Flying by the numbers ?

[PaulS]

It’s not its effectiveness I doubt. It’s the possibility of ingraining the wrong message. “the airspeed indicator is not important for landing. Your landings will be better if you don’t use it. “

A friend of mine flies f18s. He said they fly by aoa, not airspeed on approach. I find once I’m used to an airplane and power settings, airspeed falls right into place. Wind is only a factor for power settings, (making the runway), and in the flare.

 

[TCABM]

This is very different than covering up needed instruments during instrument training IMO.

I’m not trying to talk you out of anything, seems clear there’s no chance of that. Just stating my opinion.

It seems to me stall spins are a bigger problem than unstable approaches. Again JMO

Can’t spin if you don’t stall. Can’t stall if you’re configured correctly. From my POH, below.

So at max gross, no power, no flaps, and 60* bank, when trimmed for 80mph, we get into downwind to base stall-spin territory.

Flaps 10/60* bank/75mph and we’re at base to final stall-spin territory.

Reality is downwind to base is flaps 10/no more than 30* bank/80mph; generously that’s 63mph indicated stall speed. At max gross. Base to final, flaps 10*, no more than 30* bank, 75mph, generously, there’s still at least 12mph of margin above stall speed.

Your plane has different numbers. Is there a pattern/landing configuration that doesn’t provide you a stall margin in whatever POH-type thing you have?

 

[midlifeflyer]

It’s not its effectiveness I doubt. It’s the possibility of ingraining the wrong message. “the airspeed indicator is not important for landing. Your landings will be better if you don’t use it. “

Not if it’s used properly. The lesson doesn’t end until the pilot can do it with the ASI uncovered and cross-referenced to confirm performance rather than something to chase.

Bear in mind I generally don’t do this with certificated pilots who have good pattern habits. They don’t need it.

 

[Dana]

Visual cues alone aren't enough, just as airspeed alone doesn't tell the whole picture, a lot is how the airplanefeels. Granted that's perhaps the toughest thing for a new pilot to get, and there's less "feel" in a heavier faster airplane where the numbers get more important.

All of the airplanes I've owned have fairly light stick forces, so I trim for cruise and leave it there (they're also fairly slow planes, so I'm still at cruise speed on downwind). A lot of that "feel" is how much back pressure I'm holding and how it changes as I turn and slow down on base and final.

It's also why I dislike flying Cubs (I know, sacrilege!). The Cub's stick forces are so heavy that you have to trim for comfort as you slow down, masking that feedback. I'm sure more practice would alleviate that, but I don't have that much Cub time.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I am NOT a CFI. And I have limited hours compared to most. But every purely visual flyer I have flown with, is a seat of the pants flyer with an unstable approach. Airspeed is all over the place, they are constantly correcting, often too much, they fail to anticipate. The reality is humans suck at distance and visual determination of absolute and relative vectors/speed. It takes a lot of practice to master these skills, and very few pilots fly enough to do so. In addition, if you are only visual and using ground references for speed determination, I hope you never fly in high winds. This can really throw off your IAS, to the point where you will have a stall spin accident. The POH gives IAS speeds for a reason, not ground speed.

The reality is "fly by the numbers" means exactly that. Use the numbers for power/pitch to get into the ballpark, fine tune as needed and adjust for conditions. When flying visual, cross check constantly, use IAS as controlling so you do not stall/spin into the ground.

Tim

Unfortunately when describing such things on the internet, we don’t take the time to brief them as fully as we do when we’re actually using these techniques with students. Among other things, trim is a player in this, and if “airspeed is all over the place”, the pilot is totally ignoring feedback from the airplane. Same with anyone who gets to the point of stall/spin.

You’re not talking about “purely visual” pilots, you’re talking about crappy pilots. Those exist in the “purely visual” end of the spectrum, the “purely instrument” end of the spectrum, and everywhere in between.

 

[dmspilot]

I am NOT a CFI. And I have limited hours compared to most. But every purely visual flyer I have flown with, is a seat of the pants flyer with an unstable approach. Airspeed is all over the place, they are constantly correcting, often too much, they fail to anticipate.

And if you were a CFI you would know that this is caused by being ham-fisted, poor trimming, and by NOT using visual references properly. It's certainly not caused by being a "purely visual flyer", whatever that means.

And if you were a CFI you would know that "airspeed all over the place" often stems from fixation on the airspeed indicator and chasing the needle while ignoring visual references. In other words, the problem is the exact opposite of what you think it is.

In addition, if you are only visual and using ground references for speed determination, I hope you never fly in high winds. This can really throw off your IAS, to the point where you will have a stall spin accident.

At no point did anyone suggest using the speed of the ground to determine airspeed, but this strawman just proves a lack of understanding.

 

[Tools]

Flying is exactly opposite of most sports. The opposite of muscle memory. It’s about visual memory if you will. If the sight picture is right, you’re going to get the correct performance/response. Period.

Flying well demands being able to make the sight picture correct and keeping it that way. Cross reference the instruments to teach your brain what the correct sight picture looks like. And what the wrong one looks like. You may push, you may pull, who knows, who cares. More or less disregard most tactile feedback but CONCENTRATE on keeping the sight picture correct. On instruments that means putting the pipper where you want it to a spot about 1/4 the actual size of the pipper.

I absolutely believe in being able to fly in ANY condition with no instruments except your eyes. They fail and you do anyway…. Any or all of the others failing should not constitute an emergency.

“Flying the numbers” should teach you what that correct sight picture looks like.

 

[Dave Palacios]

A friend of mine flies f18s. He said they fly by aoa, not airspeed on approach. I find once I’m used to an airplane and power settings, airspeed falls right into place. Wind is only a factor for power settings, (making the runway), and in the flare.

That's what i was saying, although most light airplanes don't have an AOA indicator, unless they have been upgraded in some way, how ever we still can fly by AOA, its just our indicator is our senses. I you start getting a buffet you know the AOA is getting too high. I think today instructors only teach stalls without letting the student experience the full stall, may be even only to the first horn / light indication (in the interest of safety of course, or that's the way they were taught). It may be the only or at least one positive way to learn to know when the wing is flying or not.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Flying is exactly opposite of most sports. The opposite of muscle memory. It’s about visual memory if you will. If the sight picture is right, you’re going to get the correct performance/response. Period.

Flying well demands being able to make the sight picture correct and keeping it that way. Cross reference the instruments to teach your brain what the correct sight picture looks like. And what the wrong one looks like. You may push, you may pull, who knows, who cares. More or less disregard most tactile feedback but CONCENTRATE on keeping the sight picture correct. On instruments that means putting the pipper where you want it to a spot about 1/4 the actual size of the pipper.

I absolutely believe in being able to fly in ANY condition with no instruments except your eyes. They fail and you do anyway…. Any or all of the others failing should not constitute an emergency.

“Flying the numbers” should teach you what that correct sight picture looks like.

And that sight picture isn’t JUST about pitch attitude relative to the horizon, or keeping your aiming point in the windshield…it’s keeping track of those (and other) visual parameters, so that if one changes you can cross check against the others and make appropriate corrections, thus avoiding all of those unsafe/deadly conditions that people are worried about.

 

[luvflyin]

It’s not its effectiveness I doubt. It’s the possibility of ingraining the wrong message. “the airspeed indicator is not important for landing. Your landings will be better if you don’t use it. “

That’s going to depend on how the CFI presents it. I would guess that most, likely all, would say we’re going to do a couple landings with ASI covered. It’s an exercise that will help give you perspective. Then go back to uncovered ASI.

 

[Dave Palacios]

Flying is exactly opposite of most sports. The opposite of muscle memory. It’s about visual memory if you will. If the sight picture is right, you’re going to get the correct performance/response. Period.

Flying well demands being able to make the sight picture correct and keeping it that way. Cross reference the instruments to teach your brain what the correct sight picture looks like. And what the wrong one looks like. You may push, you may pull, who knows, who cares. More or less disregard most tactile feedback but CONCENTRATE on keeping the sight picture correct. On instruments that means putting the pipper where you want it to a spot about 1/4 the actual size of the pipper.

I absolutely believe in being able to fly in ANY condition with no instruments except your eyes. They fail and you do anyway…. Any or all of the others failing should not constitute an emergency.

“Flying the numbers” should teach you what that correct sight picture looks like.

Sounds about right, but sight is only one sense. also i should say something about instruments (i haven't till now) If on instruments, definitely you are more going by instrument indications, but even then you can't completely ignore other senses, ie. engine sounds (higher / lower rpm sounds) wind noise etc.

 

[Dave Palacios]

Can’t spin if you don’t stall. Can’t stall if you’re configured correctly. From my POH, below.

So at max gross, no power, no flaps, and 60* bank, when trimmed for 80mph, we get into downwind to base stall-spin territory.

Flaps 10/60* bank/75mph and we’re at base to final stall-spin territory.

Reality is downwind to base is flaps 10/no more than 30* bank/80mph; generously that’s 63mph indicated stall speed. At max gross. Base to final, flaps 10*, no more than 30* bank, 75mph, generously, there’s still at least 12mph of margin above stall speed.

Your plane has different numbers. Is there a pattern/landing configuration that doesn’t provide you a stall margin in whatever POH-type thing you have?

I wouldn't tell anyone to throw the poh out the window, for sure. Notice how skimpy it is (of course i know there is an expanded section, but in flight i am not sure that's the time to study it) i think it gets you into the ballpark (granted it's a small ball park), Consider: legacy instruments in your plane may be somewhat off (or a lot off, depending on how old or how recent they were overhauled) I have seen guys who don't even get the part 91.411 / 91.413 (pitot static / xponder correspondence) test required in certain AS / flight ops. And the glass stuff may not be calibrated (flew with a guy who set the alarms way high just to be sure). Just IMO outside cues should be included and you should not be a robot, using all available resources, means all available resources.

 

[Tools]

Eventually it all just assimilates. It’s a matter of what technique gets you to that assimilation stage.

I can tell you that if you “pull check feather clean select lock then do your A B Cs” in a T-34C you WILL survive an engine failure. Period. Don’t really even need to know how to fly, just do the procedure…

In light civil aviation, making the sight picture correct to achieve “the numbers” desired, will get you through the day. Period. It’s up to your instructor to control the environment enough to ensure that works effectively. And to allow that environmental window to open as you learn to assimilate.

 

[Dave Palacios]

That’s going to depend on how the CFI presents it. I would guess that most, likely all, would say we’re going to do a couple landings with ASI covered. It’s an exercise that will help give you perspective. Then go back to uncovered ASI.

can't remember but my original cfi, must have done that (cover up the ASI) but quite a bit ago i found out on short final i don't watch the ASI and didn't realize it, found out when it failed and didn't know till landing, all was normal.

 

[Initial Fix]

A friend of mine flies f18s. He said they fly by aoa, not airspeed on approach. I find once I’m used to an airplane and power settings, airspeed falls right into place. Wind is only a factor for power settings, (making the runway), and in the flare.

True. But, the control laws change in the hornet with gear down to use an Alpha reference.

 

[Dave Palacios]

Can’t spin if you don’t stall. Can’t stall if you’re configured correctly. From my POH, below.

So at max gross, no power, no flaps, and 60* bank, when trimmed for 80mph, we get into downwind to base stall-spin territory.

Flaps 10/60* bank/75mph and we’re at base to final stall-spin territory.

Reality is downwind to base is flaps 10/no more than 30* bank/80mph; generously that’s 63mph indicated stall speed. At max gross. Base to final, flaps 10*, no more than 30* bank, 75mph, generously, there’s still at least 12mph of margin above stall speed.

Your plane has different numbers. Is there a pattern/landing configuration that doesn’t provide you a stall margin in whatever POH-type thing you have?

Also: can't really know if you are in a stall if you never experienced it fully. "a stall can occur at any AS / flight config." see airplane flying handbook; page 1-13

 

[Dave Palacios]

Curious, was it gusty?

very

 

[Dave Palacios]

It’s not about being robotic. It’s about efficiency - having targets that get you in the ballpark. Of course you have to tweak for conditions. When I work with someone on landing issues, the first thing I notice (ok, it’s only 90% of the time) is that they are working too hard, I even (over) do this silly demo thing where I fly parts of the pattern with no hands with very little variation in airspeed or descent rate from my target for that phase.

It’s not for beginners. To the contrary, flying by the numbers is a staple for the most experienced instrument pilots.

yes agreed "staple for ifr" but even then there is more to it, can you tell if you are in a descent or ascent by listening to engine rpm when the AI gets lazy or justs gives up? pitot/ static ports ice or clog? mostly speaking of basics here.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

I think today instructors only teach stalls without letting the student experience the full stall, may be even only to the first horn / light indication (in the interest of safety of course, or that's the way they were taught).

Ah... no. We teach recovery from a full stall, both power on and off, for primary students.

 

[Dave Palacios]

I’ve met many pilots who do odd things that they claim their instructor taught them, when in reality they misunderstood or misinterpreted what the instructor said. Happens way more often than instructors teaching odd things.

Yep, but i am sure its perspective and it is probably in reality 50 / 50 as far as misinterpreted and misunderstanding as well

 

[Dave Palacios]

Ah... no. We teach recovery from a full stall, both power on and off, for primary students.

awsome !! but not all. i have flown with newbee instructors that are a little twitchy even with 45 60 deg banks, and i have been told, by instructors that it's not necessary to do full stalls because they are no longer in the pts (sorry ACS).

 

[midlifeflyer]

yes agreed "staple for ifr" but even then there is more to it, can you tell if you are in a descent or ascent by listening to engine rpm when the AI gets lazy or justs gives up? pitot/ static ports ice or clog? mostly speaking of basics here.

I don't know if it's intentional or not but you are definitely misunderstanding what is being said. Maybe stuck on what you believe rather than what is?

 

[midlifeflyer]

I don't know if it's intentional or not but you are definitely misunderstanding what is being said. Maybe stuck on what you believe rather than what is?

For example...

i have been told, by instructors that it's not necessary to do full stalls because they are no longer in the pts (sorry ACS).

Here's the Skill portion the current ACS for the Private Pilot power off stall task:

...and the power-on stall:

 

[Salty]

That’s going to depend on how the CFI presents it. I would guess that most, likely all, would say we’re going to do a couple landings with ASI covered. It’s an exercise that will help give you perspective. Then go back to uncovered ASI.

We seem to have a lot of fatalities from stall spins. Don’t know of nearly so many due to unstable approaches.

 

[tspear]

Using my technique and explanation to the pilot, I have had exactly the opposite results. 100% of the time (which even surprises me). Chasing airspeed is kept to a minimum and the approach is incredibly stable.

But I understand what you are saying. In fact, I felt pretty much the same way when it was first tried on me - in a Tiger, a type I had never flown before and in which airspeed control and stability is essential. After a few times around the pattern, he covered the panel with a newspaper. "This should be interesting," I thought. On short final, he pulled the newspaper away. Airspeed was exactly on target.

Most of the times I have a pilot do it (because their approach is unstable), more instability is exactly what they expect will happen. Then they do it and realize they were more stable throughout the approach than they had been before and the real culprit - fixation on the ASI - ends. What you may be missing is, it's not seat of the pants. It's the same type of pitch-power-configuration setup used for instrument flying, but applied to visual flight.

That means the pilot is over correcting. And covering the ASI is a tool you are using to try and prevent over correcting and obsessing on air speed.

Tim

 

[midlifeflyer]

We seem to have a lot of fatalities from stall spins. Don’t know of nearly so many due to unstable approaches.

The stats I've seen over the past several years appear suggest that the base-to-final stall spin doesn't happen often and is exceeded by both takeoff problems and runway overruns. This article indicates it's something like 4% of pattern accidents, although it's pretty obvious that, while the risk of occurrence is low the fatality rate when it happens is very high.

But if you are saying that something suggested here would increase the likelihood of that stall, I'll have to disagree,

 

[midlifeflyer]

That means the pilot is over correcting. And covering the ASI is a tool you are using to try and prevent over correcting and obsessing on air speed.

Tim

That is a major part of it. The other big piece is teaching the pilot something they already knew but didn't realize - that they know the sight picture for a good, stable landing.

Another application of the same principle is, I have been known to cover the ASI and altimeter for ground reference maneuvers when the student has been having trouble with them. Same cause - fixating on those instruments and chasing them around instead of using the instruments to confirm what the giant attitude indicator outside is telling them. After completion of, say, a few turn around a point, I'd uncover it. As I uncovered it, one of my students used to say, "And the mystery altitude is...."

 

[dmspilot]

We seem to have a lot of fatalities from stall spins. Don’t know of nearly so many due to unstable approaches.

So you think these things are orthogonal? You don't think a stall/spin is more likely from an unstable approach than a stable one? Odd take, but that's not really the reason for covering the instruments anyway.

 

[Daleandee]

And if you were a CFI you would know that "airspeed all over the place" often stems from fixation on the airspeed indicator and chasing the needle while ignoring visual references. In other words, the problem is the exact opposite of what you think it is.

My first instructor told me to never chase the airspeed because you will never catch it. He insisted there was nothing on the panel I needed to see and that those instruments (VFR) were there to confirm what I already knew.

Study the position of the nose when climbing at full power, cruise flight, and gliding at idle power, as that will help to find the proper airspeed when ever you can't see the ASI.

FWIW ... I have a LRI (Lift reserve Indicator) installed and I prefer it to the ASI ...

 

[Salty]

What I’m saying is being missed, which is sad, but I’m not going to argue about it. It’s just possible a student might get the wrong message. Was just emphasizing that it’s NOT about not using airspeed, and the student should be clear that it’s not about that. When you cover something up in primary, the message many would get it “you shouldn’t be using that”.

I am not saying anybody is doing anything wrong.

 

[Tools]

Hehe, the message should be “that (ASI?) is a privilege. Use it right and I’ll give it back”, ha!

 

[midlifeflyer]

What I’m saying is being missed, which is sad, but I’m not going to argue about it. It’s just possible a student might get the wrong message. Was just emphasizing that it’s NOT about not using airspeed, and the student should be clear that it’s not about that. When you cover something up in primary, the message many would get it “you shouldn’t be using that”.

I am not saying anybody is doing anything wrong.

It’s not being missed, just disagreed with. Wrong message possible if something is taught incorrectly or inadequately? Absolutely! Happens every day.

But when I do it with already certificated pilots, it’s usually because they got the message from their primary training that the single most important thing with landing is the airspeed indicator with the result that they fixate and chase it, completely disregarding visual cues.

So I’ll agree with you in both being possible, but we’ll have to disagree on which is more probable. Repeated lessons targeting the ASI or a single lesson, with one or at the most two circuits demonstrating fixation is not necessary.

 

[dmspilot]

What I’m saying is being missed, which is sad, but I’m not going to argue about it. It’s just possible a student might get the wrong message. Was just emphasizing that it’s NOT about not using airspeed, and the student should be clear that it’s not about that. When you cover something up in primary, the message many would get it “you shouldn’t be using that”.

I am not saying anybody is doing anything wrong.

So the three hours of hood time will make the student think they shouldn't look outside. Stall practice will make students think stalls are good. Short field landing practice will make a student think they should land on a 700 foot runway. Could make an argument analogous to yours about almost anything.

 

[tspear]

That is a major part of it. The other big piece is teaching the pilot something they already knew but didn't realize - that they know the sight picture for a good, stable landing.

Another application of the same principle is, I have been known to cover the ASI and altimeter for ground reference maneuvers when the student has been having trouble with them. Same cause - fixating on those instruments and chasing them around instead of using the instruments to confirm what the giant attitude indicator outside is telling them. After completion of, say, a few turn around a point, I'd uncover it. As I uncovered it, one of my students used to say, "And the mystery altitude is...."

Ok, got it now. Interesting, I do not recall ever having that problem flying VMC. On the other hand, when learning IFR, I did the windshield wiper effect a probably every instrument

Tim

 

[TCABM]

Also: can't really know if you are in a stall if you never experienced it fully. "a stall can occur at any AS / flight config." see airplane flying handbook; page 1-13

Which version of the AFH are you looking at? The current version is below.


The 8083-3B (previous version) on pp 1-12 & 1-13 also cover stall awareness. The context is still AOA and the quote is that a stall does not occur until critical AOA is exceeded and the quote is "The pilot must understand and appreciate factors such as airspeed, pitch attitude, load factor, relative wind, power setting, and aircraft configuration in order to develop a reasonably accurate mental picture of the wing's AOA at any particular time."

 

[Salty]

So the three hours of hood time will make the student think they shouldn't look outside. Stall practice will make students think stalls are good. Short field landing practice will make a student think they should land on a 700 foot runway. Could make an argument analogous to yours about almost anything.

Hood time is done way after this usually. And you made my point for me, thank you. It IS obvious when you put a hood on. It is not obvious when a student is struggling and you cover the instrument and suddenly they don’t struggle any more. It’s very easy for a student to learn the wrong lesson there. “Hey, when I stopped looking at airspeed I did better, so I’ll stop looking at airspeed.”
I’m saddened that you guys are arguing with me. Again, I’m not saying your wrong, but I see an opening for an unintended result. One that seems all too common.

Maybe you aren’t arguing, maybe I’m taking it too personally. If so, no harm. Just expected to get more of a “yeah, good thought, I’ll make sure that message doesn’t come through” kind of response. Though personally, I think there are better ways to teach a stable approach than covering the primary instrument for the manuever. JMO

 

[MauleSkinner]

Hood time is done way after this usually. And you made my point for me, thank you. It IS obvious when you put a hood on. It is not obvious when a student is struggling and you cover the instrument and suddenly they don’t struggle any more. It’s very easy for a student to learn the wrong lesson there. “Hey, when I stopped looking at airspeed I did better, so I’ll stop looking at airspeed.”
I’m saddened that you guys are arguing with me. Again, I’m not saying your wrong, but I see an opening for an unintended result. One that seems all to common. Somebody is teaching these people that stall spin…..

The stall/spin has nothing to do with using or ignoring a particular instrument. It has to do with ignoring multiple inputs. That’s not a product of instruction, it’s a product of ignoring instruction.

 

[Dave Palacios]

For example...

Here's the Skill portion the current ACS for the Private Pilot power off stall task:
View attachment 129455
...and the power-on stall:

View attachment 129456

I wasn't quoting the ACS, I was quoting a cfi. i didn't check up on him, i didn't have a need to. in practice i have no problem do stalls to full break. Not often but once or twice i have let them go into a one turn spin on purpose

 

[Dave Palacios]

Which version of the AFH are you looking at? The current version is below.
View attachment 129458

The 8083-3B (previous version) on pp 1-12 & 1-13 also cover stall awareness. The context is still AOA and the quote is that a stall does not occur until critical AOA is exceeded and the quote is "The pilot must understand and appreciate factors such as airspeed, pitch attitude, load factor, relative wind, power setting, and aircraft configuration in order to develop a reasonably accurate mental picture of the wing's AOA at any particular time."

current version "C"

 

[Dave Palacios]

Is this friend you went flying with a cfi? After being out of the cockpit for two years you really need the skills of a cfi.

Yes you are right!, but the situation was that none were available and at the time no plane was available, except my friend and his plane. And i found that i was not so far out of it that it was dangerous.