Help Landing

[azemon]

Hey folks.

 

I have soloed in the CTSW and still I am having problems "greasing" landings. I have previously flown 172's, Bonanzas and Dukes but the CTSW has been kicking my butt. I have a different mindset from what my instructor has told me and it is killing me. I am used to setting up for final in a landing configuration and flying it to the runway, flaring and settling on. I was taught to configure for 60 kts and do a power off landing with the CTSW and just can't seem to retrain my brain.

 

HELP!

 

Andy

[Jim Meade]

Well, as a starter you can search this forum for threads on landing techniques. Any thread over 50 or a 100 messages is probably about landing technique. Everyone is an expert, of course. Good luck.

[azemon]

Thanks Jim,

 

I have. And enjoyed the 50/50 argument about the subject. I am wondering if there is a common ground pertaining to the amateurs best way to gain confidence for landing.

I don't want to be part of the landing war. Just need a bit of help.

 

Thanks,

 

Andy

[coppercity]

Hi Andy,

 

There are lots of techniques mentioned on the forum but what I have found works for most pilots new to the CT is using 0 or 15 flaps initially and maintaining about 2600-2800rpm on final maintaining a descent rate for 65-70 knots with 0 flaps and 55-60 knots with 15 flaps. Practice this approach into a couple low approaches first adding more power to just fly down the runway without touching but trying to get close so you can get a feel for where the ground is. Once you get a couple low approaches continue with the slight power on approach all the way thru touchdown keeping power set. You will float a little longer but it will give you more time to feel for the ground and soften the blow if you balloon. After 1500hrs of teaching in CTs alone, I don't start students( or transition pilots)with power off landings or high flap settings, or combination of the two until they have a good grasp of where the ground is in the CT. Most folks I have transitioned from larger aircraft tend to flare a little high, land with the nose left, and ballon during the initial flare. This usually works itself out after a couple hours of landings.

[azemon]

THANKS ERIC!!

 

You described exactly what am doing. My instructor is a great guy but I cannot figure out the full stall landing to save my A$$. I was able to do my aborted TO engine out landing but have a bit of difficulty doing doing this on final with engine on at 60 KTS. I balloon, land to the left, float as you have described. I will thry ur suggestions tomorrow. Thanks.

 

Andy

[Roger Lee]

Hi Andy,

 

Eric (coppercity) is right on the money.

 

No power landing is still an old tradition that many CFI's just can't shake. That's what they were taught and that's how they teach. Poor flexability. All the high time pilots and CFI's I have transitioned that had trouble landing and students with CFI's that have insisted on 30 flaps and no power have all tried zero and 15 flaps with power as Eric states down to the round out then hold the stick still and as the plane settles gentely pull back on the stick and the plane will settle. Cut power on touch. Dont forget to add a little right peddle as this is happening. Works like a charm every time. Once you get these down then add no power and more flaps. Make it a progression and don't start at the experience CT pilot point.

 

Learn to walk then add running.

 

Every single pilot in here has transitioned this way and not a single one had an issue. The ones that tried to start with 30 and no power all had inconsistent landings. He and I both have transitioned a lot of pilots and neither of us has ever had issues with pilots using this technique.

 

Eric is right, so give this a try for 20 landings and get back to us. You won't be sorry.

[Andy]

One of the major differences between an LSA and most GA aircraft is its light weight means it's also a "low inertia" airplane. It's going to run out of energy more quickly once the power goes away (i.e., drag has a faster effect). If you've trained yourself (like one of my Private Pilot students) to always chop the power in the flare, you'll find it hard to make a greaser. Like Eric mentioned, I taught him to reduce power to 2600-2800 RPM (and lower on a cold, single pilot day) and leave some power in all the way to touchdown...unless he was starting to float and/or overshoot. Worked for him. It'll help make the greaser you're after no matter what flap setting you're using..though the difficulty in squeaking it on goes up directly with the amount of flaps you're using.

 

I'm using 54 knots for a no/low wind approach with flaps (to match our POH) and 60 knots for 0 degree flap airspeed target with the approach speeds adjusted for gust factor as recommended (1/2 the gust factor). I start teaching 0 degree flap takeoffs and landings and then move to the different flap settings from there.

 

People who haven't flown LSA's or the CT think it's going to be a piece of cake and get a rude awakening sometimes to find out it's harder to master than they thought. It can cause you to get discouraged; my PP student felt the same way you did and so did I when I was working on my CFI. That'll go away once you master it, and you will, and you'll have better stick and rudder skills than you did before when you get there. Too bad the rest of the industry seems to think flying Light Sport is something to bypass when you're on the "commercial/ATP" pilot track; the truth is it might be better to do just the opposite!

[Ed Cesnalis]

...I have previously flown 172's, Bonanzas and Dukes ... I have a different mindset from what my instructor has told me ... I am used to setting up for final in a landing configuration and flying it to the runway, flaring and settling on. I was taught to configure for 60 kts and do a power off landing with the CTSW and just can't seem to retrain my brain...

 

Andy,

 

You can't do both. If you are going to fly to the runway in a landing attitude and call the collision with the runway a landing you will need power (or lots of speed). This method controls your vertical speed by configuration and it is therefore minimized for a long period of time so the approach takes more room to get down.

 

When that throttle is closed think of level as a stall attitude. Landing power off is easier in a Cessna or Beechcraft because they have enough mass that they are less prone to rapid sink in landing.

 

It sounds to me that the rule of primacy has met a CFI that wants you to chop the power and this is happening in a CT to make matters worse.

 

Remember if you can take the advice above and fly it on with a partial throttle that when you get around to closing the throttle you will want to be ready to advance the throttle to control rapid sink. You will encounter rapid sink as you learn to arrest your sink with back stick at touch down.

 

Power off landings with flaps and no rapid sink are accomplished by keeping the nose low and doing the round out close to the runway. You have to both maintain your speed with pitch attitude and get the nosewheel up to land.

[Jim Meade]

save my A$$.

 

Vulgarity is always an effective way to emphasize a point, especially when it's spelled with cute letter substitutions.

[Jim Meade]

 

Power off landings with flaps and no rapid sink are accomplished by keeping the nose low and doing the round out close to the runway. You have to both maintain your speed with pitch attitude and get the nosewheel up to land.

 

This above works.

 

The guys eager to teach you the "new way" of driving it on have apparently never flown a Piper Cub, Aeronca Champ or any of the other light, low-energy airplanes that tens if not hundreds of thousands of pilots learned in. The Airplane Flying Handbook applies as much to modern light sport weight aircraft as it did to old light sport weight aircraft.

 

Go ahead and learn it their way - just remember it's not the only right way and it's not the best way and it requires a transition that is not necessary.

[coppercity]

 

The guys eager to teach you the "new way" of driving it on have apparently never flown a Piper Cub, Aeronca Champ or any of the other light, low-energy airplanes that tens if not hundreds of thousands of pilots learned in. The Airplane Flying Handbook applies as much to modern light sport weight aircraft as it did to old light sport weight aircraft.

 

Go ahead and learn it their way - just remember it's not the only right way and it's not the best way and it requires a transition that is not necessary.

 

I have plenty of time in Cubs, Luscombs, C120/140 as well as CTs so your statement is not true. Not trying to reinvent the landing, just help the guy learn the sight picture of the CT, it is different. Once you have it power on or off landings are no problem with any flap setting.

[Ed Cesnalis]

This above works.

 

...The Airplane Flying Handbook applies as much to modern light sport weight aircraft as it did to old light sport weight aircraft...

 

 

I agree 99%.

 

The other 1% comes from the low drag designs, like our molded composite CTs and their much higher lift drag coefficient. We come closer to traditional performance if we use our flaps and even then things happen a bit faster.

 

The fly it on guys create the need for a special technique by not employing the high lift devices that come installed on the aircraft.

 

The whole thing reminds me of landing in the dark, dark enough where you can't see the runway. The only reasonable thing to do then is to configure for an impact in a landing attitude and a controlled vertical speed. Setting up my CT to land without having to move either hand has too many compromises the worst of which is the likelihood that the I will not move my hands when I really need to.

[Roger Lee]

See you guys that say no power or lots of flaps are forgetting the basic teaching techniques. Teach the way the student needs to learn, not the way you want to teach. Some have problems so you need need to adjust your experienced landing technique to one that a particular student needs to learn. It's only a transition technique not an all encompassing technique. This is why I have so much heart ache with so many CFI's. Not flexible enough to read a students individual learning styles so they become in-effective. If it works for the student why would you even care. He will learn and eventually learn it all and make his own decision as to his preferred style after he gets some time, experience and motor control under his belt.

And if you have tried or mastered all the styles how could you compare?

 

Teach the way people need to learn not the way your people need to learn not your personal preference of styles.

 

 

No matter what any ones says, try them and use what works for you. You are doing the landing and there is more than one way and they all work and we all have different experience levels and come from different schools of training and thought.

 

Try them and get back with us.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Gee Roger, your mantra usually includes something like: 'there is no right or wrong way, whatever works for the pilot is best'

 

Now your accusing those who won't advocate flying it on as having 'poor flexibility', or using traditions that they 'just can't shake', or 'forgetting basic teaching techniques', or 'Not flexible enough to read a students individual learning styles' ...etc.

 

Sounds like you have gone from 'both are correct' to 'myway or the hi-way'

 

Excess speed will always represent excess risk and even if you land fast you still have to slow through the vulnerable speed. You haven't won the argument and now are taking it to the next level where it isn't politically correct to disagree.

 

In this case the guy is already solo with a closed throttle, that means he can dead stick and is generally landing at safer speeds. It makes more sense to advise him to use his throttle when needed, to make the runway, speed control or to soften his contacts than to convince him his instructor is defective. At least we should be able to advise such without all those labels.

[Roger Lee]

Nope both are correct, but may not be for a student. Each is different. It's just the CFI that says its my way or the hi-way. You teach the way people need to learn. After that they canpick whatever works for them. You need to be flexible enough to allow the student to try different techniques until he starts to get better with his technique.

I could care less how an individual wants to land.

 

No next level, just inflexible instructors that have always irked me. I have been teaching and teach instructors most of my life and inflexible instructors hinder the learning process and sometimes haunt it altogether. Way too many students have been in this predicament.

If his instructor can't regocnize or figure out how to make an issue better then he is an ineffective instructor.

 

Ran into these type in all walks of instructing. Some instructors should never be one.

 

 

Teach the way the student needs to learn. Tradition is a hinderance and has no place here in the ever changing world of education.

 

Think like a new first time student, not a high time, experienced, many aircraft capable pilot.

 

If I put you in the pilots seat of a helicopter you would not want me to teach or compare you like you had a lot of helicopter time. I would need to think like a student again and regocnize your short comings and help you correct and accomplish task.

[Roger Lee]

If tradition fits its fine, but way too many hang their hats on it and seriously fail to move on, learn, research, adapt and be flexible enough to apply new ideas to old problems. If we hung our hats on tradition we would still be living in the 1800 life style. Life, education, learning and teaching are not static. They are ever changing. Fail to change and you fail. Many things have changed in aviation over the last60 years. Thank someone that the innovative ones didn't hang their hat on tradition and fail the rest of us. Thank someone for being forward thinking to find us new and better aviation equipment and thinks out of the box away from tradition. Tradition is great for a celebration, it's a hindrance to the future in the world ways. Look what has changed in the last 100 years because someone didn't stick with tradition.

 

We have changed the way we learn and changed the way we teach over the last 100 years. Why stop now.

[coppercity]

Who said excess speed? Just because you carry a touch of power into a flare does not mean excess speed, nor does it mean you should not continue to increase pitch to reduce speed further until a main wheel touchdown. How else do you perform a soft field landing? It does mean you will land further down the runway, but we are not talking about a short field landing. Using the soft field landing technique when learning how to land the CT initially is helpful, and can reduce the descent rate that can occur after a balloon with subsequent loss of airspeed. Once you can master the proper flare altitude in the CT then it's time to move to power off landings and landings at higher flap settings.

 

 

[Ed Cesnalis]

Who said excess speed? ...

 

You seem to advocate it initially with approaches up to 70kts and as little as zero flaps but you also seem to advocate the extra speed as a pathway to learning power off landings and landings at higher flap settings. Others seem to advocate more speed and less flaps even for normal landings. I appreciate your incremental approach and attitude, I do question how much impact the law of primacy has when it comes to landings especially.

[Ed Cesnalis]

If tradition fits its fine, but way too many hang their hats on it and seriously fail to move on, learn, research, adapt and be flexible enough to apply new ideas to old problems. If we hung our hats on tradition we would still be living in the 1800 life style. Life, education, learning and teaching are not static. They are ever changing. Fail to change and you fail. Many things have changed in aviation over the last60 years. Thank someone that the innovative ones didn't hang their hat on tradition and fail the rest of us. Thank someone for being forward thinking to find us new and better aviation equipment and thinks out of the box away from tradition. Tradition is great for a celebration, it's a hindrance to the future in the world ways. Look what has changed in the last 100 years because someone didn't stick with tradition.

 

We have changed the way we learn and changed the way we teach over the last 100 years. Why stop now.

 

Crafting an argument that favorably compares teaching to land fast with the technological advances of the last 100 years is creating a straw man of impressive proportions. I reject that argument and suggest that abandoning traditional techniques in aviation is serious business and needs a better basis than such fanciful reasoning.

[Tom Baker]

I'm with Eric on this. I also like to use a little power on approach when teaching landings in the CT. The reason is it gives the student almost double the time to learn pitch, alignment, height above the ground, and how far you can pull back without balloonong with each landing. The student needs to first learn the fundamentals of how to land then work on the finer details.

[Roger Lee]

I'm with Tom and Eric. I know many more CT instructors that use this technique in the beginning and them branch them out to different styles.

Ed, I think you may be in the minority here.

 

 

Ed, How many new pilots or older pilots have you transitioned in a CT?

 

It's just teaching people to walk (less corrections or manuvering) before that run.

 

No matter what method you use if you fail to educate and communicate you have failed as an instructor. Having different methods in your toolbox helps the success rate of your instruction.

[Jim]

There are TWO dynamics in play when calculating the flight characteristics of a given aircraft. Weight and drag, not one or the other by itself. The carbon fiber skin on a CT makes its drag coefficient very very slippery. Combine that slippery skin with low weight and you have an airplane that has more in common with a glider than with a Cessna or other riveted, rough high drag planes.

 

This argument over landing is endless it seems. I repeat once again, one of the TOP LSA schools in the country teaching LSA in FD CTLS is Elite Aviation which sits physically in the next building to FD West at KVGT.

 

Students are given a printed and ringed binder with the parameters for all aspects of flight and training. When it comes to taking off, flying the pattern, and landing they are VERY specific in regard to flap and speed.

 

From Elites Student Manual - Landing Approach:

 

Downwind leg, Flaps -6 85 kias

Downwind leg, 0 flaps 80 kias

Base Leg, 15 flaps 75 kias

Final, 15 flaps 62-70 kias

Short Final, 15 flaps 62 kias

Touchdown Speed, 15 flaps approx 54 kias

 

Or you can land like this:

 

 

Final, flaps 30 airspeed 55 kts

Touchdown approximately 35 kts.

 

I look forward to seeing a video of one of your landings, Gbigs.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Sweet

[coppercity]

Looks like you had 2800rpm set into the flare then chopped to idle. All I'm saying is for a students first few landings leave that little bit of power in so they don't have to jerk the pitch in at the end as shown in the video. If your not familiar with how much to pull at the end with 30 or more flaps a new student will land firm or balloon and then land really firm.

[Ed Cesnalis]

There are TWO dynamics in play when calculating the flight characteristics of a given aircraft. Weight and drag, not one or the other by itself...

 

Bigs,

 

Ratios are important but Weight/Drag isn't one of them.

 

Lift / Drag determines how far you can glide.

Lift must equal weight to maintain level flight.

Thrust must equal drag to maintain speed.

 

I could fly with reflex flaps instead of zero flaps to reduce my drag, that would change my glide ratio regardless of weight.