Flying by the numbers ?

[Dave Palacios]

I have been grounded for about 2 years, boy does time go quick, due to upgrades in progress. So the other day i talked a friend in goeing flying in his airplane. looked at the poh for those numbers (specifically speeds in the pattern). I know i am rusty. So on final i wasn't to stabolized chasing the speeds my friend uses. After we landed and took a break my friend told me "it wasn't a stabilized approach" and said that an instructor told him 80 on down wind, 70 on base, 65 on final and that if you stick to those numbers it all works out, also when i took off i rotated at the speed that the poh stated and then looked down the runway, he intervened and pushed the yoke forward and said he saw i wasn'nt looking at the airspeed and we were slowing down . well I decided to have him demonstrate, he has been flying for some time. His approach was just as unstable. As I watched the airspeed he didn't hold to those speeds he stated. The next day we fly to another airport with me in the left seat I decided to not try to follow someone else's method and found that without thinking about it and just fly according to what muscle memory reacts to what is happening things went very smooth almost like i never stopped. Could it be that what flight instructors tell us is a starting point at the beginning of our training. because a new student does,not have any skills of the visual cues of what the air is doeing, after all the atmosphere is dynamic, and after we learn these visual cues and sense engine, wind, exceleration, deceleration etc.we don't realize it. So when we talk about it to someone we revert to what we were told in our early training ? What do others here think ? By the way on those flights it wasn't exactly smooth air. Also previously i had a flight review and the instructor told me to use the speeds he uses (similar model to what i was flying) i was all over the place trying to stay with his speeds, it seem to screw me up. I am sure there are instructors here this forum i would like to here them too.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

Dave, you didn't say what airplane you were flying. The numbers 80, 70, 65 work for most Cessna Skyhawks (knots). That's assuming 10 degrees of flaps on downwind, 20 degrees on base, and 30 on final.

As you gain experience, you will also gain the ability to "feel" the appropriate airspeed in the pattern. Part is sound, part is control response... and it is always a good idea on final to use the mantra "airspeed, runway. Airspeed, runway" to adjust your focus. On final, use pitch to maintain airspeed and power to control the rate of descent. If runway numbers are rising in the windscreen, add a touch of power. If they are starting to slide under the nose, reduce power.

On takeoff, learn the sight picture for the best rate of climb. It will depend on the airplane, how tall you are, how high or low your seat is, etc. But still crosscheck the speed now and then. Since you are usually at or near full power (depending on the airplane) you can easily control your speed with a few degrees of pitch change.

Yes, I am a CFI, and all of my flying these days is training primary students.

 

[chemgeek]

The POH is your friend. The numbers are there to allow you to fly safely. If you fly final approach too fast, you can run off the end of the runway. (I flew right seat with someone who tried that, flying a C172 at 80 kt down final instead of 60-65. Throw in one bad brake on top of that and we almost had a very bad day.) Fly too slow, and you risk a stall/spin incident. If you use the POH approach speed, you get a predictable, easily controllable approach and landing. Same applies to takeoffs, Vx and Vy are important numbers for maximum obstacle clearance and maximum climb rates. If the "numbers" are messing you up, maybe you are not trimming effectively.

The "numbers" are different for different types. Fly my AA-5 at C172 airspeeds and you will get in a lot of trouble.

 

[Dave Palacios]

Dave, you didn't say what airplane you were flying. The numbers 80, 70, 65 work for most Cessna Skyhawks (knots). That's assuming 10 degrees of flaps on downwind, 20 degrees on base, and 30 on final.

As you gain experience, you will also gain the ability to "feel" the appropriate airspeed in the pattern. Part is sound, part is control response... and it is always a good idea on final to use the mantra "airspeed, runway. Airspeed, runway" to adjust your focus. On final, use pitch to maintain airspeed and power to control the rate of descent. If runway numbers are rising in the windscreen, add a touch of power. If they are starting to slide under the nose, reduce power.

On takeoff, learn the sight picture for the best rate of climb. It will depend on the airplane, how tall you are, how high or low your seat is, etc. But still crosscheck the speed now and then. Since you are usually at or near full power (depending on the airplane) you can easily control your speed with a few degrees of pitch change.

Yes, I am a CFI, and all of my flying these days is training primary students.

i don't think i made my point clear, i apologize for that. I don't think model or speeds is the point. it just seems that it all changes as it happens, if you act as a robot in an environment that is changing it just isn't going to work out, well maybe if you only fly in smooth air it might seem to. just my opinion. And I appreciate your input. I do get it though, with beginners you got to give them something to go on to start.

 

[Dave Palacios]

The POH is your friend. The numbers are there to allow you to fly safely. If you fly final approach too fast, you can run off the end of the runway. (I flew right seat with someone who tried that, flying a C172 at 80 kt down final instead of 60-65. Throw in one bad brake on top of that and we almost had a very bad day.) Fly too slow, and you risk a stall/spin incident. If you use the POH approach speed, you get a predictable, easily controllable approach and landing. Same applies to takeoffs, Vx and Vy are important numbers for maximum obstacle clearance and maximum climb rates. If the "numbers" are messing you up, maybe you are not trimming effectively.

The "numbers" are different for different types. Fly my AA-5 at C172 airspeeds and you will get in a lot of trouble.

I thank you for that, i know some guys that don't even carry a poh or its in the pouch behind the seat that never gets looked at, I know that's illegal and i don't condone it but they know there plane i guess. Not only does the numbers differ with the planes but also differ with the conditions.
thank you for your input. That must have been a wild ride in that 172.

 

[Larry in TN]

it just seems that it all changes as it happens, if you act as a robot in an environment that is changing it just isn't going to work out, well maybe if you only fly in smooth air it might seem to.

That is all true.

Instructors will proceduralize the traffic pattern for students because they don't have the experience from which to make judgements. The procedure gives them a starting point, targets to work towards, as they learn how to fly a pattern. With experience, they'll learn to adjust the procedure based on actual conditions and aircraft state.

If you're having trouble keeping the speeds and flight path that you want in the pattern, whatever they are, then you aren't stabilized. It doesn't matter so much what your targets are, just that you can maintain them, and adjust them to fit the circumstance.

The phrase, 'by the numbers', always reminds me of this old FAA training film, Safety by the Numbers. I add the link only because I like the nostalgia, and the C-310, which was my first multiengine airplane.

 

[Dana]

I've owned seven airplanes, and not one had a POH.

 

[midlifeflyer]

i don't think i made my point clear, i apologize for that. I don't think model or speeds is the point. it just seems that it all changes as it happens, if you act as a robot in an environment that is changing it just isn't going to work out, well maybe if you only fly in smooth air it might seem to. just my opinion. And I appreciate your input. I do get it though, with beginners you got to give them something to go on to start.

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.

 

[Tools]

Hmmm… I think the term “flying by the numbers” is misleading. It’s using a certain sequence of control manipulations that give you those numbers.

We did this at the boat at a WHOLE NUTHER LEVEL. I mean 27 degrees angle of bank, fuel flow to about a 50 lbs an hour accuracy, vsi within 50 fpm accuracy. I could fly from abeam to on the ball without EVER looking outside.

So it can be done, it works, blah blah blah.

It’s a method to develop that intuition you describe. You’ve apparently got that, so now you’re describing a situation where you’re trying to fly those numbers to learn a sequence of control manipulations… all bass ackwards. Sounds frighteningly difficult!!

Fly your intuitive sequence of events and modify them as necessary to achieve the numbers you learn in the POH.

 

[Racerx]

Curious, was it gusty?

 

[unsafervguy]

i don't think i made my point clear, i apologize for that. I don't think model or speeds is the point. it just seems that it all changes as it happens, if you act as a robot in an environment that is changing it just isn't going to work out, well maybe if you only fly in smooth air it might seem to. just my opinion. And I appreciate your input. I do get it though, with beginners you got to give them something to go on to start.

you seem to be mixing up what is really happening. speeds from the POH are determined by physics. they are a target. how you get to that target is a event that is constantly changing in three dimensions. the goal in landing is to maintain glide path and maintain the proper airspeed. that is where the not be a robot part comes in. what you change to meet the goal of path and airspeed is ever changing. if your on path, on speed you will be in the touchdown zone every time with no float and no "falling out of the sky" thats the idea of a stabilized approach. as tools said, if you have proper setup, that will get you in the ball park every time and slight corrections will adjust for changing conditions without chasing anything. as for climb out, like gilbert said, learning the sight picture for the plane will put you on vx or vy every time.

 

[Dave Palacios]

That is all true.

Instructors will proceduralize the traffic pattern for students because they don't have the experience from which to make judgements. The procedure gives them a starting point, targets to work towards, as they learn how to fly a pattern. With experience, they'll learn to adjust the procedure based on actual conditions and aircraft state.

If you're having trouble keeping the speeds and flight path that you want in the pattern, whatever they are, then you aren't stabilized. It doesn't matter so much what your targets are, just that you can maintain them, and adjust them to fit the circumstance.

The phrase, 'by the numbers', always reminds me of this old FAA training film, Safety by the Numbers. I add the link only because I like the nostalgia, and the C-310, which was my first multiengine airplane.

Awesome video ! a little moldy but probably all true today, especially with them older twins that turn the same way, thanks that was great (although the phrase by the numbers was mentioned, no actual numbers were mentioned, (well except for vmc, and even then he padded it). i think you kinda see my point, (I think). thanks for that video

 

[Dave Palacios]

Hmmm… I think the term “flying by the numbers” is misleading. It’s using a certain sequence of control manipulations that give you those numbers.

We did this at the boat at a WHOLE NUTHER LEVEL. I mean 27 degrees angle of bank, fuel flow to about a 50 lbs an hour accuracy, vsi within 50 fpm accuracy. I could fly from abeam to on the ball without EVER looking outside.

So it can be done, it works, blah blah blah.

It’s a method to develop that intuition you describe. You’ve apparently got that, so now you’re describing a situation where you’re trying to fly those numbers to learn a sequence of control manipulations… all bass ackwards. Sounds frighteningly difficult!!

Fly your intuitive sequence of events and modify them as necessary to achieve the numbers you learn in the POH.

Bla Bla, LOl. hey I don't doubt there are guys with a bigger ego than me, such as yourself, more power to you.

 

[dcat127]

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.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I have been grounded for about 2 years, boy does time go quick, due to upgrades in progress. So the other day i talked a friend in goeing flying in his airplane. looked at the poh for those numbers (specifically speeds in the pattern). I know i am rusty. So on final i wasn't to stabolized chasing the speeds my friend uses. After we landed and took a break my friend told me "it wasn't a stabilized approach" and said that an instructor told him 80 on down wind, 70 on base, 65 on final and that if you stick to those numbers it all works out, also when i took off i rotated at the speed that the poh stated and then looked down the runway, he intervened and pushed the yoke forward and said he saw i wasn'nt looking at the airspeed and we were slowing down . well I decided to have him demonstrate, he has been flying for some time. His approach was just as unstable. As I watched the airspeed he didn't hold to those speeds he stated.

Flying by the numbers only works if you actually fly the numbers. Doesn’t sound like either of you did that.

The next day we fly to another airport with me in the left seat I decided to not try to follow someone else's method and found that without thinking about it and just fly according to what muscle memory reacts to what is happening things went very smooth almost like i never stopped.

What numbers did you end up flying?

Could it be that what flight instructors tell us is a starting point at the beginning of our training. because a new student does,not have any skills of the visual cues of what the air is doeing, after all the atmosphere is dynamic, and after we learn these visual cues and sense engine, wind, exceleration, deceleration etc.we don't realize it. So when we talk about it to someone we revert to what we were told in our early training ? What do others here think ? By the way on those flights it wasn't exactly smooth air. Also previously i had a flight review and the instructor told me to use the speeds he uses (similar model to what i was flying) i was all over the place trying to stay with his speeds, it seem to screw me up. I am sure there are instructors here this forum i would like to hear them too.

No, what instructors tell you is generally the simplest technique to accomplish the goal, assuming traffic permits flying that technique. Set a single power setting, fly the pattern just so wide, adjust drag at these specific points and the drag reduces your speed, and throttle to idle when the runway is made.

When that technique “doesn’t work,” it’s usually because one of those parameters was changed or not thoroughly understood, and so adjustments have to be made.

 

[midlifeflyer]

i had a flight review and the instructor told me to use the speeds he uses

I do have one qualm with this. It depends on why the instructor was insisting on using his speeds. "Yours works just fine, but I like this technique better" violates my First Commandment of Flight Instruction. "You seem to be unstable and working way to hard, constantly playing with the throttle and making multiple changes, so let's try this" is ok.

I don't know which it is and would not be able to tell without being in the airplane watching.

 

[Initial Fix]

I’ve met many pilots who continue to follow odd things their instructor taught them. Everything from personal minimums a first solo would use, avoiding any ATC because they are “mean”, no clouds for 100 miles, and more. All certified pilots.

If 80, 70, 65 works, then use it as a guide. It gets you close to where you will need to be. A stable approach means your aligned with the runway centerline and glidepath, on speed and not chasing any of those except for small corrections. Not that you are exactly 65.000000 knots every time, as weight and wind gust correction will cause that to vary.

 

[YakDrvr]

Flying by the numbers is the best way to get reliably good results. The problem is you are looking at the wrong numbers. The correct numbers would be power setting for each leg of the pattern (manifold pressure, RPM, etc), pitch to maintain appropriate rate of descent/climb, and wind adjusted spacing for downwind. Proper airspeeds are a result of correct inputs. Basically, input the correct control settings and you will get good performance every time.

Once you know the proper control inputs it is easy to handle unusually strong headwinds, crosswinds, etc because you have a solid foundation to build off of.

 

[dmspilot]

I try not to change a pilot's technique if they have one that works well. Unfortunately some don't have a technique and every lap around the pattern appears to be a series of random choices with regard to power, flaps, and speed. If I ask a question like "why didn't you use any flaps on that one" the answer is either "I don't know" or "I forgot."

 

[TCABM]

I… "You seem to be unstable and working way to hard, constantly playing with the throttle and making multiple changes, so let's try this" is ok…

Just flew 1.7 with a CFI I’ve flown with occasionally before, working on power off landings.

One thing he noticed was I was really busy abeam the numbers, resulting in airspeed excursions +|- 10kts at one point. On the next lap instead of waiting for the altimeter to hit pattern altitude to level off and get to the new power setting, then re-trim for level flight at the desired airspeed, he recommend at TPA-50’ to just go to my power setting the resulted in 80kts and not touch anything else.

So I tried it. Abeam the numbers it was carb heat, throttle back, flaps 10, and watched it settle back to 80kts. Nailed 75 turning base, 70 turning final, and hit my aimpoint on the centerline each and every time.

That small change (reduce power 50’ below TPA) made such a huge difference in everything I did afterwards that it’ll likely become my new technique.

But without him watching the little things I was doing in the first 5 seconds after being abeam the numbers, I could have never figured it out on my own.

 

[Dave Palacios]

I’ve met many pilots who continue to follow odd things their instructor taught them. Everything from personal minimums a first solo would use, avoiding any ATC because they are “mean”, no clouds for 100 miles, and more. All certified pilots.

If 80, 70, 65 works, then use it as a guide. It gets you close to where you will need to be. A stable approach means your aligned with the runway centerline and glidepath, on speed and not chasing any of those except for small corrections. Not that you are exactly 65.000000 knots every time, as weight and wind gust correction will cause that to vary.

My point, almost exactly

 

[tspear]

Interesting how there so many opinions on what "flying by the numbers means".
I was taught there are two parts to flying by the numbers. Having known numbers/positions to produce known conditions; e.g. throttle here, produces around X speed in level flight... The second part is just as critical, having known numbers for specific stages of flight, and using the initial known positions of the controls to get into the ball park and then adjusting for conditions to match the target desired. e.g. Often power settings used for winter produce higher speeds than in summer, the pilot needs to adjust.

Tim

 

[Dave Palacios]

Just flew 1.7 with a CFI I’ve flown with occasionally before, working on power off landings.

One thing he noticed was I was really busy abeam the numbers, resulting in airspeed excursions +|- 10kts at one point. On the next lap instead of waiting for the altimeter to hit pattern altitude to level off and get to the new power setting, then re-trim for level flight at the desired airspeed, he recommend at TPA-50’ to just go to my power setting the resulted in 80kts and not touch anything else.

So I tried it. Abeam the numbers it was carb heat, throttle back, flaps 10, and watched it settle back to 80kts. Nailed 75 turning base, 70 turning final, and hit my aimpoint on the centerline each and every time.

That small change (reduce power 50’ below TPA) made such a huge difference in everything I did afterwards that it’ll likely become my new technique.

But without him watching the little things I was doing in the first 5 seconds after being abeam the numbers, I could have never figured it out on my own.

Pretty hard to see things (habits) for yourself always helps if someone is on board monitoring and can point things out to latter, it doesn't have to be an instructor unless you are a student pilot (without a ppl, i believe we are forever students, you never learn it all). Allso it sounds like you just needed to spread the workload out instead of trying to do it all at once.

 

[Dave Palacios]

My point, almost exactly

" I’ve met many pilots who continue to follow odd things their instructor taught them",, Me too ! i think some guys get to a point and figure that's all that's needed instead of continuing to think outside the box.

 

[MauleSkinner]

" I’ve met many pilots who continue to follow odd things their instructor taught them",, Me too ! i think some guys get to a point and figure that's all that's needed instead of continuing to think outside the box.

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.

 

[TCABM]

Pretty hard to see things (habits) for yourself always helps if someone is on board monitoring and can point things out to latter, it doesn't have to be an instructor ….

The value wasn’t “hey your airspeed isn’t consistent”. The value was diagnosing why it was inconsistent, transferring the knowledge of not just a new technique, but when to apply it, knowing when to intervene (…just let it stabilize), and then reinforcing at the appropriate points until I had successfully adapted to the new technique.

There were also a couple of other things he id’d that, combined, resulting in floating due to airspeed not being where it needed to be at the point necessary to land at the point I picked out. Didn’t matter that I was on centerline, touching down mains first, at the right sink rate. It mattered that I wasn’t within CSEL ACS standards, which was my goal today.

 

[PaulS]

Flying with and listening to wannabe instructors can drive you nuts. You sound like you are still searching for the right answer. Find a good instructor and work your questions out with that person.

I generally hit airspeed numbers unless something like ATC is screwing that plan up. Power settings are estimates, airspeeds make life easier. The one airspeed number I try to hit consistently is my over the fence number. I was flying an airplane with an AOA indicator for a while, I loved that.

Finding a good instructor is your best bet. You won't need to question things if you do, plus you will know what advice to ignore.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Just flew 1.7 with a CFI I’ve flown with occasionally before, working on power off landings.

One thing he noticed was I was really busy abeam the numbers, resulting in airspeed excursions +|- 10kts at one point. On the next lap instead of waiting for the altimeter to hit pattern altitude to level off and get to the new power setting, then re-trim for level flight at the desired airspeed, he recommend at TPA-50’ to just go to my power setting the resulted in 80kts and not touch anything else.

So I tried it. Abeam the numbers it was carb heat, throttle back, flaps 10, and watched it settle back to 80kts. Nailed 75 turning base, 70 turning final, and hit my aimpoint on the centerline each and every time.

That small change (reduce power 50’ below TPA) made such a huge difference in everything I did afterwards that it’ll likely become my new technique.

But without him watching the little things I was doing in the first 5 seconds after being abeam the numbers, I could have never figured it out on my own.

I like that CFI. That sounds exactly like something I’ve done with pilots more times than I can remember. Most often during transition and recurrent training because they were never taught it before.

There’s a similar one for entering the pattern from a descent. As you descend and get near the pattern, you bring the power back to the one you know will give you the desired downwind airspeed. Not all at once but in increments - you don’t want to unnecessarily slow down 8 miles from the airport . When you level off, the airplane will go to the desired speed.

It’s really just a way of being ahead of the airplane. A way of reducing workload. When I was doing primary training I taught this from Day 1. When one gets to faster and more complex airplanes, it’s pretty much necessary. Instrument work, it’s essential.

 

[TCABM]

… When you level off, the airplane will go to the desired speed…

That’s the lesson I learned today.

…
It’s really just a way of being ahead of the airplane. A way of reducing workload. When …

That’s what I re-learned today. Hopefully I’ll retain it.

I like that CFI. …

Nick Dopp, Texas Skies Flight School, 5C1. Every time I’ve flown with Nick, I’ve become a better pilot. Best thing is that until about a week ago, he wasn’t even teaching full time.

 

[Clip4]

I have been grounded for about 2 years, boy does time go quick, due to upgrades in progress. So the other day i talked a friend in goeing flying in his airplane. looked at the poh for those numbers (specifically speeds in the pattern). I know i am rusty. So on final i wasn't to stabolized chasing the speeds my friend uses. After we landed and took a break my friend told me "it wasn't a stabilized approach" and said that an instructor told him 80 on down wind, 70 on base, 65 on final and that if you stick to those numbers it all works out, also when i took off i rotated at the speed that the poh stated and then looked down the runway, he intervened and pushed the yoke forward and said he saw i wasn'nt looking at the airspeed and we were slowing down . well I decided to have him demonstrate, he has been flying for some time. His approach was just as unstable. As I watched the airspeed he didn't hold to those speeds he stated. The next day we fly to another airport with me in the left seat I decided to not try to follow someone else's method and found that without thinking about it and just fly according to what muscle memory reacts to what is happening things went very smooth almost like i never stopped. Could it be that what flight instructors tell us is a starting point at the beginning of our training. because a new student does,not have any skills of the visual cues of what the air is doeing, after all the atmosphere is dynamic, and after we learn these visual cues and sense engine, wind, exceleration, deceleration etc.we don't realize it. So when we talk about it to someone we revert to what we were told in our early training ? What do others here think ? By the way on those flights it wasn't exactly smooth air. Also previously i had a flight review and the instructor told me to use the speeds he uses (similar model to what i was flying) i was all over the place trying to stay with his speeds, it seem to screw me up. I am sure there are instructors here this forum i would like to here them too.

After rotation on takeoff, Vy can be maintained by a reference point on the aircraft (nose or glare shield) in relation to the horizon.


In the pattern in most airplanes, the relationship between the reference point and horizon will maintain your airspeeds on the downwind to base turn, base, and the base to final turn. Flaps will slow the airplane about 5 KIAS per increment,

 

[midlifeflyer]

In the pattern in most airplanes, the relationship between the reference point and horizon will maintain your airspeeds on the downwind to base turn, base, and the base to final turn. Flaps will slow the airplane about 5 KIAS per increment,

When someone has landing issues, it’s often about chasing airspeed, so I cover the airspeed indicator to make this point. Things calm down immediately.

It was done to me during a checkout in a Tiger years ago. I thought it was brilliant and have been using the technique ever since. When I was doing primary instruction, I used the “cover the primary instruments” technique for maneuvers as well as landings. And ever since it was done to me, no student of mine soloed until they landed that way.

 

[Salty]

When someone has landing issues, it’s often about chasing airspeed, so I cover the airspeed indicator to make this point. Things calm down immediately.

It was done to me during a checkout in a Tiger years ago. I thought it was brilliant and have been using the technique ever since. When I was doing primary instruction, I used the “cover the primary instruments” technique for maneuvers as well as landings. And ever since it was done to me, no student of mine soloed until they landed that way.

Covering up a primary instrument during initial training seems like a bad idea to me. If you covered my airspeed indicator during landing for primary training, I’d assume you were trying to say airspeed is not important for this maneuver. My instructors just reminded me how to use it correctly rather than covering it up.

In fact, using only visual reference and ignoring airspeed is a good way to end up with a stall spin if the engine stops.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Covering up a primary instrument during initial training seems like a bad idea to me. If you covered my airspeed indicator during landing for primary training, I’d assume you were trying to say airspeed is not important for this maneuver. My instructors just reminded me how to use it correctly rather than covering it up.

Are you making an assumption that this was the first thing taught? And that its purpose was not explained? If so, neither are correct.

It was a demonstration of what @Clip4 described - that this is a visual maneuver in which instruments are cross-checked to confirm what eyes outside are telling you and need not be fixated on or chased.

Really no different in principle than making a no-flap landing.

OTOH, if you prefer that the first time a student faces this is on a solo flight where a bug blocks the pitot tube…

 

[tspear]

Are you making an assumption that this was the first thing taught? And that its purpose was not explained? If so, neither are correct.

It was a demonstration of what @Clip4 described - that this is a visual maneuver in which instruments are cross-checked to confirm what eyes outside are telling you and need not be fixated on or chased.

Really no different in principle than making a no-flap landing.

OTOH, if you prefer that the first time a student faces this is on a solo flight where a bug blocks the pitot tube…

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

 

[luvflyin]

I have been grounded for about 2 years, boy does time go quick, due to upgrades in progress. So the other day i talked a friend in goeing flying in his airplane. looked at the poh for those numbers (specifically speeds in the pattern). I know i am rusty. So on final i wasn't to stabolized chasing the speeds my friend uses. After we landed and took a break my friend told me "it wasn't a stabilized approach" and said that an instructor told him 80 on down wind, 70 on base, 65 on final and that if you stick to those numbers it all works out, also when i took off i rotated at the speed that the poh stated and then looked down the runway, he intervened and pushed the yoke forward and said he saw i wasn'nt looking at the airspeed and we were slowing down . well I decided to have him demonstrate, he has been flying for some time. His approach was just as unstable. As I watched the airspeed he didn't hold to those speeds he stated. The next day we fly to another airport with me in the left seat I decided to not try to follow someone else's method and found that without thinking about it and just fly according to what muscle memory reacts to what is happening things went very smooth almost like i never stopped. Could it be that what flight instructors tell us is a starting point at the beginning of our training. because a new student does,not have any skills of the visual cues of what the air is doeing, after all the atmosphere is dynamic, and after we learn these visual cues and sense engine, wind, exceleration, deceleration etc.we don't realize it. So when we talk about it to someone we revert to what we were told in our early training ? What do others here think ? By the way on those flights it wasn't exactly smooth air. Also previously i had a flight review and the instructor told me to use the speeds he uses (similar model to what i was flying) i was all over the place trying to stay with his speeds, it seem to screw me up. I am sure there are instructors here this forum i would like to here them too.

This reminds me of when I returned to flying after about 25 years off. I flew with 3 different instructors at three different airports during about 5 hours of getting a Flight Review completed. I was not dissatisfied with first one who I finished with. I was having trouble with managing the plane in the pattern and landing. I told her I was going to fly with some other CFI’s and she celebrated the idea. One of them was at an airport with a short runway and some complex issues with runway slope and obstacles on final to one of the runways. Realizing I was obsessing with air speed, I told him I wanted to cover the ASI and do it by sight and sound. It helped a lot. Things began clicking into place.

 

[midlifeflyer]

But every purely visual flyer I have flown with, is a seat of the pants flyer with an unstable approach.

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.

 

[midlifeflyer]

This reminds me of when I returned to flying after about 25 years off. I flew with 3 different instructors at three different airports during about 5 hours of getting a Flight Review completed. I was not dissatisfied with first one who I finished with. I was having trouble with managing the plane in the pattern and landing. I told her I was going to fly with some other CFI’s and she celebrated the idea. One of them was at an airport with a short runway and some complex issues with runway slope and obstacles on final to one of the runways. Realizing I was obsessing with air speed, I told him I wanted to cover the ASI and do it by sight and sound. It helped a lot. Things began clicking into place.

Exactly. For the unbelievers. This is one of those things that sounds counterintuitive. Until you do it.

 

[Salty]

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. “

 

[Salty]

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

 

[PaulS]

My primary instructor did this to me, talk about nervous, but it worked great.