Point & Power Approach Technique
Thread Starter
Point & Power Approach Technique
Do you or does your organisation teach the "Point & Power" method for flying the approach - ie point the aircraft at the aiming point with the elevator/stabilator and control the speed with the power?
Whether you do or don't, what do you think are the pros and cons? If you have considered the point and power technique but decided not to teach it, then what are you reasons for doing so?
Thanks for any comments.
Whether you do or don't, what do you think are the pros and cons? If you have considered the point and power technique but decided not to teach it, then what are you reasons for doing so?
Thanks for any comments.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep. It's what the RAF teach and is I believe more and more relevant the larger the aircraft. It hinges on having an aiming point (so a bit iffy into a grass field with no markings) and to a degree on achieving a set point on the approach (the 400 or 500 ft point). If you are low or high on the approach to start with then you can't use point and power to correct except by changing the aiming point which rather negates aiming at the threshold, so you have to use power to control RoD etc. If however you are set up nicely at the 400' point it works very well.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Northampton
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with DB6. I think its a good technique to use when the aircraft is on the desired approach path but I don't think its good for correcting approach path deviations. These are better made with the more traditional method (in my opinion).
By the fact that you point at the aiming point all the time with this techinique, you'll simply drag the aircraft in if already low and glide it in (if possible) if already high - you need to move the aiming point initially to regain the desired approach path. However, its always possible that I'm missing something.
Regrads, GT.
By the fact that you point at the aiming point all the time with this techinique, you'll simply drag the aircraft in if already low and glide it in (if possible) if already high - you need to move the aiming point initially to regain the desired approach path. However, its always possible that I'm missing something.
Regrads, GT.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,588
Received 443 Likes
on
235 Posts
GT,
(I was taught to fly fixed wing by civilian instructors using the attitude for speed, power for ROD/height. Later I went through jet BFTS and many years later to CFS and taught on an RAF UAS so I have experienced both methods).
I found the point and power method resulted in a more accurate and consistent touchdown point, which was the whole reason for teaching it. It doesn't involve changing aiming points, at least it didn't in my time. The other method can result in a variable touchdown point, as seen at my local airfield every weekend, resulting in some landings half way up the (very short) grass strip and some extremely late go-arounds.
It is very important to teach students to recognise the acceptable limits of high and low approaches for both methods. It was always emphasised that if they ever found themselves outside the acceptable angle "band" they must go around rather than try to salvage the approach, which can be dangerous.
Personally, I found it useful to show them a flapless landing and point out the shallower approach angle. I would then explain that anything shallower than that was outside the safe limit and how a glide landing is the high angle extreme because there is no more power to remove. If the speed is not under control (increasing) with the throttle closed, then a go around is required.
The 400ft point was a halfway round, halfway down checkpoint to give an early clue of how the (180 degree, curved) finals turn was going.
ShyT
(I was taught to fly fixed wing by civilian instructors using the attitude for speed, power for ROD/height. Later I went through jet BFTS and many years later to CFS and taught on an RAF UAS so I have experienced both methods).
I found the point and power method resulted in a more accurate and consistent touchdown point, which was the whole reason for teaching it. It doesn't involve changing aiming points, at least it didn't in my time. The other method can result in a variable touchdown point, as seen at my local airfield every weekend, resulting in some landings half way up the (very short) grass strip and some extremely late go-arounds.
It is very important to teach students to recognise the acceptable limits of high and low approaches for both methods. It was always emphasised that if they ever found themselves outside the acceptable angle "band" they must go around rather than try to salvage the approach, which can be dangerous.
Personally, I found it useful to show them a flapless landing and point out the shallower approach angle. I would then explain that anything shallower than that was outside the safe limit and how a glide landing is the high angle extreme because there is no more power to remove. If the speed is not under control (increasing) with the throttle closed, then a go around is required.
The 400ft point was a halfway round, halfway down checkpoint to give an early clue of how the (180 degree, curved) finals turn was going.
ShyT
Point-and-power is much more easily assimilated by most students. But they must first achieve an initial approach within the 'acceptable limits' of approach angle. This means an accurate base leg to the roll out from the final turn. If, and only if, they can do this consistently you can then move to the "rollout of final turn, wings level, full flap, trim to approach speed - now adjust to aim at touchdown point and concentrate on touchdown point-speed-touchdown point-speed scan" process.
Must be easy if I can teach it!
Must be easy if I can teach it!
BEagle hits it firmly on the head. Point and Power is best AS LONG AS a stable and accurate final approach path is intercepted.
This is what I taught airline cadets as part of the CPL/IR course with BAE. From day one you are teaching them towards a large commercial aircraft type flying.
To this end one often has to NOT teach good GA practice and procedure. Which is a shame but time is money. Which is a good reason that modern ATPL holders from 509/Integrated backgrounds need to be required to attain, hold and maintain SEP privildges(?)...
WWW
This is what I taught airline cadets as part of the CPL/IR course with BAE. From day one you are teaching them towards a large commercial aircraft type flying.
To this end one often has to NOT teach good GA practice and procedure. Which is a shame but time is money. Which is a good reason that modern ATPL holders from 509/Integrated backgrounds need to be required to attain, hold and maintain SEP privildges(?)...
WWW
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At what height above the touchdown point do you guys no longer look at the ASI and concentrate only on the landing?
............................................
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
............................................
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
I tend to agree with most of the sentiments already exressed, but I'd just like to add that the Point & Power technique is no worse than the typical GA technique (power for RoD/flightpath, attitude for IAS) if you are exceptionally high or low as you roll out on finals.
Either way something has been selected in error along the base leg (either the wrong power setting, the wrong attitude or the pilot didn't correct for a x-wind). The recovery is fairly straight forward - adjust the pitch attitude / power to regain the correct approach angle and then reselect the correct power and attitude required to maintain it.
This is easy in a light aircraft, but as the aircraft gets bigger and faster the pilot needs to be more accurate flying the base leg as the tolerances for an acceptable approach angle are more precise. You would kinda hope that anyone flying something bigger than a Be58/C310 would be able to fly an accurate base though......
I personally teach to stop concentrating on the IAS as the nose/cowling passes the flare cut-off point (a short distance in front of the aiming point), at which time the throttle is closed and the pitch attitude is gradually raised to the landing attitude. Until then the scan that BEagle described works very well. After the flare cut-off point you really should have your head out of the cockpit!
I tend to agree with most of the sentiments already exressed, but I'd just like to add that the Point & Power technique is no worse than the typical GA technique (power for RoD/flightpath, attitude for IAS) if you are exceptionally high or low as you roll out on finals.
Either way something has been selected in error along the base leg (either the wrong power setting, the wrong attitude or the pilot didn't correct for a x-wind). The recovery is fairly straight forward - adjust the pitch attitude / power to regain the correct approach angle and then reselect the correct power and attitude required to maintain it.
This is easy in a light aircraft, but as the aircraft gets bigger and faster the pilot needs to be more accurate flying the base leg as the tolerances for an acceptable approach angle are more precise. You would kinda hope that anyone flying something bigger than a Be58/C310 would be able to fly an accurate base though......
I personally teach to stop concentrating on the IAS as the nose/cowling passes the flare cut-off point (a short distance in front of the aiming point), at which time the throttle is closed and the pitch attitude is gradually raised to the landing attitude. Until then the scan that BEagle described works very well. After the flare cut-off point you really should have your head out of the cockpit!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With regard to monitoring of the ASI I normally ignore it below about 200 feet above ground / water, unless I have deviated from a normal stabilized final approach attitude. If for some reason I allow the A.S. to decay well below normal I will of course glance at it just to assure I have enough speed to flare.
Probably the biggest problem I see in the pilots I give advanced training to is their inability to judge height above the landing surface runway / water. Most of them sort of flare to the landing attitude then just arrive. ( tri. gear ).
The biggest problem these pilots exibit is looking to far ahead down the runway / water, and thus have poor height judgement during the hold off stage of the landing.
Conventional gear airplanes of course require slightly more attention to the landing.
............................................
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Probably the biggest problem I see in the pilots I give advanced training to is their inability to judge height above the landing surface runway / water. Most of them sort of flare to the landing attitude then just arrive. ( tri. gear ).
The biggest problem these pilots exibit is looking to far ahead down the runway / water, and thus have poor height judgement during the hold off stage of the landing.
Conventional gear airplanes of course require slightly more attention to the landing.
............................................
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "point and power" technique is the only one that has any validity for jet aeroplanes - "power, attitude, trim" will not work effectively. This really applies across the board when hand flying.
I was taught by the RAF to make the aeroplane fly the flightpath you require by using pitch (whether this be level or final approach) and then adjust the speed with power. This worked well on Bulldogs, Jet Provosts, Jetstreams and VC10s - so one of each flavour, at least.
You will make a jet increase it's ROD by pulling off power, but only because the IAS decays and the nose then drops as a result of the trim change. The converse goes for making it climb by applying power. However, ANY powered aeroplane can be made to increase it's ROD by lowering the nose 1 degree, then the speed controlled by reducing power.
In my experience (over 16 years on piston, turboprop and jet aircraft) raising or lowering the nose about 1 degree from the datum setting on final approach is about right. This would adjust from a 3 degree glidepath to a 2 or 4 (depends which way you go!) and then using power to control the speed keeps that approach path constant. Any more than 1 degree either way gives a VERY big change to the ROD and risks a high sink rate at low altitudes - it would keep most jets at under 1000fpm which I believe is really the safe maximum for a stabilised approach.
The only time point and power does not work is in constant power climbs and descents - but anyone should be able to handle those.
As for the VSI: If you initially set the correct datum attitude, use power to adjust the speed up or down as required before setting the correct power setting to hold the speed steady - then the VSI really does not feature too heavily, except as a back up to what the instrument (ILS), visual picture (PAPIs, aspect) and mathematics (height for range on NDB/DME approaches) tell you. The only things that matter in the last 100 feet or so is the attitude and power control, in conjunction with the picture outside.
Well, that's my opinion, anyway. Beats me why schools don't teach jet techniques from the off - as I say, any powered aeroplane works that way - only props can really use power to control ROD.
I was taught by the RAF to make the aeroplane fly the flightpath you require by using pitch (whether this be level or final approach) and then adjust the speed with power. This worked well on Bulldogs, Jet Provosts, Jetstreams and VC10s - so one of each flavour, at least.
You will make a jet increase it's ROD by pulling off power, but only because the IAS decays and the nose then drops as a result of the trim change. The converse goes for making it climb by applying power. However, ANY powered aeroplane can be made to increase it's ROD by lowering the nose 1 degree, then the speed controlled by reducing power.
In my experience (over 16 years on piston, turboprop and jet aircraft) raising or lowering the nose about 1 degree from the datum setting on final approach is about right. This would adjust from a 3 degree glidepath to a 2 or 4 (depends which way you go!) and then using power to control the speed keeps that approach path constant. Any more than 1 degree either way gives a VERY big change to the ROD and risks a high sink rate at low altitudes - it would keep most jets at under 1000fpm which I believe is really the safe maximum for a stabilised approach.
The only time point and power does not work is in constant power climbs and descents - but anyone should be able to handle those.
As for the VSI: If you initially set the correct datum attitude, use power to adjust the speed up or down as required before setting the correct power setting to hold the speed steady - then the VSI really does not feature too heavily, except as a back up to what the instrument (ILS), visual picture (PAPIs, aspect) and mathematics (height for range on NDB/DME approaches) tell you. The only things that matter in the last 100 feet or so is the attitude and power control, in conjunction with the picture outside.
Well, that's my opinion, anyway. Beats me why schools don't teach jet techniques from the off - as I say, any powered aeroplane works that way - only props can really use power to control ROD.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS- I find the above technique equally valid for visual and instrument approaches.
PPS - The matter of misjudged rollout on base turn is important - but also relatively easily overcome by using technique as above - unless so high as to require idle power, but then ANY technique will require that to be a go-=around.
PPS - The matter of misjudged rollout on base turn is important - but also relatively easily overcome by using technique as above - unless so high as to require idle power, but then ANY technique will require that to be a go-=around.
moggie - please confirm that you were NEVER a RAF QFI! Because I have to say that I think that you're largely talking nonsense.
Incidentally, the oft-misused 'Power- Attitude-Trim' litany used by civil FIs is a misunderstanding of what they really mean. In the RAF, Power-Attitude-Trim is only used to describe what to do when changing power settings, for example in straight and level flight. First Power is set, during which the Attitude is held steady and the effect of the new power setting is Trimmed - you don't allow the ac to fly you, you control the effect of your power change. Then as the power change takes effect and causes acceleration or deceleration to a new steady state, the attitude is Progressively Adjusted and Trimmed! to maintain straight and level balanced flight.
I've also heard some people talking about 'Attitude-Power-Trim' when levelling off at top of climb in a prop-driven aircraft. Again that's rubbish - the correct technique is to Select, Hold and Trim the new straight and level attitude and then Progressively Adjust and Trim to maintain straight and level balanced flight as the aircraft accelerates to cruising speed.
In anything I've ever flown, elevator controls IAS and power controls Rate of Descent until you are aiming at a fixed reference point on the runway. Then elevator controls flightpath aim and power corrects rate of change of speed.
[ 20 October 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
Incidentally, the oft-misused 'Power- Attitude-Trim' litany used by civil FIs is a misunderstanding of what they really mean. In the RAF, Power-Attitude-Trim is only used to describe what to do when changing power settings, for example in straight and level flight. First Power is set, during which the Attitude is held steady and the effect of the new power setting is Trimmed - you don't allow the ac to fly you, you control the effect of your power change. Then as the power change takes effect and causes acceleration or deceleration to a new steady state, the attitude is Progressively Adjusted and Trimmed! to maintain straight and level balanced flight.
I've also heard some people talking about 'Attitude-Power-Trim' when levelling off at top of climb in a prop-driven aircraft. Again that's rubbish - the correct technique is to Select, Hold and Trim the new straight and level attitude and then Progressively Adjust and Trim to maintain straight and level balanced flight as the aircraft accelerates to cruising speed.
In anything I've ever flown, elevator controls IAS and power controls Rate of Descent until you are aiming at a fixed reference point on the runway. Then elevator controls flightpath aim and power corrects rate of change of speed.
[ 20 October 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly, while the RAF teaches point & power for visual approaches, and I learnt during my IR training to fly the ILS etc. using point & power, I am now required to teach RAF officers to use power to control RoD and pitch to control airspeed whilst flying instrument (PAR) approaches.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle - I still stand by my view that making the aircraft climb or descend by fiddling with the power is valid only for a prop. However, ANY powered (fixed wing)aeroplane be flown accurately by setting an aiitude to make the aeroplane go where YOU want it to, holding that attitude while you sort out the power, ensuring that you are in trim AT ALL TIMES and then resetting the attitude, trim and power to stay there when you get there.
I was taught attitude flying by my RAF QFIs in the 80s and have found this attitude equally valid in civillian training. When converting prop trained blokes to jets, those who have been taught to use power for ROC/ROD at all times struggle - where as those previously taught to do what I advocate above (because that is what their organisation prefers) have less trouble.
Ever flown a HUD equipped jet? Point it where you want it to go than make it do it at the right speed by varying the noise. Works on all known airliners, too.
How else are you going to hand-fly an aeroplane with the autothrottle engaged (SOP for hand flying on all the airlines I deal with)?
Remember, we are training guys for airlines - THEY fly airliners, not Fireflys or Warriors - and this is the technique that the airlines themselves advocate. OK so the AP is engaged most of the time - but the AP does exactly what I describe: sets an attitude to achieve the desired flight path, adjusting it if it is not right, meanwhile adjusting power (via autothrottle) to control speed.
Try it on a lightweight go around in a jet - high ROC, reduce power and watch yourself sail through the level off altitude with the IAS decreasing - I see it regularly from guys taught in the style you seem to prefer. don't forget - I am talking about a technique that applies in all phases of flight except steady power climb or descent (as I said earlier) and is equally valid for the approach. some other posters have said they "don't look at the ASI, just the aiming point, unless the speed decays". So just how do they know when the speed has decayed? You can not sucessfully judge airspeed by looking out of the window, not to an accuracy of less than 20 kts, anyway. Another said the "power for ROD" technique allows him to "drag it in without changing his aiming point" - I hope I am never his passenfger when he goes low on an ILS or visual approach.
[ 21 October 2001: Message edited by: moggie ]
[ 21 October 2001: Message edited by: moggie ]
I was taught attitude flying by my RAF QFIs in the 80s and have found this attitude equally valid in civillian training. When converting prop trained blokes to jets, those who have been taught to use power for ROC/ROD at all times struggle - where as those previously taught to do what I advocate above (because that is what their organisation prefers) have less trouble.
Ever flown a HUD equipped jet? Point it where you want it to go than make it do it at the right speed by varying the noise. Works on all known airliners, too.
How else are you going to hand-fly an aeroplane with the autothrottle engaged (SOP for hand flying on all the airlines I deal with)?
Remember, we are training guys for airlines - THEY fly airliners, not Fireflys or Warriors - and this is the technique that the airlines themselves advocate. OK so the AP is engaged most of the time - but the AP does exactly what I describe: sets an attitude to achieve the desired flight path, adjusting it if it is not right, meanwhile adjusting power (via autothrottle) to control speed.
Try it on a lightweight go around in a jet - high ROC, reduce power and watch yourself sail through the level off altitude with the IAS decreasing - I see it regularly from guys taught in the style you seem to prefer. don't forget - I am talking about a technique that applies in all phases of flight except steady power climb or descent (as I said earlier) and is equally valid for the approach. some other posters have said they "don't look at the ASI, just the aiming point, unless the speed decays". So just how do they know when the speed has decayed? You can not sucessfully judge airspeed by looking out of the window, not to an accuracy of less than 20 kts, anyway. Another said the "power for ROD" technique allows him to "drag it in without changing his aiming point" - I hope I am never his passenfger when he goes low on an ILS or visual approach.
[ 21 October 2001: Message edited by: moggie ]
[ 21 October 2001: Message edited by: moggie ]
Which reference does your 'HUD-equipped jet' have? Pitch attitude or flight path vector?
The autothrottle gain rates will be modified according to pitch attitude from a vertical gyro to maintain the selected IAS derived from the pitot-static or Air Data Unit; you 'hand fly' the aircraft attitude and the AT adjusts thrust level to maintain the speed you selected.
'Point and Power' is a technique which refers ONLY to flight relative to a fixed touchdown reference point. On an instrument approach you are correcting to either an electronic glidepath on a precision or a height/range cue on a non-precision approach. If you are above the glideslope, for example, and just pitch forward to a new attitude ('poking at the ground' as it's sometimes described), your AT will indeed do the work to sort things out. If you 'hand fly' properly by maintaining your attitude, wriggling off some power to increase rate of descent to recover to the glideslope and then restoring the correct power, your passengers will also not have to endure unnecessary pitching on the approach.
The 'technique' which you are trying to describe is the only method of flying with AT engaged as you have no direct control of thrust settings, merely of demanded IAS. It is not appropriate to basic flying or full 'hand-flying' - but pointing the aeroplane in the required direction and letting the AT automatics sort things out is probably all the Nintendo generation will ever need. If that's all they can cope with, then heaven help them or their passengers when all the computers decide you need to run Scandisk and stop voting! That's why basic techniques are still taught!!
On your 'lightweight go-around', if you're hand-flying without AP/AT, you reduce the thrust initially to reduce RoC as you approach the cleared altitude, adjusting the attitude slightly to maintain IAS. The concept of reducing power before levelling off is the one big new technique, I agree, which must be learned early in jet conversion. This is entirely due to the different THPa/THPr curves for jet and propeller aircraft and their differing relations to best climb and best range cruising speeds. Then you select, hold and trim the appropriate attitude for level flight, reducing thrust again as the desired IAS is achieved. Nowadays that's becoming more and more essential when levelling at RVSM levels in order to reduce climb rate to 500-1000 fpm before 1000ft to the cleared level is achieved.
However, in one high performance jet aircraft I once flew, rather than reducing power about 1500 ft before levelling off at medium level, we used to leave the power alone, roll inverted whilst still climbing rapidly at 370 KIAS and about 20 deg nose-up, then pull through to level flight at the rquired level at about +2g before rolling erect again and then throttling back when Vc (Vs multiplied by the square root of the max g limit) - about 420 KIAS was achieved. Not particularly appropriate on spamcans or people-tubes though!
[ 21 October 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
The autothrottle gain rates will be modified according to pitch attitude from a vertical gyro to maintain the selected IAS derived from the pitot-static or Air Data Unit; you 'hand fly' the aircraft attitude and the AT adjusts thrust level to maintain the speed you selected.
'Point and Power' is a technique which refers ONLY to flight relative to a fixed touchdown reference point. On an instrument approach you are correcting to either an electronic glidepath on a precision or a height/range cue on a non-precision approach. If you are above the glideslope, for example, and just pitch forward to a new attitude ('poking at the ground' as it's sometimes described), your AT will indeed do the work to sort things out. If you 'hand fly' properly by maintaining your attitude, wriggling off some power to increase rate of descent to recover to the glideslope and then restoring the correct power, your passengers will also not have to endure unnecessary pitching on the approach.
The 'technique' which you are trying to describe is the only method of flying with AT engaged as you have no direct control of thrust settings, merely of demanded IAS. It is not appropriate to basic flying or full 'hand-flying' - but pointing the aeroplane in the required direction and letting the AT automatics sort things out is probably all the Nintendo generation will ever need. If that's all they can cope with, then heaven help them or their passengers when all the computers decide you need to run Scandisk and stop voting! That's why basic techniques are still taught!!
On your 'lightweight go-around', if you're hand-flying without AP/AT, you reduce the thrust initially to reduce RoC as you approach the cleared altitude, adjusting the attitude slightly to maintain IAS. The concept of reducing power before levelling off is the one big new technique, I agree, which must be learned early in jet conversion. This is entirely due to the different THPa/THPr curves for jet and propeller aircraft and their differing relations to best climb and best range cruising speeds. Then you select, hold and trim the appropriate attitude for level flight, reducing thrust again as the desired IAS is achieved. Nowadays that's becoming more and more essential when levelling at RVSM levels in order to reduce climb rate to 500-1000 fpm before 1000ft to the cleared level is achieved.
However, in one high performance jet aircraft I once flew, rather than reducing power about 1500 ft before levelling off at medium level, we used to leave the power alone, roll inverted whilst still climbing rapidly at 370 KIAS and about 20 deg nose-up, then pull through to level flight at the rquired level at about +2g before rolling erect again and then throttling back when Vc (Vs multiplied by the square root of the max g limit) - about 420 KIAS was achieved. Not particularly appropriate on spamcans or people-tubes though!
[ 21 October 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]
Thread Starter
I am glad to see that my original post has created some debate!
I am an advocate of the Point & Power technique for flying the approach and, despite my "handle", I am from a civilian background having flown many light types up to the B737 and A320!
For circa 8 years of my airline career I was a TRE/IRE (Sim) Instructor. I remember well conducting one of our pilot's first recurrent base checks in the sim. I was trying to work out why the "candidate" was making a meal out of flying the ILS. On the coffee break it suddenly dawned on me that he was using the pitch for airspeed and power for rate of descent system for flying approach. A quick debrief and suggestion that he tried it the other way round produced instant results (for the better!). He also confessed that for the past six months he had been finding it hard to fly the approach and was relieved to discover there was an easier way of doing so.
I have been doing a little research on this subject and received an email recently from an ex CFS instructor who was instrumental in getting CFS to change to Point & Power. On a routine visit to a UAS on a very windy day the students were having difficulty flying the approach and were making horrendous changes of attitude to control the speed. He consulted with his colleague and they decided to teach the students Point & Power. The result? Immediate and instant improvement. They also reckoned that teaching Point & Power reduced time to solo by one to two hours!!
I am an advocate of the Point & Power technique for flying the approach and, despite my "handle", I am from a civilian background having flown many light types up to the B737 and A320!
For circa 8 years of my airline career I was a TRE/IRE (Sim) Instructor. I remember well conducting one of our pilot's first recurrent base checks in the sim. I was trying to work out why the "candidate" was making a meal out of flying the ILS. On the coffee break it suddenly dawned on me that he was using the pitch for airspeed and power for rate of descent system for flying approach. A quick debrief and suggestion that he tried it the other way round produced instant results (for the better!). He also confessed that for the past six months he had been finding it hard to fly the approach and was relieved to discover there was an easier way of doing so.
I have been doing a little research on this subject and received an email recently from an ex CFS instructor who was instrumental in getting CFS to change to Point & Power. On a routine visit to a UAS on a very windy day the students were having difficulty flying the approach and were making horrendous changes of attitude to control the speed. He consulted with his colleague and they decided to teach the students Point & Power. The result? Immediate and instant improvement. They also reckoned that teaching Point & Power reduced time to solo by one to two hours!!
Perhaps your 'candidate' was so far off the glideslope that what you actually taught him was to select, hold and trim an attitude which would allow him to regain the glideslope - and he merely adjusted the power to avoid accleration/deceleration in that attitude rather than consciously trying to select the IAS??