Approach and landing speeds

[pilotbear]

I was wondering how many of you work for CFI's or Flight school owners who insist on teaching increased, and might I say incorrect, approach and landing speeds; with the excuse that the student might fly too slow and stall?

With the result that (for example) the PA28 warrior floats half way down the runway before touch down if you are lucky and the student has no idea of what is going on.

[justanotherflyer]

One often sees this when doing checkrides or familiarisation with new club or school members.

The manual may recommend threshold speed of, say, 65kt, as 1.3 x Vs, but the pilot will coast in at between 70-80kt, to use up half the runway bleeding off speed, ballooning, etc. It comes from an excessive fear and misunderstanding of slow flight, probably due to ill-conceived stall / slow flight initial training.

I apportion a fair bit of blame to instructors who make initial stall awareness and recovery training into a big piece of drama for nervous students, instead of imparting it as an understandable, practical acquisition of a flying skill.

[pilotbear]

Do you feel, as I do, that slow flight in landing configuration should be given more attention, ie setting up rates of descent with the throttle while maintaining speed with elevators, until it is a run of the mill part of the flying. I find it hard to believe that the most important moment of the flight is really not explained or practised more.
All I get from other instructors is "why bother because they won't do it right anyway"., or "it is too complex for the student"

[BEagle]

We did some research and discovered that there had been some wrong teaching about the approach speeds at my RF. People had been told to use 65kt as a Vat, not an approach speed - and to add another 5 for gusty conditions over 15kt, plus yet another 5 if there were 3 or more PoB.

All of which is complete ! The correct approach speed for a Warrior at max weight in any condition is 63 kts APPROACH SPEED! There is no real 'Vat' - if you fly the correct approach speed, 'pointing and powering' all the way down, then flare correctly having closed the throttle it will land properly.

Since I reduced the speeds to 70mph (Cherokee) and 65 Kts (Warrior), we haven't, touch wood, had any noswheel damage. But if someone flies at 70K-80K, the out-of-trim force at the flare will be substantial. They probably won't be able to control the eventual landing very accurately and an untidy effort will result!

I've heard that the fast, flat 3 deg approach with an enormously long final used to be favoured by one of those schools which trained future airline pilots - to 'get them used to the aspect'. Bolleaux!!

[MAXX]

I suppose i must have been lucky i guess.when i did my intial training my instructor spent a couple of hrs with me doing just what has been suggested on other posts,slow flying,flap use and effective elevator and rudder control.to finish me off and to get rid of my death grip on the control column he also took me through some basic aerobatics.(all of this really helped as i felt i could really fly the aircraft after that) of course that was 5000+hrs ago and i realize that i still cant fly and am still learning

[pilotbear]

Nice to see that some instructors are interested in the flying aspect. BEagle - I wonder if that is the same school that teach circuits in a Katana that go outside the ATZ by two miles to 'get the aspect of a 737 approach', thereby p.....g every body off including the tower.

the classic quote I heard today was from someone who said that were having trouble landing the Cherokee six. The problem being it wont stay on the ground. I said fly the accurate VAT speed from the book. the response was 'I don't need the book, I have tried all speeds, nothing seems to work'.

MAXX, you are right. A couple of hrs spent just flying the aeroplane pays huge dividends.

ps Is anyone interested in a discussion on use (or mostly misuse of the rudder)

[justanotherflyer]

I don't need the book, I have tried all speeds, nothing seems to work

Interesting (i.e. depressing, if not worrying) comment from a pilot of a relatively sophisticated craft such as the Cherokee Six.

To me it betrays a serious deficiency in understanding of what is actually happening aerodynamically. The mantra slow=bad, fast=good, is taught so routinely during initial training, that students (later PPLs and more) often never get their heads around the idea that slow can=good in certain circumstances. E.g. landing on a 400m runway.

One technique I use to to try to enhance students' intellectual understanding of what is happening to the airflow, lift, etc., by asking them visualise the air as a coloured, weighty fluid, and to try to see, feel and hear what it is doing in every regime of flight, what is happening to the angle of attack, and to describe it to me in physical (non formulaic) terms. I spend plenty of time getting them to fly various manouevers in the slow flight regime. When they see it doesn't fall out of the air, they get more comfortable with very precise speed control in the landing sequence.

Re the rudder: fruit for much discussion! I defy most successful PPL candidates to explain why it's needed at all... What are your specific thoughts on that forgotten control, pilotbear?

[pilotbear]

When I first did my PPL ( many moons ago) it was in a 'Learn in three weeks' school in sunny Florida. The worst mistake I ever made. I can remember now tightening climbing and descending turns by putting in more rudder and wondering if there was something wrong with ball as it was never in the centre, I am amazed I am still alive!

I came back here and and had some lessons with Dave Coulson and it was like a revelation. He taught me to lead the turn and more so, the rollout with the rudder assisted with aileron. It makes such a difference to the way the aircraft flies especially at slower speeds. (this paid dividends when I went on to fly seaplanes in the mountains of BC Canada where an uncoordinated turn will spin you in every time).

I am now sadly fanatical about rudder/aileron use.
For instance on the approach to landing I find that wing drop or misalignment with the runway is usually corrected by 80% of the pilots and students I get with hefty use of the ailerons, with the result that the nose ends up pointing in the wrong direction due to the adverse yaw, or we do a falling leaf approach (PIO).

In the PA 28 arrow if you use small aileron corrections for wing drop on approach the only thing that happens is that the ball moves from side to side. If however we feed the rudder into the equation not only do we get accurate small heading corrections, we find that we hardly need the ailerons at all.
In fact I get people to fly the approach with just rudder to make the point.
I have had people tell me that in a Cessna they need a bit of rudder on the full power climb but in a PA 28/38 you dont need it at all???
In a medium turn in a warrior it tends to overbank, so you need opposite aileron. ie in a right turn - left aileron. Therefore you need rudder to match this. So in a right turn you need left (or less right) rudder. This takes an inordinate amount of persuading of people who think the rudder turns the aeroplane like a boat.
I teach "you use the rudder because you use the ailerons". This is taught unequivocally frrom trial lesson onwards with no options.
I find that the people willing to take this on board can cope with a higher workload in the cockpit as the can fly S&L with just their feet while map reading or plog filling, and they have no trouble making smooth approaches even in windy conditions.
What do you think?

[Tinstaafl]

I always insisted on coordinated controls from their first lesson. About the only time they got to use aileron without rudder input was the very first part of 'effects of controls': Here's what the ailerons do, now you have a go... After that it was always with rudder.

[fireflybob]

>Do you feel, as I do, that slow flight in landing configuration should be given more attention, ie setting up rates of descent with the throttle while maintaining speed with elevators, until it is a run of the mill part of the flying. I find it hard to believe that the most important moment of the flight is really not explained or practised more. <

Funny but I always thought this is what, amongst other things, we were supposed to teach on Descending Part 2?

[FormationFlyer]

heheh. Chuckle. Well as BEagle is my CFI... - time to own up I guess ...

...only joking

We dont have a problem at our club - and most of our club PPLs are pretty good on these too - despite rather more tarmac available than one would ideally like for teaching landing....

Personally I use 75kts initial app speed @ 2 stages (Pa28) or 70kts 20deg in C152....becoming 65kts (pa28) and 60kts (c152) once full flap has been deployed.

I also insist on accurate speed control. By students and ppls alike. Proper speed control on final at the above speeds is critical to a good landing. I have never used them as Vat figures (as I said above - I use them as full flap approach figures).

I have never had a student or ppl stall on final approach. Not even with the ASI covered(!).

I dont teach higher speeds for more weight - these figures are already based on MAUW as BEagle said.

Regards
FF

[pilotbear]

Fireflybob, I am well aware of what we are supposed to teach - however, My point is that more time should be spent on that particular item, because like it or not I have found that speed control/rate of descent coordination is poor.
It may or may not be through poor instruction, more like underemphasis of the importance of it and lack of specific practice.
And as for slow flight, I have asked ppls and students how they have practiced this and why. The most common answer is as a precursor to stall recovery.
So as Justanotherflyer intimated, an important normal part of flying skill is associated in in the pilots mind with some thing scary so they avoid it.

Many hours ago when I was teaching float ratings in Canada, I found myself time and time again teaching the above flying skills to experienced British (sorry) pilots, along with how to use the moveable footrests - instead of just teaching landing on the water which is scary enough.

[FormationFlyer]

Interesting. I have to say that it is a sad enditement of many UK instructors that ex10A (slow flight) is not taught properly - and indeed it is not often explained to the student the situations (every day) that they can find themselves in this stage of flight (approach, go around from hold off etc)...

I personally think it is a very important lesson and well worth the 45mins spent flying it...would appear that many 'older' (i.e. non-JAR or rather > 20 years ago qualified instructors) seem to think differently.

One instructor who I know of used to say 'slow flight - thjats the stage between S&L & the stall' argh. He has now lost his medical - thank god - he should have lost his licence! (his own skills werent that great either) - p.s. he doesnt teach at the same schools as I do...

I think it is somewhat revealling to look at logbooks and try to find Ex10A and Ex11A logged as lessons...most logbooks either say Ex10. (another words they did stalling not slow flight) or the exercise isnt logged at all and you ust see 10B or 10B.1/10B.2.

Ho Hum. One can but try and encourage good standards though.

Regards,
FF

p.p.s Floatplanes are fantastic fun!

[poteroo]

Slow Flight/Use of Rudder

Interesting thread which developed out of the too fast approach speed post. Agree with just about everything said too

See a lot of the '2 - on - the - floor' syndrome here in my corner of Oz. Mostly Piper trained pilots too. Also, most PPL's seem to think that Vfe is the lowest end of the white arc you should dwell in until over the threshold. I don't think this is just a UK problem. It's very impressive watching them try to get a Cub on the deck at 60 kts approach!!

The slow flight training is IMHO essential to so many maneouvres, including precautionaries, low flying, bad weather flying, go rounds, orbiting etc, that there should be much more emphasis on it. Due our greater amount of rough air flying out here - hotter wx - it's useful to teach S&L using a rudder 'lead', which saves the pilot a lot of arm wrestling with aileronswhen they could be navving.

One of the other safety aspects of teaching slow flight is to teach them to 'lead' into the turns with power and rudder, and to look to make slow flight turns as minimum radius turns - not steep turns per se. Too much emphasis on high wing loading / steep turns at cruise speed,(which most pilots will never do in their lifetime). Not enough emphasis on the subtle skills of low wing loading, balanced, minimum radius turns at slow speeds.

For info, we specialise in low flying and tailwheel work in a C170 and a Supercub.

cheers,

[pilotbear]

I used to teach on the floatplane 'canyon turns', which as you described are min raduius turns, (slow with power and 2 stage flap C185). It used to scare people to death as they thought slow steep turns = spin in. However, this was a normal procedure in mountain flying. It is not encouraged by many people I know.

your place sounds like my kind of school RV6-VNE. Now that I am back in England the first time I got to fly low, someone rang the CAA to complain.


Formation flyer, you have had some floatplane experience then?

[justanotherflyer]

Excellent discussion, guys, with much food for instructional thought. I'm going to work with students more on the "minimum radius" concept from now on. Most students seem to be taught that minimum radius is obtained by adding power / speed and a massive bank angle.

When you think about it, the classical approach-to-landing accidents don't happen because the aircraft is "low, slow and turning" per se ... they happen because of a failure of control within that regime. It stands to reason therefore that a lot of work should be done in mastering the skills of control therein, instead of the unrealistic tactic of avoiding the regime altogether.

Pilotbear - not to go on a tangent (though isn't that the joy of bulletin boards... ), but have you any opinions on what might be a suitable float configuration for salt water operations. I'm thinking of moving to the seashore, dreaming of a little jetty with say, a cub or 172 on floats parked outside. But is it feasible on salt - corrosion, etc?

[pilotbear]

The problem you quite rightly said is the salt water. It gets in everywhere. You need to have the space to get the aroeplane out of the water to regularly hose it down with clean water.

A cub is fine if it is just for you to play around with, although a bit small. A 172 tends to be underpowered, however a C180/182 or ideally a C185 is an ideal combination of size and power.

On the sea you have to be very careful of waves and worse is the swell, particularly in a a/c like a cub or even a C172. in fact I would say no to that.

If you get amphibious floats you can then land on water and drive off up your ramp to wash the aeroplane down.

[kabz]

This one of the best threads I've seen in a while.

I spent my first 20 hours wrestling with the trim forces trying to land a 172 from too high approach speeds.

I didn't get taught about trim or rudder either, so you can imagine it was a bit traumatic.

I won't do the same thing to my students. (When I get to that point ... ;-) )

[FormationFlyer]

justanotherflyer Dont get confused here between min radius and max rate - what you described - high power high bank angle (pull to buffet) is a *max rate* turn. What pilotbear was talking about was a min radius turn...different beasty altogether.

pilotbear Indeed I do. I have a current SEP (Sea) rating on my licence

[pilotbear]

FF, did you do the professional seamanship written exam (CAA 30 Questions), or the PPL 20 question exam?