villas,
In post #35 you said All I'm asking is why you think you'd need stick out of neutral to maintain bank / wings level with side slip and why you think the rudder loads with constant side slip is enough to break it - yet it must be designed to withstand rudder loads with EFTO.
You don't seem to be very confident in the loads the Airbus fin can withstand under constant rudder deflection. How will you cope with your EFTO?

Suggest you read The Gimli Glider ? Damn Interesting
If the options are to do a forced landing beyond half way down a short runway, or loose some more energy on short finals - then I might try side slipping. In normal ops, side slipping is simply inefficient flight.

titaniumwings
That is not what I said! Excuse me for shouting, but Airbus FBW in roll WILL NOT MAINTAIN CONSTANT BANK ANGLE. Stick free it tries to maintain zero roll rate, but if the bank angle is changed by turbulence or rudder input it will try to stop the roll, but IT WILL NOT RETURN TO THE ORIGINAL BANK ANGLE.
Is that clear enough?

TP- bear with me for a while. I m not trying to be funny but let me try this one more time. Say do a right turn then neutralise the side stick at 5deg right bank. Then put in left rudder input gradually gently. What will the bank angle then be?

Thanks.

I'll try: the bank angle will be whatever the presumed rudder input will create. Large possibilities available with swept wing.

No lateral SS input, no roll demand. Unless, of course, you can take her beyond 33 degs.

Vilas----ok good after you re read my post above:ok:

Gentle controlled smooth sideslips ( partial rudder applied ) at low speeds are not going to knock the tail off, the AA A300 in JFK was sudden full rudder control that placed rapid excessive sudden loads on the fin.

Anyway blue skies...

"And I have to disagree with hikoushi about manual thrust in gusty wind. It is exactly opposite of what Airbus recommends. You don't knock out GS Mini and convert AB FBW to Boeing it is not a safe way to fly. It is safer to change your company and fly a Boeing instead."

vilas, methinks you are trying to say that either the Airbus or the Boeing aircraft line is safer than the other, but I can't quite tell which one. Either way, horse-pucky.

I see according to your profile that you are a sim instructor on the 320, but have not flown the 330. In the training world it is easy to lose touch with real flying, yes? Remember the Airbus Golden Rule that it "...can be flown like any other aircraft"? The rule at the very front of "The Book"? Yes A/THR is the way to go most of the time; the FBW is designed to work with it and it all does a very good job. However, the 330 has very smooth and responsive throttles and is a joy to truly hand-fly as well.

GS mini is done doing it's "thing" as you descend through 400 feet. It does a great job of keeping an energy reserve and preventing excessive thrust changes. Below 400 feet, the GS mini function blends out. Your target speed becomes your Vapp, and with shear and gusts (big ones) it is common to have that speed drop to Vls and a great big burst of power come in, suddenly and without warning, slightly out-of-phase from the wind. Think back to your 747 days and all the inertia of a big heavy airplane, then couple it with the Airbus FBW and autothrust. This is where a steady manual thrust setting can be more comfortable IF you are comfortable, proficient, and current at actually using it. Barring the wild winds we are talking about here, the A/THR GENERALLY stays ahead of the speed very well AS LONG AS you have good pitch control (and incidentally if you have trouble keeping the nose pointing straight on a single-engine ILS in the simulator using autothrust, I guarantee you your pitch control is junk).

Do you fly the 330? If so, do you fly frequently enough into gusty winds to have become comfortable with them IN THE 330? Do you fly, and have you used, manual thrust enough to be as comfortable with it as with the autos? If not, does your company allow the A/THR to be deferred or MEL'd? Ours does. If yours does too, and your SOP allows it, I HIGHLY recommend you learn how to fly the airplane "like any other aircraft". You state that (paraphrasing) turning the autothrust off is "not a safe way to fly"; I sincerely hope you do not wind up getting an aircraft with the autothrust deferred and having to figure it out for the first time under pressure. Practice and be comfortable flying your aircraft at ALL levels of automation, as there are times where you will NEED all of them. And if your SOP allows it (ours does), there are times where you may WANT to have a little bit bigger of a bag of tricks to choose from that are all equally comfortable and safe, no matter what aircraft you fly.

Tailwinds to you and good luck out there.

'Below 400 feet, the GS mini function blends out. Your target speed becomes your Vapp, and with shear and gusts (big ones) it is common to have that speed drop to Vls and a great big burst of power come in, suddenly and without warning, slightly out-of-phase from the wind'



No thanks, i'll stick with manual thrust on my Boeing :eek:

Hikoushi
I was not talking about individual flying ability or developing the skill to fly without auto thrust. You must acquire all the skills that it takes. I didn't fly 330 but I did A320. But starting from B707 to non FBW airbuses and classic 747, without the luxury of PFD and trend arrow I have enough in the kitty to handle well anything that others can do. I found A320 the easiest aeroplane to handle with or without any automation whatsoever. We didn't use GS mini in 747 but speed addition which was bled off at flare but GS mini is a good concept. Can pitch control be easier than airbus normal law? In a GA with TOGA power you need to pull up otherwise it gets damped. So in approach and landing a burst of power is not a big deal. You just point the bus like a gun at the threshold let the thrust do what it will. If you have good scan you will have good control.

stilton
If you were to fly an Airbus you will be amazed how easy it is compared to 737. That is the problem with AB FBW it takes some of the glamour away because even a well trained inexperienced co-pilot flies it equally well.

Vilas

I agree 110%. I have flown both AB and B (and McDD, DH, Lockheed and Fokker). The A320 was without doubt the sweetest to handle. Equalled only by Vickers.

As much as people (who have never flown one) slam the Airbus philosophy, I must admit I have really learned to enjoy it, even with all it's quirks. It will never have the visceral feel of an older Boeing or Douglas (or Piper for that matter), but it is definitely a pleasure to fly. I still encounter Airbus pilots in all seats who never developed comfort flying the airplane and leave the autos on absolutely all the time. All of them wish they were flying a 777 instead. If they would just take the time to fly the airplane for what it IS, they would find the Zen in the Art of Bus Driving (or just bid back over to the Boeing fleet).

But you know what happens when you go back and fly long-haul in a Boeing after being on the Bus for a few years? YOU CAN'T STAND IT. IT IS PHYSICALLY UNBEARABLE to have that damned control column jamming your legs again. You never noticed it before, but after experiencing that legroom, you now start thinking about deep-vein thrombosis. You leave the autopilot on all the time anyway so you don't care that the airplane "feels" better, you just care about that damn column. And the table! Where is my meal tray going to go? And my coffee? Come on, my break doesn't start until 0900 and it's only 0300! We have a 14 hour block to ZBAA today, this thing is uncomfortable as all getout! Give me back my French ergonomics!!

Time to call it a day and go have a beer. What whining little snots we become with a little comfort!

Quote: I trained in Canada where they taught the wing down technique. When I got back to the UK I was made to use the crab technique by RAF QFIs. I continued with the latter until I got to ETPS and subsequently onto B Sqn at A&AEE. During my time there I did a considerable amount of work on landing techniques where I was given carte blanche to try what I liked. My findings were conclusive - wing down is far superior. OK, so you land on one wheel, but you are still, in fact, still partially wing bourne at this time. Advantages are as follows: the fine judgement on when to kick off drift is very difficult to get right and, if you don't, the ac will land with crab on which can significantly stress some ac. In strong, gusty X winds, with wing down, you land with the control deflections which are exactly what you want for the roll out which prevents the arm and leg blurr that usually follows a crab touch down. It is easy to land without drift because the instant of touchdown is not critical and so is a much smoother. I have used this technique with ac ranging fom Slingsby T67s through to VC10s taking Comet and Lancaster en route. The only ac not suitable for this treatment are things like 747s A340 and B52. Incidentally, I have fair experience on both A320 and B737. There is no mystery - they both handle like normal ac. In fact I found the A320 a little nicer to handle manually than its rival. (Retire to WWll bunker at the end of my garden). As you may appreciate this is a big hobby-horse for me, but I do wish the RAF had been broad minded enough in times past to get away from sacred cows and try different techniques. Unquote.



As an ex RAF standards QFI, and later Boeing TC (with time on the VC10 too) I can assure you the RAF teaches the crab technique because it works so very well on all types (although I have no Airbus experience) and on podded aircraft minimises the chance of pod strike. Why change a perfectly good technique and on my Boeing conversion at Seattle, it was a fully approved technique. The thought of significant bank near the runway with a CF6 hanging under the wing fills me with dread, as does the thought of landing in a 40 k crosswind without decrabbing !

In my almost 40 years of flying, RAF and civil, the ONLY time I ever saw a wingdown crosswind approach was when my Boeing was making a coupled approach.

If it ain't broke why fix it ?

Hi there Retired BA/BY. I was also a standards QFI and also a commercial FI so our background is rather similar. I still maintain that, where physically feasible, the wing down is superior. I have also done instrumented trials on Xwind handling and the results were rather conclusive. The aircraft involved were Nimrod, C130 and PC9. In all cases the wing down was established by at least 100ft so the approach was stabilised in good time before touchdown.

Many years of wing-down landings in Cessnas and such. Flew GA from a young age and only went for the commercial path when it dawned on me that it is better to fly on someone else's dime. :)

When pursuing my instructor's certificate many moons later, a wise old eagle taught me the technique I've used since on pretty much everything. Fly the airplane in the crab INTO THE FLARE, round out and hold it just above the deck. Squeeze in the rudder to straighten the nose while simultaneously squeezing in opposite aileron to keep wings level; at the moment the nose is dead strait, keep the wing coming down slightly and continue to rudder the nose down the runway. This is, of course, EXACTLY the same technique you would use to establish your "wing-down sideslip" at 100 feet or wherever.

BUT, since you are right over the runway, your slip is interrupted by the upwind wheel pressing into the ground. It will do so with just the scarcest bit of bank, since you are "pirouetting" in the flare. Also lets you choose the moment the wheel touches, in a similar way to a wheel landing in a taildragger. And, if you blow it and flare high, you just wind up in a normal wing-down approach. In a big plane usually not even that happens, as your inertia will keep you tracking straight a good bit longer than in a lightplane (mega-winds notwithstanding).

In the Airbus I do what basically feels just like that method. Starting it right around the first "retard" call along with the final throttle reduction seems like a decent starting target, then adjust that for energy state, wind, steeper approach slope, etc.

This is of course, just a technique so take it or leave it.

So far so good, except for the first few mega-pancakes and the occasional random wonky approach (usually after a long red-eye that lands before sunrise. Good morning EARTH! "No, Tower, we don't need the trucks! I was just using the main landing gear to drill for oil here on the numbers of 23 Left! What's that? No, we didn't strike crude, that is just my number 2 tire vaporizing").

hikoushi


a lovely way of saying it. most planes will do just fine with the crab and decrab very close to the runway, over the runway, at very , very low altitude (way under 50')

I understand why so many like the wing down method. It means they are lacking in skill, technique, and the courage to take the plane down close to the ground and do many things at once.

kick rudder

lower wing

bring nose up

and all this done at the same time or nearly so. sort of hard like walking and chewing gum at the same time.

And while we are at it, you can even use assymetrical thrust to help you along. Many will doubt this, but it is usually a lack of skill which could be developed if you like. Try it in the sim on a non jeopardy ride.

There are pilots that get by and then there are pilots that are fully in command of an aircraft.

choose the type of pilot YOU want to be.

One night I was on my first captain flight with an FO on his first Lear flight landing in a 30 knot direct crosswind. He asked how does this thing land in a crosswind? I said "I don't know, never have."

I used Glendalegoon's method including leaving the upwind engine power up some and got a great landing. It is all done at once late in the flare and is not difficult in any airplane.

So did the paying punters down the back know how incompetent you were?

Surely you were "trained" in an approved FFS or if that wasn't available an Aircraft? And had completed crosswind landings with an instructor Pilot along BEFORE being cut lose in a fast swept wing Jet??????!

I don't know anyone that would suggest using differential thrust ( especially in a centerline thrust type A/C like a Lear Jet where it would be basically useless ) to get the Aircraft straight in the Flare.

THAT'S WHAT THE RUDDER IS FOR, and if it's not effective enough I would suggest the crosswind is a little excessive:D

Arr ,yes, the old "engines are on the body, no assy thrust there" furphy. Ever flown a Lear, ACMS?

I have never understood the need to develop non standard procedures. Using differential thrust for crosswind landing is absolutely non standard procedure. No manufacturer needed it for certification nor has recommended it. On AB FBW if you forget to bring that thrust levers to idle the ground spoilers will not deploy so no auto brakes. Landing on short slippery runway not a smart thing to do.

Glendalegoon

There is no doubt that the "kick off drift" technique requires more skill to produce an acceptable landing. This, of course, means that its success rate is inevitably less than wing down. As a result the aircraft is more stressed and the pax less happy. You seem to imply that, because you are an above average pilot, you would deny lesser mortals the opportunity to produce consistent, acceptable results. "Standing up in a hammock" springs to mind.

Bloggsy-----nope not a toy plane like the Lear, wouldn't mind though.:ok:

Surely the differential thrust would be f all?

Anyway why would you want to do it anyway, surely the rudder is sufficient.....

Do you do it in the 717? Is it an approved method?

Boeing doesnt seem to have an issue programming wing down for the autoland.


As long as its not excessive there's nothing wrong with it, it produces a far more stable, predictable result.

Of course if you don't have the 'courage' to kick it out at the last minute :eek:

Once again the crusty old ex-RAF types who have acquired the necessary skills for a last-moment juggling exercise with rudder and stick pour scorn on the inadequates who use easier methods.

My confidence in Xwinds was almost completely destroyed by the RAF technique in Chipmunks. Later in Scotland I was taught that the crossed controls method was the professional way to make smooth controlled landings in Hebridean gales at minimum discomfort for passengers.

Later I was able to satisfy myself that the technique works superbly on machines as diverse as the Chipmunk, Tiger Moth, Viscount, B767 - and have no doubt Airbus as well although I have not had the pleasure.
As an ex-TRE I treasure a note from a very experienced ex-RAF pilot thanking me for having undone his service brainwashing after he had carried out a max Xwind landing on the 757.

There is no question in my mind but that the controlled slip (not wing-down!) is by far the easiest method to teach and is likely to have the most successful outcome.

The B767 autopilot gives a particularly polished demonstration.

This'll be good. Please explain the wings-level controlled slip.

What is so difficult about removing the crab I fail to understand. The only problem I see is doing it too early causing a downwind drift. Then you use the bank anyway. You are permitted to land with 5 degrees of crab. Suppose you were late in removing the crab on touchdown the aircraft will straighten itself because of CG but if you were coming with wing down it may be more than 5 degrees and during flare you may risk engine contact. In airbus you are not dealing with flight controls directly but asking computers to give rate of roll so it positions ailerons, spoilers and rudder accordingly even if you neutralise the stick, yaw damper is positioning the rudder as long as wing is down and you need to fly against that. May be that is not desired so is not recommended.

villas,
Exactly the same in a Boeing.
The probable reason is, if you fly with big side slip angles (early in the approach) on Airbus, you won't know when you are about to run out of aileron control (full deflection) due no feed back of FBW controlled aileron position. On all Boeings (including 777) it's obvious by the amount of control wheel necessary.

Goldenrivett
There is a little difference with non FBW. In that Yaw damper action may be same but the aileron and spoilers you directly control. In airbus the computer is in opposition to your action. So there is conflict. May be what you say also is possible. That is the reason I recommend SOP. You want to do something else refer to Airbus industry. I have done it on many issues and got clarifications from them. Doing something different without all the answers I am not comfortable with.

ACMS...

Do you realize that many people learned to fly in the actual airplane and not in a sim? Do you realize that many checkrides are flown and that a max crosswind is not available at the time of the checkride and you can still get a type rating?

AS to assymetric thrust on planes with tail mounted engines...yes, you actually have assymetric thrust and guess what, WHEN AN ENGINE QUITS you need full rudder at some times.

AS to passenger comfort, slipping an airplane can be a bit uncomfortable.

And what really gets me is that pilots today don't seem to understand that the wind at 300' afe is not the same as it is at touchdown, so you are still FUTZING with the thing .

So if you have crabbed, can see a wind sock and can "KICK IT STRAIGHT" you are actually DOING LESS WORK than the slip method.

AS to NON APPROVED procedures. IF you don't want to use assymetric thrust, don't. But if you ever do, you will find you have more options.

And all those fancy autopilots seem to have lower crosswind limits for their landing than humans do...why is that? ;-)

Go Get Em bubbers, fly with you anytime!

Yes I came from a time before flight sims and we had to learn in the Aircraft as well, I clearly remember having to do crosswind landings during conversion in the Aircraft.

I still can't believe neither you or the new FO had landed in a good crosswind and they signed you off as safe IN ALL CONDITIONS? Surely you should have found suitable conditions to be trained in to a competent standard, even if that meant waiting or flying off to another Airfield to find a crosswind....

Wouldn't happen today, in my 777 command 14 years ago we had to demonstrate competence with a 38kt crosswind at Cat 1 minima and a wet runway.....if I couldn't do it safely I would not have passed....

As for the differential thrust idea, great but I've never been trained by Boeing Fokker or Airbus to use that style ( mainly as they prefer the use of Autothrust ) and I don't think it would be wise to stuff around trying......Rudder and Ailerons work just fine for me up to Max crosswind.

Yes I realise the 300' wind is most likely different to the surface wind....but thanks for the heads up.

p.s. The 777 Autoland crosswind limit 38 kts ( NON AWO ) is the same as the Pilot limit of 38kts

Back when we were flying dozens of different types of aircraft while waiting for our shot at the airlines when noone was hiring we were competent to fly so checking out in a Citation Jet or Lear was done quickly with your charter company or what ever you were doing. No ground school, no formal training, just learning the differences and taking a check ride. We all could read a manual and get in the airplane and after a couple flight were competent in that type. No training on how to land or SOP's because we were expected to fly a single, twin cessna, Beach 18, Citation any time a flight came up. The Lear I was flying that night I just started flying so never got to do a cross wind landing until then. Since I wanted to make sure I had enough rudder to compensate for the crosswind I used some upwind thrust. If you don't think fuselage mounted engines require much rudder with assymetrical thrust you are wrong. Try a V1 cut with no rudder some day.

ACMS

Every time I got a new plane, I would read the aircraft flight manual, especially the introduction.

It always said that the book was no substitute for an experienced pilot.

Boeing didn't teach me to fly.

I was thinking about one of the airports I fly into on a regular basis. KDCA. Its approach to the south would not lend itself to the slip method of crosswind landing. I'm sure some of you know what I'm talking about .

So, don't hit the wing, or the engines, keep it in the center of the runway and do it any way you can.

Bubbers
 

I know that you like nothing more than telling people how great aviators were, back in your day (we're going back quite some time, too). The simple fact remains that having zero training as you transition from one jet to another is foolhardy by anyones standards. That's why you'd never get away with it now. Oh, but never mind, that must be because your generation were so much more skilled, back then. That'll explain why flying was so much safer 40 years ago than it is today.

However, that's completely irrelevant.

What is relevant, is your assertion that a LR provides asymmetric thrust on approach. Ha, having flown one, and also having landed one with an engine inop, I must ask you whether you were joking? The asymmetric thrust experienced during approach power settings needs nary the slightest squeeze of rudder. To pretend that you need it as an option on approach is, frankly, laughable. To even consider it as a possible option would suggest that you're flying too many types, therefore unable to apply the basic aerodynamic principles pertinent to the one you're sat in.

We're not talking about V1 cuts with 'no rudder'. We're talking about differential thrust on a CL thrust aircraft on approach. With rudder.

Can you do a checkride on a LR to remove your CLT limitation? I didn't think so.

mcnugget

are you saying flying a learjet means you are flying a center line thrust airplane?

tell me, what other planes with engines mounted on the fuselage are center line thrust?

http://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/reply_small.gif

A question of terminology. "Wing down" suggests you could be placing wingtips or pods in jeopardy whereas a correctly flown controlled slip landing should see bank angles of the order of no more than 2 degrees.
Similarly it amazes me that any professional pilot can use words like "kick" in connection with control of an aircraft in the flare. What do you think would be the effect in Row 40 if your student takes it literally? (Yes, someone did do it to me in a 757!)

The single greatest disadvantage of the last-moment de-crab is that, if mis-judged, it leaves the aircraft drifting downwind and the pilot running out of ideas (particularly if carrying excessive speed). A common reaction is to push the nose down in an attempt to get on the ground. If this means that the touchdown is nosewheel first, it can cause serious damage to the airframe.

While I eventually did acquire the ability to de-crab early in my career, there is no question in my mind that controlled slip builds student confidence earlier and is more likely to lead to successful outcomes.

Why accept that touchdown with 5 degree crab angles is OK if you can ensure a smooth normal flare and touchdown on centre-line?

Glendalegoon

I have yet to find a runway where you could not use controlled slip. The whole concept is based on maintaining runway centre line and gradually intoducing opposite aileron and rudder in the last 100 feet or so. Even displaced centre lines allow a normal approach eventually.

Please explain what is different about Washington?

Yep I've said it before in this thread and I'll say it again......

I only introduce the "de crab" slip during the flare, I don't fly a sideslip approach.....I've seen it done in Jets and I didn't like it.

I've flown the IGS in HK with a gusty crosswind lining up at 500' on approach around the corner between the roof tops in a 744 at 160 KIAS during a Typhoon.

Then used the Boeing trained "de crab" manoeuvre in the flare

I'm still here alive and the Aircraft ain't bent.....

McNugget, a quick check of FAR 61 says a multiengine rating with no centerline thrust limitation can be given in any aircraft that has a VMC. The Lear has a VMC as does the MD80 and B727.

Asymmetric thrust?
 

Still not seeing the requirement for, or advantage of this "upwind asymmetric thrust" concept (or whatever you wish to call it). Could one of the virtuosos of this technique kindly explain it in detail? Is it only peculiar to some types?

Titaniumwings
You started the thread in relation to A330 and was applicable to Airbus FBW in general. Now it has drifted out of that parameter and now individual techniques and quirks are being discussed. None of which is applicable to Airbus. I hope you have already switched off.

I have big ears and always like to listen. Now I am listening to aviators all around the world the comparing the pros n cons of the side slip vs crab-decrab method. The passion of everyone loving their art is really heartening and invigorating. Always love listening to aviator's stories and their craft.

I was taught both when I first started flying. I also read the pros n cons of both. I saw both being practiced in the Boeing and many other aircrafts but just to have a particular discussion on Airbus as its FBW has certain characteristics which make the side slip method quite a topic for discussion.

This is especially so because both the side-slip and crab-decrab method are predicated in Boeing FCTM but Airbus specifically predicate crab-decrab method in their FCTM without any restriction or limitation being mentioned anywhere else. I do not have a problem with Airbus recommendation but for those who ever wish to try the side-slip method on Airbus, an understanding of the aircraft Law would be beneficial to the action-reaction/see n react that thing pilot does. In the real world not thoroughly understanding this part may not result in critical consequences. I just like to know the aircraft intimately. BTW I used the crab-decrab method but I don't judge those who use side-slip. I like to keep things simple and just follow the recommendations whenever I can but when someone asks me I wish to be in a position to tell yes and no with the corresponding reasoning and explanations especially technically.



ps: But if someone has time and free then consider the question that I last posted in #44. I believe there is a group which has the following interpretation:

In a steady state crosswind with Airbus FBW Lateral Law the roll rate is ordered by the side stick. Computer will order rudder output for turn coordination (centering the "ball") and yaw damping. Hence in wings level condition and without sidestick input, 0 roll rate will be ordered.

Now here is the key: Will this order be continued when pilot give a rudder input. In other words will the aircraft's computer order the rest of the control surfaces to give 0 bank as the sidestick still orders "0" roll rate? From what I read, I believe some people believe this and expect the wings to be level when they input the rudder in decrabbing. (The other interpretation will have the pilot putting in a coordinated aileron with the rudder input when decrabbing).

Should this be the case then consider when you are turning the aircraft with 5 degree angle of bank then you neutralise the sidestick. Aircraft will order the rudder accordingly to coordinate the turn. Now you put in rudder input, will the computer still order the rest of the control surfaces for "0" change in roll rate to maintain your 5 degree angle of bank? (some may even take it as "in-between" the 2)

In the real world, wind is not constant and pilot will do whatever is necessary(inputs accordingly) to keep the heading down the runway and aileron correspondingly to keep the aircraft on the centreline.

Nonetheless if the interpretation of the aircraft reaction is valid then there is a bearing on the "way" the aircraft can be "used" to the the sideslip method. This thread is started by the comment that I have heard some people saying that Airbus can't do sideslip method for landing, by that I mean side-slipping the aircraft at 400'. For the purpose of this discussion let's simplify the comparison between crab-decrab (as most may have known it) and sideslip to mean sideslipping starting at short finals of below 400' but above flare height. It is also clear to me that most (if not all) know how to fly their aircraft and do their jobs. I and we are not contra-recommending any change in techniques, just a simple exploration of the aircraft that we love.

Thank you for your time and consideration.