Flat approaches & landings - wth?

If staying high and diving at the runway in case of an engine failure is preferred why not foward slip from pattern altitude on every approach? Why bother trying for a 3% glideslope at all?
 
Goofy said:
Why so much fear of an engine quitting on final? How often has that happened? Other than when people select an empty tank.
Click to expand...

I have personally seen two aircraft crashed with 500 feet of the end of the runway due to engine failure on final or in the traffic pattern. I am aware of a number of others. The classic photo of the Cherokee crashed into a tree, was an engine failure on downwind.

As a flight instructor I spend many hours in the traffic pattern, I decided early on, especially since I do a lot of instruction in older airplanes like, Champs and Cubs, that I would prefer to be able to make the runway as much of that time as possible. Better still I want to be proficient at being able to land it where I want to in the event of a power failure.

school1.jpg


Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
dmspilot said:
In other words, there is zero correlation between power-off approaches and excess landing speed.
Click to expand...
Depends on who you talk to. When you pull a pilot aside at the airport and have a discussion about why he flies like that and he tells you it's in case of an engine failure, then yes, there is a correlation.
 
I carry a little bit of power until the flare. Other techniques are wrong. I know this to be true, my experience confirms it. Don't bother explaining any other technique, it is pointless to argue for a flawed technique. BTW, I have thousands of landings.
 
dmspilot said:
In other words, there is zero correlation between power-off approaches and excess landing speed.
Click to expand...
No. It doesn't say that at all. It says it is no more than a 50% correlation, but beyond that, it is not tested.

Correlation isn't as simple as measuring two independent rates.
 
Cooter said:
I carry a little bit of power until the flare. Other techniques are wrong. I know this to be true, my experience confirms it. Don't bother explaining any other technique, it is pointless to argue for a flawed technique. BTW, I have thousands of landings.
Click to expand...

Tell us what you fly and we'll tell you how you're wrong even if we've never flown that type. LOL
 
Fearless Tower said:
Depends on who you talk to. When you pull a pilot aside at the airport and have a discussion about why he flies like that and he tells you it's in case of an engine failure, then yes, there is a correlation.
Click to expand...

You confront random pilots after judging them from the ground?

What do the people who come in flat and land fast say? Or do you not confront those ones?
 
MAKG1 said:
No. It doesn't say that at all. It says it is no more than a 50% correlation, but beyond that, it is not tested.

Correlation isn't as simple as measuring two independent rates.
Click to expand...

If half of people landing with excess speed are making power-off approaches and the other half are making power-on approaches, no correlation between approach technique and excess landing speed can be established. Your statement that the correlation is up to 50% and may or may not exceed 50% is out of context and a non sequitur.
 
dmspilot said:
If half of people landing with excess speed are making power-off approaches and the other half are making power-on approaches, no correlation between approach technique and excess landing speed can be established. Your statement that the correlation is up to 50% and may or may not exceed 50% is out of context and a non sequitur.
Click to expand...
No, it's not at all a nonsequitir. The statement was that the correlation was ZERO. That is not a valid conclusion.

You can place bounds on correlation or anticorrelation from the data given, but you cannot prove, or even motivate, a null hypothesis from that.

You jumped to conclusions. You have no data, and immediately said that means the correlation doesn't exist. It is neither proven nor disproven from the data given.
 
MAKG1 said:
You have no data and immediately said that means the correlation doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
That's not at all what happened. I used someone else's data to demonstrate why their argument was invalid. I am not writing a dissertation for my Ph.D. in statistics.
 
What must his AoA have looked like there.....
 
Topper said:
I know one instructor that teaches students to go around if the stall horn goes off.
Click to expand...

Ick.

GRG55 said:
As the above post notes, can't do that with every airplane. The Aztec has to have some power as I cross the fence and I was taught to "fly it on to the runway". Still need to pay attention to speeds to minimize energy on touchdown, but it's not the strangely satisfying stall warning touchdowns I could do in the various Cherokees.
Click to expand...

Does the Aztec just set up too high a sink rate? I know a lot of twins do. The Seminole doesn't like power off landings either but you can just... barely... get away with them if you close the throttles and you're just a few feet off the ground or you're willing to accept that you have to flare HARD and at exactly the right time. And you'll usually miss the timing.

I've pulled it off a few times when high for a short field landing but it's a heck of a yank to keep it from slamming on. I'm going to guess the AzTruck sinks faster and the timing is even more critical and the pull even harder...? Which makes it "not worth it...".

luvflyin said:
Maybe some of them were practicing ILS or LPV approaches.
Click to expand...

You break out at 200' on those. Slow down and land properly after you toss the hood. The excuse makes no sense.

coloradobluesky said:
Some teach like flying an ILS. Partial flap, power on. Thats ONE way. Good pilot should be able to do it every way.
Click to expand...

True.

FastEddieB said:
Yesterday a fellow posted a video to the AOPA forum on Facebook that made me cringe:

https://www.facebook.com/johnathon.tully/posts/10154776784496329
Click to expand...

That poor nosewheel. If that's a rental the owner is going to be pleased with the upcoming bill. If it his, at least he'll be learning his own lesson.

The post by Machado yesterday of the taildragger landing where the pilot never even moved the flight controls after touching down in a crosswind was even more impressive as a "drive it into the runway and then freeze" video though. And a groundloop. I'm sitting there yelling at the screen... "rudder, rudder... RUDDER...AILERON..." ...wingtip strikes pavement. "Ughggnnnnngh!" I had to get up and leave my desk for a cup of coffee after watching that and the whole way to the break room I'm muttering "Why????" LOL.

Let'sgoflying! said:
Every time this topic comes up, there is a paucity of evidence provided which shows there is any harm from a flat, or power-on approach.
Until someone shows actual harm from a particular method, it is going to be difficult to support changing it.
Show us some statistics! Otherwise, one may be led to believe it is all unsupported pilot opinion.
Same with 'most engine failures occur when the throttle/prop is adjusted'. No proof, or even substantiated anecdote.
Click to expand...

The nosewheel in the video above is one solid reason. It'll harm the whole nosewheel assembly and wear it out early. Not that renters care much... but if you're paying, you'll fix your fast landings and beating up your nosegear ince you get that bill. Notice also in the video he's trying to hold ceterline and skidding the chattering and bouncing tire sideways multiple times. A hole in that tire could mean a little fun in the weeds next to the runway pretty easily which would demonstrate why the technique was poor.

MAKG1 said:
You test your idle at run-up, right?

If it won't idle, it's not safe for flight.
Click to expand...

If I fly from here to Leadville and use the checklist "full rich" for takeoff here and push it "full rich" again up there and pull the carb heat out...

Nothing mis-configured in the carb at all. Just a DA change.

I've also flown a 172 A model that idled fine during the idle check but still stalled on final about ten feet in the air with carb heat on.

It actually had a carb problem, but the idle check -- most don't have you pull carb heat on, because sucking unfiltered air on the ground is bad in some conditions -- passed fine pre-flight.

I was pretty low time at the time and had another low time friend along and after I pushed the nose down and then flared and landed it, we taxied off and looked at each other and said, "well, that was different!" It was his airplane and it needed work. He'd never had it happen. So of course it had to happen to me with him on board. LOL.
 
I got my multi in an old, doggy Apache at KTMB in the late 1970's.

On one of my first landings I throttled back and held it off...held it off...held it off...and got a satisfying main gear first, nose high in the air, near stall landing.

I smiled inside, but my good mood was shattered when my instructor yelled "Dammit Benson! You can't land this thing like a 150!" I thought then and think now that I had shown you pretty much can.

In any case, later flying Aztecs I found a bit of power in the flare could be handy if loaded to a forward CG. Cessna 210's, Cherokee 6's and their brethren similarly benefited when loaded similarly. Otherwise you could run out of elevator authority pretty quickly, resulting in the nose coming down pretty hard. A small touch of power decreased that tendency.

I will stipulate there may be some small GA planes that benefit from power in the approach, flare and landing. But in my experience, they are few and far between and power is often used as a crutch for piloting skills that have gotten a bit rusty.
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
I got my multi in an old, doggy Apache at KTMB in the late 1970's.

On one of my first landings I throttled back and held it off...held it off...held it off...and got a satisfying main gear first, nose high in the air, near stall landing.

I smiled inside, but my good mood was shattered when my instructor yelled "Dammit Benson! You can't land this thing like a 150!" I thought then and think now that I had shown you pretty much can.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much how I always land an Aztec. They land fine power off, although it might not be quite as smooth as if you carried a touch of power.

I agree with your other observations as well.
 
FastEddieB said:
Yesterday a fellow posted a video to the AOPA forum on Facebook that made me cringe:

https://www.facebook.com/johnathon.tully/posts/10154776784496329

I've resisted making a comment so far, but I see these as not so much landings, as just driving the plane onto the runway. Though the last two were at least headed in the right direction with the mains touching slightly first.

Poor nosegear!
Click to expand...
I was surprised the 'no flap' landings were so flat, shouldn't the nose high attitude be exaggerated in a no flap landing? I think I only did a couple of those in training, but I thought they were oddly nose high when I did them. His gliding and short field weren't as bad as his 'normal'.
 
exncsurfer said:
I was surprised the 'no flap' landings were so flat, shouldn't the nose high attitude be exaggerated in a no flap landing? I think I only did a couple of those in training, but I thought they were oddly nose high when I did them.
Click to expand...

Yes, typically if you keep holding off a plane without flaps, the nose will end up higher - and the tail lower - than without flaps.

The Cirrus POH has this "Warning":

7801706398_9dcc53205b.jpg


I think that warning stems from your concern - in a Cirrus a no-flap landing can conceivably result in the nose so high a tail strike begins to be a possibility. Hence the modified procedure, where "flare should be minimized". It also implies all landings in a Cirrus are done with full flaps, the only exceptions being flap failure, glide distance extension and training/practicing for such a failure.
 
brcase said:
I have personally seen two aircraft crashed with 500 feet of the end of the runway due to engine failure on final or in the traffic pattern. I am aware of a number of others. The classic photo of the Cherokee crashed into a tree, was an engine failure on downwind.

As a flight instructor I spend many hours in the traffic pattern, I decided early on, especially since I do a lot of instruction in older airplanes like, Champs and Cubs, that I would prefer to be able to make the runway as much of that time as possible. Better still I want to be proficient at being able to land it where I want to in the event of a power failure.

school1.jpg


Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Click to expand...

Like to hear follow ups. Idling engine don't fail that often. Again, possibly fuel management or carb ice.
 
Goofy said:
Like to hear follow ups. Idling engine don't fail that often. Again, possibly fuel management or carb ice.
Click to expand...

Actually now I remember a 3rd one, Cherokee was fuel exhaustion, 206 not sure, NTSB says undetermined cause, but the plane burned so likely had fuel. 182 was due to improperly painting of the induction system causing paint to peel and block the carburetor.

Brian
 
Goofy said:
Like to hear follow ups. Idling engine don't fail that often. Again, possibly fuel management or carb ice.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty old one and was at Meadowlake as I recall, but I forget what the report says.
 
Personally, I always used to be low and slow, and about halfway through my PPL I started coming in shallow and fast to have that extra speed cushion. Idk what my reasoning was, it takes time to learn I guess! Now I'm pretty much power off the last 100-200 feet and rather steep!
 
Serge Byakov said:
Personally, I always used to be low and slow, and about halfway through my PPL I started coming in shallow and fast to have that extra speed cushion. Idk what my reasoning was, it takes time to learn I guess! Now I'm pretty much power off the last 100-200 feet and rather steep!
Click to expand...

As a low time student, I can easily imagine why that was. We who are just learning think it makes sense to have what we see as the "smoothest, least abrupt changes" kind of landing....hell, why not start from WAY out, straight in, and just lower it a tiny bit gradually til we are inches from the runway, and then stall?

I'm guessing when one starts actually understanding how it all works, not seeing steep as "oh my god, dangerous" and learn how best to control it all, they get to where you are.

Hope I get there, too, fast!
 
Serge Byakov said:
Now I'm pretty much power off the last 100-200 feet and rather steep!
Click to expand...

I like to have power at idle by 50' to 100', if not sooner. If I could get students to the position where the runway was easily made at that point and the power had smoothly come back to idle, it was one less thing to worry about and they could concentrate on the landing.

As an aside, I still find that the things I taught students to make their lives easier still work in my flying to make my life easier!
 
FastEddieB said:
If I were to fly with that pilot, I'd work towards getting him to do those same touch and goes without the nosewheel ever touching. Should be a skill every pilot has.
Click to expand...

Oh my word! What you're proposing sounds dangerous! Well, either that or you've owned an AC with a castoring nose wheel (e.g. Tiger) and want to minimize nose shimmy. Mine doesn't have any shimmy after annual, but as time increases away from annual an adjustment is in order *UNLESS* you've practiced your TNGs not allowing the NG to touch.
 
danhagan said:
Oh my word! What you're proposing sounds dangerous!
Click to expand...
Dangerous? What Eddie is describing is good technique. If you can't perform that skill, how can one ever perform soft field landings?
 
Ryanb said:
Dangerous? What Eddie is describing is good technique. If you can't perform that skill, how can one ever perform soft field landings?
Click to expand...

Any chance of getting at least a brief description from someone of how it works?
I'm trying to figure it out, thinking at touchdown of the back wheels, how to keep the front up and further to takeoff without the nose coming down.

I haven't done touch and goes yet, but thinking that around when the back wheels touch, you have the yoke well back, and are in ground effect, and other than addition of power just not sure of the specifics.
 
LongRoadBob said:
Any chance of getting at least a brief description from someone of how it works?
I'm trying to figure it out, thinking at touchdown of the back wheels, how to keep the front up and further to takeoff without the nose coming down.

I haven't done touch and goes yet, but thinking that around when the back wheels touch, you have the yoke well back, and are in ground effect, and other than addition of power just not sure of the specifics.
Click to expand...
Yeah so basically as you said. Using the wings to support the weight of the airplane instead of the landing gear. The approach is the same as a normal landing, except airspeed/energy management becomes key. You're wanting to touch down as softly and slowly as possible while adding just a smidge of power to keep the weight off the nosewheel with applied back pressure on the yoke.
For the T&G, back pressure is continuously applied while adding full power, until it flies off the surface.

Here's an oldie but goodie:
 
Last edited:
Here's a demo.

The first one is a touch and go without the nosewheel touching, followed by a full stop with the nose held up as long as desired:


Leave just enough power in to hold the nose up. Not really that difficult.

Note: the wide angle on the GoPro makes the final approach look a lot flatter than it really is.
 
GRG55 said:
Difficult to ignore the irony of "single engine IMC no problem because engines are so reliable" and what I'm reading here :cool: :)
Click to expand...
And that's ignoring the fact that with a normal approach (i.e. flaps and 1.3 Vso speed) unless you aim at least 1500 ft past the threshold or fly your entire approach with the throttle closed completely you probably won't end up touching down on the runway if you lose your (only) engine at the worst possible time.

For instance IIRC, the glide ratio of a C172 with partial flaps (gets much worse with full flaps) deployed is between 7:1 and 9:1 depending on the amount of flaps extended. An 8:1 glide ratio requires a 7° descent angle (or more if there's a headwind). Does anyone regularly approach that steeply?
 
Ryanb said:
Dangerous? What Eddie is describing is good technique. If you can't perform that skill, how can one ever perform soft field landings?
Click to expand...

I should have entered a smiley emoji ;):D... I was joking and thought it was apparent. If you own and fly a castoring nose wheel AC most of your TNGs are going to be mains only. We don't have a shimmy damper like the Cessna's ... we have to tire balance, correct torque, tire inflation and check tire wear
 
Somehow, all but one of my nosedraggers has had a free-castering nosewheel.

The one exception was my first plane, a C150.

From there...

Grumman Traveler, Grumman Tiger, Cirrus SR22 and now my Sky Arrow.
 
danhagan said:
Oh my word! What you're proposing sounds dangerous! Well, either that or you've owned an AC with a castoring nose wheel (e.g. Tiger) and want to minimize nose shimmy. Mine doesn't have any shimmy after annual, but as time increases away from annual an adjustment is in order *UNLESS* you've practiced your TNGs not allowing the NG to touch.
Click to expand...

Ryanb said:
Dangerous? What Eddie is describing is good technique. If you can't perform that skill, how can one ever perform soft field landings?
Click to expand...

Sarcasm detector needs an adjustment. ;-)
 
danhagan said:
I should have entered a smiley emoji ;):D... I was joking and thought it was apparent. If you own and fly a castoring nose wheel AC most of your TNGs are going to be mains only. We don't have a shimmy damper like the Cessna's ... we have to tire balance, correct torque, tire inflation and check tire wear
Click to expand...

Yep, there's something to be said for emojis, and steerable nose wheels . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top