When it's ready.....

[Pilot DAR]

A few things last and this have reminded me to allow the plane to do what you want it to do when it's ready. Of course, precise flying would be that it's ready just when you want it to be.

In particular, this evening's news item about the Fokker 100 crash in the east. The talking head refers to the tail striking twice before takeoff. For whatever reason, the pilot was trying to force the plane into the sky. He thought it worked, but it didn't, the plane wasn't ready.

I was test flying a Cessna Grand Caravan last week, I had not flown one in 9 years. The pilot I flew first with referred to a speed to "rotate", I concede, Cessna does specify one. And, you know what, it's about the right speed! Because, as I accelerated down the runway, I gently lightened the nose early, not forcing it off, just lightened it about a degree of pitch. The other pilot commented. I replied: "It'll fly itself off when it's ready.". And, low and behold, at the published "rotation" speed, with me simply holding the nose light, it flew itself off with the desired grace. I just kept it straight, and wings level, and gently lowered the nose as it accelerated to a hearty Vy. Obversely, I had occasion to be right seat to an owner in his 182T. I was suspecting that his flying technique was not in harmony with the plane. (A part of my suspicion of this was knowledge of his two prior accidents in it). As he took off, I was painfully aware that he was holding the 182 on all three wheels to 75 knots. When the plane was finally allowed to fight its way into the air, it was actually quite unstable. The next takeoff, I demonstrated just lightening the nose, and the 182T was gently off the runway at 55 knots or so. It was very stable and comfortable to fly as it climbed away. The owner remarked to me: "I didn't know it would do that!" I fault his instructor for that. My role that day was not pilot training, so I only demonstrated two of these gentle takeoffs. I hear that he has since wrecked the plane. He simply did not recognize that the plane was ready to fly - overly so.

'Same thing for landing. Yes, you can force a plane to contact the ground. But, it really hasn't been "landed" until it has aerodynamically transitioned from being supported by the air to being supported by the surface. That is best done by achieving a near stall right around the time of ground contact. A full stall is not required, just enough that the wing really does not want to fly at that angle of attack any more. It'll be ready to land then. It may have just touched, and that's okay

So, other than for the extreme procedures of short field operations, be in tune with your plane, to know when it is ready to fly, or stop flying, and try to arrange your expectations to coincide. Doing so will prevent tail strikes, and unexpected stalls, and return to earth in the wrong place. Having extra runway is nice while you get to know the plane. Once you're familiar, you can perform the "when it's ready" in short field operations too, it just takes better timing on your part - the aerodynamics of the plane don't change based upon the pilot's improving skills!

I'm not a Fokker 100 pilot, so I suppose I can't assert that yesterday's crash had "when it's ready" as a factor, but mention of a tail strike has me thinking of impatient pilots....

[TheOddOne]

The 'gently introduce a 1 degree pitch up' technique I find works well for propeller driven aircraft but got the test pilots at de Havilland in trouble at Hatfield when developing the Comet, the World's first jet airliner. Pitching up before proper flying speed just introduced more drag and the aircraft failed to get airborne. The pilots were apparently used to propwash producing significant lift over the wings, absent with jet engines embedded in the wings. I believe airline pilots wait with no back pressure until Vr is declared, then pull firmly to the required pitch angle, generally about 12 degrees.
Personally, I think that the back-pressure before flying speed technique is more about reducing drag from the nosewheel on the surface than other aerodynamic considerations. That's how we teach soft-field takeoff in the PA28 - flap 25, stick full back, full power promptly, relax back pressure as you feel the nose pitching up to just get the nosewheel out of the mud. Depending on weight and conditions, PA28 should get airborne around 50kt. People ask me what speed I take off at. I say 'I don't know, after the T&P, airspeed building glance in, I'm looking out the window'.

TOO

[MrAverage]

Although I thoroughly agree with what you've both said, at Flying Clubs and Schools we have to teach people who shouldn't really be flying, as well as the ones who should. What I mean by that is, those of below average ability and intelligence can only work with simple and easy to remember techniques and numbers. Our approach is a simple mixture of some of what PilotDar and TOO have said. As soon as the take off run has commenced take some pressure off the nose leg, keep straight and, when at 60 knots (PA28-181),positive back pressure to rotate. Obviously, the speed should vary depending on loading etc, but if we allow those same students to get airborne at lower speeds they often end up back on the runway. Then, if they do manage to get a licence, when they try to take off fully loaded it can very quickly go wrong. We only officially have 600 metres...............

[Pontius]

I'm not a Fokker 100 pilot, so I suppose I can't assert that yesterday's crash had "when it's ready" as a factor, but mention of a tail strike has me thinking of impatient pilots....


I think we should just stop right there. You might well allow a Cessna XYZ to fly when it's ready but you don't just drift into the air in a 747, A320 or Fokker 100. 'Impatient' pilots has got NOTHING to do with it :rolleyes:

A mis-set ZFW or incorrectly set speeds MIGHT cause a pilot to rotate too early in the bigger stuff. Likewise they might have got that stuff right (and they attempted to rotate at the correct point) but something else was wrong (possibly the rumour of an iced-up wing) which caused the aircraft not to get airbourne.

BUT, what you don't do in the big stuff is waffle along until it feels 'right'. Likewise, you don't 'rotate' in a C182.

There's enough guessing, supposition and 'quarter-backing' going on without trying to apply Cessna 'techniques' and personal preferences to a Fokker 100 and the recommendations of the manufacturer.

[Pilot DAR]

Fokker 100 and the recommendations of the manufacturer.

Entirely agreed, the manufacturer's techniques should always be applied, home made procedures are never better. I do know that large airplanes, and even a few small ones, should be positively rotated at specified speeds. That said, while following the manufacturer's technique, and rotating the plane at the specified speed, if it's still not ready to fly off, over rotating it then is not ideal.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I think it is unfortunate that we are seeing the creeping "airlinerization" of flight training, that is flight training that thinks you should fly the light SEP the same way you would a jet airliner. The lightest tricycle geared airplane I have ever flown is a C 150 with a MGTOW 1500 lbs, the heaviest an airliner with a MGTOW of 116,000 lbs. To think I should fly the takeoff the same way in both airplanes is to me totally ludicrous. The sad part to me is that an essential part of ab initio learning should be developing a feel for lift. That is being able to feel how much or how little the wing is lifting yet the current paint by numbers approach to flying training actively discourages this vital skill

Ironically while flying the big iron is very much a matter of precision in setting and maintaining pitch attitudes and speeds, my observation is those pilots who had the "feel" in little airplanes were always superior big airplane pilots.....