How do you teach approach & landing?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do you teach approach & landing?
I have been teaching students to control speed with elevator and rate of descent with power. A fellow instructor teaches "point and power" and tells me this is what the CAA want?
My club normally teach landing (PA28) with 3 stages (full) flap and at 70mph. Having sent a number of students 1st solo recently I observe that they cope better with 2 stages and a threthold speed of 75mph (long runway). Even airliners regularly land with less than full flap unless of course they have a good operational reason for not doing so like a limiting runway.
A UK instructors reference book I have just read advocates rounding out and then closing the throttle in the hold off phase, others say close the throttle before that.
Obviously different types require different handling techniques but I wonder what peoples general thoughts were?
My club normally teach landing (PA28) with 3 stages (full) flap and at 70mph. Having sent a number of students 1st solo recently I observe that they cope better with 2 stages and a threthold speed of 75mph (long runway). Even airliners regularly land with less than full flap unless of course they have a good operational reason for not doing so like a limiting runway.
A UK instructors reference book I have just read advocates rounding out and then closing the throttle in the hold off phase, others say close the throttle before that.
Obviously different types require different handling techniques but I wonder what peoples general thoughts were?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many, many, right answers for how to teach approaching and landing.
There's only one right answer for the speeds though - and that comes from the POH.
Personally, I find both point and power and elevator for airspeed approach teachings a little unsatisfactory because neither tell the full story. We all know that in reality both the elevator and the power must be adjusted to change either the slope or the airspeed in isolation.
I haven't worked out the perfect teaching method yet, and I don't think that anyone else has either.
Standard teaching method for PPL in the UK is that elevator controls airspeed and power controls descent rate. While these two parameters are initially decoupled in the teaching process, the student eventually gets the idea that an adjustment of one parameter will shortly require an adjustment of the other, and, with experience, will bring the two closer and closer together until they nearly coincide.
The advantage of de-coupling the two parameters this way around is that the student is less likely to get into a very low airspeed situation by pulling back to reach the runway.
Standard teaching method in the UK for advanced training (instrument approaches) is the other way around - point and power.
There's only one right answer for the speeds though - and that comes from the POH.
Personally, I find both point and power and elevator for airspeed approach teachings a little unsatisfactory because neither tell the full story. We all know that in reality both the elevator and the power must be adjusted to change either the slope or the airspeed in isolation.
I haven't worked out the perfect teaching method yet, and I don't think that anyone else has either.
Standard teaching method for PPL in the UK is that elevator controls airspeed and power controls descent rate. While these two parameters are initially decoupled in the teaching process, the student eventually gets the idea that an adjustment of one parameter will shortly require an adjustment of the other, and, with experience, will bring the two closer and closer together until they nearly coincide.
The advantage of de-coupling the two parameters this way around is that the student is less likely to get into a very low airspeed situation by pulling back to reach the runway.
Standard teaching method in the UK for advanced training (instrument approaches) is the other way around - point and power.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These two different approaches are for different machines. Low inertia a/c, Light trainers etc should use power for rate of descent and attitude for speed method.
Higher inertia a/c should use point and power. In most light twins, either method works well, but as you are training somebody for an airline career, then get them used to point and power asap.
To be honest, either method works in light a/c though for little planes I personally teach the first one. There is no definative CAA guidance on this subject and I have never had any feedback to suggest using one over the other from any examiners or the Belgrano.
Be wary of anybody who advocates one technique over another without quantifying why other than "that's what the CAA want." There are very few areas where they have laid down exactly how we should teach a particular manoeouver.
Higher inertia a/c should use point and power. In most light twins, either method works well, but as you are training somebody for an airline career, then get them used to point and power asap.
To be honest, either method works in light a/c though for little planes I personally teach the first one. There is no definative CAA guidance on this subject and I have never had any feedback to suggest using one over the other from any examiners or the Belgrano.
Be wary of anybody who advocates one technique over another without quantifying why other than "that's what the CAA want." There are very few areas where they have laid down exactly how we should teach a particular manoeouver.
Couldonlyaffordafiver
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point and power doesn't work particularly well with low powered aeroplanes. If you raise the nose to 'point', you may have to apply nearly full power to maintain the speed. I would imagine this would just make life more difficult for a student having to contend with a greater destabilising effect.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: in a galaxy far far away
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Human Factor,
What a load of crap !
Point and power works perfectly well on any fixed wing aircraft.
If you are having to raise the nose so much that you require full power then you can only be far too low in the first place. Your circuits must be absolutely massive !
All Military and Airline pilots use point and power and it is simply rubbish to say it does not work on light aircraft. Previous comments have already stated that you will have to use it for instrument work and to the best of my knowledge some light aircraft can do instrument approaches as well !!!
On the subject of flap I can assure you the CAA want people to use full flap landings ALL THE TIME.
The reason airlines sometimes do not is because they have detailed performance available for every runway and any flap configuration they may want.
Light aircraft DO NOT and to be honest, performance can be a bit of a dark art with a bit of guess work involved.
Your aircraft manufacturer has spent a lot of time developing and producing your full flap so that your aircraft lands in the shortest distance possible. The full flap or drag flap is produced to counteract ground effect which otherwise would enable your aircraft to fly that bit further.
Detailed surveys have been carried out in the states looking at over 2000 landings at one particular airport. Of the incidents that occured, every one of them was with aircraft using reduced flap. Not one using full flap.
What a load of crap !
Point and power works perfectly well on any fixed wing aircraft.
If you are having to raise the nose so much that you require full power then you can only be far too low in the first place. Your circuits must be absolutely massive !
All Military and Airline pilots use point and power and it is simply rubbish to say it does not work on light aircraft. Previous comments have already stated that you will have to use it for instrument work and to the best of my knowledge some light aircraft can do instrument approaches as well !!!
On the subject of flap I can assure you the CAA want people to use full flap landings ALL THE TIME.
The reason airlines sometimes do not is because they have detailed performance available for every runway and any flap configuration they may want.
Light aircraft DO NOT and to be honest, performance can be a bit of a dark art with a bit of guess work involved.
Your aircraft manufacturer has spent a lot of time developing and producing your full flap so that your aircraft lands in the shortest distance possible. The full flap or drag flap is produced to counteract ground effect which otherwise would enable your aircraft to fly that bit further.
Detailed surveys have been carried out in the states looking at over 2000 landings at one particular airport. Of the incidents that occured, every one of them was with aircraft using reduced flap. Not one using full flap.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sale
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was taught Pitch for airspeed and Power for ROD during my PPL.
Then I was taught Pitch for ROD and Power for Airspeed for my IR.
Then I was taught Point and Power on my instructor course.
It's amazing that I can actually land nowadays!
In my opinion they are all the same thing Power+Attitude=Performance unsurprisingly.
The only difference is :
For instrument approaches you tend to be relatively quick (front side of the power curve).
For visual approaches (especially into short fields) you tend to be relatively slow (back side of the power curve).
This just biases the effect of changing Power or Pitch on ROD and airspeed.
I have only just started instructing recently so can not really appreciate whether one technique or another helps the student learn more easily.
I will be sticking with the Pitch for airspeed at the moment though as this still works when the engine goes bang
Then I was taught Pitch for ROD and Power for Airspeed for my IR.
Then I was taught Point and Power on my instructor course.
It's amazing that I can actually land nowadays!
In my opinion they are all the same thing Power+Attitude=Performance unsurprisingly.
The only difference is :
For instrument approaches you tend to be relatively quick (front side of the power curve).
For visual approaches (especially into short fields) you tend to be relatively slow (back side of the power curve).
This just biases the effect of changing Power or Pitch on ROD and airspeed.
I have only just started instructing recently so can not really appreciate whether one technique or another helps the student learn more easily.
I will be sticking with the Pitch for airspeed at the moment though as this still works when the engine goes bang
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: North by North West
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Power and point can only work within a cone of approach angles. If the student is too low, raising nose and adding power will only work until he/she becomes unsighted. Preferable to raise nose and add power, fly levelish until intercepting normal glide path, then resume stabilised approach. If the student is too high, then there is a limit to the amount of power that can be taken off = idle power. pointing the nose at the numbers will only increase speed in these cases.
For more experienced pilots who are within the cone of approach angles where power changes have a significant effect...then point and power is as good as any other means of adjusting descent profile. Rookies, given the opportunity are bound to get .too high or low on occassions... and power and point (P&P) will not help, in these cases. Plus, when in climb, cruise etc we are taught to raise the nose to reduce speed of climb...we are not taught to hold attitude and reduce power. Thus consistent with non P&P approach. Does not mean P&P is wrong or worse though...just more suited to better pilots who can get in the cone and stay there with small power and pitch changes.
In my own instruction, in the early stages of teaching the approach, I teach students to aim for the touchdown point (1000' in) ...not the threshold. Then if we hit windshear and undershoot we can continue with a stabilised approach by just lowering the nose a little to maintain airspeed as we transit the windshear zone. (NB does not apply if significant winshear or no height in hand - where power is also required ). We still land on the runway, but a little short of the ideal TD point. When the student has more experience they can use small (100rpm) changes in throttle setting to fine tune the distance they will travel before touching down. Small power inputs = small pitch changes. 100rpm early has a greater effect than 100 rpm late so I encourage setting a power on base and leaving it until the flare. Less fiddling, more stable approaches and the picture stays for longer. As they get better, then they can select an aiming point of their own and fine tune power as required,.
For more experienced pilots who are within the cone of approach angles where power changes have a significant effect...then point and power is as good as any other means of adjusting descent profile. Rookies, given the opportunity are bound to get .too high or low on occassions... and power and point (P&P) will not help, in these cases. Plus, when in climb, cruise etc we are taught to raise the nose to reduce speed of climb...we are not taught to hold attitude and reduce power. Thus consistent with non P&P approach. Does not mean P&P is wrong or worse though...just more suited to better pilots who can get in the cone and stay there with small power and pitch changes.
In my own instruction, in the early stages of teaching the approach, I teach students to aim for the touchdown point (1000' in) ...not the threshold. Then if we hit windshear and undershoot we can continue with a stabilised approach by just lowering the nose a little to maintain airspeed as we transit the windshear zone. (NB does not apply if significant winshear or no height in hand - where power is also required ). We still land on the runway, but a little short of the ideal TD point. When the student has more experience they can use small (100rpm) changes in throttle setting to fine tune the distance they will travel before touching down. Small power inputs = small pitch changes. 100rpm early has a greater effect than 100 rpm late so I encourage setting a power on base and leaving it until the flare. Less fiddling, more stable approaches and the picture stays for longer. As they get better, then they can select an aiming point of their own and fine tune power as required,.
Look, Jumbojohn M , old chum, will you PLEASE stop confusing our poor long-suffering students with non-standard techniques! The SOP which was in October's Newsletter (full flap, POH approach speed) IS the correct technique - sorry, but your part-flap 10-15 mph too fast approaches are not!
Love and kisses, your CFI.
PS - A reminder will be printed yet again in next month's newsletter. And please also standardise on our technique of teaching point-and-power - which is:
Fly base leg at APPROACH SPEED + 10 (80 mph for a Cherokee, 75 kts for a Warrior) with 25 flap.
Roll out of final turn at 4-600 ft, then select FULL FLAP, confirm carb heat fully COLD, adjust to 70 mph (or 65 kts for a Warrior) and TRIM.
Then aim at the touchdown point and therafter keep the touchdown point fixed in the windscreen whilst making sufficient small power adjustments to maintain the approach speed ALL THE WAY TO THE FLARE.
At the flare, at the same rate as you adjust to the landing attitude, smoothly close the throttle FULLY and align the aeroplane with the centreline. It will then land in the right place at the right speed under control - and without risk of damage to the noseleg....!
Love and kisses, your CFI.
PS - A reminder will be printed yet again in next month's newsletter. And please also standardise on our technique of teaching point-and-power - which is:
Fly base leg at APPROACH SPEED + 10 (80 mph for a Cherokee, 75 kts for a Warrior) with 25 flap.
Roll out of final turn at 4-600 ft, then select FULL FLAP, confirm carb heat fully COLD, adjust to 70 mph (or 65 kts for a Warrior) and TRIM.
Then aim at the touchdown point and therafter keep the touchdown point fixed in the windscreen whilst making sufficient small power adjustments to maintain the approach speed ALL THE WAY TO THE FLARE.
At the flare, at the same rate as you adjust to the landing attitude, smoothly close the throttle FULLY and align the aeroplane with the centreline. It will then land in the right place at the right speed under control - and without risk of damage to the noseleg....!
Last edited by BEagle; 14th Nov 2003 at 07:02.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Glos
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am happy to be corrected, but:
a) Airspeed & RoD: FI(R) course is asked to follow AOPA JAR FI syllabus. This syllabus teaches pitch for airspeed and power for RoD. Maybe the CAA does have a preference (?)
b) Flap: Surely landing procedures are as laid out in POH - end of story. From memory, I believe PA28 is full flap unless in conditions of crosswind and/or turbulence in which case flap is as required (but this may be the C172 so don't shoot me!)
Must admit, I don't have a strong preference for one or other approach technique - have only flown light aircraft so both systems seem to work. But I cant help wondering whether we're duty-bound to stick to the AOPA syllabus.
Good luck jumbojohn - sounds like you may be asked to write the next newsletter!
a) Airspeed & RoD: FI(R) course is asked to follow AOPA JAR FI syllabus. This syllabus teaches pitch for airspeed and power for RoD. Maybe the CAA does have a preference (?)
b) Flap: Surely landing procedures are as laid out in POH - end of story. From memory, I believe PA28 is full flap unless in conditions of crosswind and/or turbulence in which case flap is as required (but this may be the C172 so don't shoot me!)
Must admit, I don't have a strong preference for one or other approach technique - have only flown light aircraft so both systems seem to work. But I cant help wondering whether we're duty-bound to stick to the AOPA syllabus.
Good luck jumbojohn - sounds like you may be asked to write the next newsletter!
Hi Jumbo - sorry to have to reach you through this medium, I've been trying to catch you for a while about the final approach thing!
Sunny still in Espana?
Wet and windy here!
Sunny still in Espana?
Wet and windy here!
I no longer instruct on light aircraft but it seemed to me that just about every CFI conjured up a set of speeds all rounded up to the next 10 kts so as to be easy to remember/give better visibility/better cooling.
I was taught to fly on a Cessna 150 at the book speeds and to land with 40 degrees of flap.
The last school I taught at insisted the C 152 was landed flap 20 full flap was for short field landings only and the 172 was operated the same way, and funnily enough they floated a long way. When I did check flights or the JAR flight with an instructor I would always look at operations with full flap at the POH speeds, result aircraft lands in the right place on the mains and uses significantly less runway.
BEagle has it right
I was taught to fly on a Cessna 150 at the book speeds and to land with 40 degrees of flap.
The last school I taught at insisted the C 152 was landed flap 20 full flap was for short field landings only and the 172 was operated the same way, and funnily enough they floated a long way. When I did check flights or the JAR flight with an instructor I would always look at operations with full flap at the POH speeds, result aircraft lands in the right place on the mains and uses significantly less runway.
BEagle has it right
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: notts
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
landing
BEagle is correct in my view!
P+A=Perfermance is true throughout all phases of flight INCLUDING approach to land.
to achieve Climb/S+L/Turn/Descent whatever the configuration (flaps and gear postion) we select a power and attitude by reference; horizon, feature or cloud formation. So include the runway when that is where you are going.
Constant approach = power as required and the runway (threshold or touchdown point) the reference. I can't say i like the term Point & Power which is really for jets which is why the CFS has gone for it.
However consider; constant reference + pwr. as required.
If the aircraft is too slow the a/c will tend to descend below the glide path therefore add power as required but maintain attitude to reference, this will increase speed and recover the correct glide path. Re-adjust to maintain the correct path and speed.
If too fast the a/c will tend too high; continue to maintain constant reference reduce pwr. The a/c will slow and the descent will steepen, on achieveing the glidepath + correct speed re-adjust pwr. maintaining reference and speed.
By this method you have not taught your student anything at odds with what you have already emphasised throughout the earlier excercises! In fact should the a/c change in height the the attitude together with power must change when a constant reference is followed. Therefore power/attitude is used throughout the approach.
The hold-off requires the simultaneous use of pwr./att. in my view. The student experiences less of the SUDDENLYs in pitch, yaw and roll and converts more easily later to high performance types.
I have always taught partial flap; 20 degrees for the C150 for it allows more float and gives the student more time to adjust for the landing. Going to max. flap later when covering performance landing(POH) at a later stage. There should be no difference in glide-path profile whether partial or max flap is used only a difference in speed due to the differences in drag!
P+A=Perfermance is true throughout all phases of flight INCLUDING approach to land.
to achieve Climb/S+L/Turn/Descent whatever the configuration (flaps and gear postion) we select a power and attitude by reference; horizon, feature or cloud formation. So include the runway when that is where you are going.
Constant approach = power as required and the runway (threshold or touchdown point) the reference. I can't say i like the term Point & Power which is really for jets which is why the CFS has gone for it.
However consider; constant reference + pwr. as required.
If the aircraft is too slow the a/c will tend to descend below the glide path therefore add power as required but maintain attitude to reference, this will increase speed and recover the correct glide path. Re-adjust to maintain the correct path and speed.
If too fast the a/c will tend too high; continue to maintain constant reference reduce pwr. The a/c will slow and the descent will steepen, on achieveing the glidepath + correct speed re-adjust pwr. maintaining reference and speed.
By this method you have not taught your student anything at odds with what you have already emphasised throughout the earlier excercises! In fact should the a/c change in height the the attitude together with power must change when a constant reference is followed. Therefore power/attitude is used throughout the approach.
The hold-off requires the simultaneous use of pwr./att. in my view. The student experiences less of the SUDDENLYs in pitch, yaw and roll and converts more easily later to high performance types.
I have always taught partial flap; 20 degrees for the C150 for it allows more float and gives the student more time to adjust for the landing. Going to max. flap later when covering performance landing(POH) at a later stage. There should be no difference in glide-path profile whether partial or max flap is used only a difference in speed due to the differences in drag!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: bristol
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All very interesting and generally sensible comments from everybody.
The only thing I can add is that if a pilot cannot trim for his threshold speed, what ever it may be, in the full flap configuration and land or go around from that position, they should not be allowed to be the pilot in command of that aircraft "type".
NB: "type" being variations within a class, hence the " "!
The only thing I can add is that if a pilot cannot trim for his threshold speed, what ever it may be, in the full flap configuration and land or go around from that position, they should not be allowed to be the pilot in command of that aircraft "type".
NB: "type" being variations within a class, hence the " "!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
if a pilot cannot trim for his threshold speed
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hoey5o,
I hope you don't take offence at being contradicted by a mere SPL, but you say:
US Navy pilots are all taught "pitch for speed" and "power for altitude". If it's good enough for getting those jets they fly onto a carrier deck...
MQ.
I hope you don't take offence at being contradicted by a mere SPL, but you say:
All Military and Airline pilots use point and power
MQ.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: in a galaxy far far away
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure landing on a moving carrier deck does require other techniques but I'm not sure that has much relevance here.
Always been a little concerned by sailors flying aeroplanes though.
Always been a little concerned by sailors flying aeroplanes though.
