CFI Help: Short Field Landing

K

KennyFlys

Guest
I have four students I'm currently teaching short field landing. While the speed and site picture on that steep descent is down pretty well for all four, there's still the power management to work on for two of them.

They still tend to over-manage the round-out, for lack of a better description. Is there a way I can better teach this to help them understand what they need to do? Demonstrations aren't clicking in for them and I think it's doing pretty dang good just to keep them at the specified speed. Obviously, they need to complete the landing successfully.

One thing I have stopped doing is using the word "flare" but rather use "round out." I think "flare" gives a misconception they must go from nose down to sudden nose up when it's really just a very gradual process; going from a steep descent in flight to nearly a stall as you kiss the runway.

Now that two students are doing well with them, the next time the gauges will be covered. I started doing that on steep turns after the first couple sets. "Use that huge attitude indicator God made!"

Other than trying to improve my ability how to get concepts across, it has been GREAT! I love teaching flight. This is truly a wonderful experience. I can't tell you how gratifying it is to have students who truly want to learn, will study and be prepared.

Thanks in advance for the feedback.
 
KennyFlys said:
They still tend to over-manage the round-out, for lack of a better description.
Click to expand...
I think a better description would help ;) I really don't know what you mean by "over-manage". If you're still talking about power management, maybe try having them fly the airplane while you run the throttle. Pull it to idle at the appropriate time, and let 'em figure out how to land it.

my 2 cents, based on a lack of real understanding of the problem ;)

Fly safe!

David
 
KennyFlys said:
I have four students I'm currently teaching short field landing. While the speed and site picture on that steep descent is down pretty well for all four, there's still the power management to work on for two of them.

They still tend to over-manage the round-out, for lack of a better description. Is there a way I can better teach this to help them understand what they need to do? Demonstrations aren't clicking in for them and I think it's doing pretty dang good just to keep them at the specified speed. Obviously, they need to complete the landing successfully.

One thing I have stopped doing is using the word "flare" but rather use "round out." I think "flare" gives a misconception they must go from nose down to sudden nose up when it's really just a very gradual process; going from a steep descent in flight to nearly a stall as you kiss the runway.
Click to expand...


I think "Flare" is a poor conceptual term as well -- remember the stuff about common frame of reference between message sender and receiver? -- anyway, I don't use it either. I say transition from descent to level, shortened to "Level off" when needed.

I think the best training I received on Short field landings stressed airspeed management in the approach. The key is to nail the POH Short field speed or, if that's not available, 1.2 Vso on base or VERY soon after rollout to final. I practiced flying 1.3 Vso from abeam the touchdown point all the way to touchdown from my Commercial. Worked wonders in getting that rather heavy & fast airplane down and stopped in no time.

(We experimented with 1.2 Vso but found there was insufficient elevator authority at that speed -- a blast of power was required to help the airplane level out.)

Usually shorts are done with full flaps at a steep descent angle, very close to the backside of the power curve. So the other aha moment will be them understanding you have to add power to go slower. Straight and Level Slow flight with full flaps at altitude will help them get this down.

The full flap configuration will also mean a more rapid transition from descent to level, since there are more degrees to go through. So maybe a model/whiteboard discussion would be helpful showing the partial flap compared to full flap change in nose up angle required to maintain level.-- all those flaps add drag and drag means less energy to keep the wings flying, etc.

I use short field technique every time I land, unless there's some compelling reason not to. There's something very gratifying about putting an airplane down on the spot you chose and arriving on the ground with as little excess energy as possible. I'm retired Army but I'll admit this is one area the Navy got right!:yes:

(My student-owner really perked up when we talked about the reduction in wear and tear on brakes, tires, struts, etc.)

Stress short field landing technique advantages to your students and they may actually enjoy them and not see them as "another one of those things you gotta know for the test but won't use in real life.":cheerswine:
 
Have 'em land at the far end of the runway. :D
 
re: "FLARE" Vs "ROUNDOUT"

Just a question but isn't it the duty of the CFI to provide the proper definition? That is, just because the student misinterprets the term should not be a reason to use a substitute term.

However, that does not mean another term may be used to help develop understanding of the primary.
 
For power management are you having them use the throttle or pitch? I find that for short field and really all landings, it is better to manage your airspeed with the pitch and use the throttle for sink rate.
 
Richard said:
re: "FLARE" Vs "ROUNDOUT"

Just a question but isn't it the duty of the CFI to provide the proper definition? That is, just because the student misinterprets the term should not be a reason to use a substitute term.

However, that does not mean another term may be used to help develop understanding of the primary.
Click to expand...

Not really.

I don't use the term "flare" because I've had two students so far who were confused by the term. It doesn't adequately describe the maneuver, and in the minds of some implies some radical change in flight attitude.

I think my responsibility as CFI is to ensure the student understands standard aviation terminology ("Class Bravo Airspace," "Transponder," "Manifold Pressure," "Descent rate" etc) and uses them correctly.

All the other jargon is negotiable / ignored as needed, "flare" included.
 
As far as ROUNDOUT or FLARE I think of it as flying level just above the ground and holding the plane in the air until it stops flying as the speed bleeds off.
 
Ken Short field landing is coming in as slow as you can and hitting the brakes once down. Just have them aim 1/3 of the way up the runway rather than the numbers. This will give them a comfort level going slower. Short field landing is not over a 50 foot obstacle it is just short. They do not have to come straight down. They just have to be going slow and then stop once on the ground.

When I did mine the DPE said "What kind of landing did we just do", because I did not apply brakes aggressively enough. I calmly said that if I had to I would have. He just laughed.

Flying low over the runway with full flaps helps more than anything. Just keep going slower and slower (multiple passes) eventually they will just land, then hit the brakes. I think that is the key on the test (Hit the brakes).

Dan
 
stingray said:
Ken Short field landing is coming in as slow as you can and hitting the brakes once down. Just have them aim 1/3 of the way up the runway rather than the numbers. This will give them a comfort level going slower. Short field landing is not over a 50 foot obstacle it is just short. They do not have to come straight down. They just have to be going slow and then stop once on the ground.

When I did mine the DPE said "What kind of landing did we just do", because I did not apply brakes aggressively enough. I calmly said that if I had to I would have. He just laughed.

Flying low over the runway with full flaps helps more than anything. Just keep going slower and slower (multiple passes) eventually they will just land, then hit the brakes. I think that is the key on the test (Hit the brakes).

Dan
Click to expand...

IMO---a short field landing should be just that. Short. Using little runway. A short ground roll is pretty pointless if you burn the first 2000 feet of the runway before touchdown.
 
jesse said:
IMO---a short field landing should be just that. Short. Using little runway. A short ground roll is pretty pointless if you burn the first 2000 feet of the runway before touchdown.
Click to expand...

The PTS adds the 50 foot obstacle requirement, but you are right -- if you're trying to land in a short distance, no sense avoiding an obstacle that isn't there!
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm having trouble trying to figure how you can do power management via pitch control.:confused:
Click to expand...
How about we call it energy management then, cause I cannot figure out why power management even matters when really what we are trying to do is bleed off energy so that we land in the shortest distance possible.
 
Last edited:
KennyFlys said:
I have four students I'm currently teaching short field landing. While the speed and site picture on that steep descent is down pretty well for all four, there's still the power management to work on for two of them.

They still tend to over-manage the round-out, for lack of a better description. Is there a way I can better teach this to help them understand what they need to do? Demonstrations aren't clicking in for them and I think it's doing pretty dang good just to keep them at the specified speed. Obviously, they need to complete the landing successfully.

One thing I have stopped doing is using the word "flare" but rather use "round out." I think "flare" gives a misconception they must go from nose down to sudden nose up when it's really just a very gradual process; going from a steep descent in flight to nearly a stall as you kiss the runway.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure that "round out" explains things any better than "flare", I'd give up on a one or two word phrase to describe the process and work out a more complete explanation breaking the "flare" into several parts.

First there's the primary goal: use the potential energy (excess airspeed) to oppose the kinetic energy (vertical speed).

The second goal is to ensure that the kinetic energy (vertical speed) and the wheel to ground clearance both become sufficiently small before the excess airspeed runs out (the latter can be extended with a little power if necessary). In a "perfect" (i.e. most effective, not necessarily most safe) example the airspeed would bleed off to Vs exactly when the airplane is just touching down with no vertical speed. In reality a small amount of vertical speed (<1fps) and a few knots above Vs (at least in a tricycle or a wheel landing with a taildragger) is acceptable and definitely preferable to running out of potential energy while a substantial amount of kinetic energy remains.

Third goal is to make the transition from a constant speed steep descent to the aforementioned near zero vertical speed smoothly with the airplane's path describing a curve (not a true arc, the initial radius is smaller than the radius towards the end of the transition).

Of course the fact that the elevator's "effectiveness" is diminishing right along with the airspeed and the lack of any familiar cues to the relative strength of the kinetic vs potential energy are what really makes this difficult to learn. Since you don't want the student to be looking inside at the ASI during the "roundout" they will need to learn to sense the nearness of the stall with a combination of the control "feel" and the pitch attitude. The vertical speed can be discerned by looking far down the runway to see the changing angle to the horizon.

I'd think that if you started with a little excess speed on final expecting to float a little (removing the concern over stalling before arresting the descent) and once the transition becomes reasonably smooth, start with a little less and work your way down to the recommended 1.2x Vs0.
 
jesse said:
IMO---a short field landing should be just that. Short. Using little runway. A short ground roll is pretty pointless if you burn the first 2000 feet of the runway before touchdown.
Click to expand...

Not if the runway is 4000' and your ground roll is 500'. Maybe there's a deer on the runway and you couldn't land and could not go around but had plenty of room for a short field landing after the deer.

The point of using the 1/3 point of the runway as touchdown is to take away the going slower fear before the runway. Once you get used to going slower you can land anywhere. It is not learning to land farther up the runway it is practicing farther up. Once you get it, land on the numbers or anywhere just say ahead of time this will be my touchdown point. The short part is just that short. Who cares where you start as long as it is short. If you land in a field but pass up two other fields does it matter, it is not a power off emergency landing. If you can pick your point of touchdown and come to a complete stop in the required distance it is a short landing.

Dan
 
Actually, that's the beauty of doing the "obstacle" approach...Let's assume for just a moment that you are on the VASI's when you cross the threshold for a "normal" landing, either by flying them down or crossing them at the threshold. That puts you at roughly 50 feet.

So...put yourself at that same spot for a short field landing...on the VASI's over the threshold. Now, all you have to do is fly the slower speed, and pick an aiming point closer to the approach end of the runway, say about 500 feet from the end. What you have, then, is a "normal" approach at a slower speed with a closer aiming point, which just happens to result in a steeper angle. Less change, less confusion. If the student can do a normal landing, he can do a short-field.

You can even "sneak up on 'em"...just have them gradually reduce their approach speed and change the aiming point, until at the end of the lesson you say, "Well, there ya go...now I don't have to teach you short field landings, 'cause you just did one. Good job!" Piece of cake!

Fly safe!

David
 
Richard said:
re: "FLARE" Vs "ROUNDOUT"

Just a question but isn't it the duty of the CFI to provide the proper definition? That is, just because the student misinterprets the term should not be a reason to use a substitute term.

However, that does not mean another term may be used to help develop understanding of the primary.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I have described that and they seem to understand the goal but trying to get them to execute it is another story.
 
lancefisher said:
I'm not sure that "round out" explains things any better than "flare", I'd give up on a one or two word phrase to describe the process and work out a more complete explanation breaking the "flare" into several parts.
Click to expand...
I've essentially done that but it doesn't sink in for two. As of today, I have a fifth student learning short field landings in his own Archer II. So, throw in some extra ground effect on that one.

First there's the primary goal: use the potential energy (excess airspeed) to oppose the kinetic energy (vertical speed).
Click to expand...
This, I've described as simply "energy management" with the eventual goal to "stall" just as you're about to kiss the runway. The kiss won't be ideal every time as your greater concern is the obstacle and/or the short runway available.

BTW, my CFI DPE threw both at me in one approach. There was no either/or.

The second goal is to ensure that the kinetic energy (vertical speed) and the wheel to ground clearance both become sufficiently small before the excess airspeed runs out (the latter can be extended with a little power if necessary). In a "perfect" (i.e. most effective, not necessarily most safe) example the airspeed would bleed off to Vs exactly when the airplane is just touching down with no vertical speed. In reality a small amount of vertical speed (<1fps) and a few knots above Vs (at least in a tricycle or a wheel landing with a taildragger) is acceptable and definitely preferable to running out of potential energy while a substantial amount of kinetic energy remains.

Third goal is to make the transition from a constant speed steep descent to the aforementioned near zero vertical speed smoothly with the airplane's path describing a curve (not a true arc, the initial radius is smaller than the radius towards the end of the transition).
Click to expand...
That's VERY much what I've tried to describe and draw out. And, as said add a touch of power to soften the "plop" that's almost certain in a short field landing.

Of course the fact that the elevator's "effectiveness" is diminishing right along with the airspeed and the lack of any familiar cues to the relative strength of the kinetic vs potential energy are what really makes this difficult to learn. Since you don't want the student to be looking inside at the ASI during the "roundout" they will need to learn to sense the nearness of the stall with a combination of the control "feel" and the pitch attitude. The vertical speed can be discerned by looking far down the runway to see the changing angle to the horizon.
Click to expand...
In both the Skyhawk and Archer, I've had them flying at the recommended speed per the POH or within a few knots so their reference is a significant line on the ASI, not a chase for a non-existent mark. For the Skyhawk (1974 172M), it's 60 MPH with no worries if a tad short. For the Archer (1977 PA-28-181), it's 64 KIAS and having him pin it close to 65; again with no worries if he's a tad short of that. I pointed out where Vso is and to not let stall be a fear factor but having it stall just as you touch down is fine.

Vertical speed has been pegged right at -500 FPM for the most part with occasionally letting it get faster. If it becomes too great, momentarily add a "touch" of power.

Something I've seen on all three is they let the airspeed creep on them. I'm not sure how much of it is fear of stalling or how much is failing to maintain stability. The first two students who did the best nail the speed and vertical descent dead on. It's going to be a lesson for me when I cover the gauges next time.

I'd think that if you started with a little excess speed on final expecting to float a little (removing the concern over stalling before arresting the descent) and once the transition becomes reasonably smooth, start with a little less and work your way down to the recommended 1.2x Vs0.
Click to expand...
I was letting them turn final with normal speed and then decreasing to a short field approach speed. I'm thinking starting the full final segment on the slowest speed would be better. Then, just manage descent rate with power.

On the Archer, we had a couple rougher touches then two were great with a tidbit of float but still under a thousand feet total runway. Perhaps the slower speed overall would be the ticket to get them in closer.

I know there is that fear of touching down too hard. They began to nail normal landings and were "greasing them on" but now it's the "plop down" That could be affecting how they feel about their performance. I'm not yet certain.
 
KennyFlys said:
Something I've seen on all three is they let the airspeed creep on them. I'm not sure how much of it is fear of stalling or how much is failing to maintain stability. The first two students who did the best nail the speed and vertical descent dead on. It's going to be a lesson for me when I cover the gauges next time.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you've already checked this, but make sure they are properly trimmed for the airspeed. Student pilots get nervous at this part of the flight envelope and forgetting to trim is a common nervous student mistake.


KennyFlys said:
I was letting them turn final with normal speed and then decreasing to a short field approach speed. I'm thinking starting the full final segment on the slowest speed would be better. Then, just manage descent rate with power.
Click to expand...
I agree. The earlier you can get them established at the speed the better. It might be worth getting them in the landing configuration as early as possible (in this case..flaps) This will make them more confident that the airplane can fly at such a speed. It will stress the student much less because the approach isn't full of constant changes.
 
jesse said:
I'm sure you've already checked this, but make sure they are properly trimmed for the airspeed. Student pilots get nervous at this part of the flight envelope and forgetting to trim is a common nervous student mistake.
Click to expand...
I didn't push it the first or second attempt but then remind them how easy it would be if they used the trim; referring back to normal flight with constant rate climbs and descents.

I agree. The earlier you can get them established at the speed the better. It might be worth getting them in the landing configuration as early as possible (in this case..flaps) This will make them more confident that the airplane can fly at such a speed. It will stress the student much less because the approach isn't full of constant changes.
Click to expand...
I'm pushing slow flight at much slower speeds than has been in the past with a few. I think that helps as well. "I wanna hear the stall horn. I love the sound of a stall warning horn!" as my claim goes. :)
 
lancefisher said:
I'm not sure that "round out" explains things any better than "flare", I'd give up on a one or two word phrase to describe the process and work out a more complete explanation breaking the "flare" into several parts.

First there's the primary goal: use the potential energy (excess airspeed) to oppose the kinetic energy (vertical speed).

The second goal is to ensure that the kinetic energy (vertical speed) and the wheel to ground clearance both become sufficiently small before the excess airspeed runs out (the latter can be extended with a little power if necessary). In a "perfect" (i.e. most effective, not necessarily most safe) example the airspeed would bleed off to Vs exactly when the airplane is just touching down with no vertical speed. In reality a small amount of vertical speed (<1fps) and a few knots above Vs (at least in a tricycle or a wheel landing with a taildragger) is acceptable and definitely preferable to running out of potential energy while a substantial amount of kinetic energy remains.

Third goal is to make the transition from a constant speed steep descent to the aforementioned near zero vertical speed smoothly with the airplane's path describing a curve (not a true arc, the initial radius is smaller than the radius towards the end of the transition).

Of course the fact that the elevator's "effectiveness" is diminishing right along with the airspeed and the lack of any familiar cues to the relative strength of the kinetic vs potential energy are what really makes this difficult to learn. Since you don't want the student to be looking inside at the ASI during the "roundout" they will need to learn to sense the nearness of the stall with a combination of the control "feel" and the pitch attitude. The vertical speed can be discerned by looking far down the runway to see the changing angle to the horizon.

I'd think that if you started with a little excess speed on final expecting to float a little (removing the concern over stalling before arresting the descent) and once the transition becomes reasonably smooth, start with a little less and work your way down to the recommended 1.2x Vs0.
Click to expand...

Lance,

when do you want to start your CFI training? Ill make myself available as much as possible to make it happen. We can do the initial in the Baron and Single Engine add on in the Porterfield.
 
KennyFlys said:
I'm pushing slow flight at much slower speeds than has been in the past with a few. I think that helps as well. "I wanna hear the stall horn. I love the sound of a stall warning horn!" as my claim goes. :)
Click to expand...
As a student, I used to enjoy the challenge of spending 5 minutes or so with the stall horn going the whole time. We especially liked windy days where we would try to "fly backward". Someday I would like to see that from the ground!
 
I've always considered the short-field landing to be abrupt and harder on the plane than a soft-field landing. I have no idea how to teach short-field landings. After gaining proficiency of normal landings, we started playing with landing using less and less runway... which graduated to full over the 50' obstacle short as possible landings.
 
I'm seriously thinking about it for when I retire in a few years. Then I'd have the time to actually make use of a CFI cert.

tonycondon said:
Lance,

when do you want to start your CFI training? Ill make myself available as much as possible to make it happen. We can do the initial in the Baron and Single Engine add on in the Porterfield.
Click to expand...
 
Kenny, why don't you break it up a bit more? I usually start short field training with the basic concept that the slower short field landing airspeed does two things - assuming power off, it will produce a steeper descent and a shorter rollout (watching pilots nose down to the runway when too high leads me to the conclusion that the first effect never really makes it into the consciousness of many). And like slow flight, they may need to add power to get the combination or airspeed and descent rate they want.

I then tell them that we are going to work only on the airspeed/descent rate part. I take the location of the landing and rollout issues completely out of the picture. I want them to get a sense for the different picture out the window typically presented by a full flap, power off, landing in a steeper configuration with less airspeed than a "normal" landing. It's about learning the airplane at this point. "Spot" training at this stage is limited to becoming aware of how much the airplane floats in this configuration from the point at which the pilot begins to level off near the ground and the point at which she touched down.

Once comfortable with this, we move to "spot" and rollout. At this point, spot tends to take care of itself - it's no different than any other landing, only a different amount of float, which the pilot has already learned.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Kenny, why don't you break it up a bit more? I usually start short field training with the basic concept that the slower short field landing airspeed does two things - assuming power off, it will produce a steeper descent and a shorter rollout (watching pilots nose down to the runway when too high leads me to the conclusion that the first effect never really makes it into the consciousness of many). And like slow flight, they may need to add power to get the combination or airspeed and descent rate they want.

I then tell them that we are going to work only on the airspeed/descent rate part. I take the location of the landing and rollout issues completely out of the picture. I want them to get a sense for the different picture out the window typically presented by a full flap, power off, landing in a steeper configuration with less airspeed than a "normal" landing. It's about learning the airplane at this point. "Spot" training at this stage is limited to becoming aware of how much the airplane floats in this configuration from the point at which the pilot begins to level off near the ground and the point at which she touched down.

Once comfortable with this, we move to "spot" and rollout. At this point, spot tends to take care of itself - it's no different than any other landing, only a different amount of float, which the pilot has already learned.
Click to expand...
We've definitely been ignoring the touchdown point and distance used. Those who were nailing that right away without prompting, I told to help their confidence.

With one, I think the airspeed control is more a stability issue. The other two, it's a fear issue of getting too slow. We'll visit it again over the tomorrow and the weekend with these folks.
 
jdwatson said:
I've always considered the short-field landing to be abrupt and harder on the plane than a soft-field landing. I have no idea how to teach short-field landings. After gaining proficiency of normal landings, we started playing with landing using less and less runway... which graduated to full over the 50' obstacle short as possible landings.
Click to expand...

I used to think the same way. But really, you're really just making a normal landing from a different point on the pitch/power curve. You're still coming in above stall speed (Vso1.2 vs 1.3) so the point which you arrest your descent is a little different, the amount of roundout/flare/settling is a bit different, and it's a touch more aggressive than Dr. Bruce's butt-sink method, but still pretty much the same thing.
 
KennyFlys said:
We've definitely been ignoring the touchdown point and distance used. Those who were nailing that right away without prompting, I told to help their confidence.

With one, I think the airspeed control is more a stability issue. The other two, it's a fear issue of getting too slow. We'll visit it again over the tomorrow and the weekend with these folks.
Click to expand...

Have 'em keep their hands "off" the yoke until they are ready to start arresting the descent. Trim by Ronco. Set it and forget it. Get them trimmed to 1.2 on downwind or base, and just use power to make sure they make it to the runway. No pulling or pushing on the yoke! Maybe they are fixating on the speed. You're a CFI now, you should be able to tell when it's getting too close to a stall. Cover up the ASI after trim and speed are set?

Maybe tightening up the pattern can help. When I was working with dad he wanted to take Space Shuttle finals to get set up. But what we found out is that there was too much time, and there was a lot more fussing and adjusting, and that could make it go awry. Give em less time to think about it, and let it just happen. Just another suggestion.
 
im glad im not the only one who mentions Ronco when flying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top