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.

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.

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`m with Tartare, used to fly AA5s and 150`s and currently using a Cherokee. Glides like a brick.

:D:D:D

I suspect this thread will, however, reach six pages or more...

A 172 too difficult? really?....not so sure they should be flying:ugh:

Trouble is the Jodel undercart is not really built for training and I suspect rather a lot would get bent before people learnt how not to bend them. Personally cannot decide between the Moth and the Chippie - actually, got to be the Chippie for handling!:ok:

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.

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!:)

Sounds perfectly fair enough. I know a few B744 skippers who joke that after 20 years+, they're just getting the hang of it and fortunately the retirement age has been increased!

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.

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.

Personally I agree; I had twenty odd years in gliders before I did my PPL but having seen this raised before it seems to divide the camp. Some instructors say that gliding experience counts for nothing, others such as yourself think that it brings something to the table.

I know that an engine failure and subsequent field landing holds no fear for me though...:)

It's true, but the extra few knots is not the touchdown zone either.

If pilots are being taught "airline style" (whatever that is) for flying a GA aircraft, there is a problem - perhaps with the training, or the epaulettes image which perpetuates this Walter Mitty thinking.

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!

Do you find the landing is the part that is most satisfying in general from a piloting point of view? I get a lot of satisfaction out of a greaser. I know there are those that say don't grease it on and I wouldn't if circumstances dictate that I shouldn't; but there's no doubting the good feeling when you can hear the swish of the grass against the wheels before they actually touch, or the passenger comment of 'have we landed?' :)

Oh yeah! The landing is the most likely maneuver a pilot will do, that people watch, and judge. Further to that, it is more likely to be judged correctly as good or bad by non pilots. Slamming any machine around looks bad to anyone!

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

SSD I couldn't agree more.

Most landings are way way to flat. Mostly due to fannys flying 3 deg glides