Help Landing

[Ed Cesnalis]

...Tradition is a hinderance and has no place here in the ever changing world of education...

 

That and the follow up straw man argument is what I was disagreeing with.

 

As always I agree with Tom and Eric at least to the extent that less flaps and power make it easier.

[Jim]

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.

 

I generally try to fly the approach at close to idle if possible. In this case, I hit the little invisible dust devil that lives on short final and ended up with a pretty high sink rate. I've been trying to analyze the pitch jerk at the end too. I believe I did it to get the nose plenty high as the mains touched down. A smoother motion would have been better.

 

One final thought on Gbigs landing philosophy. If you intend to take your checkride in your CT, you'll never pass the short-field landing without learning how to cross the fence at 55 knots and touch down at 35 with flaps 40.

[Doug G.]

His CTLSi will not have 40 deg. of flaps. I believe max. is 30. My CTLS has 35 as max.

[Jim]

His CTLSi will not have 40 deg. of flaps. I believe max. is 30. My CTLS has 35 as max.

 

My mistake. The important point is that the PTS short field landing will have to be executed with max flaps and minimum airspeed.

[coppercity]

The PTS states recommended landing configuration which would mean a student would follow the Aircraft operating manual which for the CT states

 

The maximum flap position (30°) should be used to land on very short runways under favorable wind condition (no crosswind component, very light wind and low gusts).

 

So given a crosswind or gusts a lower flap setting could be used and still meet the intent of the PTS.

 

 

From the PTS

 

4. Establishes the recommended approach and landing configuration

and airspeed; adjusts pitch attitude and power as required.

 

5. Maintains a stabilized approach and recommended approach airspeed, or in its absence not more than 1.3 V , +10/-5 knots,

with wind gust factor applied.

 

6. Makes smooth, timely, and correct control application during the

roundout and touchdown.

[Roger Lee]

We are only talking about helping a student work on developing his landings into a more controllable and smooth touch. How he finally does his more experienced landings after that will be up to him. It's just getting him over the hump because what he is doing right now isn't working as well as he would like.

[FastEddieB]

Please take this as simple facts put forth, and not as an argument, per sé.

 

I have about 350 hours on my Sky Arrow. Maybe about 500 or 600 landings.

 

I have never once intentionally landed it with power on.

 

I put several hundred hours on a Cirrus. Again, about 500 or 600 landings. None with power intentionally left in.

 

I recently had a chance to fly a Sport Star (Prof. Shuch's), and a friend's AeroPrakt (sp?). Both landed just fine, power off.

 

I could, if I wanted, land with power - we used to leave some power in on soft field landings, for instance.

 

But from the above, I just don't feel that landing with power helps me in any way, at least in the planes I fly.

 

If some feel it helps them, then the perception is the reality, and do whatever makes landing easier for you.

 

I just don't want beginning pilots to think is somehow necessary - its not.

[Tom Baker]

From when I started flying and teaching in the CT's in 2007 the idle rpm is now about 250 lower than it was when I started flying them. The airplane was easier to land with the higher idle speed back in 2007 with my first airplane. I now start students off with what would have been power off 6 years ago to make learning landings easier. That 250 rpm does make a big difference.

[FlyingMonkey]

Can't we all just get along?

[Tom Baker]

Can't we all just get along?

 

Who's not getting along?

[Ed Cesnalis]

From when I started flying and teaching in the CT's in 2007 the idle rpm is now about 250 lower than it was when I started flying them. The airplane was easier to land with the higher idle speed back in 2007 with my first airplane. I now start students off with what would have been power off 6 years ago to make learning landings easier. That 250 rpm does make a big difference.

 

That's interesting Tom, for my money the closer I can get to simulating dead stick landings the better. Everytime I use the throttle in a landing I feel as though i blew it at least a little.

[CT4ME]

Here's a good discussion of the same issue... for GA aircraft... on another forum. Good reading.

Consensus seems to be... use what works.

Tim

[Ed Cesnalis]

Here's a good discussion of the same issue... for GA aircraft... on another forum. Good reading.

Consensus seems to be... use what works.

Tim

 

I read the thread, thanks Tim, but I didn't hear the consensus. I heard the same thing I hear here but the ratio is different. There is a higher percentage of power off advocates there.

 

From here or there I hear the power on guys claiming 'use what works' where the power off guys are far less flexible.

 

In reading the other forum a 172 pilot made an argument as to why power is needed to land a 172 and yet I owned and flew one for years and never once used power for approach or landing unless I needed the power to fix something i botched.

[CT4ME]

There are a lot of "Dangnubit, it's always been this way" types in aviation. You see/hear them all the time... dang "plastic airplanes", "iPad thingies", "glass panels", "rotax engines", "parachutes"... you know. A good portion of these folks were taught there was a certain way to land. Period. I'm not saying anyone here is in this category... but on the other forum, there are lots of them. They're the ones who don't need LSA transition training, because they know it all. As such, you have to discount a certain percentage of the comments.

Now you whippersnappers get off my lawn....

[sandpiper]

My idle RPM is probably around 1500 but I don't let it go there, I taxi at about 2000. The reason I set it like that is so a closed throttle and 60K on final will yield about 2000 RPM. I have tried higher idle settings but when I do, the plane doesn't want to come down.

[Tom Baker]

That's interesting Tom, for my money the closer I can get to simulating dead stick landings the better. Everytime I use the throttle in a landing I feel as though i blew it at least a little.

 

I have always heard that an airplane will glide farther with the engine dead and the prop stopped than it will at idle. To simulate the engine out prop stopped you have to carry a little power. I have not tried it with the CT, but have with a Taylorcraft and I found it to be true for that airplane.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Tom,

 

I think that would definitely apply with the size of prop, number of blades and blade pitch. (Feathered or non adjustable)

I think our CT lands gods with power to the ground, at idle and with the engine turned completely off. Seems speed has a bigger affect on us, like at round out.

[Tom Baker]

Hi Tom,

 

I think that would definitely apply with the size of prop, number of blades and blade pitch. (Feathered or non adjustable)

I think our CT lands gods with power to the ground, at idle and with the engine turned completely off. Seems speed has a bigger affect on us, like at round out.

 

Roger, I'm not talking about the landing I'm talking about the approach. Doing things the same way with power at idle and the engine stopped might cause you to go farther than you planned. The turning prop creates drag and there will be one RPM that has zero drag and zero thrust fora given speed.

[Ed Cesnalis]

I have always heard that an airplane will glide farther with the engine dead and the prop stopped than it will at idle. To simulate the engine out prop stopped you have to carry a little power. I have not tried it with the CT, but have with a Taylorcraft and I found it to be true for that airplane.

 

The big issue is confidence far more than knowing how far you will glide. Of course you need to know how to make the runway and not overshoot, for me that means a high approach with a slip so I don't have to rely on judgement alone. You can get the confidence 2 ways, 1 is to practice some dead stick landings or 2 is to always do approach and landings with a closed throttle, either way your confidence will be high.

 

If you use throttle for most approaches and landings and never practice dead sticks the emergency landing when it comes will be new territory.

[CT4ME]

Agreed, Ed. But a big question lingers... is the difference between "no engine" and "engine at idle" as significant as the difference between "engine at idle" and "a touch of power"??? In other words, is a real power out landing anything like a landing at idle? Does increased prop drag and total lack of thrust make a big difference? I know my CT, where the idle is about 1900 (too high, gotta fix), lands different than a CT with say a 1500 rpm.

Let's here from those of you that have practiced "real" dead sticks.

tim

[Ed Cesnalis]

I have both practiced dead sticks and a real one. I also have 1 landing with a main gear departed leaving me with a snapped in half strutt to land on. Your lingering question is a non-issue I think but there are a series of questions that come to mind.

• Did you forget about the LZ behind you that you can no longer see?
  
• Are the flaps working?
  
• How to plan glide on a strait in? Can you handle the downwind landing?
  
• How to plan glide flying a pattern?
  
• Can you avoid a balloon? How to handle it if you do?
  

To name a few.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Tom,

 

I have done both idle and total engine off landings in the CT and didn't find a big enough difference to cause anyone any heartache. I think that is just because of our fuselage design and type of small (compared to some) prop.That said if your idle is set too high then yes that does make a difference. I think too many always use nothing, but numbers to land and forget to learn how to land by just looking out the window. Learn to land without looking at numbers and instruments. It may be uncomfortable for a few and may be better learned in steps, but it is fairly easy.

[FastEddieB]

This is a quick individual instructor's preference.

 

I would much rather have a student overcontrol a bit, even to the point of being a little "jerky" on the controls, rather than always striving for smoothness - which can lead to undercontrolling and imprecise flying.

 

IOW, I'd rather have a student rather abruptly move the controls to maintain 55k on approach (let's say), than have him try to be smooth as the airspeed drifts all over the place.

 

Why? I think its easier to nail precision first and later add smoothness than to try to add precision to smoothness.

 

So, don't try to "coax" the airplane back to the right airspeed or altitude or bank angle or whatever - nail the deviation right now with whatever it takes to get the job done.

 

Undercontrolling was an issue I had early on, wanting to be smooth and professional, and I remember to this day my instructor yelling at me about it.

 

BTW, what brought this to mind will follow in the next post...

[FastEddieB]

As promised...

 

A trap on approach is to find oneself a little low and to then add just a little power. The pilot may then realize that he or she is still too low and add a little more power. Maybe that wasn't enough and a little more power is needed. And so on.

 

That can go on until finally the pilot is still too low and finds there's no more power to be had. This is from being on the "backside of the power curve", where it counterintuitively takes more power to go slower. Bad things can happen then.

 

The solution is what I might call "intentional overcontrolling". Even if you're just a little low, add enough power to level off briefly until you're back where you want to be. Then you can reduce power again to whatever power setting you like on final. Repeat as necessary.

 

In any case, for me the normal goal is to be in a position at no less than 50' to have the power come smoothly back to idle and glide the rest of the way in. I have found that if I can get to that "key position" with little or no power, I have a much better chance of making a good landing.

 

As and obvious (I hope) caveat, do it the way your instructor wants you to - I'm just saying what has worked for my students and for me personally.

[coppercity]

This is a quick individual instructor's preference.

 

I would much rather have a student overcontrol a bit, even to the point of being a little "jerky" on the controls, rather than always striving for smoothness - which can lead to undercontrolling and imprecise flying.

 

IOW, I'd rather have a student rather abruptly move the controls to maintain 55k on approach (let's say), than have him try to be smooth as the airspeed drifts all over the place.

 

Why? I think its easier to nail precision first and later add smoothness than to try to add precision to smoothness.

 

So, don't try to "coax" the airplane back to the right airspeed or altitude or bank angle or whatever - nail the deviation right now with whatever it takes to get the job done.

 

Undercontrolling was an issue I had early on, wanting to be smooth and professional, and I remember to this day my instructor yelling at me about it.

 

BTW, what brought this to mind will follow in the next post...

 

Have to disagree, I think smooth and precise go hand and hand especially in the CT which is very sensitive on the controls. Learning smooth flying also helps those students that continue on to instrument flying where smooth and precise is key.

 

Now the student should not let the plane fly him/her but maintain precise control at all times with smooth control inputs. This aligns with the PTS requirement to "make smooth, timely, and correct control inputs"