deehav, while I agree that it seems the only people who spend this much time and effort making 'simple' things like landing appear complicated are those that have trouble with them, you have to remember that this isn't a "flying tips for skillful operators" forum, but an "Instructor" forum.

Instructors run into people that have trouble with some aspect of flying everyday - that is what instructors do. Having another arrow in your quiver when teaching an aspect of flying is what makes a professional instructor.

As to the "Jacobson Flare" - I didn't bother with it unless a student was having trouble with round-out height. In that case I would explain the technique, and I usually found that the change in explaination, or the different way of looking at things out of the window would fix the problem.

deehav - if you are a whip at everything aviation, then all power to you - go and enlighten us all in "Tech". If you have never instructed, or have instructed but have never had a student struggle, then you have little to add here.

P.S. Sorry about the flame, but it is my firm belief that anybody that can obtain a car licence should be able to obtain a PPL, if their instructor is good enough, and they have a firm desire to succeed.

Nothing annoys me more than an instructor that has an attitude of "Landing is easy! If you can't simply land an aeroplane maybe you should reconsider your position."

[This message has been edited by Checkboard (edited 22 December 1999).]

It is interesting to note that if you take all the letters of "Jacobsons Flare", rearrange them, add a few and take a few others away you come up with "What a total waste of time, let us re reinvent the wheel again."

I understand the concept - after all,it's only triangles, and distance along a runway is easier to perceive while approaching than height above it.

But how does one determine the 'proper' distance prior to the aim point from which to commence the flare?

I used to have the maths describing the Jacobson flare technique but never used it in anger. Sort of read it with passing interest but don't remember / missed the point about how to find this required distance.

[This message has been edited by Tinstaafl (edited 23 December 1999).]

Dear checkboard,
I think you missunderstood my reply.
I got the impression that it is the flare height and the arrival that is helped by JF.
Not all flares and touchdowns are linear in there execution, there is an amount of juggling to be done.
The ability to judge height and recorrect if needed is what the instructor is looking for.
You cannot send a student solo if they can't bracket during the arrival.
You question my experience, unfortunately I am considered to be a bit of a dinosaur.It comes with age and dare I say it, experience.
These days I only instruct on DH-82 and DHC-1 if I wish to find the time.

Checkerboard. I think you need to sit down and have a nice cup of tea, because you are getting a bit tetchy and resorting to sarcasm. Deehav made a perfectly good point as far as the general application of the Jacobson flare is concerned. His post said "Remember it is how you handle the corrections, not the initial flare, that sets the truly skillful operators apart."

I would agree entirely with deehav. The flare is rarely the problem. It is the gyrations after the flare ie drift, balloon,yaw etc, that causes most concern with ab-initio students. Certainly you should not have to resort to statements of mathematical angles to teach someone when to flare in a C150. Just quietly say, "Watch how I do it, Bloggs and follow me through please" As someone said in an earlier post, students have learnt to land au natural since flight began.

DLV,

"The flare is rarely the problem. It is the gyrations after the flare ie drift, balloon,yaw etc, that causes most concern with ab-initio students. Certainly you should not have to resort to statements of mathematical angles to teach someone when to flare in a C150. Just quietly say, "Watch how I do it, Bloggs and follow me through please" As someone said in an earlier post, students have learnt to land au natural since flight began."

Gee whizz! I had almost forgotten about the "observational osmosis" theory of flight instruction. It is just a little easier than learning the "piano by ear" or taking the Spartan approach to survival training!

Actually, Checkers (who was already residing high in my regard) has elevated himself further - he faithfully reported something in which others had shown interest and demonstrated sgnificant maturity by passing on how he fitted the Jacobsen Flare into his instructional toolkit. He neither denigrated nor exaggerated, he merely acknowledged variety and utility. His reward? "Sit down and have a cup of tea"??? Shame on both your houses!

I have just been through an exercise where I had to revisit what I used to do quite "naturally", ie without conscious thought or analysis. I had some difficulty remembering how I did it, what cues I used, what control movements I used and most importantly what trade-offs I used. Certainly, I could have invited someone to "follow me through" without explanation, but then they would have been trying to emulate my thought processes as well as my physical manipulations without understanding. The few instructional successes that I have had (in 21 years of trying to do it better) have occurred when I have been able to explain the mechanics of what I am doing, the thought processes behind what I am doing and the ways that I occasionally modify the processes according to what I see. Jacobsen attempted to do that and, while I am personally ambivalent, has developed a significant following. In short, the technique/explanation/call it what you will has produced the goods for a lot of people - it seems to have earnt the right to survive.

Perhaps you and deehav should share a "Bex and a good lie down" while the rest of us recognise the balance in Checker's intentions, if not in his "watch me and follow me through".


------------------
Stay Alive,

[email protected]