Learning to Land

[designrs]

Some good info on learning to land, discussing stabilized approach
and techniques on how to setup to the airplane to let the plane do most of the work!

http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/how- ... n-airplane

(I have no personal interest in promoting this website. Just information that I found useful.)

[seastar]

+1 for this ----
Bill

[MikeB]

It has been said, "Anyone can learn to fly," but they never say that "anyone" can learn to land. Landing is something we can always learn more about because every landing is a new challenge.

[yozz25]

Currently learning in a warrior, piper since there is no sport plane in my area, KHND is only 10 mins from house.

One of the warriors has a speedometer that is driving me crazy. The big outside numbers are in miles, the inside little numbers are in kts.

So when instructor tells me to hold at 70 kts or do anything at kts, I go crazy since the miles are the big outside numbers. It's like having a car with kilometres in big letter on outside and miles on inside.

The other warrior in the fleet has a speedometer configured normally but wasnt available today.

Also, I practiced about 10 touch and goes, bad enough the speedo drove me crazy but when I flared I did so gently, but the instructor insisted I pull the yoke all the way back. Why?

Wouldn't a gentle flare also get me on the ground, plenty of runway to just bleed off and pulling back hard was driving me nuts, especially with a screwed up speedo.

Any thoughts.

yozz

[CharlieTango]

hey yozz,

a couple of thoughts, first of all use the correct terminolgy, speedometer = air speed indicator (AIS) aircraft have 3 speeds, indicated (from the AIS) true air speed (calculated based on indicated air speed adjusted for outside air temperature) and ground speed.

so when you say air speed indicator it equates nicely to indicated air speed.

the reason you would want to pull the yoke all the way back is to contact at the lowest speed (ground speed and indicated air speed.) another term for this is a full stall landing. a little more speed means a lot more damage if you contact something therefore the slowest possible speed (yoke full back) is desirable.

[yozz25]

Ok, got you with the AIS. But why is this indicator in miles, not kts. bit confusing.

Ok, I can understand now pulling yoke all the way back to bleed off speed and induce near full stall so craft hits ground with less force. That now makes sense. In essence pulling it up induces more ground effect softening blow.

I felt like I was riding a horse and pulling on the reins as hard as possible, but poiint is well taken, reduce speed to minimize impact of gear on ground. But it was actually comical the way we were pulling back.

However, when I watch videos of landings in similar craft I notice the approach is less steep than my approach, or perhaps this is an illusion due to video.

In any case instructor said no complaints on my flying, and did as expected at my stage with some landings on my own without his help, so I'm progressing. Takes time. Also learning subtle use of rudder to keep nose straight when making approach.
yozz

[FastEddieB]

the reason you would want to pull the yoke all the way back is to contact at the lowest speed (ground speed and indicated air speed.) another term for this is a full stall landing. a little more speed means a lot more damage if you contact something therefore the slowest possible speed (yoke full back) is desirable.

AMEN!

I preach full-stall landings in virtually all small GA aircraft.

It may seem the difference between touching down at 70k and 55k (let's say) is minor - thinking its better to grease a 70k landing than "plotz" a 55k landing.

But...

...inertia increases as the SQUARE of the increase in velocity. So a seemingly small increase in speed can have effects larger than you'd think.

Or, think of it this way: if you KNEW your next landing would involve:

a) a failed brake
b) a broken gear leg
c) a swerve off the runway
d) a flat tire
e) a collision with a deer on the runway, or...
f) any number of other mishaps...

...would you rather be going 55k or 70k? (that's a rhetorical question).

Most of my recent experience is in Cirrus aircraft, where lots of pilots try to grease it on at 70k, where the full-flap stall speed is 59k. Many Cirrus accidents come from swerving after touchdown.*

My experience is when pilots are uncomfortable pulling the stick all the way back, its because they're in fear of "ballooning" and that fear comes from looking in the wrong place, usually at a point too far down the runway and/or directly over the nose - nose comes up beyond a certain point and they're literally blind for the last bit of the flare.

BTW, after about an hour of looking at the "inner ring" of the A/.S indicator, it should become second nature, and your instructor is correct in forcing you to think in terms of knots instead of mph.

*for a graphic example of how speed can kill, Google "Mountain Air" "Columbia" and "crash". Not a Cirrus, but indicative of the sort of issues extra speed can create.

[CharlieTango]

...Ok, I can understand now pulling yoke all the way back to bleed off speed and induce near full stall so craft hits ground with less force...

yozz,

ok, you got me, think 4 speeds not 3.

1) IAS
2) TAS
3) ground speed
4) vertical speed

when you say "hits ground with less force" you have brought in vertical speed. getting the yoke full aft, if done to high above the runway can result in a lot of sink or vertical speed and result in hitting the ground with a lot of force.

what i (and fast eddie) are talking about is minimizing your ground speed. once your on the ground and contact something this is the speed that determines how much energy there is to absorb.

the flatter approach you see in the video is probably due to using power, or more power then you are using or perhaps less flaps then you are using. full flaps and no power are "old school" safest approach. safest due to slowest speed and no dependence on the engine (theory is if it is going to quit it will likely happen on the landing approach when you retard the throttle.)

[yozz25]

In theory I hear you guys. Yes you want to bleed off as much speed as possible, and then stall practically near the ground, makes for a great landing.

But why the heck do they make the Air speed indicator with the big nums in mph on the outer ring if we are to think in kts which I have been thinking all along.

For a newbie, this is very confusing when instructor is yelling, pull flaps down, lower nose, get into base leg, etc, etc, etc. and make sure you are at 70?

The other warrier at this school does not have this problem, the outer ring is in kts.

Remedy is to fly other plane, newer and neater cockpit, not beat up like this one.

After doing touch and goes for I guess an hour, my eyes start to bug out, but on the other hand, it's good learning.

To me the learning process is simply rewiring the old brain cells to do the correct thing after much practice, in essence the landing technique itself eventually sinks in.

yozz

[dstclair]

Being a former Cherokee 180 owner, my guess is that the warrior with the IAS in MPH is an older vintage. I'm guessing somewhere in the 80's Piper switch to knots.

[CharlieTango]

In theory I hear you guys. Yes you want to bleed off as much speed as possible, and then stall practically near the ground, makes for a great landing.

a great landing in the passenger's eyes (and from some pilots) is all about a soft touch down.

a great landing in the eyes of an old time pilot is more about judgement, control and correct inputs for the type of landing required.

the full stall landing is better if the stall happens as the mains contact as opposed to "practically near the ground" i know i'm being picky but it is a safety thing.

But why the heck do they make the Air speed indicator with the big nums in mph on the outer ring if we are to think in kts which I have been thinking all along...

good question, mph is favored by experimetnal aircraft builders and pilots and for that matter anyone that likes the bigger numbers, they sound faster.

[rsteele]

t;]
But why the heck do they make the Air speed indicator with the big nums in mph on the outer ring if we are to think in kts which I have been thinking all along...

good question, mph is favored by experimetnal aircraft builders and pilots and for that matter anyone that likes the bigger numbers, they sound faster.[/quote]

What a great, idea. I think I'll use Kilometers/hour on my ASI! Nice big numbers. Seriously, none of the dozen or so homebuilders I know would ever consider anything but knots.

[yozz25]

It is very peculiar, the other warrior in the fleet is "normal" with kts.

For a newbie, it's an unnecessary twist thrown in while I'm in the learning process trying to re-wire my brain to multi-task. Perhaps I should address this to the flight school owner, maybe he is pulling a fast one on me.

To be honest, if I'm supposed to approach at about 70 kts and maintain it, I literally have to search for the kts numerals since they are so tiny as compared to the big mph. Something rotten in denmark here, not good if someone rents the plane after getting the ticket, may need reading specs to look at numbers and assume the mph is kts.

I really don't think a person should have to search for the correct number, it is confusing being the mph jumps out at me and the kts is so tiny

any thoughts?
yozz

[rfane]

I really don't think a person should have to search for the correct number, it is confusing being the mph jumps out at me and the kts is so tiny

any thoughts?

My thought is that you need to learn how to convert Knots to Miles Per Hour. A Nautical mile is equal to 1.15 statute miles. Thus, 70 knots = 80.5 miles per hour.

Many of the ASI's in older aircraft used miles per hour. Somewhere in the 80's or 70's, the system formally made knots the acceptable standard. A plane made prior to that time could still have an older ASI.

[drseti]

But why the heck do they make the Air speed indicator with the big nums in mph on the outer ring if we are to think in kts which I have been thinking all along.

Up until the 1970s, all ASIs were marked in MPH. That was a simple marketing decision on the part of the US aircraft manufacturers. Which do you think sounds better when you're trying to sell an airplane, advertising a cruise speed of "130 kts" or "150 MPH"?

Around 1980 or so (if memory serves), FAA required standardization on knots. So, the manufacturers continued to advertise MPH, and complied with the FAR by putting knots in small numbers on the inside of the ASI. It remained that way until GAMA (General Aviation Manufacturer's Association) came up with their standardized POH (Pilot's Operating Handbook) format in the mid 1980s. At that time, knots was moved to the outside, and MPH to the inside -- for a while. Then, MPH eventually disappeared from the ASI markings.

Whether you fly by MPH or by knots is dictated by a combination of the ASI markings, and what it says in the POH. In the case of the old Beechcraft I owned for 30 years, all the numbers in the POH were given in MPH, the ASI had its outside ring in MPH, and I learned to fly by MPH. I knew to rotate and flare at 80 MPH, do best angle climbouts at 85 MPH, best rate of climb at 95 MPH, best glide at 105 MPH, maximum flap operating at 110 MPH, max gear operating speed at 155 MPH, etc. Later Beeches of the same model had all the speeds listed in knots, and the ASI marked with knots on the outside, so the official numbers in those planes were 15% less (but of course represented exactly the same speeds).

Bottom line: check your POH, learn the numbers in it, and use those numbers, whatever units they're in! That's much safer than converting in your head while you're flying, or trying to read the inside ring of an ASI.