Landing Technique....Not that old chestnut!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Goatrider, yes it all helps, thanks for your reply, im interested to hear how people teach/fly the landing.
On the A4, how did you control flight path? with pitch or power? any money it was pitch for path, power for speed....
On the A4, how did you control flight path? with pitch or power? any money it was pitch for path, power for speed....
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BP5,
When flying an A4 to a carrier, the Landing Signals Officer would call for "power" if he observed the aircraft going low on glidepath ie power was controlling glidepath - pitch controlled "alpha".
GAGS
E86
When flying an A4 to a carrier, the Landing Signals Officer would call for "power" if he observed the aircraft going low on glidepath ie power was controlling glidepath - pitch controlled "alpha".
GAGS
E86
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barberspole-5
Don't know about you, but I would add power and lower the nose. Unlike the scenario I gave when airspeed is constant, you require an increase in kinetic energy and don't want to sacrifice gravitational potential at any greater rate, so the only means of energy input you have (short of changing configuration) is to burn more fuel.
Obviously you and I can see that you are using both power and attitude to adjust your speed while remaining on slope, but this can be a bit complex for a very new student. If you break it down into two steps - your too slow, lower the nose - the resulting increase in ROD means you’re too low, so add power. The more intelligent student will pre-empt the second step, and do both at the same time. The less intelligent student will pick this up with experience.
This is why I have always told my students to apply ALL proceedures in conjunction with common sense. A proceedure is just a template.
Don't know about you, but I would add power and lower the nose. Unlike the scenario I gave when airspeed is constant, you require an increase in kinetic energy and don't want to sacrifice gravitational potential at any greater rate, so the only means of energy input you have (short of changing configuration) is to burn more fuel.
Obviously you and I can see that you are using both power and attitude to adjust your speed while remaining on slope, but this can be a bit complex for a very new student. If you break it down into two steps - your too slow, lower the nose - the resulting increase in ROD means you’re too low, so add power. The more intelligent student will pre-empt the second step, and do both at the same time. The less intelligent student will pick this up with experience.
This is why I have always told my students to apply ALL proceedures in conjunction with common sense. A proceedure is just a template.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE]Using 'more height means more coal' analogy, if im on profile but slow how do I adjust the speed?[/QUOTE]
Cloud Clutter,
For a newby, its hard enough to stay on the glideslope, I would have thought a power application would be easier, because if the student lowers the nose he is now low and probably not on the correct speed either.
If he maintains the attitude and adds power the secondary effect would be a pitch up, but so long as they keep their aimpoint in a constant place on the windscreen, applying elevator as required, all they have to do is keep the aimpoint in a constant place in the windscreen.
It seems a little strange that people teach ILS's by using pith for path, but teach a visual approach pitch for airspeed, at the end of the day why not tech pitch for path? the aeroplane doesnt know the difference between a visual approach and an ILS.
Don't know about you, but I would add power and lower the nose.
For a newby, its hard enough to stay on the glideslope, I would have thought a power application would be easier, because if the student lowers the nose he is now low and probably not on the correct speed either.
If he maintains the attitude and adds power the secondary effect would be a pitch up, but so long as they keep their aimpoint in a constant place on the windscreen, applying elevator as required, all they have to do is keep the aimpoint in a constant place in the windscreen.
It seems a little strange that people teach ILS's by using pith for path, but teach a visual approach pitch for airspeed, at the end of the day why not tech pitch for path? the aeroplane doesnt know the difference between a visual approach and an ILS.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you increase airspeed by adding power, and maintain the same attitude you will get high on glidepath as per the lift formula. You would need to move your aim point higher up the wind screen.
Who does this? By the time people are flying an ILS, they should have a grasp on the equilibrium of forces acting on an aircraft and not need these made-up little rules of thumb. At this stage it would be better to teach 'power and pitch control airspeed and glidepath'.
people teach ILS's by using pith for path
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: planet igloo
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For larger planes.....
Thrust controls airspeed..i.e. set it..tweak it..forget it...
Elevator controls ROD more or less...check at 30' radio...flare at 20' radio..and hold....ease the thrust levers closed as the mains..caress the tarmac
Thrust controls airspeed..i.e. set it..tweak it..forget it...
Elevator controls ROD more or less...check at 30' radio...flare at 20' radio..and hold....ease the thrust levers closed as the mains..caress the tarmac
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit that I find this post an interesting read. I'd like to throw a new spin on the subject.
I personally prefer the point and shoot technique described above, and from my experience is the easier of the two methods to teach a student. Power however does not control airspeed or loss of altitude. It controls only one thing. Energy. The elevator does not control airspeed or loss of altitude. It converts energy.
The power, or to be more technically correct, the throttle controls the Energy of an aircraft. If we think back to out physics days, Kinettic Energy, is the energy of a moving body, in this case an aircraft's airspeed. Potentional energy of an aircraft can be in two forms. Both its height above the ground, and the fuel in the tanks. The fuel in the tanks (potentional energy) can be turned into either Potentional energy (height), or Kinettic energy (airspeed).
Alright. Here's an experiment for you next time you're out flying. And this will only work in smooth conditions. Trim the aircraft for straight and level flight. Once established, apply full power (while not exceeding red line), balance with rudder, but do not touch the control column. What happens? The aircraft will pitch up and start to climb. Here we are converting the potentional energy of the fuel into potentional energy in the form of height. But . . . . Have a close look at what happens to the airspeed. You will find that it has reduced by a few knots.
Lets put this in plain english. Increasing power, causes a reduction of airspeed. We are however adding more energy to the equation, and thus have more height that we can turn back into airspeed if desired.
Now, if we conduct the same experiment, but this time hold the attitude the same, we get an increase in airspeed. So this time we are converting the Potentional energy of the fuel, into Kinettic energy, in the form of airspeed. Now we have more energy in the equation, and thus have more airspeed that we can turn into height if desired.
So this means that a change in power adds energy to the equation in the form of either Potentional Energy (height), or Kinettic Energy (airspeed). What converts between the two? Simple. The elevator. You can trade airspeed for height, or height for airspeed very easily.
Now getting back to an approach. Power changes effect the energy of the aircraft. We've established that. Whether you want to turn it into Kinettic energy, or Potentional energy is entirely up to you. You either adjust the control column, or you don't. We have all been in a situation where an aircraft has too much energy. Either too fast or too high on finals, which, if not managed correctly, results in an embarressing situation, and possibly a trip to the maintenance hangar.
At the end of the day, both techniques are correct. One uses the throttle to control potentional energy, and the other to control kinettic energy. The elevator controls the other form of energy. Either technique can be learned by a student, with no right or wrong way of flying the approach. And for the record, if you give this explination to a student on his / her first circuit lesson, they're liable to take up lawn bowls instead. Always use the KISS principle.
As for the landings. I haven't figured those out yet. I just close my eyes. . . . . . . .
I personally prefer the point and shoot technique described above, and from my experience is the easier of the two methods to teach a student. Power however does not control airspeed or loss of altitude. It controls only one thing. Energy. The elevator does not control airspeed or loss of altitude. It converts energy.
The power, or to be more technically correct, the throttle controls the Energy of an aircraft. If we think back to out physics days, Kinettic Energy, is the energy of a moving body, in this case an aircraft's airspeed. Potentional energy of an aircraft can be in two forms. Both its height above the ground, and the fuel in the tanks. The fuel in the tanks (potentional energy) can be turned into either Potentional energy (height), or Kinettic energy (airspeed).
Alright. Here's an experiment for you next time you're out flying. And this will only work in smooth conditions. Trim the aircraft for straight and level flight. Once established, apply full power (while not exceeding red line), balance with rudder, but do not touch the control column. What happens? The aircraft will pitch up and start to climb. Here we are converting the potentional energy of the fuel into potentional energy in the form of height. But . . . . Have a close look at what happens to the airspeed. You will find that it has reduced by a few knots.
Lets put this in plain english. Increasing power, causes a reduction of airspeed. We are however adding more energy to the equation, and thus have more height that we can turn back into airspeed if desired.
Now, if we conduct the same experiment, but this time hold the attitude the same, we get an increase in airspeed. So this time we are converting the Potentional energy of the fuel, into Kinettic energy, in the form of airspeed. Now we have more energy in the equation, and thus have more airspeed that we can turn into height if desired.
So this means that a change in power adds energy to the equation in the form of either Potentional Energy (height), or Kinettic Energy (airspeed). What converts between the two? Simple. The elevator. You can trade airspeed for height, or height for airspeed very easily.
Now getting back to an approach. Power changes effect the energy of the aircraft. We've established that. Whether you want to turn it into Kinettic energy, or Potentional energy is entirely up to you. You either adjust the control column, or you don't. We have all been in a situation where an aircraft has too much energy. Either too fast or too high on finals, which, if not managed correctly, results in an embarressing situation, and possibly a trip to the maintenance hangar.
At the end of the day, both techniques are correct. One uses the throttle to control potentional energy, and the other to control kinettic energy. The elevator controls the other form of energy. Either technique can be learned by a student, with no right or wrong way of flying the approach. And for the record, if you give this explination to a student on his / her first circuit lesson, they're liable to take up lawn bowls instead. Always use the KISS principle.
As for the landings. I haven't figured those out yet. I just close my eyes. . . . . . . .
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GOATRIDER....go back to your 207 mate your not even close.
Barberspole5 your spot on. Push/pull with your right hand until the Flight Path Marker (FPM) was on the desired bit of runway and do the same with the other hand until the E bracket was in the middle of the FPM. Piece off piss....this of course (was) the joys of having a HUD and performance flying to your hearts content. If the ROD was less than 800fpm approaching the hard black stuff you would let her drive on, but any more than that then a burst of power was applied to arrest the ROD (2000' fpm my ar$e...you would break the jet)
75% power from memory was min inflight so you didn't go there...in the early days you were taught to take about 4% off your downwind setting as you tipped base and popped the boards out which put it around 82-84%ish. Being a good Bograt thou' the approved technique was to A; do such a tight CCT you never rolled out in the downwind, B; as you tipped base keep lots of power on, pop the board and overbank to drop the nose (around 80 degrees looked satis) and C; roll wing level as you cross the threshold.
Glory days...now have to worry about flaring, critique from the SLF etc etc etc
Barberspole5 your spot on. Push/pull with your right hand until the Flight Path Marker (FPM) was on the desired bit of runway and do the same with the other hand until the E bracket was in the middle of the FPM. Piece off piss....this of course (was) the joys of having a HUD and performance flying to your hearts content. If the ROD was less than 800fpm approaching the hard black stuff you would let her drive on, but any more than that then a burst of power was applied to arrest the ROD (2000' fpm my ar$e...you would break the jet)
75% power from memory was min inflight so you didn't go there...in the early days you were taught to take about 4% off your downwind setting as you tipped base and popped the boards out which put it around 82-84%ish. Being a good Bograt thou' the approved technique was to A; do such a tight CCT you never rolled out in the downwind, B; as you tipped base keep lots of power on, pop the board and overbank to drop the nose (around 80 degrees looked satis) and C; roll wing level as you cross the threshold.
Glory days...now have to worry about flaring, critique from the SLF etc etc etc
Last edited by kmagyoyo; 23rd Nov 2005 at 17:50.
On Final
Pitch for the Airspeed
Power for the Altitude
Pitch for the Airspeed
Power for the Altitude
From Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators pp 350-352 by H. H. Hurt, Jr. University of Southern California, published by U.S. Navy 1960, revised 1965:
[Italics and capitals in original text.]
If you want a recent reference, go to the article on angle of attack in the latest Aust Flying. It notes that all those speeds you remember (best ROC, best glide etc) are actually attempts to achieve an angle of attack that produces the corresponding performance.
For the conditions of steady flight with a given airplane, each angle of attack corresponds to a specific airspeed. Each angle of attack produces a specific value of [lift coefficient] and each value of [lift coefficient] requires a specific value of equivalent airspeed to provide lift equal to weight. Hence, angle of attack is the primary control of airspeed in steady flight.
Primary control of airspeed in steady flight by angle of attack is an important principle. …
[T]he rate of climb in steady flight is a direct function of the difference between power available and power required. … For this reason, it is apparent that power setting is the primary control of altitude in steady flight. …
FLYING TECHNIQUE. Since the conditions of steady flight predominate during a majority of all flying, the fundamentals of flying technique are the fundamentals of steady flight:
(1) Angle of attack is the primary control of airspeed.
(2) Power setting is the primary control of altitude, i.e., rate of climb/descent.
With the exception of the transient conditions of flight which occur during maneuvers and acrobatics, the conditions of steady flight will be applicable during such steady flight conditions as cruise, climb, descent, takeoff, approach, landing etc. A clear understanding of these two principles will develop good, safe flying techniques applicable to any sort of aeroplane.
Primary control of airspeed in steady flight by angle of attack is an important principle. …
[T]he rate of climb in steady flight is a direct function of the difference between power available and power required. … For this reason, it is apparent that power setting is the primary control of altitude in steady flight. …
FLYING TECHNIQUE. Since the conditions of steady flight predominate during a majority of all flying, the fundamentals of flying technique are the fundamentals of steady flight:
(1) Angle of attack is the primary control of airspeed.
(2) Power setting is the primary control of altitude, i.e., rate of climb/descent.
With the exception of the transient conditions of flight which occur during maneuvers and acrobatics, the conditions of steady flight will be applicable during such steady flight conditions as cruise, climb, descent, takeoff, approach, landing etc. A clear understanding of these two principles will develop good, safe flying techniques applicable to any sort of aeroplane.
If you want a recent reference, go to the article on angle of attack in the latest Aust Flying. It notes that all those speeds you remember (best ROC, best glide etc) are actually attempts to achieve an angle of attack that produces the corresponding performance.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps I support Pprune by posting regularly.
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure WTF you're all talking about...
I use the MCP to control flightpath and the Speed Window (A/T) to control IAS.
I must say, and it was nearly 20 years ago, but I thought the RAAF taught:
POWER = ROD and AIMPOINT
and
ATTITUDE = IAS.
That's why they like young guys who have flown gliders prior to Pilots' Course because they know how to control IAS using attitude.
I use the MCP to control flightpath and the Speed Window (A/T) to control IAS.
I must say, and it was nearly 20 years ago, but I thought the RAAF taught:
POWER = ROD and AIMPOINT
and
ATTITUDE = IAS.
That's why they like young guys who have flown gliders prior to Pilots' Course because they know how to control IAS using attitude.
Itchy, the RAAF basic training technique for at least 20 years has been:
Round base, attitude for IAS and power for ROD (check height half way round)
On final, elevator to set aimpoint, power for airspeed.
If on the wrong profile, choose a new aimpoint (eg if too low on path, set the aimpoint further up the runway temporarily, keep using power for IAS, when back on profile, reselect the numbers as the aimpoint).
Just the way it was taught, works for many but obviously there are more than one way to skin the cat.
Round base, attitude for IAS and power for ROD (check height half way round)
On final, elevator to set aimpoint, power for airspeed.
If on the wrong profile, choose a new aimpoint (eg if too low on path, set the aimpoint further up the runway temporarily, keep using power for IAS, when back on profile, reselect the numbers as the aimpoint).
Just the way it was taught, works for many but obviously there are more than one way to skin the cat.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now days I fly power for airspeed but in lighties used to fly attitude for airspeed. One good reason for using attitude for airspeed I reckon is when your 50hour ppl student finds themselves on the back side of the drag curve they will instinctively lower the nose if their airspeed starts to decay. anyone agree?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when your 50hour ppl student finds themselves on the back side of the drag curve they will instinctively lower the nose if their airspeed starts to decay. anyone agree
In larger aircraft you have more inertia, so you can pretty much set the power as required for a certain airspeed, and use the pitch to fine tune the flight path. This is of course what the A/P or F/D does on a non A/T aircraft.
As mentioned above I came from the 'Power for speed, Elevator for Aimpoint' school of finals technique; just a question for them that do it the other way (oo-er matron!) - doesn't it feel a bit wishy-washy using power to adjust your finals aimpoint?
I guess I like the directness of being able to 'peg' the aimpoint at a certain spot in the windscreen with elevator and drive on down using the throttle to keep the speed right.
Having said that, I keep an open mind, so would be happy to hear opinions from youse that use the opposite tack, so to speak.
I guess I like the directness of being able to 'peg' the aimpoint at a certain spot in the windscreen with elevator and drive on down using the throttle to keep the speed right.
Having said that, I keep an open mind, so would be happy to hear opinions from youse that use the opposite tack, so to speak.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Number 86 you're right. A man is entitled to an opinion but he's not entitled to be wrong in his facts. Fail. I could claim senility but won't. Only had to lean over and get the book out of the bottom drawer.
Cut gun in close------POWER, POWER, POWER-------hello ramp
Blue Skies,
Brian
Cut gun in close------POWER, POWER, POWER-------hello ramp
Blue Skies,
Brian
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes CC if attitude is the same and power is applied you will be higher than GS.
I'll just clear things up.
On Gs and slow means attitude is too high with not enough power which means add power for speed and re-adjust attitude to put the aimpoint where it should be in the windscreen.
Not the safest option near the ground, especially in a high flare, first and foremost GO AROUND by adding power. With go-around power, power is now fixed, control of the airspeed would be with the elevator such to avoid an excessively low airspeed.
As for earlier final power again I would say would be safest, obviously inconjunction with adjust of attitude, to ensure a stall situation does not develop.
I'll just clear things up.
On Gs and slow means attitude is too high with not enough power which means add power for speed and re-adjust attitude to put the aimpoint where it should be in the windscreen.
when your 50hour ppl student finds themselves on the back side of the drag curve they will instinctively lower the nose if their airspeed starts to decay. anyone agree
As for earlier final power again I would say would be safest, obviously inconjunction with adjust of attitude, to ensure a stall situation does not develop.
Last edited by Barberspole-5; 26th Nov 2005 at 02:13.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, if you encounter significant negative shear on short final in a light aircraft it is critical (particularly for a student) that you lower the nose in addition to adding power. I had to do this a couple of weeks ago going into Wellington as the speed went from Vref + 20 to less than Vref in the space of a couple of seconds at about 100 ft - it is a very important instinct to develop IMO for anything other than a very large or swept wing aircraft.
Under these conditions you would do well to avoid a 'high flare' which would really just be asking for it. The practice of adding half the gust factor to your Vref is really just a way of keeping more AofA up your sleeve. By the way, it wasn't just deluded old me doing this on the day in question - just about every T/P on approach had a good 3-5 degree nose down pitch at some point on short final.
Under these conditions you would do well to avoid a 'high flare' which would really just be asking for it. The practice of adding half the gust factor to your Vref is really just a way of keeping more AofA up your sleeve. By the way, it wasn't just deluded old me doing this on the day in question - just about every T/P on approach had a good 3-5 degree nose down pitch at some point on short final.