We're taught to cut the throttle at the start of the final leg

[dalgetty]

The school I am learning at has a peculiarity: we are taught to cut the throttle before beginning to descend for the final approach. This means not long after turning into final, and sometimes before turning into final.

To complete the glided approach we start pulling the yoke for round-off at about 30 feet off the ground, and finish with the aircraft tilted right back - sometimes setting off the stall warning in the C152. Occasionally touching the rear fuselage on the runway is tolerated. Although we also learn powered approaches after the above, beginning the round-off at 30 feet still applies.

I admire this - it is done for reasons of security. We touch down at the lowest possible speed, and if we ever get serious engine trouble all we need to do is get to final somehow, and then do what (to us) is a normal landing.

On the other hand when I took a lesson in another school, just to try flying somewhere else, the instructor thought I was crazy! Also, students are regularly doing between 20 and 35 hours before going solo - sometimes it feels like doing your PPL training in a Shaolin monastery.

So I have two questions :

1. are there any other flight schools that have this philosophy?
2. is it going to be difficult, once I get my PPL, to rent aircraft elsewhere? That is, unless I also learn how to do traditional landings?

Thanks for your knowledge and opinions!

[Blues&twos]

Occasionally touching the rear fuselage on the runway is tolerated

I can't imagine you'll be all that popular anywhere doing that. Except maybe if the AAIB are at a loose end.
:eek:

[dalgetty]

This only tends to happen very occasionally, and only if you're coming in with 20 degrees of flaps, which is not very often. It's not habitual!

[mmgreve]

Interesting,

This is what I was tought when training in the Danish Airforce - though with the added requirement to touch down between to cones and solo after about 20 landings (I failed that one).

As I later took up flying again I was planning to done the same thing. The instructor was fine with this, but also showed me the "easy version" of coming in low with power on.

The approach you are being learned has a couple of advantages. Firstly it requires more skill and you will be much better prepared for a glide approach if you ever get an engine failure. Landing in a fully stalled attitude is also - generally a good thing. There is no need to travel any faster when you touch down in most aeroplanes, and it will make a future transition to taildraggers much easier. I believe my conversion to a Mooney was helped by being used to holding off until the aeroplane is done flying - too often you see people slamming the poor ting onto the runway and just brake, it takes a forgiving aeroplane to do so.

On the other hand....
I have found that more complex aeroplanes are best landed with a bit of power on - the high-tail Arrows is difficult to flare if you have no power on, for instance.

Also, high powered taildraggers are often not in a fully stalled attitude in their three-point stance, so if you fully stall it, you will land tail wheel first. The general wisdom is to get the attitude right and just let it land although you are not fully back on the stick.

But....I think it is great that you are learning to fly at a school that teaches you the more demanding method before letting you go off and find out what works on what you fly. They may even teach what that the pedals are for....

Have fun !

[Genghis the Engineer]

I first soloed then got my PPL(D) as it was then on 2-stroke engined microlights. What's being described was very much our standard practice then, and I still ensure I'm current in my ability to deadstick anything I'm flying.

The arguments for it are sound in my opinion - one day you may have a real engine failure (I have!), you'll have to land off it, and you don't want the handling of the aeroplane to be a surprise. A stall warning in the flare is absolutely fine in most light aeroplanes.

I disagree however about tailstrikes being acceptable. That's over-rotation in the roundout and flare, which isn't acceptable in anything at any time. It's correctible with good handling practice. On the other hand, it's not the end of the world in an aeroplane with a sacrificial component there, which the C152 has.

Whilst happy that deadstick landings are an acceptable practice, also believe that you should be competent in flying a powered approach - there are sometimes good safety reasons to fly these also, and if another club wants to see these - that's what you should give them; but you've said that those are covered later in the syllabus. Again, fine.

Is 30ft the right place to start the roundout in a C152? Yes, it probably is - but I think if you fly a C150 with it's extra 10 degrees of flap, you might want to start a little later.

So on the whole, sounds fine to me. A local peculiarity, but probably a healthy one.

G

[banjodrone]

That's kind of like the way I was taught except we kept some power in on final. In the Tomahawk we made a 3/4 mile final at 500 ft AGL and 70 kts plus whatever headwind component, which is higher than the published approach speed. This generally makes a steeper approach than other schools teach. We were taught to point the plane at the target zone using the windshield reference and cut power completely at 30 ft, initially pitching level for the roundout and progressively pitching up to approximately 2 "fingers" as the plane sank.
It was definitely hard to master and seemed a bit mechanical, one of the issues being avoiding overpitching then ballooning but it did make the transition to twins and other singles quite simple, where some power is kept during roundout and flare and gradually reduced. The whole idea was to teach precise attitudes in the pattern and during the landing phase, as opposed to sawing back and forth on the throttle. In the end I think everyone puts their own stamp on their technique once they have a good safe foundation.

[iwrbf]

Hi dalgetty,

I was tought to fly the circuits the same way - and I'm glad I learnt it that way in the beginning.

Yes, a complete engine failure in a low tech single engine fuel to noise converter whilst descending for landing is quite rare. But it's a constant practice for this case.

They will teach you to fly power on approaches early enough, so no problem with complex aircraft later on...

To tolerate the tail scrape thing on landing is okay for me, it's still learning to fly, isn't it? I get you right that it's not _intended_ but tolerated as in "**** happens, try not to pull so hard the next time, it hurts?" :-)

Kind regards,
Peter

[Pilot DAR]

Striking the tail of any nosewheel plane is bad. Striking the tail of a C150/152 will cause the need for a very expensive repair. The entire tail must be removed to access it for repair. There is no need to strike the tail of these aircraft. If you are, it's an indication that you are not using enough flaps for what you are trying to do, or you have not used power to catch a sudden unexpected sink. The pitch attitude of these aircraft is easy to precisely control at any flight speed, so there is no excuse.

Gliding final approaches are fine, but do not need to be the norm. The ability to fly one with reasonable precision is a necessary skill for forced landings. However, this technique can actually lead to longer landing distances if poorly executed. Pilots tend to fly faster than they would with power, and that means that you have that much extra speed to get rid of over the fence. If you are carrying power on final, you can modulate it somewhat to optimize your approach.

Flaring from a glide is fine, as long as you are aware that everything happens comparatively fast. You have one chance to get it right, or you land hard. If you have some power in the flare, you are stretching the time of that one chance quite a bit. If you land with lots of power, you can stretch the flare the whole length of the runway, and you can add a bit more, and go around! If gusts, or other changeable conditions affect your landing, you have only pitch control to correct with. When you hit a sudden sink, and the plane drops, you pitch up to catch it. Without power, the risk of striking the tail goes way up!

If your school is promoting gliding approaches, pay careful attention to your speed, it has to be right on. Use the highest flap setting the conditions will permit, though plan to extend the flaps later in the approach than you would during a powered approach. If conditions are gusty or turbulent, consider not doing a gliding approach, in favour of carrying power. If a purist disapproves, explain that engine power is there to be used. Some conditions of flight warrant a powered approach, just as a short runway warrants the use of brakes.

Sometimes conditions allow you to land and stop without using the brakes, and sometimes approach without power. Other times, conditions will require the use of these systems for a good landing. Any system in an aircraft can fail, so maintain proficiency to fly without it, but that does not mean never use it!

[Pace]

Dalgetty

Hmmm?

Really I think you are missing the point here and that in itself can be dangerous.
With any aircraft you are tapping into potential energy which comes from two sources.
One the airframe which is your energy supply in a glide approach ie you are trading height for speed and the second is the engine.
I like to think of things in the way that you have two throttles. One the conventional throttle which gives you access to engine power! Fairly instant and on demand .
The second throttle is the elevator which allows you to tap into the potential energy in the airframe.
The more draggy the airframe and the less powerful the engine the more important it is to pitch for speed.
The more novice a pilot you are the more important to pitch for speed as it will keep you away from a stall.
High drag with gear and flaps and a high AOA and power alone might not be enough so there is a tendancy to push the pitch for speed (energy) especially with novice pilots.
Drawbacks with a cut throttle?
1 you wont know you have an engine problem until you need it
2 More chance to get your touchdown point wrong
3 In the event of an engine failure fixation with making the runway.
4 more chance of becoming a victim of downdraughts in windy conditions.
5 more chance of coming into too fast or two slow.
6 a higher stall speed than with a powered approach.
7 less control authority than with a powered approach.

Really the only correct way is to use all your energy sources as needed by playing both as required.
There are times when you may need both fully and fixating on one power source is a recipe for disaster

Pace

[Genghis the Engineer]

Pace,

I think you're a little strong there.

- If the engine has behaved for the last hour, and carb heat is used properly, I can't see why you'd expect to suddenly suffer an issue on finals.

- Yes, I do agree that it makes reaching the planned touchdown point a little harder, but if thousands of microlight student pilots cope, usually on very short runways, I'm not sure I see an issue for a C152 on a typical training runway.

- Fixation with making the runway? Surely a common issue, engine stopped or not. At-least if you're used to deadstick landings, you're comfortable with knowing what you can actually do.

- Downdrafts. You still have the throttle, but are electing not to use it. If undershooting, of course you do use it.

- I agree that the stall speed will be higher than powered. But why is this an issue? The 1.3Vs safety margin is historically adequate.

I do agree that it's harder to fly well, but I don't believe it's unreasonably so.

G

[dalgetty]

Thanks for your reactions - it makes great reading.

I'm glad to hear I'm not in the only club that teaches that method, or at least to have taught it at some point over the last hundred years.

The point about being able to adjust to tail-wheel craft is a good one, and the club have a Bucker Jungmeister to which the instructors occasionally make reference (eg. if you landed squint like that in the Bucker it would roll).

As for the tail-striking it is not something which happens often - twice to me in about 150 landings. But it is not regarded as being a problem, as it would be if you touched a wing-tip.

It is true that not using the engine as a rule seems a strange decision but, as Genghis the Engineer points out, the throttle is still there if needed - and if falling short we are instructed to raise the nose a little while increasing throttle, but only until we are back on a good glide path.

Overall I don't regret the decision to train with this club, even though I am well aware that I will have racked up a lot more hours of instructions before getting my PPL.

[foxmoth]

I think most comments I would make have already been made - I would take issue though with Landing in a fully stalled attitude is also - generally a good thing. Stall warner going is fine, but you are NOT fully stalled - it is not even incipient stall and even aircraft that people think are stalled on landing (eg dH82a) are not if done right - getting it a little bit wrong could then be disasterous, especially if you had rudder in for a crosswind!:eek:

[Pace]

Landing in a fully stalled attitude is also - generally a good thing.

Yes to minimise your landing roll and a few other things but do remember landing an aircraft well does not have to be near the stall the two are not connected in any way!!!

Just stirring :E

Pace

[vihai]

I think most comments I would make have already been made - I would take issue though with Stall warner going is fine, but you are NOT fully stalled

Indeed! This is a hard to fight legend.

Given the aircraft trajectory during a flare if the aircraft was at the critical AoA the asset would be much more pitched up and the tail would be striking first for sure.

[Pull what]

Landing in a fully stalled attitude is also - generally a good thing.

Dangerous rubbish

[dalgetty]

According to what I learned in my Principles of Flight theory class, most stall alarms sound off at an air speed of around ten knots greater than "full stall" air speed.

So it is true that the landing style we are talking about does not involve a full stall. But I agree with the point that it is generally a good thing to slow the aircraft down as much as is reasonable before touch down

[Genghis the Engineer]

Dangerous rubbish

We then get into issues such as the difference between attitude and AoA.

You don't want to stall prior to landing, otherwise at best the landing will be hard and inelegant. You do want to land very close to the stall - and a stall warning operating is fine; it's then an interesting debating point whether the wing stalls once the wheels are on the ground. In a nosewheel aeroplane held stick-back on the mains until the nosewheel lowers naturally to the ground, you probably have. In a taildragger making a wheeler landing the scenario is probably a little more complex - as lift decreases, the tail sinks due to the weight DESPITE the CP moving forward and the wing probably stalling. In a taildragger making a 3-pointer, you probably never truly stall the wing as the AoA=incidence which is never quite going below the stalling AoA as the aeroplane slows on the runway; just the total lift keeps decreasing.

Interesting debating point.

G

[Pilot DAR]

the tail-striking it is not something which happens often - twice to me in about 150 landings. But it is not regarded as being a problem, as it would be if you touched a wing-tip.

I don't agree that striking the tail is less a problem than striking a wingtip. Doing either is not good, and the flying which got you there means a skill was not properly applied. I suggest that striking the tail of a 150 twice in 150 landings is twice too often. Particularly if on a hard surface. Yes, the ring itself is replaceable (though have you looked at the price of one?). However, the welded steel part riveted inside the fuselage of a 150 can be easily knocked up inside, and that is big damage to repair.

I would not worry about striking a wingtip.... it takes a lot of effort to get a Cessna wingtip near the ground.

http://i381.photobucket.com/albums/oo252/PilotDAR/Aircraft/IMG_2465.jpg

[Mark1234]

Genghis, now I'm puzzled!

In flight AOA and attitude aren't linked sure, but in my head, once the mains are on, attitude is (bar rigging angle) AOA?

In a wheeler, while the tail is up, the chord is substantially parallel to the ground, and the relative airflow, and is therefore not stalled - in the same way as there's no stall in a 'stall turn'.

Once the tail is down, same as a three pointer. Probably not stalled as it's unlikely the three point attitude is steeper than stalling AOA. Equally, I'm not convinced you can get the required stall AOA out of most nosewheels without dragging the tail on the floor..

Or is there something more complex going on - I'm assuming you're talking about the main wing, not the tail feathers!

However, as a somewhat esoteric point, I wonder if very low speed airflow will stay attached to the usual stall AOA.

[mmgreve]

Quote:
Landing in a fully stalled attitude is also - generally a good thing.
Dangerous rubbish


Thank you for the thoughtful comment :)

I should obviously have said NEARLY stalled. An the word "generally" was meant to reflect that this is not always the case, especialy for certain high powered taildraggers. In most trainers I would expect the stallwarner to come on before touch-down if correctly executed (Disclaimer: I have no experience on C152s)

...other than that, I agree with Ghengis on the finer points of AoA

[vihai]

I know of at least one aircraft in which the 3-pt ground attitude holds the wing at approximately critical AoA.

What aircraft is it?

[foxmoth]

Flown one, stalled it - IIRC there was pre stall buffet at the incipient stage, never got that on landing:}

[foxmoth]

Although a long time ago, the time I flew the Monocoupe was for its permit renewal so was particularly looking at the stall and indications and I am pretty certain that on landing (which WAS 3 point) it was NOT giving pre stall indications, the attitude may be approaching the "fully stalled attitude" (which was the original post I remarked on), but I would be very surprised if it was AT this. Of course at this point you are decelerating rapidly, so on ground contact it should only be a VERY short period before you do run out of lift, but STALLING on landing gives VERY little room for getting it slightly wrong and AFAIK these aircraft are not known to be that unforgiving.:cool:

[dalgetty]

Flying a monocoupe... a new entry on my list of (very) long-term ambitions

[Pace]

There are times where landing near the stall is preferable there are also times where landing near the stall is dangerous.
Obviously different aircraft suit different techniques tail wheel one example but landing an aircraft is nothing to do with stall other than you want to be landing as slow as possible to stop as quick as possible.
An aircraft can be landed 30 kts above the stall speed or just on the stall
You may if your a skillful pilot and with a dollop of luck pull off a greaser 30 kts above stall and equally have a heavy landing at just above the stall!
Obviously 30 kts above stall will mean you will eat up a lot of runway as well as brakes but don't mix up landing as having to be near stall

Pace

[IO540]

Haven't read the whole thread, so replying to the 1st post:

I assume by "cut" you mean completely close the throttle, and carry out a glide approach.

This is fine, and is obviously safer because if the engine fails you just continue the glide, but it knackers the engine by cooling it too rapidly. If you do this with a big engine, and you were flying at a reasonable power setting previously (which you may well be, on a retractable plane with the gear and half flap down) you will probably crack some cylinders.

I often fly a similar glide approach, but only if the engine has been cooled by running at low power during immediately preceeding few minutes.

[Pilot DAR]

You may if your a skillful pilot and with a dollop of luck pull off a greaser 30 kts above stall

Well, yes, as that same skillful pilot with that luck might also pull off a loop and roll in the same plane. All the rest of us should not attemp this!

Getting a greaser (or any kind of safe landing) in a typical GA tricycle aircraft at 30 knots faster than stall speed is very unlikely. You're much more likely to have a bucking, wheelbarrowing ride partway down the runway.

Should anyone doubt this, consider what it would be like to hold the aircraft on the runway 30 knots faster than it's comfortable rotation speed. It's about the same.

You'll find that flight manuals for tricycle aircraft will generall say something like "touchdown on the mainwheels first" in their normal procedures section. This will be very difficult to achieve at +30 knots...

If you make a good effort to touch the mainwheels first, and not the nosewheel, or tail tiedown ring, with a speed slowing to near the stall speed, you have the best chance for a "good" landing. Any variation to that procedure, gets you into less safe territory...

[IO540]

At Vs+30kt one is likely to glide all the way down a 1000m runway - especially in a low wing plane.

I know for sure a TB20 would do exactly that.

[Mimpe]

Pace
I agree with you on this one...very sound post

I was trained in the powered approach method, and have found type coversions to more complex aircraft and twins quite straightforward.

We also did the steeper aproaches and exhaustive engine failure practice.

As a general rule, I find the most competent pilots I meet in GA do powered but fairly steepish approached with short final legs, and well within glide range.

"Submarine " long flat finals under power and out of glide range are inherently more dangerous. In Australia, on hot days with variable winds, you need a bit of inherent energy in the aircraft on aproach as a safety margin for loss of lift or stall situations.

[IO540]

A steep final approach also gives you quite a lot of protection from wind shear, because you have lots of spare power to deal with it.

If you fly a shallow approach, and get wind shear, you will just go down.

If flying into a runway which is close to a tall cliff, so one can get a lot of turbulence (and a lot of it as a downwards airflow) I would always fly a very steep final. For example, an approach from the top left into this airport (http://www.connecto-taxi.com/files/images/airport-service/airport-brac-3.jpg) (which is at the top of a tall cliff - not apparent from the picture) is best done steeply if there is any significant wind.

[Pace]

10540

Why would you glide down the runway unless you were holding for a lower speed?
Ok I have put 30 kts to grab attention but a citation with control problems landed at Edinburg with a radar estimated touch down speed of 200 kts 95 kts above the normal VREF speed albeit above the tyre limiting speeds but they got away with it it was a 24/7 aircraft.
In very high winds and shear you may elect to land at speeds much higher than normal and fly it onto the runway.
While we may want to land as slowly as possible I am purely pointing out that landing and the stall are not connected in the wAy some presume.

Pace

[IO540]

I am not a jet pilot :) but I gather that practically all jets have their wings rigged so that when the nosewheel touches down (and assuming the main wheels are down also ;) ) the wings produce a negative lift.

So the thing gets stuck to the runway, and "all" you need to plenty of rubber to burn...

Whereas the wings on most GA piston types produce considerable lift with all 3 wheels down, and IMHO at Vs+30 you will never hold it down with the elevator. It will just wheelbarrow.

[Mimpe]

yes my style is let the thing land when it wants to land...I never think whether its near the stall or not. Nailing the speed on finals relative to the weight of the aircraft and the wind/runway conditions is the key.

[Pace]

10540

As I said 30 kts above was an attention grabber figure.
Obviously the faster you are going the more elevator authority there will be and the more effect for a smaller movement. Yes the aircraft will be at flying speed so inappropriate movements would send you skyways.
Let me fire a question at you ? You arrive back at your airfield on low fuel and stronger winds than forecast.
Tower are giving 40 kts 40 degrees off with warnings of severe Down draughts all the way down the approach! This is in the TB20 how would you handle the landing including flap selection?

Pace

[IO540]

40/40 is just OK-ish given the max demo TB20 xw figure (25kts).

So I would land as per the POH i.e. full flap.

And fly a very steep approach :) Maybe at ~ 100kt most of the way down.

Better still, go elsewhere. I work with 20USG min computed FOB at destination, which is good for ~2hrs in the air.

[Pace]

25 kts is demonstrated not limiting! You have already added more speed down the approach (good move) but windshear goes to ground what would you do there presuming you are low on fuel and caught out! Say winds even stronger ? Has happened to me.
Is full flap in the TB recommended in strong wind situations? When would you use lower than full flap ? Ever? Would you use higher speeds in s clean landing?
Not point scoring just point making ; )

Pace

[Pilot DAR]

25 kts is demonstrated not limiting!

Demonstrated for the aircraft, might still be limiting for the pilot!

[IO540]

On a big runway, say 2000m, I might use half flap.

But "windshear" and "severe downdraughts" are not the same thing. The former goes all the way down to surface (obviously) but the latter cannot (unless there is a big hole in the ground, where the runway starts :) ). To deal with the former, you fly a steep "glideslope" with plenty of power and speed in reserve. To deal with the latter, you would do as aforementioned and in addition try to land some distance after the runway starts.

There are limits on everything. What is possible (in terms of wind/turbulence) into a 2000m runway is not possible into a 500m runway, even if the latter is easily long enough normally.

[Pace]

Pilot Dar

Obviously I agree that demonstrated maybe limiting for some pilots!
Demonstrated may even be too much for some pilots!
Demonstrated may easily be exceeded by others!

10540

40 kts into the 500 metro strip may be fine with more speed as actual touchdown speed could be far less than normal


Pace

[Pilot DAR]

Obviously I agree

Yes, I know, it's not you, IO-540 and myself I'm worried about, it's the other lesser experienced pilots reading this, who might actually try some of these things!

It's important that pilots understand what is a limitation, and what is not, but also realize their own, but then I know you agree! ; )

[Crash one]

My Emeraude has (I believe) a demonstrated Xwind of 12kts.
I have 200hrs total time.
I have landed "sucessfully" with 14kts Xwind at 90deg on tarmac.
Also once with wind 130mag/25kts. grass runway 06, not pretty & I cheated a bit, diagonally across the strip.
I am convinced the a/c demonstrated is a bit conservative even for a 610kg taildragger. However, I have no intention of kidding myself that my limit is any better than 12kt.
As an aside , if there are any taildragging instructors within striking distance of Crail (Fife) I could do with some help!! PM if pos.

[dalgetty]

Crash one, there may be some experienced pilots around the Leuchars area with a bit of time on their hands shortly ...

[Crash one]

This is true but they don't fly Spitfires anymore:D

[dalgetty]

Thanks to everybody who contributed to this discussion. I am greatly encouraged.