Forward stick for balooning and directional control

[Ed Cesnalis]

Its time to ruffle some feathers on various subjects. The way I see things is that flying light aircraft was figured out about 100 years ago. Our CTs are clean but they are in weight and power ranges that have long existed, I don't see anything new yet we seem to have re-invented landing techniques.

 

To be clear there are 2 distinct "stick forward" issues advocated here that I believe are worth re-visiting:

1. Forward stick is advocated as a reaction to ballooning when attempting to flare.
2. Forward stick is advocated after touchdown in order to gain directional control through nose-wheel steering.

First my memory tells me that during flare that my stick should be like a ratchet, meaning it only moves back but not forward. I remember the reason is that any forward movement would destroy lift while I'm close to the ground as well it will lower my nose wheel when I need to contact mains 1st.

 

Make no mistake the technique of lowering the nose to fix the balloon is not difficult but if wind sheer decides to complicate the process at the right moment I'm likely to go for a wheel barrow ride and realize inadequate directional control (or an ugly bounce.) I don't want to go there ( again, been there before ) and I don't want to set up another pilot for such an event by advising forward stick.

 

What does the FAA say?

http://www.faa.gov/l...083-3a-4of7.pdf

 

 

BALLOONING DURING ROUNDOUT

If the pilot misjudges the rate of sink during a landing

and thinks the airplane is descending faster than it

should, there is a tendency to increase the pitch attitude

and angle of attack too rapidly. This not only

stops the descent, but actually starts the airplane

climbing. This climbing during the roundout is

known as ballooning. [Figure 8-35] Ballooning can

be dangerous because the height above the ground is

increasing and the airplane may be rapidly

approaching a stalled condition. The altitude gained

in each instance will depend on the airspeed or the

speed with which the pitch attitude is increased.

When ballooning is slight, a constant landing attitude

should be held and the airplane allowed to gradually

decelerate and settle onto the runway. Depending on

the severity of ballooning, the use of throttle may be

helpful in cushioning the landing. By adding power,

thrust can be increased to keep the airspeed from

decelerating too rapidly and the wings from suddenly

losing lift, but throttle must be closed immediately

after touchdown. Remember that torque will be created

as power is applied; therefore, it will be necessary

to use rudder pressure to keep the airplane straight as it

settles onto the runway.

 

When ballooning is excessive, it is best to EXECUTE

A GO-AROUND IMMEDIATELY; DO NOT

ATTEMPT TO SALVAGE THE LANDING. Power

must be applied before the airplane enters a stalled

condition.

The pilot must be extremely cautious of ballooning

when there is a crosswind present because the crosswind

correction may be inadvertently released or it

may become inadequate. Because of the lower airspeed

after ballooning, the crosswind affects the airplane

more. Consequently, the wing will have to be lowered

even further to compensate for the increased drift. It

is imperative that the pilot makes certain that the

appropriate wing is down and that directional control

is maintained with opposite rudder. If there is any

doubt, or the airplane starts to drift, EXECUTE A

GO-AROUND.

 

Nothing there about lowering the nose. Is there anything that you advocates of nose lowering have to hang your hats on?

 

 

Here is a quote that I like:

http://www.whittsfly...on_Landings.htm

"If the horizon falls relative to the nose you are rising and should pause for the time it takes the nose to reposition itself relative to the horizon. Moving the yoke forward is a no-no. The limits of human recognition and reaction are such that any forward movement of the yoke will most likely make things worse. It has taken years of empirical evidence and wrecked aircraft to make this a truism of flight instruction."

 

Now forward stick during roll out, I've said this before, I have never "run out of rudder" so why abandon the rudder and the aerodynamic braking? Again some wind sheer ( think gust under my tail ) could help get you wheel barrowing and you will have to regain control or depart the runway.

 

I recognize that some very experienced pilots have adopted flying it on and forward stick for their cts and I respectfully request that this technique be explained, hopefully with references. To date all I have are reasons I don't buy, like its easy to balloon, or the directional control is needed in a crosswind. I think I have demonstrated otherwise over the last 1,000 landings many made in difficult conditions.

 

Thanks,

[Jim]

I have 1300 mostly student landings in my CT. Nothing here for me to disagree with. After a balloon once the aircraft has started settling again, a small burst of power will slow your descent and oftentimes give you a nice landing out of it.

[Jim Meade]

You won't ruffle my feathers, as I'm in agreement with this. It's what I've taught and how I fly. Note - you are talking about ballooningballooningballooning and I am responding to the issue of ballooningballooningballooning. "This climbing during the roundout is known as ballooning."

 

Hmmmm......interesting unintended font effects.

 

My own preference is to not plant the nose wheel on or immediately after landing. I hold it off unless the crosswind makes it preferable to get down for control. Typically, I taxi with the stick pulled back to my stomach and toward the upwind side, especially if there is a rough runway or I am taxiing fast for some reason.

 

 

 

[Duane Jefts]

CT

 

Well done! Lots to read for the newer folks but all good stuff.

 

Flying is a goal oriented endeauver. Since landing is inheartly more dangerous, appropriate STABILIZED speeds and STABILIZED approach angles on final approach are a MUST if one wants consistent and safe landings. The touchdown goal is to be appropriately slow so that the aircraft is through flying either on touchdown or shortly thereafter . You still need to be aware of any crosswind conditions, runway surface conditions, etc. after landing but if flying the proper airspeed, you won't have to worry about getting airborn with wind gusts, heavy sideloading on you tires, or the upwind wing popping up with the extra lift over the wing surface. Slower is better. The aircraft likes it better too. Much easier on the equipment. Less maintenance down the road.

 

So I think ones goal should be to land with more flaps than less, DEPENDING on the airport surface and wind conditions. As the cross wind increases the flap extensions should be less or none at all. Follow the FD manual for this.

 

Having said this, it is probably easier to achieve "the highly coveted" smooth touchdown at lower flap settings, especially for the newer pilots. As one gains experience though, I would encourage landing with more flaps.

 

Just adding some thoughts for what's its worth.

[Roger Lee]

I think part of the talk should be experienced pilots with CT time are good to go with more flaps and CT pilots with less than 30-50 hrs. (usually CFI's and high time pilots) tend to drop them and smash the gear as reports bear out. Get some time on before going to 30-40 flaps. We took off this last Friday with winds on Rwy 06R out of 100 at 23-gusting 30 knots. Knowing your skill level and everything about the plane takes time. Don't be in a hurry. Landing in 25-35 winds is definitely better done at zero flaps. ( I know what the POH says about wind limit)

[Ed Cesnalis]

I think part of the talk should be experienced pilots with CT time are good to go with more flaps and CT pilots with less than 30-50 hrs. (usually CFI's and high time pilots) tend to drop them and smash the gear as reports bear out. Get some time on before going to 30-40 flaps...

 

Hey Roger,

 

Here's my thinking. Landing with full flaps takes more input, especially if with a closed throttle. I have to question if it makes sense to put off learning for 30-50 hours.

 

I wonder if this thinking sets people up to learn to fly a CT and then at some future point in time, perhaps on their own, learn to land at an appropriately slow speed? I can see learning a 15 degree landing before a 30 degree but I don't get the 30-50 hour separation between the two.

 

The reason I like landing with a minimum of energy is to keep any resulting impact as pleasant as possible. A landing incident resulting in an impact seems much more likely to happen to a very low time pilot so I would want this guy to know how to land slowly before he was even cut loose to figure it out, perhaps on his own.

 

The skills required to land with flaps come with training for that objective and not from ticking off a bunch of hours before you try.

 

This thinking isn't new, I remember 6 years ago a Bonanza pilot checked out in a CTSW in 1 hour and was told not to use 40 degrees for a period of time. That period turned out to be a bit over an hour and he totaled the CT in Tonapah trying his 1st 40 degree landing on his own. If he would have gotten 2 hours of training and demonstrated landings with full flaps they could have worked out his energy management issues and saved an expensive new CT.

 

 

 

[FastEddieB]

Just one quick comment:

 

The "Law of Primacy" tells us that we learn best what we learn first.

 

If full flap landings are the desired goal, I would teach them from the beginning.

 

I learned in a C-150 with 40º of barn door flaps. They were my "normal" landing, and remain so to this day (though often with less than 40º available).

 

I see lots and lots of pilots in Cessna's and Bonanza's and the like landing with partial or no flaps. WAY too fast. When asked, I'm often told they're "more comfortable" with less flaps.

 

Possibly because they learned that way. Full flaps were the exception, learned later and always felt "weird" and or "harder".

 

Landing accident reports abound with bounces and porpoises and swerves and overruns and the like, often with dire consequences. Hard full flap landings may bend something, but rarely more than that.

 

Just my .02.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Ed,

 

I didn't mean don't learn during the first 40-50 hours with more flaps just don't go past you limits and work up to more flaps and stronger winds and don't try to jump in the deep end before you learn how to swim scenario. I also teach guys first learning to keep throttle in to touch. As you get better then add no throttle and more flap complex type landings.

[FastEddieB]

Roger,

 

Again, this is just one instructor's experience, but...

 

...I see lots of pilots that end up using partial or no flaps, a "touch" of power, and/or a flat/fast landing throughout their flying careers. Why? Because that's how they were taught at first.

 

As a caveat, I have never flown a CT, and don't know if once I do my opinion will change.

 

I hope to change that soon!

[Roger Lee]

Hi Eddie,

 

For the most part most of the CT crashes have come from the CFI's and high time pilots trying too much flaps right up front. It was pretty bad for the first few years with the heavy aircraft fliers coming down to ligh low energy aircraft. The most frustrating calls I get a little too regular are either newbies to CT's and especially students complaining they just don't get it and their landings are crap. It has all boiled down to idle only approaches and 30-40 flaps too soon. I can usually get the CFI too back off that a little to zero-15 and leave a little power in and they usually get it in a couple of tries without all the frustration. Many call me back, either a student to CFI and say those are their best landings.

I have been teaching since I was 18 and I have learned you can't teach the way you want to teach. You need to teach the way they need to learn. If any instructor can't be flexible and recognize a pupils frustration with the instructor teaching methods then the instructor is ineffective and some times down right detrimental aand this is on any subject not just flying.

 

I believe teaching the right way right up front for most things, but there are some that need easing into. Take the baby steps before you try to run approach.

[Jim Meade]

What guidance are we given for landings?

 

The PTS:

 

B. TASK: NORMAL AND CROSSWIND APPROACH AND LANDING (ASEL and ASES)

 

4. Establishes the recommended approach and landing configuration and airspeed/attitude; adjusts pitch attitude and power as required.

 

FAR § 61.87 Solo requirements for student pilots.

 

(d) Maneuvers and procedures for pre-solo flight training in a single-engine airplane.

 

(3) Takeoffs and landings, including normal and crosswind;

 

(8) Descents, with and without turns, using high and low drag configurations;

 

§ 61.311 What flight proficiency requirements must I meet to apply for a sport pilot certificate?

 

(d) Takeoffs (or launches), landings, and go-arounds.

 

The CTSW POH says for a normal landing use flaps as desired. For short field, use 40°.

 

The CTSW Training Supplement gives more detail. It says 15°-40° flaps, engine at 10-20% power, 54 kts or slower, level at 3' above the runway close the throttle and land. The LS is similar but not identical.

 

The APH has a discussion in Chapter 8 of flap extension during landing. Germane to our discussion is:

 

"Flap deflection of up to 15° primarily produces lift with minimal drag. The airplane has a tendency to balloon up with initial flap deflection because of the lift

increase. The nosedown pitching moment, however, tends to offset the balloon. Flap deflection beyond 15° produces a large increase in drag. Also, deflection

beyond 15° produces a significant noseup pitching moment in high-wing airplanes because the resulting downwash increases the airflow over the horizontal tail."

 

Landing with 0° to 15° flaps means lift is increased more than drag. This is obvious when we consider that we take off with 0° to 15° flaps.

 

To recap the above, it seems we have a wide latitude in which flap settings to use in normal landings. As CFI's, we obviously must teach landing with all flap settings, because the POH permits and therefore the DPE may demand it on the checkride. We should also teach it because it is a useful tool. It can be argued that the 40° flap setting must be taught before solo to be sure the student is able to land the airplane in all approved configurations per that FAR requirement.

 

There are obviously a couple of schools of landing. One is to use a high lift configuration and some power to cause the airplane to settle slowly but at a relatively high rate of speed. I think I can say this viewpoint says that the descent from the flare to the touchdown is well controlled. This perspective says that light airplanes will lose speed and energy quickly and stall suddenly with damaging results if this is done too high off the ground. The descriptions and philosophy of this approach seems very like that expressed by non-traditional aviators who came up through the ultralight ranks.

 

A second viewpoint, the traditional one, believes that landings should be done as slow as possible to reduce energy and minimize damage in an accident and so the airplane will quickly slow beneath the stall speed and not fly again. This school would use 30° or 40° flaps in most cases and use little or no power.

 

If one gets 10 pilots together in a hangar, it is sure there will be 11 opinions on any aviation topic. It is possible that both viewpoints on landing could meet at the edge of their range and not be too outraged. In the meantime, it might be most helpful if the "big flaps" guys allowed that landing at least as discussed by the FD Training Supplement was OK and if the "few flaps" guys allowed that FD allowed the "big flaps" approach as well.

 

Where the daggers seem to get drawn is when one group or one person pronounces "it's my way or the highway".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[FastEddieB]

I'm all for flexibility and creativity in teaching.

 

Whatever works!

[Jim Meade]

Hi Eddie,

 

For the most part most of the CT crashes have come from the CFI's and high time pilots trying too much flaps right up front. It was pretty bad for the first few years with the heavy aircraft fliers coming down to ligh low energy aircraft. The most frustrating calls I get a little too regular are either newbies to CT's and especially students complaining they just don't get it and their landings are crap. It has all boiled down to idle only approaches and 30-40 flaps too soon. I can usually get the CFI too back off that a little to zero-15 and leave a little power in and they usually get it in a couple of tries without all the frustration. Many call me back, either a student to CFI and say those are their best landings.

I have been teaching since I was 18 and I have learned you can't teach the way you want to teach. You need to teach the way they need to learn. If any instructor can't be flexible and recognize a pupils frustration with the instructor teaching methods then the instructor is ineffective and some times down right detrimental aand this is on any subject not just flying.

 

I believe teaching the right way right up front for most things, but there are some that need easing into. Take the baby steps before you try to run approach.

 

The NTSB specifically excludes landing gear damage from accident reports, so I'm going to make a wild guess that many CT landing accidents didn't get reported and tabulated by the NTSB. My question is what verified data is extant that gives us statistics on CT landing incidents related to inappropriate pilot technique? Is it hearsay and hangar talk? What proof do we have that most CT crashes come from CFIs and high time pilots using too much flaps right up front? In the first place, what are the numbers? Next, how do we know the cause was too much flaps? What trained, objective analyst made that determination?

 

 

 

 

 

[coppercity]

I dont disagree with not using forward stick for a balloon as mentioned. I have always taught to just stop adding back pressure if you balloon and wait for the airplane to start settling again on its own, if your speed is slow at that point you may need to add power to compensate for the increased sink rate once it starts sinking again. Large balloons should usually be followed with a go around as described. From my 1200hrs of teaching in CT's students tend to balloon more often when using higher flap settings above 15 deg. It is the combination of the steeper sight picture on approach, ground rush perception at the start of the round out, and sensitive pitch during the round out. All of these contribute to a nice balloon followed by a rapid loss of speed at too high of altitude and a subsequent hard landing. I always start students out with 15 and 0 flap landings until they are getting ready to solo, then we introduce 30 and 35 flap approaches and landings. You need time to develop the sight picture of the CT during the landing prior to adding the extra work of the full flap approach. Using this method I have not had any problem getting students soloed in 10-15 hrs and checkrides near minimum time, plus the frustration level goes way down during the lessons as students dont feel overwhelmed. Full flap landings of course should be mastered during training, just as all the other required manuevers should but starting out with easier appraoches and landings helps keep the motivation up and frustration down.

[sandpiper]

Even though I promised myself to stay out of this, I am going to chime in on the side of Ed (CT) and Eric. I will also mention I am a mid time (5000 hr) former spam can driver that started in CT's in early 2007 and never had any problem with the aircraft until I started reading on these forums that I should be having problems. Then I started having problems until I figured out that a large percentage of what I was reading was, to be kind, uninformed speculation and BS.

 

After that, I went back to "flying the airplane" to make it do what I want it to do within its own capabilities as a very light aircraft and everything went back to being just fine.

 

There is alot of good information on this forum about flying these aircraft - and there is alot of not so good. Much of it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. If you don't know the difference, find a good instructor, hopefully one competent in the CT, and go fly.

[Jim Meade]

By the way, this thread seems to be in response to some of the comments in this thread. http://ctflier.com/index.php?/topic/1535-pattern-speedspower-settings/page__st__20

 

In it, I stated that if a person leveled off too high off the runway and found oneself losing lift that what I do is to put the stick forward before the plane stalls, to trade altitude for airspeed and maintain lift and then level off and eventually flare at the new, proper height off the runway. This is my response instead of adding power. As I explained earlier, relaxing the stick to allow the nose down slightly will maintain airspeed and lift. One "rounds out" or levels off or whatever you call it just as you did when you make any other landing. One does not jam the nose into the runway. The action is a very slight correction.

 

I prefer this slight control movement to holding the stick steady and adding power. If one adds power, one increases lift and stops the descent to some extent. One has to adjust the trim, even if that is only with the stick, due to the increase speed and consequent increased lift and greater elevator authority.

 

Maybe I should has said I "relax" the stick. I said before and I say again this is a very slight, gentle movement that is done as soon as one realizes one is too hgih and is not going to descend properly and the new altitude is attained in a second or two.

 

Somehow, my procedure got translated inaccurately as pushing the stick forward when one balloons. I do not advocate pushing the stick forward if one balloons. Ballooning happens when one transitions from descent to level flight with too much authority or one flares with too much force. As the AFH handbook defines it, ballooning involves an increase in altitude. If one balloons, my interest is in stabilizing the airplane and then restarting a descent and subsequent landing or if the balloon is too high, there is not enough runway or one is not comfortable that the airplane is stable, to add power and go around.

 

The technique I use is one answer to the dillemma one finds ones sefl in if one is a little too fast, has a little too much lift and finds oneself leveled off a little higher than desired. It is an alternative to adding power and continuing the landing process down the runway. It is not needed if one flies in slower and rounds out at the correct height off the ground.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[FastEddieB]

I like the mental image of a "ratchet". I've used it before.

 

IOW, ideally on landing the stick can move back, or stay where it is, but is always incrementally moving back, never forward. Ideally that continues until the stick hits the rear stop and the plane plotzes onto the runway from no more than a few inches, in a full stall and done flying for the day.

 

That said, I think it might be educational for someone to grab a GoPro or equivalent and focus it on the stick of a plane doing a landing on a gusty day.

 

Mental images notwithstanding, I'll bet the stick is all over the place - forward, back, "whatever it takes".

 

I guess my best advice is that in a small balloon, a pilot should relax back pressure momentarily. This may result in the stick moving forward a bit as the plane settles.

 

But an actual "push" forward at the top of a bounce is virtually never the right thing to do. A very, very rapid sinking may occur, without a lot of vertical distance to catch it before ground impact.

 

But a lot of this is semantics. Different instructors and different pilots will teach and do things differently, with subtle differences in technique.

 

Whatever works!

[FastEddieB]

I did find this video pretty quickly on YouTube::

 

[FastEddieB]

This one's better:

 

[Ed Cesnalis]

...Mental images notwithstanding, I'll bet the stick is all over the place - forward, back, "whatever it takes"...

 

Eddie,

 

I think its tough to tell the difference on video between a stick or yoke that is giving input and and an active stick that is mostly testing.

 

Whey my CT was delivered I had a very active hand in the later stages of a landing and I eventually realized that I was testing the mushy condition of the stick at slow speed. How far do I need to move it before something happens? Eventually I told my self to quiet my hand and now it looks quite different.

 

BTW you "Law of Primacy" is an important nugget and a reason to learn with full flaps first IMO.

 

John,

 

Thanks for the lol, you have a way with words.

 

Duane,

 

Thanks for your input, with your background in training your words carry a lot of weight.

 

Jim Meade,

 

I was referring to your comments but others have made the same assertion. I'm not in agreement that "relaxing back pressure" is good to teach. When you relax you are returning to a trimmed condition which may be a meaningful nose lowering?

 

If I use this technique it feels a little like restarting the approach but from 6' in the air, for a student that seems like not enough time to adjust and for me I don't like it due to things like tail wind gusts that are not uncommon at my home field due to all of the terrain.

[Jim Meade]

This thread is turning into a message by message redefinition of the topic in such a way that there is no coherence. Charlie Tango want to talk about ballooning. Fast Eddie's last couple of messages and examples are on gusty winds. My very narrow interest is on a specific high, fast approach.

 

We start out with each of us having a preferred landing method that we are willing to defend vigorously. We gum each other's technnique to death to the point where everyone is willing to say, "land any way you want to" but of course we don't really believe that.

 

Land any way you want to.

 

 

[Ed Cesnalis]

Thanks Jim,

 

Thread creep on a complex subject is pretty common. Let me try to re-define the thread's topic.

 

This thread is intended to discuss unconventional landing techniques that are advocated here on this forum. Especially when those techniques advocate forward stick late in the landing phase either for the purpose of reacting to a ballooned condition when attempting to flare or round out or for the purpose of pressuring the nose wheel for directional control.

 

Related issues are advocating "flying it on" and advocating less flaps rather than more flaps for up to 50 hours. Jim makes a good point that as long as all flap settings are permissible that there will be 2 schools of thought which is fine but the line, IMO is crossed when less flaps become generally preferable.

 

The intended purpose of this thread is to see if this forum can produce thoughts on technique that are not regarded as BS by experienced instructors. IMO some techniques advocated here are far enough out there that it the general credibility of our forum comes into question.

[FastEddieB]

This thread is turning into a message by message redefinition of the topic in such a way that there is no coherence.

 

I guess the perception is the reality, but...

 

...I don't see it that way.

 

Each pilot and each instructor brings his or her own experience and preferences into the discussion. Yes, the thread may "creep", but most times the person posting feels his or her comments are at least peripherally germane to the discussion. I know I do.

 

If I state a preference in teaching methods or technique, I always try to have a source or an articulable reason for that method or technique. But, of course, there's always more than one way to skin a cat.*

 

I did have an add'l comment about final approaches, but I think it probably deserves its own thread.

 

Oh, and land any way you want to.

 

 

*Please don't call PETA on me - it's just a figure of speech!

[round_peg]

This thread reminds me of the old aviation pearl of wisdom: "There are three rules for making a perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows what they are." It's only a joke until you find out that it's true.

 

This flying stuff is often more art than science, and what works for one person may not work for another, and what works one day may not work so well the next day. That said, no question some habits are bad habits and could lead to problems and even broken airplanes. But it seems to me that understanding the situation at hand and developing an immediate responsiveness to the situation at hand is the key to success, ultimately.

 

If I balloon, the question I need to answer quickly is: What caused the balloon? Did I flare too fast? With too much nose up? Was it a wind gust? How high above the runway? What is my airspeed? How much runway do I have left? The answers to these questions is what tells me what to do next, not some hard-and-fast rule like "never lower the nose." If you can't process all of these inputs quickly enough to find a solution, time to go around and try it again. All I am saying here is that I'm another one of those pilots who has never discovered the three rules.

[S3flyer]

My typical response to ballooning is to add a little throttle but given the discussion thought I might try something different next time I encountered one. As luck would have it I was happily floating down the runway after rounding out when a gust of wind came along and pushed me up. Instead of adding power, I relaxed back pressure with maybe a minute push forward which re-established the sink rate and added a bit of speed. Added a little back pressure and landing very smoothly.

I'm pretty comfortable I would've accomplished the same thing with power but now have another arrow in the quiver.