Jump to content

Landing and staying upright - majority consensus vs minority


Ed Cesnalis

Recommended Posts

We have been discussing landing issues for almost 10 years and recently we have brought in the high number of CTs that have flipped over.

 

Without the nose overs these events are little more than forced landings and occasionally elected rough field landings.

 

So what is new?  Why a new thread?

 

What's new is the discussion on rough landing fields and CTs propensity to flip over and weather or not the pilots should even try to avoid these flips.

 

The majority consensus as  argued by Roger Lee:

 

Landing

  • Flying it on provides additional control authority useful in high / gusty winds
  • Full stall landings lead to damage

Avoiding nose overs

  • Nose wheels are delicate but its not worth it to try and protect them because you have to lower them sometime and there might be a hole when you do lower it.  
  • It might be preferable to flip over

The minority consensus as  argued by Charlie Tango:

 

Landing

  • Minimum speed normal landings with landing flaps (30*-40*) reduce energy and minimize damage and injury.
  • There is lowered control authority in every landing.  You have to slow through the vulnerable speed even if you land fast so the extra risk associated with the extra energy only postpones the vulnerability until after you have wheels on the ground.  It does not make the vulnerablilty go away and instead of reducing it, the vulnerablility is even enhanced.  Being gusted and blown in a direction that your gear are not tracking is better done in the air than on the ground.

Avoiding nose overs

  • Nose wheels are delicate and on rough / soft fields the nose wheel should remain elevated until the most suitble portion of your landing rollout is reached.
  • If the entire rollout is questionable due to high grass or visible holes, minimize your exposure with:
    • minimize the time your nose wheel is in contact
    • minimize the weight on your nose wheel (full aft stick)
    • maximize aerodynamic braking (full aft stick)

Logic fails the majority on both points

 

  • When it comes to landing speed the majority cannot defeat this argument:  Control authority will go away as you slow and you must slow in order to stop.  Landing fast did not eliminate the vulnerability or even reduce it.  The vulnerable period was only delayed till later in the landing sequence.
  • Roger has always been the spokesman for the majority consensus and we now see reliance on the logic that you have to lower the nose eventually.  That's quite correct and when you do if you still have enough remaining energy you could lower it and have it end up in a hole and total your CT true enough. Logic dictates that what has worked for decades will continue to work.  Soft field landings with elevated nose wheels until the turn off is proven technique and it works fine in a CT.

On one point the majority ignores that you have to slow and on the other point Roger is relying on the fact that you have to lower the nose sometime.  In both cases upside down logic is being applied to the inevitable slowing and deducing that fast is better when in fact speed kills.

 

If  you are in the majority please stop and inspect the first suitable field for an emergency landing that you happen upon.  Ask your self if you there is any difference in having your nose-wheel track 500' of that field or have it track just 100' starting at a visiblly preferable spot?

 

When  you realize that field landings happen, and  you don't want to flip your CT it will be time to get proficient at landing at minimum speed and controlling your nose wheel for soft fields and emergency landings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed,

 

"at some point you have to lower your nose"   AND come to a stop.

 

You got it last night, what happened?

 

This isn't about your landing or touchdown. What your still missing is the rollout where you have no more flight and lift help and only steering. If there is no room or area clear enough to miss obstacles like holes, bushes, rocks or ditches it makes no difference about how you landed.  This is where people flip. You have no control over this because when the majority happened they had no engine, fuel or decent place to land. Once the engine is out all bets are off you are on your way down and it's not usually on your nice 6K' paved runway. 10mph will collapse the front wheel and you're more susceptible with the smaller 4.00x4 tire. Your aft stick or great landing isn't worth 2 cents if you tag something under 20 mph and I see many taxi that fast on a normal runway. There are a few dozen CT incidents where the pilot was fine to landing, but you still have to come to a full stop before you tag something.

 

So let's talk about all your control on rollout under 20mph. Then you're in the right mindset.  You already admitted you have to rollout and put the wheel on the ground sooner or later and that means trying to slowdown before you stop. Even if you could land at 30 mph you still have to transition under 20mph to come to a stop. Once the nose wheel comes to an abrupt stop then it's going to fold and dig in. Now the speed/energy left over decides for you whether you are going to flip. If you STEERED well and missed obstacles and you are slow enough some have just collapsed the front end. If after touchdown that didn't go well because there are too many obstacles and you have just enough speed the rollover is decided for you.

 

Forget normal landings. This isn't where they normally happen. You have no control over the nose over if the field is too rough and you have no engine.  You may have the greatest landing of your life, but you still have to roll to a stop.  If the circumstance are right with the field then it's done.

 

None of this debate is about a normal landings like in Eddie's video. This is about when things are out of the norm, bad field choice and crash landings with no engine.

At some point things are out of your control and you have to land on rough unacceptable surface for a CT. 

 

The people flipping over aren't making just a normal day to day landing. Except for a few have all had engine trouble. You need to go back and read all the incident reports and look at the pictures. There are people that also came in for landing and stalled either by being to high, or ballooning or bouncing and dropped the nose. These were just pilot errors that they did have control over

If you are just out for a cruise and make a bad choice on a field that's on the pilot for not pre-planning better.

 

 

This is all about rollout and the minimum speed it takes to fold the front gear leg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have been discussing landing issues for almost 10 years and recently we have brought in the high number of CTs that have flipped over.

 

When  you realize that field landings happen, and  you don't want to flip your CT it will be time to get proficient at landing at minimum speed and controlling your nose wheel for soft fields and emergency landings.

 

What 'high' number of CTs that have flipped over?  I see none from landing on a clean runway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

 

The tie in to normal landings is practice.  If your normal landings are at minimum speed than you do practice for a forced landing every time you land.

 

You are focusing on the portion of the landing sequence from 20mph to zero as though it is the only portion of the landing.  When the field is not too short we can and should pick where that last 20mph portion occurs.

 

If we pick where to lower our nose we will reduce the number of nose overs.  That is simple plain logic that cannot be defeated.

 

You like to bring up stalling and dropping it in.  Any pilot with a certificate should be past that issue, training them to land too fast for ever trades more risk to avoid a lesser risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

 

You say this has nothing to do with normal landings so you missed my point of this thread.

 

You have a big logical problem when it comes to the concept of 'its going to happen anyway'.

 

#1.  Fast landing - the vulnerable speed transition is 'going to happen anyway' so you are not avoiding it by landing fast you are just postponing it to the roll out.

 

#2. Elevating nose - the nose lowering is 'going to happen anyway' so no sense in being prepared so you can avoid lowering it where it will cause a nose over.

 

The point of the thread is your reliance on 'going to happen anyway' to make illogical decisions on how to pilot a CT has widespread acceptance and negative safety results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ed,

 

That Cessna is still apples to oranges in where he is performing and plane design.

 

"You are focusing on the portion of the landing sequence from 20mph to zero as though it is the only portion of the landing.  When the field is not too short we can and should pick where that last 20mph portion occurs."

 

Yes to the bold print because pilots don't lawn dart center punch the landing with their nose and flip instantly.

"I did figure out why you're missing some of this. 

 

You are thinking like a pilot and not an engineer or physics person.

 

They all flip after the landing and you have to roll to a stop. You are right that these rarely ever happen on a paved runway because it is a hard smooth surface and the nose slides and doesn't dig in so any leftover energy dissipates in the dragging of the front end..

 

These rollovers for the most part have all happened on dirt areas and when there is no engine. There have been a couple on regular paved runways.

 

Here is why plane design figures in so much here. Let's take Eddie's Skyarrow. Eddie will most likely never flip even with extra speed. Look at his plane design in the video. I have worked on his plane so I'm familiar. He is long nosed, engine in the rear, low to the ground, weight way aft and elongated fuselage. He hits something with his nose wheel and it folds or breaks, but because of his aircraft design there will rarely ever (never say never) be enough energy to flip him all the way straight over.

 

Now the CT. The nose gear is a weak point actually like many trikes, it is right under the engine weight, it is a short plane and short nosed, the weight is high with the wings and close to the front end focal point of rotation, the pilot and passenger weight is right behind the engine and focal point and it's much taller on the wheels than the Skyarrow.

 

When the nose collapses on dirt (from a ditch, hole or rock) it comes to an abrupt stop, but there is still stored energy in the forward direction. Because of our plane design it is far more likely to rotate forward and over because of our weighting points close to the rotation point. This gets more help to rotate from the drop of the nose downward farther than Eddie's.

 

Think of a pole vaulter. He runs like crazy (the plane rollout), he plants the pole and it becomes stationary (like the nose gear folding and plants in the dirt) and then his energy takes him skyward until that energy is gone at his pinnacle and he falls down and slightly forward of his poles stationary point ( the CT rotates up and hits its pinnacle and falls back down, but the weight now is forward of it's rotation point so it falls on over on its back.

 

If you were going slow enough could it rotae partially up and then fall back on it's normal belley, sure.

 

But now think of the mindset of the pilot. His engine is out, he has carp for landing decisions and he just wants to touchdown as slow as he can to walk away and not be dead. You can't tell what the feild surface is like from an altitude and once commited that's it. Land as slow as you can and most of the time for these guys there is no roll out because the wheel as you admitted in post 29 on another thread said the front touches many times almost immediately. Some even if you landed at 38-40 mph you will still be over 30 when the nose touches and rolls under you.

 

You had no choice, but you are usually alive because it rolled over and dissipated the energy still there. Center punching an object or becoming a lawn dart rarely ends well for the pilot.

That's in any plane.

 

Energy dissipation that doesn't include abrupt stops is best and no matter what happens to plane is going to be damaged so we carry insurance. Like I told my wife when she ask about an engine out scenario and this was the same as a driving instructor for fire and police. Save the body and forget the ride, dissipate energy so you can walk away. PICK your target to get and steer, steer, steer. 

 

 

p.s.

"The point of the thread is your reliance on 'going to happen anyway'"

 

On a rough field and no engine it is more likely to happen than not. Better to plan for it. Train your way by all means and hope for the best, but you only stand a slim chance of success which bares out in many off field CT crashes or poor choice or landing areas.

 

If we were wrong all the pictures we have seen would have been the plane upright with only crushed gear legs which have been a few, but terrain decided that for them not the pilot. Most of our crash pictures show belly to the sky. 

 

That's the majority, not the minority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CTs flip with engine running, what about your recent you tube posting?  With the engine out you have to use a higher skill level to avoid nosing over.

 

You are correct the Cessna is an apple and the CT is an orange.  That's where the pilot comes in, its just easier to do in the Cessna so we CT pilots have to train a little harder.  Just like normal landings those are harder in a CT as well.  Apples to oranges doesn't mean we are doomed to flip it just means we need to be able to control our noses in our CTs even if it takes a  bit more practice.

 

Why would you advocate steer, steer, steer and be negative on elevation?  Fact is many fields are fine for our 6x600 mains but areas can be full of holes to big for the nose.  How about 'steer and elevate'?  If you only steer then you are necessarily weighting the nose wheel that you need to be up or at least light.

 

You have convinced me with your above post that if I severely damage my nose I will likely be hanging from my seat belt.  Its incredulous that  you would advocate leaving the nose on the rough ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why would you advocate steer, steer, steer and be negative on elevation"

 

I'm not negative about elevate. By all means elevate away, but eventually that goes away then what? You are left with rolling to a stop in bad terrain.

 

You keep talking about the landing and touchdown.  We're done with that part. Pull full aft.

 

 

Finish the entire landing and what you're going to do while rolling through the garbage terrain to a full stop?

How will you get around obstacles that will collapse the gear until you stop? This is the real life problems these pilots had during their landings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why would you advocate steer, steer, steer and be negative on elevation"

 

I'm not negative about elevate. By all means elevate away, but eventually that goes away then what? You are left with rolling to a stop in bad terrain.

 

You keep talking about the landing and touchdown.  We're done with that part. Pull full aft.

 

 

Finish the entire landing and what you're going to do while rolling through the garbage terrain to a full stop?

How will you get around obstacles that will collapse the gear until you stop? This is the real life problems these pilots had during their landings.

How about if I just avoid unimproved runways, and then my chances of flipping over are small ? If my engine quits, then all bets are off, I know I have a strong cockpit and what happens happens.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watch this Cessna, he can choose where to lower the nose, he can wait for more even firm ground before lowering his nose.  How can this point be an argument.

 

On a windy day , that would not be possible, there was no wind on that runway. I can do that and have done it in calm winds as an exercise, but why would i do it normally ? That just decreases your directional stability. Especially an an aircraft with such low wing loading like the CTLS.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest doing it normally for a while to refine your skills and burn them in so there there when a forced landing happens

As a matter of fact practiced this weekend , got a gust of wind and the aircraft got light on its main wheels, however the tires did not completely depart the runway.  Yes , clearly I agree with your suggestion. The Cessna that landed before me , reported a loss off speed , on final , of 5 Knots. Runway 9 at KLAL. I did not experience any difficulties on final, but then got a bit surprised on the runway. Not an anxious moment, by any stretch. Winds were 7 knots at 150 , however, in Florida , that can change in 5 seconds.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need extra speed in strong winds.  And less flaps.   Possibly a zero flap if the wind is over 15kts.

Yes , I agree, and that is what I do for winds  of 10 knots or more. Either 0 or -6  flaps,(depending on the cross wind component) ,  and get all 3 wheels on the runway as soon as it is feasible.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need extra speed in strong winds.  And less flaps.   Possibly a zero flap if the wind is over 15kts.

 

Almost 10,000 accident free hour of flight time, and I have been doing it wrong all these years.

 

I remember an old flight instructor who would counter a statement like yours by asking, " which is easier to maintain control of, a car traveling at a high rate of speed or one that is going slow". The only time to add extra speed is when the wind is gusty. In that case you add one half of the gust factor, and that is for approach. touchdown speed should be unchanged from what you use normally.

 

Most tricycle gear airplanes tend to have poor ground handling characteristics when held on the ground at a higher than normal speed. The nose wheel winds up with excessive weight placed on it and the mains get light. It becomes like pushing a wheel borrow at a high rate of speed. It just doesn't work well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost 10,000 accident free hour of flight time, and I have been doing it wrong all these years.

 

I remember an old flight instructor who would counter a statement like yours by asking, " which is easier to maintain control of, a car traveling at a high rate of speed or one that is going slow". The only time to add extra speed is when the wind is gusty. In that case you add one half of the gust factor, and that is for approach. touchdown speed should be unchanged from what you use normally.

 

Most tricycle gear airplanes tend to have poor ground handling characteristics when held on the ground at a higher than normal speed. The nose wheel winds up with excessive weight placed on it and the mains get light. It becomes like pushing a wheel borrow at a high rate of speed. It just doesn't work well. 

Well, there is a point in the middle between too much and too little speed, I cannot tell you  what is that speed  specifically , but I can tell you when I see it, (experience it). This will give you appropriate rudder authority with good ground stability , without skidding the nose wheel. I guess it is a matter of practice. No two landings are exactly the same, and some times, cross winds of 10 Knots  feel like they are whipping my @$$ and other times crosswinds of 15 knots are no trouble at all. I think landing a CTLS, properly is an Art as well as a Science. Statistics show , the greatest amount of crashes in CT's are non fatal and happen ,mostly, upon landing.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You repeated what I said...ADD SPEED in gusty and high upwinds.  One half the gust factor is ADDED speed.   If you pull the throttle while still in ground effect and you get hit with a gust or are fighting a 15kts upwind on the runway and are slow you will float or worse.  It's not me stating this, it's physics.  

 

Adding speed for gust factors is for approaches. This thread is about landings. Having extra speed while on the ground is a bad thing.

 

"slow you will float"  I have never heard of an airplane floating because it is slow. If you are slow the airplane will do the opposite, it develops a high rate of sink. Excess speed is what makes you float. A steady 15kt headwind will not cause you to float, but a gust on the other hand will. That is because the gust increases the airspeed to a number higher than needed to maintain altitude with the angle of attack the pilot has established. The reason for adding the speed on approach for gust is not because of the gust, but rather when the gust stops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one was talking about having extra speed on the ground.

 

You were, or at least it appeared so. Go back and look at post 15. He stated that there was a gust and he got light on the wheels, but didn't come off the ground. Your reply was that you need more speed in gusty conditions. He said he was on the ground, and you said he needed more speed. It sure sounded like you were talking about more speed on the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well CT after years of watching you argue with Roger over stall landings we understand why you are fine with stall approaches too.   You know you have to decrease flaps and increase speed to land in a strong upwind approach and/or cross wind.  Esp in the CT.   And no one said anything about going faster on the ground....that's someone else's reading error.

 

Actually I know I can do a normal 30* landing in a strong upwind approach (assuming steady state wind).  Makes no difference if its my old Skyhawk or my CT, no adjustment needed.  Same on the crosswind, no adjustment is needed as long as it is a steady state wind. Only when you add gusts (shear) into the mix is extra speed called for, but not very much just 1/2 the gust factor.

 

You don't have to say anything about going faster on the ground because its baked in the cake when you talk about landing fast.  A fast landing almost always results in a fast speed on the ground and this is why fast landings are a bad idea.  As you noted above fast on the ground is dangerous and it can be avoided by doing minimum speed landings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well CT after years of watching you argue with Roger over stall landings we understand why you are fine with stall approaches too.   You know you have to decrease flaps and increase speed to land in a strong upwind approach and/or cross wind.  Esp in the CT.   And no one said anything about going faster on the ground....that's someone else's reading error.

First off it would help if you used words in the same way as the rest of the pilots in the world. Upwind is a segment of the pattern. You can land with a headwind, crosswind, or tailwind. You don't land with a upwind. A person doesn't fly a "stall approach", but they may make a full stall landing. As for someone saying anything about going faster on the ground, I think it was another case of you not being able to type what you wanted to say.

 

Regardless of the wind velocity, unless it is gusty you don't need to increase your speed for landing. If it is gusty you should increase your approach speed for a safety margin in case the wind velocity decreases, but you should still try to touch down at the same speed as a normal landing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off it would help if you used words in the same way as the rest of the pilots in the world...

 

If it is gusty you should increase your approach speed for a safety margin in case the wind velocity decreases, but you should still try to touch down at the same speed as a normal landing.

Tom,

 

Fully agree about the careless use of language leading to misunderstandings. I was about to post something similar.

 

Anyway, pretty sure by this time everyone knows which "side" I'm on. You and I and CT and a few others are all on the same page.

 

But in the interest of full disclosure, let's take a peek at what the Airplane Flying Handbook actually recommends (I've highlighted the pertinent part):

 

TURBULENT AIR

APPROACH AND LANDING

Power-on approaches at an airspeed slightly above the normal approach speed should be used for landing in turbulent air. This provides for more positive control of the airplane when strong horizontal wind gusts, or up and down drafts, are experienced. Like other power-on approaches (when the pilot can vary the amount of power), a coordinated combination of both pitch and power adjustments is usually required. As in most other landing approaches, the proper approach attitude and airspeed require a minimum roundout and should result in little or no floating during the landing.

To maintain good control, the approach in turbulent air with gusty crosswind may require the use of partial wing flaps. With less than full flaps, the airplane will be in a higher pitch attitude. Thus, it will require less of a pitch change to establish the landing attitude, and the touchdown will be at a higher airspeed to ensure more positive control. The speed should not be so excessive that the airplane will float past the desired landing area.

One procedure is to use the normal approach speed plus one-half of the wind gust factors. If the normal speed is 70 knots, and the wind gusts increase 15 knots, airspeed of 77 knots is appropriate. In any case, the airspeed and the amount of flaps should be as the airplane manufacturer recommends.

An adequate amount of power should be used to maintain the proper airspeed and descent path throughout the approach, and the throttle retarded to idling position only after the main wheels contact the landing surface. Care must be exercised in closing the throttle before the pilot is ready for touchdown. In this situation, the sudden or premature closing of the throttle may cause a sudden increase in the descent rate that could result in a hard landing.

Landings from power approaches in turbulence should be such that the touchdown is made with the airplane in approximately level flight attitude. The pitch attitude at touchdown should be only enough to prevent the nosewheel from contacting the surface before the main wheels have touched the surface. After touchdown, the pilot should avoid the tendency to apply forward pres- sure on the yoke as this may result in wheelbarrowing and possible loss of control. The airplane should be allowed to decelerate normally, assisted by careful use of wheel brakes. Heavy braking should be avoided until the wings are devoid of lift and the airplane’s full weight is resting on the landing gear.

 

That said, many pilots seem to confuse a straight crosswind with a turbulent air approach and landing, resulting in speeds far in excess of what's needed. And to misread "1/2 of the gust factor" as "1/2 of the crosswind". For instance, 16G22 would only call for a 3 kt increase in approach speed, while in my experience many pilots would add 10 kts or more in that situation.

 

In the following post I'll link a video that I think is relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's that video:

 

 

I don't think the video imparts how gusty it really was - the trees to the right of the runway cause quite a bit of turbulence.

 

Of note:

 

1) My approach there is about 60 kts. That's about 5 kts or so above normal.

 

2) I'm still using 30° flaps.

 

3) Note how much the crosswind and turbulence subside in ground effect - and that is very often the case.

 

4) Note the actual touchdown is around 45 kts, again only 5 kts higher than usual for me.

 

In my experience, many pilots in the same situation would be at least 10 kts or more faster and with less or no flaps - neither necessary and both leading to the kind of extra energy on touchdown that gets pilots in trouble after landing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...