A Cessna 172 is too difficult to land...

[EDMJ]

... according to the vendor in this online ad:

The airplane had 3 landing accidents over last 3 years which have been professionally repaired - but the 3 damages show us that the Cessna doesn't fit within our aeroclub where most members fly Piper a/c.

:}

[Pilot DAR]

Well, really, it was the pilots (dare they call themselves that!), not the airplane, which had the accidents. Maybe they should change to the very different 182, with the best safety record of all light aircraft....

[Pace]

I would agree aircraft do not crash pilots do !
How many pilots still land on a wish and a prayer rather than being in total control of the aircraft regardless of conditions!
Many even quite experienced arrive rather than land an aircraft!
Yes they all have their idiosyncrasies but it is up to the pilot to identify those and adjust accordingly

Pace

[dubbleyew eight]

EDMJ I'll give you a free tip.
never buy an aeroplane from an idiot.
you have no idea what he has done to it.

no matter how enticing the advert looks walk away from it.

[clunk1001]

Many even quite experienced arrive rather than land an aircraft!

Nice one Pace, must remember that line! :ok:

[foxmoth]

I think the warning should be to any clubs looking to employ the instructor that did the checkouts!:bored:

[BroomstickPilot]

Hi Guys,

The big problem with spam-cans in general and Pa28s in particular is that they are so tolerant of sloppy landings that they permit people to get away with 'landings' that in any other type would be crash-landings.

This leaves it down to the instructors to ensure that proper landing skills are acquired and practiced, (which in most cases, bless 'em, they do).

If, however, the instructors allow their students to assume that any 'landing' is a good landing so long as you can walk away from it, then sooner or later there are going to be broken U/Cs, broken props and shock-loaded engines.

I agree totally with doubleyew eight that it is never wise to buy an aeroplane from an idiot.

Regards,

BP.

[A and C]

I agree, it is the instruction that is at fault not the aircraft.

[thing]

My flying is probably around one third 172, one third 28 and the other third 182 and 152. I wasn't aware of any differences in landing them...:confused:. They just do what you tell them to surely?

[gasax]

Makes you wonder why Cessna went to all the trouble of designing and testing an undercarriage system which their marketing people dubbed 'Landomatic'. How can you get it that wrong?

[Pilot DAR]

I suspect that some pilot lack the internal drive to improve their landing skills, once let loose in the plane. ANY certified GA plane can be neatly chirped on with a bit of practice. Yes, there are differing nuances to it, but ultimately, the technique (for tricycles, anyway) is the same for all. A type change is no excuse.

Or, is someone trying to argue up the need for "type training" between Piper and Cessna!

[piperboy84]

The problem is that some pilots figure out pretty quick after a few duff landings that the design and build of the SEP Cessna and piper is so good that you can make a complete arse of the landing and they will for the most part square themselves up and roll out in a very forgiving manner, a visit to any GA field on a cross wind day will see all kinds of landings while still in the crab or with a whole heap of drift or too much speed with no penalty apart from stressed gear which can lead to a relaxing of focus. With the tail dragger the constant thought of the expense and humiliation of a ground loop tends to make you focus on the goal of doing the best you can every time.

[thing]

Having thunk about this I would personally agree with Piperboy in that my own pride makes me do the best I can each time. But then it depends why you fly; I like to do a challenging thing well, or as well as I can.

If you just like a bimble on a weekend and are happy to get the thing on the ground the best way you can then I suppose fair enough. Pipers and Cessnas are virtually unbreakable (although people still manage to) so the fact that you can't square off on a xw landing doesn't really add up to much.

Some folk are happy to drive their Ford Focus with automatic everything from a to b as safely as all the automatics will let them without letting the driving experience get in the way, I guess some people fly like that as well, who are we to criticise?

[Pace]

Thing

I dont think its just that! I flew with quite an experienced pilot who when in the air was very detailed and planned but was lacking in situation awareness, feel, call it what you want.
Calm day he was fine, slight wind from left or right and we either landed in a crab profile or ended up floating across the runway.
It was like he was great up to the last fifty feet but then there was a look in his face which became more of a passenger than someone in control of the aircraft!
we all have different brains which are better at somethings than others!
Planes rarely crash of their own accord pilots sadly do!

Pace

[tartare]

Learned on a 152, have flown a 172.
Pilots plane - it encourages more precise flying.
Love them.
Flew the Cherokee once.
What a big old mushy bus of a plane!
Give me a Cessna any day of the week - and the view out the window's better!!

[Ralis]

They just do what you tell them to surely?

:ok:
Close to what I tell my students

[mad_jock]

There is by and large two ways people get taught to land a piper.

There is the way that you get the POH speed right and then flare and land when the plane stops flying. With a chirp on the stall warner.

Then there is stick 10 on for gusts, 5 knots because those POH speeds are a bit dodgy and finally 10 knots on for mum. A 3 degree profile will be flown.

The plane is then flown onto the ground 5-10knts above stall speed using shed loads of runway airline style.

Try the second one in a C172 or the ones I have flown anyway and you will get one spectacular series of balloons and if you manage to control them finally a spectacular bounce.

Just a theory mind but guess which method I think that the club is teaching?

[FANS]

A lot of people learning to fly are wanting to be airline pilots, and hence want to adopt more of an airline pilot style to flying an SEP. Big runways and PAPIs also encourage this, as do certain instructors. Equally, the natural urge for caution tends to see a few knots added.

Weekend flyers are often rusty. If you're flying once a month, which turns into once a quarter once weather has played its part, you're not going to be great at xwind landings, and a 10 knot xw having not flown for a few months and only doing ten landings a year is going to be a challenge.

[mad_jock]

Agreed FANS.

But they aren't flying the aircraft properly if they are doing airline ops. The adding a few knots is the problem. And its not just a few knots in some schools by the time you have added everything you can be 15knts over the POH speed. The tommys were famous for this. I was told once that anything under 85 knots and you were going to spin in on finals. The shock on there face when I said I had 800 hours flying them at the book speed with no issues was amusing. The whole flare was utterly horrible bleeding speed off and we used more runway than I do in the work machine. 10-15 seconds in ground affect exposed to getting raped by a gust and of course less drag so it just took longer than above it. But you had to be a meter off the deck next to the papi's. Book speeds and land it on the keys and you stop before the numbers and the round out and flare takes 5 seconds.

And if the foundations aren't there of the proper way of flying a SEP the people lacking in currency don't have a chance in hell when things aren't perfect.

[Kestrel]

I wouldn't say the 172 is 'difficult'

It's just pretty hard to land it consistently well.

I find if folk are having trouble with the flare using 40 flap then trying 30 flap makes things a little easier albeit same approach speed.

Try provide yourself with a STABLE approach which also helps.

[FANS]

from memory the Tommy is a straightforward aircraft to land, but agree that going in at 15knots over speed is going to create issues, especially around that gust/x-wind. Mind, give it a few more years and there won't be too many PA38s around.

I agree flying it around the book speed is important but + a few knots is not the end of the world, albeit +15 knots is going to cause real issues, and leads to a fear factor developing if you're only doing the (correct) book speeds.

I think part of the problem stems from the early lessons not being taught correctly, with people rushing to circuits then rushing for first solo. Guys learning to fly in the winter weather go weeks without flying and in those early stages you then loose familiarility and feel of stalls etc.

[Piper.Classique]

So, let's teach everyone to fly in a little Jodel, preferably underpowered so they have to keep the ball in the middle to make it climb. There, fixed it.

[gemma10]

I`m with Tartare, used to fly AA5s and 150`s and currently using a Cherokee. Glides like a brick.

[ChampChump]

So, let's teach everyone to fly in a little Jodel, preferably underpowered so they have to keep the ball in the middle to make it climb. There, fixed it.

:D:D:D

I suspect this thread will, however, reach six pages or more...

[Ace Rimmer]

A 172 too difficult? really?....not so sure they should be flying:ugh:

[foxmoth]

So, let's teach everyone to fly in a little Jodel, preferably underpowered so they have to keep the ball in the middle to make it climb. There, fixed it.

Trouble is the Jodel undercart is not really built for training and I suspect rather a lot would get bent before people learnt how not to bend them. Personally cannot decide between the Moth and the Chippie - actually, got to be the Chippie for handling!:ok:

[jetsetter250]

Obviously I'm well aware of the 172's choice among PPL recruits. I'm ashamed to say it but I too fall into the "the plane landed me, I didnt land the plane" crowd. Granted I'm a low time pilot, but to date all I have done is rely on the training. A meticulous series of contingency plans to counter every scenario I've been hit with to date. I dont like it. I dont like knowing that I have a "system" for landing, rather than actually taking control of the situation. If "x" happens then I do "y", but not because I feel it, but rather because I memorized it.

Hopefully as I build time I'll really have a handle on it and won't have to worry about forgetting a preset series of operations resulting in a crash. There's always the go-around afterall.

[thing]

I think also there are different degrees of mechanical empathy in people. It's not an intelligence or intellect issue, it's just one of those things.

I've flown with some perfectly competent and safe pilots who handle the aircraft like a frying pan and frankly make me cringe. Not because they are doing anything that's unsafe or frightening; they just don't have any feel for the machine. It's all 'x followed by y' rather than 'what's it trying to tell me now?'

I'm not an instructor; do those of you who are think that this is because of the way they have been taught or is it one of those unteachable things?

Edit: Jetsetter, just read your post, the above isn't aimed at you!:)

[FANS]

but to date all I have done is rely on the training

Sounds perfectly fair enough. I know a few B744 skippers who joke that after 20 years+, they're just getting the hang of it and fortunately the retirement age has been increased!

[mary meagher]

jetsetter, you need to fly gliders....look up your local club. No go around, get it right first time. Probably don't need to bother with radio, not too many instruments to get in the way of getting the feel of it. Simples.

[Heston]

The more you fly the more mechanical empathy you will build. But yes, some of my students just have it from the word go and some take a long time. The most impressive was a 17 year old girl who had not yet started to learn to drive (nothing to un-learn).

But flying is much more than mechanical empathy of course and I've flown with folk who are great at handling the machine but are terrible pilots with no situational awareness and a bad attitude to safe airmanship.

Knowing that you would like to develop better handling skills, as jetsetter does, is a very good start. We are all learning, all the time. I'd also endorse Mary's glider suggestion - in fact I think all power pilots should spend a few hours in a glider.

[thing]

in fact I think all power pilots should spend a few hours in a glider.

Personally I agree; I had twenty odd years in gliders before I did my PPL but having seen this raised before it seems to divide the camp. Some instructors say that gliding experience counts for nothing, others such as yourself think that it brings something to the table.

I know that an engine failure and subsequent field landing holds no fear for me though...:)

[Pilot DAR]

book speed is important but + a few knots is not the end of the world,

It's true, but the extra few knots is not the touchdown zone either.

A lot of people learning to fly are wanting to be airline pilots, and hence want to adopt more of an airline pilot style to flying an SEP. Big runways and PAPIs also encourage this, as do certain instructors. Equally, the natural urge for caution tends to see a few knots added.

If pilots are being taught "airline style" (whatever that is) for flying a GA aircraft, there is a problem - perhaps with the training, or the epaulettes image which perpetuates this Walter Mitty thinking.

If you're flying an airliner, you'll be expected to fly the prescribed bug speeds on approach, and you're probably not being expected to land it with grace, just get it down and to the gate on time.

The flight manual speeds for any aircraft have at least a 5 knot margin of safety built in. So just follow the stated speeds. If the winds are so unstable that you cannot manage the book speed, you should be looking to land elsewhere, or at least not posting those concerns here.

I see too many pilots gliding for landing at too slow a speed, and approaching at too fast a speed. Yes, you can glide slowly as stated in the Flight Manual, and make the best glide distance, if you need to. No, you cannot "land" too fast, though you might fly the aircraft into contact with the ground. If you do, it'll be messy once you are in contact with the ground.

Any aircraft will land if you slow it below flying speed while slightly above above a suitable surface, at very near parallel to the surface. That's why a pipping stall warning at touchdown is likely an indicator of a nice landing. Attempting a landing from higher at less than flying speed, or a less acute angle, is going to make a bump, and contacting the ground in most planes at much faster than flying speed, no matter what the angle, is the approach to a bucking bronco ride.

On the other hand, the effort to get to "gliding speed" right away upon an engine failure is honourable, if you're trying to make it to the shore, or clear area beyond the trees, but otherwise is leading the pilot to have to make a very precise flare, with only one change to get it perfect. This IS where carrying the extra speed is good, if you do not need to glide too far. You'll have much better precision and safety if you're gliding at +10 to 5 knots, with the full intention to slip it off to the proper speed, crossing the fence.

A properly trained and practiced pilot can gently land a C172 or PA 28 with equal ease, because they are both easy planes to land gently. It's fair that any pilot have the opportunity to learn and then practice, but no fair blaming the plane during that process.

I go from type to type, usually without checkouts. If I can not make a presentable landing the first time, even in a completely new to me type, I'll probably go around, and do it again. A sloppy landing would have been my fault, and I owe it to the plane to do better, let alone my own sense of pride!

[thing]

A sloppy landing would have been my fault, and I owe it to the plane to do better, let alone my own sense of pride!

Do you find the landing is the part that is most satisfying in general from a piloting point of view? I get a lot of satisfaction out of a greaser. I know there are those that say don't grease it on and I wouldn't if circumstances dictate that I shouldn't; but there's no doubting the good feeling when you can hear the swish of the grass against the wheels before they actually touch, or the passenger comment of 'have we landed?' :)

[Pilot DAR]

Do you find the landing is the part that is most satisfying in general from a piloting point of view?

Oh yeah! The landing is the most likely maneuver a pilot will do, that people watch, and judge. Further to that, it is more likely to be judged correctly as good or bad by non pilots. Slamming any machine around looks bad to anyone!

If you land well, very likely that you fly well. A number of times, following a ground briefing, my type checkride on a new type (particularly C207, C208. SM1019, Found Busk Hawk and PA-31) I was asked to do a circuit and landing first. When it was a good one, I was told to do another just to confirm it was not beginner's luck). With the second good landing, the checkout was complete, and I was sent solo on type. Apparently, solely my handling in the circuit, and landing in particular, were the basis of judging my piloting skill for the type.

A few times, I have had to roll the ailerons to confirm I was on the ground, 'cause I was not sure - very satisfying!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

DAR - spot on!

The 172 has absolutely appalling ailerons - hopelessly ineffective, sloppy as a blancmange, and easily overpowered by the slightest gust; and they feel 'dead'.

The rudder is stiff and poorly co-ordinated with the awful ailerons, and gives even less feedback than the latter.

But the elevator is pretty good. And the flaps (especially the earlier 40 degree ones) are the most effective I've ever used. There is no excuse not to grease a 172 on every time in reasonable winds (i.e. not too far off the runway heading).

Just because spam cans let you get away with poor landing technique (a Chippy and most other tailwheel type would bite long before landings get as bad as often seen at GA fields by trikes) is no excuse for the pilot to be a lazy unskilled chump at landing.

[thing]

Indeed, I'm not lucky enough to fly a Chippy but any aircraft should be flown to the best of your ability and just because it can take some abuse doesn't mean that you should actually abuse it.

I'm still gobsmacked when pilots with zillions more hours than me don't bother kicking off drift or lowering the into wind wing just before touchdown; then you get that horrible sideways motion when the poor beast tries to straighten itself out with a squeal of tires and a lurch across the runway.

By the way I fly a 172 with 40 degrees of flaps, those last ten degrees are really effective, like flying into a big pillow.

Compared with a 28s flaps which are there just for an extra lever to pull I think.

[mad_jock]

FANS it is a piece of piss to land

It lands at the same attitude as my work machine just 40 knots slower. Funny enough every aircraft I have ever flown has landed with the same attitude and it doesn't vary with weight. So know I just fly the attitude and ignore the air speed. I will try and BS that I am doing something fancy but I ain't I am flying tommy approach attitudes then flaring to tommy landing attitudes and it all works.

Its just these wannabe airline pilot magenta line borgs that are screwing GA pilots up teaching them pish

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The most common sin I see with trikes are 3-point landings. No attempt to hold off. The noseleg was not designed to take touchdown loads - the mains are for that. Then the nose lowered on. This is actually the most common way these aeroplanes are landed - to see a held-off landing by one is a rare treat.

Sad thing is the aeroplane won't complain. Time and time again it'll let the driver (obviously not a pilot) to plonk it on with zero skill at many knots too fast, then stand on the brakes.

Then one day it doesn't, and we have a nosewheel collapse. Or worse yet a pilot lands it properly, holds off, lowers the nose gently on, and the tired and previously much-misused leg has had enough and collapses. An innocent victim has his flying record besmirched by chump aeroplane drivers in his group or club.

The AAIB reports are thick with noseleg collapses every month. They don't cause injury, but with the associated bent prop and shock loaded engine they are very expensive. We all pay for this incompetance through our insurance premiums.

[mad_jock]

SSD I couldn't agree more.

Most landings are way way to flat. Mostly due to fannys flying 3 deg glides

[flyinkiwi]

Yeah I see far too many people who do not round out properly. In a high wing it is very important.

[Pilot DAR]

Most landings are way way to flat

'Cause some instructors TRAIN that! I was horrified when I was "checked out" in the DA-42, to do flight testing on it. The company pilot insisted that I three point it. "What?". "That's how you land a DA-42".

Okay, so I did just to satisfy him, and then made every landing a gentle two point, hold the nose off 'till I ran out of control. The plane was perfectly fine with that technique. I worry about who trained him!

[thing]

There's a DA42 at our place that lands flat, it also takes off seemingly with no rotation, it just lifts into the air.

[foxmoth]

The company pilot insisted that I three point it. "What?". "That's how you land a DA-42".

A different technique like that should be in the POH - I certainly could not see anything to suggest that.

[Pilot DAR]

I often see pilots, operators and instructors who have different ideas about how the aircraft should be operated. Certainly reduction on wear and tear is a great idea when you can. But, using the example of the DA-42, the check pilot mistakenly thought that trying to preserve a nylon skid on the tail by three pointing it was a better idea than reducing wear and tear on the nosewheel.

The failure of the nosewheel will be more likely, and very much more serious than wear and tear on a tail skid, if you even can drag it, I did not.

It is admirable that pilots think about their operations in the context of aircraft condition, but the normal operating techniques, and manufacturer's recommended practices are always best.

For landing, rarely do I see a pilot really trying to be gentle, though it is more likely if they own the plane. I remember a pilot flying in to meet myself and two of my kids to take us for a mountain sightseeing flight. Though I'm confident to fly, single engine over the Rocky Mountains raises my awareness of safety, and causes me to consider the pilot's skills more than I otherwise might. I saw a C210, touch down with superb grace, and the nosewheel smoothly held off, until it gently settled on its own with full nose up elevator maintained. Right then and there, I judged the pilot to be of excellent skill, and that he was.

New pilots: It might be a very small part of your flying, but the grace and precision of your landings, and effort you place on these skills speak volumes about how you treat the aircraft in general, and will certainly shape the opinion of observers. Some of these observers might be deciding if they should give you the plane again next time

Then, on the other hand, if the operator of the aircraft does not care how you treat it, that's a whole different problem!

[jetsetter250]

Hmm, my instructor taught me to land nose first in a 172, to let the shocks eat up the impact and then gently rest it down on the main gear so you dont jar your passengers.

I kid, I kid. You'll be happy to know I was taught to hit full elevator deflection and ride out that wheelie until the plane cant hold itself up anymore.

[foxmoth]

I kid, I kid

Phew! For a second I thought you were being serious!:mad::eek:

[m.Berger]

As a new pilot, coming to terms with a draggy 40hp single seat taildragger of very pronounced pitch disturbance when the power is adjusted, The last few seconds have thus far been heart in mouth events. Cutting the power at what seemed to be the right height causes the aircraft to slow down fast horizontally but speed up vertically! The glide approach is out of the question for the time being but I think I would be better off keeping the power in until the wheels touch. Assuming a runway of infinite length, the power only has to be reduced until the aircraft descends slowly, and eventually it ought to touch down nicely as long as the speed is dead right. So given a runway of finite length, I have to nail the height over the threshold to achieve this, get the speed right and just nold my nerve until I can get it to run out of height as it runs out of flight. Then the footwork begins. It is another level compared to the trike I learned in and it takes time for my old brain to take it in; (experience makes reflexes.)
Some of us aren't natural sky Gods. We work hard at it. It doesn't stop us trying to do it well but aptitude needs time to develop. The GST only gets you the licence to learn, after all.

[foxmoth]

mB - totally different scenario - you are talking an aircraft that needs work to get right - then jump in other aircraft and you will have little problem, this thread is really about aircraft that should be easy to land and pilots STILL get it wrong!:ugh:

[Gertrude the Wombat]

So given a runway of finite length, I have to nail the height over the threshold to achieve this, get the speed right and just nold my nerve until I can get it to run out of height as it runs out of flight.
That, I'm told, is how you land a floatplane when you can't see the surface of the water, get the speed and rate of descent right and just keep flying until you hit the water. (I haven't come across glassy water myself in my limited playing with floatplanes.)

[IFMU]

Confession: my first ever landing in a 172 was on the nosewheel. I had about 100 hours of tailwheel time and no tricycle gear time. I favored wheel landings. I put it down very smooth and straight but the instructor set me right of course! Now I am a couple decades on and I do have the nosewheel thing figgered out. The 172 is a great airplane though I spend more time in the C140.
Bryan

[Pilot DAR]

Assuming a runway of infinite length, the power only has to be reduced until the aircraft descends slowly, and eventually it ought to touch down nicely as long as the speed is dead right

Yes, bare frozen lakes are good for this. There is a power setting which can be flown to get you to exactly CLmax, and hold you there. This will give you a landing which the the opposite of a glide approach. You can spend as long as you want in the flare. Obviously this is not normally done over the ground, as you'll run out, and there is a risk of touching down with a bit of drift. It is not good to sustain this in a floatplane, the plane will become very difficult to control. You can use this technique to get yourself to the surface safely when you cannot judge your height, but once you touch at all, it's either power off and land, or power full, and go around.

The floatplane glassy water landing is a variation of this, though a definite descent rate is important, 100 to 200 FPM does it. It takes a lot of nerve to descend until you contact while holding everything still. This may also have to be done when landing skis on unbroken snow, but that is high risk flying. You don't do that just for fun - it's not! It can be done on wheels too, but you get a pretty hard landing out of it.

In my flying boat the power on landing is entirely possible, because flying boats land quite differently to floatplanes. With just the right wind and water conditions once, I found a power setting at which I could fly, flare, touch down, plane on the step, takeoff again, fly, flare...... all without changing the power setting at all. The whole flight was in [water] effect, and it was a delicate management of drag.

I'll entertain myself doing this in the 150 on the ice, though some caution is required, as it is possible to bang the tail tiedown ring first if one is not cautious. I can go along for miles touching alternate main wheels, or "flying" with one main on, and the other off (you have to add a bit of power for that, to compensate the drag of the deflected ailerons.

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

[Unusual Attitude]

That looks like most of my Crosswind Landings.... :}

[Desert185]

Glassy water, milky/glacial water and ski flying in flat light conditions all have the same depth perception issues for landing. With practice, one knows where the wheels are, but floats/skis can be a guess given certain conditions.

[Pace]

Not enough pilots have the right feel for an aircraft and become like unwilling passengers hoping it will all turn out OK in the last fifty feet.

After a nasty fog experience in a light twin I wanted to see if its possible to land off an ILS blind in thick fog.

I did this with a safety pilot and on an ILS in VMC. it was a case of accurately flying the needles and using a radar altimeter for a flare point. Worked a treat.
Another friend did it for real in a KingAir on a ferry where they badly messed up and were forced to land blind.

in VMC while you need to be at the right speed to touch down at or near the stall with a sink to the runway for stopping distances landing and stall are not really so closely tied to land an aircraft.
the longer the distance between nose wheel and mains the faster an aircraft can land.

Another friend with severe handling problems landed a citation,normal VREF 105 kts at a radar estimated speed of 200 kts touch down speed! He even stopped on the runway at Edinburgh :( **** scared but he landed ask Mad Jock who was there at the time.

so its a matter of knowing your aircraft and its characteristics and adjusting your flying to suit and of course knowing how to handle the aircraft

Most landings are way way to flat
'Cause some instructors TRAIN that! I was horrified when I was "checked out" in the DA-42, to do flight testing on it. The company pilot insisted that I three point it. "What?". "That's how you land a DA-42".

Okay, so I did just to satisfy him, and then made every landing a gentle two point, hold the nose off 'till I ran out of control. The plane was perfectly fine with that technique. I worry about who trained him!

Usually flat landing are caused by bad trimming! Get the aircraft trimmed well back so a slight forward pressure on the column is required to maintain the glide! speed control is vital if you are going for a near the stall landing or you will end up floating down the runway or heading skywards.
How likely you are to land on the nose also depends on the coupling nose to mains. Short coupled you are far more likely to land flat or on the nose than long coupled! Know your aircraft :ok:
Pace

[Pilot DAR]

With practice, one knows where the wheels are, but floats/skis can be a guess given certain conditions.

Happily, for most of the planes I fly, I know exactly where the wheels or keels are. However, the key point, is on glassy water or unbroken snow, you really do not know where the whole plane is!

If you are higher than you think you are, you'll likely drop it on, though might save it with a whole bunch of power when you realize. If you're lower than you think you are, slamming it on is very likely. A wheel or ski plane might survive this, but a floatplane/flying boat will not - you're going over (whole or broken).

I can assure readers that over glassy water, you might not be able to judge your altitude to within 20 feet. This is why demonstrating glassy water proficiency is a requirement to earn a float rating. There are tricks, but sometimes you just have to handle it with your skill.

[India Four Two]

However, the key point, is on glassy water or unbroken snow, you really do not know where the whole plane is!I'll second Pilot DAR's comment. I remember a glassy-water landing on a lake in BC where I was absolutely convinced that the floats were about to touch the water and yet it was at least another 10 seconds (and 50' or so of altitude) before there was that lovely hissing noise as the keels touched. Unless you've experienced it yourself, it's hard to believe how strong the illusion of being close to the water is.

I've read in float-flying books that one option is to throw out a cushion or life-jacket to give an aiming point and height reference for an approach. Just hope there are no TC/FAA/CAA inspectors watching and waiting to write you up for dropping things from an aircraft ;)

[Ka6crpe]

jetsetter, you need to fly gliders....look up your local club. No go around, get it right first time. Probably don't need to bother with radio, not too many instruments to get in the way of getting the feel of it. Simples.


hehe. This sounds familiar. In my 50 year old Ka6: The altimeter sticks, then jumps a couple of hundred feet; The mechanical vario is tempremental and only ever reads max up or max down, but the audio vario works fine; the ASI is optimistic; some idiot (me perhaps? :uhoh: ) connected the radio with the wrong polarity so now it is intermittant.

Basically the only instruments that can be relied on are the piece of wool that is the slip indicator, and my own Mk1 eyeballs. However I do remain compliant and the transponder works fine. I do carry a hand held radio and GPS if I'm anywhere near controlled airspace, and the GPS gives a good idea of altitude and rate of climb.

However it is amusing to take off with almost no instruments and outclimb the modern glass gliders in light thermals. I'm almost disappointed that the annual inspection is due next month and I've get to fix all those uneccessary instruments.

[3 Point]

Generally agree with most of the comments here about landing tricycle gear aeroplanes and protecting the nosewheel but I am not in favour of holding the nosewheel off till you reach full up elevator then letting it fall of its own accord. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say this is bad technique.

If you hold off till you run out of control and then let he nosewheel fall out of control it can come down with a bang - not much mechanical sympathy there! You should really fly the nosewheel onto the ground before running out of control. Usually, if you hold a constant elevator position once down on the two mains and with the nosewheel still held off the reducing airspeed (and consequently reducing elevator effectivness) will allow the nose to come down gracefully to a smooth touchdown. Doing it this way means you still have some elevator authority to "land" the nosewheel if required and stop it crashing down with a bump.

Similar commets apply to wheeler landings in a taildragger. I've heard people (and in fact, one otherwise very well written book) advising that the stick should go progressively forward till it is full forward and the tail drops of its own accord. Makes no sense to me to try to keep one wheel airborne until you lose control and it comes crashing down! Hold a constant elevator position and let the tailwheel descend gently as the airspeed reduces. You then have some elevator authority in reserve in case you need to cushion the tailwheel touchdown.

Happy landings

3 Point

[abgd]

The first time I ever cliff-launched a hang-glider I discovered another visual trick - with a bit of wind in my eyes I flared to land and found that the ground was missing. Looking down I discovered that I couldn't tell whether the surface was to be pebbles or boulders. It was a long wait - albeit probably not more than a second or two - before my boots met the ground. Luckily with a wing loading of a pound per square foot you can get away with a lot...

[Fantome]

Cannot agree at all that the 172 has poor aileron response. We who
hold close to our hearts our 172s know better. Sure, the control authority
is not that of a Chippie, a Victa, (or Beagle 206 , memories of which on many
many trips as PIC are held dear) . But, the 172 was a brilliant concept, when Dwane Wallace decided that the C190/195 marques were not going to capture
the market he envisaged. Hence the rapid segue from C140 to C170 to C172.

The joy of the earlier , simpler 172s has to be experienced before passing judgement. Mechanical flaps with that oh so sometimes useful 40 degrees you can apply (or dump) in a trice. The superb stability on a long trip. In smooth air you can be hands off for long periods, and if you have set her up right she will just stay there. A tiny touch of rudder to correct the slightest wing drop. Lean forward a bit or back a bit and you can stay within 50 feet.
And all the time the fascinating Australian countryside rolling past at a leisurely pace. You put your face against the window and see almost vertically down. Farmer Brown's long johns flapping in the wind on the hills hoist out the back, next to the ancient dunny. Mrs Brown's passion-killers likewise.

A bunch of frightened brumbies taking off and running in all directions
The bag of possibilities is bottomless.

Mary M is of course spot on per usual. There is no better place to hone
early handling skills and situational awareness than riding the wind in a
sailplane. The view and the comfort from and in a good one is without compare. (Helios excepted)

Read Philip Wills for inspiration. "On Being a Bird."

or Ann Welch . .. "Happy to Fly."

[foxmoth]

I've heard people (and in fact, one otherwise very well written book) advising that the stick should go progressively forward till it is full forward and the tail drops of its own accord. Makes no sense to me to try to keep one wheel airborne until you lose control and it comes crashing down! Hold a constant elevator position and let the tailwheel descend gently as the airspeed reduces. You then have some elevator authority in reserve in case you need to cushion the tailwheel touchdown.

There is actually a reason for this - wheeler landings are often done in a crosswind and keeping the tail up keeps better rudder effectiveness - especially relevant flying a Moth onto tarmac, when the skid gives NO directional stability. Not sure what you are flying, but never found the tail "crashing" down.

[taybird]

Agreed, the tailwheel / nosewheel doesn't "crash down". The opposing force produced by the tail reduces as the speed decreases, but it doesn't suddenly go to zero.

The force produced by the tail reduces to the point where it can no longer balance the weight of the tail / nose, but there is still a force there which acts to oppose the lowering, thereby cushioning the effect of gravity.

In my experience both nose and tail come down very gently of their own accord if the technique is applied correctly.

[3 Point]

Hi Foxmoth,

I understand very well the reasons for using a wheeler technique in relevant circumstances and certainly a high tail can help improve rudder effectiveness in some types. However, holding one wheel airborne (either nose or tail) until one runs out of control authority is not, I believe a sound technique and certainly not something I'd advocate on most types. That was the thrust of my remarks.

Some aeroplanes will run out of rudder authority before they run out of elevator authority, now you have the tail coming down out of control (Taybird, I accept my use of the phrase "crashing down" may not be appropriate to all aircraft types). With the tail falling, out of control and with no rudder authority left you are now at the mercy of any crosswind gusts and, in some types there is even some gyroscopic precession from the propeller to deal with. Some large, heavy and powerful tailwheel types have a lockable tailwheel and benefit from having the tailwheel down (under control of the elevator) before the rudder authority is lost.

Taybird, yes, the tailplane and elevator do still produce some aerodynamic lifting force even at very slow airspeed but this is reducing all the while as the aeroplane decelerates and may reduce (or increase) suddenly and randomly under the influence of gusts. This can make the rate of lowering the tail unpredictable with full forward stick. Also, as the tailwheel lowers the horizontal distance between the mainwheels and the CG increases thereby increasing the nose-up pitching moment caused by the couple of the weight and the mainwheels. This effect increases as the tail gets lower causing the pitch rate to accelerate. With no additional elevator control to cushion the tailwheel touchdown this can cause a harsh landing for the small wheel!

I fly a nosewheel equipped Jet aeroplane at work and the correct technique is to land on the mainwheels and then use elevator to control the nosewheel touchdown. If one were to hold the nosewheel off till one runs out of elevator authority the nose would certainly "crash down".

I stand by my point that a technique which uses 100% of the available control authority prior the aeroplane being fully on the ground is not generally applicable. Although it may work well enough on some aeroplanes and in certain circumstances it leaves nothing in reserve to deal with the unexpected. Aeroplanes are all different and we should all be very careful not to advocate generic techniques which may not be appropriate to all types.

Returning to the thread, perhaps the pilot who found a 172 hard to land was applying generic techniques when they were not appropriate and perhaps his instructor didn't know any better because he, himself had limited experience and knowledge?!?

Happy landings

3 Point

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

3-point, I hope your username refers to tailwheel flying only! ;)

I have also not found any problems with holding full forward stick in a wheel landing once the speed is appropriate (i.e do it too early and you'll be tail-high). Like Foxmoth, I find that as the aeroplane slows the tail gracefully descends, and does not 'crash down'. Same on holding off the nosewheel in a fully held-off trike landing.

As for:

Cannot agree at all that the 172 has poor aileron response.

I don't think even its mother would go along with that! :}

[3 Point]

Hi SSD,

Well, that may be the case on many aeroplanes but it's certainly not the case on all. There are some types which do not respond well at all to holding the tail (or the nose) up till you run out of elevator.

That aside, my main point was that generic techniques are by definition not optimal on many aircraft types and I generally don't like them. All aeroplanes are different to a greater or lesser degree and therefore demand different pilot techniques to operate them well. This may be at the root of the problems the subject pilot reported with landing a 172.

Yes, 3 point on a taildragger only!!

Happy landings

3 Point

[Pilot DAR]

As SSD and others, I will generally apply appropriate control in pitch and roll through touchdown, progressing to full control application in the desired direction until there is no detectable aerodynamic affect resulting from that control input (usually about when I stop, or turn off the runway).

I do this for all types I fly, unless there is a reason not to. A reason not to roll in full aileron would likely be that there was no crosswind - sure, central ailerons, but I'll still hold in pitch to unload the nose or tail as much as I can.

I have never had a nose or tail wheel(s) "crash" down while purposefully holding it/them off. To the contrary, I find the the applied control softens the contact of that third or third and forth wheel(s). I don't hold the tail or nose needlessly high off, just enough to reduce wear and tear on the wheel(s). And, if there's a gust, perfect, I already have the control input I need. If too much, I'll let some off, but I can't think of the last time that was a problem...

To support what I say, I present a video of a recent landing I flew - watch the elevator:

IsNKE64ZhJg

[3 Point]

Hi DAR,

Very tidy landing and I agree with all you say ...

"I will generally apply appropriate control in pitch and roll through touchdown, progressing to full control application in the desired direction until there is no detectable aerodynamic affect resulting from that control input (usually about when I stop, or turn off the runway".

That's what I do too and it's what I'm getting at. What you say is not the same as saying that you should always hold the tail or nosewheel off until you run out of elevator authority and then let it fall to earth out of control.

My point remains, generic flying techniques are not, by definition the optimum for many aeroplanes and the wide application of such techniques is not a good thing. Different aeroplanes require different techniques and should be flown using the appropriate techniques.

3 Point

[Pilot DAR]

"I will generally apply appropriate control in pitch and roll through touchdown, progressing to full control application in the desired direction until there is no detectable aerodynamic affect resulting from that control input (usually about when I stop, or turn off the runway".

That's what I do too and it's what I'm getting at. What you say is not the same as saying that you should always hold the tail or nosewheel off until you run out of elevator authority and then let it fall to earth out of control.

I intend it to be the same, other than the "fall to earth" part.

For my taildragger, as soon as I touch down, the stick will go forward smoothly, until fully forward, and it will stay there until the tailwheel settles gently to the ground as the speed reduces. For my nosewheel plane, as soon as I touch down, that control is pulled steadily back, not so as to fly again, but otherwise, as quickly as possible, and held full back, until there is no airflow over the tail.

I think of the elevator as having effectiveness or not, rather than "authority", and it will run out of effectiveness as you slow. This is not a sudden occurrence, so neither is the settling of the held off wheel(s).

Rather, I am occasionally quite alarmed to see a tricycle Cessna landed, and at the moment of touchdown, the elevator is relaxed, the nose drops, and a relatively delicate and maintenance sensitive nose strut is suddenly doing (very needlessly) a lot of work. On a paved runway, this is bad. On an uneven turf or gravel runway it is terrible. If the Cessna shimmy damper system (which includes the torque links) is weak, you can get a shimmy, which will really damage the aircraft.

The nose or tailwheel can touch down at 60-65 knots with "who cares" technique, or 50-40 knots with "I care" technique. That could be a 20 knot difference, and IS with my taildragger. My tailwheel maintenance costs have gone way down since I started doing it right, and not three pointing it. I do accept that other types are best three pointed, and so be it, but not mine, nor other tailwheels I've been trained on. I have never had unusual Cessna strut maintenance costs on my Cessna, as I was taught right the first time, and hold it off.

As long as a plane is moving through the air, it is flying, and the controls work - so I fly it. It may be in contact with the world, but that does not mean it has stopped flying. If you land a floatplane, and fail to hold the pitch control all the way back, you're in for a very unpleasant and wet surprise... You fly it until it stops....

[3 Point]

DAR,

Very nearly agree with all you say but, while I agree that an elevator deflected to full forward or full back still has some aerodynamic effect that does not mean that you have the ability to control the aeroplane.

In some types I have flown the tail will fall rapidly if you hold it off till you run out of elevator and by that time you will already have lost rudder effectiveness and you need to get the tailwheel on the ground for directional control.

My point remains that particular aeroplanes need particualr techniques and they are not all the same. You kind of say the same thing when you describe the requirement to use full up elevator in a seapalne and also when you say "other types are best three pointed, and so be it, but not mine".

In your final paragraph you say "As long as a plane is moving through the air, it is flying, and the controls work" but that's not strictly true. If they are at their maximum deflection you have no ability to exert further control of the aeroplane in one direction. I agree that the controls have an effect while there is any airflow over them but some effect is not the same as having working controls.

Let me give two examples; an Embraer 145 would smack its nose down very hard if I were to hold it off till I run out of elevator authority. Holding the tailwheel of a Sea Fury airborne till the elevator authority is all gone would induce a real risk of losing directional control as the tail falls out of control at about 60 Kts.

[Pilot DAR]

I am willing to concede to the unique characteristics of the EM 145, or Sea Fury (I have not flown either type). Certainly, what one must do to operate a particular type properly prevails over generalities. I agree there are tailwheel types which must has the tailwheel down to steer, cause the rudder alone won't do it - the SM1019 surprised me unpleasantly a couple of times this way!

That said, those particular types are usually not certified in the Part 23/CAR 3 category, so they could have characteristics which do not represent the normal GA aircraft. For a pilot reading here to surrender control to gravity only, on a light GA aircraft, because that's how it's done in a EM 145, might not entirely meet the best goals.

Pilots should "fly" planes. That's what they're paying for, right? So, why stop flying it, just 'cause it's on the ground? Maintain aerodynamic control until it stops.

still has some aerodynamic effect that does not mean that you have the ability to control the aeroplane

I disagree. If I desire to purposefully lighten the load on a nosewheel, and I hold the control wheel fully back, I'll be reducing the load on the nosewheel, as long as there is effective airflow over the tail. Yes, this diminishes to none with decrease in speed. But then the ground shocks I'm trying to prevent into the nosewheel are also lessening as speed reduces.

"Control" does not mean that I am changing the direction of the aircraft, maybe just maintaining it, or maintaining a partly balancing force.

I once had to taxi a 172 through a field which had been plowed up between the hangar and runway, since parking the plane. Owner in the back seat, his daughter in the baggage compartment, flaps 20, full control wheel back, and I waddled the plane out with the nosewheel completely off the ground. No nosewheel or propeller damage risk. I controlled the plane aerodynamically (flew?) on the ground, well below flying speed.

[3 Point]

DAR,

I agree that if we restrict the debate to part 23 aeroplanes there is likely to be less variability in their handling characteristics however, the readership here are, I think active on all sorts of aeroplanes (and other flying machines) so I think the wider context is relevant.

I certainly agree that pilots should "fly" planes, I too am frequently appalled when I see pilots relinquish aerodynamic control immediately after touchdown and let the poor thing bump and bounce its way down the runway!

I doubt you and I will agree (and we're not really that far apart) but I'd submit that "control" in this context is the ability to exert influence over the aeroplane in all three axes such that the pilot can cause the aeroplane to behave as desired or can stop it behaving in an undesirable way.

I'd say that once you get to full control deflection holding one wheel off the ground and allow it to drop under the influence of gravity you no longer meet that definition of control! You might counter that by saying that if the pilot's intention is to allow the nose or tail to drop under the influence of gravity then you still meet my definition of control. I'll not argue the point any further.

Appropriate techniques, thoroughly learned, well understood and consistently applied will produce safe and repeatable landings on most aeroplanes - certainly the C172!

Happy landings all:)