BlueHauler - no, we are insisting that pilots refer constantly to both speed and touchdown point throughout the entire approach. Keeping the aim point nailed, any IAS change is rapidly noted and corrected, the magnitude of any errors and rate of corrective power changes become less as experience is gained so that they become virtually seamless.

And it's SO VERY EASY!!

BEagle


I agree that both parameters must be monitored but when one parameter deviates from the target, it is corrected, possibly at the expense of the other and that was my experience. I subsequently compromised by teaching point and power in normal circuits but reverted to the traditional technique for STOL. Point and power will not work in glide approaches as attitude controls air speed not rate of descent. At the bottom of the glide power is used to arrest the rate of descent and also to climb. Therefore sooner or later you must revert to the traditional method.

The traditional method is also easy if you instruct the student to pin speed with attitude and then trim. Speed is maintained with elevators. If the aiming point moves up the windshield put the power up…if it moves down, put the power down. Now that is not too hard is it?

I would be interested in your method for STOL or are you folk fortunate enough to not have to deal with short bush strips?

The whole idea is that one parameter remains fixed - aiming point. The other is continually corrected.

If an approach angle is flown to an aiming point which allows the required constant approach speed to be maintained with a power setting somewhere between idle and max, then the technique can be used. It worked quite happily in the Bulldog when we were teaching 'short landing' technique with the IAS very close to the 'wrong side of the drag curve' - it just neede rather more prompt power application and more frequent IAS cross-checking.

Thanks Beagle,

The interesting issue is that for every adjustment of power there needs to be a corresponding adjustment with elevator to achieve the profile, whether we use traditional or point and power technique. In other words point and power is not a change in aerodynamics but a change in the state of mind of the pilot!

In my country CFI’s fly with the regulator (Flight Operations Inspector) three times every two years. Two Instrument Rating and one Instructor Rating renewals. My FOI (ex-military) was adamant that point and power was not a technique to be taught ab-initio. In some ways I agreed but argued along the lines of most of the ‘pro’ posters above – and lost.

I then had to convince the troops, many of whom were experienced airline captains (the school is voluntary, training air minded youth) and as most readers will realize there are two distinct camps of ‘compartemtalised’ individuals. Those who would not succumb to cognitive dissonance just had to be pressured.

My own opinion is that ‘point and power’ simplifies early circuit training but undoes some of the skill that can be applied to short field landings. Beagle thanks for the discussion. I suspect we have just created more questions for the poster and readers.

The technique taught flying to mountain strips in France is exclusively "point and power" - and the strips can sometimes be exceptionally short.

The view is that for a short landing, nothing is more important than an accurate touchdown point, which can only be achieved using a fixed aiming point and stable speed. If pitch is used to control airspeed, it becomes impossible to focus on the aiming point - and consequently you will miss the touchdown point, which on the shortest strips means you will break something.

Aerobatic Flyer

The overiding factor on a short field landing is speed. If the approach speed is higher than published then the distance from fifty feet above the surface to touch down will be greater. If touch-down speed is higher then the ground roll will also be greater. Even if the aiming point is achieved the upwind fence becomes an arrestor cable – not so good.

If approach speed is controlled using the traditional technique and the aiming point is overshot then one simply applies full power and goes ‘round - not so bad.

The downside of point and power for STOL is that if rate of descent increases, casuing the aircraft to drop below the glidepath then the initial reaction is to increase nose pitch. This causes an increase in drag and a rapid reduction in airspeed. An adept pilot will quickly apply power to recover speed. The student will not be quick enough and the result will be a heavy landing or stall from low altitude.

This argument seems to go on and on. I'm sorry for prolonging it. A couple of answers first.
blueskis - pitch at stall is to reduce Angle of attack, nothing to do with speed (in a 4 g manoeuvre your stalling speed will be twice the normal Vs).
Blue line - What do you do when after take-off the aircraft appears not to climb as desired at blue line? Point to where you want it to go??????????
I thought I better go and consult 'the bible'. In Australia we have what used to be called Pub 45 (I don't know it's current number). It is written by our Regulator for the guidance of Instructors. Our Regulator states "speed must be controlled with elevator and the rate of descent and thus the approach path, with throttle". Perhaps I'm a weaklings but I do as they suggest. And it has worked well for my for the last 35 years. It also works, for me into strips that are to the meter the minimum calculated. (many times I have to reduce the load to just fit). In fact I think I'd be in trouble if I used the point methodology on short strips.

I'd be interested to hear what does your Regulator suggest / require. Perhaps we are just a victim of history or geography.

Whichever method you use you will become competent in its execution, it generally doesn't matter which. The difference I think comes with the size and speed of the aircraft you're flying; the point and power mothod becomes more and more the one to use. On smaller aircraft it's purely a matter of choice. Try both and see which one you prefer. Just don't get evangelistic about it :D .
We don't have a single 'bible' as such. The RAF 'bible' pronounces that point and power shall be the method thou dost use, the civil world is left to follow its own messiah and beware false idols as best it can. For it is written.

Yes,it is 'horses for courses'. Having in the past been an enthusiastic exponent of point and power I am not so sure anymore. I agree the amount of inertia/weight of your particular steed probably determines the best method to use. I have seen drawbacks to both methods when applied to light aircraft.
The average student struggling to maintain a constant glidepath (why do we call it that ?) using the 'old method' is often reluctant to change his approach path in the last 100ft and goes where the aircraft takes him -usually to the middle of the runway where he feels pressurised into completing his landing before he runs out of runway. For this problem I have introduced point and power in the 'last 100ft'
The reason I no longer advocate 'point and power' earlier (higher) is that our average (non RAF selected) student seems to cope better with the old method. It also gets him out of trouble when he hits the wrong side of the drag curve and and elevators will restore the speed by reducing induced drag faster than the power input he is likely to make'

It is also better in the strong wind gradient situation.

It also makes sense when teaching to maintain two reds and two whites -PAPIs.

However, remember, that you cannot, in a light aircraft, expect to make any change to pitch without a corresponding change to power and vice versa - all other things being equal. A experienced pilot is seamlessly using the two together.

If you teach the 'old method' a competent student is in fact using point and power in the latter part of the approach to bring his speed back to the Vat - and he is doing this without realising it has a name.

Sorry to preach. I only have 14,000 hours but something like 25,000 approaches and landings - not to count the bounces !

Blue Hauler

You're right, accurate speed control is essential landing on a short strip, as is touching down at the correct point.

Usually, yes. But in the mountains, this just isn't an option. Nor is undershooting. If things go wrong, the best you can hope for is a low-speed impact at the uphill end of the strip.

There is not really a lot of difference between the two techniques, however. On an approach to a mountain strip, final approach is initially flown at a level attitude until the glideslope is intercepted, then approach power is set and the aiming point is aimed at. If speed is too high, you reduce power.... but, if you always fly approaches in the same way, the only reason for the speed being too high is that your approach is too steep and you are above the glideslope.

The power reduction that I use to control speed is therefore effectively controlling my height!

Aerobatic Flyer

Years ago I flew Cessna 180 aircraft in and out of short strips, clay-pans and sometimes just rough clearings in remote areas of the country. Some were one-way strips due to the slope or terrain. Our technique was to approach at 1.1 Vs. The full flap stall speed of the aircraft was 36 KIAS therefore approach with full flap was flown 40 KIAS. In such a scenario the final approach required much control with the throttle to keep the aiming point correctly positioned – we had the throttle friction backed right off. As angle of attack was just below the stall there would have been no room to manoeuvre with nose pitch if the aircraft slipped below the flight path. The aircraft was stabilised at 40 KIAS in pretty much the three-point attitude and being a tail wheel type required little or no further flare. However sometimes conditions could inflict a higher rate of descent just prior to ‘impact’ and this was corrected with power!

My philosophy on the technique centred on a right-angle triangle. The baseline representing horizontal speed, the perpendicular representing ROD and the hypotenuse the TAS. If ROD could be increased for a given TAS then the baseline would reduce and so would ground-roll! In such a technique the use of power is the only way to arrest ROD.

I don’t advocate STOL at 1.1 Vs. If the strip is too short to approach at 1.3 Vs then simply reduce payload until it fits – particularly since a Cessna Caravan costs many times more than a C180. I would advise any non-instructor types to use the technique they were taught and stick with what works best.

My commentary on the topic was more aimed at instructors and the need to consider all teaching options as many students progress into various types of flying. We should therefore not only teach both techniques but also ensure the student is fully conversant with the logic of each. My preference is to delay the 'point and power' technique until it fits the scenario i.e.: high inertia, low drag airframes.

19xx
 

Hmm 40 Year Flyer, we're the same vintage (and a damned fine wine it is too!). Maybe that is why I agree with much of what you are saying. However, I 'switch' earlier in the approach: when comfortably lined up and a touchdown point can be properly selected.

It's interesting how polarised views are on this topic. The truth is, that both teaching methods work; otherwise 50% of students would be in smoking holes!

:)

Whilst in an ideal world both techniques could be taught, in reality for ab initio training, the time (and cash) constraints mean that to attempt to teach two different techniques might well cause confusion, and would certainly reduce the students experience at flying one type of approach

Martini (I used to know a girl by that name; probably a grandmother by now) I don’t think anyone is suggesting teaching both methods as a landing technique. In my book, one is a technique for a powered decent (power controls, indirectly, RoD). That technique is employed to control the decent in the pattern until the landing point can be selected. The other is a technique for landing an aircraft (point the aircraft where you want to land and control the speed with the throttle).

It’s a simple proposition, and intuitive. I’ve taught it for years to both those who are gifted, selected, and bound for jets, and those who are struggling, without aptitude, and bound nowhere. I’ve also attempted to employ the ‘theory’ model. Personally, I’ve had less success with it. I’ve found the gifted students learn whatever (i.e. despite me), but those who struggle, struggle more with the “power controls RoD” model.

After years of discussion and practice, I’m comfortable with the way I do it and I regard it as a safer technique for the less able/experienced, as discussed earlier.

But that’s just my opinion.

Horses for courses
 

Fibod.
Thanks for that. I agree the 'switch' has to made higher than 100ft otherwise there isn't time to adapt to the new technique. I tried out my 100ft this week and it is too late.
I can no longer criticise a student who uses the old method o maintain a good visual approach path, or papis, and decides to go 'point and power' in the last part to achieve a possible touchdown 'just after the numbers'. However this can produce a 'banana' shape to the approach profile particularly if he has been using papis (which are set up for a touchdown beyond the numbers).
I cannot resist telling the tale of how I had to impress my CFI (Boss to Americans - not certified flying instructor). This was a short field pattered landing. He had a cold so the upper work was 'binned' which suited me fine as I always felt sick after the mandatory spin aeros etc, Suffice to say I really worked hard in the Chipmunk to land it next to the 'caravan' . There was NO POINT AND POWER in this approach - I could see nothing of the windscreen in the back seat and it was all 'along the side' of the left fuselage. I managed to achieve the 'increase of power' to reduce the vertical component in the approach path so that a touchdown was achieved in the right place at an incredibly low speed. If the runway caravan had been a 'snowbird' size mobile home (minus compact car at the back) I would have claimed a landing to full stop in the length of the caravan. Nothing to boast of here-just bringing the two threads that have been running here together.