All my Approaches are high.

taters said:
I'm talking about small fixed prop stuff. But I have seen students lower the nose actually pick up speed/RPM and the plane's decent rate shallows up a bit
Click to expand...
Only if they were on the back side of the power curve when they dropped the nose, and that's not where we want them to be when in the pattern.
 
Ron Levy said:
Sounds like you've flown only a limited number of single-engine airplanes. There's a lot more variation out there when it comes to best approach speed. However, best glide speed in the best glide configuration (usually very different from best approach speed/configuration) usually does take a lot of nose-up trim.
Click to expand...

So, your last sentence confirms my initial statement.

So in the C150, 152, 172, 180, 182, 205, T182RG, BE-77, BE-24, BE-36, BE-35, PA28-140/160/180, AR11, Piper J-3, and Taylorcraft L-3 (airplanes built between the years 1940 and 2008) near full nose up trim and a near idle power setting will result in near best glide at 4-600 FPM descent.

Thanks for the clarification.

:rolleyes2:

(PS, I'll have to check my logbook to see if I forgot any)
 
Another note to Dustin, keep in mind that Vso varies with weight so when you are flying alone it is significantly reduced. The best thing to do is go out and do a power-off stall at various weights and see what the change in indicated airspeed really is. After that you can use the square root of the ratio of the actual weight to the max gross weight to estimate Vso. There are some rules-of-thumb that get you close on estimating Vso if you don't want to do long division and square roots in yer head while flying.

Anyway, if'n yer light and fly the normal speed you learned with the instructor onboard then chances are you'll be high and fast on approach.
 
Ron Levy said:
Only if they were on the back side of the power curve when they dropped the nose, and that's not where we want them to be when in the pattern.
Click to expand...

Really its more that the student doesn't hold the nose down or trim right during the decent. But some planes oscillate out of a decent (not by much but enough) naturally with poor technique. If a student was behind the power curve that means they would be in slow flight which can be needed but very rarely in the pattern.
 
Last edited:
Interesting discussion. So .. I was trying to think through how I land. haha.
I don't think about it much after all these years .. I just keep my eyes on
a place on the runway and make adjustments so I touch down there.

Ron's comments on windows was interesting because that's pretty much
what I do. For me the short final window is the biggie. All adjustments in
the pattern are to arrive at the short final window at about 60 mph in
landing configuration. +5 mph if someone is with me. (It's a 712 lb
airplane less fuel so there's less inertia than a bigger one). I plan a shorter
final if I'm landing into much wind.

RT
 
I didn't notice if this was the same kind of plane you trained on but that may make a difference.
Go fly takeoff and landing practice. Do 10 or so at your home airport then fly off to another place and practice there. Get in enough to the point that the landings are what YOU think they should be. Don't feel bad if you need an instructor. A good instructor is your best friend to adjust your behavior.
The important part is that you can adjust your approach AS NEEDED.
 
silver-eagle said:
I didn't notice if this was the same kind of plane you trained on but that may make a difference.
Click to expand...
The beauty of the "windows" method is that it works no matter what plane you're flying even if the "mental image" sight picture changes. All you have to do is identify the new speeds/configurations to hit at each window, and those are usually pretty much "canned" numbers.
 
In an uninterrupted pattern at a familiar airport, all this works fine. If the tower extends the pattern, or the approach is from some other place, like the straight-in RW 15 that is common here, the game changes and the pilot is required to work it out somewhat differently. IME, many low-time pilots (hopefully) know when they're too high or too low as they get close to the runway, but don't see the problem developing from a sufficient distance to make the necessary corrections in a timely manner.

I didn't mean to suggest that flying the VASI (or any other slope) is necessary or recommended, although I use it extensively in whatever I'm flying and find that it's a good training device for helping teach stabilized approaches, because the pilot can see all the elements and make the changes (usually just power) to maintain the slope.

PAPI may be better, but I'm not aware of any light-plane pilots coming to grief properly flying the VASI. AFAIK, the obstacle margins are safe and the airplane always arrives at the desired touchdown spot on the runway. Nor am I particularly impressed with the scare tactics of an engine failure on final. If people are really worried about a failure within a half mile of the airport, I'd suggest they think more about takeoffs than landings.

In training both VFR and IFR pilots over the years, some with fat logbooks and flying big airplanes, the ability to "see the slot" (whichever one they want to use and for whatever reasons they choose it) in time to make timely corrections necessary to fly it seems to be a consistently problematic issue.

Ron Levy said:
John's got an insight into solving this problem. You have to visualize the traffic pattern as a series of windows through which you fly, and have an altitude, airspeed, and configuration to be in as you fly through each one. For example, you might choose the following windows:
  1. 1/2 mile abeam midfield
  2. 1/2 mile abeam the numbers
  3. downwind with numbers 45 behind wing
  4. mid-base leg
  5. rolling out on final
  6. over the fence
Then, identify the speeds, altitudes, and configurations for each window, such as:
  1. 1/2 mile abeam midfield: flaps 0, 75 knots, 1000 AGL
  2. 1/2 mile abeam the numbers: flaps 10, 70 knots, 1000 AGL
  3. downwind with numbers 45 behind wing: flaps 10, 70 knots, 800 AGL
  4. mid-base leg: flaps 20, 65 knots, 600 AGL
  5. rolling out on final: flaps full, 60 knots, 400 AGL
  6. over the fence: flaps full, 60 knots, 50 AGL
[Note: the windows and numbers are merely exemplary, and you'll have to come up with ones to fit your aircraft's type and performance.]

Now, just fly yourself through each of those windows, adjusting power and trim as needed to hit those speeds and altitudes. If you "hit your marks" all the way around, you'll find you have no more problem rolling out on final higher than you want.


As for using the VASI, I have several concerns. First, the VASI brings you in on a bit flatter glide path than most light planes fly in the VFR pattern -- 3 degrees versus 4-5 degrees. That 3 degree VASI would put you about 300 AGL a mile from touchdown, and that's a bit low/flat for most VFR light plane flying. Second, the VASI does not give any trend data -- it doesn't tell you how far off you are unless you're so far off the lights disappear, and it doesn't tell you whether you're correcting or going further off. That's why I prefer PAPI to VASI (better resolution), and Alignment of Elements to both (trend as well as precise position). Finally, I've seen too many folks so reliant on the VASI they are lost without it (or some other VGSI). Just as I teach visual landmark navigation before GPS, I'd rather folks learn how to land without the visual aids, and learn to use them as secondary aids rather than primary tools.
Click to expand...
 
My suggestion of using a VASI or other visual approach aide was not meant to imply reliance on the device for every approach.

The OP never said that his approaches were so high that he had to constantly go around, so I *assume* that being able to correct the approach well enough to make a safe landing is already a skill that the OP has acquired.

My idea of using a VASI intensely for a few landings was simply to help train your brain for how things should look out of your peripheral vision when making a somewhat 'correct' approach. Once you know how it is 'supposed' to feel and look like, you should be able to go without the aide and simply use it as a confirmation of what you feel is correct.
 
This is the simplest advice I can give (and in my opinion all you really need to pay attention to) -- For any given airplane in no-wind conditions at an airspeed of ~1.3Vso in landing configuration, there will be an approximate point (angle) below the horizon that your airplane will be able to glide to without power. You just have to practice some patterns and learn what that angle below the horizon to your touchdown point looks like. It's something you have to develop a subconscious feel (sight?) for. You monitor the sight picture as you're flying downwind past the threshold and plan your base and final turns such that you're turning final when that angle is right.

Don't let sloping terrain fool you into gauging the angle of the whole runway - it's the angle to your touchdown point only. The stronger the wind you're landing into, the lower below the horizon the point will be. Forget all the "cookbook" sequences of flying a pattern that divert your attention to anything other than that angle below the horizon. Don't over-complicate or over-intellectualize/analyze it. Flying is more art than science. Like most other aspects of flying, with experience, the skills will creep into your subconscious on their own.

Or just get a Pitts...you'll never again be too high on final, since there's no such thing in one. :D

Eric
 
Ron Levy said:
The beauty of the "windows" method is that it works no matter what plane you're flying even if the "mental image" sight picture changes. All you have to do is identify the new speeds/configurations to hit at each window, and those are usually pretty much "canned" numbers.
Click to expand...

And if your Altimeter or ASI are not operating, then what?
 
dmccormack said:
And if your Altimeter or ASI are not operating, then what?
Click to expand...
If you've learned attitude flying, as I teach it starting from Hop 1, the loss of the ASI won't matter. As for the altimeter, well, I've never seen anyone who can accurately judge altitude, anyway, other than down really low. But once you're on final, you revert to angles (position of the aim point with respect to the nose in the proper attitude with the proper configuration and the approximate right power setting), and go from there. But I would never want them to try to use that "mental image" of what the runway should look like, because it is too variable with runway length and width.
 
My thought is, when flying on the downwind, make a note of where the runway is relative to your wingtip (a "foot" down from highwing?, or right on wingtip for low wing?", when you get abeam the numbers, reduce power, set flaps and fly the airspeeds you were taught. (I was taught 90 on downwind, 80 on base, and 70 on final for a Piper Warrior). Maintain a constant power setting through out, maybe 1700 RPM (depending on aircraft), and be strict about your airspeeds. Turn base when the numbers are 45 degrees behind you. (Typically a turn to Final is around 500-600 feet AGL as a reference)

Pay close attention to if you are high or low. if you are coming in low, you are too far from the runway on downwind. if you are coming in high, you are too close (did your turn from downwind, to base, to final seem rushed?). It is an iterative process, but try to be strict about numbers on the descent (but try to keep that eye outside the plane for traffic!), and adjust your downwind leg distance from runway till you hit right on (~ 1/4 mile?).
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
If you've learned attitude flying, as I teach it starting from Hop 1, the loss of the ASI won't matter. As for the altimeter, well, I've never seen anyone who can accurately judge altitude, anyway, other than down really low. But once you're on final, you revert to angles (position of the aim point with respect to the nose in the proper attitude with the proper configuration and the approximate right power setting), and go from there. But I would never want them to try to use that "mental image" of what the runway should look like, because it is too variable with runway length and width.
Click to expand...
I very rarely look at the altimeter when flying a pattern. At a controlled airport I'm generally coming in on a base and my altitude is generally irrelevant and I'm doing that completely visually.

At an uncontrolled airport I'm either joining on a downwind or a crosswind and I enter the pattern at TPA. Once I enter the pattern I maintain level flight and start down abeam my touchdown point. Not once am I referencing the altimeter. The world is outside of the cockpit and it is ultimately what matters.

It probably helps that I learned to fly before I learned to read and the airplane didn't even have a working altimeter.
 
Ron Levy said:
If you've learned attitude flying, as I teach it starting from Hop 1, the loss of the ASI won't matter. As for the altimeter, well, I've never seen anyone who can accurately judge altitude, anyway, other than down really low. But once you're on final, you revert to angles (position of the aim point with respect to the nose in the proper attitude with the proper configuration and the approximate right power setting), and go from there. But I would never want them to try to use that "mental image" of what the runway should look like, because it is too variable with runway length and width.
Click to expand...

I never said a pilot should have a mental image of the runway, but rather be able to estimate altitude above the ground by looking out the window.

Surely you can tell the difference between 100, 800 and 500' AGL without looking at an instrument???
 
jstro said:
I fly only the little airplanes (VFR only), and flying the VASI glideslope on final will put me well on the back side of the power curve. I'd rather not do that (and I've been taught not to do that) so I don't pay attention to the VASI either.
Click to expand...
I've been trying to figure out what you mean by this. A 3° glide slope corresponds to a 19:1 glide ratio. Gliders can do better but what plane are you flying that requires descending better than best glide to descend on the VASI?

Joe
 
steingar said:
What's wrong with coming in high? Slip the aircraft on final and call it a success. Its what I do. My engine ever quits on final I will make the runway.
Click to expand...

High (and or fast) might work fine in a draggy brick like a cessna or a piper.. the airframe has enough drag to let you salvage practically any high/hot scenario that has you in the same zip code (an exaggeration, but..)..

But if you can master the precision and manage your energy more effectively, you now have the skills to manage faster, slicker aircraft that dont slow down quickly...like a mooney or tiger..

Come in with too much energy in one of those planes, into a shorter or merely average GA field and you will be going around..or off the end of the runway.

I like the suggestion above for gradual reduction in energy with progressive power reductions, descent and flap deployment at key points from abeam to final.

The other nice thing about learning to manage the energy effectively is when you NEED to do a Crowbar-style approach to landing, you can do it. (imagine throwing a crowbar out the window and trying to beat it to the ground.... common in busy terminal areas where they will bring you in high, hot and turn you close in, then want you to take the first exit because heavy iron is coming up fast.. )
 
Areeda said:
I've been trying to figure out what you mean by this. A 3° glide slope corresponds to a 19:1 glide ratio. Gliders can do better but what plane are you flying that requires descending better than best glide to descend on the VASI?

Joe
Click to expand...

Hi Joe, I'm sorry if I wasn't very clear. What I meant is that if I'm on final in a DA40 at 71 kt my glideslope is more like 7° or so. That's the best glide speed at gross with flaps down. To come in flatter at that approach speed I'd have to fly on the back side of the power curve. So that's why I was telling him I don't use the VASI either.
 
jstro said:
Hi Joe, I'm sorry if I wasn't very clear. What I meant is that if I'm on final in a DA40 at 71 kt my glideslope is more like 7° or so. That's the best glide speed at gross with flaps down. To come in flatter at that approach speed I'd have to fly on the back side of the power curve. So that's why I was telling him I don't use the VASI either.
Click to expand...

Wow -- that sounds fast. Are you sure 65 knots in that airplane is the "back side of the power curve..."?
 
dmccormack said:
Wow -- that sounds fast. Are you sure 65 knots in that airplane is the "back side of the power curve..."?
Click to expand...

According to the POH, 71 kt is the recommended approach speed at gross and also the L/D max with landing flaps.

I'm open to correction, so please let me know if I'm wrong, but if you're at L/D max wouldn't pitching up and adding power to lessen your descent rate, keeping your approach speed the same, move you back (higher power) on the L/D curve?

EDIT: I just want to add, yes you're right - if it's just me and the fuel, at that lighter loading the L/D max is 63 kt.
 
Last edited:
jstro said:
According to the POH, 71 kt is the recommended approach speed at gross and also the L/D max with landing flaps.

I'm open to correction, so please let me know if I'm wrong, but if you're at L/D max wouldn't pitching up and adding power to lessen your descent rate, keeping your approach speed the same, move you back (higher power) on the L/D curve?

EDIT: I just want to add, yes you're right - if it's just me and the fuel, at that lighter loading the L/D max is 63 kt.
Click to expand...

OK... GA singles are rarely flown at MGW.

I haven't flown that airplane so I'll take your word for it!
 
jstro said:
Hi Joe, I'm sorry if I wasn't very clear. What I meant is that if I'm on final in a DA40 at 71 kt my glideslope is more like 7° or so. That's the best glide speed at gross with flaps down. To come in flatter at that approach speed I'd have to fly on the back side of the power curve. So that's why I was telling him I don't use the VASI either.
Click to expand...
I have the same issue with my SR22, POH wants a normal landing at 80 kts and short field at 78.

But you can flatten the descent by adding power and bringing the nose up to maintain 71 kt. Not that I have any problem with power off landings at 7°.

Joe
 
jstro said:
snip..To come in flatter at that approach speed I'd have to fly on the back side of the power curve. ...snip
Click to expand...

Is there something wrong on this side of the power curve? As long as you are not even above half power, why couldn't you use that lower power band to adjust the approach angle?


When I started up again last year, I was always coming in high (which I though was normal). My instructor kept telling me to look at my sink rate (above 1000 fpm). I have been told to watch the nose on the 182 because the nose drops quickly. I was coming in with virtually no power, so that problem never materialized. He didn't like that high sink rate on final and he got me to come in at 500 fpm or less. To do that obviously required some power. After some practice with some power, I can now just barely touch on landing rather than feel like dropping at a few feet. It's nice to be able to do it either way...
 
skidoo said:
When I started up again last year, I was always coming in high (which I though was normal). My instructor kept telling me to look at my sink rate (above 1000 fpm). I have been told to watch the nose on the 182 because the nose drops quickly. I was coming in with virtually no power, so that problem never materialized. He didn't like that high sink rate on final and he got me to come in at 500 fpm or less. To do that obviously required some power. After some practice with some power, I can now just barely touch on landing rather than feel like dropping at a few feet. It's nice to be able to do it either way...
Click to expand...


The only problem with a high sink rate is you need to have the skill and feel required to transfer that energy from sink to glide just level above the ground.

At 1000 FPM in most light singles you probably have enough residual energy to float a while.

The ideal approach includes sufficient energy to maintain control but dissipates enough energy to minimize the float.
 
jstro said:
According to the POH, 71 kt is the recommended approach speed at gross and also the L/D max with landing flaps.

I'm open to correction, so please let me know if I'm wrong, but if you're at L/D max wouldn't pitching up and adding power to lessen your descent rate, keeping your approach speed the same, move you back (higher power) on the L/D curve?

EDIT: I just want to add, yes you're right - if it's just me and the fuel, at that lighter loading the L/D max is 63 kt.
Click to expand...

You're on the "back side of the power curve" when you're below max endurance speed not best glide which is quite a bit faster. The back side is where it takes more power to maintain altitude if you go any slower. With flaps out max endurance speed is considerably less than Vs*1.3 in any airplane I've flown.
 
gismo said:
You're on the "back side of the power curve" when you're below max endurance speed not best glide which is quite a bit faster. The back side is where it takes more power to maintain altitude if you go any slower. With flaps out max endurance speed is considerably less than Vs*1.3 in any airplane I've flown.
Click to expand...
That's true but "back side of the power curve" is not the problem here.

I think the misunderstanding of the physics is:

To come in flatter at that approach speed I'd have to fly on the back side of the power curve.
Click to expand...

Best glide (max distance) produces the minimum angle of descent. Any faster or slower (without a power change) will increase the angle of descent. The only way to decease the angle (flatten the approach) from best glide is to add power. You don't need to change airspeed which determines the position on the L/D curve.

Changing power but keeping airspeed constant will not change the position on the power curve.

Joe
 
dmccormack said:
And if your Altimeter or ASI are not operating, then what?
Click to expand...

Yes... then what? It's not easy, at first, with any airplane, and arguably damn-near-impossible with some airplanes, but flying some approaches without instruments of any kind is very constructive. Numbers and curves and all of that distracting stuff go out the window, and most pilots start making better approaches and landings when they try this, just as they do better at turning without losing altitude when using only the view outside.

I sure did. :D
 
rottydaddy said:
Numbers and curves and all of that distracting stuff go out the window, and most pilots start making better approaches and landings when they try this, just as they do better at turning without losing altitude when using only the view outside.
Click to expand...

Precisely.

While Ron's window method is an excellent way to picture the pattern, at some pilot every pilot should be able to visualize the entire pattern without reference to any instruments.

This requires the ability to judge airspeed and height above the ground based on multiple cues -- what the trees look like, the cars, houses, how the airplane sounds, how the controls feel -- various kinisthetic and visual cues that help paint the overall picture.

I suppose you can fly an entire career with developing this ability. IMHO that would be a big hole in overall airmanship.
 
Thanks for all the input guys! Sorry I ain't posted in a while. I've been busy at work.
 
Snaggletooth said:
For a while now, when landing, my approaches have been on the high side and I can't seem to find a happy medium. During my Student Training, I had a problem with getting to low, now its the opposite. I am to high, and my landings, often rough.
...
So, what would you recommend I try to get my altitude under control?
Click to expand...
More practice. ;)

Seriously, more data is needed. How are you defining "high"? Compared to what? Are your speeds good? Are you landing in the desired touchdown zone? What's a "rough" landing for you? Are you flying a similar airframe from flight to flight?

I support the desire to constantly improve, but not to the point of self-flagellation.

Regardless, for most small singles in a normal pattern, starting at 1000' AGL and setting up a 500fpm descent abeam the numbers will set you up for a good approach. (This does nothing to improve landings! :))

I don't know how much experience you have, but after a while I'd expect you to have developed a mental sight picture for "what's right" and adjust acccordingly. Without seeing one or more of your "issue" flights, it's near impossible for me to offer advice on what to change.
 
A good landing begins well before touch down. A good approach will likely lead to a good landing. So, if you can fly a stabilized/good approach, and know how to flare and control the airplane, good landings should result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top