final approach technique: pitch vs power
Skipping Classes: Surely the reason that ab initio students are taught airspeed with elevator is because one normally starts flight training on single engined aircraft and hence there is a requirement to learn a technique which will work also for a forced landing with an engine failure. In this situation clearly point and power does not work.
Hence the emphasis in the early days of flying on the glide approach.
To broaden the arguement to discuss heavy jets/swept wings etc. is irrelevant. Both methods clearly work however if I was sending a student off on his first solo I would like to think that he was properly trained to handle an engine out landing.
Hence the emphasis in the early days of flying on the glide approach.
To broaden the arguement to discuss heavy jets/swept wings etc. is irrelevant. Both methods clearly work however if I was sending a student off on his first solo I would like to think that he was properly trained to handle an engine out landing.
Interestingly on flying scholarships the RAF required us to teach Point and Power to prevent students from going to low on the approach. Many held a nice constant airspeed as they poipoised down the approach path. As someone who was taught P&P from square one, it was going back to what I had been taught; many instructotrs had neither tried it nor even thought about it as a technique.
As DFC said its a state of mind, both power and attitude affect speed, and ideally it should not be possible to tell which method you are using. However, there is quite often a time delay whilst the student reacts. If you are using attitude for speed on a powered approach then that reaction time manifests itself as deviation from the glideslope. By holding the glideslope constant (Point) then you now have only one variable to contend with, Airspeed. (Power) does that quite nicely resulting in a more stabilised approach. Clearly, if you have no power then you can only use attitude to maintain airspeed.
You use Elevator to maintain the vertical position when Straight and Level and when turning so why should it be so different on an appraoch. Many early aircraft had a high nose attitude at approach speeds meaning you could not see the landing area consequently, the only way to control the approach was to use elevator for speed. If you can clearly see the landing area you have two choices, neither are exclusively right nor wrong.
As DFC said its a state of mind, both power and attitude affect speed, and ideally it should not be possible to tell which method you are using. However, there is quite often a time delay whilst the student reacts. If you are using attitude for speed on a powered approach then that reaction time manifests itself as deviation from the glideslope. By holding the glideslope constant (Point) then you now have only one variable to contend with, Airspeed. (Power) does that quite nicely resulting in a more stabilised approach. Clearly, if you have no power then you can only use attitude to maintain airspeed.
You use Elevator to maintain the vertical position when Straight and Level and when turning so why should it be so different on an appraoch. Many early aircraft had a high nose attitude at approach speeds meaning you could not see the landing area consequently, the only way to control the approach was to use elevator for speed. If you can clearly see the landing area you have two choices, neither are exclusively right nor wrong.
However, there is quite often a time delay whilst the student reacts.
It's also MUCH easier to teach!
It seems that those if us who have tried teaching both methods have a strong preference for point'n'power whereas those who've only taught attitude-for-speed can't see how the other method works. One of life's perennial problems is that we can't know what we don't know
Students don't seem to have a problem with the concept of:
- when power is fixed (either max power or no power): attitude = speed
- when power is variable: power = speed
... this applies whether flying a horizontal line, or a straight line to a point on the ground.
SkippingLass asked why it was more appopriate for complex aircraft - the point I was making was that because many SEPL FIs teach attitude for power it's inappropriate to introduce point'n'power until the stude is entirely "yours" and learning something new.
FWIW I think I recall that some years ago the chief examiner recommended p'n'p as the method to teach.
HFD
Students don't seem to have a problem with the concept of:
- when power is fixed (either max power or no power): attitude = speed
- when power is variable: power = speed
... this applies whether flying a horizontal line, or a straight line to a point on the ground.
SkippingLass asked why it was more appopriate for complex aircraft - the point I was making was that because many SEPL FIs teach attitude for power it's inappropriate to introduce point'n'power until the stude is entirely "yours" and learning something new.
FWIW I think I recall that some years ago the chief examiner recommended p'n'p as the method to teach.
HFD
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have taught both ways, and can make my patter work either way whilst flying the opposite way - without the student noticing. Good old bit of string, left hand / right hand moving together.
I see no difference between the techniques in terms of student accuracy pre-solo, as instructor experience and quality seems to be more significant than the teaching method.
Perhaps like BEagle, the one I find easiest is the one I learned first.
I see no difference between the techniques in terms of student accuracy pre-solo, as instructor experience and quality seems to be more significant than the teaching method.
Perhaps like BEagle, the one I find easiest is the one I learned first.
When I learned to fly, I was taught using the 'other' technique in Cessna 150s at Cranfield. I was unable to land consistently at a specific point until I was well beyond the first solo stage - touching down somewhere safe on the long runway was seemingly OK.
I also think that I was taught quite poorly.
I didn't really start using point and power consciously until many years later - probably on the Folland Gnat, if I recall correctly.
But having later been 'taught to teach' by the experts at CFS, I cannot understand why anyone would conceivably still wish to teach the 'other' technique.
I also think that I was taught quite poorly.
I didn't really start using point and power consciously until many years later - probably on the Folland Gnat, if I recall correctly.
But having later been 'taught to teach' by the experts at CFS, I cannot understand why anyone would conceivably still wish to teach the 'other' technique.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well I am another one that can patter both.
My thoughts on it are.
I have just finished battering the point across about triming the aircraft.
I have just battered to death that if you set the power and set the attitude in a configuration the aircraft will do xxknts.
To me the pitch for speed and power for profile is just a continuation of the above lessons.
You can take it to the extreme when you do no-instruments circuits with them. Which I can't see you being able to do if they have to look at the ASI with point and power.
But to be honest by the time they are doing x-country's the whole lot is pretty much linked anyway.
Myself if I am flying IMC on a ILS its point and power.
Visual or NPA its the other one. But you wouldn't know the difference by watching me fly it.
My thoughts on it are.
I have just finished battering the point across about triming the aircraft.
I have just battered to death that if you set the power and set the attitude in a configuration the aircraft will do xxknts.
To me the pitch for speed and power for profile is just a continuation of the above lessons.
You can take it to the extreme when you do no-instruments circuits with them. Which I can't see you being able to do if they have to look at the ASI with point and power.
But to be honest by the time they are doing x-country's the whole lot is pretty much linked anyway.
Myself if I am flying IMC on a ILS its point and power.
Visual or NPA its the other one. But you wouldn't know the difference by watching me fly it.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is because any angle of approach may be necessary due to the circumstances of the approach be they flap failure,
The "point" is not about where you see the nose to be (attitude). It is where the trajectory of the aircraft is taking you and using the controls to make the trajectory end at the desired aiming point. The attitude of the aircraft is something different and in fact if you have trajectory information (like some modern large aircraft) you quickly forget about what the attitude is because what we are always interested in is the aircraft trajectory and the speed.
Most if not all GA aircraft can fly a 3 degree slope on approach with either land flap or zero flap.
Yes the "attitude" will be higher when making the approach with zero flap however the trajectory will be the same and provided that the trajectory continues along the 3 degree slope to the desired aiming point then the point bit has worked.
In other words, the constant point still has to be placed on the desired aiming point using the controls, the aircraft has to be kept in balance, wings level and the power needs to be set so that the required speed is maintained.
I fear that anyone who sees a difference in point and power between an approach with full flap (land flap) and one with zero flap has missed the whole point.
Students who use point and power will automatically make appropriate corrections when flap is extended without even having to explain it to them..........when flap is extended, the constant point moves and they pitch the aircraft to put it back where it should be and they also adjust the power if required in the appropriate direction to counteract any speed change.
That is the simplicity of the whole idea. It is just like driving a car. What is the trajectory and what is the speed. Soon the position of the steering wheel is not something you even think about.
Or in aviation terms - what is the constant point and what is the speed?
How hard is it to draw an X on the windscreen and say keep the aiming point behind that X with your left land, the ball in the middle with your feet and the speed at 70 with your right hand.
Do you have to mention wings level - no because if they are not then (with the ball in the middle) the aiming point will not stay behind the X (cause you are turning!!). They will do it automatically. Do you have to mention attitude - no because if the aiming point is constantly correct and the speed is correct than the attitude must be correct.
If I want to thred a neddle do I worry about attitude, up down left right or do I get the thred and shove it through the little hole?
How hard is it to draw an X on the windscreen and say keep the aiming point behind that X with your left land, the ball in the middle with your feet and the speed at 70 with your right hand.
But diehard dinosaurs will never accept that learning to fly can be simple...
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both methods to be honest are simple. They are just a means to an end until the student starts linking pitch and power at the same time.
As for whats the best one to teach?
Which ever one the instructor is most comfy with teaching, if the instructor is comfy and enjoying themselves that will create a good learning enviroment which will get the job done.
But I still reckon you can't do a point and power with your pitot system shagged. You can with pitch for speed.
My students do zero instrument circuits and a system failure wouldn't really bother them to much. In fact I think its quite a usefull skill for them to have.
As for whats the best one to teach?
Which ever one the instructor is most comfy with teaching, if the instructor is comfy and enjoying themselves that will create a good learning enviroment which will get the job done.
But I still reckon you can't do a point and power with your pitot system shagged. You can with pitch for speed.
My students do zero instrument circuits and a system failure wouldn't really bother them to much. In fact I think its quite a usefull skill for them to have.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But I still reckon you can't do a point and power with your pitot system shagged.
i.e. you can not make the trajectory of the aircraft horizontal (point it at the horizon) and set cruise power?
or that you can not fly a 3 degree approach slope in the landing configuration and appropriate power set?
Aircraft A comes down the glide at 90Kt with gear down, land flap and x power. Why if I point the aircraft down the 3 degree slope (visual or ILS it makes no difference) have the correct configuration and the correct power will the speed not be 90Kt or very close to it?
Point and power does not mean chase the airspeed.
People who can fly accurately will require very small corrections and therefore will not have any significant airspeed deviations cause by large corrections which in turn are cause by not being able to recognise the constant point and keep it where it is supposed to be.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stick the power up which is becuase your below profile the airspeed will stay the same.....
Aye another good reason for not teaching point and power, well done Flyingmac. Sink point it were you want to be going, not enough power, flat attitude with drag down. Nice setup for a stall.
QED
I really can't get to fussed with it all. With some students point and power clicks and others pitch for speed clicks. There really is no huge difference in the 2 techniques. If the previous instructor has started with point and power I will continue it but if I start myself I usually use pitch for speed so I can make them do zero instrument circuits. But in the grand scope of things it really doesn't matter a toss.
Aye another good reason for not teaching point and power, well done Flyingmac. Sink point it were you want to be going, not enough power, flat attitude with drag down. Nice setup for a stall.
QED
I really can't get to fussed with it all. With some students point and power clicks and others pitch for speed clicks. There really is no huge difference in the 2 techniques. If the previous instructor has started with point and power I will continue it but if I start myself I usually use pitch for speed so I can make them do zero instrument circuits. But in the grand scope of things it really doesn't matter a toss.
Aye another good reason for not teaching point and power
There really is no huge difference in the 2 techniques.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You make it sound like students are doing roller coaster rides down the final approach. Which I will admit does happen in some cases with both techniques.
And again one method clicks with one student and the other with another.
There is no safety issue with either method. And some students find easier/progress faster using one method than the other. Which one the instructor starts with doesn't really matter its just a means to an end to get the pilot linking there control inputs. As you quite righly say start anticipating what the aircraft is going to do for a certain enviromental effect and approprate control input.
Lets start getting the whole of the UK teaching stalling correctly then start worrying about two perfectly safe methods about flying an approach.
And again one method clicks with one student and the other with another.
There is no safety issue with either method. And some students find easier/progress faster using one method than the other. Which one the instructor starts with doesn't really matter its just a means to an end to get the pilot linking there control inputs. As you quite righly say start anticipating what the aircraft is going to do for a certain enviromental effect and approprate control input.
Lets start getting the whole of the UK teaching stalling correctly then start worrying about two perfectly safe methods about flying an approach.