Point & Power - Will somebody explain
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Point & Power - Will somebody explain
Whats it all about then????? An RAF technique I hear
All stems from a thread on Private Flying about trim on final.
I got tempted into giving some of the chaps the benefit of my inexperience and somebody discussed using this technique which I know nothing about.
Please feel free to enlighten me.
All stems from a thread on Private Flying about trim on final.
I got tempted into giving some of the chaps the benefit of my inexperience and somebody discussed using this technique which I know nothing about.
Please feel free to enlighten me.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a descent technique which you can use if you have a fixed point to aim at e.g. a runway threshold. Attitude controls flightpath and ideally now remains fixed relative to the aiming point, and power is used to control airspeed. It does rather hinge on achieving a fixed point on the glidepath (400' point in RAF teach or 500' point otherwise [or letterbox, having now read the other thread]) which sets you up at the correct angle (3 degrees or so) but thereafter it's an effective technique which I believe translates well onto larger and heavier aircraft. I haven't read all of the other thread (but will in a moment) but you do still have to trim if you vary power.
Last edited by DB6; 3rd Aug 2002 at 10:41.
Folks,
This is another version of the US Navy "point of no relative movement" approach, developed for training on early jets.
This is the first application I know of, but it is virtually univesal as the technique for all large aircraft.
It post dates the venerable " elevators control airspeed. power controls rate of climb and descent" , see also a debate Techead forum.
Tootle pip !!
This is another version of the US Navy "point of no relative movement" approach, developed for training on early jets.
This is the first application I know of, but it is virtually univesal as the technique for all large aircraft.
It post dates the venerable " elevators control airspeed. power controls rate of climb and descent" , see also a debate Techead forum.
Tootle pip !!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roll out on a Final at say 1 nm and 500 ft, select the attitude /power combination that you require for the approach.
Note where the landing point is in the windscreen - by maintaing this in the same position you musy fly a straight line towards it.
If everything else remains constant, the IAS will also remain constant however, in practice it will vary due to changing Met; maintain IAS with throttle.
The net result is a smoother, easier to fly approach with a linear descent path.
Note where the landing point is in the windscreen - by maintaing this in the same position you musy fly a straight line towards it.
If everything else remains constant, the IAS will also remain constant however, in practice it will vary due to changing Met; maintain IAS with throttle.
The net result is a smoother, easier to fly approach with a linear descent path.
Plus for the student, a small IAS change is much easier to spot and correct using 'point and power' than a glidepath error is using the 'old' method.....
But like other newer, easier advances in flying (such as SCA for visual navigation), it isn't in some dusty old tome written by Pontius' FI - so it remains a mystery to those still trained by The Ancients!
To remind everyone,
1. Roll out of final turn at right height.
2. Select landing flap.
3. Adjust to Aproach Speed and TRIM.
4. NOW Point at touchdown spot, keep it nailed under the same dead fly spot in the windscreen.
5. Scan TD point - IAS - TD point - IAS continually on the approach.
6. Make small constant power corrections. Minor re-trimming might be needed.
7. Approaching impact, select landing attitude and close throttle. Hold it off until it kisses the runway smoother than a politician with a baby!
But like other newer, easier advances in flying (such as SCA for visual navigation), it isn't in some dusty old tome written by Pontius' FI - so it remains a mystery to those still trained by The Ancients!
To remind everyone,
1. Roll out of final turn at right height.
2. Select landing flap.
3. Adjust to Aproach Speed and TRIM.
4. NOW Point at touchdown spot, keep it nailed under the same dead fly spot in the windscreen.
5. Scan TD point - IAS - TD point - IAS continually on the approach.
6. Make small constant power corrections. Minor re-trimming might be needed.
7. Approaching impact, select landing attitude and close throttle. Hold it off until it kisses the runway smoother than a politician with a baby!
Last edited by BEagle; 4th Aug 2002 at 09:43.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting in theory...
Im thinking more about airplanes with a narrow speed range nothing heavier than say a light twin and a student in the ab initio phase.
GT
Certainly dont teach the ILS like that in a warrior, am I missing something?
Im thinking more about airplanes with a narrow speed range nothing heavier than say a light twin and a student in the ab initio phase.
GT
Certainly dont teach the ILS like that in a warrior, am I missing something?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Works just fine in anything from a Tipsy Nipper upwards, G- old bean 
, and gets taught to ab-initio RAF students at JEFTS and UAS's. You can fly the ILS the same way - it was taught that way at Prestwick when I did my IR - or the other way, which the RAF do currently. Take your pick.
, and gets taught to ab-initio RAF students at JEFTS and UAS's. You can fly the ILS the same way - it was taught that way at Prestwick when I did my IR - or the other way, which the RAF do currently. Take your pick.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Camden, NSW, Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear what a lot of you are saying and I'm sure it works very well for 'experienced' pilots. However I think it must be a bit confusing to early students. We teach them Effects of Controls, Straight and Level, Climbing and Descending, Turning, Stalling, Circuits. We teach 3 types of climb - in each elevator controls speed and power controls rate of climb. We teach them 3 types of descent and again - elevator controls speed and power controls rate of descent. Then we put them in the circuit and say "this is no longer true, we now do it different"???? When you teach circuits emergencies, how do you teach that? Point at what? Perhaps I have been trained the 'old' way but I think the first thing we need to teach the early student is to get the attitude correct (=correct speed) so that they can see the 'picture' and they can see whether they are high or low, then they can fix that. I agree with the statement "we fly the ILS that way". By the time a pilot flies an ILS they should have quite a bit of experience and the 'picture' is presented on the instrument, not outside. I think the point and power methodology got developed when the military flew turbine engines that were very slow to respond and you did not get the power when and as needed. Piston engines do not have that problem. A 400 ton juggernaut does not respond so fast either. If a 'mature' type person wants to learn in a Superpup purely for fun I find the 'old' method works better.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
point and power
The problem with the point and power technique is that it was brought in by CFS in order to prepare students for fast jet training. If you are approaching at 120knots then using the elevator to reduce speed means a large divergence from the glide path, this is due to the much greater inertia In most light aircraft however, this is not a problem and I suggest that for PPL training that the tried and tested method of elevator for airspeed and power for ROD doth apply, if I ever get to fly a Hawk then I will use the CFS method!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last two posts make valid points however I will say that we taught point and power to ab-initio teenagers at Tayside on the Flying Scholarship scheme and they had no trouble with it. I don't think it's any more difficult, just slightly different. I personally don't have a preference but have probably forgotten how to do it the other way 
.
.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has nothing to do with aircraft size, or the 'experience' of students. The technique works very well on light aircraft and with ab-initio students. I know, because I have been teaching it for years. The disadvantages of the 'other' method are:
a. It teaches a technique that has to be unlearnt later, because it doesn't work on real aeroplanes.
b. Taken literally, to extremes, it can encourage inappropriate (even dangerous) handling close to the ground (student lets the speed get a little low, realises and responds by shoving the nose forward. Unchecked result - a steep approach to short of the threshold, where extra power was what was really called for. I've seen it, many times, on tests, at the CPL and later.)
a. It teaches a technique that has to be unlearnt later, because it doesn't work on real aeroplanes.
b. Taken literally, to extremes, it can encourage inappropriate (even dangerous) handling close to the ground (student lets the speed get a little low, realises and responds by shoving the nose forward. Unchecked result - a steep approach to short of the threshold, where extra power was what was really called for. I've seen it, many times, on tests, at the CPL and later.)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think something has to explain the increase in landing accidents, particularly involving wheelbarrowing.
I Fly has it right when he cites the poor response of jet engines of 'real aeroplanes' as the reasons for jet pilots to learn point and power.
I firmly believe PPL piston pilots should think power controls descent and pitch controls speed.
They should then think speed is the vital ingredient, and in sticking to the correct speed they should use power to control their arrival at the appropriate point on the runway.
No doubt relearning will be required for the transition to'real aeroplanes', instruments and jet power, but in the mean while the PPL pilot will have achieved feel for flying, and safe landings will have been made.
I post the above secure in the knowledge that I will be in the minority.
I Fly has it right when he cites the poor response of jet engines of 'real aeroplanes' as the reasons for jet pilots to learn point and power.
I firmly believe PPL piston pilots should think power controls descent and pitch controls speed.
They should then think speed is the vital ingredient, and in sticking to the correct speed they should use power to control their arrival at the appropriate point on the runway.
No doubt relearning will be required for the transition to'real aeroplanes', instruments and jet power, but in the mean while the PPL pilot will have achieved feel for flying, and safe landings will have been made.
I post the above secure in the knowledge that I will be in the minority.
Last edited by bluskis; 5th Aug 2002 at 21:29.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elevator for speed, power for ROD - tosh!
Why use power to control ROD when this technique only works on props? The point and power "jet" technique works on everything with an engine (helos and airships excepted) - regardless of what type of power unit it is.
On a jet aeroplane (e.g. any jet airliner) the only technique that works is point and power - so if that is the ultimate aim for a student, why teach one technique on ab-initio and then have them re-learn how to fly on a type rating?
Use the pitch attitude to make the aeroplane fly the desired flight path and use power to control speed (after all, this is what you do when flying level!). It works for all approaches - instrument and visual, precision and non-precision.
One problem - no offence intended - is that a HUGE proportion of FIs have never flown big aeroplanes and don't realise that point and power is essential.
Why use power to control ROD when this technique only works on props? The point and power "jet" technique works on everything with an engine (helos and airships excepted) - regardless of what type of power unit it is.
On a jet aeroplane (e.g. any jet airliner) the only technique that works is point and power - so if that is the ultimate aim for a student, why teach one technique on ab-initio and then have them re-learn how to fly on a type rating?
Use the pitch attitude to make the aeroplane fly the desired flight path and use power to control speed (after all, this is what you do when flying level!). It works for all approaches - instrument and visual, precision and non-precision.
One problem - no offence intended - is that a HUGE proportion of FIs have never flown big aeroplanes and don't realise that point and power is essential.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to disagree with the ‘point and power’ (gun-barrel or ballistic) approach technique, particularly at ab-initio stage. And I do fly jets!
The technique sets the student up for disaster in short-field approaches. If at 1.3 Vs the student recognises that he/she is falling below the approach path and attempts to recover by back pressure, speed will rapidly reduce as induced drag takes over. At this point the student should have corrected with power.
In a jet aircraft the situation is different. Because of the low drag profile a change of attitude will have little effect on speed, but a major diversion from the flight path. Therefore elevators are extremely effective to recover to the flight path without upsetting the speed. Small adjustments of Ng are very effective at maintaining air speed.
The technique will work on many of the performance twins and I guess that transitioning during multi-engine conversion or instrument rating training is valid.
The technique sets the student up for disaster in short-field approaches. If at 1.3 Vs the student recognises that he/she is falling below the approach path and attempts to recover by back pressure, speed will rapidly reduce as induced drag takes over. At this point the student should have corrected with power.
In a jet aircraft the situation is different. Because of the low drag profile a change of attitude will have little effect on speed, but a major diversion from the flight path. Therefore elevators are extremely effective to recover to the flight path without upsetting the speed. Small adjustments of Ng are very effective at maintaining air speed.
The technique will work on many of the performance twins and I guess that transitioning during multi-engine conversion or instrument rating training is valid.
So long as the final approach path is commenced from an acceptable approach point, 'point and power' works very well in any aeroplane. I teach it on the PA28, I teach it on the VC10.
During Descending 2, the final exercise should show the student the acceptable limits for the approach path from which 'point and power' is commenced.
CC for IAS and power for ROD works until you are aiming at a fixed point on the ground! - after which 'point and power' takes over. Everyone who has tried it agrees - it's MUCH easier and more logical!
During Descending 2, the final exercise should show the student the acceptable limits for the approach path from which 'point and power' is commenced.
CC for IAS and power for ROD works until you are aiming at a fixed point on the ground! - after which 'point and power' takes over. Everyone who has tried it agrees - it's MUCH easier and more logical!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: YBBN
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
I agree that the technique works in any aircraft but that was not my point. In teaching the ‘point and power technique’ we are programming students to check approach path with elevator – therefore speed becomes a secondary consideration. If the aircraft descends below flight path and attitude is increased to recover, speed will decrease. The rate of decrease is dependent upon angle of attack, the greater the angle the more rapidly speed will reduce. On short field approaches where speed is targeted at the minimum approach speed there is not much margin for error.
On the other hand students trained in the conventional manner will recover from a below flight path or high ROD situation with power, a pre-requisite to going round which will be the next step if the ‘swimming in glue’ syndrome continues.
I worked for a school that taught the ‘point and power’ technique exclusively. One of my students during STOL practice failed to recognise a low-speed high ROD situation because he was too intent on pinning the aim point with elevator. My calls for ‘power’ went unheeded until I slammed the throttle forward. We landed softly with full power!
Low time students just don’t have the experience to put it all together, all of the time. Training should therefore safeguard the student until the basic skills and situation awareness are developed. In training pilots onto turbo props/jets I have never had a problem introducing the ‘point and power’ technique. To most experienced pilots the approach and landing just seems to happen with no conscious thought until taught an alternative method.
Our company operates a diverse turbine fleet including Cessna Caravans. The latter regularly operate into 420 metre strips. I note that in STOL operations our pilots make a conscious effort to fly the traditional method with the aircraft trimmed for speed and the power varied to achieve the flight path. Therefore turbines – small ones at least – do not have to be flown using the ‘point and power technique’.
I agree that the technique works in any aircraft but that was not my point. In teaching the ‘point and power technique’ we are programming students to check approach path with elevator – therefore speed becomes a secondary consideration. If the aircraft descends below flight path and attitude is increased to recover, speed will decrease. The rate of decrease is dependent upon angle of attack, the greater the angle the more rapidly speed will reduce. On short field approaches where speed is targeted at the minimum approach speed there is not much margin for error.
On the other hand students trained in the conventional manner will recover from a below flight path or high ROD situation with power, a pre-requisite to going round which will be the next step if the ‘swimming in glue’ syndrome continues.
I worked for a school that taught the ‘point and power’ technique exclusively. One of my students during STOL practice failed to recognise a low-speed high ROD situation because he was too intent on pinning the aim point with elevator. My calls for ‘power’ went unheeded until I slammed the throttle forward. We landed softly with full power!
Low time students just don’t have the experience to put it all together, all of the time. Training should therefore safeguard the student until the basic skills and situation awareness are developed. In training pilots onto turbo props/jets I have never had a problem introducing the ‘point and power’ technique. To most experienced pilots the approach and landing just seems to happen with no conscious thought until taught an alternative method.
Our company operates a diverse turbine fleet including Cessna Caravans. The latter regularly operate into 420 metre strips. I note that in STOL operations our pilots make a conscious effort to fly the traditional method with the aircraft trimmed for speed and the power varied to achieve the flight path. Therefore turbines – small ones at least – do not have to be flown using the ‘point and power technique’.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Location: Location:
Age: 53
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moggie
errrr... everybody learning to fly doesn't want to fly Big Jets....
You have to teach the lowest common denominator at ab initio level, you cant ask everybody whether they have considered a career in commercial aviation when they are booking a trial lesson.
Im not disagreeing with your point of view about the technique point and power just your motives for teaching it to ab initio private flying types and having gone as far as saying that iit also needs to be said that there is a pattern emerging here, anybody else spot it?
errrr... everybody learning to fly doesn't want to fly Big Jets....
You have to teach the lowest common denominator at ab initio level, you cant ask everybody whether they have considered a career in commercial aviation when they are booking a trial lesson.
Im not disagreeing with your point of view about the technique point and power just your motives for teaching it to ab initio private flying types and having gone as far as saying that iit also needs to be said that there is a pattern emerging here, anybody else spot it?