been a real risk of a nosegear collapse in the intervening period.

Good luck - it'll come in the end (I've been saying that for the last 175 hrs - I still manage to pull off some shocking landingson occasions!! ;) :D).

[Gertrude the Wombat]

There's a mindset thing ... on occasion I've caught myself thinking "I've decided to land" and stopped thinking about going around. (Eg when floating sideways towards the edge of the runway.) Almost always wrong. During the sequence you describe the pilot shouldn't have reached this stage - he should always have had going around as a live option.

I have occasionally suprised an instructor by going around from a landing he thinks I could have rescued(*) - maybe I could, maybe I couldn't, but a go-around is never wrong when training and a go-around is never wrong on the test. (That's what I've always been taught anyway, any of the examiners here like to confirm?) And professional pilots on other forums say from time to time that a go-around is never wrong in a 747 with hundreds of paying passengers in the back.

(*) When in a new aircraft I've taken to practising a go-around from one of the first iffy approaches even though I'm quite sure the landing could be rescued. Even better, I suppose, would be to practice in the air first, so as not to try out the pitch change with full throtle and full flaps a few feet above the ground ...

[Say again s l o w l y]

Nobody will say anything disparaging to you if you go around, least of all your instructor. If on a solo session you did go around, then we'll talk about why in the de-brief, but will always end it by saying well done, better safe than sorry.
If however you continue an unstable approach and knacker the a/c.........

An old and wise instructor said to me once "makes sure you let them know that each approach is for a go around NOT a landing, it's amazing how much more relaxed people are on the approach if they know they are going to go around! That way if they do have to do it, then it doesn't come as a surprise."

I'll add my bit to that, a nice stable, in control approach is far more likely to end in a well judged landing. Therefore if you are a bit behind the a/c bu**er off and try it again!!

Gertrude is correct in that you won't fail for a go around, unless you do one on every approach!

Looking at your location, are you at Parafield? If so who's your instructor? When the heat builds up there you can get all sorts of fun and games coming in on 21 over the road, but it usually sorts itself out by the time you reach the threshold.

At Parafield there is no problem with obstacles on any runway and with the shortest being 952m there is no problem going around at any time, even if you have bounced it.

[Penguina]

I've had an experience like this lately and it _really_ knocked my confidence, more than I thought it could possibly have. I am now going around in a moment's discomfort all the time, but don't consider this to be a problem as going around saved my nose wheel when it happened to me, I expect. I have my PPL and am sure that a bit more unchallenging solo flying will get rid of the jitters.

I know little more than you, I'm sure, having just switched to the 172 after the nice easy 152 and only having a few hours on it, but have thought a bit about things that go wrong. What I understand to be the case is that because the 172 has relatively large wings/control surfaces for the size of 'plane it is, it responds more dramatically to slight misjudgments, especially if there's a crosswind or erratic wind speed/direction. Also, this means that control pressures have to be quite forceful to work (especially on a go-around... :O ).

The two things that seem guaranteed to create that viscious bouncing are a) as stated, coming in with too much energy; most people I speak to say this straight away and that you should come in as slow as you think is safe and b) flaring too low (or not at all...) in an attempt to stop that interminable float that you can get in these circumstances!

I think you were probably quite lucky to escape with the nosewheel intact, once that pattern of bounces is set up it's really difficult to salvage. Going around and trying again has to be the best option unless there is a really bad obstacle problem. If you want to chat about this, send me a PM, because I too could use any input or advice.

[DubTrub]

Airdog,

Sounds like you inadvertently tried to land the plane before it was ready, and a succession of bounces turned into a balloon. This means you still had flying speed whilst on the ground.

Try to imagine preventing a plane from landing during the flare by gradually increasing back pressure to keep the aircraft aloft. You need the mains close to the ground (within say a foot or so, but not touching). Eventually, the wings will give up and you will settle on the mains.

Maintaining back pressure through the roll-out will ensure max drag (to continue the slowing-down process) and will keep the nosewheel off the ground until it, too, settles of its own accord.

Ask your instructor to demonstrate. Above all, do not try to force a 172 to land if it doesn't want to...it will balloon and/or land on the nosewheel, both of which are undesirable.

Perservere, have another go, don't despair & remember to enjoy yourself!

Oz is a nice place to fly, done a bit there myself.

[englishal]

Sounds like the perfect landing to me, I don't know what you're fussing about :}

If the 172 does bounce a bit, it'll then slow down, so maintain back pressure and add a touch of power to cushion the resultant drop back to the runway. I've spent many hours perfecting this technique :D

Cheers
EA

[tom775257]

During my training I was with an instructor who believed people should be allowed to make mistakes, therefore learn from them.

Anyway I made a silly one, I rounded out far too high, and I was very slow and high and flaring like mad to prevent high rate of descent…..sure enough that sinking feeling came, just as I punched in full throttle. Keeping the nose high to protect the nose wheel I descended onto the runway with full power on. I bounced off the runway off the MLG, on the return it launched me a few feet into the air and I was off on the go around, no harm to the aircraft. In a bounce you can recover and go around.

You can get out of potentially really nasty situations (such as high and slow) without much experience as long as you follow the go around procedure. Once you have a bit more experience you will be able to fix botched approaches/ landings. For now if it is looking bad, just bin it and G/A.

Good luck,
Tom.

[Aussie Andy]

I agree - as everyone else has said, if [ever] in doubt, go around!

It is a question of attitude: I used to think of G/A as a kind of failure... but if you think of it as what it is, a safety option, then you might not feel so bad about doing G/A.

When I take carb-heat off on short-short final (say 200') I am remeinded that this is the reason why we take the carb-heat off: so that we can go around with full power available. So if you think about it at that stage then you should be in the right mind-set, i.e. "ok, carb-heat off, able to go-around, all looks good, continue..." type thing.

Sometimes I suppose people may be embarrassed to go around with passengers aboard. As others have said, even 747 captains have to do this sometimes! I have had to go around with pax on board several times - having imagined this would alarm people, I haven't found it to be so. I keep up a constant patter on the intercom as I land anyway, so they'll hear me say e.g. "turning final, 600', crosswind seems to be xxx, PUF check, carb-heat off... going around - don't worry folks, no problem, just need to go around due to [whatever]" (usually seems to happen when I have misjudged the base turn, or due to poor spacing from the runway on d/wind, ending up too close / too high on final.. I find I am particularly prone to this when trying to do the constant-aspect approach required at RAF Benson - must book some practice :O )

Anyway, I think g/a is much less alarming to pax (or instructor!) than a bounce!

Don't worry mate, stick with it and get back in the saddle ASAP.

Best,



Andy

[Flyin'Dutch']

AD,

You wrote:
I guess G/A was not an option because first bounce was only a couple of feet? It just got progressively worse from there

Indeed and that is 99% of the time what will happen.

At this stage in the game the best thing to do on a bounce/balloon is to initiate a G/A there and then.

To rescue a landing once you are in the bounce/balloon requires more skill than going around and setting yourself up for another go at it with a clean sheet of paper.

Again have a chat with your instructor and do what others (as FFF) have suggested. Do some G/As from some different scenarios and see how things go.

Once you get to know the bird a bit better you will get the feeling on how to use power/attitude to your advantage so that you can rescue a bounce/balloon too.

Have fun.

FD

[down&out]

AD & Penguina

I'm sure everyone has been there. My best? Bouncing experience was on my 1st solo. I was in the CCF so a youngster of 16, with very little experience, in a motor glider, with the engine turned off - so a G/A was NOT an option!

Due to the altimeter sticking on the downwind leg I got too low. When I realised I then over corrected but cut too much off on base and became too high on finals. So, as I now realise the start of the problem was, I came in too fast and high.

So tried I to get it to land as soon as I could and of course bounced on the grass. I then achieved, as I found out later, textbook PIO (Pilot Induced Oscillation). Each time I went up, I pushed the stick forward to stop the climb, then pulled back for England on the way down again - I think I got in 5 or 6 bounces. :uhoh: :uhoh:

I sat there at the end, having lost half a pound in sweat in 30 seconds, to be met by my instructor with a big smile saying it happens to the best of them and don't worry! (Or put it another way, that was the end of my training, as the course I was on was only to 1st solo, so he didn't care as I hadn't broken the a/c or me:ok: )

Looking back, I would definitely agree the best option if the approach or landing isn’t right is to go around. I also later found about about PIO. So I also suggest you also look up/ chat with your instructor about PIO, to understand the causes and how to overcome it, if you can’t go around! I wouldn't call myself the world's expert on this now. I think, like most people, I have learn't it with experience, but also understanding more about it does help.

Have fun!

D&O

[Airdog]

Sincere thanks to all for the expert advice and encouragement.

It is clear from all the input, and on further reflection, that I should have done a G/A. Wrongly, my mindset was "Get this bird down'' not "It's not looking good - time for a G/A". Things happened very quickly though and I guess after that first bounce I did not have the presence of mind to think G/A.

This was my fault as my instructor did remind me before stepping out of the plane of the go-around option. I certainly will be talking to him further about G/As and pilot induced oscilation. It seems that particularly in the 172, where the bounce/baloon can so quickly get out of control, that you should be ahead of the game and thinking about a G/A.

SAS: Airfield was not Parafield. but Aldinga, south of Adelaide. No problems with obstacles but because of the close proximity of the Willunga Hill wind and thermals can be tricky, as they were on day in question. Instruction there has been excellent.

Tomorrow I intend to talk further with my instructor about what happened and how I should have reacted. And I hope to be practising G/As.

[High Wing Drifter]

Airdog,

As already mentioned you can go around from any height with everything hanging out. Just make the right actions instinctive: full power (don't snap it open), drag flaps up, carb heat cold, establish best climb speed, check positive rate of climb above 200' AAL, remaining flaps up. All in that order (check your PoH for differences).

Drill, drill, drill, drill, drill, drill, drill, drill, drill!

I had to go-around recently as the plane showed signs of an incipient stall about 10' above the runway. I didn't think about it or analyse it, just hit the throttle as soon as the doubt showed itself. Post analysis suggested that my threshold speed was too low...a very stupid mistake on my part :uhoh:

Whatever you do, as soon as the approach does not go to plan, don't try to reason with the situation, just get the damn thing flying again :ok:

Good luck with the remainder of your training :)

HWD.

[FlyingForFun]

Airdog,

I'm still curious as to why your instructor would say that a go-around wasn't an option. I'd be very interested if you could ask him, and post his reply.

(And if anyone still needs any convincing on this subject, which I don't think they do, I saw a tv program a while back about aircraft carriers. Apparently, for a carrier landing, it's normal to apply power for every landing. If your arrester hooks have caught the wires, then you'll stay on the deck, but they always assume that they've missed their target. And, from a personal point of view, the most recent time I didn't go around when I should have done it cost me £500 in repair bills, and put the aircraft out of action for three months.)

FFF
---------------

[gingernut]

Airdog, had many simillar problems myself, and got lots of useful advice at http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42711

Good luck, and stick at it, it'll come.

[Northern Highflyer]

Airdog

Welcome to the club. I don't think there is one pilot who hasn't had the experience you describe. See it for what it is, a learning experience and you will be a better pilot for it.

Good luck. :ok:

[Brooklands]

Airdog,

Yes, it happens to everyone sooner or later. I remember when I was learning my instructor even had me doing go-arounds from the hold off at about 5' (well it felt like 5'at the time).

I'd echo what evferyone else has said, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with High Wing Drifter on one point: Carb Heat - that's the FIRST thing you should do, in fact you should be putting it to cold at about 200 - 300' on short final in case you have to go around.

Brooklands

[ToryBoy]

Flying for Fun

Regarding your first sentence in your last post.

Does it mean to sound so arrogant? Are you qualified to pick holes in his instructors views?

Perhaps you are an instructor yourself. If that's the case how would you feel having your views discussed openly on this forum?

Sounds to me like Airdog had a bad experience and the instructor agreed that a g/a was not an option so as not to shred the confidence out of him.

If you really would like to make a formal enquiry why not do it by Private Message.

[FlyingForFun]

Tory Boy,

No, it was not intended to sound arrogant at all, and if it did then I can only apoligise to anyone who took offense. I'm not an instructor, I'm a low-hours PPL.

The reason I ask is because if I'm missing an obvious reason why a go-around wouldn't be an option, then I'd like to know about it for my own education.

FFF
--------------

[Julian]

My PPL instructor told me in the early stages..."Every landing is a potential go-around". If you think in that vein then you will be prepared if you have to abort. His view was people get injured or killed trying to commit themselves to a runway they arent going to make.

I have had a scary oscilation down the runway a couple of years ago and dont really want another! So far so good.......

[Say again s l o w l y]

Tory Boy,
I don't agree with what you are saying. I don't think FFF's post sounded arrogant.
I am an instructor myself and there are very few occasions where a g/a would not be possible and on a licensened airfield it is even rarer at any point excpt for maybe the end of the roll out.
The post Julian has put in, is exactly the point I would like all low houred, inexperienced students to put into practise. As I said before, if you are ready for it, then it isn't so much of an issue when you actually need to do it.

I would like to re-iterate the point about carb heat. On some a/c you have a very large accelerator pump in the carb, if the throttle is opened quickly a large amount of fuel will be dumped into the engine. If the carb heat is hot, then you are more likely to have a rich-cut due to lower air fuel ratio caused by the hot(er) air. Putting it away on finals is one way of curing this, but I would recommend that you check it just to make sure. Carb heat does make an enormous difference in power output (upto 10-20%) and in the little bug smashers you usually need as much as possible!!

I don't like the fact that an instructor would gloss over a safety point because of a fragile ego. I'm not saying that it happened here however. There may well have been valid reasons. I'm just curious to know what they are. Pure noseyness I'm afraid.

[dublinpilot]

It may also be a case that the instructor didn't really say too much, and just tried to be encouraging.

I suspect A/d said to his instructor that he didn't consider a g/a an option, and as the instructor saw that he was pretty shock up, didn't want to critise. The instructor could have been thinking that the what went wrong and how to get out of it chat, was best left until the next lesson when he could demonstrate it again, and a/d was a bit more relaxed. In my opinion that would be a good call....certainly would have been more effective teaching method if the same had happened to me in my training.

Sometimes we say something to an instructor, and just because they don't disagree there an then, we tend to assume that they are agreeing with us.

Don't be too hard on this instructor, he may have done the best thing.

[ToryBoy]

Dublinpilot

That was exactly what I was trying to get at. You put it far clearer than I could have though!:ok:

[drauk]

Say again s l o w l y, your comments about carb heat interested me. I was taught "carb heat to cold" in the last 2-300 feet, so that isn't a problem. And I know that generally carb heat results in a reduction in power. However, in a C182 that I fly the difference the carb heat control seems to make is really minimal and perhaps hardly noticeable at all. Is this likely a function of that plane's engine/carb design or something else? It seems unlikely (though not impossible obviously) that it is faulty because it has been known to clear carb ice.

[Say again s l o w l y]

drauk,
It is different for different a/c and engines. Sometimes the carb heat doesn't open as far as it's meant to, or the cold air source for the engine is warmer than it should be.

A friend was recently involved in some work on the Lotus 340R, specifically about the location of the inlet air. It turned out to be in the bottom of the engine bay where the temperature got up to 40-50 deg C. When some decent trunking was installed and a slight ram effect created, the car was dyno'd and was found to be producing 10 BHP more than usual with better throttle response.
The point of this is, if a company like Lotus can get this wrong, what about 30 year old a/c!!

Without knowing the specifics it is hard to say whether the carb ht on your 182 is functioning correctly or not. I've never flown a 182 so I'm not au fait with it's handbook. Personally I like to see at least a 100rpm drop and a positive change in engine note and leave it for at least 10 elephants. This will ensure you don't just check the action, but also whether you actually have carb ice.

One question for everybody, where are you most likely to get carb ice forming? (I'm just interested to see the replies as I never get the correct answer from students!)

[Circuit Basher]

drauk - only flown a C182 once so far (as my last 2 planned complex differences training trips have been weathered off), but have done some ground school type work with an instructor on this. Fairly obviously, you won't see a variation in the RPM due to the CSU when operating carb heat, so all there will be is a slight change in manifold pressure. Due to the way that carb heat operates, it actually doesn't have a great effect on manifold pressure. I'm not claiming expert status on this and am ready for http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0903/sauer/angry-smiley-005.gif and the great and good telling me I'm talking like this http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0903/sauer/angry-smiley-025.gif :D

[FlyingForFun]

One question for everybody, where are you most likely to get carb ice forming?Not sure what answer you're looking for, SAS. Are you looking for the temperature/humidity conditions where it's mostly likely to form? The phase of flight when it's most likely to form? Where abouts, physically, in the carb it's most likely to form?

I could have a go at answering any of those, but with a comment like "I never get the correct answer" I'm not sure I dare! ;)

FFF
-----------

PS - Shouldn't some of the later posts on this thread be on the carb heat thread instead?

[Say again s l o w l y]

It's not meant to sound facetious, I'm just doing my own quick research. I actually mean the phase of flight.

Yep, I also think they should be jumped across to the carb heat thread.

Circuit Basher, when you are doing your preflight carb heat check, then you will see an RPM drop despite the CSU. This is because the the RPM is outside of its operating range. There is only a limited angle that the prop can move in, basically the prop will be as fine as possible.
In flight, you will get an initial change of RPM with the application of carb heat this is due to the loss of power and the lag in the response of the CSU in fining off the prop to keep it at the required RPM.

[IO540]

I would think it must be difficult to detect carb icing on a constant speed prop aircraft, because the governor will initially try to compensate and maintain the RPM. It should show up in airspeed eventually...

I read this in some accident reports on engine failures on twins. When doing twin training, the engine gets shut down (by the instructor) so you can see it clearly. But in reality, it often happens slowly, with the prop governor compensating and masking the problem for a while...

ALL engines should be fuel injected. Carb icing is horrid, and the need to fiddle with the carb heat is a huge distraction to safely operating the aircraft.

[Say again s l o w l y]

IO540, couldn't agree with you more.
A CSU can make carb icing more insidious than usual with the very qualities of the unit, masking the problem. I still don't understand why any engines are still carb'd. You cannot even buy a new car without fuel injection anymore. This is a case when the CAA and other bodies hold up the development of a/c to a huge degree, by having such rediculous certification costs. Why do virtually no light a/c have silencers fitted, electronic ignition (Magnetos for god's sake!!!) etc.etc..I know it is said that what we have is tried and tested, so why are there still A/D's coming out on a/c and engines? IO540 I bet you know what I'm talking about!!

[brisl]

Airdog

It may cheer you up to watch the films of today's Concorde landings at Heathrow. Especially number 2 I think :ok:

[Flyin'Dutch']

Drauk,

You will not notice the difference between carb heat on/off in an aircraft with a CSU due to the CSU.

Anyone who states something different has obviously not got experience in flying this combination of engine/prop.

FD

[Say again s l o w l y]

FD, have you ever flown a TB10? you certainly will get a momentary change of RPM on application of carb heat. That's certainly what happened today and every other day I've flown a machine with a CSU, obviously apart from turbines and fuel injection.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Yup done that, got the T-shirt.

Have also flown other CSU equipped singles and twins from Socata; Cessna; Piper and Beech.

And on all of those you can juggle the carb heat or alternate air to your heart's content without it making a dicky bird difference to the RPM.

That is the essence of the CSU. If your TB10's CSU can not cope with the difference in power due to the application of carb heat then it may well be that there is something wrong with it.

Those who have experience flying twins will know that even if you throttle one engine back to zero trust and open the other engine up for simulated engine failures there will be no changes in RPM as can be witnessed by the props staying in sync.

FD

[Say again s l o w l y]

FD, most of the aircraft you've mentioned don't have a carb air system, probably because they have fuel injection.:p

On higher powered a/c the affect is masked due to the percentage power loss being smaller. I've noticed this effect on nearly all a/c I've flown with a CSU, and that's definately more than a couple, it might be very minor, but there is a small initial difference, note I don't say the the RPM drops for any length of time, but like all mechanical systems the CSU bob weights do take a (small) amount of time to react to allow the pitch to fine slightly and therefore regain the specified RPM.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Sorry mate,

Those that don't have carb heat and are fuel injected have alternate air.

The difference in power delivered by flying assymetric at zero trust/max continuous is many multiples greater than that generated by applying carb heat.

I think what you are stating is factually incorrect.

FD

[redsnail]

Airdog,
Congrats on your solo. Welcome to the club. A go-round may not have been possible simply because you might have been just a bit too overloaded with the bounce to get it right. Absolutely no disrespect to you, you've just begun this great hobby/career.
I would put it behind me, take the lessson learnt and make sure you nail the speed next time and remember the go-round drill if required.
Recovering from a bounce is possible, I've done it many times. Just add a smidge of power to check the RoD and let it settle back on to the runway again (after removing the power). If the thermals are a bastard, then fly earlier in the day. Summer in SA is hot as you well know. :D

I've bounced every thing from Cherokees to Dash 8's. It's no bother really. I assume that 1 out of 10 landings will be ordinary. (perhaps I should say "touch downs"). If I am on speed, correctly configured with an acceptable RoD and landing on the correct part of the runway and the aircraft is serviceable after the landing, it's a good one. :D

[drauk]

I didn't expect to see an RPM drop necessarily (because of the CSU), but regardless of that ongoing debate my point was that I don't notice any change in performance and since attitude + power = performance I was wondering about the drop in power. As a practical solution I tend to use the carb heat quite liberally and leave it on for at least 20 seconds, to detect an increase in peformance when it is returned to cold.

More generally, given the high susceptability of a 182 to generate carb ice I am basically wondering about the merits or not of using it even more/more often. If there is no appreciable power drop why not use it, for example, constantly when in cloud (a time when carb ice is both more likely and more dangerous)? Is the lack of filtering a real concern here?

[Dale Harris]

Sorry Dutch, but your comment about Zero thrust and Full throttle engines staying in synch, is simply not true. A CSU or governor has stops, and an engine/prop combination that will produce 350HP on one side is simply not going to remain at 2575 RPM when it has 12 inches of manifold pressure applied. Every instrument renewal I do reminds me of this fact. I use these examples as they are from the a/c I usually fly.

[Say again s l o w l y]

FD,
As Dale says, there is no way an engine at 12" manifold is going to keep a specified RPM. The prop will be fully fine on the pich stops. This usually happens at around 19-20" inches as you reduce power. The prop will then act like a fixed unit, because essentially that is what it has become.

Alternate air and carb heat are NOT the same thing. I don't know exact figures, but I would doubt that the power differential between 'normal' and alternate air would be the same as with carb heat hot or cold.
FD if you think about the way a CSU operates, then you will see what I am saying HAS to be true. As I stated before, all mechanical devices have some lag in them so when the power is reduced the prop has to become finer to compensate and keep the same RPM, this takes a finite amount of time so the RPM initally will drop and then recover to the original setting. This may only take 1/4-1/2 of a second, but it is noticable.

Drauk, usually you won't have a problem with non filtered air in flight unless you fly through a dust storm! The problem usually comes with taxiing with carb heat on. I would stick to the principle that when in cloud I would use carb heat more often, but not constantly, just be very aware that it can creep up on you. Generally an engine will only stop due to carb ice when the throttle is closed, as Whirly has already alluded to, but obviously it can happen at other times. At large throttle openings it is less likely for carb ice to form due to the speed of the airflow and the fact that there isn't as much of a pressure drop behind the throttle butterfly. (I still don't understand why we don't use flat-slide carbs on a/c, any engineers out there know the reason? Or is it just a 'certifcation issue' as per usual?)

BRL, shouldn't some of the replies to this thread be moved across to the carb heat in the circuit thread? If this is possible of course!

[Flyin'Dutch']

Dale,

That is not my experience but happy to concede that this can be the case in some engine/prop/airframe set ups.

SASlowly,

I have never noticed that but will pay more attention next time.

FD

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Carb icing in a normally aspirated engine with a constant speed prop will be evident by loss of manifold pressure.

Chuck

[Airdog]

Sorry to have taken so long to report back on follow-up developments but have been away for a few days.

I have flown on two occasions (neither solo) since that bouncing scare, the first two days later and the second four days after that.
Both times we did circuits, practising touch-and-goes (with and without flaps) and go-arounds.

My instructor put me through several situations where I had to very quickly decide whether or not to do a G/A. These included coming in a bit high or fast, balooning before touchdown and missing the runway. All of this was beneficial. I think I made the right calls on the go-arounds and also managed to land fairly smoothly (no major bounces).

Of course we discussed at some length the whole G/A issue and the causes/ recovery of bouncing/balooning.
These are the main points:
My instructor emphasized that the go-around is always an option. It should preferably be initiated before touchdown.
It can be quite a dangerous manouevre if initiated after touchdown, so if a bounce occurs you muct decide very quickly whether to go around or whether to recover and land.
If the bounce is not too severe, the recovery can be safely employed by correctly re-positioning the aircraft for touchdown and landing in the usual manner by holding off with back pressure on the control stick. Never allow the nose to drop.
If the bounce is severe, go around.

My problem was that I while I was coming in a bit fast I did not think this warranted a go-around. First mistake, particularly with the winds as tricky as they were.
Second mistake: I did not properly recover from the first bounce. It took me until the third bounce, and in potentially a very dangerous situation, to finally recover correctly. I can only put this down to lack of experience.

No doubt I have learnt some valuable lessons and, hopefully, will be a better pilot for it. Thanks to all on this forum for their advice and encouragement. I look forward to my next solo although I must admit some trepidation still lingers.

Airdog

[Flyin'Dutch']

AD,

Good to read that you are back in the saddle.

You write:

some trepidation still lingers
but just remember that you
1. Have already done the deed (of flying solo) and
2. When the instructor lets you go he/she is convinced you are up to the job.

Have fun and keep us posted!

FD

[G-Foxtrot Oscar 69]

Don't worry I was sitting at the hold at a certain airport and saw an A320 put in a bit of a rough landing. It just happens, even to those wth 1000's of hours.

Remember Keep calm:ok:

[phnuff]

Airdog, stick with it - if you ever meet anyone who claims to have never ballooned/bounced, I would speculate that they are probably liars and are not worth talking to.

Interesting about the 172 and its landing charactoristics though . I learned in 152's and when I got my ticket and had a go in 172's, I made what I am told was a common mistake and assumed that as a bigger plane, it needed a faster approach/landing speed (despite what the books say!!) So, I made approaches at 70kts and guess what, the damned thing would not land. Luckily, I was on a field with a long long runway and got away with it. When I did my first night approach with an instructor at 70kts, he tore me off a strip for being stupid and ignoring the books.

[greatorex]

G-Foxtrot Oscar 69 & phnuff,

It just happens, even to those wth 1000's of hours and
if you ever meet anyone who claims to have never ballooned/bounced, I would speculate that they are probably liars and are not worth talking to
Well said, Absolutely true!

I recently flew Mrs G to a meeting in a Warrior that I fly from time to time.

It was, fortunately, a large strip and there was a fairly healthy crosswind - just within limits – but my landing was SO bad that Mrs G (who is normally an extremely placid, calm and experienced passenger) turned to me and said “what the hell was that?”!!!

Afterwards, whilst licking my wounds, I realised that I had screwed it up, simply because I was far, far too fast on the approach (if I’m honest I was probably about 75 – 80 knots over the threshold). Luckily I recovered the landing without incident BUT I was reminded of two very valuable lessons:

1. I had done a ‘seat of the pants’ approach – I foolishly thought that the speed ‘felt’ right – it was slow compared to the 74 and I didn’t keep a close enough eye on the ASI.

2. I was in ‘Private Flying Committed to Land’ mode – i.e. a G/A didn’t enter my head until I thought “wwwwwwwwooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaoh shhhhhhh11111111111ttttttt, I’ve screwed this one up” – if I’d done the same thing at work I’d have gone around without even thinking about it – interestingly, even now I still don’t know why I was mentally so committed to landing the thing.

Whilst Mrs G was at the meeting. I climbed back into the a/c and did 6 circuits, this time at the CORRECT speed and each was OK.

When it was time to fly home, Mrs G (ever the school maam) said, “well, I hope that this landing will be better”, to which I replied, “it’s OK, I’ve been practising”. . . . .
:ooh: :ouch: :ooh: :ouch: