Approach to Land question

[Cooter]

I've seen several comments made here about techniques for approaching to land and I'm not quite understanding what is driving people's decision on how they make their approach. I'm trying to jump back into GA after about a 15yr hiatus, and just recently got signed off in a local club. The CFI had me chopping power to idle at about 200ft (i think with the assumption that field was made), picking up a big VSI, then scooping it out 10ft or so off the ground to establish the flare. I'm not a big fan of that for a normal landing so i did what he wanted to make him happy and now I fly a more stabilized approach with constant VSI all the way to the flare.

Assume a small single engine plane like a C-172 on a standard day, landing on a paved runway 3,000ft or so, and no obstacles that would affect the approach.

What is your preferred way to approach the runway and why? Idle from the abeam position, idle on short final, adjusting power to maintain VSI, or constant power setting and using nose position to target aim point, etc..?

 

[James331]

Depends, for IFR I stay on GS, runway made power out.

For VFR I keep it high and tight, still runway made power out

Ether one, I lock my target in my windshield and hold it, once I'm a foot or so above the deck I round out, eyes to the infinity point way down the runway, and just try to fly her power out to that point holding her off as long as possible.

Works for me in everything from a 7AC all the way up to turboprops.

 

[dtuuri]

...using nose position to target aim point, etc..?

Ooow... that's a recipe for disaster. I can think of at least six different techniques to arrive at the aim point without adjusting power, but that one won't normally work.

dtuuri

 

[Maverick]

I have never been a fan of chopping power to idle 200 feet above the runway. I have always carried a little power on final and ease it down to make a soft landing. But then the airplanes I am used to flying have been just a little little nose heavy. To me chopping power at 200 feet can make for a hard landing and I would rather not beat the airplane up.

 

[Cooter]

Ooow... that's a recipe for disaster. I can think of at least six different techniques to arrive at the aim point without adjusting power, but that one won't normally work.

dtuuri

What would keep it from working? Are you worried about someone trying to stretch it to the runway and getting slow?

 

[Cooter]

I have never been a fan of chopping power to idle 200 feet above the runway. I have always carried a little power on final and ease it down to make a soft landing.

I am more comfortable that way, but it seems lots of others are big on chopping power. I'm trying to figure out the reasoning for making a big power adjustment on final. I understand it for a short field or for short field practice, but for a normal landing I'm not quite getting it. I'm guessing it has something to do with flying until the field is made then transitioning to use all available runway? Any CFIs want to offer up what you teach?

BTW, 200ft was a guess. He had me flying a really high and tight base, then pulling power to idle shortly after turning final.

 

[MAKG1]

I have never been a fan of chopping power to idle 200 feet above the runway. I have always carried a little power on final and ease it down to make a soft landing. But then the airplanes I am used to flying have been just a little little nose heavy. To me chopping power at 200 feet can make for a hard landing and I would rather not beat the airplane up.

Yeah, that seems REAL high.

A typical PAPI will put you at 50 feet over the threshold. And that still seems high.

And I do think it's rather important not to gain airspeed once you've chopped the power. Do that, and you'll float. In some airplanes, for quite some distance.

 

[jordane93]

I am more comfortable that way, but it seems lots of others are big on chopping power. I'm trying to figure out the reasoning for making a big power adjustment on final. I understand it for a short field or for short field practice, but for a normal landing I'm not quite getting it. I'm guessing it has something to do with flying until the field is made then transitioning to use all available runway?

If I landed using all available runway at my home airport, I'd get yelled at by tower for not requesting and getting approval for a long landing. If I'm not touching down by the touchdown zone markings I'm going around.

 

[Fearless Tower]

The CFI had me chopping power to idle at about 200ft (i think with the assumption that field was made), picking up a big VSI, then scooping it out 10ft or so off the ground to establish the flare. I'm not a big fan of that for a normal landing so i did what he wanted to make him happy and now I fly a more stabilized approach with constant VSI all the way to the flare.

That seems really odd. Almost sounds like a reverse zoom-climb.

I am surprised a CFI would teach that. Does he fly an RV???

 

[dtuuri]

What would keep it from working? Are you worried about someone trying to stretch it to the runway and getting slow?

Sure, if you are low it'll make you slow too when you raise the nose to the aiming point. Vice versa if you're high--you'll gain speed and over-run a short field.

No reason you can't select a power setting you like and leave it until you reduce speed in the round out. There are many things you can do to make the approach come out right besides changing power. If you recognize the need soon enough and make small changes using those techniques, your passengers (CFI?) won't even notice you did them. The secret is early recognition.

dtuuri

 

[Cooter]

That seems really odd. Almost sounds like a reverse zoom-climb.

That's what it felt like! Ok, so maybe it was just him. It had been quite a while, and I couldn't quite remember if that was normal, but it didn't feel right to me. He was a brand new CFI so that's probably the way he learned and was passing it on. It might be OK for a small airplane, but not really going to work in a bigger or faster a/c.

 

[falconkidding]

I think usually I fly tight patterns and throttle is at idle by the time i'm on final then flaps as needed. I always aim to be kinda high(easy with the short pattern) cause you can always lose altitude and airspeed. I'm flying a piston single not a 747 so I just fking fly the thing. Don't matter how I get there once your on speed and over the centerline its all the same.

 

[Maverick]

I am more comfortable that way, but it seems lots of others are big on chopping power. I'm trying to figure out the reasoning for making a big power adjustment on final. I understand it for a short field or for short field practice, but for a normal landing I'm not quite getting it. I'm guessing it has something to do with flying until the field is made then transitioning to use all available runway? Any CFIs want to offer up what you teach?

BTW, 200ft was a guess. He had me flying a really high and tight base, then pulling power to idle shortly after turning final.

During my training I was flying out of the Detroit City Airport, KDET. That airport is in the city and surrounded by homes and businesses. Not a place where you would care to land off the airport. As a result we always flew a high and tight base leg. The only time my instructor had me chop power was when we were doing short field landings and they usually resulted in hard landings. When I took my check ride I didn't think the examiner was going to pass me because he made it clear that he did not like my short field technique. He said I was abusing the airplane. I told him I was doing what my instructor had taught me and then I made a few landings that to me were normal landings. After the flight we both had a discussion with the instructor as he was there waiting for me to finish. I did get my license that day but I was worried. I have never made hard landings like that again.

 

[somorris]

My preferred method is to pull the power off abeam the touchdown and leave it there. I prefer to fly high/tight patterns like some others have said.

 

[Bill Watson]

That seems really odd. Almost sounds like a reverse zoom-climb. Does he fly an RV???

Power-off landing to zoom-climb, one of the great linkages in POA history.
Ba-dump

 

[FastEddieB]

I don't like the term "chopping power".

I do try to smoothly come back to idle at some point on final, ideally by 50' or so. Since I'm likely carrying little or no power at that point anyway, it's a non-event, with little pitch adjustment needed.

May not apply to all GA planes, but worked well on almost all that I've flown.

As an instructor, I found taking power out of the landing process made landings easier for my students - one less thing to worry about!

 

[unsafervguy]

That seems really odd. Almost sounds like a reverse zoom-climb.

I am surprised a CFI would teach that. Does he fly an RV???

that shows that you don't fly and RV. that works even worse in an RV than it does in a rectangular wing piper. how about the right way, fly proper approach speed to the runway and slowly pull power to idle in the flare. works in my RV and my airliner.

bob

 

[Fearless Tower]

that shows that you don't fly and RV. that works even worse in an RV than it does in a rectangular wing piper. how about the right way, fly proper approach speed to the runway and slowly pull power to idle in the flare. works in my RV and my airliner.

bob

You new around here???

I guess you missed the reference...

 

[olasek]

The CFI had me chopping power to idle at about 200ft (i think with the assumption that field was made), picking up a big VSI, then scooping it out 10ft or so off the ground to establish the flare.

You could have misunderstood your CFI's intentions (good communication with your CFI is important!). I made very similar approaches with an instructor but this was meant only as an exercise in simulating landing when engine power was inadvertently lost, nothing more. It was never meant as a 'nominal' approach and landing.

 

[brian]]

Depends on so much. Aircraft. Terrain. Etc.

Sounds like the CFI might have been enforcing some emergency procedures. Just guessing. My CFI did a nice demo of how to stay close to the airport, keeping it in view, and burning off altitude.

iust a guess.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I prefer a stepped-down powered approach with targeted airspeeds. For a "normal" pattern in a 172 that translates to 90 to enter the pattern and downwind, reduction to 80 approaching the abeam point and before beginning descent, 75 on base, 70 on final and target Vref on short final. Incrementally adding flaps - to begin decsent on downwind, on base and once the runway is made - results in those airspeed with virtually no change in power and except for the momentary pitch moment produced by adding flaps, almost no change in trim.

With different singles, the target airspeeds and the settings to produce them will be a bit different. But the system has worked well with all the makes/models I've flown since I was first taught that as a student pilot.

Funny: I was demonstrating this to a student who was having trouble stablizing. The student was working way too hard so I flew this type of approach to landing almost completely hands off except for the flap deployment, final roundout and to correct lateral deviations. Student thought it was magic.

 

[Cooter]

Thanks for all the responses. It sounds like I wasn't mistaken in thinking it was not really a normal approach. I like to target around a 3* GP unless there is a reason not to, but didn't want to write off his method until I got some other opinions. I'll ask him to clarify if I fly with him again.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Thanks for all the responses. It sounds like I wasn't mistaken in thinking it was not really a normal approach. I like to target around a 3* GP unless there is a reason not to, but didn't want to write off his method until I got some other opinions. I'll ask him to clarify if I fly with him again.

That's the only real answer to finding out why your CFI wanted you to do that.

 

[bobmrg]

That's what it felt like! Ok, so maybe it was just him. It had been quite a while, and I couldn't quite remember if that was normal, but it didn't feel right to me. He was a brand new CFI so that's probably the way he learned and was passing it on. It might be OK for a small airplane, but not really going to work in a bigger or faster a/c.

Ask this "instructor" to show you where this procedure is recommended by the FAA or the manufacturer.

Read my sig.

Bob Gardner

 

[MAKG1]

Thanks for all the responses. It sounds like I wasn't mistaken in thinking it was not really a normal approach. I like to target around a 3* GP unless there is a reason not to, but didn't want to write off his method until I got some other opinions. I'll ask him to clarify if I fly with him again.

3 deg is a bit shallow. Power-off in a 172 (N) in calm winds with full flap will be more than twice that.

I prefer ~4 deg for an unobstructed VFR approach. 3 deg is nearly universal for instrument approaches, but that's because of jets, which approach twice as fast and glide a whole lot better.

Honestly, it's MUCH more important to get your speed right, and get the aim point set. Whatever throttle is going to hit the target when trimmed for the correct airspeed. You will find it varies with wind.

 

[MetalCloud]

3 deg is a bit shallow. Power-off in a 172 (N) in calm winds with full flap will be more than twice that.

I prefer ~4 deg for an unobstructed VFR approach. 3 deg is nearly universal for instrument approaches, but that's because of jets, which approach twice as fast and glide a whole lot better.

Honestly, it's MUCH more important to get your speed right, and get the aim point set. Whatever throttle is going to hit the target when trimmed for the correct airspeed. You will find it varies with wind.

That's what I do. Focus on the airspeed and target. Can always add power if need be.

Still a student, but that's my thought anyway.

 

[bobmrg]

Thanks for all the responses. It sounds like I wasn't mistaken in thinking it was not really a normal approach. I like to target around a 3* GP unless there is a reason not to, but didn't want to write off his method until I got some other opinions. I'll ask him to clarify if I fly with him again.

Forget opinions, go with facts. The Practical Test Standard, Area IV, Task B, Objective 5, says "Maintains a stabilized approach..." Failure to do so is an automatic bust.

Bob Gardner

 

[MAKG1]

That's what I do. Focus on the airspeed and target. Can always add power if need be.

Still a student, but that's my thought anyway.

If you're flying in Palo Alto, surely you've noticed the PAPI is steeper than 3 deg…. Same deal for Hayward's 28L and all of Reid's runways. In a nutshell, almost all the runways under 4000 feet.

 

[MetalCloud]

If you're flying in Palo Alto, surely you've noticed the PAPI is steeper than 3 deg…. Same deal for Hayward's 28L and all of Reid's runways. In a nutshell, almost all the runways under 4000 feet.

Oh definitely. And it's funny... the steeper approaches tend to be my best touchdowns.

I don't focus too intently on the PAPI currently. Maybe moreso when I'm on a really long final and it's telling me I'm low.

Man I want to go flying now!

 

[MAKG1]

Oh definitely. And it's funny... the steeper approaches tend to be my best touchdowns.

That's not a coincidence.

 

[Cooter]

Forget opinions, go with facts. The Practical Test Standard, Area IV, Task B, Objective 5, says "Maintains a stabilized approach..." Failure to do so is an automatic bust.

Bob Gardner

That's good to know, I need to get more familiar with the PTS. In this case though, it's opinions/ technique I wanted. I'm not prepping for a checkride, it was just a club checkout. I flew with another guy about the same time acting as safety pilot and he flew a similar approach to landing. It just made me wonder if that was the norm now. I'm a proponent of a stabilized GP approach, and have never really thought the "high and tight in case I lose an engine" technique was the best one.

 

[coloradobluesky]

You can land:
With flaps and with power,
Without flaps and with power,
With flaps but no power,
Without flaps and without power
Short field
Soft field

and any other variation I can think of. My favorite is no power, either with flaps or without. Simulated engine out. Score high if you hit the numbers with no power added, even higher if you can get off at the taxiway with no power added in taxi. ETC

Some airplane manuals have a preferred way in the manual. Try that out too. The "FAA Way" seems to be with flaps and with power. Make sure you can nail that.

 

[bobmrg]

That's good to know, I need to get more familiar with the PTS. In this case though, it's opinions/ technique I wanted. I'm not prepping for a checkride, it was just a club checkout. I flew with another guy about the same time acting as safety pilot and he flew a similar approach to landing. It just made me wonder if that was the norm now. I'm a proponent of a stabilized GP approach, and have never really thought the "high and tight in case I lose an engine" technique was the best one.

The FAA way is "normal." It is far better to have airspeed and descent rate stay as constant as possible (a stabilized approach) than to "dive and drive," which is what this instructor is advocating. The fewer changes the better.

Bob Gardner

 

[Everskyward]

3 deg is nearly universal for instrument approaches, but that's because of jets, which approach twice as fast and glide a whole lot better.

They glide pretty well clean but not so much so on final when configured for landing...

 

[dtuuri]

Heh. This technique of cutting the power and diving for the numbers took me back about 50 years to when I was still a teenager and had a short Frenchman checking me out in, what was then, a fairly new Piper Colt. I, too, didn't much like doing it, but the worst part was understanding what he wanted through his broken English. I could see later he just wanted to make sure there was enough elevator to arrest the descent--something a Colt can run out of when the speed is too low and the runway slopes upward as it did. The funniest thing, though, was while doing airwork he became exasperated at my inability to understand him and turned sideways in the seat, facing me, twirling his finger over his head and said in a French accent, "Young man, I want to go up!"

Thanks for the memory.

dtuuri

 

[mscard88]

I told him I was doing what my instructor had taught me .

Oh sure, blame the instructor!

I kid I kid!

 

[Landshark]

Just got my PPL so this is not set in stone for me. I like to keep a stabilized approach with power. I get the speed set for the configuration and lock in my aim point. More power if the aim point starts getting away from me, less power if I start overtaking it. Power to idle right before the flare, taking care not to let the nose dip when the power is reduced.

Like a wise CFI once said, pitch for airspeed and power for altitude.

 

[whifferdill]

I'm a proponent of a stabilized GP approach, and have never really thought the "high and tight in case I lose an engine" technique was the best one.

Well it's MY favorite. But seriously, the only "best" technique is what's best for you, your airplane, the conditions, and what you're trying to accomplish. For me, I'm mostly trying to accomplish some fun and proficiency. It doesn't cost me anything.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Well it's MY favorite. But seriously, the only "best" technique is what's best for you, your airplane, the conditions, and what you're trying to accomplish. For me, I'm mostly trying to accomplish some fun and proficiency. It doesn't cost me anything.

If folks keep a eye on the ASI in the video, they will see how stable it is all the way into the flare

 

[coloradobluesky]

If I trim my airplane all the way back and cut the power completely, it glides at best glide. How cool is that?