Stall landing/Slow landing
 

Hi guys,

The POH for several Cessna's I fly say to gently fly the plane onto the runway but instructors say to stall it on to the runway. It seems to me that a smoother landing could be achieved by flying in at the correct speeds, flaring and gently lowering it on to the runway without having to float above it for ages until it stalls.

Also a Cirrus I went in the other day must be flown gently on to the runway in this way otherwise there will be a tail strike.

How do you do it?

I'd try to do everything the way my instructor suggests. You are, after all, paying him or her large sums of money to teach you how to fly: why doubt what they are telling and showing you?

(In the instance you ask about, your instructor is right by the way. The aim is to touch down with the main wheels first at the lowest practical airspeed. This protects the nosewheel, which is easily damaged, and gives a shorter ground roll. These things may not seem important if you are flying from a huge tarmac runway in ideal weather, but that won't always be the case. You need to learn to do it well right from the start.
The aim is not to land as gently as possible! Its to land as safely as possible. They are not always the same thing.)

Most airplanes land smoother with a little power kept in to be reduced by roundout. My old twin can simply not be landed fully stalled smoothly - you have to keep a little power in for greasers. That said, a fully stalled landing has benefits as it's easier on the brakes, uses less rwy etc. Do whatever he says, but if you want to impress your first female/male date, keep a trickle of power in.;)

I try to stall it 1mm above the runway or less. Then it is smooth. I am in a different camp than Adam though, I prefer power off, unless I have screwed up, or wild sink requires a burst of power to sort things out. Those landings are generally not smooth though, just survivable!
If you are floating down the runway, power will make that worse.
Bryan

Usually caused by having the approach speed too high, and best avoided by not having the approach speed too high.

A so-called full stall landing is one whereby the aircraft is held off within a foot of the ground for as long as elevator authority will allow, before settling onto the runway at a low forward speed with the stall warner blaring. Ground effect delays an actual stall in this condition.

Use of this technique is probably the practical ideal for simple single-engine training aircraft. The landing performance charts for these aircraft usually stipulate 'power off' and the normal operations section usually advocates touching down at the slowest possible speed. Both of these conditions allude to the aircraft having been designed to perform 'full stall' landings.

Aircraft with high wing loadings typically need to be flown onto the runway as they tend to drop like a stone when power is removed.

Obviously each pilot has a favourite technique, hopefully aligned to the 'plane he has, but as ever in life, no one Rule fits all !

I fly a fixed wing 'Cub look alike' Microlight, in my case a Rans S4 - delightful little creature with delicate ways and excellent characteristics. BUT if you dare come in without power she'll fall out of the air far too high. (Unless you master the high speed powerless dive onto the deck).

With similar microlight a/c you do have to fly in with power, till like the man above says, a few mm above the ground. Even alternatively waiting a moment longer & doing a wheeler gives a very short and controlled landing.

[BTW. The Rans S6 approach/landing technique is quite different].

mike hallam.

Some wise words above. Just watch out that "fly it on gently" does not become an excuse for slack technique, with approach speeds too high. I see that with many pilots and I wouldn't mind betting it's something your instructor is trying to avoid. There's also quite a lot of incorrect folklore out there. For example, when I started flying a Comanche single, lots of people advised intermediate flap settings, faster than required approach speeds, and so on. But done correctly, it's beautiful aircraft to land in the classical slow, full flap mode - and does wonderfully on many of the short strips we have here in Oz. You do need what my instructor used to call a "chuckle" of power in the flare sometimes, but it rewards you with a great touchdown. Given the traps many people fall into, I'd be with your instructor in saying to learn to land your C172 etc in full stall mode, barring any really extreme conditions. (And, even there, watch out for the folklore. 10kt of crosswind is not excuse enough to start arbitrary increases in approach speeds, less than recommended flap settings, and so on). Excess approach speed is a really bad habit; too many people are complacent about it in both GA and recreational aviation (your "microlight" and similar community). Good luck!

During my CPL I was told that I need to keep some power on for touchdown and avoid the stall warner.

I keep the aircraft off the ground until it's at the correct landing attitude.

In a nosewheel aircraft that means that the aircraft will touch down on the mainwheels only. It won't actually be stalled at touchdown, although many of us think of it as a stalled landing. If you hold off until you reach the landing attitude, & then maintain that attitude, then as drag slows the aircraft down, the wings create less lift & the aircraft will descend. If the wheels were less than 1m off the ground, it will be a reasonable touchdown.

If you had the right airspeed as you crossed the threshold, the hold off will last about 2 seconds. That's just enough airspeed on approach to give you a margin above the stall but not so much that you float for ages down the runway.

Trying to fly the aircraft onto the ground conjures up images of nosewheel first touchdowns & wheelbarrowing down the runway. If you really, really try to stall before touchdown then you could indeed have a tailstrike, particularly in a low wing aircraft.

Good landings are the result of the right airspeed on approach & the right attitude before touching down.

Full stall landing is a in my opinion the best and easiest way to teach how to land an SEP. And it certainly has the benefits of bringing the aircraft down as slow as possible.

Now with some more experience and in some more fancy aircraft I prefer flying the thing onto the runway. You can still do that with power idle actually all you need to do is adjust is the flare.

1mm above the runway? How the heck do you judge that without a radio altimeter ;-)

But seriously, my instructor said he wanted to hear the stall warner sounding on landing - it was nothing to do with the speed but more to do with the attitude of the plane, on nose wheel planes hearing the stall warning means the nose is high enough to ensure the main gear touches down first and I've stuck to that - if I don't hear the stall warner, something wasn't quite right with the landing....

However, that doesn't mean I want to hear the stall warner whilst still descending, just whilst flaring..... :=

In the 172s I fly I follow the POH approach speeds, fully retard the power as I cross the numbers and then just fly the aircraft onto the runway. I couldn't tell you exactly what speed I touch down at as I'm 'eyes out' judging the flare, but I occasionally hear the stall warner go off just before touchdown. As mentioned above ground effect delays the stall and published stall speeds are 'clean air' (i.e. out of ground effect).

During my PPL the instructors seemed to teach very high approach speeds. Fine on the 1500m runway at the field I learned at, but would be dangerous at some of the short strips I have visited as a PPL.

Agreed up to a point. I imagine the higher speeds taught during the PPL are to add a safety margin for students, I don't really see why its necessary to add 5-10 knots over and above the POH speeds once you're qualified and proficient at landing. Surely the most important thing is getting the aircraft down and stopped safely in the distance available. 172s balloon like nobody's business if you come in too fast which could be lethal at a 600m grass strip.

Its more to do with instructors not being taught properly themselves and pretending to be flying an airliner.

there is no reason to add anything onto the POH speeds.

As a rank amateur I think good landings are for the most part a result of a disciplined approach speed, I do my utmost to stay to the approach speeds in the POH, my particular plane does not list the approach speeds so I use the following calculations to determine what speed I should fly

Weight Stall Speed
Stall @ Gross with power in landing config from POH 2400LBS = 47 MPH
Usual landing Weight with 2 person and half tanks = 2000LBS = 42 MPH*
Stall Speed adjusted for Weight X 1.3 for final = 55 MPH
Stall Speed Adjusted for Weight X 1.25 for over the fence=53 MPH

*Weight difference = 400LBS divided by 1 MPH per 80LBS = 5MPH

Now this may be all academic due to the airspeed indicator not being worth a **** on final but its the only speed reference i have other than feel and sound. The second thing i do is keep a scan from the cowling out to the end of the strip and use peripheral vision for the edges of the runway for depth perception.

When I make an arse of it, it is usually due to a feeling of familiarity especially at my home field were I tend to get a little loose on the speeds and not do the runway end scan which normally results in either dumping it in or gliding for what I deem as to far before the plane is done flying. Also as i fly a taildragger i tend to keep a little power on for longer thru the flare to maintain a little rudder authority, which I probably would not do in a trike

Steve,
No radio altimeter, I just trust the Force!

Gertrude the Wombat has it right. Too fast is no good. I have just recently been re-introduced to the 152 & 172 and the stall horn does honk on my landings.

On my commercial I was taught to land power off. Also on my private.

Bryan

But there may be a reason to lower speeds listed in the POH due to those numbers being based on gross weight, The aircraft manufacturer has no way of knowing if the plane is loaded with 10 gallons and a svelte chap like myself or it has full tanks and a couple of Aberdeenshire farmers daughters in the back

I guess the other thing to point out here (it'll be obvious to some, but not all) is the stall warner going off does not necessarily mean you've actually stalled, as by design it starts before the point at which a stall will occur - as such your instructor wanting the stall warner to go off does not necessarily mean they actually want you to stall it onto the runway, just that they want you to be very close to that point...

Nail the approach speed, and, while looking well ahead, do a gradual change of attitude into the roundout, at about 6 inches above the ground..... the roundout or flare is often too hastily done.

A few years back I was flying a Piper TriPacer into Annapolis, Maryland USA, home of the United States Naval Academy. The Piper Tripacer is not a speedy aircraft, along the motorway, the cars were overtaking us without difficulty. What upset me most was that an impatient Naval Academy aircraft cut in front of our stately final approach. (there was no ATC, traffic was self-regulating at the small local airfield.)

We had the last laugh, however. The Navy pilot did a carrier style landing in front of us, and his undercarriage gave way.

I'm firmly in the "land as slowly as possible" camp, but I learnt by experience, that is a good idea to brief your passengers about the stall warner to avoid scaring them.

I once had to do a full-throttle, flaps-up ILS in a 172, to assist ATC in traffic sequencing (in VMC). It took a VERY long time to slow down and I had a tendency to try to flare too soon and consequently balloon. Luckily, it was a 12,500' runway. ;)

Stall Warner equals ready to land buzzer

If you land a Cirrus in the correct configuration (100% flaps) you are very unlikely to have a tail strike.

The big problem is people landing them to fast when they either float for ages or bounce. If the pilot then slams the throttle open to go around, the torque from the engine (especially on an SR22) can cause you to lose directional control. There have been several accidents caused by this.

Recommended best practice when landing with full flaps and no significant crosswind (for an SR22) is 80 KTS on final, 75 - 77 over the fence and hold it off and wait for the stall horn (59) on landing.

Stall landing/Slow landing
 

I dont do any equations i just "fly the plane" you can feel it...... Never had a problem yet!

However, I was taught not below 65kts in a Cessna 152 but my examiner told me to do a shortfield at 50kts and that worked fine too

I was always taught to "just fly the plane" and i know what he meant and it works

Its been many, many years since I read a POH for 152 but 65kts seems high to me, granted that is based purely on my calculation method that may be wrong but allow me to explain my logic and I would be interested to see if someone could pick it apart, and if so it would change the way i figure my landing speeds on my plane, so here goes.

If your short field speed is 50KTS which which would represent a multiple of 1.25 of stall ( more experienced pilots use 1.2 but i am not there yet) would mean a stall of 40KTS, so a normal landing should be flown at no more than 1.3 of stall which is 52k. I would assume that anything north of that speed and especially 65kts which is a significant addition would be unnecessary and may in fact provide a greater chance of a long a float or ballooning in less experienced flyers.

Edit: I just thought i would add the reason i do those calcs is not because i am a mathematics genius ( far from it) it is because if and when i fly planes where the POH does not list approach speeds (like my POH does not), but always lists a stall and gross weight I can figure out a guide for my speeds prior to take off and without feeling its a trial and error thing especially if its the first time i have flown the plane

Stall landing/Slow landing
 

Thats probably what people are talking about when they say schools add to the figures (probably to reduce problems/risks on final)

Maybe the 50kts has had some added to it too then... I don't know. All i do is fly it, feel it and i have never had a problem yet.

I did have a ballooning/floating problem whilst learning so that would confirm what you just said

Some years ago we were taught 70/65knots in the 152 on 700ish metre tarmac, I believe, for safety? This practice was trodden on by the CFI after a while but several students had learned to fly using this method for some time. It is still quite amusing entertainment to watch the wheelbarrowing antics, though it does lead me to worry about flying the 172, am I going to bounce all the way down the runway or are 172s really that bad?
Also during gliding years ago it seemed to be +5 for the wind shear +another 5 for the wife & kids & you ended up heading for the far end at an alarming rate & had to stuff the nose skid into the ground before reaching the workshops.

I seldom post here anymore because having retired from aviation I now have a different life style.

However sometimes these discussions make me wonder how aviation never seems to evolve in an upward trend......especially when it comes to how to hand fly an airplane.

Logic tells me flight training should have evolved upward, reading these forums tells me it is evolving downward when it comes to flight training generally speaking.

The cause is not difficult to determine though, because you can not evolve upward using flight instructors who have not only been taught improperly generally they have never worked in commercial aviation.

As to the following comment.....


For decades the Americans flew the space shuttle with zero landing incidents or accidents, the space shuttle had a high wing loading and a high rate of descent on approach and the landings were hand flown with no incidents.

I could write a volume on the art of landing...but
 

someone already has. Dear Original Poster...go out and BUY, yes BUY a book called: Stick and Rudder by Wolfgang Langweische.

He discusses fully the types of landing...the most amazing is the ''stall down' landing, starting your flare prior to the airport fence.

It is all about energy management...you would like to touchdown with no energy...but you must have some for unexpected things in flying.

Read the book...memorize the book...teach the techniques to others. The only thing is the author uses a term for elevators that has fallen out of favor, the term is : flippers....you see he doesn't want you to think that elevators elevate...read it and enjoy it.

Yes - Stick and Rudder is the best "how to" guide there is. Written in the 1940s when rather a lot of young men were being taught to fly, it still reads well and offers great insight. When you read it you find yourself saying "yes, of course, it MUST be like that, why didn't anyone else explain things that way?" Thats when you know you really understand something.

I rather like "flippers".

Also his emphasis on Angle of Attack and always knowing what it is, is really good. He calls it the "relative wind", which is another better name. If you don't understand AoA (the relative wind), you don't understand how an aircraft flies or how to control it well.

Edited to add: Chuck E has assumed that everyone reading this will know that the space shuttle had no power at all during approach and landing - a big heavy glider with a high wing loading...

The space shuttle was an awesome machine, I had the privilege of flying with one of the space shuttle pilots for two years.

I never tired of his stories of flying it.

The initial approach speed for re-entry was over 17,000 mph and the final approach speed at gear extension was 270 mph with touch down at 215 mph.

The rate of descent during the final approach was close to 10,000 feet per minute.

The latter part of the approach and landing was generally hand flown.

So from that we can be certain that landing without power is actually normal procedure in some cases. :ok:

Some of the stuff I've read here now scares me quite a bit to be honest, but I see where it's coming from. I did my initial training on 152s and 172s, later twins, later instruction, the turboprop, and now jets.

Perhaps the most important thing I've picked up from this progression, it's the following: do what it says in the book.

There is a very good reason why the aircraft manufacturer has given you the required procedures, speeds, charts and described the techniques for operating the airplane. They built it, they know how it works, and their test pilots found out what it will and won't do. It does what it says on the tin, it really is that easy.

Now this does of course not exempt you from using airmanship, knowledge and sound judgment to fly the aircraft according to the conditions and your own skill level. Obviously, smaler aircraft do not have the same comprehensive manuals larger aircraft have. However, the manufacturer's procedures should be your starting point, not some made-up procedures that your 300-hour GA instructor told you, because that's what his instructor told him, and that's what his instructor told him before that. (I myself have been that instructor, because I did not know any better at the time.)

As you gain experience in a type, you will learn what the results of procedural deviation will be. As an example, you will learn that it is certainly possible to land a C172 with an approach speed of (let's say) 80 knots, but you will also learn that the landing attitude, the timing and feel for the flare, and the landing distance will be very different. My point is that this should not be your starting point - start by doing it the way Cessna (or whoever designed the plane) wants you to do it, then go from there. Not the other way around.

The following is one of the best pieces of advice on this thread.....

All instructors should follow it.

.....and that sums it up very nicely!

Indeed it does.

I've flow aircraft where the book says use an approach speed of 45-50knots depending on the likelihood of wind gradient. Instructors then tell students to approach at 55knots. Someone tells an early hours pilot that adding "5knots for the wife and kids" is a good idea and you end up with an approach flown at 60knots when it should have been 45knots! And they are surprised by how far it floats, or they get caught out by a big ballooned landing...

Stick and Rudder has a whole chapter about why it is important to fly at the right speed for the particular phase of flight and condition of the aircraft.

I will just add one small point which is not relevant to student pilots learning to land but it is a misconception that stall speed and landing are part of the same!
It does for the shortest landing with full flap but remember land with partial or even clean and those speeds will increase!
Taking clean speeds they could be fixed at 1.3 times the stall speed in clean configuration but you could make that 1.5 times the stall speed or more!
The biggest restriction for high speed landings is the distance between. Main and nose gear!
Long coupled the nose will be well clear even at high speed.
Short coupled and a much larger chance of doing an all point landing !
It takes skill and fine movements too land fast but it can be done

Pace

Another reccomendation for 'Stick & Rudder'. Never mind the dated pictures, it's the best book on how to fly you can buy.

I agree with Chuck that it's dissappointing that things in flight training don't seem to be getting any better. I think this might be beciase some (by no means all) instructors are low-houred and of narrow experience, focussed on an airline job. When I did my PPL in the '70s many were ex-services guys of vast experience who did it becuase they enjoyed it.

And of course the almost universal training fleet of nose-wheel aeroplanes might be a factor. Now I was taught to fly on the C150, but almost immediately converted on to my beloved Chipmunk with not too much difficulty, so my basic training in landing the C150 must have been reasonably OK. The problem is that one can get away with some awful landing techniques in a nosewheel aeroplane that a tailwheel one will simply not tolerate. And standing alongside the runway at any GA field watching the non-held-off and far too fast landings typical there, one can see this for onself any day of the week.

Perhaps everyone interested in developing a good landing technique should get a tailwheel conversion? Or read and digest Stick & Rudder!

Chuck it on hard for an accurate touchdown point that's what I say.

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/u...ps44ee14cd.png

At least he's got the stick back with the nose high!

Awesome pic of an awesome aeroplane LM. But the tyres didn't last long did they?

The tyres did not last long indeed.

Bear in mind that a gentle "kiss the runway" landing wears out tyres faster due to the longer spin-up (hence slip) time, and that generally applies to all aeroplanes.

The worst was with large amounts of crosswind. The Lightning did not have nosewheel steering and there was a pronounced weathercock effect when the 'chute deployed.

Differential braking under such conditions meant a wheel change every landing.

Tyre pressures were 300psi btw.