Deadly turn to final

[radioguy01]

So basically keep the nose down, and don't sit there and stomp on the rudder trying to make a turn that you shouldn't?

 

[dell30rb]

So basically keep the nose down, and don't sit there and stomp on the rudder trying to make a turn that you shouldn't?

That's a good start. And stay focused on flying the plane. The FAA's literature on stall/spin awareness mentions distractions are often the cause of this type of crash.

 

[MAKG1]

So basically keep the nose down, and don't sit there and stomp on the rudder trying to make a turn that you shouldn't?

Pretty much.

I'd add, if you're going to overshoot, just let it. Fix it later if there is space. Otherwise, go around.

 

[Johann]

So, I guess your statement is, that all other things being equal, given speed, and I will grant you your descending at equal rate, that a 45deg bank and a 30deg bank provide the same margin over stall?

Sorry - not buying. But don't let that stop you. Keep instructing us, cause we shorely be needin' it.

You mean a 30deg bank vs a 45deg bank without touching the elevator?. Meaning, AoA stays constant?
I would think that in that case, margin over stall remains the same.

It's load factor (caused by increasing the AoA and load on the wings to increase the lift vector and maintain altitude) which causes an increase in stall speed.
You will lose more altitude at 45deg than at 30deg though.

 

[docmirror]

My point is that for a given airspeed, the amount of G forces are what determine your angle of attack margin over stall. Not bank angle. Bank angle and G force are not directly related.


As an example, in a level turn at 60 degrees bank angle you are pulling 2 G's. At say.. 70 knots your angle of attack is very close to stall. Not much margin.

Now allow that 60 degree banked turn to descend a bit (don't pull back so hard on the stick). Say you are only at 1.5 G's in this turn, airspeed still 70 knots. But now your angle of attack is lower and there is much more margin over stall.

Uh - said "all other things being equal", and here you go, digging and digging and digging. So what I'm after is does lower bank angle with all other things being equal provide more margin over stall? This isn't theoretical, this is real world. Physics doesn't play favorites. Wider pattern provides lower bank angle needed to change the heading in the space and time avail. To me, and I guess in my world, lower bank angle provides more margin for stall. But that works on my physical world, maybe not others.

 

[docmirror]

You mean a 30deg bank vs a 45deg bank without touching the elevator?. Meaning, AoA stays constant?
I would think that in that case, margin over stall remains the same.

It's load factor (caused by increasing the AoA and load on the wings to increase the lift vector and maintain altitude) which causes an increase in stall speed.
You will lose more altitude at 45deg than at 30deg though.

I really, really don't like shouting at people:

ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.

Seriously sorry here, but I guess it's the only way.

 

[poadeleted20]

The FAA has long ago abandoned the 'within gliding distance' theme from the pattern. Quite possibly since it led to more than a few stall/spin turns in the pattern.

...among other problems largely related to energy management. I did a study of five years of Grumman accidents (including many reported to the insurers but not to the NTSB ), and found that of the two engine failures, neither occurred in the landing pattern. One happened right after takeoff (too low even for the "impossible" turn) and the other enroute, and neither was fatal. OTOH, we had a lot of landing accidents involving unstabilized approaches, including a fatality in a base-final turn stall. So, which do I worry about more when teaching people to fly patterns and landings? Take a guess...

 

[poadeleted20]

As an example, in a level turn at 60 degrees bank angle you are pulling 2 G's. At say.. 70 knots your angle of attack is very close to stall. Not much margin.

Now allow that 60 degree banked turn to descend a bit (don't pull back so hard on the stick). Say you are only at 1.5 G's in this turn, airspeed still 70 knots. But now your angle of attack is lower and there is much more margin over stall.

Not if your rate of descent is constant. If you pull only 1.5 g's at 60 degrees of bank, your rate of descent will accelerate pretty quickly until the ground is rushing at you so fast you'll be tempted to pull so hard you'll stall it.

 

[dell30rb]

Not if your rate of descent is constant. If you pull only 1.5 g's at 60 degrees of bank, your rate of descent will accelerate pretty quickly until the ground is rushing at you so fast you'll be tempted to pull so hard you'll stall it.

I was using 60 degrees as an example because its easy for me to remember 2G's = 60 degree bank level turn.


Not recommending anyone go out and use 45 degree banks or 60 degree banks in the pattern. Use whatever you are comfortable with and try to fly your pattern in the same manner each time. 30 degrees bank seems to be the agreed-upon norm.

Ron I also agree with you that engine failure in the pattern is overall not a big concern and that base to final stall/spins are much more of a problem.

Good flight training (including stall training), recurrent training and awareness are what will reduce the number of pilots killed by stall/spin crashes. I don't think the wideness of the pattern has a lot to do with it.

 

[Johann]

I really, really don't like shouting at people:

ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.

Seriously sorry here, but I guess it's the only way.

Ok, I guess then by all other things being equal you meant "losing the same amount of altitude". In that case (and it does make more sense), I agree with you. Sorry about the confusion.

 

[poadeleted20]

I was using 60 degrees as an example because its easy for me to remember 2G's = 60 degree bank level turn.

Doesn't matter what the bank angle is. At any given bank angle/airspeed, a constant rate climbing/descending turn is the same g-load as level turn at the same bank angle/airspeed.

Ron I also agree with you that engine failure in the pattern is overall not a big concern and that base to final stall/spins are much more of a problem.

Good flight training (including stall training), recurrent training and awareness are what will reduce the number of pilots killed by stall/spin crashes. I don't think the wideness of the pattern has a lot to do with it.

Not just pilots killed, but also metal bent. We've got too many loss-of-control-after-touchdown accidents nationwide, and unstabilized approaches are most of the problem.

 

[MAKG1]

Doesn't matter what the bank angle is. At any given bank angle/airspeed, a constant rate climbing/descending turn is the same g-load as level turn at the same bank angle/airspeed.

I think the more precise answer is that the G-load is determined by the turn rate (and airspeed). It doesn't matter how you get that turn rate; you have the same centrifugal force and the same weight to deal with, so you have the same load. A uniform descent rate doesn't change this. Centrifugal force is still precisely horizontal, and weight is still precisely vertical, compared to the horizon. Descent acceleration could change it, but 9.8 m/s^2 is frighteningly fast over even a very quick turn.

The bank angle determines turn rate only for coordinated flight. You can fly in a slip and have zero turn rate with nonzero bank. But, if the point is to increase the turn rate, you're screwed. All you can do is miss the turn.

 

[poadeleted20]

I think the more precise answer is that the G-load is determined by the turn rate (and airspeed). It doesn't matter how you get that turn rate; you have the same centrifugal force and the same weight to deal with, so you have the same load. A uniform descent rate doesn't change this.

That is true, but it won't remain uniform if you unload half a g. I would suggest a review of any basic aerodynamics book like "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators", or the excellent "See How it Flies" website, for the discussion, complete with diagrams and equations.

Centrifugal force is still precisely horizontal, and weight is still precisely vertical, compared to the horizon. Descent acceleration could change it, but 9.8 m/s^2 is frighteningly fast over even a very quick turn.

Exactly my point. Unload to 1.5 g's in a 60-bank turn, and you're headed for the ground in a hurry (not to mention pulling 2 g's as soon as the descent rate is stabilized).

The bank angle determines turn rate only for coordinated flight. You can fly in a slip and have zero turn rate with nonzero bank.

Not relevant to the issue of g's and bank angle in a coordinated turn as we are discussing.

 

[Johann]

Doesn't matter what the bank angle is. At any given bank angle/airspeed, a constant rate climbing/descending turn is the same g-load as level turn at the same bank angle/airspeed.

I'm not sure I understand this. Can you provide an example with numbers?
The way I understand what you wrote, it means that given a bank angle and an airspeed, say 45deg 90kn, a turn while maintaining altitude (0 in the VSI) has the same load on the wings than a turn while climbing 300 ft/min.

(And to avoid the yelling, I'm not trying to argue or discredit or anything, I'm just honestly asking to better understand).

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm not sure I understand this. Can you provide an example with numbers?
The way I understand what you wrote, it means that given a bank angle and an airspeed, say 45deg 90kn, a turn while maintaining altitude (0 in the VSI) has the same load on the wings than a turn while climbing 300 ft/min.

That is correct. Either way, you've got a 1.414g load on the wings.

The deal is that in a turn with constant vertical velocity (zero or otherwise), you have a horizontal force proportionate to the turn rate, and a vertical force equal to the weight of the plane. As long as the lift produced by the on the wing is equal to the vector sum of the two, the forces balance and neither turn rate nor vertical velocity change. But what happens if you relax the elevator so AoA and thus total lift are reduced but bank angle remains constant?

In that case, both the horizontal and vertical components of lift are reduced. The reduction in horizontal component causes a reduction in turn rate, but the reduction in vertical component results in an imbalance between that component and the weight of the plane. The resultant force accelerates the aircraft downward, increasing vertical velocity towards the earth, and this acceleration and increasing descent rate will continue as long as the imbalance between aircraft weight and vertical component of lift continues.

Of course, as the vertical velocity increases, airspeed will, too, unless the stick force is changed, and the aircraft trim will create a pitch-up moment trying to return to trimmed speed. As that happens, g-load will again increase. It will all stabilize at the original trimmed speed but with a significant stable descent rate.

You can test this yourself in flight, but please try to pick smooth air to do it, as turbulence can mask these effects.

Set the plane up in a 45-bank holding back pressure as needed to maintain altitude. If you have a g-meter, it will show 1.4g. Then relax the back pressure to zero stick force or 1g on the meter (while using aileron as needed to maintain bank angle). G-load will reduce, the nose will drop, airspeed will begin to increase, and v/s will begin to increase. After a few seconds, g-load will return to 1.4, airspeed will stabilize at the previous trimmed value, and v/s will stabilize at maybe a few hundred ft/min down.

OTOH, if you keep forward pressure on the yoke to maintain 1g, the v/s will continue to increase as long as you hold it, and so will airspeed. Just try not to over-g the plane when you pull out, as you'll be through maneuvering speed very, very quickly, especially in a retractable.

 

[dmspilot]

The way I understand what you wrote, it means that given a bank angle and an airspeed, say 45deg 90kn, a turn while maintaining altitude (0 in the VSI) has the same load on the wings than a turn while climbing 300 ft/min.

Correct. Likewise, straight-and-level flight is 1g, while a 300fpm constant-rate climb is also 1g.

 

[Johann]

That is correct. Either way, you've got a 1.414g load on the wings.

The deal is that in a turn with constant vertical velocity (zero or otherwise), you have a horizontal force proportionate to the turn rate, and a vertical force equal to the weight of the plane. As long as the lift produced by the on the wing is equal to the vector sum of the two, the forces balance and neither turn rate nor vertical velocity change. But what happens if you relax the elevator so AoA and thus total lift are reduced but bank angle remains constant?

In that case, both the horizontal and vertical components of lift are reduced. The reduction in horizontal component causes a reduction in turn rate, but the reduction in vertical component results in an imbalance between that component and the weight of the plane. The resultant force accelerates the aircraft downward, increasing vertical velocity towards the earth, and this acceleration and increasing descent rate will continue as long as the imbalance between aircraft weight and vertical component of lift continues.

Of course, as the vertical velocity increases, airspeed will, too, unless the stick force is changed, and the aircraft trim will create a pitch-up moment trying to return to trimmed speed. As that happens, g-load will again increase. It will all stabilize at the original trimmed speed but with a significant stable descent rate.

You can test this yourself in flight, but please try to pick smooth air to do it, as turbulence can mask these effects.

Set the plane up in a 45-bank holding back pressure as needed to maintain altitude. If you have a g-meter, it will show 1.4g. Then relax the back pressure to zero stick force or 1g on the meter (while using aileron as needed to maintain bank angle). G-load will reduce, the nose will drop, airspeed will begin to increase, and v/s will begin to increase. After a few seconds, g-load will return to 1.4, airspeed will stabilize at the previous trimmed value, and v/s will stabilize at maybe a few hundred ft/min down.

OTOH, if you keep forward pressure on the yoke to maintain 1g, the v/s will continue to increase as long as you hold it, and so will airspeed. Just try not to over-g the plane when you pull out, as you'll be through maneuvering speed very, very quickly, especially in a retractable.

Got it, thanks!

 

[MAKG1]

Not relevant to the issue of g's and bank angle in a coordinated turn as we are discussing.

I thought we were talking about the base-to-final stall/spin, which in its nastiest form is not coordinated.

The skidding turn is a way to increase load factor beyond what the bank angles say. It's turn rate (times airspeed), not bank angle, that determines the load factor. Rather directly.

A slipping turn has lower load factor (and the conventional slip to a landing has load factor = 1), but it also has lower turn rate, so it doesn't help the overshoot-base-to-final issue.

 

[poadeleted20]

I thought we were talking about the base-to-final stall/spin, which in its nastiest form is not coordinated.

The skidding turn is a way to increase load factor beyond what the bank angles say. It's turn rate (times airspeed), not bank angle, that determines the load factor. Rather directly.

Skidding may increase lateral (y-axis) g, but it won't change z-axis g, so it won't change load factor unless you reduce bank to maintain a constant turn rate and unload the airplane in pitch to maintain vertical speed.

 

[MAKG1]

Skidding may increase lateral (y-axis) g, but it won't change z-axis g, so it won't change load factor unless you reduce bank to maintain a constant turn rate and unload the airplane in pitch to maintain vertical speed.

I'm not sure I understand your coordinate system completely, but the load factor is just the magnitude of the acceleration, divided by g, so if you change one component of acceleration, you change the load factor.

The lateral acceleration is (turn rate)*airspeed (with some unit conversions), regardless of how that turn rate is made. It's just the usual centripetal acceleration.

 

[dmspilot]

the load factor is just the magnitude of the acceleration, divided by g, so if you change one component of acceleration, you change the load factor.

I've never heard of that definition of load factor before. Load factor is the amount of LIFT generated by the WING divided by the weight of the airplane.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm not sure I understand your coordinate system completely, but the load factor is just the magnitude of the acceleration, divided by g, so if you change one component of acceleration, you change the load factor.

You can change lateral acceleration (i.e., acceleration along the y-axis, i.e., the line from wingtip to wingtip) all you want without changing acceleration in the z-axis (i.e., the load factor).

The lateral acceleration is (turn rate)*airspeed (with some unit conversions), regardless of how that turn rate is made. It's just the usual centripetal acceleration.

If you're speaking about acceleration in the earth-referenced coordinate system, yes, but that's not felt in the aircraft's z-axis and doesn't affect load factor. Further, in an uncoordinated turn, level turn rate is no longer a function only of bank angle and airspeed.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Pretty much.

I'd add, if you're going to overshoot, just let it. Fix it later if there is space. Otherwise, go around.

Worth repeating.

I've overshot turning final before... I just let it go past centerline, and bring it back in line.

If it's a very short approach and I find myself overshooting with no room to get back on centerline, go around time.

Generally I know I want to keep my control pressures very light on the base and base to final turn. I'd rather let the nose fall through the horizon a little excessively than pull hard to counteract it, knowing what that can cause.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I thought we were talking about the base-to-final stall/spin, which in its nastiest form is not coordinated.

The skidding turn is a way to increase load factor beyond what the bank angles say. It's turn rate (times airspeed), not bank angle, that determines the load factor. Rather directly.

A slipping turn has lower load factor (and the conventional slip to a landing has load factor = 1), but it also has lower turn rate, so it doesn't help the overshoot-base-to-final issue.

In a descending turn there is a very small bit more AoA on the inside wing than the outside. A skidding turn increases that difference considerably, which is the killer. It will stall first, before the outside wing, and the airplane will break into a spin. A slipping turn reduces that AoA difference.

Bank too steeply and get the load factor up and the stall speed will rise. Get too slow and maybe the airspeed and stall speed will meet. Skid it some and things will definitely get nasty. I don't know what some folks find so hard about it all.

Straight-ahead accelerated stalls are another killer that PPL students don't get warned about. The guy that takes off and hold it low while it accelerates, or buzzes the runway, and then pulls up hard to impress everyone, is playing with death. Stall speed can easily meet airspeed if one pulls hard enough, and the pilot has no time to get any idea what killed him.

Dan

 

[asechrest]

Straight-ahead accelerated stalls are another killer that PPL students don't get warned about. The guy that takes off and hold it low while it accelerates, or buzzes the runway, and then pulls up hard to impress everyone, is playing with death. Stall speed can easily meet airspeed if one pulls hard enough, and the pilot has no time to get any idea what killed him.

Dan

How close do you think this was to an accelerated stall? Fast forward to the first take off.

 

[drotto]

^^^^

Why would you ever think about taking off like that? I am not sure how close to stall that was, but I did hear the stall horn. I see no reason from deviating from the normal take-off procedure. Why was the passenger laughing about doing something potentially life threatening?

 

[radioguy01]

Straight-ahead accelerated stalls are another killer that PPL students don't get warned about. The guy that takes off and hold it low while it accelerates, or buzzes the runway, and then pulls up hard to impress everyone, is playing with death. Stall speed can easily meet airspeed if one pulls hard enough, and the pilot has no time to get any idea what killed him.

Dan

I used to skydive regularly. And I went to Texas A&M in 1999 (the year the bonfire structure collapsed killing a dozen or so students.) Less heard about just before that was the crash at the skydiving club that killed the pilot, I think the drop zone owner, an instructor or two, and a student or two (five total, I believe). The pilot had a reputation for doing "James Bond" style take offs. Apparently on the fatal crash he took off, stalled, and with all the weight in the plane wasn't able to nose over and crashed.

(Honestly, forgive me for any speculation here. I only jumped there twice and didn't like the vibe, didn't like the piloting, and I didn't like that they relished their poorly maintained Cessna by naming it "duct tape" (was unpainted, no interior, etc.) I was much more comfortable at my home drop zone two hours away.)

 

[Shepherd]

^^^^

Why would you ever think about taking off like that? I am not sure how close to stall that was, but I did hear the stall horn. I see no reason from deviating from the normal take-off procedure. Why was the passenger laughing about doing something potentially life threatening?

Because it's fun? Because it's instructive?
You can do ANY maneuver in ANY aircraft and die doing it, because you were too excessive or to timid. I would opine that more deaths are caused by not knowing what the limits of the aircraft are and accidentally pushing through the envelope.
Air show pilots take off like that all the time, and very few of them end up in the bottom of a smoking hole. Why? Because they understand, not just intellectually, but physically and instinctively what works and what doesn't works with their aircraft.

This discussion started with the "deadly turn to final". Just my humble opinion, but the reason it happens so often is that we have stopped teaching people to fly airplanes in order to teach them to fly tests.
All those nice square corners you were taught to fly in the pattern?
Well you were taught wrong.
Have you ever seen videos of carrier landings? That's the most obvious place to see it in action. From downwind to base to final it's a continuous curve. The Navy does it, the Air Force does it, the Marines do it, the Coast Guard does it. So do the airlines. There is a really good reason for doing it. It makes it easy to correct your mistakes without sacrificing anything. It's harder to over-shoot your final turn to the runway, and it takes the guess work out and decision making easier if you do. You go around. You don't try to fix an over-shoot, you just go around.

Now, who wants to start a thread on doing "S" turns on final? Back before flaps, we used to do them all the time.

 

[docmirror]

Worth repeating.

I've overshot turning final before... I just let it go past centerline, and bring it back in line.

If it's a very short approach and I find myself overshooting with no room to get back on centerline, go around time.

OK, I can grok this. If one gets out of shape on the base to final, no prob, don't grind it just try to let it come back to you and get on centerline. Safe, and easy.

Or, well - how about a plan that doesn't lead to overshoot in the first place? I mean, being off centerline on final is not really stabilized, depending on the amount of overshoot. If it's a small bit, no harm. Maybe start the downwind at a reasonable distance away so that the turns can be kept a safe bank, and leave room for maneuvering on a normal final approach.

I mean, there's no law that says you have to be in tight so that you either over bank or overshoot the centerline, right? Give yourself a bit more room, take it easy out there, and forget about being in gliding distance or staying inside some arbitrary boundary because you want to impress someone online with your pattern prowess.

The stall/spin on final is killing us literally. So, stop it. I know it's hard to admit that a bigger pattern is safer, but try it once. You won't die - literally.

 

[fiveoboy01]

I was going to add that if you're consistently overshooting, then adjust your patterns. But I thought maybe that was a given

 

[FastEddieB]

I was going to add that if you're consistently overshooting, then adjust your patterns. But I thought maybe that was a given

Of course.

Experienced pilots will do this subconsciously. Tailwind component on base? Should be obvious by the crab angle on downwind. Fly a "barely there" base, rolling out just long enough to check final for traffic, and get flaps down if that's part of one's "flow". Then turn to final, rolling out either on or very close to the centerline - all without excessive bank or drama. Or conscious thought, usually.

But...

...an inexperienced or distracted or tired pilot may just not take the tailwind adequately into account and revert to flying a "no-wind" pattern. I venture even the high time professional pilots here may get bit by this once in a great while - it happens.

And unless there are operations on a parallel runway, not a huge deal. Angle back towards the straight in final, or, if not enough time/distance to do so comfortably, go around and try again.

Not much to argue with there, is there?

 

[noobJohn]

I dunno, didn't you see that other thread? The elevator is the primary turn control so pull back hard and turn that plane quickly to get back on track!

Obviously I am kidding. The idea of the barely there base is good if you have a tailwind on base. I've learned to do that based on results and teaching myself. My CFI stressed adjusting for wind and keeping the pattern the correct shape but didn't really point out the implications that would have on the timing of each section of the pattern.

Worth repeating.

I've overshot turning final before... I just let it go past centerline, and bring it back in line.

If it's a very short approach and I find myself overshooting with no room to get back on centerline, go around time.

Generally I know I want to keep my control pressures very light on the base and base to final turn. I'd rather let the nose fall through the horizon a little excessively than pull hard to counteract it, knowing what that can cause.

 

[RoscoeT]

I dunno, didn't you see that other thread? The elevator is the primary turn control so pull back hard and turn that plane quickly to get back on track!

I still don't know where you're getting that. If you're just joking it's an extremely unwitty joke. It would be funny if there was a basis. There's not. Who ever implied what you're joking about? Nobody.

 

[noobJohn]

At least I amuse myself.

If you can't see the connection, I suggest you rewatch the video your hero posted. He demonstrates turning and not turning, while at a constant bank angle, using the elevator. So does the elevator make the plane turn or not? If the elevator controls the turn then what should you do to turn faster? Try applying less hero worship and defensiveness and more logic.

I still don't know where you're getting that. If you're just joking it's an extremely unwitty joke. It would be funny if there was a basis. There's not. Who ever implied what you're joking about? Nobody.

 

[poadeleted20]

Because it's fun?

The fact that a maneuver is "fun" is not an excuse for taking an excessive risk which is otherwise pointless.

Because it's instructive?

If it's "instructive," then do it with an instructor at an altitude where the risk is moderated by having sufficient altitude to recover if you screw it up.

Air show pilots take off like that all the time, and very few of them end up in the bottom of a smoking hole. Why? Because they understand, not just intellectually, but physically and instinctively what works and what doesn't works with their aircraft.

They also have aircraft with very high thrust:weight ratios, and skills which have been specifically evaluated on that maneuver. And they don't have passengers whose lives are also at risk.

Have you ever seen videos of carrier landings? That's the most obvious place to see it in action. From downwind to base to final it's a continuous curve. The Navy does it, the Air Force does it, the Marines do it, the Coast Guard does it.

Have you ever flown a carrier landing? I've got 116 of them in my Navy Flight Log. Do you know why we do it that way? There is a reason, and it has nothing to do with base-final turn stalls. There are also reasons the USAF does it that way, but they are different reasons (yes, I flew jets in the USAF, too).

 

[fiveoboy01]

That youtuber likes to do dumb things at times. While he is good at promoting GA, I don't think he's always the best example of what a conservative pilot should be doing.

Someone called him out on the pull-up... Some excuse about the stall horn not being calibrated correctly.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

That youtuber likes to do dumb things at times. While he is good at promoting GA, I don't think he's always the best example of what a conservative pilot should be doing.

Someone called him out on the pull-up... Some excuse about the stall horn not being calibrated correctly.

haha I call BS

 

[Blackhawk]

The root cause of the "deadly turn to final" is a death grip on the yoke.

Airplanes will "speak" to you if flown correctly. If you fly an airplane with a light control touch and trim the airplane properly you will feel the trim pushing against you if you pull the nose up in the pattern. Or, every once in a while remind yourself to let go of the yoke. The nose should stay right where it is. If the airplane nose moves when you let go of the yoke then it is not trimmed correctly. This becomes even more critical under high stress when the tendency is to tense up, grip harder and contract- or pull the yoke toward your body. I will tell my students at different points on the approach "Let go of the yoke for a moment." I will even do this during turns and at about 200' on final. If they do this and the nose stays where it is, then they are finally getting it.

Here is something to try. Climb up to altitude, put your airplane into the landing configuration and power to idle. Then trim nose up all the way. Most airplanes loaded correctly will not stall- you may get the stall horn, but then the nose will drop and the airplane will porpoise and stabilize a few knots below best glide. Granted, on final you will have some power.... but if the airplane is stall resistant by itself in this configuration... how is it we are stalling/crashing them on final? We are pulling back against the trim.

 

[docmirror]

The root cause of the "deadly turn to final" is a death grip on the yoke.

Airplanes will "speak" to you if flown correctly. If you fly an airplane with a light control touch and trim the airplane properly you will feel the trim pushing against you if you pull the nose up in the pattern. Or, every once in a while remind yourself to let go of the yoke. The nose should stay right where it is. If the airplane nose moves when you let go of the yoke then it is not trimmed correctly. This becomes even more critical under high stress when the tendency is to tense up, grip harder and contract- or pull the yoke toward your body. I will tell my students at different points on the approach "Let go of the yoke for a moment." I will even do this during turns and at about 200' on final. If they do this and the nose stays where it is, then they are finally getting it.

Here is something to try. Climb up to altitude, put your airplane into the landing configuration and power to idle. Then trim nose up all the way. Most airplanes loaded correctly will not stall- you may get the stall horn, but then the nose will drop and the airplane will porpoise and stabilize a few knots below best glide. Granted, on final you will have some power.... but if the airplane is stall resistant by itself in this configuration... how is it we are stalling/crashing them on final? We are pulling back against the trim.

Sorry to be blunt, but this makes no sense. I trim the plane for a fixed cruise speed and cruise. When I'm downwind, I set the trim appropriately, but as soon as I get abeam the numbers, I'm constantly changing pitch, roll, yaw, throttle to correspond to conditions and position. You want I should fly by trim?

Pass.

 

[Fearless Tower]

You want I should fly by trim?



Pass.

That isn't what he is suggesting