Judging height in the hold-off

[100hours]

I have been flying for about 180 hours on Cessna 172 mostly and some hours on Piper Archer 181.

I am fairly confident that I land well on most occasions, consistently. The last circuit training flight I did, I tried to concentrate on those final few seconds in the hold-off, just before you touch the runway. I realised that I don't know exactly how high I am from the surface of the runway ... I can "feel" that I should be close, but I never really can tell EXACTLY how high I am and whether a touchdown is going to be a greaser or whether I am still going to be 1 foot or so above the runway when it stalls (lands).

So, I am curious. How many pilots (light aircraft) can tell EXACTLY how high they are from the runway surface those final moments before touchdown, or is it really a "feel" thing, like with me most of the time ?

And yes, I have been tought to look ahead of the aircraft, slightly to the left, to the point down the runway where it appears to be stationary. I still can never tell exactly how high I am, except for anticipating and "feeling" when it feels that I am about to touch down.

[beardy]

And when you stand on a ladder do you know exactly how high you are on each rung (in feet and inches?) Does it matter?

[AAIGUY]

It's called a 'flare' not a 'hold off'

and no. I don't care how high I actually am, cause the difference of a couple of feet doesn't matter, you'll just have a slightly longer landing distance if you happen to be a little high in the flare..

With 8000 hrs, I still land firm, or grease them.. just depends on the day.. I don't care much either way.

[lambert]

No, the flare comes first, then the hold off.

In the flare, just above the runway (I've heard the height to be stated as that of a double decker bus but that's up to you) you raise the nose and cut the power. As one tries to 'hold off', with no power, the attitude needs to be progressively increased (pitched up) since the speed is bleeding off. You should be sinking at a very low rate as you look towards the end of the runway to judge the sink. If the stall warning sounds before you touch down, you have overcooked it!

Once the main gear is on the runway, gently lower the nose wheel (with tricycle gear) onto the runway.

[Dont Hang Up]

I understand jets don't "hold off" but "fly on", hence the possible confusion (everyone of course flares).


... I can "feel" that I should be close, but I never really can tell EXACTLY how high I am


I think that's very much the point. It becomes an instinct from practice rather than a precise judgement. And sometimes your instinct is deceived by your visual cues (especially at night), hold off too high and thunk it down harder than you would like.

(Expect this thread moved to Private Flying sometime very soon)

[obie2]

180 hrs on type would give you a CPL. And you should be on the way to an Instructors rating by now also.
Your question indicates to me that maybe flying is not for you.
Don't mean to be hard on you but if you don't know the answer to your question after 180 hrs, you probably never will.

[Capot]

In a light aircraft I was taught to look out and down of the side windows, in daytime, and not to stare fixedly over the nose. In a high-wing like the C172 you can even look at the wheels, as I recall, there's no law against that...

At night the tip I was given was to flare when the runway edge lights appear to be at your shoulder level. It works.

PS Obie's got a good point; this is pre-PPL test stuff, at least for daytime!

[100hours]

Guys, guys, guys. NO WHERE did I say I struggle with my landings. Read my post C-A-R-E-F-U-L-L-Y

"I am fairly confident that I land well on most occasions, consistently."

If I did not know how to land after 180 hours, I would have quit 160 hours ago.

My question was, whether for most guys flying light aircraft, if the last 1-3 feet before touch down is judged on "feel" and experience, or an ability to judge height perfectly. You can judge you are very close to the runway surface, but is it 1 foot or 4 foot. I am talking about the last 2 - 3 seconds of the flight ... which determines whether it will be a greaser or a landing you can feel (firm). I can damn guarantee you that many guys judge this on feeling, and that was what I wanted to know.

OBIE2: Some guys fly for FUN. Not everyone flying a plane MUST go for CPL and MUST become an instructor. If you become an INSTRUCTOR because you MUST, and not because you WANT TO, then please let me know so I can stay WELL CLEAR OF YOU.

DONT HANG UP: Very interesting reply. It certainly gives a new perspective.

AAIGUY: Good to know with 8000 hours behind you you still get the odd hard landing. Makes us low-time guys feel less "guilty" about the odd non-greaser.

[Fuji Abound]

180 hrs on type would give you a CPL. And you should be on the way to an Instructors rating by now also.
Your question indicates to me that maybe flying is not for you.
Don't mean to be hard on you but if you don't know the answer to your question after 180 hrs, you probably never will.


What a complete load of rubbish.

There is nothing more satisfying that the perfect landing; The ability to hold the aircraft just above the runway until it finally settles, and if it is a nose wheel, to hold off the nose wheel for as long as possible until that too has no choice but to land.

This translates into having a sense of where the aircraft "is" in the final phase of the approach. After a few thousand hours I still dont have any idea (in terms of precise feet and inches) but I know when it is right and I know when it is not. I have got a pretty good feel if it is going to be a greaser and I aim for maybe 90% to meet this criteria.

It is subtle. Fly a different type or take a few months off and you can still make a good landing but you know it isnt a perfect landing.

If you have never done so fly with someone who can consistantly land really well to set a bench mark. After that you will just know when you have performed a greaser. To start with it may not happen every time but you will get better and you will know you are getting better.

I am not sure you will ever know how many feet and inches you are off the runway, but you will know if the height and speed is correct which is all that matters.

Hope that helps.

(Just seen your post and edited to add: one of the best ways I have found of improving your landing is go find a really long runway, and spend a happy hour in the circuit; make sure you try really hard each landing to nail the approach speed, have a look at flying a few different approach speeds as well (obvioulsy within the limits of the POH), bearing in mind if it is just you in the aircraft with fuel say to tabs you will be very light, then make sure you resist landing for as long as possible. You may find the first few times you float for what seems like ever (make sure the runway really is long enough) but it is surprising how much that will develop your feel for where the aircraft is relative to the runway.)

[bingofuel]

100 hours asks a perectly reasonable question, and gets responses saying he should know better as he could be a CPL or an instructor.

Maybe 100 hours is very happy as a PPL and is just showing a professional attitude by trying to improve his skills.

None of us is perfect and we should all be learning something new every flight, so why not answer in a constructive manner instead.

My answer to his question is, I may not know to the inch, but generally in light aircraft I get an overall perspective from peripheral vision. To be honest I am unsure exactly where I do look when landing, but I am not looking directly downwards through te side window, although as i said peripheral vision gives me my clues.

However in an open cockpit taildragger I tend to have my head out the side to try to get a beter view!

[Lister Noble]

yes,what Fuji says is spot on,I have less hours than you, 170, and have also sometimes wondered exactly how high I am on the hold off.
I don't think it matters within a couple of feet,just keep on flying until she decides to give in:)
Sometimes a greaser,sometimes even get three landings for the price of one,
I fly a taildragger off grass and blame the moles.;)
Lister

By the way,you do get some total plonkers posting on here,just ignore them.
There are also some with masses of experience,and even more important, they write on here so that we can understand it.

[Dont Hang Up]

In a light aircraft I was taught to look out and down of the side windows, in daytime, and not to stare fixedly over the nose


Personally, I find there is nothing more likely to b*gger up my judgement in the latter stages of approach than looking out of the side window. For me this is the one phase of flight when fixating forward runway/airspeed/runway is the best way.

And with a tail-dragger its not so much a hold-off as "going fishing" with that tail wheel.

[Mungo Man]

If the stall warning sounds before you touch down, you have overcooked it!

Not at all Lambert, unless you are talking about commercial jets in which case you should say so. I had the same issue as '100 hours' so I spent many hours doing circuits at a quiet grass strip when I had about 120 hours with a friendly pilot briefed to tell me what speed I touched down at. I then practiced and practiced holding off. I remember reaching the point where I could put the wheels into the top of the grass blades, and with the engine at idle and speed reducing through about 50 kts (PA28) and actually hear and feel the wheels brushing through the grass before greasing on!

The skills I learnt that summer about landing have helped me at every stage and on every aircraft I've flown in the 3000hrs since then, but like others have said there are still days where you think you are going to grease on but it just crashes on!

Good luck!

[BackPacker]

I've got around 200 hours but I'm a member of a club and fly different types of aircraft. There's only one type that I'm fairly consistent in greasing it on in. The others - depends on the day. As long as the main wheels touch first and the aircraft centerline is aligned with the runway centerline, I guess that's about all you can hope for.

As others have said, it's the sight picture. There are minute visual cues to judge how high you are, but these cues are different for each aircraft type, and sometimes for individual aircraft as well.

What I personally found particularly challenging was going from SEP aircraft to gliders and vice versa. In a glider you sit half as low to the ground as in a SEP aircraft. In fact, you feel like your bum is beneath the surface level.

And at the other end of the scale: I have a mate who is a 737 captain and also flies a Europa from a grass airstrip. Last weekend he landed his Europa for the first time at a major airport with a big runway, and flared at about 20 feet above the runway... Thank god for stall warners and quick reflexes...

[obie2]

Sorry guys. Being a retired airline pilot and after 45 yrs in the business, having started at the age of 19, and progressing from SPL to PPL to CPL to Instructor rating to SCPL to 2nd class ATPL and then finally a 1st class ATPL and then 16 odd thousand hrs on a variety of piston, turbo prop and jet a/c including checking and training time, I thought I might be able to help out poor old 100 hrs with his dilemma!

Obviously not!

I shall leave "100 hrs" and the rest of you "experts" to it!

Best of british luck!

[effortless]

I know how high I am because of the times I got it wrong. If I get it right first time in a new type then I always feel I was a bit lucky. Only a bit. You can over think these things.

[Piper.Classique]

Sorry guys. Being a retired airline pilot and after 45 yrs in the business, having started at the age of 19, and progressing from SPL to PPL to CPL to Instructor rating to SCPL to 2nd class ATPL and then finally a 1st class ATPL and then 16 odd thousand hrs on a variety of piston, turbo prop and jet a/c including checking and training time, I thought I might be able to help out poor old 100 hrs with his dilemma!

Obviously not!

yes, obviously not. You came across as rude and incapable of reading what 100 hours was asking. And your list of qualifications doesn't change a thing. Rude and unhelpful is still rude and unhelpful however many hours you have.

What Fuji Abound says.....All good stuff. :ok:

[MichaelJP59]

Personally, I find there is nothing more likely to b*gger up my judgement in the latter stages of approach than looking out of the side window

Agree with that, you can look forward in most types and easily see enough with peripheral vision. With a Pitts that's all you have to rely on:)

As for the OP's question, I have about the same number of hours, and I would say no one could ever "know" the exact distance between the wheels and the ground (not many GA planes have a radar altimeter!). Neither would you want to know exactly as other things are just as important i.e. speed and attitude.

[fuzzy6988]

Being a retired airline pilot and after 45 yrs in the business, having started at the age of 19, and progressing from SPL to PPL to CPL to Instructor rating to SCPL to 2nd class ATPL and then finally a 1st class ATPL and then 16 odd thousand hrs on a variety of piston, turbo prop and jet a/c including checking and training time, I thought I might be able to help out poor old 100 hrs with his dilemma!


I am sick of comments by people like this who show a grandiose superiority about their own self-importance.

I don't care if you have a million hours and a type rating to fly Virgin Galactic into space. I would not want to be taught by someone like yourself.

[Flyingmac]

Overheard on farm strip. "Nice greaser, but the hole in the far hedge is a bit untidy".

[100hours]

Obie2. From your vast experience in aviation, I am sure you have forgotten things 30 years ago that I am still only going to learn 5 years from now.

You clearly are highly experienced (did I see right on your profile - you flew the Concorde? WOW!!!)

You can offer so much advice and share so many experiences with someone as unexperienced as myself.

May I ask you something though, just have another look at your first post (reply) to me. Is there honestly anything in this post that could have helped me with my question (except making me think that I am useless as a pilot and should rather quit?)

Anyways, congrats on a very successful career in aviation. Many young pilots aspire to have a career as great as yours. For me, I am content being PPL, but always try to improve my skills and learn something new

[cats_five]

180 hrs on type would give you a CPL. And you should be on the way to an Instructors rating by now also.
<snip>

Good grief man, some of us simply do not want a CPL or an instructor's ticket. Is that a crime? Are we all allowed to be different?

[Fuji Abound]

Many young pilots aspire to have a career as great as yours.


Hmm, I wouldnt bother, looking at his other posts I think his only qualification is being troll, and not a very convincing one at that. :ok:

[100hours]

Thanks guys, there are some really good replies here !

[BEagle]

In about 42 years of flying and roughly 10000 hours, I can only recall 2 of my landings which I would describe as 'perfect'. The kind where you really do feel absolutely no initial contact with the runway, just vibration from the runway surface as the aircraft slows down.

One was in a Hunter T7 at Brawdy in 1976, the other in a VC10K at Akrotiri in 1989.

Good landings come with practice; 'perfect' landings are very rare!

In the past 7 years I've also experienced 535 airline landings. None of which were as gentle as the technique I was required to teach in the VC10. There are alleged reasons for this to do with 'positive spin up' and 'carbon brakes' in modern people-tubes; little thought seems to be given to passenger comfort as it seems it's a 'slam it on the deck, then brake hard to make the first exit' technique....:\

[Whopity]

I realised that I don't know exactly how high I am from the surface of the runway ... It is not relevant to the process. Landing is about judging angles and setting the correct attitude, holding and waiting. Far too many pilots are fishing around trying to find the runway; the aircraft will find it when its ready. How far you are down it, is more relevant that how far you are above it.

[david viewing]

Beagle: Your VC10 landings must have been superb, because it's certainly my experience that long haul landings today are far smoother than they were 20 or 30 yrs ago. Back then every flight seemed to arrive with a bang and I can remember overhead lockers popping open! Today, speaking as a cattle class customer right down the back on BA and Virgin, one can always feel the trailing bogie wheel touch first and then a smooth transistion to the ground. There was an intermediate period maybe 15 yrs ago when a crew would get a round of applause from pax for a good landing, but that doesn't seem to be needed now!

[24Carrot]

I hesitate to give advice here (if you'd seen some of my landings you would know why :-) but could I suggest that sink rate might be more important than height in the final seconds.

Assuming you are tracking along the runway at some reasonable height and speed, then if you only descend gently, and never ever rise, it has to turn out well, so long as the runway is long enough, (or the throttle is closed enough).

[Torque Tonight]

little thought seems to be given to passenger comfort

It's a lot more comfortable to land positively on the aiming point and vacate at the intended exit than it is to float for 500m, grease it on and then slide off the far end of the runway!

Commercial jets are generally landing distance limited, either because the LDA and LDR are similar or, at busy airports, the runway occupancy time is critical. This necessitates vacating the runway early which effectively reduces the LDA even on a long runway. It is important to land on the aiming point, firmly if necessary, and get the brakes working immediately. If you float way past the aiming point to try to get a greaser, your landing distance calculations are invalid. A good landing in a big jet is therefore not necessarily the most gentle one, and Boeings are certainly built to take some real 'carrier deck landings'! The technique and intention is quite different to that in a light aircraft but is still largely a matter of feel. The basic framework is quite academic ie chop the thrust at a certain height, pitch up a certain number of degrees, hold it, etc but beyond this it is a matter of judgement, feel, and experience that is very difficult to describe (much like riding a bike).

In light aircraft you are generally not limited by landing distance available and so flaring and floating to achieve the gentlest possible touchdown is desirable. I won't go into it too much as I have to go and practice what I preach in a few minutes, and plenty of people have given good advice already, but I would agree that it is still largely a matter of having a good feel for your aircraft, which comes with experience. It is almost impossible to give specific tips as each type handles slightly differently, has different visual cues, speeds attitudes etc. Just remember that a good landing comes from a good approach. If you make sure that as you descend through 500ft you are on speed, on centerline, on glidepath, correctly configured, trimmed out and have an appropriate power setting then you are more than half way there to pulling off a perfect landing.

[Molesworth 1]

Obie2 - comments like yours are what gives PPrune a bad name. They are uncalled for and arrogant nonsense to boot.

You have had a career in flying. Well good for you. You are in the wrong forum. This is for pilots who fly for pleasure. I am more than sure that flying with you would be anything but a pleasure you crusty old maggot. :E

[NazgulAir]

100hours, my plane is a PA24 that will suddenly drop out of the sky and land very hard if you're too high with the flare and hold-off. Somehow I acquired some idea of the perfect height, but not by measuring the number of feet and inches.

It helps to have had good training. It also helps to have experience on tailwheel aircraft (these will teach you so much more than a C172 about good landings that I recommend it to everyone, preferably before you've developed bad habits). But in the end, only experience gives you the judgement you need to fine-tune your landings.

Every landing is different, every situation (temp/pressure, wind, weight/load, etc.) creates its own environment with its own laws determining the configuration, speeds, attitude, etc. Even after you've done a lot of them you may not be able to say that landing X was the same as Y. And in some situations the plonk-and-keep-down style is safer than an attempt to land with perfect elegance.

Happy landings!

Nazgûl Airlines
(...back to Lurking Mode...)

[neilgeddes]

Just remember that a good landing comes from a good approach

Oh yes how true! That's something my instructor taught me before he moved on to big jets.

[Dont Hang Up]

The problem with 'greasers' is that they are a pilot's conceit. Because of course they exist at the very edge of the "good landing" envelope - just shy of a bounce.

Common sense tells us we should aim for the middle of that "good landing" envelope rather than the seductively gentle edge. But we all know that intense satisfaction of feeling the wheel rumble without any detectable bump - and we can't resist. :cool:

[Molesworth 1]

A strong headwind helps.

[hatzflyer]

I thought that I had read just about every sort of crap on this forum.
then I read obie's post.
I reckon the nearest you have come to a real aircraft is looking at it over the fence!

Edited..greasers are all about the aircraft and the runway uniting at the perfect moment. Like all perfect moments, they will never happen if they are rushed.
As you prbably know by now, the elevator controls the speed and the throttle controls the descent when landing.
Come in with a trickle of power on, fly up the runway, don't rush, gentle hold off and then just ease the power back like you are carressing your lover and every one will be a greaser!

[dublinpilot]

You can judge you are very close to the runway surface, but is it 1 foot or 4 foot. I am talking about the last 2 - 3 seconds of the flight ... which determines whether it will be a greaser or a landing you can feel (firm)

To be honest I think that you might be being a little hard on yourself. You are very unlikely to be landing the aeroplane from 4ft up. If you were, then you'd have a teeth shattering bump, and you'd unlikely to have been allowed out solo.

Given that you're a licenced pilot and seem to be looking to refine your landing rather than learn how to land, then I would suspect that you're very unlikely to be dropping it from anything more than 1.5 feet. Even that would not be doing your ego nor your passengers nerves any good!

So you're probably judging it much closer than you actual suspect ;) Of course where judgement is concerned it's like parking a car. The more you do it, the more accurate you learn to judge it ;)

dp

[rusty sparrow]

What helps for me is keeping a trickle of power on during the approach and flare - that's how I was taught and for short field to add just a touch more on roundout to reduce the rate of descent while increasing the angle of attack.

Dunno what others think of this technique?

Another thing - note how high you are off the ground when taxing - that helps in judging the height when landing .

[IO540]

I wouldn't try to achieve perfection. It is virtually impossible to do consistently. One probably could achieve it in calm air, and especially so on a 3000m runway on which you have the luxury of being able to let it float along while very gently bleeding off the speed, but these conditions are rarely available.

I am around the 1200hr mark, over 9 years, most of that in my TB20 which I fly once a week on average. I have never done a mechanically lousy (structurally dangerous) landing, but only about 1-2% of my landings are "perfect". Of the rest, most are OK. Many are a bit untidy but that doesn't matter. I used to flat-spot tyres here and there, then for some years I stopped doing that (it is embarrassing) and then other week the wind gusted around just as I landed into quite a tailwind (that's my excuse) and I flat spotted a tyre pretty badly, trying to stop in the rapidly diminishing distance. That cost me £250 (2 tyres) and I felt a right d*ck. Next time this happens, I will go around (something I very rarely do, preferring to concentrate on doing a landing).

The other thing is that if you are doing a "performance landing" (trying to land in the minimum book distance) you are highly unlikely to achieve a perfect touch-down. The landing is likely to be heavy and then you will jump on the brakes ASAP.

Another factor, in the summer, is landing on a hot runway. One gets float / baloon issues and I think this is because there is a lot of hot air rising up along the middle of it. If you fly across a motorway on a hot day, say 1000ft above it, you feel a sharp bump.

Regards power during flare, I cut the power totally during the flare (gradually though).

But the most important thing of all is speed management. Doing the right speed just before flaring is vital - especially in a low wing plane which will easily float if too fast.

But the "right speed" tends to be a very low figure, and you don't want to be flying the whole final approach at that very low speed, due to control issues / stall margins. So one needs to learn to reduce the speed during the final approach, so it is correct right at the end. I am sure some will disagree with this...

[gpn01]

I have over 800 hrs, around 2000+ landings. Each and every one I try to do as gently as possible. Must be doing it right as (a) never had to examine the airframe after landing (!) and (b) have had a number of comments from P2/Pax about just how gentle the touchdown was. Mind you, I don't have a CPL, ATPL or even a PPL or NPPL. Or even an engine! Which is possibly why I've developed the judegement skills to get it right first time :-)

[Vino Collapso]

Flying is a mixture of science and art. Rely on one at the expense of the other and it gets untidy. Yes you can fly scientifically by the numbers, approach at x knots, flare at y feet and float for z metres and according to science you will land perfectly.......only you will not.

Landing is probably the most diifficult part of learning to fly because it takes judgement and practice to get it right. It is that mysterious 'feel' that practiced pilots get for the closeness of the ground and the effect of wind, heat and turbulence on your attempt at a greaser.

Live with the fact that you will not 'grease it on' every time but will arrive safely. That is all that is required.

[hatzflyer]

I think another thing that is overlooked by many is the fact that you have to enjoy it !
I enjoy the landing more than any other phase of the flight.:ok:

[Molesworth 1]

Landing IMO is unique among flying skills in that you get a feeling for it. This after all those seemingly endless circuits and touch and goes during your PPL. Sometimes I am a little anxious when I'm tired at the end of a flight that I will forget how to do it. I needn't be. Even if I don't fly for several months it's the landing which I retain more than anything else. Once you've got it you've got it.

(Having said that note the recent AAIB reports on pilots with thousands of hours collapsing nose wheels on landings which a student on first solo could easily get right!)

The right height is what feels the right height - making adjustments for wider or narrower runways than usual as well as up hill slope (you think you are higher than you are). Looking down the runway and lifting the nose just above the end works for me.

I also like the suggestion made earlier about leaving a bit of power on. There's no need to cut it aggressively as soon as you see the numbers.

[IO540]

I don't think the intense Ts & Gs during PPL training make one land any better. Most people find the stress level too high to absorb anything. Better to have a low-stress flight somewhere, before each landing.

[24Carrot]

I don't think the intense Ts & Gs during PPL training make one land any better.

And they encourage you to come in too fast, do a token "touch", and then climb away easily. Personally, I think full stop landings would sometimes be better value for money.

[Pace]

There are pilots who can be taught to land and with practice can do a reasonable job then there are those who have the right makeup.

Hand eye co ordinations, judgement, reactions are all qualities which some have and others dont.

You may get the pilot who has a precise mathematical brain and is great at detail but cannot hack flying skills and visa versa.

IMO geting a greaser or Chairmans landing does have an element of luck involved. You may think you have the perfect approach the perfect profile only to feel a thump on touchdown while other times you get the landing where you dont feel the tyres touch.

I compare handling an aircraft as to Skiing you can train most people to Ski and they will do a reasonable job then you get the downhill racer who has oodles of natural ability and co ordinations.

I am not decrying pilots but neither am I saying that we are all made the same. We have different strenghs in different areas of flight.

That is why you can have a multi houred pilot crash on landing in very strong winds while another lower houred pilot will revel in those conditions.

Finally may I add that too much is put into getting a greaser! the airlines put far more emphasis into hitting the runway touchdown point and passengers judge a landing in good conditions where such a greaser can be made and not where the real skills are shown in bad conditions where they judge a landing as bad because the pilot "puts it down firmly because he has to". When infact putting it down firmly required far more skill and applaud.

Pace

[Molesworth 1]

And they encourage you to come in too fast, do a token "touch", and then climb away easily. Personally, I think full stop landings would sometimes be better value for money.


Interesting comments on what I spent most of my PPL training doing! In "The Killing Zone" Paul Craig considers the touch and go to be a dangerous manoeuvre and will not let his students perform them!

[MichaelJP59]

I don't think the intense Ts & Gs during PPL training make one land any better. Most people find the stress level too high to absorb anything. Better to have a low-stress flight somewhere, before each landing.

Has to be something to be said for that - after all most post-PPL landings take place after a flight somewhere.

T&Gs are a bit like hitting golf balls at the driving range, OK for practice but not really simulating real conditions.

[Pace]

OK for practice but not really simulating real conditions

I could not disagree more. T and Gs cover so many elements and will teach a pilot how to handle and be comfortable with handling an aircraft.

Cotton wooling pilots is not creating pilots but airplane drivers. We have the same arguement with stall avoidance and recovery at the incipient stage.
That is NOT training a pilot IMO.

What do you do avoid T and Gs send some V low time student off on circuits on his own then on one of those circuits he is forced to do a T and G or V low go around panics, crashes and dies because he has not been taught to feel comfortable with and to handle the aircraft?

Frankly if the student is too "stressed out" to handle T and Gs he has NO place to be sent off in an aircraft on his own.

And they encourage you to come in too fast,

That is down to bad training and lack of speed control and poor aircraft handling.

Pace

[Pilot DAR]

Hey 100hours,

You got 'em all wound up! Nice going!

Don't pay atttention to the nay sayers, perhaps they're a little jealous of what you have ahead to look forward to! You'll encounter them from time to time in aviation, as well as in life...

As for aspiring to be a really good PPL, nice going, that's what I did. After 33 years of PPL flying, changes in the interpretation of my job a driving me to get a CPL, but I'm still a PPL at heart. I never wanted to fly for hire on someone else's schedule. A tip of my hat to those who do, because you fly me around quite a bit, but it's not for me...

You've got lots of excellent advice here, and I'll not take up everyone's time repreating it. I will add a few observations:

A long time ago, I was told that a pilot can have thousands of hours of flying, and less than an hour flaring. With this in mind, I have always spent time in slow flight, whenever I could, particularly in types new to me. I was satisfied with this, when I had maintained controlled flight with heading changes, with the stall warning sounding. With all the appropriate cautions as to altitude, area, etc, I recommend this to you. Though you still will have to find the ground, you'll feel more confident in the aircraft while you're doing it. 172's are excellent for this.

Open your mind to the fact that different aircraft of different sizes have very different "eye heights". Pay close attention to the view on takeoff, you're going to need to remember it on landing! I have gone from flying my C150 to a DC-3 the same day, and from flying a Lake Amphibian (where you sit in the water) to a Caravan amphibian, which is very much higher. In the case of all of the planes (other than my 150, which I'm fairly used to now), I have to feel for the surface, and make a presentable job out of it. I'm not being asked to do a short landing, so carrying some power, and extending the flare, lets me have more time to feel for the surface gently.

Have fun, and keep improving your skills. None of us will ever be perfect!

[Molesworth 1]

different aircraft of different sizes have very different "eye heights". Pay close attention to the view on takeoff

... and do lots of taxi-ing....

[24Carrot]

Quote:
And they encourage you to come in too fast,
That is down to bad training and lack of speed control and poor aircraft handling. T&G's are obviously fine for teaching most of the circuit, but I would argue they are not good for the flare and hold-off. If you know you are going around, there is no real incentive to reduce throttle in the flare, and even though the FI may tell you you're too fast, your "punishment" is an easier climbout. Not a good preparation for the throttle work in a real landing, still less for a real landing followed by a real go-around for a real reason.

In a typical "circuits" lesson you might get 6-8 T&G's or maybe 3-4 full stops (depending a lot on the airfield). Once the student is at the "learning to land" stage, I think the full stops are more useful. How much runway gets used is a really objective yardstick, especially with the wind and runway the same for each full-stop landing. In traditional circuit training, each full stop is on a different day.

I'm not an FI and I've never taught a soul, this is just my opinion based on my own learning experience.

[kharmael]

The thing about SEP is that the weight/ speed/ stall envelope isn't as small as for bigger aircraft so you can get away with quite a large deviation from the standard speeds.

In a larger aircraft it's very much a case of being within a ~15kt envelope of overstressing the flaps and being under your minimum speed at threshold (stall avoidance)

As soon as you have these sort of limitations hammered into you and you start monitoring your speed more closely for fear of what might happen, you suddenly get better at circuits!

[douglas.lindsay]

I have over 800 hrs, around 2000+ landings

gpn01, you're clearly finding better lift than me; my BGA logbook shows almost nothing but circuits since April!

T&G's are ... not good for the flare and hold-off

I'm wondering if there might be some pretty different experiences of T&G - during my training, I wouldn't put the power back on until (1) the nosewheel had reached the tarmac and (2) I'd retracted whatever flaps I'd deployed. But it sounds from some of the comments as if some folk were powering up as soon as the mainwheels touched... or am I misunderstanding?

[AdamFrisch]

Two things I learned that were very valuable and are connected.

One was from my helicopter training: When learning to hover, like so many others I stared out to the sides or down into the ground trying to keep the aircraft still. It never worked and by the time you compensated for a drift, it was too late already. My instructor said: look far away - fix on a building, pole whatever in the distance and you'll see it'll become much easier. And that was it - I immediately could hover.

Now, this goes for fixed wing as well: when I started doing night landings it was not only unsatisfactory but downright dangerous judging your flare by looking at the runway below or in front of you (if you could see it). It resulted in some terribly hard landings that shook one's fillings. So once again, by fixating on the end of the runway far away, the red lights and "hinging" on that as a reference, the landings became very docile. And this works for daylight landings, too.

You peripheral vision is much better at judging height and movement than your center vision.

[IFMU]

I use the Force. It works pretty good. I have 10% the time AAIGUY has but in a similar vein I have good landings and I have crummy ones. I do a lot of glider towing and I get to land a lot. Like BEAgle, I count two perfect landings in my 800 hours, one in a PA12 as a student, and one in a C172 with my then girlfriend, now wife. Those were cool, I wasn't sure I was down until all motion had stopped.

So the question, do I know how high I am? When I am close I do. I strive to get very close and hold it off, but allow a small descent rate until I touch.

-- IFMU

[karl414ac]

as a fresh CPL holder and just about to have the FI(r) issued i find landing the most critical stage of flight and should be taught to be consistant from the beginning of Ex12/13, the student will never pick it up from the first t&g. What i have found while being instructed to be an instructor is using all of your vision to find out how high the aircraft is off the deck with out glancing at the altimeter. Me personally i fly the aircraft to the deck keeping the pitch of the aircraft as level as possible until 5/6 feet of the deck. having flown many types of A/C from Ce150 to Ce421 and Ce208 Grand Caravan, Pipers, Beechcraft and Cirrus which drop out of the sky if you dont nail the speed. I have been told that it is near impossible to teach the perfect landing style but yet it is possible to let the student experiment in trying different techniques in the last few feet to find a technique that allows then to produce a consistent and safe landing.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Judging your height above the ground ( runway ) during the landing including the flare and hold off is accomplished by what you see, not what you feel. ( Except the actual touch down of course. )

When you drive your car down a highway do you stay in the lane you are in by feel or by sight?

Unless you can judge height accurately you will never ever be able to perform consistent safe landings.

I wrote an arcticle about this very subject some years ago and will see if I can locate it if anyone wants to read it. :ok:

[xuejiesandi]

Very nice read guys Thanks...

I wrote an arcticle about this very subject some years ago and will see if I can locate it if anyone wants to read it.

I do:ok:

[bingoboy]

Yes Chuck always interested in topics such as this.
Seen so many people almost mentally turn off when over the threshold.
Keep flying the aircraft until you touchdown, complete rollout, vacate runway and have taxied safely to a sensible parking space, closed down electrics and engine, made safe and entered the clubhouse.

[rusty sparrow]

Flying taildraggers makes that the only approach that works.

Chuck - I'd also be interested in reading your article.

[100hours]

WOW, when I posted this question I never expected such FANTASTIC feedback and discussions ! Thanks everyone, this is surely a very, very informative discussion !

Chuck, I would be very interesting in your article

[Molesworth 1]

during the landing including the flare and hold off is accomplished by what you see, not what you feel

What is meant by "feel" obviously does not mean the physical sensation of feeling! It means "getting a feeling for it" rather than a precise procedure to be followed. (Again) obviously this is by visual cues.

Maybe "getting a feeling for judging the height accurately" would make you happier?:ok:


When you drive your car down a highway do you stay in the lane you are in by feel or by sight?


Maybe painting white lines at the various heights in the sky next to the runway would be the way to go?:E

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I will try and describe how I teach correct height judgment for the flare and height judgment after the flare.

First the flare:

I use a definable point on the runway as the flare point, usually the first big hash marks and runway numbers. This is the aim point on final, during the last fifty feet in a small airplane the aim point will start to grow in size and also appear to spread out in your vision, at about twenty feet the picture will become quite clear that you are about to fly into the runway. It is at this point that I start the flare with most light aircraft.

Note:

Rather than describe to the student what I am seeing I count down the height from fifty feet to the flare and have them memorize what they observe up to and at the flare point, this avoids any misunderstanding of what I am trying to describe. By using this method the student will quickly imprint the picture that she / he is seeing.

Once the flare is started you then look straight ahead down the runway to the point where apparent movement of the runway markers stop.

What is................... " Apparent movement of the runway " ..........

There is a point ahead of the airplane where apparent movement of the runway towards you ceases. This point will change with the speed of the airplane and eye height above the runway.

For light aircraft that approach in the 50 to 70 knot speed envelope the apparent movement of the runway,,, runway marks, will be approximately five hundred feet ahead of the airplane.

That is the distance ahead of the airplane that your center of sight should be aimed at. This will give you the proper picture that will allow you to best judge height.

The reason that this works is you can "see" the runway get closer in your peripheral vision as the runway movement close to the airplane changes. Also you can "see" the far end of the runway in the top of your peripheral vision, this is your attitude guide that allows you to change the attitude as speed and lift decays.

Ideally the airplane should contact the runway in the attitude that the stall occurs. ( Except wheel landings in taildraggers. )

If the nose blocks out your view ahead as you increase the nose up attitude during the hold off all you need do is move your head and sight line to the side and look along the side of the nose at the runway still using the same distance ahead that gives the picture that you need. Where apparent movement stops.

Note as you slow down the runway movement picture moves progressively closer. ( About three to five hundred feet ahead is just about right at touch down.


I have an excellent movie that was taken at Airbus Industries during my A320 training and I use it when describing what to look for when determining where the apparent runway movement stops. The beauty of the movie is I can stop it and show the point on the runway where this occurs, then start it up again.

Also the movie is perfect for the flare picture, the A320 approaches at a higher speed than a light aircraft but the picture remains the same when looking at the flare point, it just happens faster. ( oh by the way you don't actually flare an A320 like you do a Bug Smasher but the height judgment is the same. ( aided by the computer voice giving you exact height.

I am willing to keep answering any and all questions about how I teach height and speed judgment, all I wish to do is make flying safer and easier for those who fly for the love of it.

My system works because I have been perfecting it for fifty years and I used to teach crop dusting where if you do not know how to accurately judge height and speed you die.

So if you all want me to keep explaining my method I am willing to type until everyone understands how I do it.

By the way:::

I use a camcorder for all my advanced flight training, when the student fu..s up it is easy to review it right after the flight and explain where it started to go wrong and how to prevent repeating the fu.. up
_________________
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.

[RansS9]

Hi Chuck,
If your still out there could you help me a little more on your technique.

Is "the Point where Apparent Movement of the runway Stops " the same as the aim point in the earlier part of the landing ie the point the plane is actually flying to. If so how does that assist height perception ? Is it a "ground rush" perception your looking for? If the PAMS is the same as the aimpoint why does it only move to within 300'-500' and not almost directly under the tyres at touch down? Is the last movement of the PAMS to quick to percieve?

What is your view (no pun intended) on Stick and Rudders technique (the chapter appropriately enough on the landing !) where he talks about "eye level horizon" "relaxed eyes"(moving to take in all the visual information of perspective, masking, relative size etc). The latter being at odds with fixing the view on a point on the runway.

I think height judgement in the flare is crucial. I don't think I am very good at it (I was going to ask if you had any slots available this week but unfortunately realised the commute maybe a bit excessive although I'm sure Vancouver Island must be beautiful !!) I do think that natural ability can be augmented by good structured teaching. Something I think is often (but not always) missing when this area is taught in basic training.

TIM

(PS do you know if your Airbus video is accessible through the internet. Have searched in vain on YouTube.)

[100hours]

Would also LOVE to see CHUCK's Airbus training video ... CHUCK any change of posting a link where we can download this video ? :confused:

[Cows getting bigger]

I would like to pick-up on the T&G argument. My experience is that low-houred (or how about early Ex12/13?) student pilots get rather tense with landings, try to fly by numbers and have a tendency to rush. All too often do I sit with a student pilot who hasn't completed his landing before he commences his take-off. This leads to some interesting 'rollers' where the aircraft may be wrongly configured and almost certainly drifting off the centreline.

So, in the early sessions I'm concentrating (or getting the student pilot to concentrate) on landing the aircraft (to be precise, I'm getting him to expect to go-around or land if everything turns out fine). Once he is in the groove, I'll start to load him with more tasks, ultimately leading to T&Gs. But, the chap is now conditioned to alway prioritise with a G/A, Land or T&G in that particular order.

[Pilot DAR]

I agree that touch and goes have a place in flight training, though perhaps a place which is more limited than commonly applied. New pilots cannot, and generally should not be expected to change "modes" so completley, so quickly, particularly when it is necessary to maintain control the entire time. As said, something's going to get missed. That's not good learning. It is not ideal to require the use of a checklist prior to takeoff, and then not allow the time required to concentrate on it. That sends a message that it is not important. That said, pilots do have to be aware, and prepared, should an overshoot after touchdown be necessary for some other safety reason. That is why we test to assure that an overshoot (takeoff) is possible in the worst case landing configuration, in case the pilot did not get the aircraft reconfigured, before getting airborne again.

In particular, touch and goes are not ideal for water flying training. Time on the step is important, but time learning how to get on and off the step is equally importnat, and should not be missed, because a touch and go was done instead.

I have seen too many aircraft touch down, only to see all of the flight controls apparently be forgotten as soon as the ground is contcted. In my opinion, if an aircraft is moving through the air, it should be being flown by its pilot. The fact that the aircraft is on the ground, does not absolve the pilot of the responsibility of assuring that it is moving through the air as intended. Again, a practice opportunity lost in touch and goes. Touch and goes should be stop and goes, where runway length and traffic permit, and otherwise scattered into training, rather than being a mainstay.

Just my opinion...

[RatherBeFlying]

Many good words said previously.

To answer the question: I know exactly how high I am when I hear the tailwheel brushing through the grass, then add a bit of spoiler to bring down the main. There can be years between such landings:{

Flying powered a/c, I prefer something steeper than the 3 degree ILS angle beloved of many flight schools. The impact point then becomes apparent and self preservation instincts generally lead to a flare at the right time: i.e. when the impact point blossoms, usually at a point when grass blades or hard surface details become visible.

Peripheral vision and transferring focus to the end of the runway has already been well discussed, but I find myself making sideways glances to the runway surface.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I have been flying for about 180 hours on Cessna 172 mostly and some hours on Piper Archer 181.

I am fairly confident that I land well on most occasions, consistently. The last circuit training flight I did, I tried to concentrate on those final few seconds in the hold-off, just before you touch the runway. I realised that I don't know exactly how high I am from the surface of the runway ... I can "feel" that I should be close, but I never really can tell EXACTLY how high I am and whether a touchdown is going to be a greaser or whether I am still going to be 1 foot or so above the runway when it stalls (lands).

So, I am curious. How many pilots (light aircraft) can tell EXACTLY how high they are from the runway surface those final moments before touchdown, or is it really a "feel" thing, like with me most of the time ?

And yes, I have been tought to look ahead of the aircraft, slightly to the left, to the point down the runway where it appears to be stationary. I still can never tell exactly how high I am, except for anticipating and "feeling" when it feels that I am about to touch down.

My 02 cents.

There is a myth that every landing is supposed to be a barely perceptable brush of the tyres on the runway. IMO "good" landings mean the touchdown is at the end of a stabilized approach (ie the nose is not nodding up and down) flown at a constant, correct for the conditions airspeed, with the touchdown occuring at the preselected point on the runway in a nose high attitude (nose gear aircraft).

Under many conditions a firm controlled touchdown is preferable to a "greaser" ( eg short fields or gusty winds) and IMO represents better airmanship.

In my experience instructing the old adage "good approaches = good landings" is very true. Low time pilots who have trouble judging the flare are invariably not flying consistant on speed constant flight path approaches and
fixing the approach to the runway will also fix problems judging the flare and having a smooth hold off ( ie no porposing in the flare or an excessively high hold off height) prior to touchdown

My advice is go do some circuits and work at flying the final as a constant flight path to the flare point with the aircraft in trim and the speed held to + - 2 knots. I bet your landings will instantly improve