No More Spin Training?
If students are taught right from go to use the rudder properly to maintain balance, particularly in a go around; and the nonsense about picking up a dropping wing with full opposite rudder was taken out of the text books then we are about as safe as we can be.
If for perceived flight safety reasons, or even under confidence of their own ability, instructors avoid demonstrating go around practice after the flare, there is no reason the manoeuvre cannot be conducted in the training area using (say) 1000 ft agl as simulated runway level. It is also important the student be taught the recommended go-around procedure found in the manufacture's POH and not an instructor's personal opinion.
It is failure to contain the yaw that occurs when high power is applied at low airspeed coupled with a nose attitude higher than optimum, that can lead to a wing drop into an incipient spin. A student needs several practices at go-arounds at the flare before he is deemed fully competent and this is why it is better done at a simulated runway altitude rather than wasting time on repetitive circuits just to get in a low go-around in crowded circuit area. It is also useful to conduct the practice under the hood (at safe altitude) in case of a night go-around at the flare or sudden onset of heavy rain obscuring the windshield
Grade 3 instructors should be required to demonstrate competency at low level go arounds on their instructor course. There is a big handling difference between a 200 ft go around and a go around off a severe bounce.
Last edited by Centaurus; 2nd May 2020 at 08:43.
A bit off topic but while I agree in principal with Centaurs re the need to be able to safely fly the go around from anywhere including close to the ground and in a low energy state, I think the broader issues is what I see on a daily basis. Too fast unstable approaches that should have been thrown away at 200 ft AGL but are pushed to the flare with the inevitable PIO and hard nose wheel first touchdown. I make my students call "stable" at 200ft AGL. If the aircraft is not on a steady flight path to the chosen touchdown point and within - 2 kts/+5 kts on the speed I want them to go around.
This is like the spin issue. Don't treat the symptom, you have let the aircraft get into a spin so now you have to recover,treat the cause. You failed to fly the aircraft effectively because you let it stall and then did not correct the yaw. That is what we want to teach students to recognize and avoid. Similarly lets concentrate on getting students to fly on speed stable approaches and insist that they don't push bad ones. AFAIK none of my students have ever had to go around at very low speeds and close to the ground after a massive bounce.
This is like the spin issue. Don't treat the symptom, you have let the aircraft get into a spin so now you have to recover,treat the cause. You failed to fly the aircraft effectively because you let it stall and then did not correct the yaw. That is what we want to teach students to recognize and avoid. Similarly lets concentrate on getting students to fly on speed stable approaches and insist that they don't push bad ones. AFAIK none of my students have ever had to go around at very low speeds and close to the ground after a massive bounce.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.avweb.com/features/pelic...ed-approaches/
Big Pistons Forever. The above link by John Deakin was written many years ago and contains practical advice for light aircraft final approach skills. Deakin makes the valid point that stabilised approaches have an entirely different meaning between a light trainer like a Cessna or Piper and an airliner type. Seems to me having your student call "Stable" at 200 feet is using an airline pilot technique that simply does not make sense when flying a light aircraft that has less inertia and thus more affected by wind changes. A normal approach in a Cessna or Piper single is in the region of six degrees whereas in an airliner it is more like three degrees
Keep in mind the Cessna 172 POH states under Normal Procedures: "Normal landing approaches can be made with power-on or power-off with any flap setting desired. Surface winds and air turbulence are usually the primary factors in determining the most comfortable approach speeds."
Big Pistons Forever. The above link by John Deakin was written many years ago and contains practical advice for light aircraft final approach skills. Deakin makes the valid point that stabilised approaches have an entirely different meaning between a light trainer like a Cessna or Piper and an airliner type. Seems to me having your student call "Stable" at 200 feet is using an airline pilot technique that simply does not make sense when flying a light aircraft that has less inertia and thus more affected by wind changes. A normal approach in a Cessna or Piper single is in the region of six degrees whereas in an airliner it is more like three degrees
Keep in mind the Cessna 172 POH states under Normal Procedures: "Normal landing approaches can be made with power-on or power-off with any flap setting desired. Surface winds and air turbulence are usually the primary factors in determining the most comfortable approach speeds."
sheppey, you are of course correct in that what approach flight path a light aircraft flies can vary significantly and be perfectly safe, unlike larger transport category aircraft where what constitutes a safe approach path is much more constrained. However the concept is fundamentally the same. If the aircraft is not doing what you want it to be doing at 200 ft than it is usually better to go around then try to force it back to where you want to be in the little time you have between 200 ft and the flare.
Also understand this is for student pilots. A high time pilot can make almost anything work on an approach, a low PPL not so much. However even then high timers sometimes have to throw a bad approach away. Last fall I was going to a small airport to do a flight test in my Grumman AA1 that I had not seen before with a shortish runway. Trees at the end and the way the ground sloped gave the illusion the runway was farther away then it was so when I turned my usual tightish base it left me high and fast on final. Even a full slip was setting me up for a mid field touchdown instead of the planned 300 ft from the numbers. I could have made it work but the approach was unstable because the aircraft was not on a flight path I wanted and fixing it would have involved some excessive maneuvering, so I went around, adjusted the circuit and the next time the approach was setting me up to touchdown exactly where I wanted.
As it happened the next day I was No 3 in a 4 ship formation of Nanchangs. After the break, flaps down at the perch and continuous curving approach with 40 deg of bank ( there was a strong crosswind) with the wings rolling level at 200 ft. The flight path and airspeed was at all times exactly what I wanted and resulted in a perfect line up to the runway with almost no variation in the bank angle. It was IMO a good example of a stable approach from the moment I rolled in off the downwind. The mental stable call at 200 ft was a foregone conclusion.
Bottom line the approach could be a power on approach tracking the glideslope of a power off full flap with side slip or anything in between, but at 200 feet either the aircraft will be on the predetermined flight path and speed or not. If it is significantly away from what you have decided you want to see then I think instructors should teach new pilots that it is time to go around. The easiest way IMO, is to get them to do this is to make a point of using the 200 AGL mark as decision point. Calling stable tells me they are thinking about where the aircraft is relative to where they want it to be.
If you don't like the word "stable" pick another one, but to the word describes exactly what you want to see, there is going to stability in the flight path and airspeed from 200 ft to the flare.
Also understand this is for student pilots. A high time pilot can make almost anything work on an approach, a low PPL not so much. However even then high timers sometimes have to throw a bad approach away. Last fall I was going to a small airport to do a flight test in my Grumman AA1 that I had not seen before with a shortish runway. Trees at the end and the way the ground sloped gave the illusion the runway was farther away then it was so when I turned my usual tightish base it left me high and fast on final. Even a full slip was setting me up for a mid field touchdown instead of the planned 300 ft from the numbers. I could have made it work but the approach was unstable because the aircraft was not on a flight path I wanted and fixing it would have involved some excessive maneuvering, so I went around, adjusted the circuit and the next time the approach was setting me up to touchdown exactly where I wanted.
As it happened the next day I was No 3 in a 4 ship formation of Nanchangs. After the break, flaps down at the perch and continuous curving approach with 40 deg of bank ( there was a strong crosswind) with the wings rolling level at 200 ft. The flight path and airspeed was at all times exactly what I wanted and resulted in a perfect line up to the runway with almost no variation in the bank angle. It was IMO a good example of a stable approach from the moment I rolled in off the downwind. The mental stable call at 200 ft was a foregone conclusion.
Bottom line the approach could be a power on approach tracking the glideslope of a power off full flap with side slip or anything in between, but at 200 feet either the aircraft will be on the predetermined flight path and speed or not. If it is significantly away from what you have decided you want to see then I think instructors should teach new pilots that it is time to go around. The easiest way IMO, is to get them to do this is to make a point of using the 200 AGL mark as decision point. Calling stable tells me they are thinking about where the aircraft is relative to where they want it to be.
If you don't like the word "stable" pick another one, but to the word describes exactly what you want to see, there is going to stability in the flight path and airspeed from 200 ft to the flare.
Deakin is a legend. And an awfully nice bloke. A voice of reason and experience, no ego considering his extensive experience. His guidance forms a great part of my instructing.
Here is the AIC Sunfish.
Can you tell me where it says "Casa have decided there will be no more spin training"
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...y-training.pdf
Can you tell me where it says "Casa have decided there will be no more spin training"
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...y-training.pdf
