A Cessna 172 is too difficult to land...
 

... according to the vendor in this online ad:

:}

Well, really, it was the pilots (dare they call themselves that!), not the airplane, which had the accidents. Maybe they should change to the very different 182, with the best safety record of all light aircraft....

I would agree aircraft do not crash pilots do !
How many pilots still land on a wish and a prayer rather than being in total control of the aircraft regardless of conditions!
Many even quite experienced arrive rather than land an aircraft!
Yes they all have their idiosyncrasies but it is up to the pilot to identify those and adjust accordingly

Pace

EDMJ I'll give you a free tip.
never buy an aeroplane from an idiot.
you have no idea what he has done to it.

no matter how enticing the advert looks walk away from it.

Nice one Pace, must remember that line! :ok:

I think the warning should be to any clubs looking to employ the instructor that did the checkouts!:bored:

Spam can landings
 

Hi Guys,

The big problem with spam-cans in general and Pa28s in particular is that they are so tolerant of sloppy landings that they permit people to get away with 'landings' that in any other type would be crash-landings.

This leaves it down to the instructors to ensure that proper landing skills are acquired and practiced, (which in most cases, bless 'em, they do).

If, however, the instructors allow their students to assume that any 'landing' is a good landing so long as you can walk away from it, then sooner or later there are going to be broken U/Cs, broken props and shock-loaded engines.

I agree totally with doubleyew eight that it is never wise to buy an aeroplane from an idiot.

Regards,

BP.

I agree, it is the instruction that is at fault not the aircraft.

My flying is probably around one third 172, one third 28 and the other third 182 and 152. I wasn't aware of any differences in landing them...:confused:. They just do what you tell them to surely?

Makes you wonder why Cessna went to all the trouble of designing and testing an undercarriage system which their marketing people dubbed 'Landomatic'. How can you get it that wrong?

I suspect that some pilot lack the internal drive to improve their landing skills, once let loose in the plane. ANY certified GA plane can be neatly chirped on with a bit of practice. Yes, there are differing nuances to it, but ultimately, the technique (for tricycles, anyway) is the same for all. A type change is no excuse.

Or, is someone trying to argue up the need for "type training" between Piper and Cessna!

The problem is that some pilots figure out pretty quick after a few duff landings that the design and build of the SEP Cessna and piper is so good that you can make a complete arse of the landing and they will for the most part square themselves up and roll out in a very forgiving manner, a visit to any GA field on a cross wind day will see all kinds of landings while still in the crab or with a whole heap of drift or too much speed with no penalty apart from stressed gear which can lead to a relaxing of focus. With the tail dragger the constant thought of the expense and humiliation of a ground loop tends to make you focus on the goal of doing the best you can every time.

Having thunk about this I would personally agree with Piperboy in that my own pride makes me do the best I can each time. But then it depends why you fly; I like to do a challenging thing well, or as well as I can.

If you just like a bimble on a weekend and are happy to get the thing on the ground the best way you can then I suppose fair enough. Pipers and Cessnas are virtually unbreakable (although people still manage to) so the fact that you can't square off on a xw landing doesn't really add up to much.

Some folk are happy to drive their Ford Focus with automatic everything from a to b as safely as all the automatics will let them without letting the driving experience get in the way, I guess some people fly like that as well, who are we to criticise?

Thing

I dont think its just that! I flew with quite an experienced pilot who when in the air was very detailed and planned but was lacking in situation awareness, feel, call it what you want.
Calm day he was fine, slight wind from left or right and we either landed in a crab profile or ended up floating across the runway.
It was like he was great up to the last fifty feet but then there was a look in his face which became more of a passenger than someone in control of the aircraft!
we all have different brains which are better at somethings than others!
Planes rarely crash of their own accord pilots sadly do!

Pace

Learned on a 152, have flown a 172.
Pilots plane - it encourages more precise flying.
Love them.
Flew the Cherokee once.
What a big old mushy bus of a plane!
Give me a Cessna any day of the week - and the view out the window's better!!

:ok:
Close to what I tell my students

There is by and large two ways people get taught to land a piper.

There is the way that you get the POH speed right and then flare and land when the plane stops flying. With a chirp on the stall warner.

Then there is stick 10 on for gusts, 5 knots because those POH speeds are a bit dodgy and finally 10 knots on for mum. A 3 degree profile will be flown.

The plane is then flown onto the ground 5-10knts above stall speed using shed loads of runway airline style.

Try the second one in a C172 or the ones I have flown anyway and you will get one spectacular series of balloons and if you manage to control them finally a spectacular bounce.

Just a theory mind but guess which method I think that the club is teaching?

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.

Weekend flyers are often rusty. If you're flying once a month, which turns into once a quarter once weather has played its part, you're not going to be great at xwind landings, and a 10 knot xw having not flown for a few months and only doing ten landings a year is going to be a challenge.

Agreed FANS.

But they aren't flying the aircraft properly if they are doing airline ops. The adding a few knots is the problem. And its not just a few knots in some schools by the time you have added everything you can be 15knts over the POH speed. The tommys were famous for this. I was told once that anything under 85 knots and you were going to spin in on finals. The shock on there face when I said I had 800 hours flying them at the book speed with no issues was amusing. The whole flare was utterly horrible bleeding speed off and we used more runway than I do in the work machine. 10-15 seconds in ground affect exposed to getting raped by a gust and of course less drag so it just took longer than above it. But you had to be a meter off the deck next to the papi's. Book speeds and land it on the keys and you stop before the numbers and the round out and flare takes 5 seconds.

And if the foundations aren't there of the proper way of flying a SEP the people lacking in currency don't have a chance in hell when things aren't perfect.

My view
 

I wouldn't say the 172 is 'difficult'

It's just pretty hard to land it consistently well.

I find if folk are having trouble with the flare using 40 flap then trying 30 flap makes things a little easier albeit same approach speed.

Try provide yourself with a STABLE approach which also helps.