Landing Question!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landing Question!
I have a landing question, which is still bothering me (I am post solo but not with too many PIC hours). With my previous instructor, I used to have pretty decent landings using the following sequence (Cessna 172M):
1: Fly a good pattern
2: Slow down on final with full flaps (70 mph); and stay on glidepath if there are visual aids if not use sight picture
3: Maybe trim a bit
4: Slow down a bit more when field is made (1.3Vso)
5: Round out in ground effect
6: Close throttle as I flare, not before
This is the method University of North Dakota shows in one of their instructional videos, so I don’t think it is anything new. The method seemed to work well, to say the least. Pretty smooth controlled landings. Also, I never pull up to extend the glide and I am good at slow flight so never worried about stalling.
In the middle of training got new CFI. He is one of the best (experienced, well respected, not going to an airline or anything) and has improved everything else about my flying but landings are another story. He insisted that I was coming in too low and slow; and we were in danger of stalling. I never heard of that from my previous CFI. Now new landing method:
1: White over white on final or generally high
2: 70 (mph) all the way until we cross threshold and keep the nose down regardless of descent rate
3: No round out in ground affect but continuous change of attitude from flying to landing
In both cases we would add gust factor so that is not a problem.
In his method of landing, we bounce and such half of the time, and I am convinced that it can’t be a reasonable way to land. Even if we were trying to clear an obstacle, then once obstacle is clear we slow the plane on the runway then round out then flare. He seems to not agree. He used to tell me that 1.3Vso could cause a stall, I finally responded that I was not going to pull up to stretch the glide, and we can always keep some power in till the flare, then he finally said it is not the stall he is afraid of but a hard landings, which I am yet to experience with my method.
What am I missing about what he wants me to do? I got some advice on another forum but still quite puzzled, as the CFI went from worrying about stalls to now worried about hard landings. We can try his method for hours but it is so hard to carry so much speed till the last second.
1: Fly a good pattern
2: Slow down on final with full flaps (70 mph); and stay on glidepath if there are visual aids if not use sight picture
3: Maybe trim a bit
4: Slow down a bit more when field is made (1.3Vso)
5: Round out in ground effect
6: Close throttle as I flare, not before
This is the method University of North Dakota shows in one of their instructional videos, so I don’t think it is anything new. The method seemed to work well, to say the least. Pretty smooth controlled landings. Also, I never pull up to extend the glide and I am good at slow flight so never worried about stalling.
In the middle of training got new CFI. He is one of the best (experienced, well respected, not going to an airline or anything) and has improved everything else about my flying but landings are another story. He insisted that I was coming in too low and slow; and we were in danger of stalling. I never heard of that from my previous CFI. Now new landing method:
1: White over white on final or generally high
2: 70 (mph) all the way until we cross threshold and keep the nose down regardless of descent rate
3: No round out in ground affect but continuous change of attitude from flying to landing
In both cases we would add gust factor so that is not a problem.
In his method of landing, we bounce and such half of the time, and I am convinced that it can’t be a reasonable way to land. Even if we were trying to clear an obstacle, then once obstacle is clear we slow the plane on the runway then round out then flare. He seems to not agree. He used to tell me that 1.3Vso could cause a stall, I finally responded that I was not going to pull up to stretch the glide, and we can always keep some power in till the flare, then he finally said it is not the stall he is afraid of but a hard landings, which I am yet to experience with my method.
What am I missing about what he wants me to do? I got some advice on another forum but still quite puzzled, as the CFI went from worrying about stalls to now worried about hard landings. We can try his method for hours but it is so hard to carry so much speed till the last second.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit of a curate's egg there. The first instructor is teaching you to approach too low if my assumption is correct that you are using PAPIs to maintin a 3 degree glidepath. That's for instrument traffic - for a VFR 172 you need to be approaching steeper than that.
Main thing is not to be too fast at the point the approach is stabilised - on a calm day 60kts is plenty. You'll soon tell if you're too fast as the flare will go on and on before the aeroplane lands, floaty floaty down the runway, as it dissipates the excess speed before running out of energy and touching down (you do fully hold-off, don't you?).
Main thing is not to be too fast at the point the approach is stabilised - on a calm day 60kts is plenty. You'll soon tell if you're too fast as the flare will go on and on before the aeroplane lands, floaty floaty down the runway, as it dissipates the excess speed before running out of energy and touching down (you do fully hold-off, don't you?).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are looking at two different approach styles! One a powered approach two a glide approach.
The glide tends to be high with an almost closed throttle and appears to be flavor of the day with some instructors probably because it protects a novice pilot from getting slow and in a high AOA situation which a powered approach can do if your not on the button with power and speed management.
There are numerous benefits to the powered approach if flown correctly there are numerous negatives to a glide approach and not many benefits so I see the glide as a trainee pilot approach which you need to dump when you gain more experience.
Pace
The glide tends to be high with an almost closed throttle and appears to be flavor of the day with some instructors probably because it protects a novice pilot from getting slow and in a high AOA situation which a powered approach can do if your not on the button with power and speed management.
There are numerous benefits to the powered approach if flown correctly there are numerous negatives to a glide approach and not many benefits so I see the glide as a trainee pilot approach which you need to dump when you gain more experience.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 29th Apr 2013 at 18:22.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dear original poster...first, get a new instructor.
someone just wrote that the PAPIs were for instrument flying...wow...I'm shaking my head on that one.
second...go out and buy the book, ''stick and rudder'' and read it...esp on landings and stalls.
and 1.3vso is just fine for approaches and landings assuming you have an operating engine.
on final, you should be at published approach speeds/vref plus gust factor and that should be 1.3vso.
You won't stall if you are being attentive.
A normal landing/approach with engine operating normally should be on VASI/PAPI and at target approach speed. As you are crossing the fence (old term) you may reduce power and speed to end up touching down at vref minus 5 knots (not miles perhour) in the touchdown zone (frist third of the runway).
I'm not talking about a situation in which you are avoiding wake turbulence, I'm not talking about landing over a 50' obstacle, or higher than average or allowable winds.
(former CFIIMEI)
oh, and just so you know, if you aren't looking to go to an airline, that doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make you a better instructor.
Listen my new airplane friend, over 30 years ago I was getting checked out in a tomahawk...the instructor (mind you I had a CFI at the time) was WOEFULLY AWFUL. SHE said she wouldn't fly at published approach speeds for the plane...she insisted on being over 13 knots too fast (no wind). I asked her about it and she was terribly worried about stalling.
She was an awful instructor. She was so bad (how bad was she?) that another time she brought a plane back to the flight line saying the flight controls were broken...actually she had the autopilot turned on!!!!!
So...find another instructor...get that book and read it.
yes, be concerned about stalling...be alert, be ready to recover...but if you come in too fast there can be many problems including, but not limited to : wheelbarrowing, porposing, breaking off the nose landing gear, floating most of the runway away, going off the end of the runway.
I had just checked out someone in a Cessna 177, he had done a fine job. Just as we were parking the plane I reminded him to never go too fast on landing and then I pointed to a C152 coming in way too fast...I said: WATCH THIS>>>HE WILL LAND on the nosewheel, break it off and wreck the plane.
AND IT HAPPENED...just like I said. I ran to the plane and helped th epilot out.
There are rotten instructors out there...i don't know the person you have, but something aint right
someone just wrote that the PAPIs were for instrument flying...wow...I'm shaking my head on that one.
second...go out and buy the book, ''stick and rudder'' and read it...esp on landings and stalls.
and 1.3vso is just fine for approaches and landings assuming you have an operating engine.
on final, you should be at published approach speeds/vref plus gust factor and that should be 1.3vso.
You won't stall if you are being attentive.
A normal landing/approach with engine operating normally should be on VASI/PAPI and at target approach speed. As you are crossing the fence (old term) you may reduce power and speed to end up touching down at vref minus 5 knots (not miles perhour) in the touchdown zone (frist third of the runway).
I'm not talking about a situation in which you are avoiding wake turbulence, I'm not talking about landing over a 50' obstacle, or higher than average or allowable winds.
(former CFIIMEI)
oh, and just so you know, if you aren't looking to go to an airline, that doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make you a better instructor.
Listen my new airplane friend, over 30 years ago I was getting checked out in a tomahawk...the instructor (mind you I had a CFI at the time) was WOEFULLY AWFUL. SHE said she wouldn't fly at published approach speeds for the plane...she insisted on being over 13 knots too fast (no wind). I asked her about it and she was terribly worried about stalling.
She was an awful instructor. She was so bad (how bad was she?) that another time she brought a plane back to the flight line saying the flight controls were broken...actually she had the autopilot turned on!!!!!
So...find another instructor...get that book and read it.
yes, be concerned about stalling...be alert, be ready to recover...but if you come in too fast there can be many problems including, but not limited to : wheelbarrowing, porposing, breaking off the nose landing gear, floating most of the runway away, going off the end of the runway.
I had just checked out someone in a Cessna 177, he had done a fine job. Just as we were parking the plane I reminded him to never go too fast on landing and then I pointed to a C152 coming in way too fast...I said: WATCH THIS>>>HE WILL LAND on the nosewheel, break it off and wreck the plane.
AND IT HAPPENED...just like I said. I ran to the plane and helped th epilot out.
There are rotten instructors out there...i don't know the person you have, but something aint right
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess my initial method of landings are the ones I need to stick with. From the day I started flying with this instructor he kept trying to change my landings, although I repeatedly kept insisting that his method of landing with speed did not agree with me. Initially, he kept insisting that we could stall! I tried for hours trying to please him, but pointing the nose down for 70 mph when the conditions don't require it is just not right. Yes, we kept bouncing and having other landing problems, and he kept insisting a bit more practice and it will be better. Or that I would get the sight picture. But, I never had problem with sight picture after I learned how to land with the first instructor.
Finally, a week ago, I told him we'll be 65 on short final and there is no chance we'll stall. I have quite a few hours in the log book and too experienced to pull to stretch the glide. I use power as needed, and we, of course, had a great landing. As mentioned before, landings have not been a problem before I met him. Just, general need to build confidence, which by now is not an issue either. He was quite upset and told me to never do that again. I told him that there was no risk of stalling, and we were in no danger. Then he told me he was not worried about stalling anymore but worried about a hard landing. I am assuming he was worried about the power management.
I understand the issue about losing engine at some point on short final and getting in trouble, but then I guess it is emergency operations territory and one would have to land short, assuming no obstacle. Carrying speed does not seem risk free.
I did try to find a midway to please him coming in at 70 till we cross threshold, then slowing down while eating the runway then attempting to land with more reasonable speed. The midway kept him at bay, but still made the landings harder than I think they should be, with more power adjustments to switch from his glide to my way of landing.
Finally, a week ago, I told him we'll be 65 on short final and there is no chance we'll stall. I have quite a few hours in the log book and too experienced to pull to stretch the glide. I use power as needed, and we, of course, had a great landing. As mentioned before, landings have not been a problem before I met him. Just, general need to build confidence, which by now is not an issue either. He was quite upset and told me to never do that again. I told him that there was no risk of stalling, and we were in no danger. Then he told me he was not worried about stalling anymore but worried about a hard landing. I am assuming he was worried about the power management.
I understand the issue about losing engine at some point on short final and getting in trouble, but then I guess it is emergency operations territory and one would have to land short, assuming no obstacle. Carrying speed does not seem risk free.
I did try to find a midway to please him coming in at 70 till we cross threshold, then slowing down while eating the runway then attempting to land with more reasonable speed. The midway kept him at bay, but still made the landings harder than I think they should be, with more power adjustments to switch from his glide to my way of landing.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dear against gravity
twice you have said you use 70 MPH...doyou have an old plane with miles per hour on the air speed indicator or are you mistaken?
we use KNOTS (nautical miles per hour).
have you looked up the published speeds in your pilot opearting handbook? have you ever actually done a weight and balance and then checked the exact speed you should use with full flaps on final?
you speak of stretching the glide...well that is good to know...but as long as you have engine power available you aren't really gliding so much as making a power on approach and landing.
yes, constantly look for a place to land IN AN EMERGENCY...I even do that in the jet...but try a very long final...at least three miles started from 1000' on VASI/PAPI fully configured for landing at the published speed...not faster.
if you get low and slow add power (its no sin to add power...even max power))
high and fast reduce power.
don't be afraid to go around.
but I don't know why you are changing speed on final unless you are accomadating trailing traffic. you are just learning and stable approaches at the right speed are vital.
twice you have said you use 70 MPH...doyou have an old plane with miles per hour on the air speed indicator or are you mistaken?
we use KNOTS (nautical miles per hour).
have you looked up the published speeds in your pilot opearting handbook? have you ever actually done a weight and balance and then checked the exact speed you should use with full flaps on final?
you speak of stretching the glide...well that is good to know...but as long as you have engine power available you aren't really gliding so much as making a power on approach and landing.
yes, constantly look for a place to land IN AN EMERGENCY...I even do that in the jet...but try a very long final...at least three miles started from 1000' on VASI/PAPI fully configured for landing at the published speed...not faster.
if you get low and slow add power (its no sin to add power...even max power))
high and fast reduce power.
don't be afraid to go around.
but I don't know why you are changing speed on final unless you are accomadating trailing traffic. you are just learning and stable approaches at the right speed are vital.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Against Gravity -
I have suffered all sorts of instructors, both in the USA and the UK. And clearly as you are paying this guy, if he doesn't float your boat its time to bail out!
Not only that, try a different airfield, and a different flying club/school. Where do you live in the US? that will help me advise you. As you have started flying a Cessna 172, probably wise to stick with the type; make sure however that it is well maintained! And have a good thorough read of the Pilots Operating Handbook.
Practice gentle stalls at altitude. Any good instructor shouldn't be afraid to stall!
Its no big deal, really. After all, a good landing is a stall near the ground.
Six to 8 inches, that is. A stall from 10 feet can be painful.
Avoid ex military instructors.
It's supposed to be fun, remember?
I have suffered all sorts of instructors, both in the USA and the UK. And clearly as you are paying this guy, if he doesn't float your boat its time to bail out!
Not only that, try a different airfield, and a different flying club/school. Where do you live in the US? that will help me advise you. As you have started flying a Cessna 172, probably wise to stick with the type; make sure however that it is well maintained! And have a good thorough read of the Pilots Operating Handbook.
Practice gentle stalls at altitude. Any good instructor shouldn't be afraid to stall!
Its no big deal, really. After all, a good landing is a stall near the ground.
Six to 8 inches, that is. A stall from 10 feet can be painful.
Avoid ex military instructors.
It's supposed to be fun, remember?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it is a very old plane so everything in the POH is in mph. And, yes, I know the speeds : ) Vso 50 mph 1.3Vso 65 adjust for gusts works like a charm
I guess the debate is I am used to 1.3Vso short final, using power as needed and full stall landing. No problems with landings that way whatsoever. Until I ended up with this instructor never had a landing problem.
I don't change speeds on short final, at least did not use to do. This guy insists he needs nose down and 70 mph on short final, no leveling off in ground effect and some sort of continuous attitude change to land. Of course, half of these landing end up in a bounce.
I finally decided we are slowing down, he got mad, then I found a way to keep 70 until he stops paying attention once over the threshold, then start slowing down eating runway, then leveling off and landing. He is somewhat onto me in terms of not doing exactly what he wants, but can't argue with the 70 until the threshold.
So why do I debate keeping him, he is a good instructor in all other aspects. I have no problem with anything else, pretty much have a lot of hours under the belt, so power-off power-on stalls, slow flight, steep turn, emergency procedures are all pretty much on track. Landings we fight over. I just wanted to make sure I am not the only one that sees a problem with what he is trying to teach me.
I guess the debate is I am used to 1.3Vso short final, using power as needed and full stall landing. No problems with landings that way whatsoever. Until I ended up with this instructor never had a landing problem.
I don't change speeds on short final, at least did not use to do. This guy insists he needs nose down and 70 mph on short final, no leveling off in ground effect and some sort of continuous attitude change to land. Of course, half of these landing end up in a bounce.
I finally decided we are slowing down, he got mad, then I found a way to keep 70 until he stops paying attention once over the threshold, then start slowing down eating runway, then leveling off and landing. He is somewhat onto me in terms of not doing exactly what he wants, but can't argue with the 70 until the threshold.
So why do I debate keeping him, he is a good instructor in all other aspects. I have no problem with anything else, pretty much have a lot of hours under the belt, so power-off power-on stalls, slow flight, steep turn, emergency procedures are all pretty much on track. Landings we fight over. I just wanted to make sure I am not the only one that sees a problem with what he is trying to teach me.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm
Something is not right here? Firstly if you do not get on with an instructor, have a clash of personality or do not trust his methods or advice change instructors!
My guess and its only a guess is this instructor is one of the glide approach instructors plus!
He will have you coming down a steep glidepath throttle closed, full flap at 70 knowing because of your steep and draggy approach as soon as you flare the speed will quickly drop off!
Do you notice the throttle in the descent? Is it almost fully closed on teh way down and is your descent steep with a lot of drag hanging out.
More detail please
Pace
Something is not right here? Firstly if you do not get on with an instructor, have a clash of personality or do not trust his methods or advice change instructors!
My guess and its only a guess is this instructor is one of the glide approach instructors plus!
He will have you coming down a steep glidepath throttle closed, full flap at 70 knowing because of your steep and draggy approach as soon as you flare the speed will quickly drop off!
Do you notice the throttle in the descent? Is it almost fully closed on teh way down and is your descent steep with a lot of drag hanging out.
More detail please
Pace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace, throttle is fully closed most of the time in his method. I think it is the glide method. If so, is this something I need to learn? I am a bit skeptical about it since although it minimizes the risk of not making the field if engine gives, it increases the guesswork (speed) in flare.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: amsterdam
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not really relevant if you are 1.3vso or +10kts. This depends entirely on how you like to land and what the plane likes.
I never managed to get in a proper landing on a c182 in all 4 attempts, and I believe this is due to the fact that the fi sitting next to me wants me to come in real slow with full flaps. The c182 is an aircraft you want to "fly against the deck" meaning a bit more speed light flare slow descent rate.
My commander I will typically land at 85kts (flaps 10) and she seems to love that allthough the other day I landed her with 110kts when it was 30kts gusting 50 .. into the wind ... you could have put an egg between .. real smooth.
Find what looks sensible and makes you comfortable. A bit faster is not a problem.. but whatever you do .. stay in control of power and pitch.
My ppl instructor loved it when I landed the c172 with the stall horn blowing on the last 2 meters. But he would get very annoyed if it is was any earlier then that.
ask for another fi and see if that clicks better. Remember you are the customer and you pay the bill ... which does not mean that you are always right.
Last week I did my seaplane rating and I had this FI sitting relaxed next to me, never touching a thing .. letting me fly and telling me tips afterwards. In the afternoon I got another FI because of some logistics. From the moment we left he was very nervous, correcting me very fast and even touching the yoke many times .. before I could even correct myself. This unsettled me quite a bit and offcourse you do worse then.
The next morning I didone more hour with the first fi and she never touched anything but was just very pleased .. then I did my cpl seaplane and past with flying colours.
Find a fi where you are comfortable with and who you believe you learn from!
p.s. generally it is handier to have the need for a bit of throttle for control (so you have margins 2 ways) .. however at some point you will start doing glide in approaches with no throttle. Then you will probably start learning the difference and thus get better control.
remember that a landing can be a pretty hectic thing so if you do not control airspeed you will stall on a landing and that is generally not a very good thing
a bit of margin is allways nice
I never managed to get in a proper landing on a c182 in all 4 attempts, and I believe this is due to the fact that the fi sitting next to me wants me to come in real slow with full flaps. The c182 is an aircraft you want to "fly against the deck" meaning a bit more speed light flare slow descent rate.
My commander I will typically land at 85kts (flaps 10) and she seems to love that allthough the other day I landed her with 110kts when it was 30kts gusting 50 .. into the wind ... you could have put an egg between .. real smooth.
Find what looks sensible and makes you comfortable. A bit faster is not a problem.. but whatever you do .. stay in control of power and pitch.
My ppl instructor loved it when I landed the c172 with the stall horn blowing on the last 2 meters. But he would get very annoyed if it is was any earlier then that.
ask for another fi and see if that clicks better. Remember you are the customer and you pay the bill ... which does not mean that you are always right.
Last week I did my seaplane rating and I had this FI sitting relaxed next to me, never touching a thing .. letting me fly and telling me tips afterwards. In the afternoon I got another FI because of some logistics. From the moment we left he was very nervous, correcting me very fast and even touching the yoke many times .. before I could even correct myself. This unsettled me quite a bit and offcourse you do worse then.
The next morning I didone more hour with the first fi and she never touched anything but was just very pleased .. then I did my cpl seaplane and past with flying colours.
Find a fi where you are comfortable with and who you believe you learn from!
p.s. generally it is handier to have the need for a bit of throttle for control (so you have margins 2 ways) .. however at some point you will start doing glide in approaches with no throttle. Then you will probably start learning the difference and thus get better control.
remember that a landing can be a pretty hectic thing so if you do not control airspeed you will stall on a landing and that is generally not a very good thing
a bit of margin is allways nice
Last edited by Ellemeet; 30th Apr 2013 at 07:24.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace, throttle is fully closed most of the time in his method. I think it is the glide method. If so, is this something I need to learn? I am a bit skeptical about it since although it minimizes the risk of not making the field if engine gives, it increases the guesswork (speed) in flare.
The glide approach does that although I do not agree with the arguments that you can make the field by being high.
More likely you will have a closed throttle and will
Not know that the engine has stopped until
You need it and fixate on landing on
The field .
There are dangers that you will
Be high and fast and land long etch.
The powered approach gives you a more precise landing point and more control
Over the glide approach which is steeper with a more abrupt flare
Pace
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
someone just wrote that the PAPIs were for instrument flying...wow...I'm shaking my head on that one.
It's most unprofessional to drag a light single in at 3 degrees, power against drag, especially if there's a built up area underneath, unless you are going for an ultra short landing at a strip with no obstacles.
'The lights' are for instrument traffic to translate from ILS to visual for the landing, so they reflect the 3 degree glideslope of the ILS. They are not appropriate for light singles.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shaggy sheep driver WHY ?
A competant pilot is unprofessional flying a powered approach rather than a throttle off steep glide approach over a built up area?
Then what do you do taking off in the same aircraft over a built up area ? Refuse to go ?
Engine failure is far more likely on take off when the unit is under max stress not on approach!
Conditioned thought
So I presume that it's unprofessional to fly light singles IFR where you have to fly a 3 degree or less glide slope ?
Pace
A competant pilot is unprofessional flying a powered approach rather than a throttle off steep glide approach over a built up area?
Then what do you do taking off in the same aircraft over a built up area ? Refuse to go ?
Engine failure is far more likely on take off when the unit is under max stress not on approach!
Conditioned thought
So I presume that it's unprofessional to fly light singles IFR where you have to fly a 3 degree or less glide slope ?
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 30th Apr 2013 at 08:56.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't say 'throttle off steep glide approach' (though there are occasionas when that's appropriate). I said an approach steeper than 3 degrees. 3 degrees is ludicrously shallow for a draggy, slow, light single. It's like taxying with the brakes on - loads of power against the drag!
One should think what is appropriate. 3 degrees is not normally appropriate for a 172 unless it is using the ILS or, as I said, going for a high-power against drag short field landing.
One should think what is appropriate. 3 degrees is not normally appropriate for a 172 unless it is using the ILS or, as I said, going for a high-power against drag short field landing.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace, here's another way to look at it.
To be on the PAPI at a thousand feet (circuit height) a small single is flying an unnecessarily large circuit. Which, of course, is not in the interest of any in terms of efficiency.
BB
To be on the PAPI at a thousand feet (circuit height) a small single is flying an unnecessarily large circuit. Which, of course, is not in the interest of any in terms of efficiency.
BB
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But we are training a pilot to fly which may mean a Cessna 150 today a Big engined Cirrus tomorrow or even a twin or larger in the future!!
A 172 is not a bad aircraft and perfectly capable of flying level with approach flap!
Reducing time in the air is another thing which we all do to suit the aircraft we fly and a glide approach maybe one which archives that in a particular situation.
With a glide you are more likely to land long
You are more likely to open the throttle and find a stopped engine!
You are more likely to land fast
You will not have as much elevator and rudder authority compared to the powered approach!
The only benefit I see with the glide approach is with students who in early days need to be kept away from
High AOA high drag scenarios
Yes I see it as an approach especially when you are too high but I see it as an approach not THE APPROACH and certainly not a method for your future flying
Pace
A 172 is not a bad aircraft and perfectly capable of flying level with approach flap!
Reducing time in the air is another thing which we all do to suit the aircraft we fly and a glide approach maybe one which archives that in a particular situation.
With a glide you are more likely to land long
You are more likely to open the throttle and find a stopped engine!
You are more likely to land fast
You will not have as much elevator and rudder authority compared to the powered approach!
The only benefit I see with the glide approach is with students who in early days need to be kept away from
High AOA high drag scenarios
Yes I see it as an approach especially when you are too high but I see it as an approach not THE APPROACH and certainly not a method for your future flying
Pace
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace, I think it is actually the opposite.
I think that most PPLs are taught the huge circuit that actually leaves the ATZ (to be on the PAPI at 1000 feet is somehwere around 3 miles from touch down, so given the ATZ is from runway centre this is well outside the ATZ) and when they get going they realise that is not the most efficient way to fly a small single aircraft and therefore adjust accordingly.
BB
I think that most PPLs are taught the huge circuit that actually leaves the ATZ (to be on the PAPI at 1000 feet is somehwere around 3 miles from touch down, so given the ATZ is from runway centre this is well outside the ATZ) and when they get going they realise that is not the most efficient way to fly a small single aircraft and therefore adjust accordingly.
BB
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Againstgravity, you may be amazed at how steep you can make your approaches in a C172 with 40deg flaps.
Whilst flying gliders I practiced some ultra short, high angle approaches, at 600ft at 200yards from the threshold. Using full airbrakes and a side slip this 45deg descent was possible.
I tried the same practice in a C172, flying over a disused airfield at 3000ft at less than half a mile out. With 40deg flaps, no throttle, and 75-80 knots the C172 made it onto the glideslope with room to spare. (note. Max Vflaps is 85knots, and no side-slips are allowed with C172s.)
So it is possible to loose lots of height on the high side of the drag curve.
Whilst flying gliders I practiced some ultra short, high angle approaches, at 600ft at 200yards from the threshold. Using full airbrakes and a side slip this 45deg descent was possible.
I tried the same practice in a C172, flying over a disused airfield at 3000ft at less than half a mile out. With 40deg flaps, no throttle, and 75-80 knots the C172 made it onto the glideslope with room to spare. (note. Max Vflaps is 85knots, and no side-slips are allowed with C172s.)
So it is possible to loose lots of height on the high side of the drag curve.