Hard to land

[9 lives]

Elsewhere, a theme has come up again, and that is the notion of a particular aircraft type being hard to land, or more hard to land than another type. I suppose I'm jaded after flying a number of types, but none are hard to land, it's "do I have the required skill to land safely and to my satisfaction?" It's a "me thing", not an airplane thing.

In earlier times, I would admire the skills of a pilot who could kiss a 'plane onto the runway, or make a silk purse from a sow's ear on a really gusty crosswind day - it was their skill and attention to the task. The airplane was not easy, nor hard to land.

In any case, we pilots did not choose to fly because it was easy, we sought to have our skills challenged, so we could rise to the challenge, and improve our skills. Airplanes presented for type certification will not receive that certification, if they are hard to land!

[eckhard]

Well I have to admit that the Twin Comanche was a bit of a handful, what with its long nose gear (or short main gear) and 'notchy' stabilator.

Mind you, it was my first twin and I only had a few hours experience.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

According to a magazine article by one of the very experienced Shuttleworth pilots, the dH Comet (the twin piston racer, not the airliner) was, because of it's uncompromised distance racer characteristics, difficult to fly in all phases of flight, not least landing.

[Piltdown Man]

I'll admit I haven't flown light aircraft nor gliders recently, but I've never found any aircraft difficult to land - provided I've stuck to the manufacturer's recommendations. It might land with a bit of a bang and a clatter, but it still hits the ground. But on the few occasions I've listened to 'bar talk' from "experts" things either went poorly or the landing distances were exceeded

PM

[300hrWannaB]

A good landing is one you can walk away from.

If you can use the aircraft again it's a bonus.

With that in mind the flammable airships like Hindenburg are hard to land.

[abgd]

Not all aircraft are certified though, and with conventional gear there's a lot of difference in terms of how well you can see out of the aircraft during landing, and how likely it is to ground-loop. I have no doubt that the gee-bee was hard to land, for example, and a lot of military WWII fighters were lost in landing.

[Cloudee]

A good landing is one you can walk away from.

If you can use the aircraft again it's a bonus.

With that in mind the flammable airships like Hindenburg are hard to land.
This guy walked away. It was not a good landing!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NMmHYWjEmkY

[rotorfossil]

Early monowheel Europas with the short wheelbase tailwheel hard linked to the rudder a bit of a handful on hard runways especially withe a crosswind from the left.

[foxmoth]

Like Step I have flown a number that I was told were hard to land, and more that I was told were hard to land in a crosswind, the Auster and Leopard Moth spring to mind there, never actually had a problem and can only think the people making the comments were not using the correct techniques. Certainly there are aircraft that are hard to land consistently nicely, my worst there was a Commander 1000, you would think it was perfect and it would nearly always land with a thump!

[A le Ron]

I heard and read many dire tales about the twin Comanche being hard to land. The reality is somewhat different. While I cannot claim a 100% greaser rate, I was pleasantly surprised by its good manners in all phases of flight . I think a lot has to do with what aircraft you are used to, and what configuration and speeds you use in the approach. Get these right, and the aircraft should land itself.

[cyclic35]

The Chislea Ace might be a contender. The "Control Wheel" did not go in and out for pitch control but up and down :*
Moving the control wheel to the left or right operated the rudders.
Taxying in a strong wind was challenging. The twin fins tended to weather-cock the machine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrislea_Aircraft

http://www.airteamimages.com/pics/3/3818_800.jpg

http://abpic.co.uk/pictures/full_size_0286/1429988-large.jpg

[9 lives]

Non certified types (DH Comet air racer) may not have demonstrated the characteristics which assure "not hard to land", and their vintage would suggest that norms of aircraft handling were not well established at the time they were designed. I have flown some very old types, which were obviously built to different norms (Tiger Moth), though they still flew nicely, once I learned.

I thought that my Teal amphibian taildragger (certified) was "hard to land" - but it was me, I had not learned how to handle it properly. I was intimidated by crosswinds in it, but it was me. One day, I decided to teach myself, and overcome my intimidation. I took it out on a frozen lake, in a 20 knot wind. I landed progressively more and more out of the wind, until finally, I was completely crosswind. I had no problem with it. Any previous problem I had had, was me, not the 'plane. Though, once I slowed below about 10MPH, it would weathercock, as the rudder was no longer effective, and the tailwheel slid on the ice. That was the point when I came to learn that the tailwheel really is not doing much to steer the 'plane on the runway at speed anyway, it's all the rudder.

[abgd]

Hmm... I have a pretty benign taildragger/tailwheel aircraft (Turbulent) and it was undoubtedly very hard to land safely on tarmac with a tailskid but fairly easy with a tailwheel. The margins of error in making corrections before you're in groundloop territory are much greater with the wheel fitted. On grass though, a skid is definitely the way to go.

Perhaps your experience makes it hard for you to judge what's easy or hard for a relative newbie.

[LOMCEVAK]

This hinges around what is meant by 'hard to land'. Some types have less margin for deviation from the correct technique than others; perhaps that could be one definition. Some require greater control activity in aspects such as directional control after touchdown; perhaps such increases in workload could be another. Some require atypical techniques such as raising the flaps before lowering the tail in a crosswind; that increase in workload could, perhaps, also be considered as 'harder to land'. Generic phrases such as this need careful definition if they are to be used in a meaningful manner. But on a gusty day with a strong crosswind and a short, wet runway there are certainly some types that I prefer flying more than others!

[cyclic35]

Hmm... I have a pretty benign taildragger/tailwheel aircraft (Turbulent) and it was undoubtedly very hard to land safely on tarmac with a tailskid but fairly easy with a tailwheel. The margins of error in making corrections before you're in groundloop territory are much greater with the wheel fitted. On grass though, a skid is definitely the way to go.

Perhaps your experience makes it hard for you to judge what's easy or hard for a relative newbie.
Have many memories of twin seat Turbi Sport G-APFA. The tail skid was occasionally replaced with a hand brush for grass-strip operations. The bristles gave extra braking action and helped with directional control.

This photo shows the aircraft at Wolverhampton Municipal Airport (Pendeford).
After the airfield closed, the aircraft was moved to Halfpenny Green near Bridgnorth.

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/photo/000107741.html

[abgd]

Somebody suggested steel brushes for the Turbulent too, but I worried about what would happen if they shed bristles and they got into somebody's tyres or turbine.

[cyclic35]

Somebody suggested steel brushes for the Turbulent too, but I worried about what would happen if they shed bristles and they got into somebody's tyres or turbine.
Ordinary wooden handle hand brushes worked fine, but tended to wear out quickly.
Many local ironmongers were approached on a regular basis for a bulk order and may never have guessed their intended purpose. The metal skid was dressed with a layer of "Stellite" and did a good job of marking the runway or ripping up the grass.

[abgd]

may never have guessed their intended purpose.

I think that's quite an understatement!

[A and C]

The mid wing Extra 300 comes into the interesting category but not as unpredictable as the Pitts special.

[Flying Palm Tree]

Long time ago now but I recall finding the PA30B and PA39 great fun and no trouble to fly. The early PA34, by comparison, I found was more stable but agricultural by comparison. Not so much fun for a young man. That having been said 2 of the 3 a/c I flew were w/o (not by me) in landing accidents! The PA39 (G-BCIO) survives 42 years later!

[suninmyeyes]

The early Cessna Cardinals were tricky to land and there were a lot of pilot induced oscillations. Cessna redesigned the stabiliser and put slots in the leading edge to make it easier to control. This was retro fitted free of charge to the earlier models which suggests it was more than just a nicety.

[27/09]

suninmyeyes: The early Cessna Cardinals were tricky to land and there were a lot of pilot induced oscillations. Cessna redesigned the stabiliser and put slots in the leading edge to make it easier to control. This was retro fitted free of charge to the earlier models which suggests it was more than just a nicety.
Part of the problem was most Cessna pilots transitioning onto the C177 were not used to the fully flying tailplane which was much more effective than the traditional Cessna elevator, this contributed to the PIO's.

The early tailplane could also stall before the mainplane causing issues which were addressed by the leading edge slot.

[Forfoxake]

I remember reading comments by Alan Bramson a long time ago about the Dragon Rapide. He said it was one of the few aircraft where the angle of attack sitting on the ground exceeded the stalling angle. I presume it was therefore hard to land unless you wheeled it on.

[ChickenHouse]

A difficult discussion as the measure is a relative one. For a typical C172/PA28 rider a F-104 may indeed feel hard to land ...

[n5296s]

It's a general useful principle in life that nothing is hard to do once you know how. Some things require more practice and currency than others to feel comfortable. I love flying autorotations but if I haven't done one for a while, the first couple are pretty rough.

That said, there are types which require more practice or a bit of an unusual technique, and in that sense are harder. If you have 1000 Pitts hours you probably think a Pitts is a pussy cat to land, but to any normal mortal it is a serious challenge. (My aerobatics instructor claims the only thing harder to land, or teach people to land, is the U2 - he has plenty of time in both). There are people who claim a 182 is hard to land because it is "nose heavy" whatever that means. I do have 1000 hours in that and I find it a delight to fly in every regard - but for example you MUST keep it in trim, not the case for a 152 where you can forget that the trim control is there and still fly and land it without problems.

When I flew the Pitts regularly I could land it easily and comfortably, but now I only do it a couple of times a year (with aforementioned instructor) and I certainly would not want to HAVE to land it on my own.

[mary meagher]

Twice in my Supercub I had a problem. In Ireland, ATC told me "Echo Romeo, you are number one to land. Aer Lingus 727, you are number two behind the Super Cub".

Well, that puts a bit of pressure on to expedite, doesn't it? So I didn't linger, nor use flaps, but rolling out at walking pace on the runway after touchdown, inspired by a BLAST of wind from the left - must have been at least 15 mph dead cross, the Supercub decided on its own to taxi off the runway and onto the grass....

Alas, it was not grass, it was a bog. Aer Lingus had to go around, and around and around, while the ground staff (I persuaded them not to spray it with foam as there was no fire!) pushed it back to the apron. Talk about being embarrassed! When inspected the next day, there was NO DAMAGE at all!
Nice soft bog.

The second time I had a crosswind blast after landing that caused a problem was at the gliding club.
There was plenty of room and no traffic, no bog, no obstacles; the cub just taxied round in a circle. Observers thought I was showing off....

Has anyone else had this sort of problem with a taildragger at walking pace?

[9 lives]

It's a general useful principle in life that nothing is hard to do once you know how. Some things require more practice and currency than others to feel comfortable.

This is a key theme. No one can be expected to be excellent at something the first time around, everyone is entitled to develop a skill, and thereafter expected to maintain it. Some 'planes require a bit more skill than other to land smoothly, but for any certified plane "normal" pilot skill will be adequate (whatever the FAA considers "normal").

Two important considerations are: Does the 'plane (by design) have enough control available for the pilot to maintain control, and, is the rate at which control might have to be applied within the normal observation and reaction time of a pilot? We would always expect a 'plane to have adequate control available, though with any taildragger, there comes a point where it is not possible to have enough control to correct a groundloop, but that's an exception. So the rate at which change could happen, for which pilot control input is required, becomes a prime point for consideration. What type of pilot does it take to stay ahead of the plane?

So if a certified 'plane is "hard to land", it's probably a relationship between the pilot's observation and reaction time, to the handling characteristics. As the 'plane is certified, it is understood to have met the standard of not requiring unusual pilot skill and attention, so, it's up to the pilot to manage the 'plane, rather than the 'plane to be branded "hard to land".

[dsc810]

The Dragon Lady. - U2.
1. Poor visibility to judge exact altitude above runway
2. Runs out of aileron control as the speed reduces
enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNYg2i9Jgvs

[foxmoth]

Has anyone else had this sort of problem with a taildragger at walking pace?

Not the same, but many years ago at Gloucester I was flying a Tiger Moth, they would not let me taxi on the grass, as I weaved the nose the tailskid caught on the rather thick paint of the centreline which then pulled the tail round and I ended up on the grass anyway!

I presume it was therefore hard to land unless you wheeled it o
Well, if you watch Rapides land you will see them wheeled on, not hard to land, just a question of right technique for type!:rolleyes:

[9 lives]

Has anyone else had this sort of problem with a taildragger at walking pace?

Yes, I have, twice:

While flying jumpers in a beaten up (yes, not entirely airworthy) C 185 years ago, I bounced a landing into a setting sun a little. The 'plane gently started to go off to the left as I slowed. I applied and held full right pedal, and some right brake. The 'plane went at a walking pace, very much not under my control, exactly where I wanted it to go. I stopped looking like a pro, but knowing I had just gone for a ride. Curious, as to how I had not had control I had the tail lifted while I examined the tailwheel - it had no steering whatever, warn out pawls.

I landed my taildragger a few years back on a large paved runway I know well, in a high crosswind. I had no problem controlling, though I have full rudder applied quite a lot. As I let down the tailwheel, it unlocked from the steering because the rudder was deflected fully. As the 'plane slowed below a speed where the rudder was effective, it gently ground looped - application of rudder and brake would not prevent it. No harm done, but I felt silly!

I have learned the importance of maintaining the tailwheel, and assuring it does not become unlocked unexpectedly.

[BEagle]

He said it was one of the few aircraft where the angle of attack sitting on the ground exceeded the stalling angle.

The de Havilland DH88 Comet is the same - only more so. I listened to an excellent pilot brief about the aeroplane last year; apparently once the main undercarriage is on, no attempt must be made to lower the tail otherwise the aeroplane is likely to become airborne, following which a tip stall and wing drop is virtually guaranteed.

I gather that once on the ground, you must let the tail settle of its own accord - which can take a while. No attempt at braking must be made until the aeroplane is down to taxying speed, otherwise it might trip up.

DH88 - beautiful in flight, but a real handful on take-off and landing!

[KayPam]

When flying light aircraft, I always have trouble to land if I don't have my seat cushion.
How can you land visually if you don't have proper visual reference ?

All airplane manufacturers should include in their cabin a very simple system such as the airbus red and white balls to indicate what is the optimum pilot eye position.

[9 lives]

I'm not sure that eye position indicators would have the same benefit in a light 'plane as a larger one. Though I'm not a large 'plane pilot, I expect that the light 'plane has more airframe (usually the engine cowl) in the pilot's view by which to judge attitude. A few types I have flown have poor visual cues out front of the windshield, so do require better awareness, I don't know if pre-established eye position would help that.

[mary meagher]

Kay Pam, regarding seat cushions. If you are sitting on a squashy soft cushion it can be dangerous. It may compress under you in unusual attitudes of the aircraft and even make it not possible to reach the controls!

They do sell expensive non compressible cushions, however we have found if you wrap a stack of NEWSPAPERS in plastic tape, to a comfortable fit for yourself or if a lot of people use the aircraft, several cushions of different thickness....and sew a nice cover over the package, you have created a zero cost NON COMPRESSIBLE CUSHION. Even if you stand on it it will not change shape.

[9 lives]

The owner spent about 15 years on and off restoring a Tiger Moth. He mentioned to me for weeks looking forward to flying his old mount again. While on the phone with him about other flying I was doing for him, he passingly mentioned having me fly the maintenance check flight of the Tiger Moth when I came up. Puzzled, I agreed that I would.

When I arrived, and double checked his request, he walked away from me shaking his head, and said " it seems to have shrunk since I last flew it, just go and fly it.". The maintenance guys told me that he tried to get in, but had put on a few pounds and did not fit.

He'd left me the three thick telephone books that were placed in the seat bottom, in place of a parachute though! Height was just perfect!

[Big Pistons Forever]

I think you have to specify what is a "good" landing before deciding when an aircraft type is hard to land.

IMO a " good " landing has very little to do with the perceived force experienced at the moment of touchdown. Instead the elements of a good landing are a touchdown on runway centreline, at the desired pre selected touchdown point with the aircraft's longitudinal axis aligned with the runway and most important at the correct pitch attitude. For tricycle gear aircraft this means a tail low touch down with the nose wheel well clear of the runway.

If there is a bit of a bump that does in not in any way reduce the " goodness" of the landing.

As a general rule "fishing for the greaser" is a fools errand and has turned many landings that would have worked fine if the pilot had simply held the landing attitude until touchdown, into bent metal.

As an instructor I have had numerous pilots come to me to help them land their "hard to land" aircraft. Almost invariably the problem was excessive speed on final. When they flew a stable 1.3 Vso on short final all of a sudden their hard to land airplane became a pussycat.:)

[JEM60]

I think it was Urnst Udet who said that all good landings were failed crashes.........

[KayPam]

Kay Pam, regarding seat cushions. If you are sitting on a squashy soft cushion it can be dangerous. It may compress under you in unusual attitudes of the aircraft and even make it not possible to reach the controls!

They do sell expensive non compressible cushions, however we have found if you wrap a stack of NEWSPAPERS in plastic tape, to a comfortable fit for yourself or if a lot of people use the aircraft, several cushions of different thickness....and sew a nice cover over the package, you have created a zero cost NON COMPRESSIBLE CUSHION. Even if you stand on it it will not change shape.
Hm, maybe I used the wrong word since I am not a native speaker..

The kind of cushion that I use will never make it impossible to reach the controls even under 4g. There is a seat under it (you're aware of that), and it just adds something like 5 to 10 cm in height.

Step turn : the easiest machine to land, and that I have flown, was a glider. In two models of gliders, I never did anything else than a kiss landing (over a small total of about 30 landings I think, I did not have time to pursue this activity any further). I'm not sure as to the reason but I believe the features allowing that are the perfect forward and lateral visibility (as well as low cockpit position but you can't do anything about that)

The easiest aircraft to land is the one that will allow the best evaluation of height. Often, I noticed, a position higher up the cockpit will be better.
The easiest aircraft I landed was the Socata Rallye whereas the most difficult one was the Socata TB series (same manufacturer!)

Big Pistons Forever : most aeroclubs in France will require pilots to use a Vapp that is quite larger than 1.3 Vs. Some will go up to 1.5 or even 1.6Vs of maximum takeoff mass ! That's up to 1.7 Vs if you're well under takeoff mass.
However that should not be a problem at all. It should just make your landing longer. You can just lose your speed progressively above the runway and land when at appropriate speed. Obviously it requires proper assessment of height and pitch attitude. But it is standard training in my country to do approaches up to VFE (part of forced landing training)

[9 lives]

most aeroclubs in France will require pilots to use a Vapp that is quite larger than 1.3 Vs. Some will go up to 1.5 or even 1.6Vs of maximum takeoff mass ! That's up to 1.7 Vs if you're well under takeoff mass.
However that should not be a problem at all. It should just make your landing longer. You can just lose your speed progressively above the runway and land when at appropriate speed.

:eek: That should be a problem.... A couple of possible problems:

For most light GA planes, you'll need a runway about twice the length as you might for a landing from a 1.3Vs approach speed, and the landing distance information in the performance section will no longer be applicable. If you run off the far end, it will be very hard to explain to the insurer.

I might fly a faster high approach (though 1.7 Vs still sounds fast!) in a forced approach, as it does allow for a nicely precise landing, when you finally slow to less than 1.3Vs, maybe by sideslipping as needed on short final, to get just the right "over the fence" speed. But, I still aim to be at 1.3Vs as I cross the threshold.

NMmHYWjEmkY

If you're burning up the first few hundred meters of runway simply slowing to the speed you should have been flying over the fence, you're inviting a drift off the runway centerline, or begin a pitch porpoise, if you contact the surface unexpectedly early. The aerobatics needed to get back to where you should have been over the fence will be very distracting, and demand skill. A go around would be better.

I am very suspicious of "clubs" who suggest or dictate "normal" procedures which differ from the flight manual procedures. A new pilot learning that, let alone getting used to it would have some unlearning to do when they moved onward into a professional flying environment.

[KayPam]

Step turn : the pilot in this video demonstrated pure incompetency.
Actually, the reasoning behind these approaches at 1.5Vs is to easily avoid stall in final approach. Why wouldn't one do this, provided the runway is long enough ?
If all runways were 20km long, we would most probably approach at much higher speeds (something like 2Vs) because this would allow for faster traffic, and very reduced risk of stall/spin during the final stages of the flight.

One day I was on final and the controller asked me to expedite 'cause there was a liner behind me. I expedited. Cruise power down to 500ft (giving me 110kt), then a pull/push maneuver to safely extend the flaps and landed without any problem whatsoever on the runway.
The runway was 3km long. I obviously would never do that on a 700m runway.

Airmanship over SOPs.
As I said, if you're too fast at the threshold, basic airmanship dictates you're going to resorb your speed just above the runway and not try to force your aircraft to the ground like this guy in the video did.

Yes it will use much runway, but if you have very much runway like it is very often the case with small a/c, what's the problem ?
As long as you train for short field landings as well.
It is very standard for clubs to create their own checklists with the parameters they assume best fit the operations of this airclub.
It takes however more than a very young PPL pilot to question these procedures in the unfortunate event they were not adapted to this or that specific case.

[n5296s]

+1 for everything Step Turn says. Flying an approach faster than you need to isn't "safer", it's inviting various kinds of mishaps. I once saw an SR20 coming over the threshold, and thought "wow, he's fast". Then I had a 20 minute delay while they figured out how to get an aircraft with a collapsed nosegear off the runway...

If you can't fly 1.3Vs safely and without risk of stalling/spinning, get some instruction until you can. Sure, at LAX I could cross the threshold at 140 KIAS (Vle), float halfway to Hawaii, and still land safely. Not such a good idea at my usual airport with its 2300 foot runway.

It's the old "superior pilot" hack. A good pilot can save a too-fast landing, but also has the sense not to do it. I did once meet an instructor (in the UK) who insisted on flying a 172 down short final at 75 (about 1.6Vs0). We floated forever. I thought he was crazy.

As for KayPam's comments, if you teach people how to land on a short field at 1.3Vs, why is it good to then insist people land at 1.5Vs+? Better that they know how to land at a reasonable speed when one day they need to. Otherwise the day they have to get into a 2000' runway, or need it put it down in a field, it's MUCH more likely that they will stall or otherwise mess up seriously.

[9 lives]

It is very standard for clubs to create their own checklists with the parameters they assume best fit the operations of this airclub.

This seems to be the beginning point of some failings in pilot skill. Groups of people who think they know better, (based upon their own possible heritage of inexperience) than the aircraft manufacturer who wrote, and had approved as a part of the type design, a Flight Manual. This important document describes how to best fly the aircraft. Government regulation which will state that the pilot shall refer to this manual while flying the aircraft.

I entirely agree that sometimes a pilot must fly an airplane faster to the point at which a final approach is made. The fact that you're over a suitable landing surface does not mean that you have to do a STOL landing onto it. You may choose to fly a faster initial approach for distance or traffic reasons, but when you begin the final approach to the intended landing area, that should be flown as described in the flight manual, and standard flight training, which will be at about 1.3Vs. I may overfly 2/3 of a 3km runway, to land at the far end, and clear quickly. In that case, the final 1000m was my selected landing area, and I will fly an on speed final approach to that place.

To prevent a stall/spin during an on speed approach to land, lower the nose, and perhaps add power, if you feel that the aircraft is approaching a stall. A speed increase is only required if you find yourself flying significantly slower than 1.3Vs.

It is a certainty that if I were training a pilot who insisted on flying an aircraft at approach speeds faster than flight manual/1.3Vs speeds during normal landings, I would not sign them off. (I handle some forced approaches differently, in harmony with flight manual information).

[mary meagher]

A while back, rented a Piper TriPacer from an Annapolis, Maryland airport, and was being checked out by the owner.....

Some of you may know Annapolis is the home of the United States Naval Academy. Gung ho guys, flying onto aircraft carriers, that sort of stuff.

Anyway the Piper TriPacer is sort of a fat Supercub with 4 seats - some have tailwheel, some nose wheel. I forget where the small wheel was in this case.
But flying on short approach into wind, our ground speed was probably about 30 mph. Certainly we had been consistently overtaken by cars on the ground.....

Suddenly (no rear view mirror in the TriPacer) we were overtaken by a very annoyed Navy flier in a light plane, who was planning to do a short landing at the small airport. Where did he come from?!

I hate to say it, but there was a certain amount of satisfaction felt by the two of us in the TriPacer when the Navy pilot landed and his undercarriage collapsed! We overflew the wreckage and decided to return to home base as it seemed the Navy light plane might take some time to clear the runway....

[KayPam]

[..]
If you can't fly 1.3Vs safely and without risk of stalling/spinning, get some instruction until you can. Sure, at LAX I could cross the threshold at 140 KIAS (Vle), float halfway to Hawaii, and still land safely. Not such a good idea at my usual airport with its 2300 foot runway.
[..]

As for KayPam's comments, if you teach people how to land on a short field at 1.3Vs, why is it good to then insist people land at 1.5Vs+? Better that they know how to land at a reasonable speed when one day they need to. Otherwise the day they have to get into a 2000' runway, or need it put it down in a field, it's MUCH more likely that they will stall or otherwise mess up seriously.
This above is exactly my opinion.
The problem with airclubs asking us PPL pilots to land at 1.5Vs is that we don't train for shorter airfield. And what is their solution ? Mandatory specific training with an FI before landing at a short airfield :D
This is why proper PPL pilots should take a step back and think for themselves : why is my airclub asking me to land at 1.5Vs, which problems does it cause, and what can I do to solve them ?
And following this type of reasoning, I decided to train for all situations during my solo hours building.
(Actually, this sort of thinking started for me when I first flew at an airclub who did not have any minimum fuel policy after having flown at an airclub that had a full tanks takeoff policy. I wondered what were the reasons for these rules and figured out the basic ones)
This seems to be the beginning point of some failings in pilot skill. Groups of people who think they know better, (based upon their own possible heritage of inexperience) than the aircraft manufacturer who wrote, and had approved as a part of the type design, a Flight Manual. This important document describes how to best fly the aircraft. Government regulation which will state that the pilot shall refer to this manual while flying the aircraft.

Well I would have to agree with that.
As I said, in my first airclub, we had a full tank takeoffs policy.
When I first flew at another airfield, with different available means for refuelling, this fuel policy was rather the opposite. And even though I knew there was enough fuel, I was not at ease with the legal minimums.

So obviously the reason for the full tanks policy was to reduce the likeliness of fuel exhaustion. But the negative side-effect is to train pilots who won't be at ease flying with normal amounts of fuel !

So I did what I had to do, I got used to flying with the legal minimums (+ margins if required), as should be normally done.

I have to admit I would be shocked at the speed figure getting out of a perfect 1.3 Vs calculation for the mass of the day..
On the aircraft I fly, the usual landing speed is 120km/h (robin DR400-120)
The stalling speed for full flaps 0° and MTOW is 83km/h. So that is 1.45Vs
If I fly at a mass 20% lower than MTOW, my stalling speed is 10% lower than the figure above : 75 km/h. So 120 is 1.6Vs (here is the value I was talking about!)
So 100 km/h would be 1.33Vs : an appropriate multiplication of Vs.
However this value sounds tremendously low for me.
It is under the "short landing speed" given by the airclub. And I even believe that the stall indicator would ring almost constantly during the approach at this speed. (it rings higher on my club's aircraft than on my previous one)

I started to train at age 14 believing that this aircraft could not approach below 110km/h. Or 100km/h in case of emergency. So it is hard to get that idea out of my head.
Plus, what happens if the ASI is wrong ? People who would reproach a pilot with overrunning a runway will also reproach a pilot for stalling on approach to a long airfield. They are going to say that they had good reasons for recommending 1.5Vs approaches (such as ASI imprecision) on their long home-airfield.

Would you agree on taking into account the Vs reduction due to mass ?
If not, then you end up with 110km/h, which is the "short landing speed".

I fly another type at the correct 1.3Vs speed (even though my airclub recommends 1.5), and unsurprisingly, it is much easier to land with the proper pitch up attitude.

[9 lives]

So it is hard to get that idea out of my head.

A seriously important problem! Training simply wrong from the beginning, then requires detraining at some future time, which is even more effort, and introduces more opportunity for damaging errors as skills must be learned. Train it correctly the first time! If the club instructors cannot train new pilots who can fly a safe approach at 1.3Vs, best replace or retrain those instructors!

Plus, what happens if the ASI is wrong ?

Ignore it! The 'plane does not know or care the indicated airspeed, it depends upon not exceed the critical AoA. Unlikely that the airplane is equipped to measure and indicate this, so you have to learn to feel what the controls are telling you. ALL light GA 'planes can be safely flown and landed by feel alone, by a pilot practiced in doing it. When I was checking out a new pilot in the Super Cub on skis two weeks ago, he asked me what approach speed to fly. I told him that I did not know, and just fly by feel. I think he did, and he flew very well. 'Best to learn to not need ASI....

http://i1294.photobucket.com/albums/b617/jim246/IMG_0826_zps86d5609c.jpg

We have too many instruments in 'planes anyway!

[KayPam]

A seriously important problem! Training simply wrong from the beginning, then requires detraining at some future time, which is even more effort, and introduces more opportunity for damaging errors as skills must be learned. Train it correctly the first time! If the club instructors cannot train new pilots who can fly a safe approach at 1.3Vs, best replace or retrain those instructors!



Ignore it! The 'plane does not know or care the indicated airspeed, it depends upon not exceed the critical AoA. Unlikely that the airplane is equipped to measure and indicate this, so you have to learn to feel what the controls are telling you. ALL light GA 'planes can be safely flown and landed by feel alone, by a pilot practiced in doing it. When I was checking out a new pilot in the Super Cub on skis two weeks ago, he asked me what approach speed to fly. I told him that I did not know, and just fly by feel. I think he did, and he flew very well. 'Best to learn to not need ASI....



We have too many instruments in 'planes anyway!
No, you don't ignore your ASI if you're trying to stick to 1.3Vs :p
If you hide it under a post-it note, and fly with your feels, you may very well land (part of my initial training so no problem) but you may very well fly anywhere between 1.15 and 1.5 Vs.


So, would you recommend that from now on I fly approaches at 1.3Vs for the current weight ?


If I did that I would probably go check the ASI and alarm speed/stall speed just beforehand. Just in case.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I once flew a Stampe from the front cockpit. The rear cockpit had the usual array of VFR instrumentation, but in the front there was a throttle, mixture, stick, and rudders.

All the instruments were cut out of a magazine and pasted onto the panel!

The chap in the back kept an eye on Ts & Ps and fuel, and I just flew the aeroplane!

It's not that we have too many instruments in simple aeroplanes, it's that we have too few pilots trained not to need them.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Part of the training for every one of my students was a circuit with the ASI covered. I remember one CPL student (not one of my regulars) who was very nervous when I told him what I wanted. He was doing quite well so on final I asked him what he thought the airspeed was. His response "65", I raised the post it note over the ASI and the indicated speed was 66.

After we landed he noted that was the single most confidence inspiring lesson he had ever had......

[mary meagher]

Three times in a glider have I realised while being pulled up by the tug plane that my instruments were telling lies! Mainly because the combination was moving along nicely and gaining height; although the Air Speed indicator was reading, at first, ZERO! Don't often see zero on an ASI, usually the lowest number is the stall speed, they don't bother with other low numbers....

Though my primary attention had to be keeping correct position behind the tug, I did notice the needle was moving round steadily in the ASI, passing all the suggested airspeeds and ending up on the stop! Oops. I must have forgotten to remove the electrician's tape, usually applied at night to keep damp out of the tubes...

OK, I planned to take a higher tow, and fly around for a bit to see what it felt like. After release, and checking my surroundings for any other aircraft, I performed a series of gentle stalls. Right, know what that feels like and the stalling speed is about 30 knots. So finding rising air, carried on not too far from the airfield for half an hour or so before deciding to do a normal circuit.
At my home airfield, no problem. In Scotland, at Aboyne, they commented that the approach was a bit lively, no different than usual. In Russia (the USSR) it was their glider - a Standard Jantar, the ASI was in kilometers anyhow so I did the same as at home port, did some stalls, felt when I had good control, came in and landed. My Russian groundcrew, all three of them, came rushing over and said "TOO FAST, TOO FAST!" So I climbed out and pointed to the tapes that had not been removed.... Apologies all round!

So instruments, who needs them? A compass is useful, seldom fails, but if you know the time of day, the position of the sun may help. You should certainly recognise a stall with no ASI. Altimeter? Cows get bigger. Certainly should be able to tell by looking at the ground if you are getting too low... Likewise, following a motorway works pretty well for getting home. But in a glider, the instrument we find most useful is the audible variometer. You don't have to look at it but it tells you if you are in lift or sink. The altimeter may help, but not a lot.

In power, much more complicated, and noisy. Good to know what fuel remains, if the donkey is getting overheated, etc. Add radio to the mix and your lookout may suffer....that is after all, your primary safety device; your eyes, and the horizon. The real one.

[9 lives]

No, you don't ignore your ASI if you're trying to stick to 1.3Vs http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/tongue.gif
If you hide it under a post-it note, and fly with your feels, you may very well land (part of my initial training so no problem) but you may very well fly anywhere between 1.15 and 1.5 Vs.

In a literal sense, I agree with this. However, rather than be precise about flying an actual speed in numbers on close final, it's more important to fly the 'plane suitably close to stalling on close final, though without losing control because you allowed it to stall. This can be achieved by flying by feel just fine, as most certified GA planes will have similar feel (some more pitch force than others, but the forces work the same way).

There are times when you will have to fly with no indicated airspeed, most commonly when you take off, and notice that you do not have indicated airspeed, which is nearly always because a bug has found its way into the pitot tube, you'll be landing back with no ASI reference. Or, you forgot to remove the pitot cover which you installed to keep the bugs out = poor walk around check. I've done that twice, one being a flying boat where the pitot cannot be seen from the pilot's seat, and I did not check on the ground. The other being a C-180 floatplane, (where you cannot reach to the pitot from the float). It had been re positioned at the dock, and now I did not want to risk turning it around by myself in a confined area to reach the pitot cover. I flew to the beach, and removed it there. I did not find the no ASI landings at all difficult nor worrisome.

Otherwise, both the Super Cub and C305 I have done training in, have no ASI in the back seat, so if I have to demonstrate a landing from the back, I'll usually be flying without speed reference.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Beagle - as I pointed out in post #3.

[BEagle]

Perhaps, but without any explanation...

This 'no ASI' stuff is just trick flying really - far, far more important is the insistence on flying the POH approach speed. Which isn't 'Vref', or threshold speed - it is the correct speed for the approach!

Back when I was a Flying Club CFI, we discovered that some nonsense had been creeping in to the PA28 checklist adding various non-standard increments to the approach speed. Some people were flying at 80KIAS with 3PoB and wondering why they were having problems landing. The Warrior will float for ages if too fast in the flare, as it decelerates from the trimmed approach speed, increasing back pressure will be needed - which pilots may not be able to achieve with any degree of precision, leading to the flare, balloon float and thump 1000 ft down the RW style of arrival... Worse would be an attempt to force the aeroplane onto the RW, probably leading to loss of the nosewheel.

One of our more experienced FIs dug through the POH and revised the SOP speeds. Pilots were firmly re-briefed and landings improved greatly.

Fly at the POH approach speed, idle and flare and it will land very nicely where you intended. Adopt any other technique and it won't!

[9 lives]

One of our more experienced FIs dug through the POH and revised the SOP speeds. Pilots were firmly re-briefed and landings improved greatly.

Without wanting to appear at all accusatory, what could be the need for any organization operating certified aircraft for which there is an approved POH to have "SOP speeds"? Why would an SOP be anything other than "fly the POH speeds"? Surely the organization could not think itself more competent than the aircraft manufacturer in producing operating information for the type!?

[Piltdown Man]

BEagle - I agree with you. I my GA days I was constantly amazed by the extras "added" by clubs to their checklists and speeds. The speed increments were further increased by club pilots in the name of "safety". At the same time the pilots expected to achieve the landing distances in the real aircraft manuals and couldn't work out why.

PM

[KayPam]

Without wanting to appear at all accusatory, what could be the need for any organization operating certified aircraft for which there is an approved POH to have "SOP speeds"? Why would an SOP be anything other than "fly the POH speeds"? Surely the organization could not think itself more competent than the aircraft manufacturer in producing operating information for the type!?
As I said, its because they think club pilots are unable to keep a speed to a 5kt precision.
They think PPL pilots are idiots.

So they ask them to fly faster in fear they will stall..

Since they operate on long runways only it is not a problem.

[alex90]

Since they operate on long runways only it is not a problem.


And what happens when said pilot looks in the manual, sees that the landing/takeoff distance required is x including safety margins, and runway available is only 150m more than the POH says, then he/she (as trained) attempts the approach at 1.5Vs....

That's a disaster waiting to happen!! Not a safety margin for the clubs!

If they are not capable of flying within normal limits, should they be allowed to solo in their planes until they have shown that they can fly accurately?

I'd say teach the POH, show at altitude WHY you follow the POH, then hopefully your students can learn to land!!

[KayPam]

As I said, if the landing runway is too short the airclub is going to ban its member from using it, without appropriate training with an FI.

Which is a shame I agree.

What about foreign pilots and FI spinning their DR400 ? This procedure is strictly forbidden in the country of the manufacturer of this aircraft.
Do they do this in the UK ? (I think the video I saw of a spinning DR400 was in Australia or New Zealand. I just hope they don't try with Socata airplanes next)

[9 lives]

without appropriate training with an FI.

'Sounds as though there was a shortage of this already, if 1.7Vs approach is being considered!

What about foreign pilots and FI spinning their DR400 ? This procedure is strictly forbidden in the country of the manufacturer of this aircraft.

Out of curiosity, I search the DR400 flight manual. Spinning is prohibited in the representation of the limitations placard on page 2.08. So spinning is prohibited, unless there is a special authority, which is done for valid reasons. So if pilots are spinning DR400's during casual flying, they are flying outside the limitation, and not legal. Subject to enforcement action, and no insurance.

For your reference, as all certified single engine airplanes, the DR400 will have been spun during certification, but the manufacturer chose not to certify if for spinning. Likely because recovery risked exceeding limitations too easily.

If in doubt about what a particular 'plane is permitted to do, or how it should be flown, read the POH and placards.

[Jackw106]

Everything going well ...then
An 18 year old newer pilot was flying in a glider competition in a Zuni sailplane and the stick broke off in his hand at around 10,000 ft!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF0tTzvU8IM

[effortless]

My flying career was intermittent but I did find one or two aircraft didn't want to land. They just loved floating just above the ground. I've heard spitfire pilots sayin the same.

[thing]

I remember my training days when there were club approach speeds. Upon reading the actual POH I realised that I could chop about 300 metres off my landings by using the speeds that the manufacturer recommended. Funny thing that...

The only aircraft I've flown with any regularity that I'm unable to grease on is an Arrow. I know that greasing it on is not neccessary but it just gives me a little smile of satisfaction when I do. It always seems to come down with a bit of a clunk.

[Mike Flynn]

I always like to land at the start of the runway.

This taken at my home strip in the UK. Public road on the threshold...see the car:ok:
https://image.ibb.co/bBAzEn/Full_Size_Render.jpg