Attitude for speed ???
 

All flying schools in OZ teach on final it is attitude for speed and power to attain aiming point... I have discussed this with B767, B747, and Twin Otter drivers and all three disagree with this method...they go for hold attitude and aiming point and use power for speed control...Anyhow I have been using the latter method on C172 and PA28 and I find it much better........
Any thoughts on this ???

T&G are you saying that your approaches are at a constant angle now, but you vary the speed as you fly down by altering the throttle? Apart from wondering why you want to vary the speed if your descent path is correct, I think you might actually be doing it the correct way without realising it. I always adjust my touchdown with the throttle, I keep the ASI steady with attitude while I'm doing it. Are you perhaps describing the same thing in two different ways...?

From what I have been told, and what I practice:

Attitude for speed, power for height is good in a light aircraft. Power for speed (constant attitude) is more like how it's done in a heavy.

Maybe this explains the response t&g received from the drivers of heavier equipment.

In a similar vain (but speaking very generally), in a light aircraft power is increased in a turn (esp. with increasing AOB), in a heavy aircraft it is generally
decreased??

I started the 'attitude for speed, power for aiming point' approach at first, but then changed instructors to the other method. I must say the second method is much better than fiddling with a method which is not natural (you instinctively think power for speed, attitude for aiming point) after all - you point where you want to go!

Also, why learn the first way when you're just gonna have to change if you want to go for larger planes?? Might do it right from the start!

Still, everyone to there own I guess. . .

Wycombe - are you sure jets reduce power in turns? That just seems silly to me - induced drag (from angle of attack) increases in a turn whether you're in a C152 or a B747!

I believe that "point and squirt" is taught in the RAF in readiness for conversion to fast jets where the aircraft is literally "aimed" as a projectile onto the runway!
I think I'll stick to the conventional method which does become second nature... imagine that you have a piece of string tied to the throttle and stick wrapped around the back of your neck.

First off congratulations on the new forum.

In regards to this topic, I was initally taught, as you all apparently were, attitude for speed, pwr for descent. A sideways view of my approaches probably looked similar to the NASDAC chart.

I was then taught the the other method,(also taught by the RAAF in Aus), pwr for speed, attitude for aimpoint, I found that my approaches were more stable and therefore less irrating for the pax and more importantly easier for me.

I have also taught both methods finding that the student generally coped easier and progressed faster with the the pwr for speed, attitude for aimpoint process.

I moved on to bigger and then even more bigger and have found that the training for anything bigger than a GA light single, was pwr for speed, attitude for aim point.

A search of the Instructors forum will also be worthwile as I think this was discussed there sometime ago. Another post worth looking for is the one on the "Jacobson Flare" ,another technique that uses the "point and squirt" (I like that)type of style.

Anyway, may I suggest find someone that knows how to do both methods and "Try it, you might like it".

Regards

Both attitude and power determine descent angle and speed. There's no one-to-one relationship: like many things in flying there are many parameters.

The 'gearing' between the outputs (descent angle and speed) and the inputs (attitude and power) depend on the shape of the drag curve. If you're up at maximum cruise speed, putting the nose down a little will not change the speed much, but it will produce a significant descent. At best lift/drag speed, the same change in attitude will alter your speed, but it won't put the aircraft into much of a descent.

So whether you use attitude or power for glideslope control depends on your aircraft and the part of the flight envelope you're operating in. I suspect the difference you perceive between light aircraft and military/commerical transport aircraft is a consequence of the different types and envelopes.

Nice one bookworm... I had to read it 2 or 3 times to get my head around it.

I agree with your last bit... I believe that there are no hard and fast rules in flying... except keeping the aircraft safely within it's envelope.

Dupre:

I agree, it doesn't sound right (decreasing power in a turn), which is why I added the ??'s, but I have heard discussions along these lines, and I guess in certain
circumstances it might be plausible.

'Point and Power' works just fine in a SEP Class ac......so long as you're more or less in the right place to start with.
It was enthusiastically recommended to all those FIs who attended the ETA seminars this year.......and it's so easy. To correct using P&P you need to be able to spot an IAS error, to correct using the 'other' technique you need to be able to spot a glidepath error, which is much more difficult!

Wycombe, somebody has given you some duff gen. Bigger aircraft just have more inertia, so will not, initially, appear to lose speed as much as a light aircraft, but, believe me, more thrust is still required.
Just remember the diagram of forces in a turn. For the same reasons as in a light AC, so the big ones need to increase the lift to maintain level flight. We do that by increasing the angle of attack, and countering the increase in drag by adding thrust.
Pure GeeWhiz info follows: the B737-200, requires 2-4% additional N1 in a 45' bank turn, at 250 KIAS, than in level flight. (we train this at FL150, but the figures are pretty constant up to FL310)

Often on short final to runway 20 at my home airfield we encounter some quite nasty sink usually only 100ft or so agl,which I quite naturally correct with a big squeeze of power as I have been taught the conventional method of power for height, so if I am unexpectedly going down too fast it is a natural reaction.I was just wondering what a low time pilot would do if he were trained in point and squirt,would he naturally pull back on the stick to regain the glideslope,and leave the power until a visible drop in airspeed occurred,thus quite probably inviting a stall at low level?
I would very much like to give point and squirt a go,but would appreciate some feedback on my concern first.
keep safe,
El Cid

That is a very good point.
I have found Runway 02 at Rochester to be a perfect example with a sheer chalk embankment with the accompanying rotors.
Last time I "arrived" from that direction i must have come over the fence with about 75% power to beat the sink!
It was a trained natural reaction.

This is an old hairy hoary one!

Perhaps the best way to sum it up is this:
1. When power is fixed elevators control speed;
2. When the flight path is fixed Power/
Thrust controls speed
In case 1 consider climbing at climb setting which is fixed. The only way to control speed is by changing pitch attitude with the elevator.
Similarly when descending on idle Power/ Thrust speed is controlled by attitude adjustment with the elevators.

In case 2 consider the condition of level flight and also when following a fixed approach angle whether it be by ILS or visually to a runway aim point. In both these cases the desired flight path is fixed and is controlled by elevator and speed is maintained by appropriate thrust adjustments.
Suppose you are on approach speed on slope on an ILS Glide path (same as a fixed angle visual approach)and the speed suddenly drops 5 kts. There will be a tendency to sink below the glide path. This is immediately prevented by elevator to maintain on glideslope and power is added as generously as necessary to regain desired speed. If on the other hand you lower the nose to regain speed you go below your desired glideslope and now you have two things to set right instead of one. You will still need to increase Power/Thrust. In the meantime you have allowed a higher sink rate to develop close to the ground which may be difficult to correct before ground contact.
On approach to land it is usual to carry an additional speed increment to allow for variations in windy and turbulent conditions this speed is for just such a purpose and should be "used" on a short term basis to achieve a stable approach path.If you make no claim on this extra speed increment it is equivalent to paying for insurance and not making a claim. :)




[This message has been edited by pterodactyl (edited 29 August 2000).]

Another chestnut...
correcting wing drop on final approach.
I have been trained to use opposite rudder, again not natural at first but much safer at low speed.
I have noticed that not all light aircraft pilots use this technique using aileron instead.

Please explain how on earth making rudder movements at low speed is in any way safer than using aileron to maintain wings level and rudder to maintain balance.
Large rudder inputs at low speed to correct for 'wing drop' is positively inviting a spin.
Hoping to read your reply whilst you're still alive.

I too correct an unexpected wing drop with rudder as this is how I have been taught.I have always been taught that opposite rudder and neutral aileron is the way to avoid a spin as this prevents the dropping wing from stalling further.I am not saying that this is correct,but we can only follow what we have been taught so I would be really grateful if you could explain the reasoning behind correcting it with aileron as I am always interested in learning how to make my flying safer.
Thanks,
El Cid

The primary effects of controls apply at all stages of controlled flight. 'Picking up a wing with rudder' is an archaic myth which is total rubbish. At the stall, rudder should only ever be used to maintain balanced flight (ball in the middle). NEVER should any attempt be made to use the further effect of rudder to attempt to return the aircraft to wings level flight, neither should any attempt be made to recover to wings level using aileron until the wing has unstalled.
The Standard Stall Recovery is ALWAYS 'FULL POWER and control column CENTRALLY forward until an attitude is reached which results in stall identification ceasing, at which point maintain that pitch attitude. THEN roll wings level using aileron whilst keeping the ball centred. THEN recover from the descent!!'
On an approach you are sufficiently far from the stall to use the flying controls in the conventional manner. So, if you suffer a wing drop due to a gust of wind, roll back to wings level using aileron, but KEEP THE BALL CENTRED!! Older aeroplanes had considerable adverse yaw with large aileron deflexion and it was VITAL to use the rudder to balance the aircraft as a result. This gave rise to the myth that these large rudder movements gave the primary corrective force needed to return to normal wings level flight.
LOW+SLOW+COARSE RUDDER=SPIN=DEATH!!

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 26 August 2000).]

Thanks for your advice BEagle,makes me wonder what other stuff people have been taught that could end up killing them.Chilling thought.
Take care and many thanks,
El Cid
p.s. Do you think that it is ok to prevent the wing dropping further with rudder if it drops at stall,rather than try to raise it completely?

[This message has been edited by El Cid (edited 26 August 2000).]

Absolutely NOT!! If a wing drops at the stall, don't do anything to try and stop it until you've unstalled the wing - otherwise you might be lucky, but you might depart into an incipient spin. The rudder is used purely to keep the aircraft balanced UNLESS you are recovering from a fully-developed spin.

It is late on a Saturday and I have just got back from an evening with friends but felt that I had to explain how an archaic practice seems to have kept me and others alive for many years.
Let's not forget that it is the wing that stalls... not the rudder and elevator (unless you are exceptionally clumsy), so they will always offer some input.
Close to the stall, eg on final approach, when the wing is closer to the stalling angle, further aileron deflection could cause the critical angle to be exceeded and the opposite effect to that intended will be experienced... ie further wing drop leading to a dreaded spin from a stalled wing.
Alternative use of the rudder will yaw the aircraft and increase lift over the problem area.
I believe that modern designs have virtually eliminated the problem but surely students should be taught this method because we all jump into older, les forgiving aircraft at sometime which will bite the unwary pilot.
As I have said before... there are no hard and fast rules in this game... keep the aircraftwithin the envelope.

The effect of aileron deflexion causing the effect you describe can only happen beyond the stall. At normal approach speeds this will not happen.
I can only conclude that you have been very lucky if you have been using such strange techniques. Perhaps the new JAA requirement for a biennial training flight with an FI is not such a bad idea after all!

Don't forget though that it was an FI who taught us this in the first place.
El Cid

Altitude? Speed? Cub's don't have them! Seriously though, wing down is much easier for a taildragger, kicking off drift and getting straight and into a 3-point attitude is too complicated for this simple person. Fortunately the Cub sideslips quite well which is just as well seeing as there are no flaps. I think that if the x-wind is strong enough to necessitate a wheeler landing you should be landing somewhere else.

------------------
When the wheels stop turning you're high enuff. CubTrek. To slowly go...

Regarding reviews... I always have an ANNUAL review on a voluntary basis usually in Oct/November in readiness for the winter weather... incidentally the guy who reviews me (and insists on this technique) has "luckily" stayed alive for over 17,000 hours (yes thousand) in GA aircraft, not long haul airliners.
I believe that the Trevor Thom basic training manuals recommend this technique also.
Regarding older designs, for example be careful of the early taper wing Warriors... I flew a 150 and it wanted to drop the right wing on the stall... I held it level with the mythical opposite rudder!
I believe a pilot not sufficiently aware of this technique would get into a lot of trouble... Warriors are difficult to get out of a spin.
The problem seems to have been addressed by the engineers and the later 160s don't appear to suffer the problem. I have noticed a low fence on the right leading edge of a sister 160.
I still maintain there are no hard and fast rules and your perceived sticking to a rule "set in stone" could be more dangerous than my feet pushing the rudder bar.

Perhaps Bookworm can help here

I am very much with BEagle on this (what with Beagler and BEagle being so similar but diametrically opposed in their views, hope I've got the right one!)

If a wing drops on final - I pick it up with aileron and at the same time put in the commensurate amount of rudder to keep the ball centred, OR 'cause I have no flaps and slip it in, keep the side slip the same.

My a/c stalls at 63mph but I run down final at 90mph (42% faster than stall speed) I recall Thom suggesting that you use 1.3 times stall speed. If the wing drops at anything above 70 on a stabilised 1G approach, then it can not have stalled, so I just fly the aeroplane normally. I used 70 as a guide because side slipping affects my ASI accuracy - with the pitot pointing obliquely into relative wind it tends to under read so 70 gives me a fair margin.

Do I detect two camps here? One the military trained, the other civvy trained. Bet BEagle didn't learn on Cessnas!

sNr

sNr - actually, I did learn to fly on Cessnas (after having done a little bit of gliding - not with the ATC!!).
At the Bedfordshire Air Centre we used brand-new Cessna 150s and were taught extremely well. I don't recall being taught to 'pick up a wing with rudder' - but I was taught spin entry and recovery and always to be careful with the rudder at the stall, using it only to maintain balance by keeping the ball in the middle. 'Step on the ball', Mr Singh used to exhort me!
The technique described by sNr is 100% spot on; it is what I was taught and is what I teach others on both little spamcans and great big 4-jets!

Wing down gives you crossed controls on the approach anyway. Given how ineffective Cub (and most older light aircraft) ailerons are, using the rudder to stop a wing drop due to gusts is a much more natural reaction. As beagler says, it accelerates the dropped wing and thus picks it up. Maybe it's also something to do with the fact that taildragger drivers realise that the rudder pedals are more than just a convenient place to rest your feet.

------------------
When the wheels stop turning you're high enuff. CubTrek. To slowly go...

Hi Beagle and others -
When I learned in a Tiger Moth with an ex-wartime RAF QFI it was definitely 'stick in the middle, pick up dropped wing with rudder.' And the Tiger has a huge rudder (for ground taxying I guess)and crap ailerons.
Conversely, we were also taught that a good way to kill yourself turning on to finals was let the speed get a bit low, and try to hold up the nose with top rudder. We had to do this as an excercise and indeed the old bird would tend to heave over and spin the other way, which made the point.

Hi Beagle and others,
When I learned on a Tiger Moth with an ex-wartime RAF QFI, it was very definitely 'stick centred, pick up wing with rudder'. And the Tiger has a huge rudder (presumably for ground handling)and crap ailerons.

Paradoxically we were told that a good way to kill yourself was to turn finals at too low an airspeed and hold the nose up with top rudder. We had to try this as an excercise and indeed the old bird would heave itself over and spin readily the other way.

yours, confused,
gv

After having pondered this point for a couple of days now,I think I can see where my confusion arises from.On re-readind various long forgotten flight training manuals,I have come to the conclusion that the only thing the rudder should be used for in the stall is to MAINTAIN balanced flight.I know that this goes against my previous postings,but I now recognize that when a wing drops at the stall,the nose of the aircraft will yaw in that direction,therefore the correct application of opposite rudder serves merely to stop said yaw,therefore remaining within the correct function of the rudder,that of maintaining balance.This yaw prevention with rudder has been confusing me into thinking that I am preventing the wing dropping further,when in actual fact I am simply preventing further yaw leading to an incipient spin.
El Cid

And by stopping the nose yawing, the secondary effect of which is a de-accelerating wing, you re-accelerate the downgoing wing relative to it's previous speed.

Sounded good when I wrote it!!

------------------
When the wheels stop turning you're high enuff. CubTrek. To slowly go...

And if it does start to spin:

close the throttle FULLY

opposite rudder to direction of yaw (turn needles are far more illustrative than wee aeroplanes in the T&B - even inverted, the needle still shows direction of yaw)

fwd stick to unstall

then

fly it away or vertical down line if its a comp maneouver

I spent a happy hour spinning one evening last week,

erect to the L
erect to the R
erect with outspin aileron
erect with throttle advanced
erect with outspin aileron and throttle

Power on makes the biggest difference

I tried the Muller-Beggs recovery and found that it worked well but not as quickly as if I initiated the recovery. (This was more gut feel, counting elephants and observing the altimeter than a scientific experiment).

Once I've had some inverted dual as a refresher I shall try the above and let you know how M-B works - it should be just the same?

sNr (who elected to make wardrobe doors today so that he can go out and play tomorrow)

And if it does start to spin:

close the throttle FULLY

opposite rudder to direction of yaw (turn needles are far more illustrative than wee aeroplanes in the T&B - even inverted, the needle still shows direction of yaw)

fwd stick to unstall

then

fly it away or vertical down line if its a comp maneouver

I spent a happy hour spinning one evening last week,

erect to the L
erect to the R
erect with outspin aileron
erect with throttle advanced
erect with outspin aileron and throttle

Power on makes the biggest difference

I tried the Muller-Beggs recovery and found that it worked well but not as quickly as if I initiated the recovery. (This was more gut feel, counting elephants and observing the altimeter than a scientific experiment).

Once I've had some inverted dual as a refresher I shall try the above and let you know how M-B works - it should be just the same?

sNr (who elected to make wardrobe doors today so that he can go out and play tomorrow)

"Step on the ball" was what BEagle was taught.
"The rudder bar is not a footstool" was what I was taught along with Low N Slow...
We weren't taught just to fly Spam cans with the vices designed out of them.
On thing is for sure is that none of us should let the speed drop dangerously low on approach.
This way we should all stay alive.
But beware the club Cessna/Piper pilot jumping into a Cub or Moth!
The thing is surely not to dismiss all techniques without consideration but listen, consider, practice and keep learning.
Keep the aeroplane within the envelope, be aware of what is happenning... monkey see, monkey do must be the worst type of training.
I am taking everything in but for now will continue using the rudder... a very underused control surface in my view.

Going back a bit (not been in front of the PC for a few days), thanks Skyvan. Your simply put example makes total sense and underlines that you should not believe all (or maybe any!) of what you hear in the Clubroom.

Beagler, spot on. My PPL instructor preferred tailwheel and he taught me to land trikes like taildraggers (except for the very last bit) so when he converted me onto the Cub it wasn't too hard once I got used to not seeing where I was going and Tiggering all over the place!

I first started on the ARV Super 2. Lovely little plane for a tin trike. Handled beautifully with great vis. Shame it climbed like a stunned pig. Cessnas were a disappointment after it.

------------------
When the wheels stop turning you're high enuff. CubTrek. To slowly go...

Well, Beagler, couldn't agree more that the rudder is a hugely underused control surface by most folk! Having done my original flying on the C150, fortunately well taught, my conversion onto the dear old Chipmunk reinforced the correct use of rudder. Although I was fortunate enough to fly from a grass field, we were invariably required to fly 3-pointers rather than wheelers, so the crab, flare and yaw technique became ingrained. But I agree that if you don't get it quite right, the only possible solution is quickly to adopt the 'wing down' into wind technique to stop the aeroplane drifting off the side of the runway! Or to have flown a 'wheeler' in the first place. Incidentally, the old chaps who used to fly Lancs were amazed that the RAF BBMF used to try and 3-point theirs.
Summer grass, tailwheels and Gypsy engines.......I think we agree, chum!!

(Edited for a couple of spooling miskates!)

[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 28 August 2000).]

We agree!

See you later,
hopefully off Beagling,

B

We do indeed! I'm looking forward to a bit of Cubbing at the weekend.

------------------
When the wheels stop turning you're high enuff. CubTrek. To slowly go...