Final approach - rudder or ailerons

On the approach, I make smallish (say, 5 degree) heading corrections with...

  • The ailerons of course, and coordinated; THAT is how you fly an airplane.

    Votes: 43 68.3%

  • I prefer the ailerons but rudder is OK, too.

    Votes: 3 4.8%

  • Using the rudder is the RIGHT way.

    Votes: 9 14.3%

  • I prefer the rudder.

    Votes: 8 12.7%

  • Wait, does this airplane have doors on each side??

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    63
alfadog said:
With 51 votes in, here is my take so far.

  • By a 2:1 margin, folks feel using the rudder to make heading corrections on the approach is unacceptable.
  • Four times as many think using aileron is the CORRECT way as think using rudder is the CORRECT way.
Interesting, to me, that folks, like me, are being taught a method that most think is just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

The way it was explained to me is that 'sometimes in training we do things that we don't do in real life. Full approaches is one example.' It was reasoned that 'learning by the rudder nudge method (not booting the rudder) is useful for the new IR student, but in the real world for real IFR flying should not be used. The benefit of this method is that it will help keep the student from overcorrecting which can come with it's own consequences when low and slow in the soup'.

But that's all paraphrased...
 
Jaybird180 said:
The way it was explained to me is that 'sometimes in training we do things that we don't do in real life. Full approaches is one example.' It was reasoned that 'learning by the rudder nudge method (not booting the rudder) is useful for the new IR student, but in the real world for real IFR flying should not be used. The benefit of this method is that it will help keep the student from overcorrecting which can come with it's own consequences when low and slow in the soup'.

But that's all paraphrased...
Click to expand...

I do not agree with building in a bad habit in the training environment. Instrument students should have the basics of flying down and, if they do not, then they need to back up. After two bad landings in a 172 following an LPV practice approach to minimums, I stopped and put 60 hours in a tailwheel airplane to improve my stick and rudder. Last Sat, same LPV approach, same 172, entirely different result; "wow, nice landing" from my experienced safety pilot vs. the earlier "what the hell was that" from my CFII.

edit: I am not convinced that using the rudder on a 172 is a bad habit, but that is what you seem to be saying, "bad habit in real life, OK in training."
 
alfadog said:
I do not agree with building in a bad habit in the training environment. Instrument students should have the basics of flying down and, if they do not, then they need to back up. After two bad landings in a 172 following an LPV practice approach to minimums, I stopped and put 60 hours in a tailwheel airplane to improve my stick and rudder. Last Sat, same LPV approach, same 172, entirely different result; "wow, nice landing" from my experienced safety pilot vs. the earlier "what the hell was that" from my CFII.

edit: I am not convinced that using the rudder on a 172 is a bad habit, but that is what you seem to be saying, "bad habit in real life, OK in training."
Click to expand...

Ordinarily I'd agree with you, however please be mindful that a competent visual pilot may not be so competent in the IMC environment. And as noted above the consequences of overcorrecting is a higher safety risk than being 5 degrees uncoordinated for 2 seconds.
 
Jaybird180 said:
And as noted above the consequences of overcorrecting is a higher safety risk than being 5 degrees uncoordinated for 2 seconds.
Click to expand...

Safety risk? If there is a safety risk involved in making a couple degrees of heading change with gentle aileron application then that pilots needs to go back to basics and get some more primary training.

Needle goes full deflection - go missed. Easy as that. Practice flying under the hood/imc more.
 
lr60plt said:
Safety risk? If there is a safety risk involved in making a couple degrees of heading change with gentle aileron application then that pilots needs to go back to basics and get some more primary training. This is for overcorrecting.

Needle goes full deflection - go missed. Easy as that. Practice flying under the hood/imc more.
Click to expand...

The risk is the tendency to revert to primal (biologically programmed) instincts and to attempt to fly by kinesthetic data versus aircraft instrumentation.

Seems to me that the rudder only method is a crutch being taught to the instrument student not the current and proficient instrument pilot.
 
Well, that's the whole point of instrument training, to get rid of those tendencies.

lr60plt said:
Practice flying under the hood/imc more.
Click to expand...

To me the idea of teaching students to deviate away from normal airplane operation and use techniques such as using the rudder to make small heading changes is kind of ridiculous.

The ailerons can change heading just as gently as the rudder can.
 
Jaybird180 said:
The way it was explained to me is that 'sometimes in training we do things that we don't do in real life. Full approaches is one example.' It was reasoned that 'learning by the rudder nudge method (not booting the rudder) is useful for the new IR student, but in the real world for real IFR flying should not be used. The benefit of this method is that it will help keep the student from overcorrecting which can come with it's own consequences when low and slow in the soup'.

But that's all paraphrased...
Click to expand...

Pretty well paraphrased. Nudging with the rudder is another crutch that is taught in training that you should limit as much as possible in actual use. My particular reason for avoiding it is not one of safety but one of comfort for the pax.
 
Jaybird180 said:
The risk is the tendency to revert to primal (biologically programmed) instincts and to attempt to fly by kinesthetic data versus aircraft instrumentation.

Seems to me that the rudder only method is a crutch being taught to the instrument student not the current and proficient instrument pilot.
Click to expand...

That's part of the problem with training, we don't have the patience or ability to teach it correctly, so we toss a crutch in there. The problem is the crutch becomes a permanent prosthesis and the patient never recovers, just continues limping.
 
lr60plt said:
Well, that's the whole point of instrument training, to get rid of those tendencies.



To me the idea of teaching students to deviate away from normal airplane operation and use techniques such as using the rudder to make small heading changes is kind of ridiculous.

The ailerons can change heading just as gently as the rudder can.
Click to expand...

It takes 6 control inputs vs 2. Ail+Rud+Ele (forget about the miniscule energy loss and that you should add a leeetle throttle) + return to course - do it all the opposite direction vs Rudder in+ Rudder out

It's just another tool in the toolbag. I personally probably won't use it, but I can see how it's application can be useful if used judiciously.
 
Henning said:
My particular reason for avoiding it is not one of safety but one of comfort for the pax.
Click to expand...

This is a good point as well.

As the airplane gets bigger they will get even more uncomfortable as they get farther away from the vertical axis that they rotate/yaw around.
 
Jaybird180 said:
It takes 6 control inputs vs 2. Ail+Rud+Ele (forget about the miniscule energy loss and that you should add a leeetle throttle) + return to course - do it all the opposite direction vs Rudder in+ Rudder out
Click to expand...

Doing whatever is most simple is a pretty terrible way to look at things in aviation. Why do anything? Why start the engine correctly or even do a runup? Thats way too much work...:rolleyes2:

Also you do realize that the rudder will bank the aircraft as well right? Right rudder, yaws the airplane, left wing moves forward - more speed - more lift, banks the airplane.

If it REALLY takes you "6 control inputs" that you have to *think* about to make small heading changes while on a stabilized approach...well...good luck.

If you have to change heading by a few degrees, try to be precise with the ailerons. Then you don't have to worry about this over correcting/banking/safety factor issue.
 
Right now, after reading all the responses, the solution to this, for me, seems to be to go out and practice half standard rate turns until I can make them without thinking and with only a glance at the TC. Five degrees at that rate is over three seconds and that seems plenty of time to execute a coordinated turn. I might not make that change until after my ride as I already have all my training done. Not sure, depends if I get more practice time in before the ride than I need to just prep for it.
 
Half standard can be useful, but for instrument approaches, practice turns with 2-3 degrees of bank.
 
alfadog said:
Right now, after reading all the responses, the solution to this, for me, seems to be to go out and practice half standard rate turns until I can make them without thinking and with only a glance at the TC. Five degrees at that rate is over three seconds and that seems plenty of time to execute a coordinated turn. I might not make that change until after my ride as I already have all my training done. Not sure, depends if I get more practice time in before the ride than I need to just prep for it.
Click to expand...

Try doing "waves", it's like learning to hovering a helicopter; you don't so much move the controls as put pressure on them for a moment and then wait for the response to follow in a second or so. Most people over correct in planes and boats for the same reason, you are operating in reference to a fluid environment where inertia lags input considerably longer than in a car where we are operating on a solid medium with exacting control responses.

The difference between a smooth pilot and a jinky one is the ability to accurately judge inertial lead and lag of their inputs.
 
j1b3h0 said:
Half standard can be useful, but for instrument approaches, practice turns with 2-3 degrees of bank.
Click to expand...

On what instrument do you have the resolution to measure 2 degrees of bank?
 
Henning said:
Pretty well paraphrased. Nudging with the rudder is another crutch that is taught in training that you should limit as much as possible in actual use. My particular reason for avoiding it is not one of safety but one of comfort for the pax.
Click to expand...


So using the rudder is a "crutch". The rudder is a just as much a flight control surface as ailerons. Using the logic thus far demonstrated in this thread I'm left to suppose that using the rudder to straighten the nose during a cross wind landing is poor pilotage as well. If not, please tell me the difference between using rudder to nudge the nose a point or two on the localizer versus using the rudder to push the nose 5 or more points during the flare in a crosswind. (ps. the amount of rudder we're talking about on an ILS is not noticeable by the passengers)

I think the biggest problem is most pilots don't have a clue as how to use the rudder. Most GA aircraft don't require much if any rudder. Until you've flown aerobatics, an old cub or similar taildragger, biplane or other rudder intensive plane you never get the true idea of how useful the rudder can be. Try coming over the top during an inside loop with your neck arching back trying to find your reference mark. The rudder is an important tool to keep the aircraft square in the box.
 
Baron2PG said:
So using the rudder is a "crutch".
Click to expand...

Using the rudder alone is definitely a crutch for instructors who do not know how to teach someone fine control using coordinate controls, that is correct. Never said it's unusable or dangerous, just poor technique to make up for laziness or inability.
 
Jaybird180 said:
On what instrument do you have the resolution to measure 2 degrees of bank?
Click to expand...

The attitude indicator:If it's the 'sky pointer' type, look at the top of the instrument, where the triangles meet. Older styles, look at the bank angle indicies. The Instrument Flying Handbook suggests never banking more degrees than the degrees of heading change. If you want to change heading 2 degrees, bank 2.
 
If a certified airplane is kept below Va, by definition the pilot should be able to go full deflection in one direction with any single control, with total disregard for structural integrity.
Click to expand...

I've seen cracked vertical stabilizer attach brackets and bolts in a number of airplanes that got thrown around without exceeding Va; the airplanes still experienced damage over time; the loading will do that. Snap off the first time a full-throw control input is made? No. Can damage result? Yes.

I think the biggest problem is most pilots don't have a clue as how to use the rudder. Most GA aircraft don't require much if any rudder. Until you've flown aerobatics, an old cub or similar taildragger, biplane or other rudder intensive plane you never get the true idea of how useful the rudder can be. Try coming over the top during an inside loop with your neck arching back trying to find your reference mark. The rudder is an important tool to keep the aircraft square in the box.
Click to expand...

Do you often join the localizer out of an inside loop? Not really relevant then, to how one flies an instrument approach, is it?

I've been doing utility flying for a long time, including conventional gear flying. Some of that required instrument flying, and it didn't change the way the instrument approach was flown.

In slightly more sophisticated aircraft, most often the rudder has no part of the controlling of the aircraft during an instrument approach. Even in a Category III ILS in the airplane I've been flying, using two autopilots engaged to a touchdown auto land, the autopilot uses aileron, not rudder to stay on the localizer.

There's no reason to use the rudder as a crutch.
 
DouglasBader said:
In slightly more sophisticated aircraft, most often the rudder has no part of the controlling of the aircraft during an instrument approach. Even in a Category III ILS in the airplane I've been flying, using two autopilots engaged to a touchdown auto land, the autopilot uses aileron, not rudder to stay on the localizer.
Click to expand...

The two CAT III models I flew used rudder when the autoland mode became active. Otherwise, how is the airplane to decrab and align in a crosswind?
 
DouglasBader said:
Do you often join the localizer out of an inside loop? Not really relevant then, to how one flies an instrument approach, is it?
.
Click to expand...

The point is when performing many aerobatic maneuvers a coordinated turn isn't practical; the rudder is used to plant the nose of the plane where it needs to be.

On an ILS the proper use of the rudder we're discussing is a minute correction of the localizer; basically applying a bit of pressure on the pedal to keep the nose tracking. Nobody is advocating throwing the airplane around with the rudder.
 
Baron2PG said:
On an ILS the proper use of the rudder we're discussing is a minute correction of the localizer; basically applying a bit of pressure on the pedal to keep the nose tracking. Nobody is advocating throwing the airplane around with the rudder.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You are simply holding pressure to keep the needle centered; bit more pressure to move it back where it belongs. Flew with my CFII on Sat and asked him what the DPE wants to see, rudder or aileron. The DPE he uses wants to see rudder.
 
Well, I am an old dog who refuses to learn a new trick... I automatically blend rudder and aileron for changes in heading, no matter how small - and I do not wallow from side to side on the ILS doing this... The airplane flies smoothly and the needle reacts smoothly...
Any DPE who would criticize my flying because I did not use just rudder (uncoordinated flight) for maintaining a centered needle would shortly after be having a conversation with me and his boss... I don't tolerate drunks or swollen egos well...
 
Jim_R said:
But if your localizer needle is mostly centered and you notice it ever so slightly edging off to one side, my CFII gave me the tip that a gentle rudder deflection can be used to halt that needle excursion with less chance of overcorrecting than trying to make such a subtle correction with a coordinated turn.
Click to expand...

This is also how I was taught. I use coordinated turns when I am trying to change direction by 5 degrees or more, but if I am trying to make very small heading changes, I only use the rudder.

Ryan
 
The question should be, do you want to be a "hack" or not?

hack1    [hak] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to cut, notch, slice, chop, or sever (something) with or as with heavy, irregular blows (often followed by up or down ): to hack meat; to hack down trees.
2.
to break up the surface of (the ground).
3.
to clear (a road, path, etc.) by cutting away vines, trees, brush, or the like: They hacked a trail through the jungle.
4.
to damage or injure by crude, harsh, or insensitive treatment; mutilate; mangle: The editor hacked the story to bits.
5.
to reduce or cut ruthlessly; trim: The Senate hacked the budget severely before returning it to the House.
 
The two CAT III models I flew used rudder when the autoland mode became active. Otherwise, how is the airplane to decrab and align in a crosswind?
Click to expand...

No rudder input on the Classic 747. It's essentially a two-axis autopilot. The exception was on our three-autopilot aircraft; roll-out control is available. On the two-autopilot airplanes, it's up to the pilot to manage the rudder with his own two feet.

How to decrab and align in a crosswind? In the 747, you don't.
 
aterpster said:
As does the granddaddy of fail-active autoland, the L1011.
Click to expand...

I remember riding one of TWA's into a CATIII into Frankfurt, it was pretty abrupt but more so mentally lights close out of nowhere and chunck chunck and you're on, no golf course or cemetery or city scape.
 
Henning said:
I remember riding one of TWA's into a CATIII into Frankfurt, it was pretty abrupt but more so mentally lights close out of nowhere and chunck chunck and you're on, no golf course or cemetery or city scape.
Click to expand...

I flew the L1011 for TWA. Near the end of my time there, I often flew a pairing LAX-HNL-LAX. The return leg was a night trip arriving at LAX about 0600. Ground fog, when it is present at LAX, is usually about it worse as it gets light, but before sunrise.

I recall doing three CAT III autolands when the RVRs were at, or close to minimums. We were still in the fog when the main gear touched down. The HIRLs, and TDZ lights didn't become visible until the nose was probably about half-way through lowering.

Awesome equipment. But, I often thought of that stray fuel truck lost on the runway. :hairraise:

I also flew the 767, which also had CAT III autoland. I never did an actual CAT III in that airplane but a couple of CAT IIs. CAT III autoland, in my opinion, finally made CAT II safe.

A side note on the L1011: When CAT III mode became active (around the OM) the rudder became active and remained so until either at the end of the landing roll or after going out of Go Around mode on a missed approach. So, if an wing engine was inop, that was a critical item to remember in the event of a go-around. Otherwise the airplane would roll over on its back going of out GA mode, especially with all the power and low speed at that point.
 
Last edited:
aterpster said:
II mode became active (around the OM) the rudder became active and remained so until either at the end of the landing roll or after going out of Go Around mode on a missed approach. So, if an wing engine was inop, that was a critical item to remember in the event of a go-around. Otherwise the airplane would roll over on its back going of out GA mode, especially with all the power and low speed at that point.
Click to expand...

That's where the Airbus shines. When on autopilot the airplane trims itself for whatever condition of flight. If go around is selected and on single engine the autopilot trims the rudder and stabilator.
 
RotorAndWing said:
That's where the Airbus shines. When on autopilot the airplane trims itself for whatever condition of flight. If go around is selected and on single engine the autopilot trims the rudder and stabilator.
Click to expand...

Yep. The L1011 went into service in 1971.
 
woodstock said:
In my dim memory I seem to remember kicking the rudder to get you back on track can lead to stalling and fall down go boom.
Click to expand...

Aerodynamically, I can't picture how that would happen unless you were pretty much at stall speed already. Kicking in the rudder isn't going to increase drag that much.

I think the right answer is to fly the airplane. I honestly don't know which way I do it, I just fly the airplane and try to keep it at least 1.3 x Vso. It seems like I'd use rudder to put in and take out a crab? Trying to fly it in my mind...
 
bflynn said:
Aerodynamically, I can't picture how that would happen unless you were pretty much at stall speed already. Kicking in the rudder isn't going to increase drag that much.

I think the right answer is to fly the airplane. I honestly don't know which way I do it, I just fly the airplane and try to keep it at least 1.3 x Vso. It seems like I'd use rudder to put in and take out a crab? Trying to fly it in my mind...
Click to expand...

Are you talking about flying a precision instrument approach? Usually well about 1.3 x Vso.
 
denverpilot said:
Too bad they didn't have LED light bulbs for gear down indicators. Or autopilot active indicators that kicked off at the same yoke pressure...
Click to expand...

They did have a light on the mode control panel that went out when the autopilot was tripped from command to cws.

After that accident they added a loud noise in addition to the light.

Did we have LEDs in 1971?
 
aterpster said:
They did have a light on the mode control panel that went out when the autopilot was tripped from command to cws.

After that accident they added a loud noise in addition to the light.

Did we have LEDs in 1971?
Click to expand...

We most certainly did, 1962.
 
aterpster said:
They did have a light on the mode control panel that went out when the autopilot was tripped from command to cws.
Click to expand...

Which went out only on the side that had been pushed offline, and not the other, if I remember correctly. One of the original case studies in making sure dual annunciators/systems show the same thing.

aterpster said:
After that accident they added a loud noise in addition to the light.
Click to expand...

Yup.

aterpster said:
Did we have LEDs in 1971?
Click to expand...

Pretty puny ones. Almost all only available in Red. Think early HP calculators with the magnifying lenses... Took another four or five years to up the light output and size and to start seeing bigger seven-segment displays, etc.

Definitely ahead of its day, but Florida swamps like to eat jets. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top