How long are your landings?

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

LA, if you read the rest of my post you'll see that I disagree!

But see also my note at the end re students and config changes on the roll, which you might also have missed.

[foxmoth]

I'd be interested in how a tailwheel pilot could land without properly flaring, Fox.

Bring it in too slow and you will spend very little time in the flare, an experienced tailwheel pilot will get away with this, a less experienced pilot needs more time to sort the height properly and can end up stalling it on from height or, as you say, bouncing, and I have seen people do both!

As far as SSD and LA's discussion goes, there is an argument for both, initially I would say the instructor should see that the pilot concerned controls the nose onto the ground properly and maintains directional control down to a reasonable speed, once the student has demonstrated that OK, then you can do the landings without the nosewheel having to go down - but this should only be a real consideration if you have a marginal runway, on a long enough one the time saving is negligable.

[Crash one]

Extending flaps causes pitch up>>etc. Not necessarily.
Depends where the wings are. My low wing taildragger has a second trim tab operated by the flap lever. This thing is spring loaded to pull it up as the flaps are retracted, the operating cable is underneath. Therefore flaps down, trim tab down, elevator up to counter pitch down.
As for reconfiguration. My method:- Throttle up, drag flaps up, tail up if it isn't already. In that order. Faffing with flaps first while running out of runway does not achieve anything except running out of runway.
In the 152:- Throttle up, flap lever fully up then down to the first stop, keeping the training wheel off the ground. For the pedantics, thumb hits the carb heat at full throttle in both cases (just).
I have, only once, dragged mine off the ground with full flaps, full tanks, and a pie eater, missed the trees by not a lot but it still flew, perhaps a hot day and more pies may have been less funny.
Perhaps I should mention the runway is 600metres grass with a distinct slope up at the last 150metres. If the method works there then it will work just as well on 6000 metre Tarmac.

[9 lives]

True, but in a trike the main thing is to land gently on the mains with the nose wheel held off. That's what takes time to learn. Once the aeroplane is in that position continuing to hold off the nose wheel until the elevator runs out of authority is easy, so 'going' on a touch and go before the nosewheel has landed surely has great benefit in fitting as many 'landings' as possible into each hour, rather than the backtrack and take off that might well be required if one waits until the nose wheel has landed.

Agree.

If a student cannot maintain pitch attitude as intended, and the centerline, then yes, they need more practice, and perhaps instruction. Dumbing down a skill to accommodate lacking skills is not good - expect that skill to be developed and maintained. If a pilot cannot keep a tricycle aircraft on the centerline they have no hope of flying a taildragger - in which all pilots two generations ago learned to fly. If a pilot cannot maintain pitch during a flap reposition they should worry about a gusty day.

To me, an aircraft has not landed until all of its wheels are on the ground.

If the purpose of the landing was to teach approach and landing, and a touch and go is intended I can be content that the nosewheel (or tailwheel) does not touch, and indeed if this is the outcome, I think that the demonstration of skill needed to do that is great compensation for not just dropping the nosewheel on, or threepointing.

Taxi with flaps was an absolut NoGo on the 172 during my initial training, as this was near coast and one of the usual squalls would lift and blow you off taxiway.

I suggest that if wind conditions are such that the use of 10 or so flap while taxiing a 172 landplane could increase risk of being blown around over no flaps, perhaps it's too much wind for the average pilot.

I'd be interested in how a tailwheel pilot could land without properly flaring

I agree that a full flare is going to result in a three point landing in a taildragger - which is not my personal choice. I find that one of the taildraggers I regularly fly (172 taildrgger) can be brought to stall warning, and still wheel landed nicely. This is my preferred method in that plane.

I like the idea that the main wheels touching is considered a part of a landing, and not the point at which the pilot says "I'm down", and stops flying!

[Fly4Business]

If a pilot cannot keep a tricycle aircraft on the centerline they have no hope of flying a taildragger - in which all pilots two generations ago learned to fly. If a pilot cannot maintain pitch during a flap reposition they should worry about a gusty day.

For sure, but one of the easier entries is a tricycle today and I suspect it killed far less people on learning to fly. Although "in the old days" taildragger was the challenge from the beginning, it is nowadays thought as an advanced skill with separate training. So, times did change.
Absolutely agree on pitch keeping during flap reposition and yes, both ways. Extending flaps appears to be taught quite well, but I sometimes feel getting 'em in in flight not so well. This weekend we had a trip to very short fields and what I saw after short&soft field takeoffs was sometimes scary.

If the purpose of the landing was to teach approach and landing, and a touch and go is intended I can be content that the nosewheel (or tailwheel) does not touch, and indeed if this is the outcome, I think that the demonstration of skill needed to do that is great compensation for not just dropping the nosewheel on, or threepointing.

The OP wrote about "pounding circuits", which reads training in my eyes. I think it es perfectly well to do that kind of training with a student for skills demonstration. I remember my FI requiring full touch&gos to be demonstrated to him without nose wheel on the ground before being allowed to go solo.

I suggest that if wind conditions are such that the use of 10 or so flap while taxiing a 172 landplane could increase risk of being blown around over no flaps, perhaps it's too much wind for the average pilot.

Yes, and to have a common frame of reference I welcome if this is tried with an instructor right seat. I believe to judge "too much wind" requires to actually face that and again, better with instructor then later by bad surprise. I met quite some people really afraid of "gusts" (above 5 knots ...), because they almost never did xwind landings. Respect for nature is necessary and good, but overemphasized fear is not.

I agree that a full flare is going to result in a three point landing in a taildragger - which is not my personal choice. I find that one of the taildraggers I regularly fly (172 taildrgger) can be brought to stall warning, and still wheel landed nicely. This is my preferred method in that plane.

I think this really depends on the specific taildragger and there may be all variants, from trim well and it lands itself, to always fighting the bloody hell all the way down to stop.

I like the idea that the main wheels touching is considered a part of a landing, and not the point at which the pilot says "I'm down", and stops flying!

Oh yes!

[Flyingmac]

I see lots of circuits flown by students under instruction. Bomber circuits, too fast approaches and flat landings seem to be the norm these days. A particularly worrying trend is retracting all the flap after touching down on a touch and go.


I watched one student recently, bounce a landing on a solo circuit. He decided a go-around was a good call, and promptly retracted all of the flaps at around 15ft before going for the throttle.
Interesting outcome.


I think we're entering an era where students are being taught badly by Instructors who were taught badly. Slippery slope.

[Fly4Business]

Bad circuit flying always has been a privilege of student flyers ;-). It has to improve over time though and the instructors have to have a very close eye on it. The spread in instructing skills is indeed feeling increased, covering everything from the old and bold ones, over the buts intuition airmen, all the way down to quick-fancy-dirty buttoneers. Btw: retracting flaps completely after touched down is in many ATO handbooks now, so formal no error.

[9 lives]

Btw: retracting flaps completely after touched down is in many ATO handbooks now, so formal no error.

... Which will become a habit which will have to be untaught once that candidate pilot begins to fly RG's!. I flew a bunch of practice circuits in my buddy's 182RG yesterday, and was thinking about this as I did touch and goes: "Flaps identified (hand on knob), pause, think, reselect to 10, and go."

In single engine Cessnas, should you desire to effectively control pitch attitude on the runway, 10 - 15 flap out will give you a little more control. So that's where I leave them until I'm clear of the runway, airborne safely, or no longer taxiing over rough ground - as the case may be....

[Steve6443]

Originally Posted by Flyingmac

I watched one student recently, bounce a landing on a solo circuit. He decided a go-around was a good call, and promptly retracted all of the flaps at around 15ft before going for the throttle.
Interesting outcome.

Something similar happened to me when I was learning to fly after landing solo for the first time and being given the OK to touch and go. My first reaction was full throttle and once I'd done that, I retracted the flaps from full to 10 degrees - the outcome was also 'interesting' as the plane immediately leapt into the air just as I was retracting the flaps

Since then I have NO issues determining what happens first on a go-around or a touch and go

[Crash one]

Perhaps "what to do first" depends on the runway length and aircraft.
Flying out of a short grass strip in a low wing aircraft with a direct control flap lever like a handbrake handle, throttle first is no problem. Slow moving electric flaps, high wing with hefty pitch up tendencies is different.
One size fits all doesn't work.

[300hrWannaB]

The first aircraft in which I had the pleasure in being a part owner was a Cessna 150.
Electric 40 degree flaps, aerodynamics of a wall, and an engine that was inadequate for a lawnmower.
I could land it on a handkerchief sized field. Not a hope of getting it out in the same length.
An interesting habit was that you had to keep a close eye on the flap lever, as it would happily wind everything back home again. You could land on 40 flap, but a go around needed to be on 15. Power on. Flick the flap lever, muscle around doing the trim change and carb heat. Flap overshoots to zero. Climb rate vanishes. Add that flap. It overshoots and winds towards 30. Trim becomes heavy, trees get closer. Sort it all out and decide that it's not a short field plane after all.

[Crash one]

Well understood, know your aircraft, mine has similar problems. Flap lever has two positions, the pawl and slots are somewhat worn, short final at 150 ft, no wind, quickly select full flap, swap hands, close throttle, 50ft, loud bang as flap lever pops out, instant flaps to zero, pitch up, bugger! Grab flap lever, land left handed using flap lever as an airbrake. I must fix that.

[fireflybob]

I see lots of circuits flown by students under instruction. Bomber circuits, too fast approaches and flat landings seem to be the norm these days. A particularly worrying trend is retracting all the flap after touching down on a touch and go.

Too high approach speed seems to be a common factor - Vat = 1.3 Vs

[A and C]

1.3 Vs !!!!!!!!!!

As Fireflybob says "approach speed seems a common factor ".

I see all sorts of reasons used to increase the approach speed, the common ones being increased weight & gusty conditions as well as "that's what they do on airliners " ( that usually from the orange jet wannabes ).

I discovered most of this while having a coffee in the lounge of a flying club while getting warm having just changed yet another badly flat spotted tyre.

The student congregation around the TV watching airline cockpit videos seemed to regard the flight manual approach speed as a minimum to build apon to get more safety with speed rather than a speed calculated by the aircraft manufacturer for an approach at MLW.

As they usually fly the aircraft well below the MLW I offered the opinion that to achieve 1.3 Vs they might well consider reducing the approach speed below that quoted in the flight manual.

While the approach speed reduction to achieve 1.3 Vs might be far too radical for flying instruction it did bring home the fact that at usual operation weights the flight manual speed will provide adequate gust protection as it is bound to be above the aircraft's true 1.3 Vs.

[Pilot DAR]

It's also worth note that Vs is a 1 G speed. If you fly at less than 1 G, there will be a commensurate reduction in Vs. On approach you might be flying just a little less than 1 G at times, and certainly have the option to reduce pitch into a gust, which will give you a momentary increased margin against stall.

I had occasion recently to demonstrate a slipping glide approach with a fairly steep turn to final. The instructor riding with me was startled by the steep turn, but I reminded him that I was slipping will above stall speed, and not pulling any G.

[foxmoth]

It's also worth note that Vs is a 1 G speed. If you fly at less than 1 G, there will be a commensurate reduction in Vs. On approach you might be flying just a little less than 1 G at times, and certainly have the option to reduce pitch into a gust, which will give you a momentary increased margin against stall.

Usually when you get a +v gust then it will increase your airspeed, push you above the glideslope and increase the g, the tendency then is to lower the nose so you can end up too fast, get a negative gust and the reverse happens, but this means the tendancy is to raise the nose, without an increase in power this is where people get into trouble, the stall speed might drop with the reduction in g, but this soon disappears and you are left low with a lower than ideal airspeed!

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Originally Posted by Level Attitude

Most students do not touchdown on the centreline and the vast majority seem to prefer the left hand side of the runway - which way is the aircraft likely to yaw when full power is applied?

And if you haven't finished landing yet, you may not have got round to / remembered to raise the flaps yet, and in some aircraft full power with full flaps from the left hand side of the runway can see you off the tarmac and into the left hand grass no matter what you do with the feet ...


Having nearly done that at least once, I prefer nosewheel down (naturally, not pushed), flaps up, steer back to somewhere near the centreline, all nice and relaxed and deliberate, then the "go" bit of "touch and go" may be an option if there's enough runway left.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

- which way is the aircraft likely to yaw when full power is applied?

Errm.... to the right. That's why it's full power and left foot forward in the Chippy on T/O (and Yak - but initially less that full power on that beast especially in a 'from the right' crosswind or it'll turn right despite full left rudder).

[Armchairflyer]

@SSD: unless I am mistaken, you are correct for the Chipmunk and Yak with prop rotation being counter-clockwise, but not for most aircraft (such as C150s, but also Cubs) which will yaw to the left when applying power.

I am not sure that the two aircraft you mention are the best examples to base the reply to "where does the aircraft yaw when power is applied" on, especially in the context of student pilots.

[9 lives]

- which way is the aircraft likely to yaw when full power is applied?

Errm.... to the right.

For aeroplanes whose propellers rotate counter clockwise as viewed from the pilot's seat, yes.

For many other airplanes, whose props rotate clockwise (Continental/Lycoming/Pratt & Whitney/Franklin/Allison powered, among others) expect the aircraft to swing to the left with power application. The affect in airplanes like a Cessna 185 or SM1019 can be pronounced. Cessna 206/210, and high powered Cherokees also, but less so.