Odd? landing technique (PA28) wanted by school

[gfunc]

Hello folks,

I am revalidating my PPL after being overseas (and flying privately) for many years. I've found a school and an instructor who seem great, the only strange thing is the touchdown technique they are telling me is their accepted technique in a PA28 Warrior - I wanted to ask if this is a countrywide phenomena or just particular to this school?

So, my tried and tested (overseas) way of landing a Warrior: Approach 65kts with full flap, roundout and power to idle (apply crosswind correction as desired), flare....keep the aeroplane flying 6 inches off the ground for as long as possible..touchdown at minimum flying speed on the mains with a squeak from the stall warner and warm applause from the passengers. This seems in line with the POH.

The technique I've been told to use is: Approach 70kts with full flap, roundout and power to idle then let it pretty much settle (or plonk) onto the deck.

This second technique seems like that used for something much bigger and faster (or for a Warrior in very exception conditions e.g. strong x-wind with turbulence). To me this is asking for trouble - 7kts over the POH speed you'll eat up kilometres of runway, risk huge bounces if the touchdown is slightly on the heavy side and puts the nosewheel at risk of becoming retractable.

I've got a remedial session of circuits because of "my" landing techinique - I'm not sure whether to be belligerent and continue land the way I normally do or not!

[anderow]

Maybe their experience of your landing technique, doesn't line up with yours :confused::ok:

[India Four Two]

Find another school. Your technique is fine.

[Ex Oggie]

Find another school. Your technique is fine.

As India Four Two says.

I spend most of my working life trying to undo that sort on nonsense instruction :ugh:

[9 lives]

Find another school. Your technique is fine.

+1

When an instructor suggests "plonking" on, or otherwise a less than gentle touchdown, ask if they pay for the tires and brakes....

[dont overfil]

The book figure which I believe is 63kts is for maximum weight. At below maximum 70kts will be way too fast. I see this type of teaching regularly and we have the skid marks to prove it.

Get him to demonstrate his technique on a 500M runway:rolleyes:

D.O.

[Radix]

...........

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Oddly, I was taught both techniques at Oxford Air training School a long time ago. Your version was what they termed a "performance landing" as it resulted in a shorter roll and was useful at Oxford off a low level circuit to land.

The other method was what we were taught in the "normal" circuit. Then again the they were training us for the airlines where "plonk it on" is not surprising for anyone.

SND

[Green Guard]

Landing technique is very simple.
Very good and safe and smooth landing can be done just by doing it opposite as you do any takeoff rotation.
Nobody ever did a hard takeoff.
):-

[Genghis the Engineer]

One really obvious point - check you haven't gone from a knots aeroplane to a mph aeroplane.

But if everything's still in knots, then yes, the correct approach speed for a -161 is 63kn, reducing with weight - so a half tank solo aeroplane, likely to be around 80% MTOW, will want about 57 knots. I can think of no good reason to fly a 70kn approach in a -161 with flaps used as per the POH.

BUT, I have also seen various instructors around the world use 70+kn flapped approaches, causing some combination of hard landing and float. It's bad practice, poor airmanship, and it's just as well that PA28s have such strong nosegear !

I think that the "going to the airlines" argument is spurious - all pilots should learn to fly the aeroplane that they're sat in, properly. Not the one after the one after that !

G

[India Four Two]

Get him to demonstrate his technique on a 500M runway:rolleyes:Preferably while you watch from the sidelines! :E

BUT, I have also seen various instructors around the world use 70+kn flapped approaches, causing some combination of hard landing and floatI once flew an ILS in a 172, flaps-up and full throttle, to accommodate an ATC request - they had jets turning final 50 miles out! I closed the throttle over the threshold. You wouldn't believe how far we floated before I could even lower the flaps, never mind touch down. Luckily, it was a 13,000' runway. ;)

[flybymike]

Genghis,
Do you have a specific formula for reducing the approach speed from 63 kts to 57kts at 80% MTOW. Or is this just some sort of personal guesstimation?

[Genghis the Engineer]

MTOW_approach_speed x SQRT (actual_weight / MTOW).


So in this case, 63 x SQRT(0.8) = 56.3, which I rounded up to 57.


It's just an extension of L=W=½RhoV²SCl. So, as Cl is the same (and a function of AoA), the speed has to go with the square root of weight, to balance the equation.


G

[thing]

It's just an extension of L=W=½RhoV²SCl. So, as Cl is the same (and a function of AoA), the speed has to go with the square root of weight, to balance the equation.


I was just thinking that myself.

[fireflybob]

Find another school. Your technique is fine.

Agree!

Vat (Velocity at Threshold) as Genghis states. I believe performance criteria assume crossing the threshold at 50 feet.

Have not got the POH to hand for the PA28 -161 here but the (UK) CAA appendix for landing distance states "fully stalled touchdown" as one of the assumptions to achieve the scheduled landing distance.

[Johnm]

The only reason to fly faster than the POH says is when facing severe gusts in which case it is considered wise to add half the gust factor to the POH speed. So in normal circumstances you'd approach on short final at around 60 to 65 knots and on a day of 20G40 you'd approach at around 70 to 75

[Jan Olieslagers]

?¿? half of forty makes twenty, so "approach at around 80 to 85" ?

[localflighteast]

half the gust factor , the difference between the wind and the max gust
so 20 knots in this case
so add 10 knots ( although I was taught UP TO half the gust factor) IE no more!

[phiggsbroadband]

It might be that the instructor realises the Piper has dampers in the main LG, so maybe a bit more 'bounce-proof' than a Cessna, that is just a sprung system.
Commercial aircraft also have very heavily damped MLGs, so maybe he has been trained that way... or he could have flown RAF Fast Jets (thinking of carrier landings now...)


.

[Mach Jump]

I agree with Genghis, and most of the others. Either find another school, or play along with them for the checkout, and then go back to your original way of landing.

Don't forget, though, that to achieve the POH landing performance, you will need the correct speed/height at the threshold, and the throttle at idle from there on.

If you keep any power on to the 'roundout'/'flare' you will extend the landing distance considerably.


MJ:ok:

[foxmoth]

I agree with most of what has been said here, in fact if someone was using this schools technique I would be wary of signing them off.
One bit I do disagree with though is Don't forget, though, that to achieve the POH landing performance, you will need the correct speed/height at the threshold, and the throttle at idle from there on., nothing I can see in the POH that says this and my understanding is that you leave power on during the flare to give some slipstream effect over the tail, thus increasing the effectiveness of the elevator - one reason you use a higher speed on a glide approach.

[Fly-by-Wife]

Can you ask the instructor(s) to show you in the POH / Flight Manual where the performance figures are to justify their requirements?

FBW

[Mach Jump]

One bit I do disagree with though is

Quote:
Don't forget, though, that to achieve the POH landing performance, you will need the correct speed/height at the threshold, and the throttle at idle from there on.

, nothing I can see in the POH that says this and my understanding is that you leave power on during the flare to give some slipstream effect over the tail, thus increasing the effectiveness of the elevator - one reason you use a higher speed on a glide approach.

Check the 'Landing Distance' page in the Performance Section of the POH

http://http://www.desu.edu/sites/default/files/u725/Warrior%20161%20Section%205%20Performance%20Landing%20200%20 pbi.pdf (http://www.desu.edu/sites/default/files/u725/Warrior%20161%20Section%205%20Performance%20Landing%20200%20 pbi.pdf)

'ASSOCIATED CONDITIONS: POWER OFF, FLAPS - 40, PAVED LEVEL DRY RUNWAY, MAXIMUM BRAKING.'


MJ:ok:

[Genghis the Engineer]

half the gust factor , the difference between the wind and the max gust
so 20 knots in this case
so add 10 knots ( although I was taught UP TO half the gust factor) IE no more!

I would be interested in knowing your authoritative source for this.

Aeroplane gust response is proportional to the square of airspeed (source, any good university textbook on flight mechanics). So, adding (say) 10% to IAS, will add 21% to the airframe response to a gust. That has never seemed to me to be particularly wise in a conventionally configured aeroplane.

G

[AerocatS2A]

I would be interested in knowing your authoritative source for this.

Aeroplane gust response is proportional to the square of airspeed (source, any good university textbook on flight mechanics). So, adding (say) 10% to IAS, will add 21% to the airframe response to a gust. That has never seemed to me to be particularly wise in a conventionally configured aeroplane.

G

It's standard airline technique I believe, I can't say I've got a lighty POH to check though. The end result of doing it this way is that the airspeed fluctuations will be such that the lowest speed is no lower than your normal approach speed. Of course an airliner FCOM will give a limit on how much additional knots you apply for the gusts and will also dictate a performance penalty to the landing charts.

[Johnm]

I don't know what the physics looks like and I don't really care, but adding a LITTLE speed in gusty conditions reduces the one armed paper hanger demands in my experience. I'm guessing it's airline practice because jet engine throttle response isn't as rapid as piston engine.

[john_tullamarine]

Several comments if I may ..

Your version was what they termed a "performance landing" as it resulted in a shorter roll

Generally a reference to "performance landing" infers max effort, min distance from the screen. This infers min POH approach speed, generally 1.3Vs, min flare distance and max braking. GTE knows all about that stuff.

While there may be operational reasons to add a bit of fat to the approach speed going into the flare, in general, ANY extra speed is counterproductive if the aim is to achieve a min distance landing ... you have some concern about what lies past the runway head ...

Re speed adjustments if the POH doesn't provide guidance, one should check the PEC .. just to make sure you don't get into tiger country .. not usually a problem unless you are back near the stall.

add half the gust factor to the POH speed

Perhaps misheard in respect of common OEM heavy guidance, which is half the steady wind plus all the gust to a maximum additive of 20kt.

Reasoning is

(a) steady wind is predictable and the low level gradient, in the absence of obstacles and the like, is fairly predictable ... usually following something approaching the usual FT and AFM 1/7th power relationship. Adding half the steady wind is an attempt to model this in a simple manner for line operations.

(b) gust is statistically unpredictable .. so it follows that a more conservative approach to additive be followed.

(c) max 20kt is a sanity check on the normal landing factor for heavies of 1.67 .. be careful with lighties as the factors are generally somewhat smaller. 20kt also reflects an old (ancient ?) UK BCAR AFM requirement which imposed that as a maximum additive.

Some discussion can be found in various threads including this old one (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/10456-737-wind-increment-vref.html) ...

nothing I can see in the POH that says this

The POH should have words of wisdom regarding the technique upon which the landing distances are scheduled. Otherwise a read of the Flight Test Guide (http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2023-8C.pdf) might be useful.

and will also dictate a performance penalty to the landing charts.

Generally none .. that's the reason for the 20kt limit.

jet engine throttle response isn't as rapid as piston engine

That problem went away years ago following a number of approach prangs where engine RPM was allowed to be too low. The simple expedient of requiring the engines to be spun up (typically above bleed valve closure) gave good response.

[AerocatS2A]

and will also dictate a performance penalty to the landing charts.

Generally none .. that's the reason for the 20kt limit.

We are good for up to 7 kts additives but beyond that we have to add a percentage to the landing distance required. Max total additives (gusts and icing) 14 knots. That's for a BAe146 which is a bit different due to its low speed wing.

[Johnm]

So we're all agreed that:

a) The original poster is right and his instructor is wrong :ok:

b) There might be a case for adding a little bit of speed in gusty conditions but it's a matter of personal taste or comfort in light aircraft.

[Genghis the Engineer]

We are good for up to 7 kts additives but beyond that we have to add a percentage to the landing distance required. Max total additives (gusts and icing) 14 knots. That's for a BAe146 which is a bit different due to its low speed wing.

Also a part 25 aeroplane like a 146 has a lot of inertia, and a high approach speed. The first creates windshear risk, and the second makes say 10kn speed increment a relatively small percentage change.


A light aircraft with a lower approach speed, and without the susceptibility to windshear doesn't want the same magnitude of speed change, if any at all.

G

[john_tullamarine]

We are good for up to 7 kts additives but beyond that we have to add a percentage to the landing distance required.

Now, had I taken up the command slot I relinquished on the Quadrapuff all those years ago .. I would have known that Type requirement. Learning requirements still operative ...

[AerocatS2A]

Also a part 25 aeroplane like a 146 has a lot of inertia, and a high approach speed. The first creates windshear risk, and the second makes say 10kn speed increment a relatively small percentage change.


A light aircraft with a lower approach speed, and without the susceptibility to windshear doesn't want the same magnitude of speed change, if any at all.

G
Yes, its a relatively small percentage increase and it is sometimes/often silly if not dangerous to use heavy aeroplane techniques for light aeroplanes.

[gfunc]

Thank you all for your replies so far folks.

I'm glad to hear that I've not gone crazy and that the CAA haven't instituted some mad policy in my absence from these shores.

As some of you point out it, this (incorrect) technique I'm being told to use probably stems from the fact that the school is geared towards airline wannabes. I find it quite ironic that in training people to "fly like the big boys" they are missing the point that the big boys fly exactly as per the manufacturer's manuals! The post by Sir Niall Dementia re the two techniques taught by the big schools explains all the firewall problems a certain school had in their 172s at an airfield I have flown at.

Prior to my next session I'll have a chat with the instructor in question with POH in hand. I'll also try to figure out why I was told that "we don't touch the mixture below 3,000ft", why I haven't seen W&B/performance charts and why we haven't bothered to dip partially full tanks prior to flying (whole another stories). :ugh:

I'm hesitant to walk away from the school as I am limited for choice (the next nearest is an extra 45min drive) and they seem to have a good reputation. I'll canvas more instructors at this school to see if this is limited to a subset of instructors or a real policy. However, if they aren't going to operate the aircraft in the correct way I'll take my hard earned money and good looks elsewhere.

[Genghis the Engineer]

In my opinion:-

Lack of W&CG/Perf access: knowledge that you are a licenced pilot, and that 2-up with partial tanks from a known and fairly long runway, they're irrelevant anyhow.

No mixture below 3000ft: This is a common UK view: some aircraft (I have a 1969 Condor which actually placards this) do recommend this approach, but in reality it's just burning fuel for no good reason in a long cruise. Also nervousness of low ability student pilots damaging the engine through misusing it. If you understand it, use the mixture, it's what it's for.

Dipping tank: Probably because they know the aeroplane well enough, are flying relatively short sorties, and are always flying with good fuel reserves. When I used to part-own a Warrior II and flew it regularly, I was pretty good at telling within 20 litres or so how much fuel was in the tanks by sight.



An obvious question for you - if you are a reasonably experienced pilot, why not look to local syndicates, rather than pay commercial rates in a school which will be very restrictive of aircraft access anyhow.

G

[gfunc]

Hi Genghis,

I get your points about my other "disappointments" about my experience thus far. I would agree with them all in the case of you and I going for a local flight in your lovely privately owned Condor.

However, in my opinion at this stage (me rocking up as an unknown quantity) an instructor should be setting an example and insisting on high standards. From viewpoint of a student, at worst quickly going over the W&B and perf would refresh my memory, and at best would highlight any deficiencies in my knowledge. Again the not dipping tanks is setting a poor example - it literally takes seconds during the walk around and is again another opportunity to check my knowledge. Flight training is predominantly a case of "monkey see, monkey do"; visual guestimation plus an inexperienced PPL has the potential to line up several slices of Swiss cheese.

The mixture issue...it seems a UK oddity that I'll live with!

With regards to your question - two issues are (i) I have to convert my overseas CPL, so I'm stuck in the training environment for a while (thanks CAA!) and (ii) I seemed to have moved to a part of the country with a paucity of airfields and I would be looking for something aerobatic with the little wheel at the correct end of the aircraft.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Can't you do recreational VFR flying with PPL privileges on your ICAO CPL?

Yes, I take your point about demonstrating gold standard flying - something that was certainly strongly emphasised on my instructors course.

G

[Sillert,V.I.]

It's all been said already but the taper wing Cherokees are very sensitive to carrying excess speed on the approach. 70kt+ will easily see you floating off the end of the runway at many smaller UK GA airfields.

In strong gusty conditions I might fly the approach at 70kt, but in that situation, I'd be leaving the flaps up & landing clean.

[riverrock83]

On the Warrior I flew for a few years, we had 3 options - full, tabs, flight time since full or tabs.
The dihedral on a PA28 means that dipping will give you different values depending on how level the ground is, and will mean that you can't have a gauge with a straight scale but need a specifically calibrated one. So quite common to not use dipping on a PA28 due to its inaccuracy.

[9 lives]

Every landing I do in every type I fly will be a full flaps landing. If the crosswind is such that I cannot safely fly the approach and landing, I will not land on that runway then. Every landing I do will be flown with the intent that the mainwheels touch gently first, and then the nose or tailwheel later in the rollout, unless there is a specific reason for a different technique. That is my personal preference, and in 40 years of flying, I have never been unhappy with it, and never damaged landing gear (or a plane, for that matter). I have only flown partial flap landings under instruction from much more competent pilots on type (Beaver and Twin Otter), or in the case of mechanical failure.

If you have a landing technique which works for you, and results in a controlled, stable, gentle landing, then do that. If a check pilot does not like it, ask to be referred to an authoritative document which says it should not be done that way. On the ever so slight chance there actually is a reference to not doing it that way, consider it! Otherwise, flyi the plane as though you own it, and would have to pay for wear&tear, and damage!

I once had to be checked out in a DA-42 for some flying I had to do. The check "Instructor" resisted my flaring for landings, rather wanting a three point landing. I don't like three pointing nosewheel planes for wheelbarrow risk, and damage to the nose strut. But, I did not have time to argue with him. so, I did a couple of nice three point landings, just touched the nosewheel, then held it light. Once he left, I flew it the right way, and held the nosewheel off 'till much later in the rollout.

[Sillert,V.I.]

Every landing I do in every type I fly will be a full flaps landing.

I've always believed that landing flapless gives you better gust control, particularly in the flare, at the expense of needing a little more pavement.

I'm sure someone more technically expert than myself can explain it in terms of wing loading, but I think of it as reducing the gust component expressed as a percentage of the stall speed.

IIRC on a warrior, landing flapless gets you about a 15% increase in stall speed.

I can't imagine any situation where I'd ever attempt to three point a tricycle light aircraft and would regard such a landing as a major fail.

I suppose if you're using a warrior to train someone to operate an A320, teaching them not to hold off might just prevent a tailstrike incident further on down the line, but IMO it's no way to fly a light aircraft.

[foxmoth]

Mach Jump - looked in a few books and it did not say that, also, if you read in the landing technique it says approach with power but it does not say when to reduce it, when they say "power off" they could easily mean after the roundout, certainly it is easier to get a better landing in that way, and AFAIK the discussion was not talking about short field anyway.

[9 lives]

For my experience, flying faster will afford more crisp control, which might seem like better control for gusts. I have only ever had one circumstance in which I aborted an approach (still at 100 feet up) because it was so gusty that I did not feel I had adequate control of the plane. That was a type with "heavier" ailerons, and in hind sight, I was just not skilled enough with that plane at the time.

Low wing planes react better to ground effect, so flaps may seem less important, but I still like full flaps for landing, and "takeoff flap" for takeoff, rather than less.

In my opinion, if pilots are to be trained the techniques for landing an A320, they should be training on an A320 or sim. The fact that you can abuse a GA trainer to emulate an airliner, does not mean you should!

[Sillert,V.I.]

In my opinion, if pilots are to be trained the techniques for landing an A320, they should be training on an A320 or sim. The fact that you can abuse a GA trainer to emulate an airliner, does not mean you should!

I couldn't agree more - I'm just observing what seems to be happening in certain European schools and suggesting an explanation as to why someone is being taught what most here are agreeing is an incorrect technique for landing a warrior.

Personally I think if we are going to put folks into the RHS of a jet airliner with a couple of hundred hours or so, they should never be let anywhere near a light aircraft - we need to use all those hours to teach them what is actually relevant to the job they are ultimately going to be doing.

[Johnm]

Personally I think if we are going to put folks into the RHS of a jet airliner with a couple of hundred hours or so, they should never be let anywhere near a light aircraft - we need to use all those hours to teach them what is actually relevant to the job they are ultimately going to be doing.

That's precisely what led to AF447, two light aircraft pilots wouldn't have crashed that aircraft, they'd just have flown power and attitude S&L until they could sort themselves out

[9 lives]

I feel a new topic coming on... I'll post in A&CC....

[foxmoth]

No matter what they are teaching future airline pilots the instructors should know the correct technique and be able to cope with someone who is not looking to fly commercially using it!

[Mach Jump]

Foxmoth.

when they say "power off" they could easily mean after the roundout,

I don't think so.

If they did, it would introduce an uncontrolled variable.

Without the assumption of 'power off' at the screen, the graphs are meaningless.


MJ:ok:

[Talkdownman]

if you read in the landing technique it says approach with power but it does not say when to reduce it, when they say "power off" they could easily mean after the roundout,
As long as it doesn't say "take off power"...

[9 lives]

if you read in the landing technique it says approach with power but it does not say when to reduce it, when they say "power off" they could easily mean after the roundout,

Being a "they" sometimes, from the right seat, I will require that the power be reduced to idle somewhere around the downwind to base turn, and remain so until a gentle touchdown for some landings, until that skill is second nature. My candidates will not solo until this is demonstrated with repeated skill onto the runway and the water.

The aircraft is required to be able to safely land this way, so should the pilot be! AKA a forced approach. Full control of a certified aircraft is assured up to its maneuvering limits power off, down to the stall speed - or it will not be certified. Power or "Slipstream" are not factors in maintaining control of a well flown GA aircraft, within it's intended operational envelope.

GA aircraft are not permitted to be designed to require power to safely land. The only thing that power should be doing for a pilot on final approach is allowing "adjustment" of the point along the runway where the plane will touch down as gently as it would have with a full power off approach.

Otherwise, for poor flare entry, power may be used to recover, but if this is needed, the landing was not great to begin with. I agree that some types like to be landed carrying a bit of power, but this is a crutch to fully capable pilot technique.

I may encourage the application of full flap from half to be late, or in the flare, as on some types, that can speed things up a lot, and introduce an opportunity to undershoot - so best be nicely over the landing surface before full flaps power off in some types.

Sec. 23.143

General.

[(a) The airplane must be safely controllable and maneuverable during all flight phases including--
.........
(6) Landing (power on and power off) with the wing flaps extended and retracted.]

[TheOddOne]

I agree that some types like to be landed carrying a bit of power, but this is a crutch to fully capable pilot technique.


Personally, I find the P28R Arrow IV requires more back pressure in the flare than I can comfortably achieve (and I'm of above average build and not weak in the arm!). A 'trickle' of power does aid immensely, as does trimming in the flare, neither is desirable in my view; the first extends the landing distance and the second diverts attention away from other matters (and gives an unwanted pitch up trim in a full power go-around). Altogether an unpleasant though certified aircraft in the circuit.

TOO

[Cows getting bigger]

I prefer to think of power as another control, rather than something that should be on/off.

As far as landings are concerned, there are numerous reasons why power should/could/shouldn't/couldn't be used and one size certainly doesn't fit all. A competent pilot should be able to land with or without power depending upon the circumstances which include aircraft type, stability of approach ('cos all of us get it wrong sometimes), LDA, etc etc.

[mary meagher]

all of which reminds me of the time I was flying the final approach to Annapolis in a Piper Cruiser, into a 20 mph headwind.

A hotshot Navy pilot, probably most adept at carrier landings, got impatient and cut in front of me! (OK, the road traffic was overtaking as well, but he was quite rude!)

I was at the time flying with a local instructor. It gave us a certain amount of satisfaction to watch that Navy Warrior land fast and firmly on that short runway.... as his undercarriage was not up to Navy standards, and his wheels gave way.
We had to go round until they dragged the poor Warrior out of the way.

[Pace]

As CGB says there are a number of landing techniques which are required for different conditions not one.
1.3 X stall is just a number allowing enough energy to transition to a flair and then to hold off to touchdown as near the stall as possible.
An AOA is far more accurate but not carried on most light aircraft.

That technique would not be advisable in strong gust winds and with a good headwind component it maybe that you fly it on at higher speed.

Pace

[Pull what]

In my opinion, if pilots are to be trained the techniques for landing an A320, they should be training on an A320 or sim. The fact that you can abuse a GA trainer to emulate an airliner, does not mean you should!

Not sure what the point is you are trying to make but having flown the A320 (and the A319 and A321) I can assure you that all aircraft land in tbe same way.

Landing an aircraft is generally the product of 3 attitude changes and a power reduction, there could not be anything simpler (even a guy who had never flown an aircraft did it at Humberside at night after the pilot died).

You stabilise the approach, you cross then threshold at tbe correct airspeed and height and you flare at the appropriate height.

Unless you fully understand and can master those attitude changes you will never land an aircraft well.

Most instructors are never shown how to teach landings and as a result can only show landings and there is a big difference between showing someone how to land and teaching them how to land.

So, my tried and tested (overseas) way of landing a Warrior: Approach 65kts with full flap, roundout and power to idle (apply crosswind correction as desired), flare....keep the aeroplane flying 6 inches off the ground for as long as possible..touchdown at minimum flying speed on the mains with a squeak from the stall warner and warm applause from the passengers. This seems in line with the POH.

Ive never seen a POH call for flying an aircraft at 6 inches above a runway although a lot of women say many males have very bad judgement where 6 inches is concerned

The Warrior has to be one of the most simple aircraft to land (apart from the A319) so why complicate it with bull****?

Being a "they" sometimes, from the right seat, I will require that the power be reduced to idle somewhere around the downwind to base turn, and remain so until a gentle touchdown for some landings, until that skill is second nature. My candidates will not solo until this is demonstrated with repeated skill onto the runway and the water.

Also being a 'they' (sitting in both seats), I require power to be reduced to idle at an appropriate place, dependant on the type of approach and height and I am not too bothered about a gentle touchdown but insist on excellent go around awareness and execution and my candidates will not solo until that is demonstrated. Landings can bust nosewheels, go arounds can save them!

[Pace]

i agree with Pull Whats post above I also state that I do not understand the reference to many of trundling down the approach at a set speed and with full flap?

I would only take full flap when assured of landing and may use a higher speed initially on the approach progressively reducing till taking full flap brings me back to my VREF speed for landing with as constant a power as possible.

stalling on may give you the published stopping distance but with a 20/gusting 40 kt wind do you really want to be hanging above the runway 6 feet up near the stall floating merrily down that runway with a gust maybe lifting you to 15 feet near the stall while your waiting for it to sink on the runway or field alongside ? :ugh:

I think not! There are time when you fly it on and times when you bang it on there are times when you will use the full flap VREF! times when you will use less than full flap with the appropriate VREF for that setting and times when headwind and gust factors determine a higher VREF speed. As stated VREF is just a number a formula.

Landing an aircraft is not about stalling it on. It can be but there are other ways and a rounded pilot should be comfortable using a number of methods to suit the conditions of the day

Pace

[rarelyathome]

Pace.

Using your brain to use a technique appropriate for the aircraft and conditions - that'll never catch on :E

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Not sure what the point is you are trying to make but having flown the A320 (and the A319 and A321) I can assure you that all aircraft land in tbe same way.

Now, now, now don't go confusing these people.

[9 lives]

I can assure you that all aircraft land in tbe same way.

Well... All aircraft should be landed gently, and under control, there might be some nuances as to how this is achieved. The approach to that can vary greatly. The pilot must understand and be able to execute an approach, which is appropriate to put the plane at a place and speed which will enable a good landing.

I suspect that some airliner pilot training focuses more on get the plane on the ground in the touchdown zone, rather than get it to the touchdown zone, and then finesse a good landing.

I worry that students are not willing to pay for the proper instruction, which they therefore do not receive on many topics, including landing. The instructor brings the student to the skill level where they can get the plane on the ground damage free, and leaves it at that. On budget, skills and inspiration lacking. When I am training, I will be training the owner in their aircraft. Thus, it is not difficult to convince them to apply more effort to a good landing to reduce wear and tear, once I demonstrate the difference. I can't blame a flying instructor, if the system and the student don't demand better training. I will blame them if they don't apply themselves to be at least inspire really good landings by demonstration.

[Wirbelsturm]

I suspect that some airliner pilot training focuses more on get the plane on the ground in the touchdown zone, rather than get it to the touchdown zone, and then finesse a good landing.

I can assure you that, after many years of flying 'flying machines', I take as much pride in finessing the landings of an Airliner at 250+ tonnes and 145kts as I do in landing a small GA aircraft. For me it comes down to pride, professionalism and applying the correct technique for the class of aircraft flown.

FWIW I think the OP has a nice technique and is exactly what I use in GA aircraft. If an instructor told me to 'plonk' it on because 'that's what the airlines do' I would politely suggest that the PA28 isn't an airliner!

Happy flying. :)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Each airplane will have its own approach speed and stall speed.

Fly the airplane as outlined in the operating handbook and be accurate in your flying and you will be safe.

Using power after the round out only extends the time it stays in the air.

If the attitude for that airplane is correct for the touch down and the rate of descent is correct the landing will be safe....as long as the thing is not drifting sideways.

Each airplane has its own touch down attitude, think of the space shuttle compared to a light airplane.

P.S. the space shuttle pilots did not use power after the round out.

[Pull what]

Well... All aircraft should be landed gently,

Have you ever hard of The Navy way of flying.

Have you ever heard of Aquaplaning?

Have you ever heard of the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II?


I suspect that some airliner pilot training focuses more on get the plane on the ground in the touchdown zone, rather than get it to the touchdown zone, and then finesse a good landing.

Having been the trained and the trainer I would put that differently.

Professional pilots spend more time worrying about what happens between take off and decision height, amateur pilots obsess about what happens on touchdown. The landing is the conclusion of the airborne period to allow the aircraft to taxi to the stand. After landing, if the aircraft remains on the tarmac with all wheels and tyres intact and facing the same way as on take off and no technical log entry is necessary, you are then ready to proceed to the next and most difficult stage of the flight, taxing to the stand.

[Pace]

Fair weather pilots :E Gently? Chuck you are far from being a fair weather Pilot

Pace

[Flyingmac]

Ask your instructor if you can do some landings on 500mtrs of grass. You'll learn how to 'Plonk' gently.

[Pace]

Or go and fly in Scotland where you will often get 20 gusting 40 and often way off the runway. Chairmans landings ?
Or maybe Leeds which has notorious winds and shear

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2908198/It-s-skill-pilots-Amazing-video-shows-planes-battle-high-winds-Leeds-Bradford-airport-approaching-runway-SIDEWAYS.html

This is the problem there is too much emphasis place on the stall landing pulling back and back and waiting for the wheels to touch at or near the stall.

As I have posted before a Friend who had control problems landed a Citation at a radar estimated 200 KT touch down speed and stopped intact at Edinburgh
Witnessed by Mad jock in these threads.

That was way above the tire limiting speeds and way above the stall and way above a typical VREF of 105 KTS. The aircraft was flown on! You can fly an aircraft on, stall it on or bang it on. I use the above extreme crazy example to emphasis that landing an aircraft is not just about the stall and that VREF AT 1.3X stall in a given configuration is just that a number

Pace

[9 lives]

Professional pilots spend more time worrying about what happens between take off and decision height, amateur pilots obsess about what happens on touchdown

Hmmm, 'never thought about it that way...

I focus on executing a safe flight between takeoff and decision height, and I focus on an appropriate landing between decision height and turning off the runway. Appropriate will first be safe, next have the margins required to prevent an unexpected event from making it unsafe, after that will be the least wear and tear on the plane, and finally, pleasing to the passengers and or observers. Sometimes you can't have everything, and wear and tear is going to occur - but I obsess on keeping it to a minimum....

I like changing 12 year old tires on my 150, because they are weather checked, but still have lots of tread on them, and no flat spots. I like having to review tech logs to see when I last changed brake pads, because I cannot remember. I like having owned my plane for 28 years, and never having to have had to replace a landing gear part, other than tire and brake pads.

Lat night, I was training a tricycle pilot in a beautiful taildragger. The "appropriate" landing for that was to let him bounce it, and yaw around a bit, to learn what it's like. My obsessing about a perfect landing would not have helped him learn. But, I did a couple of "appropriate to my skills" landings to show him what I expected. I was trying to inspire, then allow him to learn.

Appropriate might be a 200 knot landing in a Citation, if a whole bunch of other things have gone wrong, and the aircraft was returned with little other damage.

Appropriate might be "plonking" it on, if you're landing on a 900 foot long runway, in an aircraft whose required runway length for the conditions is 940 feet.

Appropriate might be a 10 FPS arrival to the deck, if you're flying an F-14, I never have...

In those cases, you are accepting an higher maintenance cost, or greater risk of damage to achieve a more specific operational objective. The average student, or rental pilot, on a runway three times as long as the aircraft requires, really has no need to add that maintenance or risk burden with a "non obsessed" rough or careless landing. Instructors should not tolerate it!

[Pace]

Step turn

I have nothing against fair weather pilots. Its their hard earned cash at stake and rolling the curtains on a Sunday morning It might be better to turn over, go to sleep and await another day.

Some of us within reason have to fly, have to be somewhere at X o CLOCK so within reason have to fly. its hard to tell the Boss we cannot go when one after another airline takes off or lands. He expects the same as does Joe Bloggs on his annual trip or two to Majorca in Fly me to the sun airlines so we go within reason.
There are many mornings in winter when its pitch black freezing, windy and pouring with rain when you don't want to go off at 0500 to ****land with the same

Having said that I know plenty of PPLs who use their aircraft for business and pleasure and battle along OCAS in **** weather often with just an IMCR and do a pretty good job.

The worst was the previous winter into Doncaster coming back from Lithuania at Night. forecast winds were strong but not as strong as reality. ended up flying into Doncaster with 45 KTS gusting 70 KTS MAX 80 KTS recorded thankfully 10 degrees off. Liverpool, Manchester same winds stronger cross.
Lorries blown over, shop fronts blown in, even the poor marshaller got blown off his feet.Worst was on the ground taxiing in where it took two of us to hold the controls. Never want to experience that again )) But HOLD OFF FOR A CHAIRMANS LANDING? NO WAY.

Winds don't bother me too much unless they are pretty across and strong and I cannot remember a bad landing in over 20 years. Ok some are firmer than others but not a bad landing and the Doncaster wasn't surprisingly bad just very challenging

As another pilot told me " That is what is expected of us ( Maybe not Doncaster :ugh: "! That is in the realms of any pilot hobby ones too but whatever turns you on? If its going back to sleep because the wind is more than 10 KTS so be it that is your choice your chosen limits and no one can knock that

Pace

[9 lives]

It's up to the owner of the aircraft (or whomever pays the bills) to determine the expense verses reward of the operation of the aircraft. If the owner want's the service, the owner pays the cost, right up to damaging the aircraft. The important thing is to make the pilot, particularly the casual pilot, aware that if there is no operational need to be hard on the aircraft, then be gentle with it!

I've had recent occasion to train an amphibian pilot who (apparently) had not had good examples set for him as to how to gently operate the aircraft close to and on the ground. I reminded him that it was his plane, and when I fly it, I do it gently, so he might want to also... He accepted a controller request to exit at Charlie, and began to carve it around a corner at 30+ knots during rollout. I interceded, and reminded him that if he rolled the airplane over, or rolled a tire off the rim, it was his cost ('cause the controller won't pay for it!), and his flight was stopped for the day. If, on the other hand, you have to carve around a runway incursion, it was probably worth the risk.

For the owners I know with more expensive, or exotic GA aircraft, this is the primary reason the aircraft are not so readily available to new pilots to fly, the small return is not justified by the higher cost to fix things resulting from mishandling. I see occasional inquiries here as to where one can rent a C206 or Lance type plane. The truth is that these aircraft are less tolerant of rough handling, and the owners know it, so they want to know who's flying it and how...

The fact that you can treat a plane gently does not mean that you always do, it just means that you can, and you always try, circumstances considered....

[Pace]

Step Turn

We all try and treat the aircraft gently. There is nothing I like better than the exclamations of approval when you do not feel the tyres touch and on decent sized runways even with corporate jets we go for chairmans landings.

Brakes on something like the Citation are very expensive as are tyres so we use reverse thrust to conserve the brakes even on long runways.

I take your point on exciting runways at too high a speed you can feel the strain doing so.

Pitot I will knock off on the last part of the landing roll and usually get my knuckles rapped for doing that before exit but with only 2 minutes and a $15000 bill if the system is damaged its off :ok:

But that doesn't change the fact that if you fly all weather there are times when you have no choice but to fly into heavy turbulence or fly in strong wind conditions which means that if you really want to damage the aircraft hold off for the stall 6 feet up with severe down draughts and then you will see real damage and a hike in the insurance

Pace

[Prop swinger]

Oh dear Lord, we've descended into the 80-something circle of Hell, where the usual suspects pontificate about the only possible way to land an aircraft & endlessly correct each other about the minutiae concerning landing various different non-GA aircraft.

The reality is that we've only heard the OP's side of the discussion, not the school's.

What I do know is that the landing technique described by the OP is what held me back when I was learning to fly back in the 90's:keep the aeroplane flying 6 inches off the ground for as long as possible..touchdown at minimum flying speedTwo up, in a low wing aircraft with full landing flap, that involves heaving back really, really hard against the trim, attaining a stupidly nose-high attitude, wondering if the tail tie-down is going to hit the ground while out of the corner of your eye you see the instructor looking at you with a WTF? look on his face.

It was only later in my training that I realised that I only needed to round out until the aircraft had reached a sensible landing attitude. In a nosewheel aircraft a sensible landing attitude was one that kept the nosewheel off the runway until after the main wheels had absorbed the stresses of landing. Once I start to round out I have zero interest in the ASI & no interest in the minimum flying speed. My intention is to let the aircraft descend until the wheels are as close to the landing surface as I dare & then hold off & hold off until I reach a sensible landing attitude. Then I hold the attitude & let the aircraft descend to the ground as the airspeed reduces. This "minimum flying speed" stuff is irrelevant, the stall warner may squeek before touchdown but that is merely a factor of the change in AoA as the aircraft descends the last few inches, I know that I usually touch down a good 5 or 10 knots above the minimum IAS achieved in full landing flap stalls.

I have no idea whether this is relevant to the OP's post, whether the OP really does try to land at the absolute minimum flying speed & what training the flying school is giving the OP. I just really, really hate the concept that we should touch down at the minimum flying speed.

[9 lives]

In a nosewheel aircraft a sensible landing attitude was one that kept the nosewheel off the runway until after the main wheels had absorbed the stresses of landing. Once I start to round out I have zero interest in the ASI & no interest in the minimum flying speed. My intention is to let the aircraft descend until the wheels are as close to the landing surface as I dare & then hold off & hold off until I reach a sensible landing attitude. Then I hold the attitude & let the aircraft descend to the ground as the airspeed reduces. This "minimum flying speed" stuff is irrelevant, the stall warner may squeek before touchdown but that is merely a factor of the change in AoA as the aircraft descends the last few inches, I know that I usually touch down a good 5 or 10 knots above the minimum IAS achieved in full landing flap stalls.

'Sounds fine to me....

[flybymike]

I see occasional inquiries here as to where one can rent a C206 or Lance type plane. The truth is that these aircraft are less tolerant of rough handling, and the owners know it,
14 years ownership of a C206 taught me the exact opposite.

[piperboy84]

Most of the time I do the standard approach and round out landing, but every now and then I enjoy coming in high, power off at 800ft agl, full flaps' almost full back trim for vs0 (adjusted for weight) X 1.25 on the airspeed and let her come down like an elevator with a quick burst of power going thru ground effect and she stops on a dime with no round out. :ok:

Mistime the power and you're either going to get a sore arse or a balloon.

[9 lives]

14 years ownership of a C206 taught me the exact opposite

Perhaps your C206 is flown by higher time or well trained pilots? My experience checking pilots out in these has been that they were sometimes not ready for a heavy nose, which would drop more quickly after touchdown, not ready for a wing with a slightly less forgiving flare and stall, and not so careful in terms of shock cooling. One of my clients has had the firewall wrinkled twice on the same C206 by his company pilots, each with more than 500 hours, but apparently not so much finesse. $25,000 damage one time, $65,000 the other. But, I agree that I've seen that on 172's as well... They would not hold the nose light at touchdown.

Different experiences for different people....

[BackPacker]

Reading through this (interesting) discussion, causes me to ask another question. Do any of the instructors on here ever require their students to do a two-wheel touch and go? So a full T&G where the nosewheel never touches the ground? Preferably in a crosswind that's, say, 1/2 to 2/3rds of the maximum demonstrated crosswind?

I never did this during my PPL training but did so in later club checks, and found them very enjoyable. Teaches you very good roundout skills, and the right technique for keeping the aircraft straight in the roll, using aerodynamic controls only.

[Mach Jump]

Do any of the instructors on here ever require their students to do a two-wheel touch and go?

I teach all my 'touch and goes' like that. (Wherever the type, and circumstances permit.)


MJ:ok:

[Pull what]

Do any of the instructors on here ever require their students to do a two-wheel touch and go? So a full T&G where the nosewheel never touches the ground?

I was told by the CO at a very busy RAF airfield that will remain nameless that I was holding up everyone by doing roller landings and that no nosewheel contact was to be made, I was to "touch and go"! I thought this to be ridiculous but it in fact worked very well

Or maybe Leeds which has notorious winds and shear

Notorious stories about winds and shears put around in the bar, yes! I was based there twice and its nowhere near as challenging as Sumburgh could be.

[mikehallam]

Just to extend the somewhat rigid discussion on a fixed finals procedure compared with a semi-intuitive P1 i/c landing.

Power on right through to touch-down IS more or less imperative in a microlight 'plane.

These are still 'real' a/c but (obviously) with very little inertia, landing speed when power off, even quite late in the round-out, can rapidly drop below stall & you drop horribly. Add in even small wind variations and their very sensitivity can make life exciting - if rather slow.

The one size fits all landing method propounded by experienced instructors who are used to heavier 'light' a/c needs modulating (IMHO) for the lighter end of the GA spectrum.

mike hallam

[FantomZorbin]

Have you ever heard of Aquaplaning?

Pull What is right, doing a 'greaser' on a wet runway is asking for trouble.

But on a dry runway ... ooh! bliss!!

[Genghis the Engineer]

Power on right through to touch-down IS more or less imperative in a microlight 'plane.

I disagree completely with this statement.

Historically microlights were trained with power-off approach and landing as the norm, and offhand I'd say that 80% of my (guessing) 1200 or so microlight landings were power off. The same proportion is probably true of most other traditionally trained microlight pilots:

All microlights are specifically designed and tested to have excellent low speed handling.


The fact that many have very high profile drag does mean that you need rather higher than the classical 1.3Vs on final combined with a very low initiation of the roundout compared to a typical light aeroplane, otherwise you'll bleed too much speed off and stall in the roundout - but that's just handling technique. That should in the vast majority of microlights will have been properly tested, and an appropriate approach speed shown in the POH: a few vintage and LAA aeroplanes missed out here, but it's not hard to still work out the speeds and fly them properly - typically somewhere around 1.5-1.7Vs, depending upon type.


The time to use power in a microlight approach and landing is when you're deliberately trying to fly a flat approach - which is only normally wise in low cloud, or where the approach is over very safe flat ground where an engine hiccough puts you onto a landable surface.

G

[Pace]

Mike

It doesn't matter what aircraft you fly you have two energy sources. Even in a single engine plane I always think of two throttles the conventional engine throttle and the Elevator throttle which can tap into the potential energy in the airframe.

Even a glider has the Elevator throttle and on a still lift free day all you have is trading altitude for energy.

Obviously in a high drag aircraft you will have to trade more altitude to combat that extra drag so your approach will be steeper.

The only way you can flatten that approach is using the engine energy as well as the airframe energy.

That does not mean you cannot land a draggy aircraft without engine power it does mean you may have a steeper descent path in doing so.

Changing from that descent path to a flare will mean that the airframe energy will reduce while the drag will play a part.

If you are running out of energy to the point of stalling maybe rework your VREF to 1.35 the stall or whatever makes it more comfortable.

1.3 times the stall in a given configuration is just a number if you need more energy for the round out add to it or as you said add engine power

Its all energy and drag management

Pace

[Genghis the Engineer]

Specifically, 1.3Vs is the slowest that the regulations permit the manufacturer to use in defining the landing distance.

Most microlights use higher, as I said. For example, the Sky Ranger, which is a similar shape to your Rans - but approved through the BMAA so it has a proper manual which I can look up, has Vs = 33kn.CAS and a final approach speed of 55 kn.CAS - so the final approach is recommended to be flown at 1.67VSo.

G

[Pace]

Ghengis

That is really interesting that they recommend 1.67 x stall in given config as that fits my thinking albeit I didn't know the figure :ok:

1.3Vs is the slowest that the regulations permit the manufacturer to use

On the flip side on a very slippery airframe is it worth looking at below 1.3Vs even though 1.3 VS is the lowest permitted as below maybe more reflective on a slippier airframe
Ultimate would be an AOA gauge and use that

Pace

[mikehallam]

P.S.

G, Not my heavy old S6-116: I was referring to my miniature Cub 'look alike' Rans S4. Now that is a real microlight, max AUW with fuel and driver is 587 lbs.

e.g. On take-off, if not held down to nearly 30 mph, it can float off far too slow to be safe & where any light side wind component has a disproportional effect. Much the same as when landing.

A glide approach is of course possible, but means quite a steep dive & isn't so easy to make the desired touch down spot. In all instances with a ridiculously short landing roll a regular powered approach offers much better aerodynamic control and the rudder/directional control.

In fact all I'm saying is that for the P1 to operate safely & in the sweet spot of best control there's no sense in discarding the benefits of power.

mike hallam.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'll certainly not dispute that an S4 is a real microlight - but I don't see why that can't be flown routinely on a steep glide approach. I've not flown an S4, but for example that works fine for an MW5 or the venerable TST.

G

[CABUS]

I agree with a lot of the comments here and also agree with your new landing method.

The reason floating down a runway at 50-60kts sounds crazy to me is because you are floating down and using up runway at 50-60kts, in no way is that sensible. Some may say stalling the airfcraft onto the runway improves braking efficency. I would say if you do a textbook float and bleed the speed to the stall landing and land in the second half of a short runway with maximum braking avail and go off the end, one will look like a complete bell:mad:.

The counter agrument will be that if a pilot does not bleed the speed back on a small single in gusty conditions the aircraft is likely to bounce or skid on touchdown. I would say that is easier to control for the split second before the friction of the wheels kicks in with the aerodynamic drag and slows the aircraft below VStall.

I would also say flying a small aircraft down even the longest runway at a foot or two in gusty condition hoping that all the lift will evenly fall off the wings allowing a comfortable landing would always be a risk, even for the best pilots.

One question, when a pilot does landing calculations to land at a short airfield do the calcs take into account using up runway at 50kts while waiting for the stall?

Just put it down on the aptly named 'touchdown zone' at a sensible speed and allow the friction and braking to slow the aircraft, much easier to manage, control and plan for.

Best of luck with the flying.

CABUS

[Pace]

This is where some are getting it totally wrong :ok: Other than minimum stopping distance what has the stall got to do with landing an aircraft ?

This is a misleading presumption from the training pilots receive.

Why do you have to wait for the aircraft to stall or be near the stall to land it? If some are taught one way in training then its wrong there are other methods other than stalling it on

pace

[AerocatS2A]

That's not what Cabus is saying.

[Pace]

apologies to Cabus read his post too quickly :ok:will leave my response for others not CABUS

[CABUS]

Hi Pace,

I agree and have obviously misunderstood this or have badly worded my previous message.

I agree the stall should have nothing to do with landing and bleeding the speed off at a few inches off the ground until stalling is crazy. A landing should be performed by landing at the correct part of the runway at a sensible speed.

Thanks for the comment.

C

[Piper.Classique]

Not many aircraft (only one comes to my mind,anyway) have the wings anywhere near the stalling angle when the main wheels are on the ground. That said, it is kinder to the aircraft to land slowly....where not contra-indicated by factors such as gusting winds, limiting runway length etc.
Taildraggers don't have to be landed three point, either. Despite which, there is something very satisfying in a real greaser. Funny how my roughest landings are always in front of a large crowd, and the really sweet ones at the end of a long flight when I am tired and everyone else has gone home
;)

[Pace]

Cabus apologies again I have adjusted that message :ok:

One thing which will limit flying it on rather than stalling it on or even banging it on which in extreme conditions maybe required is the distance between the main wheels and the nose wheel.

On short coupled aircraft where that distance is minimal unless you are a brilliant pilot it is hard to not three point it or worse land nose wheel first.

On very long aircraft where there is a large gap between the mains and nose sometimes only a pitch change of a few degrees is required to take the nose well clear.

as stated in a previous posting in this thread a friend with control problems who felt he could not reduce below 200 KTS landed a Citation at Edinburgh with a radar estimated touch down speed of 200 KTS.

The tyre limiting speed was around 165 KTS and a typical VREF of 105 KTS so he landed and safely stopped intact at nearly twice the normal VREF speed and more than twice the stall speed.

Part of that was the huge distance from the mains to the nose.

How the tyres held together God knows and even at a VREF of 105 KTS that is still approx 1,3 times the stall unbelievable but it shows how landing and stall are not really that connected

Piper Classique

its not very kind to the aircraft if you stall it on from six feet :E
Take your point on greasers I find sometimes if its dead calm its hard to grease it on but sometimes when your challenged you get greasers :E Also at night for some reason you can also grease it on :ok: Maybe it takes more concentration ?

Pace