A Cessna 172 is too difficult to land...
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from memory the Tommy is a straightforward aircraft to land, but agree that going in at 15knots over speed is going to create issues, especially around that gust/x-wind. Mind, give it a few more years and there won't be too many PA38s around.
I agree flying it around the book speed is important but + a few knots is not the end of the world, albeit +15 knots is going to cause real issues, and leads to a fear factor developing if you're only doing the (correct) book speeds.
I think part of the problem stems from the early lessons not being taught correctly, with people rushing to circuits then rushing for first solo. Guys learning to fly in the winter weather go weeks without flying and in those early stages you then loose familiarility and feel of stalls etc.
I agree flying it around the book speed is important but + a few knots is not the end of the world, albeit +15 knots is going to cause real issues, and leads to a fear factor developing if you're only doing the (correct) book speeds.
I think part of the problem stems from the early lessons not being taught correctly, with people rushing to circuits then rushing for first solo. Guys learning to fly in the winter weather go weeks without flying and in those early stages you then loose familiarility and feel of stalls etc.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hellfire Corner
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, let's teach everyone to fly in a little Jodel, preferably underpowered so they have to keep the ball in the middle to make it climb. There, fixed it.
I suspect this thread will, however, reach six pages or more...
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, let's teach everyone to fly in a little Jodel, preferably underpowered so they have to keep the ball in the middle to make it climb. There, fixed it.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: USA
Age: 74
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously I'm well aware of the 172's choice among PPL recruits. I'm ashamed to say it but I too fall into the "the plane landed me, I didnt land the plane" crowd. Granted I'm a low time pilot, but to date all I have done is rely on the training. A meticulous series of contingency plans to counter every scenario I've been hit with to date. I dont like it. I dont like knowing that I have a "system" for landing, rather than actually taking control of the situation. If "x" happens then I do "y", but not because I feel it, but rather because I memorized it.
Hopefully as I build time I'll really have a handle on it and won't have to worry about forgetting a preset series of operations resulting in a crash. There's always the go-around afterall.
Hopefully as I build time I'll really have a handle on it and won't have to worry about forgetting a preset series of operations resulting in a crash. There's always the go-around afterall.
Last edited by jetsetter250; 10th Sep 2013 at 13:58.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think also there are different degrees of mechanical empathy in people. It's not an intelligence or intellect issue, it's just one of those things.
I've flown with some perfectly competent and safe pilots who handle the aircraft like a frying pan and frankly make me cringe. Not because they are doing anything that's unsafe or frightening; they just don't have any feel for the machine. It's all 'x followed by y' rather than 'what's it trying to tell me now?'
I'm not an instructor; do those of you who are think that this is because of the way they have been taught or is it one of those unteachable things?
Edit: Jetsetter, just read your post, the above isn't aimed at you!
I've flown with some perfectly competent and safe pilots who handle the aircraft like a frying pan and frankly make me cringe. Not because they are doing anything that's unsafe or frightening; they just don't have any feel for the machine. It's all 'x followed by y' rather than 'what's it trying to tell me now?'
I'm not an instructor; do those of you who are think that this is because of the way they have been taught or is it one of those unteachable things?
Edit: Jetsetter, just read your post, the above isn't aimed at you!
Last edited by thing; 10th Sep 2013 at 14:28.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but to date all I have done is rely on the training
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jetsetter, you need to fly gliders....look up your local club. No go around, get it right first time. Probably don't need to bother with radio, not too many instruments to get in the way of getting the feel of it. Simples.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mare Imbrium
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more you fly the more mechanical empathy you will build. But yes, some of my students just have it from the word go and some take a long time. The most impressive was a 17 year old girl who had not yet started to learn to drive (nothing to un-learn).
But flying is much more than mechanical empathy of course and I've flown with folk who are great at handling the machine but are terrible pilots with no situational awareness and a bad attitude to safe airmanship.
Knowing that you would like to develop better handling skills, as jetsetter does, is a very good start. We are all learning, all the time. I'd also endorse Mary's glider suggestion - in fact I think all power pilots should spend a few hours in a glider.
But flying is much more than mechanical empathy of course and I've flown with folk who are great at handling the machine but are terrible pilots with no situational awareness and a bad attitude to safe airmanship.
Knowing that you would like to develop better handling skills, as jetsetter does, is a very good start. We are all learning, all the time. I'd also endorse Mary's glider suggestion - in fact I think all power pilots should spend a few hours in a glider.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in fact I think all power pilots should spend a few hours in a glider.
I know that an engine failure and subsequent field landing holds no fear for me though...
Moderator
book speed is important but + a few knots is not the end of the world,
A lot of people learning to fly are wanting to be airline pilots, and hence want to adopt more of an airline pilot style to flying an SEP. Big runways and PAPIs also encourage this, as do certain instructors. Equally, the natural urge for caution tends to see a few knots added.
If you're flying an airliner, you'll be expected to fly the prescribed bug speeds on approach, and you're probably not being expected to land it with grace, just get it down and to the gate on time.
The flight manual speeds for any aircraft have at least a 5 knot margin of safety built in. So just follow the stated speeds. If the winds are so unstable that you cannot manage the book speed, you should be looking to land elsewhere, or at least not posting those concerns here.
I see too many pilots gliding for landing at too slow a speed, and approaching at too fast a speed. Yes, you can glide slowly as stated in the Flight Manual, and make the best glide distance, if you need to. No, you cannot "land" too fast, though you might fly the aircraft into contact with the ground. If you do, it'll be messy once you are in contact with the ground.
Any aircraft will land if you slow it below flying speed while slightly above above a suitable surface, at very near parallel to the surface. That's why a pipping stall warning at touchdown is likely an indicator of a nice landing. Attempting a landing from higher at less than flying speed, or a less acute angle, is going to make a bump, and contacting the ground in most planes at much faster than flying speed, no matter what the angle, is the approach to a bucking bronco ride.
On the other hand, the effort to get to "gliding speed" right away upon an engine failure is honourable, if you're trying to make it to the shore, or clear area beyond the trees, but otherwise is leading the pilot to have to make a very precise flare, with only one change to get it perfect. This IS where carrying the extra speed is good, if you do not need to glide too far. You'll have much better precision and safety if you're gliding at +10 to 5 knots, with the full intention to slip it off to the proper speed, crossing the fence.
A properly trained and practiced pilot can gently land a C172 or PA 28 with equal ease, because they are both easy planes to land gently. It's fair that any pilot have the opportunity to learn and then practice, but no fair blaming the plane during that process.
I go from type to type, usually without checkouts. If I can not make a presentable landing the first time, even in a completely new to me type, I'll probably go around, and do it again. A sloppy landing would have been my fault, and I owe it to the plane to do better, let alone my own sense of pride!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A sloppy landing would have been my fault, and I owe it to the plane to do better, let alone my own sense of pride!
Moderator
Do you find the landing is the part that is most satisfying in general from a piloting point of view?
If you land well, very likely that you fly well. A number of times, following a ground briefing, my type checkride on a new type (particularly C207, C208. SM1019, Found Busk Hawk and PA-31) I was asked to do a circuit and landing first. When it was a good one, I was told to do another just to confirm it was not beginner's luck). With the second good landing, the checkout was complete, and I was sent solo on type. Apparently, solely my handling in the circuit, and landing in particular, were the basis of judging my piloting skill for the type.
A few times, I have had to roll the ailerons to confirm I was on the ground, 'cause I was not sure - very satisfying!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DAR - spot on!
The 172 has absolutely appalling ailerons - hopelessly ineffective, sloppy as a blancmange, and easily overpowered by the slightest gust; and they feel 'dead'.
The rudder is stiff and poorly co-ordinated with the awful ailerons, and gives even less feedback than the latter.
But the elevator is pretty good. And the flaps (especially the earlier 40 degree ones) are the most effective I've ever used. There is no excuse not to grease a 172 on every time in reasonable winds (i.e. not too far off the runway heading).
Just because spam cans let you get away with poor landing technique (a Chippy and most other tailwheel type would bite long before landings get as bad as often seen at GA fields by trikes) is no excuse for the pilot to be a lazy unskilled chump at landing.
The 172 has absolutely appalling ailerons - hopelessly ineffective, sloppy as a blancmange, and easily overpowered by the slightest gust; and they feel 'dead'.
The rudder is stiff and poorly co-ordinated with the awful ailerons, and gives even less feedback than the latter.
But the elevator is pretty good. And the flaps (especially the earlier 40 degree ones) are the most effective I've ever used. There is no excuse not to grease a 172 on every time in reasonable winds (i.e. not too far off the runway heading).
Just because spam cans let you get away with poor landing technique (a Chippy and most other tailwheel type would bite long before landings get as bad as often seen at GA fields by trikes) is no excuse for the pilot to be a lazy unskilled chump at landing.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, I'm not lucky enough to fly a Chippy but any aircraft should be flown to the best of your ability and just because it can take some abuse doesn't mean that you should actually abuse it.
I'm still gobsmacked when pilots with zillions more hours than me don't bother kicking off drift or lowering the into wind wing just before touchdown; then you get that horrible sideways motion when the poor beast tries to straighten itself out with a squeal of tires and a lurch across the runway.
By the way I fly a 172 with 40 degrees of flaps, those last ten degrees are really effective, like flying into a big pillow.
Compared with a 28s flaps which are there just for an extra lever to pull I think.
I'm still gobsmacked when pilots with zillions more hours than me don't bother kicking off drift or lowering the into wind wing just before touchdown; then you get that horrible sideways motion when the poor beast tries to straighten itself out with a squeal of tires and a lurch across the runway.
By the way I fly a 172 with 40 degrees of flaps, those last ten degrees are really effective, like flying into a big pillow.
Compared with a 28s flaps which are there just for an extra lever to pull I think.
Last edited by thing; 10th Sep 2013 at 20:15.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FANS it is a piece of piss to land
It lands at the same attitude as my work machine just 40 knots slower. Funny enough every aircraft I have ever flown has landed with the same attitude and it doesn't vary with weight. So know I just fly the attitude and ignore the air speed. I will try and BS that I am doing something fancy but I ain't I am flying tommy approach attitudes then flaring to tommy landing attitudes and it all works.
Its just these wannabe airline pilot magenta line borgs that are screwing GA pilots up teaching them pish
It lands at the same attitude as my work machine just 40 knots slower. Funny enough every aircraft I have ever flown has landed with the same attitude and it doesn't vary with weight. So know I just fly the attitude and ignore the air speed. I will try and BS that I am doing something fancy but I ain't I am flying tommy approach attitudes then flaring to tommy landing attitudes and it all works.
Its just these wannabe airline pilot magenta line borgs that are screwing GA pilots up teaching them pish
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most common sin I see with trikes are 3-point landings. No attempt to hold off. The noseleg was not designed to take touchdown loads - the mains are for that. Then the nose lowered on. This is actually the most common way these aeroplanes are landed - to see a held-off landing by one is a rare treat.
Sad thing is the aeroplane won't complain. Time and time again it'll let the driver (obviously not a pilot) to plonk it on with zero skill at many knots too fast, then stand on the brakes.
Then one day it doesn't, and we have a nosewheel collapse. Or worse yet a pilot lands it properly, holds off, lowers the nose gently on, and the tired and previously much-misused leg has had enough and collapses. An innocent victim has his flying record besmirched by chump aeroplane drivers in his group or club.
The AAIB reports are thick with noseleg collapses every month. They don't cause injury, but with the associated bent prop and shock loaded engine they are very expensive. We all pay for this incompetance through our insurance premiums.
Sad thing is the aeroplane won't complain. Time and time again it'll let the driver (obviously not a pilot) to plonk it on with zero skill at many knots too fast, then stand on the brakes.
Then one day it doesn't, and we have a nosewheel collapse. Or worse yet a pilot lands it properly, holds off, lowers the nose gently on, and the tired and previously much-misused leg has had enough and collapses. An innocent victim has his flying record besmirched by chump aeroplane drivers in his group or club.
The AAIB reports are thick with noseleg collapses every month. They don't cause injury, but with the associated bent prop and shock loaded engine they are very expensive. We all pay for this incompetance through our insurance premiums.