Ballooning on Landings

brcase said:
I don't think ballooning is really a speed issue. I fact it can sometimes be easier to balloon at slow approach speed because you have to more precisely pull back to stop you descent.
Click to expand...
While it's possible to balloon the plane even at the proper approach speed if you're too aggressive with the pull in the flare, it's a lot easier to avoid doing that at proper approach speed than at too-fast approach speed, and in my experience as an instructor, nearly all pilots who balloon routinely are coming in significantly too fast.
 
Ron Levy said:
If you're talking about where to look during the approach, I'm with you. But if you're talking about where to look during the flare and touchdown, unless your head is sticking up through the roof of the OP's Archer, you cannot see "just beyond [your] intended point of landing" -- the nose of the plane completely blocks your view of the runway immediately in front of the nose throughout the flare. And if you had the plane in an attitude where you could see "just beyond [your] intended point of landing", the nosewheel would be lower than the mains, and that makes for a really bad touchdown.

That said, what you can see in that Sky Arrow may be quite another story, but for typical light GA Standard category trainers like 172's and PA28's, you must be covering the runway immediately ahead with your nose and looking all the way at the far end with your eyes in the flare in order to land mains-first.
Click to expand...

Sure.

But in those planes I look to the sides as the nose comes up to block the view.

I tried to make that clear, even marking a photo with "x" for where I look in my plane, but also putting a "y" and a "z" for where I would look in a plane where the panel was high enough to block forward visibility.

Anyway, my way has worked well for me my entire flying career.

Has worked for my students as well.

And has let me improve the consistency of pilots who were having difficulties.

YMMV!
 
Last edited:
brcase said:
While I won't solo a student until they can hold the appropriate approach speed +/-5kts I don't think ballooning is really a speed issue. I fact it can sometimes be easier to balloon at slow approach speed because you have to more precisely pull back to stop you descent.

<snip>

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Click to expand...

Brian,

Well put.
 
If you set the runway point of intended touchdown view on the nose of the cowl on final and you maintain that view at your target speed you'll land just fine without any of the looking downfield. A 500 foot per minute descent will have you contact the ground at a vertical speed of under 6 mph. As you come into ground effect that 500 FPM will be arrested, as it will be by rounding out. If you fly the proper speed with the proper rate of descent there won't be enough energy to "balloon".
 
Stewartb said:
If you fly the proper speed with the proper rate of descent there won't be enough energy to "balloon".
Click to expand...

At 1.3Vso, there is plenty of energy to balloon in most airplanes. This is being way overcomplicated - it's not about airspeed, it's about the rate you pull the yoke/stick for any particular energy state the airplane has. It's not about looking far down the runway. It's been years since I've seen over the nose during landing. It's about practice, pure and simple. It will all come together for the OP. Student pilots often post their difficulties, which produce pages and pages of well-intentioned, but overcomplicated solutions or suggestions. The real answer is not to worry. All typically comes together with a little more practice and experience.
 
RoscoeT said:
At 1.3Vso, there is plenty of energy to balloon in most airplanes. This is being way overcomplicated - it's not about airspeed, it's about the rate you pull the yoke/stick for any particular energy state the airplane has. It's not about looking far down the runway. It's been years since I've seen over the nose during landing. It's about practice, pure and simple. It will all come together for the OP. Student pilots often post their difficulties, which produce pages and pages of well-intentioned, but overcomplicated solutions or suggestions. The real answer is not to worry. All typically comes together with a little more practice and experience.
Click to expand...

It's all about trimming for your 1.2-1.3 Vso so when it comes time to flare in ground effect, you are still doing it with 2 fingers and full finesse. I see so many people never touch the trim after turning downwind.
 
I don't guess many of you fly floats. Those who do know what I'm talking about. A student on tires should be flying final just like a glassy water landing. They wouldn't be ballooning. It's simple technique.

The basis of my comments is this. Landings should be done behind the power curve. Elevator controls airspeed, throttle controls altitude, or in this discussion, rate of descent. If a new guy is ballooning his final approach is too flat and too fast. The remedy is to turn final with more altitude. Now he'll have to reduce power and raise the nose to make the plane come down. Speed maintenance when behind the curve is better with more altitude. Need some speed, lower the nose. Too high over the fence, raise the nose. In that scenario, which is how I fly, you will have better accuracy with the touchdown point and less potential to float it down the runway. The best landings come from a stabilized final approach that never sees the plane accelerate on final. That takes practice but the bones of the technique are solid even for new pilots.
 
Last edited:
I spoke to my CFI and he said he knew I was approaching too fast, but wanted me to put effort into finding the reason behind the ballooning. That's part of learning.

So, I'm going to slow it down to Vso x 1.3 (49k x 1.3 = 64k) and play with that. I focus on the numbers for my ascent, and when about 10' off the ground begin my transition to level.

Weather is supposed to be overcast this whole week, so may not get to try this stuff out until the weekend. :(
 
stevenhmiller said:
I spoke to my CFI and he said he knew I was approaching too fast, but wanted me to put effort into finding the reason behind the ballooning. That's part of learning...(
Click to expand...

Aviation is very unforgiving, I learned by trial and error (part 103). With real airplanes many things need to be learned from others to avoid damage.

Approaching too fast for a low time student can lead to PIO and hard landings.

Slowing down on to 1.3 Vso isn't one of those things that you are going to figure out on your own during a lesson.
 
stevenhmiller said:
I spoke to my CFI and he said he knew I was approaching too fast, but wanted me to put effort into finding the reason behind the ballooning. That's part of learning.

So, I'm going to slow it down to Vso x 1.3 (49k x 1.3 = 64k) and play with that. I focus on the numbers for my ascent, and when about 10' off the ground begin my transition to level.

Weather is supposed to be overcast this whole week, so may not get to try this stuff out until the weekend. :(
Click to expand...

Not at $200 an hour it's not! How many hours do you have now? He owes you for half of them. He is being paid to instruct you and has failed. Where is he earning his money? ****ing idiot. How are you supposed to figure out you're too fast when you fly his numbers?

Look for a real instructor who wants to teach you something, not to be paid to watch you flounder.
 
Last edited:
stevenhmiller said:
I spoke to my CFI and he said he knew I was approaching too fast, but wanted me to put effort into finding the reason behind the ballooning. That's part of learning.

So, I'm going to slow it down to Vso x 1.3 (49k x 1.3 = 64k) and play with that. I focus on the numbers for my ascent, and when about 10' off the ground begin my transition to level.

Weather is supposed to be overcast this whole week, so may not get to try this stuff out until the weekend. :(
Click to expand...

Make sure you do all your math using CAS numbers only. Look in your POH, there is a conversion table to go from IAS to CAS. You'll also note that the published book stall speed is in CAS.

In our 172, the book CAS stall speed in a landing configuration at max gross is 49. That is the number you multiply by 1.3. Then convert the result to IAS using that conversion table.

If you just multiply the IAS stall speed by 1.3, you will get the wrong number.
 
Henning said:
Not at $200 an hour it's not! How many hours do you have now? He owes you for half of them. He is being paid to instruct you and has failed. Where is he earning his money? ****ing idiot.
Click to expand...

Actually, I own the plane and he's neighbor that was recommended by a friend, and only charges $30/hr. He's thrown in a bunch of freebies, just because he likes to fly with me. But, he's actually very good and is constantly critiquing me. I've improved immensely with his guidance. I had a CFI before him that was way too high strung and nearly caused me to give up flying after the first day of lessons. My current CFI is more on my wavelength and allows me to learn at my pace. I truly love flying with him and look forward to it. He just likes me to also put in effort to troubleshoot as well, instead of him telling me everything, though it is him that is training me.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
Make sure you do all your math using CAS numbers only. Look in your POH, there is a conversion table to go from IAS to CAS. You'll also note that the published book stall speed is in CAS.

In our 172, the book CAS stall speed in a landing configuration at max gross is 49. That is the number you multiply by 1.3. Then convert the result to IAS using that conversion table.

If you just multiply the IAS stall speed by 1.3, you will get the wrong number.
Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll go back and verify what it should be.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
Make sure you do all your math using CAS numbers only. Look in your POH, there is a conversion table to go from IAS to CAS. You'll also note that the published book stall speed is in CAS.

In our 172, the book CAS stall speed in a landing configuration at max gross is 49. That is the number you multiply by 1.3. Then convert the result to IAS using that conversion table.

If you just multiply the IAS stall speed by 1.3, you will get the wrong number.
Click to expand...

Just verified, it's IAS, not CAS. So, I should be good at 64 KIAS.
 
stevenhmiller said:
Actually, I own the plane and he's neighbor that was recommended by a friend, and only charges $30/hr. He's thrown in a bunch of freebies, just because he likes to fly with me. But, he's actually very good and is constantly critiquing me. I've improved immensely with his guidance. I had a CFI before him that was way too high strung and nearly caused me to give up flying after the first day of lessons. My current CFI is more on my wavelength and allows me to learn at my pace. I truly love flying with him and look forward to it. He just likes me to also put in effort to troubleshoot as well, instead of him telling me everything, though it is him that is training me.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but if he is not giving you the information you need to progress, he should be free, because he's wasting your time and fuel while you reinforce bad habits. It requires more than a good personality, you can have a good time and quickly pass on accurate and required information as well. At first signs of speed problems he should have taken you up to find your speeds, you shouldn't need to get that plan from here.
 
stevenhmiller said:
Just verified, it's IAS, not CAS. So, I should be good at 64 KIAS.
Click to expand...

I think you might be missing it. But this really confusing to explain without pointing to it in the book, so I might be totally confusing you.

Your 49 IAS stall needs to be converted to CAS first to do the math. 49 IAS converts to 54 CAS according to the archer POH graph. 54 x 1.3 = 70 CAS. Now convert the 70 CAS back to IAS using the graph in the POH. It converts to 68 IAS.

Those figures are for max gross weight. I highly doubt you're flying around at max gross with you and a CFI. Use the graphs to find the speeds appropriate for your weight when you do this.
 
stevenhmiller said:
Just verified, it's IAS, not CAS. So, I should be good at 64 KIAS.
Click to expand...

The 49 knot stall speed is in IAS in my club's Archer II POH. To do it right, you'd need to convert 49 IAS to CAS, do your x1.3, then convert back to IAS.

But in absence of an actual test of the stall speed at altitude at your current flying weight, I think you should just use the 66 knot approach speed listed on the POH.

stevenhmiller said:
I spoke to my CFI and he said he knew I was approaching too fast, but wanted me to put effort into finding the reason behind the ballooning. That's part of learning.

So, I'm going to slow it down to Vso x 1.3 (49k x 1.3 = 64k) and play with that. I focus on the numbers for my ascent, and when about 10' off the ground begin my transition to level.

Weather is supposed to be overcast this whole week, so may not get to try this stuff out until the weekend. :(
Click to expand...

If by "transition to level" you mean your roundout, that should start more than 10' above the ground. If you just mean the point you're leveling off above the ground, that's closer to the mark.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
I think you might be missing it. But this really confusing to explain without pointing to it in the book, so I might be totally confusing you.

Your 49 IAS stall needs to be converted to CAS first to do the math. 49 IAS converts to 54 CAS according to the archer POH graph. 54 x 1.3 = 70 CAS. Now convert the 70 CAS back to IAS using the graph in the POH. It converts to 68 IAS.

Those figures are for max gross weight. I highly doubt you're flying around at max gross with you and a CFI. Use the graphs to find the speeds appropriate for your weight when you do this.
Click to expand...

Ok, I got it. I wasn't aware that speeds should be converted to CAS first, calculated, then converted back to IAS. Learn something all the time. :)
 
asechrest said:
The 49 knot stall speed is in IAS in my club's Archer II POH. To do it right, you'd need to convert 49 IAS to CAS, do your x1.3, then convert back to IAS.

But in absence of an actual test of the stall speed at altitude at your current flying weight, I think you should just use the 66 knot approach speed listed on the POH.



If by "transition to level" you mean your roundout, that should start more than 10' above the ground. If you just mean the point you're leveling off above the ground, that's closer to the mark.
Click to expand...

Yes, by transition to level, I mean the point I'm leveled off at. Definitely not the point I begin the round out. I'd surely be planted into the ground at that point, and scratch the paint a little. :D
 
Yep. A few knots may not make much difference on a lot of big long runways. But the day you have to put it right on the mark to save your ass (or pass a test), you'll thank yourself for being anal retentive about speeds.
 
stevenhmiller said:
Ok, I got it. I wasn't aware that speeds should be converted to CAS first, calculated, then converted back to IAS. Learn something all the time. :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, the thing is as AOA increases, so does pitot error (the difference in IAS and CAS is pitot error.), and it's not a linear function, that's why when you are working math to find factors at the bottom end of the envelope, it's important to do all the math in CAS.
 
asechrest said:
If by "transition to level" you mean your roundout, that should start more than 10' above the ground. If you just mean the point you're leveling off above the ground, that's closer to the mark.
Click to expand...

Traditionally the rule of thumb for beginning roundout is approximately one wingspan above the ground. That compensates for various sized planes.
 
After a certain year, I think in the 1970s,were not all instrument markings supposed to be in IAS? And I thought that applied to POH recommendations as well.
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
After a certain year, I think in the 1970s,were not all instrument markings supposed to be in IAS? And I thought that applied to POH recommendations as well.
Click to expand...

Everything in my Archer is IAS, including the POH.
 
JasonM said:
Pull back on the yoke a little sooner than you have been, but less aggressive and let it settle down. As it settles, continue pulling back smoothly until on the runway.
Click to expand...

This is a good tip, too. This was helpful for me.
 
^^ Actually, it's not "until on the runway." Remember, you never stop flying the plane until the plane stops moving.

Keep the back pressure on the yoke after the mains are down, unless you want the nose to slam down. The nose gear will settle down on it's own as lift bleeds off. Then still keep the yoke back until you've slowed to taxi speed.

You also need to keep adding aileron as you slow down for cross wind correction until you're full deflected, and keep that as appropriate for taxi.
 
So, basically I should be looking about 200 feet down the runway, instead of the end of the runway. My instructor tells me to look to the end of the runway. I'll try the shorter and see if that helps. Thanks.
Click to expand...


I generally focus on my aiming point until shortly before my landing flare. Once the nose covers my aiming point my eyes transition to the end of the runway and I use my peripheral vision to gauge my height above the ground.

You can carry a little extra speed into final and I know a lot of schools preach 80 kias across the fence to keep their students from putting the nose in on approach. If you carry extra speed be very gradual in the flare. If you're correctly trimmed you should be able to gently pull the nose up and feel the speed bleed off. As you lose speed and altitude keep adding in that gentle slow pull.

I found too, when I was starting out that the sensation of the ground rushing up at you was intimidating so I tended to initiate my flare too high, but once you've "salvaged" a couple of those balloons your confidence will improve greatly because you'll learn how to ride out that extra speed.
 
labbadabba said:
I generally focus on my aiming point until shortly before my landing flare. Once the nose covers my aiming point my eyes transition to the end of the runway and I use my peripheral vision to gauge my height above the ground.

You can carry a little extra speed into final and I know a lot of schools preach 80 kias across the fence to keep their students from putting the nose in on approach. If you carry extra speed be very gradual in the flare. If you're correctly trimmed you should be able to gently pull the nose up and feel the speed bleed off. As you lose speed and altitude keep adding in that gentle slow pull.

I found too, when I was starting out that the sensation of the ground rushing up at you was intimidating so I tended to initiate my flare too high, but once you've "salvaged" a couple of those balloons your confidence will improve greatly because you'll learn how to ride out that extra speed.
Click to expand...

Once I'm rounding up for landing, I'm not 'focusing' on anything, I am looking forward but paying more attention to my peripheral vision because it gives a better perception of climb and sink.
 
Henning, I know you're a huge proponent of trim, but my airplane doesn't have sufficient trim to be hands off (or anywhere near it on final), so I'm holding constant back pressure from the tail end of the downwind, through the base, and all the way through final. I land just fine, every time, and it's "way out of trim."

So, I can't get behind the notion that a trim issue will prevent you from landing correctly. That said, you would want to be aware of the condition, I'll agree with that.

Also, someone mentioned that coming in too fast doesn't necessarily mean you will balloon, that's a great point. It's possible to come in fast, bleed speed and make a normal landing, but it will take an unusual amount of precision and awareness for a student pilot to do that. If they're making stick inputs from muscle memory alone, they're going to be in for a tough ride if they're not on speed.
 
coma24 said:
Henning, I know you're a huge proponent of trim, but my airplane doesn't have sufficient trim to be hands off (or anywhere near it on final), so I'm holding constant back pressure from the tail end of the downwind, through the base, and all the way through final. I land just fine, every time, and it's "way out of trim."

So, I can't get behind the notion that a trim issue will prevent you from landing correctly. That said, you would want to be aware of the condition, I'll agree with that.

Also, someone mentioned that coming in too fast doesn't necessarily mean you will balloon, that's a great point. It's possible to come in fast, bleed speed and make a normal landing, but it will take an unusual amount of precision and awareness for a student pilot to do that. If they're making stick inputs from muscle memory alone, they're going to be in for a tough ride if they're not on speed.
Click to expand...

Being out of trim on final doesn't make it impossible, but it sure makes it more difficult especially for those low on upper body strength with a nose heavy plane like a 182. Out of curiosity, what plane are you flying that won't trim to 1.3 Vso? I can't recall flying a plane that wouldn't trim to it.
 
coma24 said:
my airplane doesn't have sufficient trim to be hands off (or anywhere near it on final), so I'm holding constant back pressure from the tail end of the downwind, through the base, and all the way through final.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, what airplane is that?
 
I guess it makes us our little spoiled with a land-o-matic trainers. Set the trim on a 172 for 80 on downwind and you never need touch it again.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
I guess it makes us our little spoiled with a land-o-matic trainers. Set the trim on a 172 for 80 on downwind and you never need touch it again.
Click to expand...

If you set trim for 80 and never touch it again, you are not optimizing your trim.
 
Henning said:
If you set trim for 80 and never touch it again, you are not optimizing your trim.
Click to expand...

No. It maintains exactly the desired speeds as I pull the power back and add flaps. Obviously if you're not flying a standard pattern, that might be different.
 
If you set trim for 80 and never touch it again, you are not optimizing your trim.
Click to expand...

That may be true but trimming a 172 on final is a much more hands-off affair than trimming a any variety of PA28. The 172 is basically set it and forget it compared to the Archer.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
No. It maintains exactly the desired speeds as I pull the power back and add flaps. Obviously if you're not flying a standard pattern, that might be different.
Click to expand...

There is a standard pattern? With full flaps, what is your trim speed when you didn't readjust from 80kts and flaps 0?

I can't recall not adding a flick or two in a 172 coming down final in landing configuration.
 
After reading the posts on this thread I understand better why many pilots find tail wheel transition difficult. Most of you would benefit from some tail wheel time including full stall landings!
 
Flying your roundout profile like the second illustration below rather than the first will help with ballooning. Most pilots tend to fly more like #1 with a long floating section where they are sitting there waiting for speed to bleed off.

6yi7vk.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top