Airspeed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
From: Chichester, UK
May I suggest that we have people with PPLs, who should not have them, as they have never really learned to fly.
Those that keep using the licence can start learning how to really fly an aeroplane - the old "licence to learn" cliché. If I compare myself against someone who really knows how to fly my aeroplane, then there is no doubt that i've got a long way to go, but i'm learning. If I had stuck with PA28s then I would probably still be flying for the most part in the way I was taught. Quite safely too.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
From: London UK
I cannot see any arguement that promotes any kind of 'two tier' level of training. You either learn to fly - properly - or you do not. Why complicate things with "only use this amount of flap" blah blah? Good gracious! Take the Warrior situation as an example - it is widespread mainly because Hershey Bar winged Cherrytrees used slightly higher speeds AND you can dissapate energy more easily in them.
The use of lesser flap settings (as described by the neophyte instructor) probably makes up for the fact that full flap and a huge surfeit of speed makes it near impossible to land tidily. Therefore first principles are totally ignored and another 'wrong' is added.
Adding speed is also used - I feel - to homogeonise handling feel from take-off to touchdown. The aircraft never actually feels much different throughout the flight whereas a Warrior (qv) at 65kt feels a little porridgy compared to the same machine at 75kt. I've no idea why this practise has occurred but I'm convinced that this 'smoothing' of handing response is partially behind it.
Utter disregard of appropriate speeds - however they are rooted - are usually covered up by the 'adding some for safety' maxim. There is never a situation that might warrant adding a greater than 10 knot margin to an approach speed for any light aircraft. 20% of the stall speed.
Sadly, the instructor base in this country (don't hate me for saying this) is very badly off for experience. Reason: the self-improver route as was actually promotes the emptying of experience from light aviation instructing. Now we are in a similar position whereby instructing serves only as a waiting room prior to entering the airlines. Because of this woeful lack of experience and interest in the subject there is very little to build on during what are usually short and rather narrow instructing careers.
I have been told by a flying club that to give me any part time instructing would be 'taking jobs away from the new guys'. I can understand that but it would seen that there is a philanthropic rationale behind employing instructors. It's a shame really. I'd like a part-time instructing position!
I think that one way of dealing with 'excess speed' and other rumours and wives' tales is to allow more non-professional instructors.
Just my 3.5 eurocents' worth
The use of lesser flap settings (as described by the neophyte instructor) probably makes up for the fact that full flap and a huge surfeit of speed makes it near impossible to land tidily. Therefore first principles are totally ignored and another 'wrong' is added.
Adding speed is also used - I feel - to homogeonise handling feel from take-off to touchdown. The aircraft never actually feels much different throughout the flight whereas a Warrior (qv) at 65kt feels a little porridgy compared to the same machine at 75kt. I've no idea why this practise has occurred but I'm convinced that this 'smoothing' of handing response is partially behind it.
Utter disregard of appropriate speeds - however they are rooted - are usually covered up by the 'adding some for safety' maxim. There is never a situation that might warrant adding a greater than 10 knot margin to an approach speed for any light aircraft. 20% of the stall speed.
Sadly, the instructor base in this country (don't hate me for saying this) is very badly off for experience. Reason: the self-improver route as was actually promotes the emptying of experience from light aviation instructing. Now we are in a similar position whereby instructing serves only as a waiting room prior to entering the airlines. Because of this woeful lack of experience and interest in the subject there is very little to build on during what are usually short and rather narrow instructing careers.
I have been told by a flying club that to give me any part time instructing would be 'taking jobs away from the new guys'. I can understand that but it would seen that there is a philanthropic rationale behind employing instructors. It's a shame really. I'd like a part-time instructing position!
I think that one way of dealing with 'excess speed' and other rumours and wives' tales is to allow more non-professional instructors.
Just my 3.5 eurocents' worth
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,400
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
POH speeds and flap settings are those which should be used at all times. True whether Cherokee 140, Warrior - or any other aeroplane for that matter.
The excessive speeds, incorrect flap settings and the myth that there are different techniques for PPL and CPL holders must be firmly knokced on the head. THEY ARE UNACCEPTABLE!
The excessive speeds, incorrect flap settings and the myth that there are different techniques for PPL and CPL holders must be firmly knokced on the head. THEY ARE UNACCEPTABLE!
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
From: Enniskillen
G the W
This instructor was just doing what he was told to do by the more experienced person who ran the FI course, it was simply this nonense of "keep the speed up and the flap up to keep them out of trouble".
M14P, you are back to the having "real pilots" instruct, and I fully agree.
Tony
This instructor was just doing what he was told to do by the more experienced person who ran the FI course, it was simply this nonense of "keep the speed up and the flap up to keep them out of trouble".
I think that one way of dealing with 'excess speed' and other rumours and wives' tales is to allow more non-professional instructors.
Tony
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 306
Likes: 0
From: UK Work: London. Home: East Anglia
When I did my PPL I had several problems which combined to give me an excellent illustration of the problems of excessive approach speed on the taperwing PA-28.
1. The flying school was wedded to the idea of 80 knots round the final turn and on an early lesson I was told "70 knots on final, reducing to 65 over the threshold"
2. I was a former glider pilot, and had learned to fly in a glider-like way on windy hilltops, where you accelerate rather than slow down to your approach speed, and you aim to hold that speed all the way down final, rounding out only at the very last moment. So once I was trimmed and stable in the approach at 70 knots, it was against all my ingrained instincts to slow down deliberately just at the point where I was subconsciously expecting the wind gradient to take away half my speed anyway
3. A nice sporting downhill runway...
4. No recognition or teaching at all of the very important point that stall speeds vary with weight.
We had one particular Warrior that was a real paper bag, very little equipment, light as a feather, and lovely to fly, and this bird was my personal swallow. For ages as a solo student I was landing safely enough but well down the runway and floating a long way, even with full flap. I was sure the speeds were excessive based on 1.3vs, remember I'd been told 65 KIAS "threshold", when actually it's 63KIAS at max gross for final according to the POH. One up with part fuel in that particular aeroplane, and 55 would have been safe in non-gusty conditions, with 50 over the fence. Tackled an instructor about it and gained the impression that, yes, I was floating beacuase I was going much faster than he would personally have done at that stage of flight, and thenext week when I asked him to demo one for me" just to remind me how it looks when an expert does it" he used near enough those speeds, and a very pretty landing with a 200 metre roll. But he would not utter any numbers other than the 80 / 70 / 65 that were written on the "official" club numbers sheet for the type. So in the end I adopted a technique of "do as I do, not as I say" and have not had any trouble with a PA-28 floating again, nor that dreadful feeling that the wheels aren't touching the ground properly after landing. It feels so much better when you drop he last inch at the lowest possible speed with the aeroplane feeling quite exhausted, it lands so easily, so slowly and so short.
1. The flying school was wedded to the idea of 80 knots round the final turn and on an early lesson I was told "70 knots on final, reducing to 65 over the threshold"
2. I was a former glider pilot, and had learned to fly in a glider-like way on windy hilltops, where you accelerate rather than slow down to your approach speed, and you aim to hold that speed all the way down final, rounding out only at the very last moment. So once I was trimmed and stable in the approach at 70 knots, it was against all my ingrained instincts to slow down deliberately just at the point where I was subconsciously expecting the wind gradient to take away half my speed anyway
3. A nice sporting downhill runway...
4. No recognition or teaching at all of the very important point that stall speeds vary with weight.
We had one particular Warrior that was a real paper bag, very little equipment, light as a feather, and lovely to fly, and this bird was my personal swallow. For ages as a solo student I was landing safely enough but well down the runway and floating a long way, even with full flap. I was sure the speeds were excessive based on 1.3vs, remember I'd been told 65 KIAS "threshold", when actually it's 63KIAS at max gross for final according to the POH. One up with part fuel in that particular aeroplane, and 55 would have been safe in non-gusty conditions, with 50 over the fence. Tackled an instructor about it and gained the impression that, yes, I was floating beacuase I was going much faster than he would personally have done at that stage of flight, and thenext week when I asked him to demo one for me" just to remind me how it looks when an expert does it" he used near enough those speeds, and a very pretty landing with a 200 metre roll. But he would not utter any numbers other than the 80 / 70 / 65 that were written on the "official" club numbers sheet for the type. So in the end I adopted a technique of "do as I do, not as I say" and have not had any trouble with a PA-28 floating again, nor that dreadful feeling that the wheels aren't touching the ground properly after landing. It feels so much better when you drop he last inch at the lowest possible speed with the aeroplane feeling quite exhausted, it lands so easily, so slowly and so short.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've never known anyone being taught that the Vref varies with loading.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
From: DNMM/UK
I totally disagree with this nonsense about minimum drag speeds and minimum flying speeds.
A good landing (tricycle) is one in which the flare begins at the right height, at the right speed (Vref) and the aircraft touches down on or within a reasonable distance of the intended touchdown point, main(s) first with no drift, followed by gentle lowering of the nosewheel. Anything else is unnecessary "flying club heroics" in airline pilot speak. The touchdown speed is irrelevant. I'm reading a book on a/c design at the moment. It says that the rule of thumb for main gear length is that is prevents a tailstrike at the AoA that produces 90% lift. A lot of spamcans give more gear clearance than that but it might explain why Vref may be higher than 1.3Vs in some cases.
The POH has Vref speeds and perf. charts. If the figures in the POH don't suit you, maybe you need another plane or more training. In the event of an accident, any heroics outside of what is recommended by the POH could lead to insurance problems if an accident occurs.
A lot of the techniques describes here may work in a taildraggers and the smaller range of aircraft but in a lot of the larger a/c with longer tails you'll be asking for trouble. Attempting some of the techniques mentioned previously in the larger high perf. a/c used in professional environment will end with " tea-no-biscuits" with the Chief Pilot. This probably explained a lot of the loss of control accidents during Approach in high performance GA aircraft flown by PPLs.
Most flight test tolerances for Vref are -0/+5KIAS.
Flying schools should students to follow the POH, the figures given there have been tested by test pilots with higher skill and experience than 99%of us. I would be very wary of any instructor who thinks he/she knows better than the aircraft designers and test pilots.
I think its safer (even though i don't approve) to teach people to come in 5kts faster that 5kts slower. Below Vref the aircraft is less stable and L/D ratio is lower, making harder to go-around.
I just wish that light A/C manufacturers could provide more Vref speeds for different weights and configurations.
Capt. M
A good landing (tricycle) is one in which the flare begins at the right height, at the right speed (Vref) and the aircraft touches down on or within a reasonable distance of the intended touchdown point, main(s) first with no drift, followed by gentle lowering of the nosewheel. Anything else is unnecessary "flying club heroics" in airline pilot speak. The touchdown speed is irrelevant. I'm reading a book on a/c design at the moment. It says that the rule of thumb for main gear length is that is prevents a tailstrike at the AoA that produces 90% lift. A lot of spamcans give more gear clearance than that but it might explain why Vref may be higher than 1.3Vs in some cases.
The POH has Vref speeds and perf. charts. If the figures in the POH don't suit you, maybe you need another plane or more training. In the event of an accident, any heroics outside of what is recommended by the POH could lead to insurance problems if an accident occurs.
A lot of the techniques describes here may work in a taildraggers and the smaller range of aircraft but in a lot of the larger a/c with longer tails you'll be asking for trouble. Attempting some of the techniques mentioned previously in the larger high perf. a/c used in professional environment will end with " tea-no-biscuits" with the Chief Pilot. This probably explained a lot of the loss of control accidents during Approach in high performance GA aircraft flown by PPLs.
Most flight test tolerances for Vref are -0/+5KIAS.
Flying schools should students to follow the POH, the figures given there have been tested by test pilots with higher skill and experience than 99%of us. I would be very wary of any instructor who thinks he/she knows better than the aircraft designers and test pilots.
I think its safer (even though i don't approve) to teach people to come in 5kts faster that 5kts slower. Below Vref the aircraft is less stable and L/D ratio is lower, making harder to go-around.
I just wish that light A/C manufacturers could provide more Vref speeds for different weights and configurations.
Capt. M
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
From: Enniskillen
Capt M
Try that at on my 400 yard farm strip, the touchdown speed is very relevent.
Most of us are talking about the "smaller range of aircraft"
I also fly multi engine high perf a/c and I do follow the POH.
There is NO reason for a PPL in a PA28 to come over the fence at 75 knots or above when the POH at max weight is about 63 knots and in most cases 60 or less is OK
Tony
The touchdown speed is irrelevant.
Most of us are talking about the "smaller range of aircraft"
I also fly multi engine high perf a/c and I do follow the POH.
There is NO reason for a PPL in a PA28 to come over the fence at 75 knots or above when the POH at max weight is about 63 knots and in most cases 60 or less is OK
Tony
Last edited by TonyR; 4th May 2004 at 10:50.
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
From: London UK
A lot of spamcans give more gear clearance than that but it might explain why Vref may be higher than 1.3Vs in some cases
the figures given there have been tested by test pilots with higher skill and experience than 99%of us
Tailscrape is generally not an issue in light types - especially when landing flap is used. The aircraft will usually stall first. Power on, however, it may be possible to reach a higher pitch attitude but still not significant enough to cause a strike.
Capt. M what specific loss of control accidents are you referring to?
Even your mention of 'gently lowering the nosewheel' whilst a nice thought is sadly impractical with most light types since the main gear/cp geometry tends to smash the nosewheel into the pavement without significant up elevator once the mains are on (the only exception being the 112/114 series which I've found to be perfect for 'landing the nosewheel').
I think that you are falling into the trap which causes these poor techniques to develop: treat every aircraft like an airliner. Let me tell you that just about any fully certificated straight-winged piston aircraft can be flown 'properly'. I know of no 'club' type which has any significant handling deficiency in the low speed regime. Whilst Arrows, Bonanzas, Saratogas, Comanches, 210s and all that stuff has higher performance than other types their speeds and weights do not vary significantly from lesser types and they are subject to all of the same laws of physics. Some wing sections can be dragged along in the flare to reach an exhausted climactic touchdown and others sink a little too heavily onto rather-too-firm undercarrige legs to make this a sensible idea.
Being below Vref will have negligable effect on aircraft stability - most of which is fixed due to the physics of the design anyway. All certificated aircraft will exhibit positive stabitily down to the stall. I feel that you are misusing the term. Going around will not be 'harder'; it might take a little more altitude (10 feet or so) to reach a desirable speed but it will be no more or less difficult. Although a range of speeds is not supplied for the Warrior an educated guess will reveal that a variance of 2 knots from the speed quoted at gross weight will not make all the difference whereas being 12 or 15 knots above this figure (as some flying instructors will teach) most certainly will.
Keep it simple - we're flying light aircraft
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
From: DNMM/UK
I wasn't aware this was a discusion that only concerned smaller aircraft. I am a regular FLYING reader so my picture of GA and private flying is more of an american one: a Citation parked next to a stearman.
M14P
Thanks for pointing out other factors used in determining Vref that i wasn't aware of, I'm still learning
I agree that most club aircraft exhibit docile low speed handling traits. But popular trainers such as the 152 and the Traumahawk can bite if care is not taken especially in a landing configuration. While a proficeint pilot may be able to keep the airspeed within the required tolerances, your average "weekend warrior" may struggle to keep within +/- 5kts. Also, and i stand to be corrected on this one, I doubt if there are any aircraft that are more controllable below than above Vref. Workload is highest during landing, so a Keeping-it-Simple approach will be to fly at or slightly above Vref.
This debate is a similar to the speeding debate, alot of people think it safe to drive at 80mph on the motorway. maybe the CAA should fit speed cameras near the threshold and charge people for coming in too slow
.
TonyR,
400m, piece of cake
Capt. M
M14P
Thanks for pointing out other factors used in determining Vref that i wasn't aware of, I'm still learning
I agree that most club aircraft exhibit docile low speed handling traits. But popular trainers such as the 152 and the Traumahawk can bite if care is not taken especially in a landing configuration. While a proficeint pilot may be able to keep the airspeed within the required tolerances, your average "weekend warrior" may struggle to keep within +/- 5kts. Also, and i stand to be corrected on this one, I doubt if there are any aircraft that are more controllable below than above Vref. Workload is highest during landing, so a Keeping-it-Simple approach will be to fly at or slightly above Vref.
This debate is a similar to the speeding debate, alot of people think it safe to drive at 80mph on the motorway. maybe the CAA should fit speed cameras near the threshold and charge people for coming in too slow
.TonyR,
400m, piece of cake
Capt. M
Not so N, but still FG
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
From: London, UK
By the way, DubTrub was right: Neville Shute did design the Airspeed:
http://www.nevilshute.org/PhotoLine/...31-1940-02.php
I am intrigued to learn that all GA in the US consists of flying in either Citations or Stearmans (Stearmen?). Is that why they off-loaded all those old spam cans on the UK?
http://www.nevilshute.org/PhotoLine/...31-1940-02.php
I am intrigued to learn that all GA in the US consists of flying in either Citations or Stearmans (Stearmen?). Is that why they off-loaded all those old spam cans on the UK?
Last edited by FNG; 4th May 2004 at 16:46.
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
From: Enniskillen
Capt M
How many times have you read an AAIB report that begins like this
"The pilot of the PA28 was visiting a shorter strip than his home base, he looked up the POH and the 600 M was well within limits.......................... after the aircraft floated 2/3 along the runway before touchdown the pilot braked hard but was unable................ the aircraft hit the fence at the end of the airfield"
"The AAIB considered that excess SPEED on approach was the main cause"
I read such reports far too often.
And yes 400 yards is a piece of cake if you land at the beginning at the correct speed.
Tony
How many times have you read an AAIB report that begins like this
"The pilot of the PA28 was visiting a shorter strip than his home base, he looked up the POH and the 600 M was well within limits.......................... after the aircraft floated 2/3 along the runway before touchdown the pilot braked hard but was unable................ the aircraft hit the fence at the end of the airfield"
"The AAIB considered that excess SPEED on approach was the main cause"
I read such reports far too often.
And yes 400 yards is a piece of cake if you land at the beginning at the correct speed.
Tony
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
From: London UK
your average "weekend warrior" may struggle to keep within +/- 5kts
Terrorhawks and 152 cannot bite unless grossly mishandled (they are aircraft that can only just kill you!). They are nothing other than massively docile trainers - that applies to the whole flight envelope. Bar stories spring up about "...there I was, this dratted 152 was evil, I tell you..." - For goodness' sake!
This discussion is nothing like m/way speed limits. What a perverse way of describing it. We are not specifically talking about flying accurately - more about using the correct speeds in the first place (before any sloppiness is accounted for).
Stearmen (?) and Citations, indeed! Help me, please. I want a flying club where we teach people to fly the aeroplane that they are actually sitting in rather than the one the instructor wants to be sitting in. Arrrgh!
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
From: Here and There
I think because of this thread and the sideslipping one, I have actually become a better pilot in just 2 1/2 hours flying at the weekend.
I have just sold my own aircraft and am back to renting PA28s, I went out with an instructor at the weekend and learned to fly at the correct speed. I was able to stop the warrior in about 250M with very little use of the brakes.
We were 2 up and not much fuel, I approached at 60 knots with full flap and then to 55 over the fence.
We had gone up and stalled the aircraft and then did some very slow flying.
I was orginally taught to approach nearly 20 knots faster in the same PA28.
The instructor has only recently become convinced that we all fly the approach too fast.
When we need to land short we need to know the minimum speed to approach.
Ken
I have just sold my own aircraft and am back to renting PA28s, I went out with an instructor at the weekend and learned to fly at the correct speed. I was able to stop the warrior in about 250M with very little use of the brakes.
We were 2 up and not much fuel, I approached at 60 knots with full flap and then to 55 over the fence.
We had gone up and stalled the aircraft and then did some very slow flying.
I was orginally taught to approach nearly 20 knots faster in the same PA28.
The instructor has only recently become convinced that we all fly the approach too fast.
When we need to land short we need to know the minimum speed to approach.
Ken
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 2
From: UK
FNG
Not a chance.
Spotters only know about registrations; they know nothing of aeroplanes and aviation and are interested in neither. If they are interested in the objects that the registrations are painted on, they are enthusiasts, and therefore disqualified from joining the ranks of the spotter.
SSD
Not a chance.
Spotters only know about registrations; they know nothing of aeroplanes and aviation and are interested in neither. If they are interested in the objects that the registrations are painted on, they are enthusiasts, and therefore disqualified from joining the ranks of the spotter.
SSD
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
From: Australia
Along the same lines as some of the earlier posts I found that doing some hours in a taildragger really highlighted the importance of flying an accurate approach and nailing the speeds down base and final for a good landing.
And one of the most important things i've learnt to date when it comes to mastering 'the landing' is to keep flying the plane! - don't give up a few feet above the runway and leave it to your karma/fate/god etc... - 'fly it' til you're stopped.
And one of the most important things i've learnt to date when it comes to mastering 'the landing' is to keep flying the plane! - don't give up a few feet above the runway and leave it to your karma/fate/god etc... - 'fly it' til you're stopped.