Landing Question!

[againstgravity]

I have a landing question, which is still bothering me (I am post solo but not with too many PIC hours). With my previous instructor, I used to have pretty decent landings using the following sequence (Cessna 172M):

1: Fly a good pattern
2: Slow down on final with full flaps (70 mph); and stay on glidepath if there are visual aids if not use sight picture
3: Maybe trim a bit
4: Slow down a bit more when field is made (1.3Vso)
5: Round out in ground effect
6: Close throttle as I flare, not before

This is the method University of North Dakota shows in one of their instructional videos, so I don’t think it is anything new. The method seemed to work well, to say the least. Pretty smooth controlled landings. Also, I never pull up to extend the glide and I am good at slow flight so never worried about stalling.

In the middle of training got new CFI. He is one of the best (experienced, well respected, not going to an airline or anything) and has improved everything else about my flying but landings are another story. He insisted that I was coming in too low and slow; and we were in danger of stalling. I never heard of that from my previous CFI. Now new landing method:

1: White over white on final or generally high
2: 70 (mph) all the way until we cross threshold and keep the nose down regardless of descent rate
3: No round out in ground affect but continuous change of attitude from flying to landing

In both cases we would add gust factor so that is not a problem.

In his method of landing, we bounce and such half of the time, and I am convinced that it can’t be a reasonable way to land. Even if we were trying to clear an obstacle, then once obstacle is clear we slow the plane on the runway then round out then flare. He seems to not agree. He used to tell me that 1.3Vso could cause a stall, I finally responded that I was not going to pull up to stretch the glide, and we can always keep some power in till the flare, then he finally said it is not the stall he is afraid of but a hard landings, which I am yet to experience with my method.

What am I missing about what he wants me to do? I got some advice on another forum but still quite puzzled, as the CFI went from worrying about stalls to now worried about hard landings. We can try his method for hours but it is so hard to carry so much speed till the last second.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Best thing you can do is pay the cost of teaching that instructor how to fly.....but from what you have written it might be expensive.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Bit of a curate's egg there. The first instructor is teaching you to approach too low if my assumption is correct that you are using PAPIs to maintin a 3 degree glidepath. That's for instrument traffic - for a VFR 172 you need to be approaching steeper than that.

Main thing is not to be too fast at the point the approach is stabilised - on a calm day 60kts is plenty. You'll soon tell if you're too fast as the flare will go on and on before the aeroplane lands, floaty floaty down the runway, as it dissipates the excess speed before running out of energy and touching down (you do fully hold-off, don't you?).

[Pace]

You are looking at two different approach styles! One a powered approach two a glide approach.
The glide tends to be high with an almost closed throttle and appears to be flavor of the day with some instructors probably because it protects a novice pilot from getting slow and in a high AOA situation which a powered approach can do if your not on the button with power and speed management.
There are numerous benefits to the powered approach if flown correctly there are numerous negatives to a glide approach and not many benefits so I see the glide as a trainee pilot approach which you need to dump when you gain more experience.

Pace

[sevenstrokeroll]

dear original poster...first, get a new instructor.

someone just wrote that the PAPIs were for instrument flying...wow...I'm shaking my head on that one.

second...go out and buy the book, ''stick and rudder'' and read it...esp on landings and stalls.

and 1.3vso is just fine for approaches and landings assuming you have an operating engine.

on final, you should be at published approach speeds/vref plus gust factor and that should be 1.3vso.

You won't stall if you are being attentive.

A normal landing/approach with engine operating normally should be on VASI/PAPI and at target approach speed. As you are crossing the fence (old term) you may reduce power and speed to end up touching down at vref minus 5 knots (not miles perhour) in the touchdown zone (frist third of the runway).

I'm not talking about a situation in which you are avoiding wake turbulence, I'm not talking about landing over a 50' obstacle, or higher than average or allowable winds.

(former CFIIMEI)

oh, and just so you know, if you aren't looking to go to an airline, that doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make you a better instructor.

Listen my new airplane friend, over 30 years ago I was getting checked out in a tomahawk...the instructor (mind you I had a CFI at the time) was WOEFULLY AWFUL. SHE said she wouldn't fly at published approach speeds for the plane...she insisted on being over 13 knots too fast (no wind). I asked her about it and she was terribly worried about stalling.

She was an awful instructor. She was so bad (how bad was she?) that another time she brought a plane back to the flight line saying the flight controls were broken...actually she had the autopilot turned on!!!!!

So...find another instructor...get that book and read it.

yes, be concerned about stalling...be alert, be ready to recover...but if you come in too fast there can be many problems including, but not limited to : wheelbarrowing, porposing, breaking off the nose landing gear, floating most of the runway away, going off the end of the runway.

I had just checked out someone in a Cessna 177, he had done a fine job. Just as we were parking the plane I reminded him to never go too fast on landing and then I pointed to a C152 coming in way too fast...I said: WATCH THIS>>>HE WILL LAND on the nosewheel, break it off and wreck the plane.

AND IT HAPPENED...just like I said. I ran to the plane and helped th epilot out.

There are rotten instructors out there...i don't know the person you have, but something aint right

[againstgravity]

I guess my initial method of landings are the ones I need to stick with. From the day I started flying with this instructor he kept trying to change my landings, although I repeatedly kept insisting that his method of landing with speed did not agree with me. Initially, he kept insisting that we could stall! I tried for hours trying to please him, but pointing the nose down for 70 mph when the conditions don't require it is just not right. Yes, we kept bouncing and having other landing problems, and he kept insisting a bit more practice and it will be better. Or that I would get the sight picture. But, I never had problem with sight picture after I learned how to land with the first instructor.

Finally, a week ago, I told him we'll be 65 on short final and there is no chance we'll stall. I have quite a few hours in the log book and too experienced to pull to stretch the glide. I use power as needed, and we, of course, had a great landing. As mentioned before, landings have not been a problem before I met him. Just, general need to build confidence, which by now is not an issue either. He was quite upset and told me to never do that again. I told him that there was no risk of stalling, and we were in no danger. Then he told me he was not worried about stalling anymore but worried about a hard landing. I am assuming he was worried about the power management.

I understand the issue about losing engine at some point on short final and getting in trouble, but then I guess it is emergency operations territory and one would have to land short, assuming no obstacle. Carrying speed does not seem risk free.

I did try to find a midway to please him coming in at 70 till we cross threshold, then slowing down while eating the runway then attempting to land with more reasonable speed. The midway kept him at bay, but still made the landings harder than I think they should be, with more power adjustments to switch from his glide to my way of landing.

[sevenstrokeroll]

dear against gravity

twice you have said you use 70 MPH...doyou have an old plane with miles per hour on the air speed indicator or are you mistaken?

we use KNOTS (nautical miles per hour).

have you looked up the published speeds in your pilot opearting handbook? have you ever actually done a weight and balance and then checked the exact speed you should use with full flaps on final?

you speak of stretching the glide...well that is good to know...but as long as you have engine power available you aren't really gliding so much as making a power on approach and landing.

yes, constantly look for a place to land IN AN EMERGENCY...I even do that in the jet...but try a very long final...at least three miles started from 1000' on VASI/PAPI fully configured for landing at the published speed...not faster.

if you get low and slow add power (its no sin to add power...even max power))

high and fast reduce power.

don't be afraid to go around.

but I don't know why you are changing speed on final unless you are accomadating trailing traffic. you are just learning and stable approaches at the right speed are vital.

[mary meagher]

Dear Against Gravity -

I have suffered all sorts of instructors, both in the USA and the UK. And clearly as you are paying this guy, if he doesn't float your boat its time to bail out!

Not only that, try a different airfield, and a different flying club/school. Where do you live in the US? that will help me advise you. As you have started flying a Cessna 172, probably wise to stick with the type; make sure however that it is well maintained! And have a good thorough read of the Pilots Operating Handbook.

Practice gentle stalls at altitude. Any good instructor shouldn't be afraid to stall!
Its no big deal, really. After all, a good landing is a stall near the ground.
Six to 8 inches, that is. A stall from 10 feet can be painful.

Avoid ex military instructors.

It's supposed to be fun, remember?

[againstgravity]

Yes, it is a very old plane so everything in the POH is in mph. And, yes, I know the speeds : ) Vso 50 mph 1.3Vso 65 adjust for gusts works like a charm

I guess the debate is I am used to 1.3Vso short final, using power as needed and full stall landing. No problems with landings that way whatsoever. Until I ended up with this instructor never had a landing problem.

I don't change speeds on short final, at least did not use to do. This guy insists he needs nose down and 70 mph on short final, no leveling off in ground effect and some sort of continuous attitude change to land. Of course, half of these landing end up in a bounce.

I finally decided we are slowing down, he got mad, then I found a way to keep 70 until he stops paying attention once over the threshold, then start slowing down eating runway, then leveling off and landing. He is somewhat onto me in terms of not doing exactly what he wants, but can't argue with the 70 until the threshold.

So why do I debate keeping him, he is a good instructor in all other aspects. I have no problem with anything else, pretty much have a lot of hours under the belt, so power-off power-on stalls, slow flight, steep turn, emergency procedures are all pretty much on track. Landings we fight over. I just wanted to make sure I am not the only one that sees a problem with what he is trying to teach me.

[Pace]

Hmmm

Something is not right here? Firstly if you do not get on with an instructor, have a clash of personality or do not trust his methods or advice change instructors!

My guess and its only a guess is this instructor is one of the glide approach instructors plus!
He will have you coming down a steep glidepath throttle closed, full flap at 70 knowing because of your steep and draggy approach as soon as you flare the speed will quickly drop off!
Do you notice the throttle in the descent? Is it almost fully closed on teh way down and is your descent steep with a lot of drag hanging out.
More detail please

Pace

[againstgravity]

Pace, throttle is fully closed most of the time in his method. I think it is the glide method. If so, is this something I need to learn? I am a bit skeptical about it since although it minimizes the risk of not making the field if engine gives, it increases the guesswork (speed) in flare.

[Ellemeet]

It is not really relevant if you are 1.3vso or +10kts. This depends entirely on how you like to land and what the plane likes.

I never managed to get in a proper landing on a c182 in all 4 attempts, and I believe this is due to the fact that the fi sitting next to me wants me to come in real slow with full flaps. The c182 is an aircraft you want to "fly against the deck" meaning a bit more speed light flare slow descent rate.

My commander I will typically land at 85kts (flaps 10) and she seems to love that allthough the other day I landed her with 110kts when it was 30kts gusting 50 .. into the wind ... you could have put an egg between .. real smooth.

Find what looks sensible and makes you comfortable. A bit faster is not a problem.. but whatever you do .. stay in control of power and pitch.

My ppl instructor loved it when I landed the c172 with the stall horn blowing on the last 2 meters. But he would get very annoyed if it is was any earlier then that.

ask for another fi and see if that clicks better. Remember you are the customer and you pay the bill ... which does not mean that you are always right.

Last week I did my seaplane rating and I had this FI sitting relaxed next to me, never touching a thing .. letting me fly and telling me tips afterwards. In the afternoon I got another FI because of some logistics. From the moment we left he was very nervous, correcting me very fast and even touching the yoke many times .. before I could even correct myself. This unsettled me quite a bit and offcourse you do worse then.

The next morning I didone more hour with the first fi and she never touched anything but was just very pleased .. then I did my cpl seaplane and past with flying colours.

Find a fi where you are comfortable with and who you believe you learn from!

p.s. generally it is handier to have the need for a bit of throttle for control (so you have margins 2 ways) .. however at some point you will start doing glide in approaches with no throttle. Then you will probably start learning the difference and thus get better control.

remember that a landing can be a pretty hectic thing so if you do not control airspeed you will stall on a landing and that is generally not a very good thing:rolleyes::rolleyes:

a bit of margin is allways nice

[Pace]

Pace, throttle is fully closed most of the time in his method. I think it is the glide method. If so, is this something I need to learn? I am a bit skeptical about it since although it minimizes the risk of not making the field if engine gives, it increases the guesswork (speed) in flare.


With students who have low experience in low powered draggy aircraft methods are taught like pitch for speed which are designed to keep you away from a high drag high AOA situation!
The glide approach does that although I do not agree with the arguments that you can make the field by being high.
More likely you will have a closed throttle and will
Not know that the engine has stopped until
You need it and fixate on landing on
The field .
There are dangers that you will
Be high and fast and land long etch.
The powered approach gives you a more precise landing point and more control
Over the glide approach which is steeper with a more abrupt flare

Pace

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

someone just wrote that the PAPIs were for instrument flying...wow...I'm shaking my head on that one.

Then you shouldn't be.

It's most unprofessional to drag a light single in at 3 degrees, power against drag, especially if there's a built up area underneath, unless you are going for an ultra short landing at a strip with no obstacles.

'The lights' are for instrument traffic to translate from ILS to visual for the landing, so they reflect the 3 degree glideslope of the ILS. They are not appropriate for light singles.

[Pace]

Shaggy sheep driver WHY ?
A competant pilot is unprofessional flying a powered approach rather than a throttle off steep glide approach over a built up area?
Then what do you do taking off in the same aircraft over a built up area ? Refuse to go ?
Engine failure is far more likely on take off when the unit is under max stress not on approach!
Conditioned thought
So I presume that it's unprofessional to fly light singles IFR where you have to fly a 3 degree or less glide slope ? :ugh:

Pace

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I didn't say 'throttle off steep glide approach' (though there are occasionas when that's appropriate). I said an approach steeper than 3 degrees. 3 degrees is ludicrously shallow for a draggy, slow, light single. It's like taxying with the brakes on - loads of power against the drag!

One should think what is appropriate. 3 degrees is not normally appropriate for a 172 unless it is using the ILS or, as I said, going for a high-power against drag short field landing.

[BabyBear]

Pace, here's another way to look at it.

To be on the PAPI at a thousand feet (circuit height) a small single is flying an unnecessarily large circuit. Which, of course, is not in the interest of any in terms of efficiency.

BB

[Pace]

But we are training a pilot to fly which may mean a Cessna 150 today a Big engined Cirrus tomorrow or even a twin or larger in the future!!
A 172 is not a bad aircraft and perfectly capable of flying level with approach flap!
Reducing time in the air is another thing which we all do to suit the aircraft we fly and a glide approach maybe one which archives that in a particular situation.
With a glide you are more likely to land long
You are more likely to open the throttle and find a stopped engine!
You are more likely to land fast
You will not have as much elevator and rudder authority compared to the powered approach!
The only benefit I see with the glide approach is with students who in early days need to be kept away from
High AOA high drag scenarios
Yes I see it as an approach especially when you are too high but I see it as an approach not THE APPROACH and certainly not a method for your future flying

Pace

[BabyBear]

Pace, I think it is actually the opposite.

I think that most PPLs are taught the huge circuit that actually leaves the ATZ (to be on the PAPI at 1000 feet is somehwere around 3 miles from touch down, so given the ATZ is from runway centre this is well outside the ATZ) and when they get going they realise that is not the most efficient way to fly a small single aircraft and therefore adjust accordingly.

BB

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi Againstgravity, you may be amazed at how steep you can make your approaches in a C172 with 40deg flaps.

Whilst flying gliders I practiced some ultra short, high angle approaches, at 600ft at 200yards from the threshold. Using full airbrakes and a side slip this 45deg descent was possible.

I tried the same practice in a C172, flying over a disused airfield at 3000ft at less than half a mile out. With 40deg flaps, no throttle, and 75-80 knots the C172 made it onto the glideslope with room to spare. (note. Max Vflaps is 85knots, and no side-slips are allowed with C172s.)

So it is possible to loose lots of height on the high side of the drag curve.

[Steve R]

I tried the same practice in a C172, flying over a disused airfield at 3000ft at less than half a mile out. With 40deg flaps, no throttle, and 75-80 knots the C172 made it onto the glideslope with room to spare. (note. Max Vflaps is 85knots, and no side-slips are allowed with C172s.)


1/2 mile out =2640'
You are at 3,000
Even 60 MPH only gives you 30 seconds to reach the threshold from 1/2 mile out.
ROD 6,000'/min.
Must have been a good day!
:ok:

[Pace]

In a way maybe we are not seeing the real picture between glide approaches or powered approaches or in fact the pitch for speed argument that has raged for years.
The basic form of flight is the Glider it uses someone elses energy to tow it into the sky and on a still lift free day taps into its own potential energy trading altitude for that energy and hence enough airflow to keep the wing flying.

We then move to very low powered high drag air frames which because of their low power and high drag rely more on the potential energy in the airframe.

Add high powered aircraft and tapping into the airframes potential energy becomes less important.

I always see energy management between the engine and airframe as two sets of throttles, the one which runs to the engine and the control column which allows you to pitch for the second source of energy.

Hence as in the pitch for speed argument neither is wrong as its more about managing the energy and drag available to you and that is very type specific and situation specific

As stated the Glide Approach is one form of approach not THE APPROACH
Your skills as a pilot play a major part managing those two sources of potential energy as well as the various types of drag used for your benefit or against your benefit.

Here the novice pilot has to be protected from his lack of skills by erring on the safer way from getting into low power high drag situations

Pace

[riverrock83]

I've been taught both techniques - and they are appropriate for different situations.

If you are doing a PFL (Practice Forced Landing) then you will be using the glide approach. As your approach is steeper, you need more energy to move from the descent to the flare, so the approach speed is higher.

If you are doing a short field landing, you want to be at the minimum safe speed during the approach. In my aircraft, that is achieved on the back side of the drag curve, so high power, low speed, shallow approach.

I'd say that shallower (powered) approaches are easier. You have longer on final to stabilise and the change in attitude to flare isn't significant.
That doesn't make them the right technique to use though!

I actually find flapless landings the easiest, as you have much longer in the flare (higher approach speed) . However you don't want to do them regularly unless you have a very long runway and you don't mind the additional tyre ware (due to the higher touch down speed).

I believe it comes down to the glide ratio of the airplane. For standard GA planes, its probably around 1:10 making a glide angle of around 6 degrees. This means that if you are on a 3 degree glide slope you can't make the runway in the event of an engine failure. For 737s and the like, the glide ratio is more like 1:15 or more. They might not reach the touchdown point, but if on a 3.5 degree glide, they can probably still make the aerodrome (remember a BA flight into Heathrow a couple of years ago?).

So you have to balance the two safety aspects (engine failure vs slightly more difficult touch down), obstacle clearance (often small airfields have obstacles that makes a steeper approach advised), circuit size (again - can you land back on the runway if an engine fails; what are others doing; noise abatement;) efficiency (smaller circuit = quicker, especially at busy places). Just because something is difficult, doesn't mean that you shouldn't learn how to do it.

I normally do a slightly steeper glide (probably around 4 degrees) to land at the CAT touchdown point, since I fly from a large airport. This means I'm not diving onto the runway but since there is lots of extra runway to play with, if the donkey dies, I can still land on.

However despite all of that - I'd do what your instructor says to do. Discuss it with him when on the ground. However you would be considerably wiser to trust your instructor than what you read in an anonymous internet forum. Many people on here are almost certainly experienced pilots and instructors, but the only person that you can be sure is an instructor, is the person sitting beside you in the plane.

If it helps - there have been at least 2 instances of engine failures at my flying club over the years when in the circuit. Because the trained and practised technique is to stay within landing distance when in the circuit - both pilots and aircraft made it to the ground without scratches.

[sevenstrokeroll]

shaggy sheep

you should be on the vasi/papi for all landings except when you are actively avoiding wake turbulence or practicing ''obstacle'' landings.

if you are worried about losing your engine and crashing into surrounding houses, you must ask yourself:

is this airport a safe airport ? perhaps I should fly somewhere else.

and, what will you do if you are flying an ILS and lose your engine?

being on instruments does not guarantee you won't lose your engine.

if you are always high on the VASI/PAPI, you will have more difficulty judging your flare and you will have a higher rate of descent.

a pilot has many tools at his disposal. different approaches for different conditions...but saying that VASI is for instrument flying, or that it is UNPROFESSIONAL to be on VASI is just wrong.

a three degree glideslope works best for most types of planes. and variations, while possible, should be done for a reason.

and if your reason is losing an engine in a convenient position like downwind abeam the numbers, what are you going to do at some other point?

do you takeoff and circle the field to cruise altitude or do you takeoff and , after clearing obstacles, proceed on course?

the idea that you should be alert and know what to do if you lose an engine is a good one...to only make approaches that can be salvaged if the engine quits may just be nuts.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

you should be on the vasi/papi for all landings except when you are actively avoiding wake turbulence or practicing ''obstacle'' landings.

Absolute balderdash! The VASI / PAPI is an entirely innappropriate glideslope indicator for VFR light singles, as already stated.

Mind you, judging by the number of 'bomber circuit' PA28 / C172 pilots I've followed around a circuit which touches several counties, this tosh seems to be widely believed. I blame the airline-wannabe instructors!

[Pace]

SSD

Why is it Balerdash to fly a 2.5 3 degree glide in a single low powered aircraft?
Its not balsderdash to fly level at 50 feet (if terrain allows from 3 miles out)
It maybe not be an advisable practice but you can do it as much as flying down the runway 10 feet up with flap!
If your saying aircraft X with full flap will not fly level with the power available I take your point but would then question why full flap before being assured of landing or why full flap at all unless on the shortest of strips when I would definately NOT !!! use a glide approach.
If your saying student Y would get into a mess stall and crash I take your point but any approach from zero glidepath to one with all drag available while managing not to accelerate will work too :E
Conditioning Conditioning Conditioning :ok:

Pace

[Chuck Ellsworth]

you should be on the vasi/papi for all landings except when you are actively avoiding wake turbulence or practicing ''obstacle'' landings.

That is pure horse sh.t.

[RTN11]

Not the first time this video has come up, but it explains how crap instructors are teaching very large circuits and flying PAPIs all the time, which isn't always appropriate for light singles

A Sarcastic View of Pattern Flying - YouTube

I would always expect 3 whites on PAPIs in a light single, if not four. The PAPIs are aimed for a 3 degree approach to touch down on the ILS touchdown zone, I'm actually aiming to fly a 3.5-4 degree approach to touchdown on the numbers, so the PAPIs aren't showing anything relevant at all. This is what the second instructor for the OP is trying to get him to do.

sevenstroke(t)roll you're talking out of your arse

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Chuck put it more succinctly than I. And Captin Eppaulettes in the video is well worth a watch. He is spot-on. :ok:

Were you never taught to fly the visual circuit with the runway on the wingtip, and to turn base when the threshold is 45 degrees over your shoulder? How the heck does that correct technique fit a 3 degree glideslope?

[againstgravity]

Thank you for all the good advice.

I am starting to see that there are two schools of though. Stay on glidescope or come in a bit steep and glide in. If you stay on glidescope then you'll need power and if you are really new to flying, there is the fear that you may stall. Although, I am not sure how realistic is this fear. Probably few stall accidents are on short final. Also, there is probably a reason why we practice slow flight and on lightly loaded aircraft power off stalls need quite a bit of effort, they don't just happen (at least regarding Cessna 172s).

I must tell you that at this point instructor and I are not fighting over glidescope. Either way is fine with me, but like many of the posters he won't stand red over white. We seem to be fighting over slow flight just before landing. I got along with both instructors and I think I can get back to the first one (still fine with the second one in general), but I just can't stand the speed into flare. Maybe it is lack of skill but I don't think so.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

againstgravity - just watch and absorb the video above. It's amusing, but the message is for real. Dragging it in at 3 degrees is for unimaginative aeroplane drivers who have no wish to become skilful pilots.

Do you want to be one of those? If your instructor wants you be one of those, get a new instructor... seriously!

[RTN11]

Sounds like the school needs to standardise, as being shared by two instructors teaching such opposing methods will only ever confuse a low hours students who doesn't know any better.

When I practice ILS approaches in light singles, it really feels like you're dragging the poor thing in, when it's far more comfortable with a slightly steeper approach.

On all accounts, the speed has to be right. Stalling is a real threat, and I've certainly seen students come to the stall warner early on in an approach where they just kept adding power to stay on glide and ended up on the back of the drag curve.

Where on the runway do you touchdown, and generally how have your touchdowns been? Firm? Main wheels first and keeping the nose up as long as possible? Stall warner sounding at or before touchdown?

[Pace]

RTN11

I see nothing wrong with flying a steep approach compared to a low approach and I also do not see why dropping like a vertical stone engine throttled back with a sharp flare makes for a good pilot.
Ok the video was funny I will admit that ;)
The problem being there are so many variables in weather and traffic that you should be capable of numerous approaches and not be fixed to one!
There you are high about to turn base for your steep throttle closed descent tight in and there are two other aircraft on finals.
Do you drop down in front of them or extend downwind to slot in behind them?
Do you use the same technique on a really short runway where you need to hit the numbers?
Strong winds and shear? Do you use the extra control ability of the powered approach or the lesser control ability of the closed throttle.
I have even used curved descending approaches from downwind or S turns for spacing!
It is being comfortable in all scenarios and selecting the right approach that IMO is the right way not selecting one approach style to suit all.
As a jet pilot NO I do not want a light single plodding down the approach from 6 miles out at 65 kts causing a missed approach but neither do I want one appearing in my 12 o clock dropping in front of me :E

[Heston]

PAPIs? 3degree glide slope? What is the poor guy going to do when he flies into a small grass field? He should be being taught to fly the airplane at this stage of his training, not worrying about this nonsense.

I'm with Shaggy and Chuck all the way.

[RTN11]

Very true pace

In the case of the OP, the first instructor is only teaching a powered on shallow approach for a long finals, so the student will only go away with the ability to do that one thing.

The second instructor is trying to teach the OP different techniques to approach, by coming in steeper and using the aircraft's energy to your benefit rather than just relying on power to get you down.

I'm not saying every approach should be steep, and will fly instrument approaches in light singles, but early on in training flying steeper low powered approaches are a far better way to get the student to learn the feel of the aircraft and what it is capable of, and then flying a long shallow approach is child's play by comparison.

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi again, there are many differences in the aircraft we fly, and the C172 has some of the dragiest flaps of any; On 40 degrees they are real stoppers.

We have one aircraft at our field.. Lets call him 'The Green Aircraft' that has a very slow stall speed, so that in a stiff breeze he takes an age doing the last few hundred feet onto the runway. For Take Off he climbs almost vertically at an air-speed of about 35 knots.

It was riverrock that mentioned the 10:1 glide ratio... That is the C172s best ratio at max L/D speed. Either side of that, the glide ratio falls to a lot less, especially into wind.

[againstgravity]

For the record, I have no problem with coming in a bit high, low, whatever, doing what the tower says (assuming no engine problems). Most approaches are in my opinion quite salvageable. Of course, there is always the go around. So, I don't want to give the wrong impression that I have any issues with those parts of the landing.

Before I met this second instructor landings were soft, short, and happy : ). OK maybe small exaggeration, but mostly. Stall warning would sound after level off in ground effect. No problem there. So, why reinvent the wheel?

I do understand that a lot of posters think that I should try to accommodate his landing approach as helping me build skill.

[RTN11]

If you have no problem coming in high, why are you bashing the second instructor when he wants to see two whites on VASI?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I have no problem with coming in a bit high, low, whatever, doing what the tower says

You're the captain, and you are the one who 'says', not the Tower. You must of course comply with ATC instructions, clearances etc assuming there's no compelling reason not to. The final descision as to how you fly your aeroplane is always yours as captain. Along withe the responsibility of command goes the right to be the boss.

I've always found UK ATC to be quite excellent and highly professional with a clear understanding of their and the captain's responsibilities, and they have always been a joy to work with; the same isn't always true of A/G or AFISOs (not the Barton guys - they know their stuff!).

[againstgravity]

I guess, I am not worried about approach angle. I think that seems to be a debate here, but I am a bit indifferent as different angles may be needed for different situations.


I just want to slow the plane down to 1.3Vso on short final (as soon as conditions permit), level off, and then flare. He insists we keep it fast and not level off. Just the perfect change of attitude from descent to flare.

[India Four Two]

I'm with Chuck and SSD.

Keep the pattern tight and use the runway picture to judge the approach slope. I don't look at the PAPI/VASIs at all.

[sevenstrokeroll]

to those who have called my views balderdash or speaking out of my arse...I would not check you out in any plane at the flying schools or clubs I've been employed as an instructor (CFIIMEI).

While once upon a time you could reasonably be sure your engine would quit in the pattern, that is not the case now. (I am not saying an engine can't quit and am saying you should always have a plan and a pre selected field).

Power on approaches are the normal way to land a plane...it is the safest, most consistent way to land a plane...BIG OR SMALL.

Now, if you want to pretend you are a bush pilot, go out and rent a single engine BUSH.

And yes, there are some airports that don't have Vasi/papi. And yes you should know what a normal approach looks like in case there isn't a vasi...indeed, if the vasi was turned off, and you were flying your normal pattern, and then the VASI was turned on , you should be ''right on''.

Someone who comes in high to the numbers is asking to misjudge your flare and prang the plane.

back before 1927, engines had their problems...after lindbergh made it to paris, properly maintained engines proved pretty darn reliable.

AS to stalling (aerodynamic stall). If you are dividing your eyes between outside and inside, checking speed and sink rate and looking out the windshield, you won't stall.

some smart guy ment9ioned the 45degree point to the ''runway'' to start base turn...that's fine, but end up on the vasi on finallllll!!!!!!!

And yes, if you are out practicing forced landings, there are options available to you.

I also noticed people using different flap settings...you might want to take time to readjust your seat as the ''crutch'' of anything but full flaps is just to compensate for a poorly adjusted seat. (thought some builders offer alternate flap settings for landing in certain wind conditions).

Landing ''on the numbers'' sounds good...except for the one time you are a tiny bit short.

in 38 years of flying as an instructor, corporate pilot, regional pilot and big airline pilot I've never seen such trash written about landings as on this thread.

oh and original poster...go out and find a real instructor and a much newer plane...and have him demonstrate a power on approach and landing to commercial standards, pick a spot on the runway and at the worst he should be within 200 feet of it...and a good guy can do it within six inches.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

sevenstrokeroll, I've never read such a load of drivel in my life as your last post!

I don't believe you are an instructor, as your post contains examples of basic lack of aviation knowledge.

As captain eppaulletes says in the video (you did watch it, didn't you?) it's not about engine failure in the circuit.

The 'smart guy who mentioned the 45 degree angle to turn base' was me. And also the guy in the video, who really is an instructor, and a good one too. You say fine, then use the PAPIs. How the hell would you do that, as a correct circuit (turning base when the runway is 45 degrees behind you) will place you on final a lot steeper than 3 degrees! Unless you are in the habit of flying your circuits at 50 feet!

You are NOT a pilot! You are a wannabe troll!

And theres so much more total crap in there I really can't take you at face value

I think you are a flight sim wannabe. The other horse **** in your post kind of confirms that.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

...and never call it a plane Bader, it's an aeroplane!:=

Harrumph.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

to those who have called my views balderdash or speaking out of my arse...I would not check you out in any plane at the flying schools or clubs I've been employed as an instructor' (CFIIMEI)

This is a public forum and as long as we are somewhat civilized we can express our opinion.

I also am a flight instructor and teach advanced flying, I could come to your airport and see if you could be trained to actually " fly " an airplane then you would be a bit more qualified to check people out.


You said this:

you should be on the vasi/papi for all landings except when you are actively avoiding wake turbulence or practicing ''obstacle'' landings.



This is my personal opinion:


That is pure horse sh.t.

You also said:


Power on approaches are the normal way to land a plane...it is the safest, most consistent way to land a plane...BIG OR SMALL.

That is also pure horse sh.t.

Oh by the way I have been teaching flying since the 1950's and I use my real name here because I am quite content with who I am and not worried about expressing my opinion when it comes to flying.

You would be wise to re-read what I just said above. :ok:

Because that will be my last bit of advice to you on this subject. :ok:

[sevenstrokeroll]

dear shaggy...I didn't watch the video and you must be a complete fool. if you are flying your pattern wide enough you can easily be on the vasi once upon final.

I am not a troll, as I mentioned CFIIMEI, and a 737 captain now. I have more time in the flare than you have in the air.

I think you learned how to fly at one airport and never looked at special airports requiring real judgement. Your views are that of a complete and total amateur.

I really don't care what you think, but if you are trying to mislead the young original poster you are offering nothing but crap.

as to mr chuck...I'm glad you have been teaching advanced flying, you seem to be king of the donkeys. Advanced flying would include instrument flying...care to show me an ILS using your techniques? HA.

You must enjoy making things up. IF some smart guy went to the trouble of inventing the VASI, researching the choice of a 3 degree glideslope, why should we listen to you...you should be out inventing a VASI with a power off approach glideslope.

I love it when people come up with better ideas than agreed upon norms.

Oh, and mr sheepdip, how come there are vasi's at airports without instrument approaches?

oh my...why not come up with other crap that you can try to convince neophytes to believe.

DEAR ORIGINAL POSTER...CALL UP A DESIGNATED EXAMINER AND ASK HIM FOR THE BEST INSTRUCTOR IN YOUR AREA.

Knowing how to do a power off approach doesn't mean it should be your normal approach...just like knowing short or soft field techniques doesn't mean you use them every day.

Good luck.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I said I was through with this crap with you sevenstroke...but you are truly arrogant as is so apparent in this comment to another poster.


I am not a troll, as I mentioned CFIIMEI, and a 737 captain now. I have more time in the flare than you have in the air.


therefore in answer to this.



as to mr chuck...I'm glad you have been teaching advanced flying, you seem to be king of the donkeys. Advanced flying would include instrument flying...care to show me an ILS using your techniques? HA.

I started flying IFR in the fifties when we only had the Radio Range for airways.

During my career I have flown IFR in over sixty countries and can not even remember the different types of aircraft.

When I retired after over fifty years flying for a living I was still flying IFR and the last airplane type that I was trained on was the A320 and my training was done at the factory in Toulouse France.

I use my real name here therefore I am not about to post something that is untrue.

What were you flying in 1957 when I started flying IFR?

Chuck E.

[Heston]

To the OP - this thread is a classic example of why it is a bad idea to ask for advice about something as important as approach and landing technique on an internet forum. But I expect by now you can tell who has real experience and who is talking bo11ocks (Mr SSR that's a UK technical term that you should be familar with).

[foxmoth]

and a 737 captain now

Obviously the problem here, a "big" aeroplane pilot who only knows how to fly that way, like a few other experienced instructors here I also fly big aeroplanes - bigger than a 737, but I still do not teach flying the VASIS, not only is it a very shallow angle, but puts you FAR further into the field than needed, in the States not a big problem, but certainly in the UK there are many fields where teaching people to land like this results in them using up more airfield than is comfortable when they land other than a big airfield that has approach lights, especially in light winds, and the cause of more than a few crashes. I would agree that powered approaches are the norm these days, but as many have said, not 3 degrees.

[mary meagher]

Okay, guys, lets be polite and respectful.....

(Actually I love it when a thread descends into abuse and name calling, so keep it up! I used my real name by mistake when I joined, so I am ALWAYS polite and respectful...)

Now flying at big airports in the US of A, one often finds oneself mingling light aircraft with 737s etc. So if you are flying a 172 into Baton Rouge, for example, it is only good sense to expedite the approach, land promptly, and get out of the way. Which isn't easy to do if you are dragging yourself in on the vasi's.

As a glider pilot with 1800 hours of landing gliders (and with instruction flights off a winch launch, you can average 3 landings an hour, no problem)
we have to get it right the first time. Every time. You have to judge your circuits, approaches and landings by eye, your eye. And if its a strange farmers field, you don't even have any help from the altimeter in planning the circuit, it all has to be judged by eye. WHICH REALLY COULD HAVE HELPED THOSE POOR CHAPS WHO SPLASHED DOWN IN BALI in a brand new Boeing (see Rumours and News for details). They probably couldn't see the vasi.....

As a power pilot, tug pilot, with IR, and l400 hours of power flying in the logbook, I have mixed it with the big aircraft, in the US, and the only place I interfered with the smooth flow of commercial airline traffic was at Kerry International Airport, in Ireland....but that's another story altogether.

To my mind, flying a light single down the IR glideslope is far from ideal.

[foxmoth]

Okay, guys, lets be polite and respectful.....

A spot of pot and Kettle here Mary!

Avoid ex military instructors.:=

[Pace]

Mary

I have never seen so many heavy metal pilots sprout out of one thread! Makes me feel quite insecure as a bottom of the pile biz jet pilot :(
As one who is not convinced with glide approaches I wish someone would explain the scientific benefits of such approaches!

I even had one in the Citation being held at 10 K for other traffic and then asked if I could make it for a straight in while 20 miles out.
Thrust to idle, air brakes out, flaps, Gear anything which could come out including willy waving :E common in these threads ;)

Went down like a train but still pulled it onto a conventional glide before landing!

All flying is about energy management it is in your gliders where on still days you only have potential energy trading altitude for airspeed.
But then you guys/ and gals are slippery with a good glide ratio.
Try a glide approach on some singles I can think of and you will have to be quick and accurate in the flare.

So the glide approach ??? I can understand instructors wanting to hammer out circuits and as many as possible by staying high and coming down closed throttle.

I can understand some low powered aircraft which are very draggy needing to tap into airframe potential energy.

I do not see it as an accurate on the dot landing method as there is more scope to get it wrong landing fast or long!

The other thing to consider is conflict! A guy recently posted a u tube clip of himself on final.
He was on a conventional glide to have a small aircraft drop from above in front of him literally feet in front of him.
We fly circuits to minimize collision potential and that should include glidepaths as much as possible.

One thing I would like to ask is the glide approach pilot who is asked to extend downwind for say two aircraft on finals! Does he descend to pick up a conventional glide path or maintain altitude on finals until picking up his steep glide?

I really would like a technical discussion of the glide approach and its benefits and not the will waving from last night?

Pace

[foxmoth]

Pace,
Apart from the OPs instructor I have not actually noticed many advocating glide approaches as the norm, most would seem to be saying much the same, a powered approach, but not on a 3 degree glide.

[piperboy84]

Like I said before on other strings here, the wheat does eventually get separated from the chaff on arguments that are backed by real experience decidedly pulling out front.

My 2 cents to the OP from a low time VFR duffer. I would not get caught up on the strict adherence VASI/PAPI approach method, for me the learning is in not what a set of lights can tell you, it is what you your eyes tell your gut about the site picture on final depending on the type of approach and landing you are trying to accomplish i.e. big/busy airport get down and get the foxtrot out of the way of the big guys waiting, or as most of your early flying will be into small fields possibly grass and probably without even runway markers if you get reliant on approach aids i think you will dull your "sight picture" skills and "on the fly" decision making capabilities and perhaps can be caught unawares when landing aids are not present at a new field you visit or indeed during an emergency landing. When I fly into fields with VASI/PAPI ( which is the minority of my landings) I just fly as I would for a grass field and upon noticing what the lights show i say to myself "Hmmm so that is where the big guys would be at this stage of their approach" then pay no further attention to it and get back to MY approach. Again, I am not in anyway a experienced pilot nor an instructor but a guy whose flying involves in and out of unprepared and short agricultural fields that I,m probably the first person to ever land on which makes it exciting and rewarding and most importantly really makes you think about where you want to be on the approach and touchdown unaided by any lights/markers/landmarks etc.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Yep, powered but steeper than 3 degrees, and of course the PAPIs will bring you over the numbers at 50'. I like to be landing by then! Like this, though this is a glide approach:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpBQeA0nmIs

Sorry about the high vis; I don't usually wear one when flying.

Here's a powered approach to Sleap
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b132/GZK6NK/DSC03595res_zps5a92e887.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/GZK6NK/media/DSC03595res_zps5a92e887.jpg.html)

And my usual approach to Liverpool JL
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b132/GZK6NK/DSC03618res_zps7ae1d0f2.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/GZK6NK/media/DSC03618res_zps7ae1d0f2.jpg.html)

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b132/GZK6NK/DSC03621res-3_zpse4f7295e.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/GZK6NK/media/DSC03621res-3_zpse4f7295e.jpg.html)

[Pace]

but not on a 3 degree glide.

Foxmoth

That was not a slope picked out of the air but one which the majority of aircraft can be stabilized on slippery or not so slippery!
Some airports like LCY have a much steeper glide but its interesting to note that both the pilot and aircraft have to be approved to fly those steeper slopes.

There was a stupid argument and it has raged for years re pitch for speed or power for speed.
What a load of utter nonsense.
The same with this argument.
It is all about energy management, drag management two sources of potential energy engine /airframe
If we consider those a truer picture emerges rather than these stupid entrenched camps neither which are wrong or right.

Pace

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Pace - No!

Insisting ALL landings even of light singles should be in accordance with VASIs / PAPIs as one or two probably non-pilots on here have...... IS PLAIN WRONG!

[captainsmiffy]

Aaah....Chippy flying.....miss that sooooo much!

Gentlemen, ladies, you just have to be flexible in aviation - that is what the last 14000 hours has taught me. Dont make hard and fast rules about the ONLY way you are to approach the field. That said, 3 degrees is a tad shallow for a light aeroplane in anybodies book....

Learn to fly a variety of approaches for a variety of different situations. That said, I always took pride in trying to tighten it up and being able to glide onto the runway in a light single lest the engine quit on me (and it did, three times!). Know the capabilities of both yourself AND the aeroplane and learn to use it in a flexible fashion. There, said it. That is my ten penneth worth from a pilot who has flown light singles all the way up to A380s, including 6 years of single-engine instruction and examining.

Be safe.....

[foxmoth]

Pace,
We are not talking flying 747 or even corporate here, we are talking light aircraft and following VASIs, If people want to this that is up to them, but is unnessesary, it puts you 1,000' into the runway - at some airfields that can be over halfway into the runway, and many who are used to flying like this will use the same picture where they do not have lights to follow, not a good idea, plus you end up with the bomber circuits that many seem to fly these days.
You might also like to remember that you should be rolling out on final at about 500', if you do this on a 3 degree slope you will, as has been pointed out elsewhere be outside the ATZ at most GA fields, especially at the end of the downwind leg and on base.

Perhaps the fact that you cannot get my username right is an indication of how in touch you are with LIGHT aviation:hmm:

[Pace]

SSD

Have I suggested that ? Have I pointed out a reason why the majority of ILS are 2.5 to 3 deg? yes.
What I have done is explain the principals behind any approach and landing which is energy management and drag management.
My Citation held high no distance to get down for a straight in landing I want a high descent rate I need to stop that descent rate and stabilize before landing !!! Energy drag management!
You in your low powered draggy single! Steep Glide approach drag out tip the nose and lo and behold you are tapping into the potential energy in the airframe.
Leave engine power on and you have too much energy for the drag that is available speed shoots up.
What you do to get down is your business but whatever you do will be governed by the laws of physics.
It aint rocket science unless you are lucky enough to ride a lightning then who needs potential energy from the airframe vertical to 40K :E

Perhaps the fact that you cannot get my username right is an indication of how in touch you are with LIGHT aviation

FOXMOTH my apologies and rectified ;) I have flown most singles maybe 25 types and have around 3000 hrs in piston twins of varying types, winter, night summer in all weather so yes I am probably out of touch with light GA :ugh:


Pace

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

SSD

Have I suggested that ?

Some on here have, for sure, which is what I said!

[BabyBear]

Come on Pace, I don't believe for one second that if you flew circuits in a 172 this afternoon at a small airfield you would fly 3 degrees. With your experience it would just feel so wrong and you would fly the picture and what the aircraft was telling you to. Consequently you would be nowhere near bomber circuits and 3 degrees.

BB

[Pace]

BabyBear

I would fly whatever was required of me and whatever I needed to do and that the aircraft would allow me to do ;) Also have a few tricks up my sleeves for what the aircraft does not appear to let me do :E

Pace

[BabyBear]

So is that agreeement? Have we managed to convince you that, unless IFR ,4 mile finals at 3 degrees in a simple single is wrong in most cases?:ok:

BB

[foxmoth]

Thank you for the correction Pace, I really cannot understand why so many on a GA forum get it wrong:(

You ask if people have noticed why an ILS is at 3 degrees, again, this is fine flying the ILS - but also why most airfields with one have a larger area of protected airspace! I can see your argument with power, but again, most here were not saying do not use a powered approach.
Turning final INSIDE the ATZ will put you about 400' at 1 mile from the threshold (3 degree will be 300' a mile from the TDZ so actually about the same height), landing just after the threshold will still require some power but as you are not going the same distance in (3 degrees following the ILS lands you almost 1,000' in) you will have a steeper slope. So please, listen to the reasoning for NOT following a 3 degree slope, otherwise you will find yourself held off in your Citation even more while a light aircraft drags in from miles out, or be sitting in the clubhouse of a small airfield watching someone go off the end off the runway after landing too far in!

[BabyBear]

Out of interest what are the dimesions of circuits flown by those arguing the tighter the better?

How close to the threshold can one be when turning final and still having plenty time to put it down safely?


BB

[foxmoth]

Out of interest what are the dimesions of circuits flown by those arguing the tighter the better?

How close to the threshold can one be when turning final and still having plenty time to put it down safely?

Not really a debate I would encourage, there are some that will be safe turning very close in, the majority will not have the experience and ability to do the same.

[Pace]

BB

Far nicer than a glide is abeam the numbers fly a curved approach with a continual descent right onto the numbers
Or even worse which many wont approve if the circuits sparce if aircraft descend to a low level circuit and then start a curved approach onto the numbers
Another method : ) fly very tight down wind ( empty circuit ) 500 feet runway just below your left shoulder! As you pass the numbers tear drop while dropping gear adding flap and curve back onto the runway !
Great for poor weather low cloud and vis
Glide approaches boring ; )))
Not recommended ; ) down the runway at 20 feet at numbers far end turn 25 degrees while pulling up fairly sharp as speed bleeds to flap speeds add flaps and start descending turn back onto final ! :E
They all work but many tut tuts
But as I spout precision flying energy management and drag management

Pace

[mary meagher]

Baby Bear, how close to the threshold can one be when turning final and still have plenty of time to put it down safely?

Answer: abeam the threshold! - but then that's flying a glider tug....

I thought I was pretty slick flying my Supercub at Weston on the Green for a Junior Nationals Gliding Competition, but those RAF chaps in their Supermonks kept cutting in front of me@£$%^^! !

Most fun of all - was a Junior Nationals again, this time at Bidford, which is VERY SMALL - with double decker busses crossing the approach line on the county road, to say nothing of telephone wires - and on climbout, a hill, complete with trees, and a farmer who actually threatened to use his shotgun on low flying aircraft....
The tugs included the following: Pawnee 235, Two 180 hp Robins, a 180 hp Super Cub, my 150 Super Cub, and a TIGER MOTH! We took off in order of performance, and by the time we were downwind again for the next glider, it was a proper scrum. But the Tugmaster on the radio kept us in order, it wasn't nearly as hairy as dodging Chippies at Weston.

Foxmoth, me old son, (I'm probably old enuf to be your Granny), not every ex military instructor is as kind and sweet as I am sure you are! The few I have flown with in the States tended to be a bit rigid....

[foxmoth]

Foxmoth, me old son, (I'm probably old enuf to be your Granny)

Mary, having tracked down an Oxford Mail report, you would definitely not have managed that, though I am sure there are a few here that might apply to - I hope though I am flying as much as you in another 24 years or so (to give a hint!).
As far as ex Military instructors go and The few I have flown with in the States tended to be a bit rigid...., the military in the States tends to be a bit different in general from the UK and I think most you will come across here will be a bit more relaxed, though as the OP is in the States I can see the reason for your statement.

[BabyBear]

Foxmoth, not sure discussing it is any more dangerous than leaving the thought of the tighter the better?

That aside, it wasn't so much how tight can it be done I was after, what I was actually interested in was what is a typical normal circuit for a SEP? IE how steep is a normal SEP approach, if not 3 degrees?

I have never considered the actual approach angle before, just relied on the picture.

Playing with some rough numbers:

1 mile out at 500ft would give approx. 4.7 degrees
.75 miles out at 500ft would give approx. 6.3 degrees

Comments?

BB

[sevenstrokeroll]

such ignorance and arrogance. mr chuck, I was one year old while you were out teaching ernest gann how to write...maybe you were dudley?

some have said we have more room in the US to have a larger pattern...we have plenty of unique or special airports that do require special or modified techniques.

someone said that having a VASI bring you down 1000' down the runway that half of the airport would be used up. VASI's wouldn't be aimed that way.

Can you imagine flying your approach so that you can touchdown on the numbers...now imagine following a large or heavy plane (can you say wake turbulence?)

maybe sheepdip flys out of a short field with obstacles all around...maybe he can't adapt to something else?

no...a pilot should have many tools including steep power off approaches...but for a normal landing at a normal airport, the normal glidelsope is where you should be.

[againstgravity]

OK! This has been interesting reading. I am sorry for creating a bit of a heated debate.

I must admit initial intention was not to create a debate about whether we should stay on VASI/PAPI on approach or not. Even with limited experience, it is obvious that there are many runways without them and one can quickly gain the sight picture necessary to make a judgement regarding the reasonableness of approach. And, being a bit above is really not a problem, but probably not necessary. FAA flying handbook for example, would have student pilots stay on VASI/PAPI if there is one. They don't say it is for IFR purposes only. A reputable aviation school also has an instructional video for Cessna 172s where you are advised to stay on VASI/PAPI with power. So, at least in the US it is acceptable to be on them.

Where I fly, we have strong thermals depending on weather, so we could be on glidescope and hit a thermal and quickly be in "white over white" territory even if we did not chose to, so a glide is always an option. But, power in, forward slip would work, too.

We also have regional jets, and bit of traffic, so as long as tower is not asking something I can't do, I have to adjust power to do what they ask to maintain separation. So, I can't say I am too low can't extend downwind now, I'll do whatever is necessary, gain or lose altitude. I can't say I am too high. (Again, I understand that PIC has the duty to make sure what tower asks is doable.)

But here is the dilemma and textbooks don't help and apparently everyone has a different opinion.

Glide=higher speed on final ?
Power in=lower speed on final?

Is this the issue!

Regardless, when I am 20-15 feet above ground, if I level off from glide or power in approach, I can reduce my speed even further and capture the descent rate.

So, in theory I can end up at the same speed regardless of approach 20-15 feet above ground. Then, I can achieve a smooth full stall landing which would not bounce. I think the instructor and I are debating over that part. And he does not like a full stall landing. Is this a debate as well?

[Lord Spandex Masher]

... for a normal landing at a normal airport, the normal glidelsope is where you should be.

Why?..........

[againstgravity]

"power-in forward slip"

Forget the power-in part. Just meant, you can lose altitude in a hurry and then continue your initial powered descent. Not wanting to create another debate.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

(can you say wake turbulence?)

Can YOU say minimum recommended spacing? Or are you advocating ignoring such a thing?

[foxmoth]

someone said that having a VASI bring you down 1000' down the runway that half of the airport would be used up. VASI's wouldn't be aimed that way.

Can you imagine flying your approach so that you can touchdown on the numbers...now imagine following a large or heavy plane (can you say wake turbulence?)

I think that was me, an airfield like that would probably Not HAVE any VASIs, but someone taught with them will still often land that far down! Not hard to teach though that if you normally land nearer the numbers you land past the touchdown point following a Heavy.

[Pace]

Glide=higher speed on final ?
Power in=lower speed on final?

No you should be on the numbers in both approaches.
The difference??
In the glide you probably have a closed throttle and a steep approach which means you are trading altitude for speed which will depend on the amount of drag you have.
Say for a given descent profile throttle closed, flaps out you are indicating 70 mph!
You adjust that profile steeper and you airspeed will now maybe be 80 mph (too fast)
Adjust the profile shallower and the speed may bleed off to 60 mph.
Shallower profile no problem:) tap into the engine energy and you are back to 70mph.
Steeper and there is little you cannot do without adding further drag to steepen the approach without increasing speed.
High descent angle to the ground will also mean a more abrupt flare to stop the descent and make a smooth landing.
Powered approach
Now you are sharing the energy use from the airframe and engine you do not have a no go area like you do with the glide approach in going steeper and hence faster.
So you can adjust your profile in a more accurate way.
With the powered approach you have the extra bonus of prop wash (airflow) over the inner wing area, elevator and rudder all in all far better control over your touch down point and better control over the aircraft.
Chopping the power from the engine means you will settle onto the runway.
Smaller flare required to stop the descent from a flatter approach.
Downside in light low powered aircraft?
You are power sharing between the airframe and the engine so should the engine not give enough you can only trade altitude for airspeed which might not be possible or advisable. So it will take a better understanding and blending of the two energy sources as well as the danger of higher angles of attack and drag on a flatter approach especially with low powered high drag aircraft.
Anyone disagree feel free to pull the above apart :E

Pace

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Good post pace.

I would like to add another comment.

The more power you use during the flare and hold off the longer you will float down the runway, thus allowing for more destabilizing of the landing path if the air is unstable.....think change in x/wind as you float down the runway.

There is not an airplane made that can not be safely landed power off....period.

VASI/PAPI dependence makes for a one trick pony type of pilot with limited skills.

[Howard Long]

I have been following this thread with some interest as I am a PPL student (can you still be a student at age 48?) with 22 hours and so nailing the landing is of great interest to me.

If I did the 3 degree glide slope in the pattern/circuit I'd almost certainly bust Class A airspace every time at EGTF Fairoaks in the London CTR. I am sure there are many other aerodromes like this in more populated areas and countries. Mind you, it would make my circuits a darned sight more leisurely, with the bonus that I would have time to ask the stewardess for a fill up of the old hip flask.

Cheers, Howard

[RTN11]

sevenstrokeroll

I think most people here are talking about a powered approach, but just tighter and steeper than following the PAPI/VASI would allow.

By teaching a VFR student this way, they learn to appreciate the perspective of the approach, and what the aircraft is capable of, and then apply that wherever they go.

By teaching so early on to rely on PAPI/VASI, which will lead you to land deeper, when that same student then goes to a shorter runway with no PAPI/VASI they run off the end, I have seen this happen 6 times now.

3 degree approaches and ILS have their place, but it is certainly not in ab initio training, which is what we're talking about here. By the time anyone gets onto IFR and shiny jets they have plenty of hours under their belt and should be able to tell for themselves the difference.

I think you are fundamentally wrong when you say that every approach should follow VASI/PAPI.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

sevenstroke roll has clearly demonstrated a paucity of even basic aviation knowledge and made statements that no pilot ever would. He isn't a pilot, he's a troll. Best stop feeding him.

[foxmoth]

RTN, I think that is what many of us have been saying, but he cannot see that:ugh:

[sevenstrokeroll]

so you call me a troll...I say your statements on aviation show a shallow mind and limited experience. If you were a surgeon, you would use a bone saw for a hang nail. If you were a carpenter you would use a rasp instead of fine sandpaper.

Your views as a pilot are so amazingly misguided I would call the FAA and have them give you a checkride after watching your landings...of course you aren' t in FAA land are you? You seem to be in the land of overlapping airports and lack of progress since the airspeed corp went out of business.

--

RTN.

If you have seen your students land long at a non vasi airport it is a lack of fundamentals in teaching the art of flying. No one says VASI is a replacement for picking a spot on the runway and touchingdown upon it. I've seen plenty of airports with less than 2500 feet of runway equipped with VASI or AVASI or PAPI or PLASI. I've seen people stay on the GS just fine and touchdown in the first third of the runway.

YOU and your folks seem to have lost the idea of controlling speed precisely and energy management. I've seen people fly like you are describing...and it is a poor excuse for actively controlling flight path at proper speed using stick rudder and throttle. (flaps too).

To those who have followed this thread with interest I offer this.

WHY does VASI exist at airport without instrument approaches and with runways as short or shorter than 2500' ?

How would these pseudo experts from across the pond land at an airport at night? How would they deal with descending into a ''black hole''?

I've said over and over that a pilot should be able to do many types of landings and related approaches. There are some mountainous airports that require unique approaches, some that even indicate that VASI should not be used until very close to the runway. But these pseudo experts will not have it. They can't even see that at an uncontrolled airport someone way above VASI might not be seen by another plane on VASI behind it...and it might lead to a collision.

And if you ever plan to fly instruments, you have been getting the sight picture for breakout for the visual portion of the landing.

Yes, ladies and gentlement of the thread, the pseudo experts, those that fancy themselves flying hawker hurricanes instead of C172's are just asking for problems.

So, dear original poster...have many tools in your aviation pocket and have the wisdom to use them properly.

AS an instructor, many years ago someone wanted a checkout in a Piper Turbo Lance (yes boys and girls). They had learned to fly using the pseudo experts method. It was time for the first landing after flying the pattern (a circuit is something electrical!).

So I gave a bit of advice, a bit of apower setting to start with and let the fun happen.

The pilot was getting low (on the vasi...hahahah)and Imentioned it to him. He said (and I'm not kidding)...the power setting you gave me didn't work.

I was stunned and suggested he had better add power. After we landed (or arrived) I mentioned that he could have varied the size of the pattern(turn base earlier), added power, delayed flap extension, or been alert to changing winds.

He insisted that only one power setting should be set and not varried. Again I said, well, then you could turn base sooner, or later to compensate.

HE COULD NOT UNDERSTAND that as a pilot, you can use many techniques to make things work out...Power /throttle would have been the easiest as we were flying in a busy traffic pattern.

I encourage you to learn many ways to controlyour plane...but when power is available, your control will be more exact than anything else.

I wish you good luck original poster.

And, remember the airplane was invented on our side of the pond!

[foxmoth]

YOU and your folks seem to have lost the idea of controlling speed precisely and energy management. I've seen people fly like you are describing...and it is a poor excuse for actively controlling flight path at proper speed using stick rudder and throttle. (flaps too).

To those who have followed this thread with interest I offer this.

WHY does VASI exist at airport without instrument approaches and with runways as short or shorter than 2500' ?

How would these pseudo experts from across the pond land at an airport at night? How would they deal with descending into a ''black hole''?

Starting with the first of these points, there is NOTHING in the posts you refer to that mean a pilot not flying a 3 degree slope cannot control speed precisely on a consistent flight path, indeed, I have seen more people fixate on the ILS/VASIs and lose their speed control than lose speed control and slope visually without the aids

Why do they have VASIs at shorter airfields, well presumably for those pilots who cannot manage without!

How do we land at an airport at night - well proper training, certainly when I was taught night flying many airfields here did not have VASIs or ILS, and if these were available, part of the training was to have these turned off - this then of course begs the question - how do you manage YOUR side of the pond if you ever need to land at night WITHOUT these aids???:eek:

As far as your pilot who was taught to set a power and not adjust it, that is not a method I have EVER heard of and certainly not anything any instructor I know would teach, VASIs or no VASIs, and I am amazed he managed to get a licence!

[Lord Spandex Masher]

How would these pseudo experts from across the pond land at an airport at night? How would they deal with descending into a ''black hole''?

Hmmmm, the black hole effect usually manifests itself below a hundred feet or so. Are you still looking at the PAPIs then?

SSR, you've proved time and agin your approach to aviation is inflexible and now you're showing that you have no meaningful experience, if any.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Guys, guys, you're feeding him!

[RTN11]

RTN.

If you have seen your students land long at a non vasi airport it is a lack of fundamentals in teaching the art of flying.

Just to be clear, it was never my students. I was the one in the landrover going to help recover aircraft from the ploughed field where they had over run a 800m runway. Without fail each one had been taught at a very large commercial airport, by instructors wearing too many stripes who always taught to fly long shallow approaches that simply didn't work at our simple grass strip.

[foxmoth]

SSD, think you are right - should have seen through him with the tosh about a checkout like that - unbelievable!

[Local Variation]

Thats a very valid point you make RTN.

The Instructors at EGNX work the Students hard to get down on the numbers and when I learnt their, we went up the road to Hucknall to bash the circuit to get the real world picture. PAPI approaches at EGNX were and still are not allowed at basic PPL level and rightly so.

No PAPIs at Barton nor Netherthorpe etc etc ad nauseum.........

[sevenstrokeroll]

yes RTN...it is better to learn at a 2500'strip than a giant airport...and the students who went off the end had only been guessing at landings...but it is not the fault of the AVASI, VASI or otherwise...it is a fundamental problem and one must learn to go to a short field or a big field and the problems with each. someone who learns at a narrow runway might just flare too high and fall from the sky at a wide runway airport.

as to the TOSH dispensers...the only thing I say to you is what Jack Palance said in city slickers...I crap bigger than you.

so much sadness and lack of knowledge, and all from the east side of the pond...

[Fly-by-Wife]

I crap bigger than you

Just goes to prove you are full of...

BTW, has anyone noticed SSR's name / title? Richard Head? I mean, Dick? Seriously? Has to be a troll! :} Dick Head by name, Dick Head by nature.

FBW

[riverrock83]

Well to keep him happy, perhaps he should take a trip to Gloucestershire where they have PAPIs set for 5.25 degrees for the little people as well as 3.5 degrees for big people...

My instructor thought I was looking at the PAPI when doing some circuits - ATC were very obliging in immediately turning them off for him :sad:

Also worth noting that PAPIs are normally setup to be in line for for large aircraft to reach the touchdown point, with their pilots high above the ground - not SEP training aircraft...

[Aphrican]

I am a very low hours pilot and mostly fly in and out of an airport in a C172 that has an 8,500 x 150 runway with PAPI at one end and VASI at the other end.

The approach that "feels" best to me at the PAPI end after chopping power and taking the first chunk of flaps abeam the threshold on the downwind leg is 4 whites at the end of the base to final turn with the second notch of flaps taken on base, 2 whites and 2 reds at about 500ft AGL when I am stabilised on final and one "pink" and three reds when I cross the threshold at the end on the PAPI runway with full flaps or only two notches depending on winds.

The PAPI indications are incidental to how I see the runway from midfield on the downwind leg onwards and I really only use them to confirm that my sight picture makes sense and is somewhat consistent.

The other end has a VASI which I struggle to see and use. This doesn't really matter as I rely on the sight picture that I have developed on the reciprocal runway.

Like many others, I struggle when I go to less familiar fields and am asked to join on base rather than on the 45 downwind or overhead joining downwind which gives me more time to set myself up.

I do think that developing a sight picture (and knowing the intuitive adjustments to make for short versus long, wide versus narrow and uphill versus downhill runways) is more important than following VASI / PAPI glidescopes.

I am early in the process of getting my FAA IR. I know that I have to follow precision and non-precision approach procedures when available (ignoring WAAS which seems to be uniquely North American luxury).

I don't yet know enough to understand when I should follow the PAPI / VASI after breaking out below the clouds and when I should use my VMC procedures. If the ceiling is 201 ft, the answer is pretty obvious. If the ceiling is 3,000 ft, the answer is also pretty obvious.

I don't have enough skill or experience to know where the dividing line is between 201 and 3,000 ft. For more skilled pilots, I know that the dividing line will be much tighter.

[riverrock83]

I believe that generally VASI are being / have been phased out as they are harder to read. They were removed from ICAO documents a few years ago.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I find it sad that a forum meant for private pilots gets corrupted and totally ruined by a troll.

There used to be a poster that called himself guppy something or the other and in the end I believe Pprune finally banned him for exactly the type of downgrading the forum this sevenstrokeroll is doing.

It was because of this kind of mindless crap I quit posting here for so long.

Is there really an answer?

Yes there is, why not have a forum for private pilots to ask questions and to exchange ideas where Pprune will check out the background of genuine pilots who want to contribute useful advice and when there is a problem cull the answers from posters who are trolls.

[mary meagher]

Interesting to look at Captain Sevenstrokeroll's credentials; he claims to be flying a 737 for a major airline after coming up the hard way; and enjoys drumming.
He mentions as well as a lot of letters that qualify him to be an instructor. Fort Sheridan, Ill. is located in what Americans term Flyover Country, you don't really want to live there. Sadly, being an airline pilot in the USA is no longer a glamourous profession. Watching them mingling with the public at Dulles only fills me with pity, they look tired, uninspired, and very ordinary.

It is perfectly true that the first powered flight was done by the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk; in December, at sea level. But when they took the aircraft back to Flyover Country, midsummer, it didn't work so well, and took a couple of years of quiet development and practice to be reliable enough to prove it wasn't a fluke.

Of course the true pioneers of aviation were the French.....

[riverrock83]

Interesting to look at Captain Sevenstrokeroll's credentials; he claims to be flying a 737 for a major airline after coming up the hard way; and enjoys drumming.
He mentions as well as a lot of letters that qualify him to be an instructor.
Elsewhere he also says he learnt to fly in 1975 but that he gave up instructing 30 years ago (I'll let you do the maths on that one).
He couldn't have been instructing long because after he flew Metroliners, then DC9s and now 737s... At some stage he became a captain...

I'm sure thats an inspirational story, to many, although the self improver route is now fairly closed to most people. Of course - he is using his experience to help others now on forums. What is Mr Richard Head's experience now?

[Saab Dastard]

Chuck,

I agree with your sentiments and appreciate your contributions, as I am sure the vast majority here do also.

You are right - SNS3Guppy, I believe, was the poster in question. For all I know, SSR could be another incarnation of the same beast.

why not have a forum for private pilots to ask questions and to exchange ideas where Pprune will check out the background of genuine pilots who want to contribute useful advice

A very similar proposal has often been raised regarding the professional pilots for whom this site was, originally, founded. Unfortunately, it would prove every bit as difficult to implement and maintain here as for the professionals (and it's never been implemented).

when there is a problem cull the answers from posters who are trolls.

We try - it's not always immediately obvious who they are, as the "Walter Mittys" can be very convincing for a long time - SNS3Guppy was credible for years.

Please remember that PPRuNe is 100% voluntary - both in terms of the moderation and the membership - and having genuine pilots continuing to contribute voluntarily has much more of an impact on keeping the signal-to-noise ratio high than the efforts of a handful of volunteer moderators.

SD

[Pace]

Biggest fraudster /Crook was GoldenEaglePilot who even fooled pprune for so long so not much hope in checking people out ??
That guy GEP has never been mentioned since or the messages deleted if you did.
Most genuine pilots here are known real world by others in the forums and that is the best bet

Pace

[riverrock83]

Yes there is, why not have a forum for private pilots to ask questions and to exchange ideas where Pprune will check out the background of genuine pilots who want to contribute useful advice and when there is a problem cull the answers from posters who are trolls.
Other than company specific forums, there is no way to checkout the background of genuine pilots. Especially in an international context (there are a lot of people from both sides of the pond in here).

You also wont get students in (which may be a good or a bad thing...).

Other groups have experimented with locked in forums (such as the BGA in the UK I think?) but most have reverted back to open access.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Thanks for the answer Saab Dastard, I understand the problems that are involved in moderating these forums and in the end the regulars smoke out the trolls. :E

Just yesterday I found the Pprune pin Danny gave me many years ago when he was out here in British Columbia, it was in my workshop in one of my tool boxes...no idea how it got there.

Anyhow thanks and if I get real pissed off with sevenstroke I will try and remain just civil enough so I will not get banned here. :ok:

[Jetblu]

Well I have been away and just caught up with the thread.

My observations are thus :

Sevenstrokeroll - I concur with my colleagues, your posts are less than helpful.
Get back to your r/c model 737. And for the record, you do NOT fly a Turbo Lance II the way that you suggest. Do one! :ok: Bye.


Againstgravity - Lots of sound advice here and i cannot add much else other than say practice, practice, practice. Take some snip bits from here and try it
for yourself with your instructor. One day something will just click and before you know it, you will be performing all types of approaches without much thought. Enjoy. Goodluck.

Pace - Please do not talk about that :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: Kevin Crellin on here this time of night. What was he suppose to have been, a CAA test pilot, ex solicitor and businessman. He was full of tricks. :ugh::ugh:

[mad_jock]

Nice to see you back Jetblu.

very tempted to take the piss a bit but I don't know your mental state.

[Saab Dastard]

Nice to see you back Jetblu.

Seconded! :ok:

SD

[Jetblu]

Thanks guys. :ok:

Mental state - what's that all about. :confused: You can take the piss MJ :p

[stevelup]

SSR hasn't flown commercially for years due to medical issues.

He posted his e-mail address in the 'Unfamiliar Airport Entry pattern' thread:-

JONDC9 AT AMERICA ONLINE DOT COM

A few minutes on google yields things such as:-

First let me identify myself as a pilot. I am medically grounded now, but in my 34 years in aviation I have held or currently hold the following credentials:

Private Pilot Single Engine Land
Instrument rating
Commercial Pilot Single Engine Land
commercial Pilot Multi Engine Land
Certified flight instructor
Certified Instrument Instructor
Certified Multi-Engine Instructor
Airline Transport PIlot (this is the PHD of flying) Multi Engine Land

[Saab Dastard]

I've tidied up the latest outbreak of handbags.

sevenstrokeroll has been banned from this thread, permanently, with a warning to improve behaviour or risk being banned from the site permanently.

Perhaps reasoned debate can resume now.

SD

[mary meagher]

Yes, Virginia, there really is a moderator....we'll all have to behave now, aw shucks!

Hey guys, did you see my current thread on the glider splashdown? Took a while to have some feedback on that rumour, but it turned out to be true!!

[Saab Dastard]

sevenstrokeroll has now been banned permanently, following a highly abusive PM to me - the contents of which I would blush to relate.

SD

[foxmoth]

sevenstrokeroll has now been banned permanently,

Not an action I like to see happening, but he did rather bring it on himself!

[Local Variation]

Plenty of time to go back to watching city slickers.:rolleyes:

[stevelup]

I'm going to miss being repeatedly told how crap our crappy little island is.

In fact, I'm welling up right now...

[Jetblu]

againstgravity - I have just picked up on a point you said in a previous post.
I may have incorrectly interpreted into this.

........." it increases the guesswork (speed) in flare. "


At the final stage of the flare, and just prior to the point of holding off, there is no guesswork. You have no further need to be looking at the ASI at this
point. Just hold off and you may or may not hear the stall warner.
In other words, fly parallel to the runway about 6" off and just increase back pressure in small denominations as you feel the sink. If she is remaining
parallel momentarily , hold the stick in that position and then again apply back pressure only when you feel more sink. The idea is that the mains touch first while you are holding the nose wheel off. At this point, don't make the fatal mistake of letting the column go for the nose wheel to thump down and equally, do not pull all the remaining elevator back causing a tail strike (or if you are too fast - to become airborne again.)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

......In other words, try to stop it touching down by progressive back pressure just above the runway. When it runs out of energy, it will sink gently onto the main wheels despite best efforts to further hold it off. As the speed further falls the nosewheel will land as well.

It does take a while to judge that 'just above the runway' point but you will get it eventually. Initially you might hold off too high, in which case it will run out of energy a bit too high and land heavily. With experience, you'll learn to recognise that 'running out of lift too high' situation as your seat-of-the-pants feels the sudden sink, and cushion the the subsequent touchdown with a bit of power. Holding off too late will mean a hard touchdown and might result in a bounce.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I am asking this question in all sincerity and hope no one thinks I am trying to start another series of arguments.. :ok:

When describing the method of judging vertical distance from the runway after the flare and up to actual touch down I notice a lot of pilots tell you to " Feel the sink ".

I have never been able to judge sink by " Feel " the only reliable method of determining sink for me has been " By sight " in other words I see the sink and adjust attitude and or power as needed.

Sight is what determines situational awareness especially in the latter stages of a landing.

Sure I understand that when there is a slight change in G load such as in a downdraft you can feel the change......or a change in velocity if the change is abrupt you can feel it but I do not rely on feel for my height above the landing surface.......I have to " see " it.

Changes in control pressures also can be felt......but the feel part is a very small portion of the big picture of where the runway is and what my closure rate towards or away from it is.... ..... I rely on the sight picture for that.

There I hope I said all that right..:)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

You may well be right, Chuck. I think it's both, but I'm not sure. You see it and 'feel the bottom falling out of your world' simulataneaously. At least that how it feels to me as I whack on some power to cushion what I thought was going to be a smooth touchdown. Truth is, I don't really know.... I just 'do it!'.

[mary meagher]

When teaching landings in a glider, I recommended beginning the flare/roundout at the height of an average elephant....nothing too sudden, a touch back on the stick, wait, back again, wait, looking well ahead, until the desired height above the dandelions, and just try to keep it airborne until it settles down....

The peripheral vision is making the judgement as to how many inches you are above the dandelions/tarmac/concrete etc.

[Jetblu]

Chuck - you are bang on the money. You will only feel the sink with visual reference. Close your eyes, and you won't. This was demonstrated to me with an instructor many moons ago.


........and I'm not talking about a dive from 5000ft.


Shaggy - that is the problem. we have to actually think about it now as we do it second nature with not much thought.

[Local Variation]

You're right, it is a combination of both......with no conscious transition between the two. That makes it hard to explain and teach, particularly to those who struggle with the hold off and then flare. And I was one.

Only after being told to fly the aircraft in the hold off down the runway did I get it. Up until then, I believed that the hold off and flare were pretty much a single and same event.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hi SSD:

Yes you are correct many pilots rely on what they think they are using as reference above the landing surface and when changes in direction, height or side ways movement is felt they can become used to those sensations and believe it is " feel " that is the means of judging hoe close or how far the airplane is from the runway when the sensation of movement is felt.

But lets move the airplane back up to say a thousand feet above the ground and experience the same sensation of movement....when the airplane moves a few feet closer to the ground or a few feet higher from the ground.

The sensation of sink or rise will still be exactly the same as if you were a few feet above the runway......but how accurate is the feeling of sink or rise?

Conversely when we bring sight back into the equation it will always be sight that is the determining factor how how much change in height you are experiencing.

These conversations always have been important in my career as a pilot because accuracy in judging height when close to the surface has been very important in the types of flying I did and also taught.

To reinforce where I form these opinions and thoughts from the following is where and how I learned this.

Aerial application fixed and rotary wing eight years.

Fire bombing Captain fifteen years.

Airdisplay pilot at airshows eight years.

The foregoing examples of my flying are only to explain how and where I came by opinions on judging height.....I am retired and really do not need to advertise my skills. :):):):ok::ok::ok:

[Chuck Ellsworth]

You're right, it is a combination of both......with no conscious transition between the two. That makes it hard to explain and teach,

I teach accurate height judgement by using three methods.

(1) I explain exactly what we are going to do before each lesson and the first part of the lesson I fly the airplane and have the student observe while I verbalize exactly what I am seeing during the latter part of the aproach, flare , hold off and touch down.

(2) I then have the student fly the approach and landing and verbalize the exact height above the surface from 100 feet to the flare....at flare height I say flare....then during the hold off period I verbalize the exact height to touch down.

(3) To ensure the student really is getting the picture I video these lessons and after the flight put the video on a TV and play it back...I give the student a laser pen and at various stages of the approach and landing I freeze the picture and ask them to put the laser dot where they were looking and ask them what they were seeing.

It has been the best method of training that I ever found and works like a charm.

In fact they learn so fast that to make more money I then take them back up and we do it all over again..... inverted. :E:E:E

[foxmoth]

Chuck,
I think you hit the nail on the head when things go exactly as they should, it is when someone holds off a tad too high, then you get the sinking feeling described that can be killed with a touch of power, the problem comes when someone cannot recognise that they are higher than they think, try this and end up with a heavy landing - this is where they should be going around instead of trying to salvage it, always the safest way - unless of course, like Mary, you are in a glider!!

[Jetblu]

You would have earned even more money from me, as I would have paid you not to fly me inverted. ;)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Exactly foxmoth.

Success when landing is best achieved by knowing exactly what is happening.

When they know where they are and what is happening they can use their residual skills to correct any deviation from a stabilized approach and landing.

I miss sevenstrokeroll already. :):):E:):):)

I thought you guys would like to know what I have here at home in my retirement to sooth me in my later days.

Most people get a rocking chair.

I have a chair that gives me plus 8 g's and negative 4 g's to sooth me in my retirement. :E

It even has a 5 point harness.

I can't take plus 12 g's and minus 6 g's anymore. :eek:

[mary meagher]

Rocking chair with a 5 point harness....now that's a good one, Chuck! do you wear a parachute as well? Our K21 glider is the only one in the fleet with 5 point harness, (I have trouble finding the crotch strap...) and it is the one we use for aerobatics.

Chuck, you certainly have had an exciting career.....but Gentlemen of this thread, for real pucker time, have a look at that 10 minute video on the Glider splashdown thread....flying the cliffs in south devon. Now you've really got to have eyes on stalks to do that, and be pretty sharp with the peripheral vision as well.....it isn't till half way through the video that you realise there are TWO GLIDERS involved in that madness! and they get back to the Devon club safely, one presumes, to be able to download the wingtip and tail cameras!

I am too chicken to fly that close to the scenery...

By the bye, after all the excitement on this thread, I couldn't find the item where an instructor suggests that CLOSING YOUR EYES during the flare proves that it is vision, not seat of pants feeling, that senses the necessary situational awareness.....has to be a pretty brave instructor to ask the student to close his eyes during the flare......

[bubbers44]

Seeing some of the super egos here who have reinvented how to land I would suggest to anyone trying to learn from this thread to just read the operating manual, learn how to do a stabilized approach on speed and make a consistent flare. The vasi and gs are there to help you so use them. I have flown 76 different types of aircraft and all of them, SE, ME and jets all land about the same so keep it simple.

If you are shooting for the airlines you need to land this way or you will get busted by acars below 1,000 ft if you are not stabilized on speed on glide path so why not just learn this way?

[phiggsbroadband]

Hi Bubber, quote... so why not just learn this way?

Unfortunately most of us live in the real world, our fathers do not own A380s for us to fly. There is no need to fly a twelve mile final, when all you own is a spam-can or a glider that have approach speeds of 70 and 60 knots respectively.

Also most of us land into wind which further reduces our ground speed by maybe another 20 knots... (to 50 and 40 knots resp.). So there is no need for a final of more than 800 yards for us.

The usual turn to final is at 600ft... To intercept the Papis from below, as you are supposed to, that would put us 2-3 miles out, and at 40knots, that would take an eternity, and we would soon become bored.

[Big Pistons Forever]

A good approach equals a good landing. The secret to a good approach is a constant pitch attitude all the way down final and held right to the flare. Far too many new pilots chase the airspeed indicator instead of flying the pitch attitude by looking out the window, that is why I cover the ASI when teaching the landing.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Crikey, sevenstrokeroll appears to have been reincarnated... as bubbers! :eek:

[bubbers44]

Actually soloing in an Aeronca Champ, getting my ME in a Beach 18 and numerous biplanes, gliders, crop dusting, aerobatics and jet flying in most Boeings have done short approaches in all. SFO from the north was the most fun, downwind at 11,000 ft being cleared for the 28R approach and turn inside the bridge. No 12 mile finals just fly the f***king plane like an aeronca champ. It ain't that hard.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Two questions bubbers44.

First question:

When you were crop dusting how long was your final approach to the field you were working?

Second question:

When you were flaring for the run down the field, where did you look to judge when to flare, and once level in the run down the field where were you looking to maintain your height above the ground?

[Aphrican]

Seeing some of the super egos here who have reinvented how to land I would suggest to anyone trying to learn from this thread to just read the operating manual, learn how to do a stabilized approach on speed and make a consistent flare. The vasi and gs are there to help you so use them. I have flown 76 different types of aircraft and all of them, SE, ME and jets all land about the same so keep it simple.

If you are shooting for the airlines you need to land this way or you will get busted by acars below 1,000 ft if you are not stabilized on speed on glide path so why not just learn this way?



I am clearly missing something here.

I am a low hours PPL with absolutely no interest in an airline job. I am just starting on my IR.

I fly in and out of fields with different characteristics (grass / paved, VASI / PAPI / no visual aids, published versus no approaches, obstacles near the threshold versus "clear" approaches etc).

Sometimes, I fly quite steep approaches with little or no power. Sometimes I fly flatter approaches with a bit of power. Sometimes I fly quite flat approaches with quite a bit of power (usually because I have messed something up along the way).

As part of my learning process, I think that it is important to understand the relationship between pitch and power relative to airspeed and altitude without regard to a VASI / PAPI or a glidescope.

If I structured every approach around nailing a PAPI or always loading and flying an ILS approach even in hard clear VMC, I think that I would be ignoring a large part of learning how to fly the plane by "painting by numbers" and would get into trouble at fields without visual aids or published approaches.

If I every get to the stage when I am flying a Kestrel (if it ever comes into existence) under IFR along airways 100% of the time, I could understand your argument. I assume that everything that I have done before that stage will help me manage the aircraft in a more structured environment.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Aphrican, don't worry, not everyone wants to be a sh*t hot trucky like Bubbers. :rolleyes:

Do what you do. Not what a faceless trucky tells you to do. Did you know he's been to one airfield over 600 times? 'mazin'.

[Aphrican]

Aphrican, don't worry, not everyone wants to be a sh*t hot trucky like Bubbers.

Do what you do. Not what a faceless trucky tells you to do. Did you know he's been to one airfield over 600 times? 'mazin'.



I appreciate the sentiment.

I only have about 250 landings in total with about 200 of them at my "home" field.

I feel that the last 5 to 10 feet before touchdown are the worst part of any flight that I undertake.

Getting better at that part of the flight would make the 45 minutes to 3 hours that precede the final part of the flight massively more enjoyable.

I can stabilise a variety of approaches. I still need to get a lot better in the roundout and flare.

There has been some good advice in this thread about how to accomplish this.

I really need to get over my base to final stall / spin fear and manage my pitch and airspeed to nail Vref within +5/-0 kts as soon as my base to final turn is complete while also have almost no risk of a base to final stall / spin more through pitch than airspeed.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I really need to get over my base to final stall / spin fear and manage my pitch and airspeed to nail Vref within +5/-0 kts as soon as my base to final turn is complete while also have almost no risk of a base to final stall / spin more through pitch than airspeed.

Your phobia is irrational.

Next time you get a chance have a good instructor take you up to a safe altitude and demonstrate turns to final from very safe to the point that the airplane stalls and spins.

You will find that before the airplane gets into a stall spin configuration there are many warning signs.

Work on that fear and once you get past that we can work on your landings. :ok:

[Aphrican]

Your phobia is irrational.

Next time you get a chance have a good instructor take you up to a safe altitude and demonstrate turns to final from very safe to the point that the airplane stalls and spins.

You will find that before the airplane gets into a stall spin configuration there are many warning signs.

Work on that fear and once you get past that we can work on your landings.



Are you in Victoria, Nanaimo, Campbell River or Courtney Comox?

We might get a chance to work on the problem in late July / early August ....

My phobia is rational given the statistics. I need to gain comfort that I am going to be on the right side of the statistics.

[bubbers44]

Crop dusting turns to field were within 1500 ft. Sometimes under power lines. Mostly flying under power lines was at the end of a run. While TGU was my most fun and challenging airport the other international airports were fun too. MIA got pretty boring being based there.

Most airports don't require special procedures so don't dwell on it. Just fly a stabilized approach every time and you will be fine if you do what your aircraft manual says.

Occasionally you will get a bad flight instructor so just buy a good book and make sure you are being taught right.

For the Airbus daddy thing, I did it on my own. No help from Dad. We lived on a farm and had no money. I did it myself.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Are you in Victoria, Nanaimo, Campbell River or Courtney Comox?


I live in Nanaimo.

We might get a chance to work on the problem in late July / early August ....


Sure that might be arranged.

My phobia is rational given the statistics. I need to gain comfort that I am going to be on the right side of the statistics.


By irrational I am pointing out the fear of stalling and spinning in a turn is no different than the fear of driving into a highway overpass instead of under it.......if you stay on the road you can not hit the overpass.

Therefore if you maintain a safe angle of attack / airspeed and keep the ball in the center you can not stall / spin.

[RatherBeFlying]

In the 172 and Citabria with and without flaps, 1 mile away from the runway and turning base at 45 degrees give all the land marks needed for a 1000' circuit. For a lower circuit, say 800', bring it in closer. In both cases plan to turn final at 500' approx 1 mile out (10:1 glide ratio).

In cold weather, 0C or below, I run more revs to keep the engine warm so it's there if I want it back.

Flying at night to a runway without VASI, PAPI or ILS, that circuit will keep you above the trees.

One of my recent power instructors had the habit of declaring engine failure after carb heat was pulled on downwind. In a 172, I would tighten the circuit a bit and drop 40 flaps when I was well on top of the numbers. If you have the airspeed (which a steep approach tends to give you) there's no problem rounding out.

In gliders a half mile away from the runway or farmer's field is more comfortable on downwind -- or you may be landing in a different field that you have not inspected:eek:

Oh yes, it's a lot more easy to identify your impact point on a steeper approach. Identifying and controlling just where you will contact terra firma is the first objective after turning final (always of course maintaining approach speed and understanding that roundout and hold off will put touchdown past that point).

As for when to round out, do that when runway texture or individual blades of grass become distinguishable. At the same time put your eyes on the opposite end of the runway.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

In a little over a month from now I will be starting my 61 st. year as a pilot.

In 60 years of flying I do not recall ever looking at the far end of a runway once I have flared for the landing...in fact I never ever look that far away because I can not accurately judge height looking that far ahead.

This look at the far end of the runway somehow morphed into the training industry around the end of the 1980's.

At the time I owned a flying school and watched as this look at the far end of the runway became the flavor of the time.....looks like it is now taken as the preferred way to teach.

[RansS9]

Stick and Rudder---chapter15....is there anything else to add?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Stick and Rudder---chapter15....is there anything else to add?

Having never read stick and rudder I have no idea what it says.

Does it tell you to look at the far end of the runway to judge height above the landing surface?

[bubbers44]

No, Stick and Rudder is a book that I learned a lot from and it really helped me learn the basics of how to fly. It never said stare at the end of the runway flaring.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I was fortunate to have had some of the best teachers in flying early in my career.

Here is where I probably got the best lessons in how to fly real early in life.

I wrote this some years ago when I was thinking of writing a book...

......anyhow for anyone who has a few minutes to kill here is a true story:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Tobacco Fields - By Chuck Ellsworth

For generations the farmers of southern Ontario have planted cared for harvested and cured tobacco in a small area on the northern shores of lake Erie. Our part in this very lucrative cash crop was aerial application of fertilizers and pesticides better known as crop dusting.

At the end of the twentieth century this form of farming is slowly dying due to the ever-increasing movement of the anti-smoking segment of society. Although few would argue the health risks of smoking it is interesting that our government actively supports both sides of this social problem. Several times in the past ten or so years I have rented a car and driven back to the tobacco farming area of Southern Ontario, where over forty years ago I was part of that unique group of pilots who earned their living flying the crop dusting planes.

The narrow old highways are still there, but like the tobacco farms they are slowly fading into history as newer and more modern freeways are built. The easiest way of finding tobacco country is to drive highway 3, during the nineteen forties and early fifties this winding narrow road was the main route from Windsor through the heart of tobacco country and on to the Niagara district. Soon after leaving the modern multi lane 401 to highway 3 you will begin to realize that although it was only a short drive you have drifted back a long way in time. Driving through the small villages and towns very little has changed and life seems to be as it was in the boom days of tobacco farming, when transients came from all over the continent for the harvest. They came by the hundreds to towns like Aylmer, Tillsonberg, Deli and Simcoe, these towns that were synonymous with tobacco have changed so little it is like going back in time.

Several of the airfields we flew our Cubs, Super Cubs and Stearmans out of in the fifties and early sixties are still there. Just outside of Simcoe highway 3 runs right past the airport and even before turning into the driveway to the field I can see that after all these years nothing seems to have changed. I could be in a time warp and can imagine a Stearman or Cub landing and one of my old flying friends getting out of his airplane after another morning killing tobacco horn worms, and saying come on Chuck lets walk down to the restaurant and have breakfast. The tobacco hornworm was a perennial pest and our most important and profitable source of income. Most of my old companion's names have faded from memory as the years have passed and we went our different ways but some of them are easy to recall.

Like Lorne Beacroft a really great cropduster and Stearman pilot. Lorne and I shared many exciting adventures in our airplanes working together from the row crop farms in Southern Ontario to conifer release spraying all over Northern Ontario for the big pulp and paper companies. Little did we know then that many years later I would pick up a newspaper thousands of miles away and read about Lorne being Canadas first successful heart transplant. I wonder where he is today and what he is doing?

There are others, Tom Martindale whom I talked to just last year after over forty years, now retired having flown a long career with Trans Canada Airlines, now named Air Canada. Then there was Howard Zimmerman who went on to run his own helicopter company and still in the aerial applicating business last I heard of him. And who could forget Bud Boughner another character that just disappeared probably still out there somewhere flying for someone.

I have been back to St. Thomas, another tobacco farming town on highway 3 twice in the last several years to pick up airplanes to move for people in my ferry business. The airport has changed very little over the years. The hanger where I first learned to fly cropdusters is still there with the same smell of chemicals that no Ag. Pilot can ever forget. It is now the home of Hicks and Lawrence who were in the business in the fifties and still at it, only the airplanes have changed.

My first flying job started in that hangar, right from a brand new commercial license to the greatest flying job that any pilot could ever want. There were twenty-three of us who started the crop dusting course early that spring, in the end only three were hired and I was fortunate to have been one of them.

With the grand total of 252 hours in my log book I started my training with an old duster pilot named George Walker. Right from the start he let me know that I was either going to fly this damned thing right on its limits and be absolutely perfect in flying crop spraying patterns or the training wouldn't last long. It was fantastic not only to learn how to really fly unusual attitudes but do it right at ground level.

To become a good crop duster pilot required that you accurately fly the airplane to evenly apply the chemicals over the field being treated. We really had to be careful with our flying when applying fertilizers in early spring as any error was there for all to see as the crop started growing. This was achieved by starting on one side of the field maintaining a constant height, airspeed and track over the crop. Just prior to reaching the end of your run full power was applied, and at the last moment the spray booms were shut off and at the same time a forty-five degree climb was initiated. As soon as you were clear of obstructions a turn right or left was made using forty five to sixty degrees of bank. After approximately three seconds a very quick turn in the opposite direction was entered until a complete one hundred and eighty degree change of direction had been completed. If done properly you were now lined up exactly forty-five feet right or left of the track you had just flown down the field.

From that point a forty-five degree dive was entered and with the use of power recovery to level flight was made at the exact height above the crop and the exact airspeed required for the next run down the field in the opposite direction to your last pass. Speed was maintained from that point by reducing power.

To finish the course and be one of the three finally hired was really hard to believe. To be paid to do this was beyond belief. When the season began we were each assigned an airplane, a crash helmet, a tent and sleeping bag and sent off to set up what was to be our summer home on some farmers field. Mine was near Langdon just a few miles from lake Erie.

Last year I tried without success to find the field where my Cub and I spent a lot of that first summer. Time and change linked with my memory of its location being from flying into it rather than driving to it worked against me and I was unable to find it. Remembering it however is easy, how could one forget crawling out of my tent just before sunrise to mix the chemicals? Then pump it into the spray tank and hand start the cub. Then to be in the air just as it was getting light enough to see safely and get in as many acres as possible before the wind came up and shut down our flying until evening. Then with luck the wind would go down enough to allow us to resume work before darkness would shut us down for the day. The company had a very good method for assuring we would spray the correct field.

Each new job was given to us by the salesman who after selling the farmer drew a map for the pilots with the location of the farm and each building and its color plus all the different crops were written on the map drawn to scale. As well as the buildings all trees, fences and power lines were drawn to scale. It was very easy for us to find and positively identify our field to be sprayed and I can not remember us making any errors in that regard.

Sadly there were to many flying errors made and during the first three years that I crop-dusted eight pilots died in this very demanding type of flying in our area. Most of the accidents were due to stalling in turns or hitting power lines, fences or trees.

One new pilot who had only been with us for two weeks died while doing a low level stall turn and spinning in, he was just to low to recover from the loss of control. He had been on his way back from a spraying mission when he decided to put on an airshow at the farm of his girlfriend of the moment. This particular accident was to be the last for a long time as those of us who were flying for the different companies in that area had by that time figured out what the limits were that we could not go beyond.

Even though there were a lot of accidents in the early years they at least gave the industry the motivation to keep improving on flying safety, which made a great difference in the frequency of pilot error accidents. Agricultural flying has improved in other areas as well especially in the use of toxic chemicals.

In 1961 Rachel Carson wrote a book called "The silent spring. " This book was the beginning of public awareness to the danger of the wide area spraying of chemicals especially the use of D.D.T. to control Mosquitoes and black flies.

For years all over the world we had been using this chemical not really aware that it had a very long-term residual life. When Rachels book pointed out that D.D.T. had began to build up in the food chain in nature, she also showed that as a result many of the birds and other species were in danger of being wiped out due to D.D.T. Her book became a best seller and we in the aerial application business were worried that it would drastically affect our business, and it did.

The government agency in Ontario that regulated pesticides and their use called a series of meetings with the industry. From these meetings new laws were passed requiring us to attend Guelph agricultural college and receive a diploma in toxicology and entomology. I attended these classes and in the spring of 1962 passed the exams and received Pest Control License Class 3 - Aerial Applicator.

My license number was 001. Now if nothing else I can say that I may not have been the best but I was the first. Without doubt the knowledge and understanding of the relationship of these chemicals to the environment more than made up for all the work that went into getting the license. From that point on the industry went to great length to find and use chemicals less toxic to our animal life and also to humans.

It would be easy to just keep right on writing about aerial application and all the exciting and sometimes boring experiences we had, however I will sum it all up with the observation that crop dusting was not only my first flying job it was without doubt the best. I flew seven seasons' crop dusting and I often think of someday giving it another go, at least for a short time.

[bubbers44]

We all have different backgrounds learning how to fly. Most work out fine if you make sure you don't let one instructor lead you to do his technique because he is sure his way is the only way.

We can all read books and talk to other pilots to not let this happen.

Become the best pilot you can and don't listen to everything you hear. This thread is probably not the best way to do that. I learned a lot more from books than listening to a lot of flight instructor theories. 23,000 hrs with nothing on my record I think proves my point. I have been put down here because I landed over 600 times at TGU. Why, because even though it is the most dangerous airport for airliners to land at in the world, I loved it because it was fun and challenging and never had a problem. Other airlines crashed, we never did. Not that makes us better, we just followed procedures. You should too. Do a stabilized approach using VASI or GS and leave the idle approach for when you want to practice engine out landings.

[sapco2]

Guys you need to stop the boasting here; I reckon the average student visiting this site for guidance on landing an aircraft is likely to end up being thoroughly confused by some of the flashy ideas and boastful war stories.

Keep it simple and and keep it safe - looking well down the runway just prior to the flare has worked admirably for hundreds of thousands of of our predecessors, its all about seeing the BIG picture.

The only poor landings I've ever witnessed in my 36 years in aviation have come from those students who persist in looking at the aiming point or very close to it - that technique is a complete nightmare for any student who suffers from ground shyness!

[bubbers44]

I taught myself how to cropdust and apply the proper spray in a super cub by our farm one year. I just got my commercial pilots license and what a thrill. Flying under wires legally was fun. You don't focus on any point, you observe everything and do the job. We landed on roads to reload and did all kinds of stuff that would be not legal by a normal pilot. It was a thrill but knew it was one dimentional and I wanted to be an airline pilot one day so went through instructing, charter and corporate flying to finaly reach my goal as an airline pilot. It was a long shot but worked. I just remember how much fun it was in the beginning flying single engine and occasionally a multi engine plane.

I know things are different now but if you want to be a commercial pilot now you can. I did.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The only poor landings I've ever witnessed in my 36 years in aviation have come from those students who persist in looking at the aiming point or very close to it - that technique is a complete nightmare for any student who suffers from ground shyness!

Are you saying you can not judge height unless you look way into the distance?


Guys you need to stop the boasting here; I reckon the average student visiting this site for guidance on landing an aircraft is likely to end up being thoroughly confused by some of the flashy ideas and boastful war stories.

Yeh for sure, no one learns anything from people with experience.

Maybe the private pilot forum should ban anyone with experience from giving advice here?

[bubbers44]

Pilots don't look at the end of the runway, they scan how their descent is going and flare using their eyeballs to know when the wheels will touch. We have been doing this for decades. This is not rocket science.

[piperboy84]

Interesting chuck
When I left the farm in the late seventies it was not unusual to see spraying for aphid's usually the helicopter was flown by some complete nutter from New Zealand or South Africa. Upon returning to the farm in the last decade I asked my father why they don't spray with the choppers anymore he said efficiency is the main reason followed by health and safety. With modern sprayers having 24 meter booms that are deadly accurate at dispensing and cost far less than aircraft although I notice on rural and steep areas of the highlands they have recently been using choppers to spray for tics on the heather

[Pilot DAR]

When I was learning to land helicopters, I was not getting it right. My instructor said "you're not looking far enough ahead of the helicopter. When you're really good, you can land looking only at the ground right under the nose". He was right.

I can land the planes I'm familiar with, with very little cue from the "horizon". The helicopters came to me over time. Other aircraft, I do look further ahead.

Focus on the big picture for now....

[sapco2]

Nope Chuck that's definitely not what I'm saying:

If the student pilot adopts the conventional landing technique it doesn't matter what he or she goes on to fly... it could be a tail dragger, glider, commercial jet, helicopter, hot air balloon or even flaring a parachute it will work well for him/her. Looking well ahead is necessary in order to take in the ENTIRE picture enabling the student to quickly grasp the concept of ROD and how it needs to change close to the ground and also how to control drift in the flare. Managing ROD in the latter stages is what this is all about and it can be taught very efficiently if the student has the confidence to steel his/her eyes away from the touch down point. I strongly suspect you unwittingly do it this way yourself Chuck.

As for looking well ahead; a gardener who walks or drives his lawn mower looking just a few yards in front of him can expect to look back at some a very wonky stripes. However if he picks a line of sight in the distance he can expect to achieve almost perfect stripes. That's probably true of crop spraying but then you would be a better judge of that than I Chuck.

All the best and happy landings everyone!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

You are not reading what I have written in this discussion sapco2.

My position on this is looking to far ahead ( At the far end of the runway. ) will degrade your ability to accurately judge how high you are above the ground / runway / water/ snow.

If you go back and read my explanation on where I look it will clear up your misreading of what I have said.

For me the ideal distance to have the center of your vision ahead of the airplane is where apparent movement of the runway towards you ceases....about 500 feet in most light airplanes....it is speed related.

I am able to judge height above the runway within six inches using that sight picture.

[bubbers44]

Just land like you drive your car. You don't stare down the road, you look far ahead, look close for debris, check for who is in the next lane and check that cross traffic is not going to run a red light. Scan your whole approach environment and of course cross check your airspeed so you can catch a windshear immediately instead of too late. Sink rate can be detected easily just by looking out the window at low altitudes.

No big deal but an FAA check airman was giving me a line check in a 727 into MIA on the 30 Loc approach. Reaching MDA with airput in sight started our visual descent to land when everything went away with heavy rain and turbulence so went around with no problem but always remember when things go south just go around and wait for things to straighten out and come back for an easy approach. When I was young I loved the challenge, when I got old I just wanted to land with no heroic piloting. Always try to fly with the captain with grey hair.

[The500man]

I remember seeing a documentary about racing drivers many years ago. They put fancy cameras on a driver's helmet that looked back at his eyes so they could work out where he was looking to judge distances. They found his eyes flicked rapidly between the apex of the corners (where he wanted to be) and objects like the red and white kerb or patterned tyre walls on the outside of the track to sense relative motion.

Has nobody done something similar with pilots? It would be an interesting study.

[bubbers44]

We hopefully aren't a foot away from another vehicle but we still know how to scan what is important. We don't focus on one point, we scan what is important for what we are doing at the time. I am sure our eyes do a similar thing as a race car driver but not as fast because we don't have a car beside us.

[Peter Collins]

Gee, I wish I knew how to land. I'm 75, went solo two years ago, and only have about 500 hours. I have a high wing 100hp geared Rotax 912 plane with beam undercarriage. They used to be cantilevered legs but after bending the mountings the second time, I changed to the full beam. I might have learnt more about landing, too.

But actually, I don't know how to land, I just do it. About a year ago, a real genius instructor put a dot on my windshield and another on the wing strut. He told me as long as I was beam-on to the numbers and the side dot was on the numbers, I'd be at the right glide angle for me. On downwind, and on base. Unless it's windy, use full flaps, 60kts, 3000 rpm and keep the windscreen dot on the numbers on final. Over the fence cut the throttle and keep just off the ground as long as possible by easing the yoke back as needed till it 'kisses'.

As time has passed I find more and more I ignore all those dots and numbers (apart from the 60kts) and just do it. If I think too much I get confused. On a strange paddock, when downwind I count seconds and if it takes less than 15 seconds to transit the usable length I go somewhere else. At 60 kts I guess that's about 450m, say 1500' or so.

I have no idea how I tell I'm at kiss height. My 'fellow aviators' said that one day I'd 'get it' and I have.

But I couldn't tell anyone else how to do it - I don't have a clue how I do it myself.