How many minutes of slow flight do you have ?
An aircraft travels through the slow flight range at least twice in every flight during take off and landing . Most accidents occur during flight in the slow flight range . Attitude control during slow flight can mean the difference between having a fun flight or not .

Seat height adjustment is also very important , if you are sitting too low . The change of attitudes during landing can confusing . I was told to look at the airspeed indicator during landing and almost crashed looking at the airspeed indicator . Once you look outside the plane in the landing it gets easier .

Time to solo is not that important and sometime I will do some x-country work to another airport for students stuck in a rut , or I should say plateau. A normal phase in the learning curve .

Update
 

Dear All,

Thank you so much for your valuable, constructive, kind and helpful advice. I asked my instructor to demonstrate a landing and we agreed that I would have my hands on the yoke during the final approach. Once that was completed, something in me clicked and I understood that multiple tiny corrections to maintain speed are what one must do and do not mean one cannot fly a plane well. Prior to that, I thought that constant nose adjustments meant that I was bad at flying. This helped me crack it and…yesterday I soloed for the first time! We had beautiful skies, headwind, tower were sweet and it felt absolutely exhilarating!

🙏

Well done, and my best wishes for lots of enjoyable flying for many years to come.

Great job, Flyingheels! Congratulations and welcome to the fraternity of the sky(gods)!

- Ed

congratulations! Well done :)

Spooky I posted this yesterday on the Flyer forum:-

And yet another entry for my logbook for today. Cracking day today, as it was a late lesson (16:00) had time for some work today & a bike ride beforehand. Bike ride was needed as my head was in a weird place today. Almost like I was not looking forward to the lesson! Same feeling when I returned. More later.
Light winds but definitely off of 20. Did a mix of normal & flapless approaches. Pretty much the same as before, poor speed control especially over the threshold. Still landing too flat.
Back to being really depressed at lack of progress. Now done 33 odd hours of circuits and its still Carp with the same faults as I had 20 hours ago. Back to seriously thinking about quitting.
My thought processes are: I have £11K or thereabouts invested in this & it was definitely a bucket list thing. I am not a quitter but there comes a point when you say enough is enough. I currently have 5 more lessons paid for to early November. (Aircraft has annual in Oct) do I book more. Or do I give it a rest for the winter, do my last two exams (met & nav) so I stay in the 18 months rule and restart in spring 22? Or do I do something now.
So in a strange place this evening. 0:50 for my logbook.
So now 46 lessons & 45 hours 15 mins in.
Next lesson next Wednesday

Just out of interest - how many landings are people getting in a lesson? I learned in the US where I could do 10-12 touch and goes an hour if it wasn't busy. Then I flew in the UK where there were was very little "pattern work" just a couple of landings at the end of a lesson.

Regarding learning to land from a book - anyone who's read Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy will know that the secret to flying is to throw yourself at the ground - and then miss. Pretty much the same applies to landing a plane.
Hence why you can think of landing as a two stage process: an initial roundout to level flight a few feet above the runway, followed by a flare to keep that height, bleeding off speed as the nose comes up. Once you know the nose wheel is higher than the mains, just hold that attitude and let aerodynamics do the rest.
I found using a long runway and an extra 10+ knots really smoothed my landings out, because it made the whole process a lot longer. I basically practiced the float, then brought the speed back.
​​​​​

You raise a good point. I found it tended to be much the same here, with landings more of a peripheral to the main thrust of a typical lesson.

As they're the more interesting part of flying (to me) I would often spend time just doing tight 600 ft circuits within the aerodrome confines whenever it wasn't busy. That way, particularly in a slow a/c (usually a Cub), one could maximise the number of landings per hour. If it's possible for the OP, and anyone else with landing issues, this may be worth trying.

I also recall spending time with others going over landings on a 'simulator'. I was interested in the transference of learning from such devices (studied it at postgrad level) and built a full-size FTD for the school. I was surprised, and gratified, to find that careful work with this did assist some people, particularly with cross-wind techniques. So it could be worth trialing such work if your school has a reasonable FTD - not, I hasten to add, just a computer in the corner with a mouse/keyboard and M$ FS on it!

First point I am managing around 6 T/O & landings in an hour. The issue being is the landings phase is 10-20 seconds of the whole circuit.

Second point is interesting. Whilst on holiday in Jersey I did a lesson there. PA28 rather than a 172 I am learning in at Rochester and seemingly miles of tarmac compared to Rochesters 800ish M of grass. I seemed a lot better than at Rochester!

Well done!

So happy for you. It’s an amazing feeling, you’ll never forget your first solo.

Quite correct. Holding off is classic Tiger Moth era tailwheel flying instruction when trainers, mostly Moths didn’t have brakes. The best place to slow an aircraft down is on the runway with the brakes applied. I disagree about it working on the aircraft you mention. I teach landing attitude as initial climb attitude, just after take off.

I find the noticeable difference between professional pilots and non professional pilots is that professionals always use point and power and round out lower, many PPL’s, understandably, are runway shy. My most repeated critique ( made downwind, not as the student is lifting off) is do everything you are doing but come closer to the runway.

Somebody said you can’t learn from books, I disagree and more importantly you will be better prepared for landing practice if you know exactly how to carry out each step of the landing, BEFORE you get to the aircraft. Learn on the ground, practice in the air.

Don't worry too much. Whilst learning to fly, I had a landing crisis as well. I was almost desperate, told my main instructor that I simply couldn't figure it out. Then, suddenly, some hours later, out of the blue, it all clicked. We're strange animals in the way we learn things, both mentally and physically.

But, for God's sake, get yourself one or two good instructors to fly with. Tell the school that current arrangement isn't working and is against all professional good practices. Once you've got the landings sorted, you can probably fly with anyone for the rest of the course.

I agree. I am not convinced that giving an attitude from a different phase of flight, as a comparison, is that helpful. Throughout the flying training we teach: power + attitude = performance for each phase; climbing, straight and level, descending and turns etc. We do the same at different speeds and configurations. Why change this logic for landings?

Exactly. The landing should also be given a power together with an attitude. This brings us back to how thoroughly the early exercises have been taught, which are too often rushed, particularly the effects of controls.

I do not generally agree with this. Perhaps brakes are beneficial to the desired stop, but I don't plan my landing to need to use them. Indeed, most of my landings to not involve the use of brakes at all (my 2000 foot grass home runway). I approach to land at the correct speed for a landing at the right point of the runway, and allow to plane to slow on its own. If I've used brakes to overcome poor speed control on approach, I've done it wrong.

I'm uncomfortable with this too. When I takeoff, I use high power. When I approach to land, I use little or no power. I cannot safely sustain a nose high attitude with little or no power, so I leave the nose lower. During the flare, I may momentarily raise the nose (in my taildragger, I may not), but otherwise, the power will be low, and the nose down.

Yes, though a well accomplished landing is not a search for performance, it is optimized by slowing and increasing drag to the point of a near stall at the desired moment at the point that the wheels touch.

Yes, as long as we agree that some landings should be practiced with a given power of none - forced approaches. In my C 150, I would fly most home landing (day) approaches with idle power from the downwind to base turn. I did not require power to land, and flying the approach power off was reassuring, should I have engine problems short final (two miles of forest before my runway begins). Sure, other airplanes (larger Cessnas for example) really seem to land nicely carrying power, but that is not the only way to land them, and power off is a valid and necessary technique. I once glide landed a C 206 from 12,000 feet following an engine oil problem. It was a 35 mile glide, to the circuit, and rolling off at a runway intersection - no problem. The main thing that power does for a power plane is to extend the distance which can be covered before the energy is exhausted, and landing immanent (though always land with some energy in reserve, preferably in the fuel tanks, for power planes).

Landing is a deliberate shedding of the airplane's flying energy at just the point where touching the surface is ideal - Attitude for sure! Power... maybe (if you have it).

Absolutely and is the normal technique in flying schools throughout the world for most training types. The term: 'power idle' is correct (sorry to nitpick, forgive me). Not to be forgotten is that the POH landing distances are given using power at idle for most light types. Many aircraft however do benefit in handling with additional power. Even the ubiquitous C172, some find the weight of the nose with the power idle too heavy, and so the addition of power is needed to assist. This should be discovered by the instructor during the 'effects of controls' exercises of course.

I see it differently, if some find the pitch forces of a 172 too heavy, that's an extra reason for power idle practice in it (or physical strength building)! Wait until they fly the much heavier C 206! Despite its ubiquitous presence in GA, a 172 is generally there to enable training, so a pilot has the foundation of skill (and muscle, I guess) to go on to other types. There is no characteristic of a 172, which other GA types would not have to a greater extreme in one way or another - certainly pitch control forces. Sure, a student can use the 172 to build skills, but when they are competent in it, they should be able to fly it with common skill and precision power idle - from cruise flight, to a gentle touchdown, including the use of slipping and flaps as appropriate to the approach. Power should be used as a performance aid, but not a handling aid.

A long time ago, I had some flight testing to do on two different Piper Navajo's. I'd never flown a Navajo before, and no one was available to check me out, so I read the flight manual, and checked myself out in it. I did find, as you'll agree, that carrying power on final made it "nicer" to land, so for the first few landings, I was nicely kissing it on the runway using that technique. But that was my entry point with that type. By the time I was done, I was content to approach power idle.

Off topic, one of the Navajos was this one:


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....37a2673699.jpg


As an aside, for most retractables, you could be setting yourself up for a nasty surprise in the flare (if even there), if you fly powered final approaches, as it is the movement of the throttle(s) to the idle position which causes the gear warning horn if you've forgotten to extend it - It'll be too late in the flare! I realized this for myself (safely!) during my early Navajo flying, so even though I still cheated my early landings by carrying power across the fence, during my mid final landing gear check, I would close the throttles to listen for the horn.

Pilot DAR, that's too smug. The important teaching aims during the landing,for all ab-initio pilots is to: 1. build confidence 2. teach the landing phase 3. learn the sensory and visual knowledge required and of course, and perhaps the most difficult of all, appropriate decision making. They will not learn these things if they are struggling with the controls. Where an individual requires assistance with power then idle landings can follow as a specific exercise. Idle power will be part of forced landing training obviously.

Idle power landings are also part of the PPL Skill Test

Approach and landing with idle power (glide approach – SE aeroplanes only). The examiner
may limit the amount of runway available.
source CAA


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....80b3395d0.jpeg
This is what I mean when I say , INTIAL CLIMB ATTITUDE

Obviously this aircraft is just about to touchdown and this is the attiude I want the student to more or less adopt for touchdown. The student is, or should be, already familiar with the initial climb attitude that he/ she rotates to on each take off, this is teaching from the known to the unknown. The student is familiar with this attitude but as yet doesn’t know it as the landing attitude. In the same way I can sit a student in a C152 and lean on the tail plane and show a similar landing attitude and describe it as an initial climb attitude. By giving the student a visual cue I am teaching them how to achieve the task of holding off. The elevator or stabilator pitch up input required to hold off is similar to that required to rotate. Students very quickly grasp pitching towards the end of the runway to rotate, so this comparison in my opinion is important to teach the basic technique of holding off. When they have that basic pitch change understood then they can be taught the finer points of arresting rate of descent according to how the aircraft sinks onto the runway. They way I teach landings is just through teaching 2 pitch changes, descent to level flight, level flight to initial climb attitude. Again I emphasise INITIAL and I use climb attitude as they are already familiar with that term and attitude change.

You don't teach SEP PPL students to 'rotate'. That concept is totally wrong.
I think you better read some better books.

This makes sense to me. "Landing" is a term which could describe several points from final approach though to touchdown. The very nice photo of the PA-28 illustrates what I like to see a pilot doing. I've had the opportunity to teach off the ice, which often affords practically unlimited runway dimensions. With this, I have taught takeoff differently: I direct the student to apply and hold full nose up, and I apply the power. I apply enough to get the plane moving, and the nose to start coming up, but not enough to accelerate to flying speed - yet. When the nosewheel comes just off, I can have the student hold that attitude, and get used to it. This is both the ideal takeoff and landing pitch attitude. I allow the student to practice maintaining this attitude with small power changes, but with inadequate power to get airborne. When the student "gets it", I'll brief, and add power for takeoff, while the student holds that attitude - the airplane will become airborne when it's ready. A good landing is about the opposite of this. We practice a few times, with the correct pitch attitude being the focus of the exercise. This is a handy teaching tool on wheels, and more vital on the water.

Getting the pitch attitude right for a water takeoff is more critical. If the nose is too high, the plane will stick itself in the water with hull drag. I was training a pilot in his new Lake Renegade, which has oodles of power when you're light. He was getting airborne because the plane had the power to force itself out of the water in too high a pitch attitude - he was not learning. So I did the power, setting about 60%, and telling him to get airborne with that. Eventually, with a mile or so of lake, he was airborne, so he knew that a poor performance takeoff was possible, once he got the attitude correct.

The other thing which irks me are pilots/instructors who will touch down well upon landing, and then just drop the nosewheel to the runway, as though the flight is over, and they can just let go of everything. I was training a pilot on his new to him 182 amphibian, with its brand new $135,000 floats - with small nosewheels. Once, he just dropped those small nosewheels onto the runway at 70 knots or so. We talked.... I demonstrated a landing where I held the nosewheels off, until full nose high pitch control would no longer hold them off - then made him practice. I land every tricycle so as to be applying full nose up as the nosewheel settles on - just to reduce nosewheel wear and tear....

Congrats to Flyingheels on soloing. For other readers struggling with landing technique:

The approach and landing can be considered as defined vertical flight paths, with path controlled by pitch inputs and speed by power inputs (in much the same way as in straight and level flight). This technique differs from descending flight, in which speed is controlled by pitch inputs and rate (and therefore gradient) of descent are controlled by power setting.

The first phase of the landing technique - the flare - concerns the flight path from the transition point to the threshold, during which the power is gradually reduced to minimum. At the same time, the attitude is raised at such a rate, and to such an extent, that the aircraft arrives at the threshold in level flight just above the runway.

diagram here: www.steemrok.com/hlaflare.jpg

The asterisk shows the approach path 'sighting point' coinciding with the runway threshold.

During the second phase - the hold off - pilots should continuously alternate their vision direction to simultaneously assess height above ground and pitch attitude (which is adjusted to maintain constant height just above the runway. When the landing attitude has been reached the aircraft is allowed to sink onto the runway. This attitude does not need exact precision, merely the nosewheel comfortably off the runway (to reduce nosewheel stress and minimise potential for porpoising).

diagram here: www.steemrok.com/hlaholdoff.jpg

This is rubbish!

Yes, all good. But this explanation misses out the most important thing about the hold off. This is that you are trying to arrange things so that the mains touch when the aircraft has the lowest possible airspeed you can manage. This is so important I'll say it again.
The lowest possible airspeed.
That should be the aim in a light SEP.
This might mean large control deflections in any or all of the three axes to maintain the Centreline and to align the aircraft in a cross wind - but that's ok. That's what the designer gave them to you for.

​​​​​

Well I'm not going to get drawn into a debate about point and power except to say that it is what the RAF teach for the approach.
Personally I'm more comfortable with stick for speed and power for descent, but then these days I only fly baby airplanes.
In other words, it depends on type.

@Fl1ingfrog

Thank you for your input.

On the approach (and in level flight) autopilots and flight directors use pitch for path and power for speed. In climbing and descending flight (non-defined vertical flight paths) they use pitch for speed and power for vertical gradient. Climb gradient (fixed power setting) depends on speed (controlled by pitch). The laws of aerodynamics apply to all aircraft, regardless of size and regardless of whether humans or autopilots are flying them.

I'm more comfortable with stick for speed and descent, and power for flying the airplane beyond its gliding distance. I'm not saying that all landings need be power off, but all SEP pilots should be comfortable landing with no engine power.

The airplanes I fly don't fly this way. If I increase power during level flight, the speed will increase, and it will begin to climb. I will adjust the pitch to maintain level flight if that is that I intend. Inversely, when I would like to descend from level flight, the first thing I'll do will be to reduce power, and all the plan to pitch down slightly, uncorrected. The plane will descend at the same speed I was flying before the power change.

In very slow flight, if I increase power, the plane will fly more slowly.

On short final approach, you're probably in between those two conditions, where power changes will be very slow to result in a speed or pitch change, but will change the point ahead where the plane will slow to a stall, all other things unchanged. When I'm training a pilot who appears to be using power for fine glidepath control, our next circuits will be power idle from long final, until they build that judgement and skill - I spend a lot more time teaching power idle approaches, than approaches supplemented by power.

In a private flying forum, how the RAF teaches flying is of less relevance to me. I think most of their aircraft differ considerably from SEPs. That said, I understand that jet powered airplanes are even slower to react to power changes than propeller powered in slow flight, so glidepath control in a jet, with power as the primary factor, must be very challenging!

Nope - 'point and power' works just as well in a PA-28 as it did in the F-4 or VC10! Glide path control in the Buccaneer was instant in the blown configuration by thrust adjustment.

We found that students who'd been taught 'point and power' gnerally soloed about an hour earlier than those taught the old way.

I've taught point and power for many years having previously taught pitch for speed and power for height on the approach, which was the convention at the time. A method I'd always found frustrating as much as I know my students did. In all other exercises it was power + attitude so why isolate this into two separate actions on the approach the student forever being behind the curve. Having corrected the height they then discovered they had lost the speed and vice versa. With point and power you are, of course, applying pitch and power simultaneously as the aircraft gains and loses height around the glide path. Most importantly for the ab-initio you are not contradicting all that you had previously taught.

Glide approaches as the primary method was very much the conventions when engines at low power were considered unreliable. Pitch dominated therefore and power an added benefit rather than side slipping but not to be relied upon. With the modern reliable engines, carburettor icing now understood and plugs not oiling up so easily the benefits of power became an equal part of the approach particularly with flap. Old ways don't change that easily and steep approaches with power reserved for maintaining the glide slope. This remains sometimes with good reason and Pilot DAR explains this well.

This old "chestnut" about Airspeed with Elevator and Glide Path with Power versus Point and Power comes up time and again!

My own view about this stems from the observation that most flight training starts on single engined arcraft and has since the Wrights. Therefore for the student to be prepared to survive a forced landing he has to be taught the former technique - if he happened to be a glider pilot then this would be instinctive to him (speed/elevator glidepath/spoilers) To state the obvious - with no engine then power cannot be used for speed control.

Neither technique is the only way to do things. With a jet there tends to be a flatter Lift/Drag Curve thus if lift has to be increased then either the pitch has to be increased or the aerofoil accelerated - there is no benefit from increased airflow over the wing from increased power.

John Farley tells an amusing story in his book about being subjected dogmatically to the first technique on a CFS course so he deliberately flew an approach too slowly to 50 ft. then passed control to his instructor and said "now show me Pitch for Airspeed, Sir!!"

Point and Power is definitely an easier technique to master- in my opinion. (standing by for incoming!!)

A major concern of mine is the lack of glide approach training and this must be laid at the door of FIC schools. Glide approaches seem to be taught only as an emergency and not as a valuable technique. Taught only as a demonstration, sandwiched in passing into a lesson. A practice PFL onto the runway is often what counts. Like so many other elements of the syllabus, power off, steep approaches are treated with contempt and given lip service.

It is hard not to see this and become despondent about the state of flight training :*

Towards the end of my time as a full time instructor, I tended to get the "problem" students. Almost invariably the complaint was they could not land. Unfortunately all too often the problem was they couldn't fly period. This was almost invariably the result of the instructor rushing through the foundation air exercises, Attitudes and Movements, Straight and Level, Turns, and Climbs and Descents. The result was they could not accurately asses the flight path of the aircraft and make the appropriate corrections at any stage of the circuit but especially on final and the flare.

To the Original Poster. If you want advice then here it is: Insist that you get a senior instructor and go to the practice area and review the foundation exercises. Do not let any instructor take you to the circuit until you have mastered the basics.

You've got me thinking.

Perhaps 'pilots should simultaneously assess both height above ground and pitch attitude (which is adjusted to maintain constant height just above the runway)' would be less prescriptive. Perhaps during the hold off it is peripheral vision which monitors height.

I recall the technique my (RAF) instructor used when I was learning to fly (Chipmunk). We lined up for take-off but before letting me open the throttle the instructor said: 'Look ahead and note where the horizon intercepts the cowling. Burn that image into your mind. Now look down slightly and note our height above ground. Burn that image into your mind. Now fly a circuit and don't let the aircraft land until you've got those pictures.' It worked for me.

Obviously in a taildragger landing attitude is critical. Less so on a nosewheel type.

I can choose to deliberately land my taildragger on all three wheels at once, or only two. Tricycle planes really must be landed on only two, if you want prevent damage to the plane. When I land a tricycle, I apply increasing pitch control after touchdown, to maintain the touchdown attitude as long as pitch control effectiveness enables to reduce wear and tear on the nosewheel.

When I land my taildragger, I always plan for a wheel landing. Once the mains are on, I'll lift the tail a little with pitch control, to improve the forward view, and reduce the chance of a bounce. I'll hold the tail off as long as control enables, to reduce wear and tear on the tailwheel.