Jump to content

My First CTSW Experience


FlyingMonkey

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

"The damaging drop that you fear is either because the pilot is unaware of his height, unaware of his sink or unaware that he is stalling (too high off the tarmac) or all of the above."

 

You got it. That was all I was looking for.

 

I have flown with many many CT pilots and helped transition to CT's or LSA. These are the most common problems all across the board bar none and what keeps all the repair shops hopping.

I told you I wasn't against these landings, I only wanted to hear what was on the other side.

 

Now you just stated what the main causes have been that have damaged many LSA (CT) gear. Full stall landings can put you closer to these and it takes more expertise, timing and vigilance.

I don't believe they are for everyone and probably not a new student without some time behind them.

 

 

 

I don't ever fear a drop , I just don't go there. My discussion has been for others thought provoking discussion. I'm good with all kinds of landings even some that seem to scare CFI's because they never do them.

 

 

Good discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The damaging drop that you fear is either because the pilot is unaware of his height, unaware of his sink or unaware that he is stalling (too high off the tarmac) or all of the above."

 

You got it. That was all I was looking for...

 

You cherry picked a nugget and out of context used it for your "gotcha"

 

In context, the pilot that stalls high 'unaware that he is stalling' has inadequate training. trimmed correctly or not he is stalling because he is pulling back on the stick. Adequate awareness in the runway and pattern environments demand that you maintain airspeed sufficient to avoid stalling.

 

Remember he has to pull back on the stick to stall it, if he is unaware that he is doing that he is not ready to proceed to solo. Failure to maintain airspeed due to pulling the stick back while unaware is inadequate motivation to train and operate at higher landing speeds.

 

Instead training should demand the ability to maintain airspeed prior to solo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Instead training should demand the ability to maintain airspeed prior to solo."

 

Absolutely correct, but even seasoned pilots mess this up and smash gear from too low a speed. The more elements you add to a landing the more chance for errors for any pilot. It usually isn't the student if you look at the numbers. Yes some students smack gear, but far more experienced pilots do it. Just like the guys in retractable gear forget to put it down before landing. They are seasoned, but do it anyway.

 

 

Not true, everyone makes mistakes regardless of time and experience.

"In context, the pilot that stalls high 'unaware that he is stalling' has inadequate training."

 

I have a confession to make, I have been trying to draw you and Eddie out over the last 5 pages of post, but he was more resilient on the negatives of stall landings. I told you I don't object to any type of landing that works for the pilot under their particular landing at that time. Both of you only professed their good and positives, but neither really ever came out and said what could happen if you made an error in judgment and if you did that opened the door to find a fault with them. It happens and not a single person can deny pilots make mistakes at times. Just some are worse than others and some are recoverable and some aren't. If that wasn't true then the NTSB would be out of a job and the FAA wouldn't keep making rules.

 

All I wanted out of the last 5 pages was to know what happens when you make an error in judgment performing a full stall landing. Neither was willing to say. Eddie only got as close as to stipulate they were a little harder.

 

I was waiting for a bigger gotcha. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It happens and not a single person can deny pilots make mistakes at times. Just some are worse than others and some are recoverable and some aren't.

 

To keep moving forward (hopefully)...

 

My assertion is that if a landing mistake happens, then speed (via kinetic energy) is the enemy.

 

"Slow" crashes - bent planes and hurt pride

 

"Fast" crashes - bent planes and hurt pride with the occasional serious injury or even fatality.

 

For that "gotcha" how about this...

 

"If a pilot cannot consistently do "full stall" landings, then he or she is safer "flying it on".

 

The question is, is a pilot satisfied with an inability to do something, and accepting the limitations of that inability.

 

Having trained hundreds of pilots to do full stall landings, I don't see it as that difficult.

 

Over on the COPA site, Rick Beach is our Safety Officer, and analyzes accident data in every way possible.

 

Has anyone actually compiled a list of CT landing accidents? It would be a valuable exercise, assigning "probable cause" and plotting it against injury severity.

 

In the Cirrus world there is no question that speed kills on landing. Of course, the Cirrus is a faster plane, but only by about 20k in the approach and landing. A Cirrus can touch down at 59k or so, yet some Cirrus pilots routinely touch down at 70k or even 80k, and its mainly those landings sometimes go wrong and that's where the danger lies.

 

If a CT pilot is happy touching down 5k over stall, that's just fine. In my Sky Arrow landing videos I may have been at about that speed.

 

But it's a slippery slope, and stand by a busy runway and watch some landings and marvel at the speed carried into the landing by some pilots.

 

Anecdote to follow...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That anecdote:

 

At my little airport, I watched a Bonanza come in fast with no flaps, touch down about 1/2 way down the runway and then proceed to use about every inch of the 3,000' runway before getting stopped.

 

I asked him "Just curious...why no flaps?". His answer, "I just don't like 'em".

 

I wondered then and continue to wonder now how a pilot ends up there. He's just decided to forget what Beechcraft and the FAA says about landing, because he doesn't "like" flaps.

 

Like I said, it's a slippery slope, and he probably did not arrive where he was all at once. Probably got used to landing a bit faster because it was easier, and maybe a balloon scared him once. Then found partial flaps easier because they gave him "more control" and more time to find the ground. Then saw how easy it was to land with no flaps and just drive the plane onto the runway.

 

Admittedly, this pilot may continue to land exactly this way for his entire career and never have an accident. That's a testament to how forgiving our planes can be and long runways than anything else!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Eddie,

 

Thanks, that's all I was looking for. For me there is always a balance, sometimes you use this and sometimes you use that. My issues always come up when a CFI only teaches one way or a pilot says there is only one way. Many tools for many jobs.

Balance, kind of like Ying and Yang.

 

After 6.5 years around FD (33 years with light aircraft) and talking to them on a regular basis and to Airtime Aviation (the #1 repair point) the huge majority (guessing 85-90%) of damaged CT's is too slow and too high on landings. No matter how many hours you have people make mistakes and it could happen to anyone of us at any time. Other crashes include running out of fuel, too slow while still flying and not landing, engine issues (few), gusty wind conditions and poor decisions on a go around when a landing goes bad. There really hasn't been any crashes just because they landed too fast, but speed may have compounded an already bad landing. Just like in cars, speed rarely is the root cause of the accident, but may compound it when something happens.There have been a couple of runway over runs from landing too far down the runway with no room for any stop or loss of power on take off and subsequent landing towards the end of the runway. The last one may be more unavoidable since they lost and engine at the end and had no real options. A big one in the LSA arena and CT's too is someone trying to land the plane before it's ready and trying to make it land. That has caused numerous bounces. The crash on the front nose wheel and its subsequent folding usually happens at the third bounce and speed has bled off to stall. The nose falls out from under them and no matter what you do with the stick it was too late. This has also been a big problem. I tell everyone that two LITTLE shallow bounces may be okay, but if a third is involved or the bounce is way up in the air it's time to full throttle and go around. Most of the time when the CT, Remos, Allegro, ect... noses in from a bounce the pilot stated it was after the third bounce. Many aircraft/pilots bounce on landings regardless of size and category. It's knowing what causes them, how to handle them and when it's time to go around and quit trying to save a bad landing. Most landing crashes haven't been students in LSA, but higher time or CFI pilots. That also bears out in the numbers.

 

I try to keep up on all the LSA crashes that I can and talk to pilots and the Mfg for causes. I get lots of calls from these pilots, Mfg's, repair shops and actually had a couple calls from the NTSB on CT crashes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the technique my instructor has been teaching me:

 

1) Abeam the numbers, power to idle

 

2) As speed drops below 80 knots, 15* flaps, pitch for 60 knots

 

3) While speed bleeds to 60 knots, trim full up elevator, which should give 60 knot hands off glide speed.

 

4) The rest of the approach the goal is maintain proper glide slope and 60 knots. Pitch and throttle changes as needed.

 

5) Maintain 60 knots until 3 feet above the runway, then change pitch attitude to level.

 

6) Stay level as speed bleeds, approximately three seconds, then begin smoothly applying back pressure to stick.

 

7) Aircraft should sink to runway; hold nosewheel off as mains contact then slowly allow the nosewheel down smoothly.

 

The instructor states that as I get better I should be able to change the approach speed down to 55 knots. I have no idea at what speed I'm touching down, I'm busy at that time and doing it by feel.

 

It's definitely different from landing the Tecnam I'm used to. Much less flare and a flatter touchdown attitude. It feels like somewhere between a full stall landing and "flying it on". It does feel pretty good touching down, no bounce and no float as long as my speed is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

 

Per you the vast majority of CT pilots add speed and limit flaps for normal landings.

Per you the vast majority of CT damage is from too slow and too high on landings.

Doesn't that mean that adding speed and limiting flaps isn't the answer?

 

You are wrong on the 2nd point, that gear damage comes from 3 categories.

  1. Too fast approach speed leading to ballooning, bouncing or purposing and ultimately gear damage from contact at too high a vertical speed.
     
  2. Too slow and too high on landing Failure to control sink.
     
  3. Stalling a wing tip - probably at 40 degrees and in a side slip.

#3 is most likely to damage the gear leg on the downwind side, #1 and #2 more likely to damage both mains.

 

If you see your too high / too slow scenario as stalling at 4' its easy to reason that another 5kts is the answer but that's not what is happening. The contact is hard and damaging but the wing is still flying, the problem is that the pilot put the aircraft into a configuration that resulted in a high rate of sink near the ground and then he allowed the aircraft to contact without arresting the sink.

 

That's not reason to go faster, use less flaps, or just do what is easy. It is a reason to learn to control sink prior to contact.

 

FAA AFH 8-5,6

 

"TOUCHDOWN

The touchdown is the gentle settling of the airplane

onto the landing surface. The roundout and touchdown

should be made with the engine idling, and the airplane

at minimum controllable airspeed, so that the airplane

will touch down on the main gear at approximately

stalling speed. As the airplane settles, the proper

landing attitude is attained by application of whatever

back-elevator pressure is necessary.

Some pilots may try to force or fly the airplane onto

the ground without establishing the proper landing

attitude. The airplane should never be flown on

the runway with excessive speed. It is paradoxical that

the way to make an ideal landing is to try to hold the

airplane’s wheels a few inches off the ground as

long as possible with the elevators. In most cases,

when the wheels are within 2 or 3 feet off the

ground, the airplane will still be settling too fast for

a gentle touchdown; therefore, this descent must be

retarded by further back-elevator pressure. Since

the airplane is already close to its stalling speed and

is settling, this added back-elevator pressure will

only slow up the settling instead of stopping it. At

the same time, it will result in the airplane touching

the ground in the proper landing attitude, and the

main wheels touching down first so that little or no

weight is on the nosewheel. [Figure 8-8]

After the main wheels make initial contact with the

ground, back-elevator pressure should be held to

maintain a positive angle of attack for aerodynamic

braking, and to hold the nosewheel off the ground until

the airplane decelerates. As the airplane’s momentum

decreases, back-elevator pressure may be gradually

relaxed to allow the nosewheel to gently settle onto the

runway. This will permit steering with the nosewheel.

At the same time, it will cause a low angle of attack

and negative lift on the wings to prevent floating or

skipping, and will allow the full weight of the airplane

to rest on the wheels for better braking action.

 

It is extremely important that the touchdown occur

with the airplane’s longitudinal axis exactly parallel to

the direction in which the airplane is moving along the

runway. Failure to accomplish this imposes severe side

loads on the landing gear. To avoid these side stresses,

the pilot should not allow the airplane to touch down

while turned into the wind or drifting."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Ed, where does the "full stall" occur? Before touch, at touch, or right after touch? How fine can you cut it?

 

As I said above: "the term full stall landing is a misnomer, minimum speed landings would probably be better. that doesn't mean we can't have this discussion because there is a wide gulf between the 2 camps."

 

If I simulate at altitude it seems that my CTSW doesn't get past 'mush stall' with the stick at the stop, so I suspect the most we get prior to contact is 'rapid sinking'.

 

The traditional method used to land at minimum speed is to increase aoa until you can't hold it off and then to continue with aerodynamic braking. No matter where full stall occurs the method works, skip these 2 steps and you have the other 'fly it on' technique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Ed, where does the "full stall" occur? Before touch, at touch, or right after touch? How fine can you cut it?

With all the Ed's here it gets confusing, but here's my .02:

 

It's a goal, not an absolute.

 

Most times, I touch down right before the stall. 5k above would still count as a good landing in my book.

 

Ideally, the stick hits the aft stop as the mains roll on. Failing that, the stick hits the stop as the mains drop a few inches with a small "thump". Failing that, the plane touches down a bit early, and you count it a an "E" for Effort.

 

In that case, I just think, "I could have held it off a bit longer", but don't chastise myself - still a nice landing as landings go.

 

And the "stall", given the dynamics of ground effect, is nothing like a stall practiced at altitude - though the wing essentially stops "flying" as the mains touch, there's never any pitch forward - probably has to do with the tail still effective in ground effect*.

 

 

*my Sky Arrow, with a T-Tail, is not noticeably different, thought I've flown other T-Tails where the elevator could give out all at once and slam the nose down. Early Cardinals were infamous for that, but got a revised stabilator with slots to reduce that tendency.

 

pp27cardinal.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great discussion. My only addition would be that if you can fly your CT 2-3 feet above the runway after roundout, even if you stall, you won't break anything. So judging roundout height is the answer to not damaging your airplane. Judging the flair is the answer to a great landing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Per you the vast majority of CT pilots add speed and limit flaps for normal landings.

Per you the vast majority of CT damage is from too slow and too high on landings.

Doesn't that mean that adding speed and limiting flaps isn't the answer?"

 

Hi Ed,

 

Not per me, but per the LSA MFG's, FD, and the repair centers. I just repeated what they have said over the last 7 years. I don't mean this in a bad way, but you aren't in this particular loop. I talk to these guys all the time. I get calls all the time for damage repair and I make it a point to talk to all these people on a regular basis. We have a couple of invitation only websites and forums just to discuss issues. These are usually only MFG's and service centers.

 

Speed (fast or slow) doesn't damage planes, impact with the ground does. Make a bad landing or decision and imp[act the ground too hard and you have damage. You can make a smooth full stall landing or land at 60 mph and be just as smooth. Just like when you jump off a tall building. The fall doesn't hurt, only the quick stop.

 

 

By the way Eddie,

Quite a number of CT's have landed with flat tires (front and main) and above stall and no other damages occurred. The FAA standards are only recommendations. When I took my flight test I never was ask to do a full stall landing. They only wanted smooth and controlled.

 

I knew when the thread first started that was was a hotly debated topic. If you read all through history it has been a hotly debated topic between flaps and speeds.

 

All I was really hoping to get out of this thread was that there is no REAL right or wrong. It is what works for you, for your particular plane in that particular circumstance. Saying there is only one way lacks....

 

If there was only a right way then all the others that didn't do it your way for the last 110 yeas would have all crashed, but obviously that hasn't happened.

 

Bottom line here is we are all right and we are all wrong depending on the specific landing circumstances and outside forces working for or against you during that landing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying there is only one way lacks....

 

 

You do keep returning to that.

 

Has anyone actually said that? Can you point to the posts that say that?

 

In terms of FAA recommendations, CFI's may view this a bit differently. A CFI who says to a student, "I know the FAA book you got says "x", but I want you to do "y"", is putting himself at risk. If an accident happened, and the student said he was instructed outside of FAA (or POH) recommendations, the instructor might easily find his license in jeopardy, and could even find himself in civil court trying to explain why he held his methods superior to official, specific, government recommendations.

 

"By The Book" relates to "Most Conservative Action". A pilot or CFI should think long and hard before rolling his own procedures and techniques, especially if they're in direct conflict with official sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

 

You may not have needed to perform one, but the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards says this about demonstrating a normal landing:

 

"8. Touches down smoothly at approximate stalling speed (ASEL)."

 

That's not a recommendation - its a standard the FAA requires a private pilot applicant demonstrate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Eddie,

 

Most people couldn't tell you the exact stall speed of their aircraft in ground effect. The best most can do is guess or try it out of ground effect at altitude. To find out what it truly is would be you would need to actually stall your plane in ground effect above any reasonable landing safe point. So many here may say they are at stall, but in truth may very well be over by 5 knots (which is nothing in the scheme of things) and you would never know the difference, not to mention the error in our instruments. So a full stall landing would be as Ed said, a misnomer. We nor the instruments are that accurate. Bottom line is you could as a human be 5 knots off and not even no it. You can fast walk at almost 5 mph.

 

""8. Touches down smoothly at approximate stalling speed (ASEL)."

I like the word approximately it has room for 5 knots. See even the standards don't dictate full stall landings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

"8. Touches down smoothly at approximate stalling speed (ASEL)."[/font][/color]

I like the word approximately it has room for 5 knots. See even the standards don't dictate full stall landings.

 

Granted. It gives wiggle room. How much wiggle room before a pink slip is issued is up to the examiner.

 

I'll keep aiming for that stalling speed landing for myself and my students. You can aim at stalling speed +5 and probably be just fine.

 

If we're down to debating what the meaning of "approximately" is, think we've pretty much beaten this horse to death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Eddie, (Thanks)

 

"You can aim at stalling speed +5 and probably be just fine."

 

Plus not a single one of us could give the exact moment and or exact speed the plane would actually stall in every condition so we do the best we can and guess. :) (Which works the majority of the time so long as we are a couple of inches off the runway)

I now know what a dentist feels like on a hard to extract wisdom tooth. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll keep aiming for that stalling speed landing for myself and my students. You can aim at stalling speed +5 and probably be just fine.

 

If we're down to debating what the meaning of "approximately" is, think we've pretty much beaten this horse to death.

 

I don't agree, here's why:

  • 'stalling speed' in the context of a full stall landing can be determined by allowing the plane to 'stall.' this may not technically be a full stall but still if you get the stick to the stop you are doing a minimum speed landing and the plane is telling you the stall speed for you current weight and conditions. 5kts over can't be determined without doing a stall before your approach. 5kts over isn't 5kts over the current stall speed but instead 5kts over a fixed value.
  • The whole 5kts over argument is a straw man, the less flaps more speed camp is landing much faster than 5kts over the full stall camp. we just had a poster admit that he uses -6 or zero max, i bet he is 15kts faster than me.

Fly it on and you skip 2-3 steps:

  1. Select final notch of flaps to get to landing flaps.
     
  2. Work the stick back towards the aft stop as you sink the last 3 feet.
     
  3. Hold the stick back for braking as you roll out.

The difference between the 2 technices is way more than 5kts so the 5kt argument isn't valid.

 

Most CT pilots fly it on with minimized flaps so the no full stall landings because most accidents are seen as too high and too slow isn't valid either.

 

One of the Jims said round out height prevents damage and thats partially true, ultimately vertical speed control does. I sometimes round out too high and either time my flare differently or add power, so I know that a high round out can be saved.

 

It all goes wrong if your work the stick back while you are not yet close to the runway, you now have no retained energy to work with and have to rely on the throttle. If you fail to advance the throttle or it fails to respond you have a hard contact. If you typically fly it on you might not be quick enough to respond with the throttle.

 

Just like you don't know what speed you can fly at for the current weight and conditions you don't know speed your plane will stall at so the 5kts over can't work. Add in the big spread between published CAS stall speeds vs the IAS we see and we are really guessing. I like to look out the window some too.

 

5kts over is a straw man and the argument remains flaps vs no, fast vs slow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things I have struggle with the most is making small enough movements with the stick so that doesn't cause ballooning, just enough to hold it off as the speed bleeds off. I have dropped that two feet and it doesn't feel good. I have gotten better and try to keep the speed down over the threshold and then slowly hold it off. I get close to stall speed, but probably don't actually get there. Most of the time the mains are on the ground before I reach actual stall. Not fast, but sufficient. I am practicing practice altitude stalls and working on greater flaps (I usually use 15 or zero if the winds are not good and I have a lot of runway.)I plan to do some short field landings with a CFI later in the summer. I have done some, but not enough to feel confident in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things I have struggle with the most is making small enough movements with the stick so that doesn't cause ballooning, just enough to hold it off as the speed bleeds off.

 

Hey, if flying was easy, than anyone could do it!

 

Yes, this part of the landing process is difficult, because as the plane slows, the amount of control input needed for a desired effect increases in a non-linear fashion. But, with practice - like crosswinds - it becomes second nature after a while.

 

I have dropped that two feet and it doesn't feel good.

 

Welcome to the club! There's probably not a pilot breathing that hasn't done that repeatedly. Even ace pilots have off days.

 

Its hard to troubleshoot from a distance, but the first thing I'd do would be to try to analyze where you're looking on landing. Why? Because if I were sitting next to you and watching you climb through 6" in the flare, I'd have to ask whether it was because you just pulled back a little more than necessary, or that you really could not see you were climbing away from the ground. If you continued climbing through 1', I'd ask the same thing. And so on*. At any point in that process, if you saw the climb, a simple relaxation of back pressure to allow the plane to settle would keep it from getting any worse. It's not easy to get it just right, but you must be aware of height at all times, and looking too far down the runway can make that difficult.

 

In any case, please don't start landing faster or using less flaps because it "seems easier". There are some hard things in flying that are worth mastering.

 

HUGE caveat: before experimenting too far out of your comfort zone, please go up with an instructor. I've seen pilots struggle with new techniques, and accidents can and do happen when they start experimenting on their own.

 

 

*BTW, 2 feet ain't nothin'. I've seen pilots balloon up to 10' - or more - and sit there frozen as the airspeed bleeds off. Scary place to be!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Doug,

When I was flying helicopters small controlled movements of the cyclic (stick) were the toughest for some. Having a stabilator is more sensitive to small movements than the reduced area of an elevator with the horizontal stab and longer fuselages This has been very true with the CT and its stab. The whole thing fly's the tail with very little input.

Try keeping your hand planted firmly on your leg and only making finger length movements with the stick. This is how I was originally taught to learn better control when I first got behind the helicopter controls. After a short while it didn't make any difference what I did with my hand because the muscle memory was developed. This is how I get many in the CT transition phase guys to relax and shorten their control movements. Once the muscle memory sets in then putting your hand any where on the stick won't make a difference. Try this for a few landings.

 

Instead of a full stall type landing or trying to pull the stick back all the way for a few landings try just flying it to the ground. Just get parallel to the tarmac at 2'-3' and hold the stick steady and as the plane slows and starts to settle just slightly easy the stick back, but you'll find it doesn't have to come all the way back. If you do this and keep the hand steady the CT will have nice smooth landings consistently. The next big problem with learning the CT is for the interim don't try to land too slow. Cross the numbers between 55-60 knots and round out and hold it steady and let it settle on its own and don't try to make it land before its's ready. Many have also learned to keep a small amount of throttle to touch (i.e. 2400-2800 rpm) depending on gross weight) Landing slow like a full stall is okay, but for a while don't get hung up on speed. Just get the smooth and control down. If you are a full stall landing type just try this and let me know. It has worked for everyone else in a CT that I have been around or talked to on the phone (students and high time pilots). Once the muscle memory sets in and sight picture you can go back and land which ever way you like.

 

Plane configurations, weight, length and control surface types are different some times. So for what works well for someone like Eddie with a high tee tail and different control surface may not work as well as something else for someone else. Yes the theory is the same, but there may be some small quirks for each plane that make using one method over the other easier or more consistent to obtain smooth controlled landings.

 

All smooth controlled landings are good.

 

 

It's just another tool and just another method to smooth out little idiosyncrasies.

 

 

Learn the way you need to learn and not the way someone wants to teach. Ridged instructors make poor educators because they can't identify their pupils or audience's needs and learning styles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...