Ah, this does make another useful safety point, about the difficulties over multiple units in aviation.

But please, don't go back and edit your original post - it'll make much later discussion extremely confusing for anybody coming to this (very useful) thread in the future.

G

A good reason to fly ATTITUDE.

Think attitude attitude attitude it keeps your eyes where they should be, outside the aircraft. The occasional glance at the ASI is all thats needed. Fly the attitude and if its the right attitude for the config I will guarantee the speed will be right.

WR attitude achieves an airspeed, don't complicate the issue!! :ok:

One fatefull day when you lose your ASI I know whos gonna make a better job of getting back on the ground.

Undid the edit.
The multiple units in the ASI are very confusing,especially around the flap operating range where the numbers are crammed into a small area.
After a while you get to know where the needle is pointing, but at first rather confusing at the student early learning stage when you really need them!
Much better to have just one unit,mph or kts clearly marked.
There have been some very helpful and constructive replies to this thread.
Many thanks
Lister:)

If it works for S and L and the climb, why not for the approach?

I have shown it to students who have been passed to me mid course and they have been stunned how much easier it all becomes.

WR all I advocate is looking outside not ignoring the ASI altogether. What worries me is a fixation with instruments when flying VFR. Of course use the ASI but not to the exclusion of all else :ok:

Sorry to bring it up again WR but if they peg the airspeed they will have by default flown an attitude accurately, why not just fly the attitude?

Ah, this does make another useful safety point, about the difficulties over multiple units in aviation.

In the spirit of Ghengis' comment, I once flew an Arrow all the way down final, in the USA, pegging Vref to a knot either way.

Unfortunately the ASI was in mph.

Regression to prior experience is a wonderful thing.

The instructor checking me out wasn't worried, he assumed I was practising a performance landing.

I haven't done the same thing since.

Well I sort of anticpated getting a bashing from the stick n' rudder brigade :E

Seriously - I'll stick by my guns (or rather - numbers). While we of course all gain experience with every hour flown and increasingly can feel the airplane, this is not something a student can/will. I simply consider it extremely dangerous and indeed irresonsible to tell people w/o experience to fly be the seat of the pants.

As to Well, I won't be, as I know what the a/c is capable of doing and how it does it - and last time I checked I was indeed heavier than air, hence the need for an aerial conveyance ;) !

Happy - and safe - landings.

One step further: the function of the elevator is simply to alter the angle of attack of the wing. This is the only sensible way to regard the elevator.

If in doubt and you're ever thinking "What's happening here? I don't like this" relax back pressure on the stick and decrease AoA before touching any other control and particularly ailerons.

I keep saying it (but there might be people reading this who didn't see the other thread):

Stick and Rudder by Langewiesche
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0...lance&n=266239

In my opinion, no student should go solo without having read parts of this book and been grilled on it thoroughly with their instructor. To think that this was written in 1944 and yet is so relevant today is amazing. It is an indictment of modern flight training that Langewiesche's over-riding emphasis on AoA has not carried through into the cockpit today. Many pilots have only the sketchiest understanding of the relation between AoA and stall speed and the effect of elevator on AoA and that is unsurprising when you look at the written PPL exams.

A deep understanding of AoA and the elevator will help you to rebel against the extraordinarily strong 'common sense' reflexes which can so very easily mislead you into a stall/spin accident. If you always think AoA, then any crash you have is more likely to be with the wings level than with one wing down and the prop drilling into the ground. As Langewiesche said more than 60 years ago, the former type of crash is almost always survivable, the latter type almost always isn't.

QDM

Yes, it's quite instinctive that if I'm too low and too slow I push the nose down, however counter-intuitive that might have been to start with. However it's typically not obvious to passengers that this would be the right thing to do in those circumstances, so it's one of those things I might mention on the drive to the airport.

Ok, sorry about the post then, I see what you are saying now and makes sense..

This is, of-course, why there's a convention for colour coding of ASIs.

It often irritates me that in replacing U/S instruments, or sometimes at new builds (particularly for permit aeroplanes) it's not always ensured that the colour bandings are restored in the right places. Frankly the (common) display of a placard with operating speeds is no substitute for a white arc for flap limits, amber between Va/Vra/Vno and Vne, and so-on.

G

As a PPL student, I agree that Langeweische's book is a great way of learning how AoA and your judgement of it is so critical.

However, Langeweische's means of explaining it hasn't been updated for 30 years and is fairly difficult to understand at first glance. So instead I use John Denker's See How it Flies for a far more in depth, linked understanding of aerodynamics and AoA at work. Best of all, it's free and available online :ok:

Confab
Thanks for that,it looks like a good refference work ,useful and a long read!
I'm now going out to dinner,flying at 9am tomorrow but will inspect in more detail later on tomorrow.
Lister

I'd agree with those who say too much instruction is done "by numbers". Aside from speeds, COUNTLESS times I've had PPLs, told they're number x behind something a lot bigger & faster than them turn onto base in very dangerous proximity because "I was taught to turn base at that village" or variations thereon.

On a slightly different tack, I first got my licence (pilot, that is) overseas and was taught stall recovery before I was allowed solo, but two types of stall - a cruise/climb stall, clean a/c, full or cruise power, s&l - and an approach stall; gear down, flaps down, low power & in a turn, all simulating turning onto base or final which is in my mind the most dangerous place for a tyro. I was speaking to just such a tyro today, & he lead me to believe the "approach stall" isn't taught prior to a student soloing. Is this correct?

All you need to do is look at the runway and AI. As you can gauge your height from the runway and too high reduce power too low add power just make sure you dont go under the magical speed otherwise ypur in for problems. Works for me and almost all my landings are greasers.:p
David

Aluminium persuader, the base to final stall, should be taught before going solo. If it isn't, then that is, certainly for me anyway, a cause for concern.

Good to see all this discussion!

Howver, bearing in mind this has been prompted by a tragic accident in a C150.......In order to apply PAT, one has to ensure that "P" is available.

So don't forget appropriate use of the Carb Heat.....especially on a humid summer day.

I was only taught basic s/l stalls, incipients, and full spins before I went solo, actually thats all I was taught all together. I've never been taught stalls with anything less than gradually reducing to idle power, but did powered and un-powered recoveries.

First time I ever did an approach to landing stall was on a check flight in the UK. Wasn't sure what to do, so just used a bit of common sense and some guess work, must have been ok though as the instructor didn't say I did it wrong.

It's very interesting for me reading these types of threads. Makes me think that doing a PPL in 19 days was a little quick and maybe a few things got missed along the way !!.

:\

I'd agree with those who say too much instruction is done "by numbers". Aside from speeds, COUNTLESS times I've had PPLs, told they're number x behind something a lot bigger & faster than them turn onto base in very dangerous proximity because "I was taught to turn base at that village" or variations thereon.

The above appears to be missing the point.

It is indeed stupid to tell a student to turn downwind at the B&Q store, turn base at the church with the green roof, etc (as I was taught).

But it is not stupid to drum into the student that he must be at 80kt on downwind (and trimmed), 75kt on base (and trimmed) and fly the final at 70kt (and trimmed). (or whatever figures are right for that type) That's what "flying by numbers" means to me. With a more complex type this will be extended to engine settings e.g. 23"/2300/10.5GPH for a cruise LOP setting which should give 138KTIAS.

Seat of the pants flying is all very well for experienced pilots who have hundreds of hours on the type, and high currency. Most PPL students have few hours on the type, many are constantly changing planes (due to poor availability, planes going "tech", etc) so they fly different types, and many have lessons so rarely that if they were qualified pilots they would probably be slightly dangerous.

I am all in favour of stripping out some 90% of the junk taught in the JAA PPL exam "ground school", but some basic technical understanding of stall speeds, and how to safely operate a plane with the proper margins, is necessary.

Exactly ! :D

And this extends to the many of us who don't own their a/c but fly club/rental airplanes.