Landings

[Evo7]

How long did it take people to start getting landings right?

I've had 7 or 8 lessons now, and I've been flying the circuit rejoin and approach to land just about unaided for the last 4 or so. Each time all is fine up to the last 50 or so feet - good 70kt decent, runway where it should be, aircraft nice and stable - and then it all goes wrong. Yesterday I flared too hard, too early, and suddenly we are going up, not down, and those numbers I'd been nicely aimed at are way behind us. The time before it was too little prompting a quick correction from my instructor before I dented the warrior. We've not really worked on landings yet, but I'm getting annoyed with myself for constantly @rsing up the last bit. I know landing the damn thing is probably the hardest bit to get to grips with, but I feel I should at least be getting closer....

Any thoughts on what I'm getting wrong, or what I should be thinking about? I'd like to try and get my head around what's supposed to be happening and why it isn't.

Cheers!

[New Bloke]

I think most people find landing the most dificult bit. I was hopeless for ages. Like most things, when you have mastered it (If you ever really master landings) you wonder what all of the fuss was about.

My instructor got me to judge the height during the last 50' by looking out of the side window. It certainly helped me, I was able to judge the flare quite well after that.

7 or 8 lessons isn't that many in the scheme of things, it will come.

Edited for inability to remember simple figures

[ 06 August 2001: Message edited by: New Bloke ]

[Flyswift]

Evo,

When flaring or rounding out, where are you looking? Your focus should be aimed right up the runway to the other end. It helps the perspective of how high you are above the R/W.

Keep on trying, it will all come right soon, and you will be 'greasing' them in. ! ;)

[Kermit 180]

There are three basic parts of a landing, the approach, the flare, and the touchdown.

1. The approach should be stable, at a constant recommended airspeed and on glideslope (the correct and wrong perspectives should all have been demonstrated to you by your instructor). A good approach leads to a good landing. Remember that power controls height (ie low, add power, raise nose to maintain airspeed) and pitch controls speed (ie too slow, lower nose to get required airspeed).

2. As you get closer to your aiming point (most probably the numbers), you start to round out (the flare). To avoid ballooning, your airspeed should be at the recommended speed. Close the throttle (or as instructed) and look at the end of the runway. This achieves two things. Firstly you can keep straight using your feet by looking ahead. Secondly, by looking ahead, you don't get a ground rush and try to avoid the ground by pulling up briskly (a common fault). Ground rush and excess speed are the two major contributors to ballooning, or getting too slow and bouncing.

3. The touchdown or landing is done from the flare. Simply keep looking straight ahead, close the throttle (if not already) and try to hold the aeroplane a few feet off the runway (estimate this by feel, don't look or you'll defeat the purpose of looking straight ahead). This should allow you to land in a slightly nose-high attitude and a smooth touch-down.

Landing can be difficult in conditions out of your control (ie wind), but good basic understanding and practice will give a good platform from which to improve.

All the best, hope this wasn't too long winded for you and hope it helps.

Kermie :)

[ 06 August 2001: Message edited by: Kermit 180 ]

[FlyingForFun]

Evo7,

Check out Studen Journals (http://dir.yahoo.com/Recreation/Aviation/Training/Student_Journals_and_Diaries/) on Yahoo, and read them!

Everyone has problems with this, most people say that eventually it just "clicks". Some people have not been able to highlight what it was that made it "click", but some have, and where they have, try all the suggestions - most probably won't work, but if even one of them does, that's great!

Something which I think helped me was flying frequently. I was at the same stage as you were, when I decided to take a week off work in order to use up some holiday. During my week off, I flew 6 times, and on the 6th time I soloed! I wouldn't recommend flying this often when you're trying to learn and absorb new stuff, but at this stage in the training I found it to be great help.

Most of all, stick with it, don't let it get you down - you will get there.

Good luck!

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

[Evo7]

Cheers, chaps.

I am looking down the runway as I attempt to flare, but in all honesty I'm not quite sure what I'm looking at :). It certainly took me a while to realise that I wasn't getting any closer to the ground yesterday, although it was pretty obvious thinking back. Just didn't make it into my head. A quick glance at the VSI would probably have told me that I had overcooked it too. It seemed to me that the aircraft was keen to pick up height when I started to pull back to flare, but I'm not sure if this is ground effect or me just overdoing it.

Kermie - I'm alright on part 1, but keep messing up part 2 so badly that my instructor does part 3 ;) I think the speed is OK, but I'm just having problems getting the rest right.

[M14P]

Many thousands of landings - Still smash it in occasionally :D

Keep working at it - ultimately you can read a million books and get a billion briefings about the subject but still have no idea what you are trying to achieve. Eventually it will all make sense to you and you'll have a great day when it all seems like it's flowing sweetly.

There really are few things more satisfying than a great landing.

(Oooh! - 70kt is a bit quick in a Warrior - POH speed is 64kt at gross mass)

[ 06 August 2001: Message edited by: M14P ]

[Evo7]

M14P

I'll check the numbers - 70kt is the figure that I've got in my head, so that may be part of the problem.

Nothing may be more satisfying than a great landing, but I'd take anything I can get right now :) :)

[Final 3 Greens]

Evo

Stick at it mate; although I was safe at the end of my PPL, it took me another 50 hours or so to get really comfortable with landings.

Recently, I've bought a share in a different type to the one I fly regularly and guess what? - safe, but not comfortable as the picture over the nose is different - but it will come with a few more circuits.

A pilot much more experienced than me once summed it up by saying "I can tell you how to land, but I can't teach you to do it - you've got to learn that your self."

I think that the thing that was hardest for me to do was to learn to look at the end of the runway and more importantly, to time when to do it.

These days, I start to look at the end when I have the field made and the feelng I get is of the world going from 2d to 3d as my peripheral vision takes in all the surrounding clues - I am really sorry that I can't explain it better than this.

After focussing on the end, the aeroplane seems to "sink" into the picture and I just know when to hold off - it very natural.

Ability to land grows with confidence and the Warrior is a lovely lander - so stick at it and try to relax - it will come, I promise.

:)

[ 06 August 2001: Message edited by: Final 3 Greens ]

[Final 3 Greens]

M14P

70kias is quicker than an experienced pilot would approach the fence in a Warrior, but some schools use this number - especially if they are teaching landing with two stages of flaps, which seems common.

Flying a lot slower than this is getting towards the back of the drag curve and whilst experienced pilots will make the slight and constant adjustments unconsciously, students (I am told) can find this a bit challenging. Also the 5-6 knots extra airspeed can make the ailerons a little crisper etc etc

I prefer to bring an Archer over the fence at 65, with full flaps - even then the s*d sometime wants to float a little! Am just trying to cope presently with the concept of with my Pup wanting similar speeds, when it is 900lbs lighter!

[FNG]

When I was struggling badly in the pre-solo phase, an instructor mentioned that one of the frustrating things about the experience was the lack of any frame of reference. As mentioned above, despite all of the briefing and instruction you can still feel unsure as to how it is supposed to look and feel. Meanwhile it's easy to feel as though you are the one thicko in the world who cannot do what everyone else at the airfield (even that numptoid propping up the bar) seems able to do. In the past your mates could ride their bikes, or swim, or skate-board, or hill-start their cars, or whatever it was that you just couldn't do, but then one day you could.

If you can, take FFF'S advice and book a few days off to concentrate on flying. That worked for me as well. A good few dual circuit sorties, say 40 mins to 1 hr, with plenty of pauses for coffee and reflection in between, and the next thing you know you'll be experiencing a previously unprecedented rate of climb, glancing over at that seat beside you and noticing that all it's got in it is a map and a headset. Good luck.

[You want it when?]

With only about 7 hours to-date this is by far the hardest bit (and reading Air Law on the train of course). I guess I've flown about eight or nine circuits, each time with the instructor loading more of the RT on me - and Cranfield is a busy circuit with a lot of ATPL and Helio ops (I'm getting good at RH orbits at least).

I've slammed the poor C152 into the ground, flared at 20' (applied stall recovery, flaps 10, +ve ROC etc.. not so much a touch and go as go and go). I've had to go around as someone was sitting on the threshold from the base turn - despite being asked repeatedly to expedite. It is however coming together - the turns are smooth, the height is there or there-about, speed is all of the place - I once forgot to pull the power so we crossed the threshold - I rounded out, and up we went - "climbing trim it is then" said my poor white haired instructor. In all this I've actually pulled off a greaser as well (my first funny enough).

I think - if you cast your mind back to the first flight, learning to taxi, turns climbs etc... it is amazing how much you've taken on board. It has to be easier look how many idiots are in the circuit (no offence to other Cranfield regulars). It will come - hopefully to me as well at some point, before the school charges me for a new set of tyres - or re-alignment of the creep marks at the very least! I've pretty much got all the bumps and creases out of RW 22.

Got to admit - flying isn't fun at the moment - any experienced PPLs out of Cranfield want to take me up for an hour to re-introduce me to the joy of flying (I'll go 50% of course)? :D

[Whirlybird]

Well, I was convinced for ages that I held the world record for hours spent learning to land! :( I've since been told I was nowhere near it, but it felt like it at the time.

Listen to all the advice, as some of it may click. But if it doesn't, remember that flying is a bit like riding a bike - impossible till you can do it, then you wonder what all the fuss was about. Helicopter pilots really know about that, because you absolutely cannot hover with your brain. Despite knowing about the lag in the controls, and trying to compensate for it, it takes a certain number of hours practice (the number varies with different people for no apparent reason) until it all clicks. Then you don't try, you just hover. :) But I realised recently that fixed wing landings are similar. I was flying a C152 after a longish break from f/w flying, and I realised I didn't remember exactly what to do - but I just landed.

Basically, you need time and practice for a series of unconnected and unaccustomed movements to become one activity - a skill. So the advice to get lots of practice, preferably over a shortish time if you can, is probably the best. And try to relax and laugh about the disasters, because it's harder to fly well if you're too tense. Probably impossible at this stage I know, but give it a try. Don't worry, it'll come.

[Toppers]

I was taught this from the start and it worked a treat........

In the last few seconds of the approach with the power off aim to try and fly the runway at 4 feet above the ground. If you have too much speed it will bleed off after a few seconds, if not enough the next stage will happen that much sooner.

As your attempts to stay 4 feet above the ground start failing the nose will naturally rise and the a/c will descend gently onto the tarmac/grass, mainwheels first.

You can lower the nosewheel down at this point or keep it just above ground for a bit of braking effect.

It really does work and there will NEVER be a bounce back into the air as the a/c is just not going fast enough to do it.

Anyone agree?

[New Bloke]

Well done Toppers, one of the best descriptions of a landing and one I think we all do unconciously.

I think the problem is judging that last 4 feet. Until you get used to it, you start the proccess either 20 feet above or 2 feet below the runway. That was my problem anyway.

[Gash Handlin]

EVO,

Loads of top tips here but the main thing is to do whatever works for you.

I know that at the minute it's not but that doesn't matter coz if you've coped with everything so far this will be a doddle, the best thing is you probably won't even realise you're doing it right until you've greased four or five in and by then you won't conciously know how you do it you just do, so don't give up, the best is yet to come :D

[QNH 1013]

Lots of good advice given. Like most of us (all of us?) you've found out that landing is the hardest part of flying.
I found it so difficult (I learnt at a small strip which was too short for touch and go's) that after seeming to make no progress for ages, I said to my instructor I'll come back at 0830 every day for a circuits lesson until I can land. This did the trick for me and I went solo within 5 days.
Keep trying and fly as regularly as you can at this stage of your training. You will soon wonder what the problem was.

If all else fails, remember that a good landing is one you can walk away from. A really good landing is one where you can use the aircraft again as well!

[Evo7]

Thanks, all. Some good advice there.

I was having a think through what is going wrong last night, and I think my problem is just that I don't really 'get it' yet. I've got everything else that I've done so far clear in my mind, so that if I want to climb at 80kt, for example, then I know what's supposed to be happening. Landings are a bit harder. It's the transition from glide with flaps (and a bit of power when required) to flying just above the runway that is tripping me up. Bit more thought required.

I'm not really that worried. Like I said, i've only had 7 or 8 lessons and we've not formally worked on landing, so it's not like I keep buggering it up and it's stopping me from going solo. I think that taking a bunch of lessons one week is certainly the way to go, although I'll wait a couple of lessons until we're really working on circuits. Got Air Law to do, too. And a PhD Thesis :eek:

(Edited for shocking grammer. And spelling)

[ 07 August 2001: Message edited by: Evo7 ]

[Fuji Abound]

A last thought! I reckon that many pilots are in a great rush to land - probably not unreasonably if the strip is a bit short. Find the longest runway you can, take on board all the other comments, and then spend a few circuits getting into the flare, and keeping the aircraft in that attitude for as long as the runway permits. You will be surprised how quickly you progress because I reckon that the trick is getting the brain use to the correct attitude in the flare. The longer the brain therefore has to see this attitude, the better - that’s my theory anyway - BUT you really must resist landing too soon!!!!

[ 07 August 2001: Message edited by: Fuji Abound ]

[str12]

Evo

I think that after 7-8 lessons not many will have got the hang of landing - I know that I didn't. Its just a matter of experience, you just have to keep at it.

The first time I landed at Manston was when I did my QXC and the runway's about four times the width of the one I'm use to (Shoreham) so the natural tendancy is to flare too early. Fortunately my landing was OK (I surprised myself).

Keep practising, it'll happen when you're ready for it.


str12 ;) ;)

[Si]

I'll tell you what i think has really helped me, buy FS2000, download a goad 150/152 find your airsrip, put in some realistic weather i.e a bit of turbulence, crap vis, and some wind and keep going its not exactly realistic but its a damn sight cheaper and after doing it and doing it you'll find it may help a little.

See ya.

[IFollowRoads]

Like many others and yourself, I had problems with this too. The trick that finally made it click for me was a different instructor getting me to fly the length of the runway *without* touching down. This had the second benefit of saving a landing fee, but in any case, as it got me to land more consistently afterwards, I would have happily paid double.

See what your instructor thinks - after all you rely on them until you get this right to avoid bending the a/c! :D

[ 08 August 2001: Message edited by: IFollowRoads ]

[kabz]

http://photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=316094&size=md

Well, kind of like whirlybird, I thought I was the worst student for this ever... In fact I packed in flying the 172 and went and flew gliders for a bit.

Best thing you could do is rule out the most obvious faults :

1. Keep the speed, rate of descent under control. Nice smooth approach, and you can sometimes get good landings by accident. I used to drive my instructor mad by doing 2 brill landings, 2 average ones and 1 dicey one.
2. Flare at the right point. I try and flare 2 seconds before I would otherwise crash into the runway. 1 second before is just too late... The two second thing seems to work well in any situation.
3. Make sure you have a good enough view of the runway once you've flared. Get a couple of cushions or something and improve your view. This was the key to fixing my problems. You can't land on something you can't see, at least not at this point.
4. Be calm, relax, have the instructor follow you through on the controls, rather than being poised to takeover if you mess it up. Make you know who **is** flying.
5. Don't practice more than about five or six landings without a good break and discussion. Land and talk about it, if it is not going well. Get another instructor to help, if yours is at a loss.

Anyway, hope this helped. I am solo in a taildragger now, and pulled off a couple of nice wheel landings the other day. So, whatever happens, it **can** get better, if you let it!!!

GOOD LUCK !!

[ 09 August 2001: Message edited by: kabz ]

[Viggen]

Thank God I'm not the only one ... I'm reading this after last night's two hours spent trying to perfect this in a Grob. First few landings I flared too early after a perfect 65kt approach; then one where I didn't flare until too late (if at all) and almost dropped it nosewheel first. It's bloody difficult. Evo, I'm about at the same stage as you hours-wise, and having the same gripes - but I reckon a few more hours practice and it'll get better. Keep on trying!
As a postscript - the student who took the aircraft up immediately after me yesterday evening had a total engine failure and ended up on a golf course minus the nosewheel and with a bent prop ... so at least my landing was smoother than that!!!

[Hudson]

Humble suggestion from ancient ex military instructor. Request your instructor to demonstrate the approach and landing from early base leg to touch-down. Get him to do this three times in a row with you just watching. Ask him to patter what he is doing. Ask him to do the lot - including the radio, while you sit back and absorb what he is doing.

Note his flare technique and then try and photograph that in your mind. Ensure no cross-wind as this makes early landings difficult to judge if the aircraft is also drifting. If you are still having problems after one more session, then it is your right to politely request a change of instructor. That is no reflection on your current instructor, but a change can sometimes do wonders. It can go the other way, too. But it must be an experienced instructor - not one straight out of CPL training.

[BlipOnTheRadar]

When I was leaning to hang-glide my instructor (a bit pissed that I'd just crunched two uprights in seperate "landings") said "look.. the aircraft will not fly at a constant height, it sinks at a rate of about one metre for twelve flown forward, if you hold a constant height the speed will bleed off, when you get close to the ground... fly it level! your airspeed and height will decrease, the more the airspeed decreases the more height you will lose and the more you'll have to push out (it's a hang-glider remember) in an attempt to maintain height, just as your feet are about to touch the ground push out fully and the aircraft will stall and you'll land on your feet"

Translated into light aircraft speak: attempt to fly along the runway at a contant height without power, as the airspeed bleeds off the aicraft will start to sink, the more airspeed that is lost the more you'll have to pull back to maintain height, which will slow you down so you'll sink even more, there'll be a point when the aircraft will no longer fly and this will hopefully be when the main gear are a couple of inches off the hard stuff.

N.B. Don't try this at 150 feet on final, the wheels will get shoved through the wings in the resulting merger of aeroplane and Earth. Choose a more appropriate height, as previously posted 4-5 feet would be perfect

Happy flying.... and landings!

BOTR :D

[Toppers]

BlipOnTheRadar,

Exactly my point in my earlier post. It is a guaranteed way to ensure it works EVERY time. There really is no standard way to approach each landing because every landing is differnt (wind, weight, surface, a/c etc.)

By using this method the a/c literally stops flying and "gives up" being airborne. All the pilot has to do is make sure it is at the right height above the ground when this stage happens.

:cool:

[PPRuNe Dispatcher]

I'm a PPL student and I found the following advice for the final hold-off phase of landing very useful:

"The trick is not to try to land. It's to keep flying for as long as you can six inches above the runway with no power."

As I'm learning to fly in Warriors this has the advantage that if my speed control on the final approach wasn't good, i.e. I was too fast, it becomes very apparent here and really enforces the importance of a good stabilized approach!

I also found Alan Bramsom's book "Make Better Landings" very useful. It's also very entertaining, I like the bit on "Use of brakes" : "1. Never apply the brakes until the nosewheel has lowered to the runway unless you want to see the nosestrut make a sudden, spectacular appearance through the top of the nose."

--Mik Butler
aka PPRuNe Dispatcher

[ 12 August 2001: Message edited by: PPRuNe Dispatcher ]

[Richard49]

Here is a tip that was given to me and I find it works perfectly for any normal landing (not short field which is a different technique).

If you have your glide path right (hey use the PAPI that's what they are there for or numbers constantly in lower half of the screen. As you go over the numbers round out and close throttle. Then put the top part of thenose of the cowling in the line that is the end of the runway. Keep this flare position and it will settle down nice and neatly. My landings improved tremendously after that and it works just as well if not better at night as you simply use the line of red lights which mark the runway end.

I see you are using 70kts over the fence, I guess flying schools vary because I was taught 65kts and full flaps in the Warrior for finals


:p
edited for typos

[ 12 August 2001: Message edited by: Richard49 ]

[FNG]

PAPIs are there for people sitting in the cockpits of big things with spare engines. They are not there to permit elastic-powered puddle jumpers to be dragged in from 97,000 miles out, having called final just after re-entering the Solar System despite the 3 aircraft just about to call ready at the hold. Will the airfield management or, indeed, your mum be pleased with you if you collide with a gildeslope indicator in the undershoot after your engine quits, when you are there in your C150 perfectly on the slope intended for all those nice Airbuses?

[Richard49]

FNG

If ever you've flown into an Airfield with 2 set's of PAPI's the ones nearest to us are for poor wee puddle jumpers and the ones behind are for the big beasties - I fly out of Dublin Airport (Runway 29) and am more than happy to use the PAPI as they are in peripheral vision but if there are none, then I use the numbers. The only point I was trying to make was that a good steady approach makes for an easier landing - the problem that most of us have is with the flare

[Tricky Woo]

Hi All,

I'm with FNG on this one.

I did the first half of my PPL at Speke, where they have nice PAPI's on either runway for the big chaps. I have to say that they really took the work out of the approach, which was nice, seeing as I was a wee bit busy there coping with the eternal crosswind.

Work moved me to Peterborough, so I finished my PPL at an airfield in East Anglia. Nice place. Smaller than Speke. No PAPI's. Now what?

Well, during my first circuit there, how about overshooting the runway during my first approach by over 400 feet. Not a mistyping, my height judgement really was that far off. PAPI's, you see.

Next, my instructor (bless him) pointed out that my power management during the approach was a sort of death struggle between maximum flaps and oodles of power. Why was that? 'Cos to maintain an approach down a 3 degree PAPI in a C152 you've got to drag it in. This results in low, flat approaches, a bad weather circuit, if you see what I mean.

Using PAPI's during my early training probably knocked my PPL back by about 5 hours all told.

TW

[Richard49]

Tricky Woo

did I read you correctly? - maximum flap on an aproach in a C152? no wonder you were having problems - that's a configuration for short field landing - you should have been at 54kts and would have had a distinct nose down attitude and required a greater flare than normal. It wasn't your power manegment that was at fault it was your landing configuration and at a guess I'd say you were still using a normal approach speed of around 65kts - there's nothing maigical about PAPI or even VASI all they do is act as an indicator that you maintaining a 3 degree glidescope - most of the time I find that if I turn onto final in the C152 at 500' set the flaps to 2 stages of flap and IAS at 65kts it will just naturally set itself up and glide right down - I can then glance at the PAPI to check occasionaly - it works the same for me even if I just set the numbers in the bottom half of the windshield - was I taught how to fly differently from everyone else - because if so it works just fine - the main problem I always had was flaring to high and too early that was put right by an instructor who simply said close the throttle as you pass over the nunbers and point the top of the nose cowling to be in line with the end of the runway since that time (X-winds excepted) I've had no particular problems with landings perhaps not always a greaser but no dramas or whoops that was a bit heavy - okay short grass fields are a little bit different but not a lot because you just get used to pulling the nose up just a little bit higher but you are much more nose down in the first place and the lower speed means that you might settle with a little bit more of a bump

rereading Tricky Woo's post - I see he startd at Speke what he could have found that was that the one set of PAPI's that were there were set up oonly for large Aircraft, in that case they woould have set further down the runway as for most large aircraft adopt a nose high attitude on approach and the Pilot's simply can't see them if they are set directly on the 3 degree glidscope a sort of offset to compensate for that.

I started my flying at Gloucester Airport and was intially always taught to fly down to the numbers, then on one approach I noticed these lights at the side of runway and asked my instructor what they were - PAPI he replied and explained their use since that time I've used them as an aid - have no great love or dislike for them they are just a convenience, the main thing is to arrive over the numbers at around 20' above ground to give a nice round out and allow the aircraft to settle smoothly - the method I've adopted works for me and it means I don't have too look out the side of the Aircraft to judge my height above ground and can concentrate on keeping on the centre line - especially important if there's any sort of a X-wind

[ 12 August 2001: Message edited by: Richard49 ]

[Yogi-Bear]

PPL students shouldn't be using the Approach Indicators. 3 deg. is far too low, (especially at Speke where you could end up in the river, a market garden or someone's swimming pool!) and you are too far out. Use the numbers and the runway perspective. That will work everywhere.
Landings: I've posted this before but it is always worth a laugh. At least make sure your landings are not like this:
A man suspected his wife of seeing another man. So, he hired a famous Chinese detective, Ram Pam Sim Wimm, to watch and report any activities that might develop.

A few days later, he received this report:

Most honorable sir,

You leave house.
He come house.
I watch.
He and she leave house.
I follow.
He and she get on train.
I follow.
He and she go in hotel.
I climb tree – look in window.
He kiss she.
She kiss he.
He strip she.
She strip he.
He play with she.
She play with he.
I play with me.
Fall out of tree.
No fee.
Hee Hee.
:D :D :p

[G SXTY]

Evo7. I’m at a similar stage to yourself, 17 hours in the C152, with 3 hours of solo circuits. In at least 50 touch & goes, I’ve managed 1 greaser (I never even felt the mains touch), about half a dozen bounced go-arounds (3 of them on my first solo!) and a similar number of crunchers. The rest were somewhere in the middle. The one thing common to all of them was that the wheels stayed on.

The problem - as others have said - is that however many books you read, its still a completely new experience that can only be learnt by practice. My favourite trick was aiming at the numbers then starting the flare at either 150’ or 2’ – interesting, either way. I think I was a bit unnerved, firstly by what looked like this very short piece of tarmac rushing up at me, and every instinct screaming ‘pull up, you’re going to crash’, and secondly the urge to land and stop as quickly as possible. (After about the 10th time I touched down convinced we were going to go off the end, only to stop with half the runway remaining, I started to relax a bit).

As you work at it though, you’ll start to develop a picture of what looks right, and particularly the knack of transferring your aiming point from the numbers to the far end of the runway, then flying just above the surface until you hear rubber on tarmac. (i.e. Don’t try and fly it onto the runway – fly it along the runway & it’ll land itself).

One more point – watch your approach speed. I was initially using 70kts, which keeps you miles away from the stall, but ensures you arrive at the threshold with loads of unwanted energy. Reducing it to 65kts on finals and 55-60kts in the flare will make life a lot easier.

I’ll leave the last word to a KLMUK F100 captain who kindly let me have the jumpseat; “This one won’t be a good landing – I’m doing it." :D

[Tricky Woo]

Hi Richard49,

I have to (nicely) differ with you regarding flap settings on a C152. I warrant that full flaps might be a bit over the top on a 2.5 kilometer runway, but might seem a little more reasonable on the many, many shorter runways that I've subsequently landed on. Ever been to Fenland? Sibson? Headcorn? Or that stumpy bit of tarmac that's used at Leicester from time to time? Believe me, short-fields are the norm, it's the long-fields that are at a premium.

Next point: the only way to maintain a 3 degree glideslope in a C152, with even a whisker of the barn-doors showing, is to make a more shallow approach than would be advisable, with more power than is healthy.

This boils down to a shallow approach with plenty of power.

Since completing my PPL, etc, I've adopted the principle that each approach should be made on the assumption that the donkey will quit. (Blow me, not just the approach, I work with that assumption all the way around the circuit). How does a shallow approach fit into this strategy? It doesn't. How does a unnecessarily higher-powered approach fit? It doesn't either. Either could lead to embarrassment if the engine stops.

It's probably just me that thinks like this.

TW

[kabz]

There's one other thing to add to this:

Carrying a smidge of power to the ground can help offset the drag of the prop if you are completely at idle. Just a hair of throttle 'just' prior to touchdown may do the trick.

I just got through doing five complete greasers in the 'other' citabria at the school I fly out of. An almost unbelievable experience for me, as I normally 'drop in' from about a foot or so.

I have been thinking about this, and the only thing I can think of, is that, the idle speed is a teeny bit higher on the 'easy to land' Citabria, and that this made it sink a tiny bit more gently after the flare.

Worth a try !! To much throttle may cause a go-around if you as ham-fisted as me though...

[incubus]

Given that I quite regularly (Not as regularly as I'd like,) comfortably land a 152 with 2 stages on the first 600m of EGPD runway 34 after a 3ºish approach, I think there may be a good many more airfields out there where a standard-configuration approach will work very well than TW indicates. I am sure 600m of tarmac is still luxury to some :-)

Sure, you get a nicer view on the approach with full flaps but it makes a go-around harder work.

On the flipside, how many 152 pilots would use 1 stage of flap on takeoff from the end of a runway with 2Km+ of TORA in front of them?

[FNG]

Re the PAPI, 3 degree thing, as Langewische says, speed is money in your hand, height is money in the bank, and the pilot who is low on both is, in aviation terms, bankrupt. Why put yourself in this situation if you don't have to?

[Richard49]

TW - you are thinking of runway 28 at EIDW, runway 29 is 1367m - I do agree though not a short field, funnily enopugh losing the engine in circuit and on approach has never particurly bothered me, as all you can really do is to lose any flaps and set for best glide - losing engine on take off does!! and to take up on someone elses point we take off with 10% of flap but that's just to give ourselves the best chance of landing back on the runway in the event of an engine failure and hmmpphhh must admit, our C152 weighs in at 1282lbs unladen weight add a couple of pilot's and some fuel and you are easily over the MTOW so some assist in climb rate is always handy - I really didn't intend to start an argument (sorry discussion - maybe someone should start a new topic to PAPI or not to PAPI) over the use of PAPI but a 3 degree approach will always give you a consistent view of a field - I must admit though unlike the previous contributor going into Abbeysrhule (575m) I am not as brave as he and it's full flaps, nose down and definitely a steeper approach

[ 13 August 2001: Message edited by: Richard49 ]

[ 13 August 2001: Message edited by: Richard49 ]

[Tricky Woo]

Mr Richard49,

Nothing to fight about, my friend, just a slightly different perspective, that's all. At the end of the day, we're all right, huh?

Take care.

TW

[Kermit 180]

Have a squizzy at this site. It may be of use. http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/how/htm/landing.html

Kermie http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/aircraft/stuka2.gif

[Loopy1]

Keep at it and it will soon come naturaly. Dont worry too much it you balls up a few as you are not the only one who has. Most trainers are designed to take a bit of crap anyway.Good luck with it all.

[Timon]

Evo7,

There aren't many people that can grease them on everytime they land escpecially when they were starting out.

My first instructor would swap me from normal approaches to flappless to help me gain confidence that I could do it. Thats all it was, confidence.

Keep going, listen to the advice and practice, practice, practice.

[Final 3 Greens]

Richard 49


Full flaps do lead to a nose down approach attitude and do require greater pilot effort to flare, but this is good practice, especially for those wishing to transition to tail draggers at a later stage. (Of course, the manufacturer will provide advice on settings for cross winds, often recommending partial flap.)

Also every pilot should be current on going around, including the appropriate retraction of flaps to maximise climb performance.

[ 15 August 2001: Message edited by: Final 3 Greens ]

[Evo7]

Well, back in the air again this afternoon. I'd like to be able to say that all your advice worked and I pulled off a wonder landing, but it went something like this.

Call finals. Birds singing, sun shining.

500 feet: All great. PPRuNe thread runs through my head. Sorted. Gonna be great.

200 feet: Um, am I coming in a bit low?

150 feet: F**k, I am coming in too low!

100 feet: Add power. That'll fix it.

75 feet: Bugger, might have been too much power.

a bit later, still 75 feet: Bugger, Bugger, Bugger.

even later, still 75 feet: Bugger, bugger, bugger, bugger, bugger, bugger.

Instructor: I have control.

So I didn't even get to screw up the flare this time....

Oh well. Personally, I blame the pilot. Or something. Thanks one and all for your advice. Very much appreciated. Remember to check back here early next year when I finally get it.... :) :)

[G SXTY]

Been there Evo7, been there. Great big runway rushing up at you and you're thinking 'ohmygawd we're gonna hit it, pull up pull up, etc'. Trouble is, landings generally require contact with the runway. ;)

If you're anything like me, your flaring will gradually get more accurate as experience starts to override the instinct of a brain that wasn't born to fly. Just keep at it, try to relax as much as possible, and the knack will come sooner than you think - trust me.
I ;)

[Final 3 Greens]

Evo

Try working this through....

If you are descending on a stabilised 3 degree glideslope, you need to divide your groundspeed by half and then multiply by 10 to calculate the required rate of descent.

So if you are coming in at 60kts (70kias less 10 kt headwind component), you need to to maintain 60/2x10=300fpm rate of descent all the way down final approach. At 60kts, you are also descending 300 feet per nautical mile. (300 divided by groundspeed multiplied by 60)

If you are using a two mile final, you need to be at 600 feet when you start, or 900 feet if you use a 3 mile final.

Flying a light aircraft is very much a matter of feel, so you don't need to nail the numbers above exactly (as would be the case on an airliner), but if you get yourself "in the slot" at the right height and distance, set the attitude and power for a 300 feet per nautical mile rate of descent with the required airspeed, then "tweak" the settings gently as required to maintain the picture, you should find it easier to maintain a steady profile down final.

I am not an intructor, so you will need to talk this through with yours, but a kindly airline capt taught me this approach and it works very well for me.

Of course it wont't help you flare, but you will arrive at the flare in a calm and orderly manner.

Keep it up mate, I remember going through this hell myself and a couple of years on couldn't understand what the fuss was all about!

:) F3G

[ 16 August 2001: Message edited by: Final 3 Greens ]

[Skylark4]

Don`t like this idea of a 3 degree approach. Thats fine for airliners but Russian Roulette for SEPs. It gives me the willies watching the a/c at Kidlington. If the Donk stops anywhere on their circuit they are in a field if they are lucky and in the woods if they`re not. Once on your downwind leg you should be within gliding range of the field.

On the subject of landing, or probably flareing:- you do not change from a controlled, fairly steep approach to a flare in an instant, it is a smooth, controlled transition. So many people seem to try to make the change too quickly so they either do it too high and then have to put the nose down again, or they leave it too late whereupon they balloon back up into the air after a frantic heave to avoid a collision with the ground. I learned to fly as a Glider Pilot and only recently converted to power (SLMG), maybe its different.

Regards

Mike W.

[Kermit 180]

It does all seem rather weird to use such an exact '3 degree' glideslope, and I have never taught this to ANY of my students. My advice: take your eyes off the approach aids and learn to fly using the runway perspective and the threshold as references. What are you going to do later on when you can't judge your glideslope on a short grass field in the middle of nowhere, because there were no approach lighting aids available? Please, fly practically.

Kermie http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/aircraft/stuka2.gif

[Evo7]

Goodwood is a short(ish) grass strip in the middle of nowhere with no landing aids, so I have to use Mark 1 eyeball.

Trying again tomorrow, so busy thinking things through. Gonna be great :)

Can land perfectly on FS2k, too. :rolleyes: I'm starting to doubt that it has anything to do with flying... ;) :)

[ 17 August 2001: Message edited by: Evo7 ]

[yellowperil]

Don't worry about the landings too much, like someone said, one day it all just clicks and you find you can do them; this happened to me and that was in gliders where you only get one chance to get it right per flight... no go-around without an engine!

Glider circuits and landings are a bit different to powered things, but may be of some help. Circuits and landings are done without reference to the altimeter, instead we use a reference point method. From your high key point pick where you're going to land, and look at it throughout the circuit. If you have it about at 30 degrees underneath you, you can judge if you're too close it, too high, low, whatever.

Once you've turned onto finals, try and keep the reference point in the same relative position on the canopy. This means you can see if you're under- or over-shooting.

When you begin to think you're going to bury the aircraft some way under ground, shift your focus from your reference/ aiming point to the horizon. By doing this, you find you can judge very small changes in height, and it's alot easier to gradually keep easing back on the stick until the aircraft is flying a foot or so off the deck. If you keep easing back, you will eventually kiss it onto the ground, and be completely stalled. No chance of leaping back into the air (two landings for the price of one!).

Works well in gliders, and good for taildraggers it seems. Hope that helps

Yp

[Final 3 Greens]

Skylark, Kermie

Agree on g/s angle - I use 5-6 degrees personally, but what Evo is describing sounds like an unstabilised approach and it is unsettling him. Also, as I said, flying a SEP is about feel and you don't need to nail the numbers, they are there to guide you.

IMHO he needs to find a rough rate of descent that gets him "in the slot" and allows him to be relaxed for the flare.

To nail 6 degrees, simply add a zero to groundspeed - e.g. 600-650fpm for a Warrior, but my gut feel is that is a bit on the steep side for a student and there is a danger of the a/c "running away" unless this is a well managed glide approach.

However, I know that you a re an instructor Kermie (don't know about you Skylark) so perhpas I ought to bug out now and leave to people with more knowledge and experience.

I just feel for Evo, especially as I struggled with landings too..

:)

[Skylark4]

I really cannot understand the reliance on mathematical calculations and geometry. There will be a circuit height which you should attain by downwind leg and a circuit speed or suitable speed for your particular aircraft. At some point on the approach the descent starts and from then on the only dial you should be interested in is the ASI. Everything else is Mk 1 Eyeball. I know that this is a simplistic version but who needs instruments to fly a basic trainer? The aircraft will tell you if the speed is right and the positioning is up to you.

I am not an instructor, I used to be an Assistant Category Gliding Instructor back in the `60`s but no longer.

To the guy who first posed the question:- Don`t worry, (be happy), we all have some bit of learning to fly which gives us a problem, In my case it was controlling the direction of the glider during the roll after landing. As many people have said, it will click one day. There`s no hurry, the guy in the other seat will be there for a fair while yet. If you REALLY have a problem, lessons every day for a few days will probably sort it out but don`t try too much each day. The mind seems to need to absorb and sort out the new information during sleep.

Regards,

Mike W.

[Kermit 180]

I have no intention of forcing my opinions on anybody here F3G. I just offered an alternative suggestion that will allow for safe flying and based on my own experiences. As Im asure you did too. Guaranteed, just because I instruct, doesnt mean I know everything, in fact I learn a lot from students all the time. So all suggestions are valid, good to see we can all take the time to help our friend Evo out.

Kermie http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/aircraft/stuka2.gif

[Final 3 Greens]

Kermie

Agree totally with your sentiment and I just hope that Evo7 does not get too dismayed, as we've all been through what he's feeling now.

Skylark

I'd just say that all aeroplanes obey the laws of energy and geometry and leave it at that. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion.

[Skylark4]

F3G
Yes , of course all a/c obey the various rules of engineering, motion, mathematics and feng shui for all I know. So does a motor car and you don`t need rate of turn indicators or pretty coloured lights to turn a corner without hitting the kerb.

Mike W.

[Final 3 Greens]

Skylark

The point you make is very powerful because one can see the kerb in a car at close distance and therefore understand one's position relative to it, allowing appropriate action to be taken easily.

Visualising a descent profile in one's mind facilitates the same action - I wouldn't suggest that anyone should try to drive a light aircraft down final like an airliner where half a degree of attitude pitch is critical to performance, but having a mind map of the approximate altitude "gates" (e.g. turning from base, 1, 2 miles out) has always been helpful to me.

This is rule of thumb stuff,not science.

As the instructors say pitch and power equals performance.

If you know where you should be on the profile and then set the required pitch (via the ASI, I agree, in a light single)and the power setting for the rate of descent rewquired, then it helps to stabilise the approach.

The primary focus can be on the visual cues such as the shape of the runway and the position of the numbers on the windscreen etc.

I don't know how many hours you have - I'm not trying to start a competition :)- but I have going on for three hundred and probably both you and I have enough experience to interpret the cues and fly off the ASI only once in the circuit.

However, I still find a "sense" check from time to time to be reassuring and if I fly an unfamiliar type of aircraft, understanding the "triangle" of final is very good in the early period where flying becomes less intuitive for a while.

Anyway, some of the planes I have flown certainly could have benefitted from some Feng Shui, but didn't appear to follow those rules!

Happy Landings

[ 19 August 2001: Message edited by: Final 3 Greens ]

[Richard49]

In reply to Final 3 Greens and the use of full flaps and their use in a Tail dragger, I'm just about to find out about that as I'm off to do my basic AOPA aerobatics in a PIITS, I just have one problem though, someone has told me they don't have flaps!! -is that true?

[Skylark4]

F3G
"Two miles out" I thought we were talking circuit flying, not cross country navigation.

Richard.
I have it on good authority,( someone gave us a talk at a PFA Strut meeting), that the approach is carried out in a slipping turn for the same reason that the Spitfire used the same tequnique, a straight in approach gives you a grand view of the engine cowlings right where you hope the runway is. Flaps are not really needed.

Mike W

[You want it when?]

Hi Evo7 - I'm still in the same mess as you on landings - at 10 hours or so now and it just doesn't seem to be coming.

It's getting easier - I've worked out the power = height and attitude = speed - I forgot totally about triming for the descent which can take some of the workload out of the procedure. I'm now at least crossing the threshold at sort of the right height, and speed but my flare is a pigs mess. I had a crosswind on Saturday morning so had to factor in a right wing down and rudder correction at the last minute.

My instructor admitted to being known as the bouncing Greek during his training and he wasn't too worried if I brought it in inverted as long as I flew the pattern and tried to learn something every time.

I know its wimpish - but I almost thought F**k it all on Sunday and would spend my savings on another classic car - at least I can drive those. But I didn't.

Final thought: I know the thread is on landings but as a suggestion (that I will be trying) learn all the circuit actions and mentally fly the pattern right down to the landing thinking in terms of headings, power settings, BUMFLICH, look-out etc.. do this as often as you can and then next time your up it should be easier (I'll let you know :) )

Happy flying.