Help me flare

exncsurfer said:
I always liked this one the way they break down the aiming point transition down the runway. I wish someone would redo this in better quality.:

I think this helped me when I was working on my timing issues. I was flaring too high and this helped show me how far you hold your stable approach before doing anything.
Click to expand...

The video is a demo of the Jacobson flare I mentioned earlier in the thread.
 
Stingray Don said:
The video is a demo of the Jacobson flare I mentioned earlier in the thread.
Click to expand...

I'll have to take your word for it. I'm not one for paying for those nonsense "the secret is behind this paywall" websites. And the video isn't narrated, nor does it have a description other than a couple shifting aimpoints and "flare here" indicator.
 
what am I missing? that video, to me, says aim for a spot, when you get there, roundout then look down the runway. I have to pay someone (other than my primary CFI) to tell me that?
 
eman1200 said:
what am I missing? that video, to me, says aim for a spot, when you get there, roundout then look down the runway. I have to pay someone (other than my primary CFI) to tell me that?
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone was recommending paying anyone for a technique. I didn't know it was a named technique, I just found the video helpful. Kinda like apple's patented rectangular grid of icons eh.
 
exncsurfer said:
I don't think anyone was recommending paying anyone for a technique. I didn't know it was a named technique, I just found the video helpful. Kinda like apple's patented rectangular grid of icons eh.
Click to expand...

The video is good. We're just criticizing the "that's the paywall technique I mentioned earlier with no description because it is hidden behind a paywall" thing.
 
Jacobson Flare - since the paywall is an issue, I will provide a brief description of what you are seeing in the video and how I use the technique. These numbers are for the 172 and will be different for other planes because the geometry is different. The app provides calculations that can be used to determine values for other models. Once established on final, I aim for the top of the first stripe - this is aim point 1. Keep that point stationary in your field of view with the yoke and use throttle to adjust airspeed. The cut off point will be a point that is 90 feet in front of aim point 1. Standard runway stripes are 120 feet long. So the cut off point is 1/4 of the way up from the bottom of that first stripe. Once the cut off point just disappears from view, you are 10 feet over the runway. You can use other points on the runway but they just need to be between 90 - 100 feet apart for the 172. You could also use the top of the numbers for aim point 1 and the top of the threshold stripes (runway width markings) which is 100 feet. The important thing is that you are using the same points so you will have a consistent flare point above the runway. Once you reach the cut off point you adjust your aim point up the runway until your aim point is the end of the runway (aim point 2). That is it in a nutshell. The app has a lot more detailed information and a discussion of all the geometry which is very helpful.
 
Stingray Don said:
Jacobson Flare - since the paywall is an issue, I will provide a brief description of what you are seeing in the video and how I use the technique. These numbers are for the 172 and will be different for other planes because the geometry is different. The app provides calculations that can be used to determine values for other models. Once established on final, I aim for the top of the first stripe - this is aim point 1. Keep that point stationary in your field of view with the yoke and use throttle to adjust airspeed. The cut off point will be a point that is 90 feet in front of aim point 1. Standard runway stripes are 120 feet long. So the cut off point is 1/4 of the way up from the bottom of that first stripe. Once the cut off point just disappears from view, you are 10 feet over the runway. You can use other points on the runway but they just need to be between 90 - 100 feet apart for the 172. You could also use the top of the numbers for aim point 1 and the top of the threshold stripes (runway width markings) which is 100 feet. The important thing is that you are using the same points so you will have a consistent flare point above the runway. Once you reach the cut off point you adjust your aim point up the runway until your aim point is the end of the runway (aim point 2). That is it in a nutshell. The app has a lot more detailed information and a discussion of all the geometry which is very helpful.
Click to expand...

This right here is frickin' beautiful. Thank you.
 
Stingray Don said:
Jacobson Flare.....These numbers are for the 172 and will be different for other planes because the geometry is different. The app provides calculations that can be used to determine values for other models....
Click to expand...

Does it provide a Metal Jacobson Geometric When-to-Flare Calculator?
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
I replaced the "flare" image in my head with simply "arresting the descent." That helped to smooth things outs for me.

Are you hitting your approach speed exactly? When you're on the number, everything else is easier. Good luck!

My home field is the hardest for me, too!
Click to expand...

I'm really low hours, and only a couple (3 where I am mostly in control, 3 where I am just feeling the controls as the CFI lands) landings but this confused me a lot. I have no experience, but had read a lot (here and publications, etc.) about "the flare" and expected a lot more of a flare....really I haven't been able to clearly detect it. We come, fly low, and slowly, slowly pull back on the stick/yoke almost inches at a time and suddenly are on ground roll, smoothly.

I'm a little confused or else it is so subtle it may as well be called just creeping down to the ground.
 
My second go at it was much better. I realized I was feeling the pressure of the CFI sitting right next to me, so I was trying to revert to what worked for me in the 172... even though my Cherokee is an entirely different animal.

Once I went back to my old CFI's advice of "do whatever you need to do to keep the image in the windshield where you want it" I nailed all my landings. The Rod Machado method works great.
 
Stingray Don said:
Jacobson Flare - since the paywall is an issue, I will provide a brief description of what you are seeing in the video and how I use the technique. These numbers are for the 172 and will be different for other planes because the geometry is different. The app provides calculations that can be used to determine values for other models. Once established on final, I aim for the top of the first stripe - this is aim point 1. Keep that point stationary in your field of view with the yoke and use throttle to adjust airspeed. The cut off point will be a point that is 90 feet in front of aim point 1. Standard runway stripes are 120 feet long. So the cut off point is 1/4 of the way up from the bottom of that first stripe. Once the cut off point just disappears from view, you are 10 feet over the runway. You can use other points on the runway but they just need to be between 90 - 100 feet apart for the 172. You could also use the top of the numbers for aim point 1 and the top of the threshold stripes (runway width markings) which is 100 feet. The important thing is that you are using the same points so you will have a consistent flare point above the runway. Once you reach the cut off point you adjust your aim point up the runway until your aim point is the end of the runway (aim point 2). That is it in a nutshell. The app has a lot more detailed information and a discussion of all the geometry which is very helpful.
Click to expand...

This is rote paint by numbers, not really the goal we should be aiming for eh?

What happens if you go to a grass/dirt/sand/water runway without markings??

----According to his site, I'd have to have someone measure off the grass strip and lay out cones for me LMAO!! Yeah that's practical.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
This is rote paint by numbers, not really the goal we should be aiming for eh?

What happens if you go to a grass/dirt/sand/water runway without markings??

----According to his site, I'd have to have someone measure off the grass strip and lay out cones for me LMAO!! Yeah that's practical.
Click to expand...

These scenarios are actually addressed within the app, and no it doesn't involve setting out cones. The OP was having trouble judging flare height and this is a technique that might be beneficial. It is just another tool in the toolkit.

I can land my plane just fine by guessing at the flare height. I can also land my plane without an ASI. But if I have an ASI then I am going to use it to be more precise and consistent. Just as I will use runway markings if I have them to more accurately and consistently judge flare height.

As far as using the technique on runways without markings, the ground measurement doesn't really need to be very precise. The way the math works, if you use 120 feet between aim point and cut off point, then you would flare at 11 feet (for the 172). Conversely if you use 60 feet, you would flare at 9 feet. A 30 foot difference on the ground is only 1 foot in height. So your ground references can just be estimates in the absence of any known reference points.
 
Stingray Don said:
These scenarios are actually addressed within the app, and no it doesn't involve setting out cones. The OP was having trouble judging flare height and this is a technique that might be beneficial. It is just another tool in the toolkit.

I can land my plane just fine by guessing at the flare height. I can also land my plane without an ASI. But if I have an ASI then I am going to use it to be more precise and consistent. Just as I will use runway markings if I have them to more accurately and consistently judge flare height.

As far as using the technique on runways without markings, the ground measurement doesn't really need to be very precise. The way the math works, if you use 120 feet between aim point and cut off point, then you would flare at 11 feet (for the 172). Conversely if you use 60 feet, you would flare at 9 feet. A 30 foot difference on the ground is only 1 foot in height. So your ground references can just be estimates in the absence of any known reference points.
Click to expand...

Don't flare.
Guessing you're not a tailwheel driver?


You should be able to land VFR without your entire panel, I make my pre solo guys do that.

It's just initial aim point, power out, round out, infinity point, try to hold her 6" off the deck for as long as you can, eyes on the infinity point.

Get that down, now polish your precision work.


All this aim here, xx feet do this, that's all half arse cheats to try to cover for a fundamental lack of understanding and feel for the aircraft IMO.
 
Last edited:
Stingray Don said:
These scenarios are actually addressed within the app, and no it doesn't involve setting out cones. The OP was having trouble judging flare height and this is a technique that might be beneficial. It is just another tool in the toolkit.

I can land my plane just fine by guessing at the flare height. I can also land my plane without an ASI. But if I have an ASI then I am going to use it to be more precise and consistent. Just as I will use runway markings if I have them to more accurately and consistently judge flare height.

As far as using the technique on runways without markings, the ground measurement doesn't really need to be very precise. The way the math works, if you use 120 feet between aim point and cut off point, then you would flare at 11 feet (for the 172). Conversely if you use 60 feet, you would flare at 9 feet. A 30 foot difference on the ground is only 1 foot in height. So your ground references can just be estimates in the absence of any known reference points.
Click to expand...

BTW

Per http://www.jacobsonflare.com/faqs/#5

They could come later, unless your ‘home’ airfield is unsealed grass or gravel. In that case, you could adopt a suitable marker or a transverse axis across a pair of gable markers, or cone markers (like I did in the YPOK Porepunkah video clip in the app) for the flare cut-off point and then physically measure the flare cut-off distance from there, forwards to the aim point 1 position.
Click to expand...
 
The beauty is, when you're flying the same plane all the time, that your brain absorbs the sight picture and makes its calculations without any real effort.You look at the landing spot and seemingly without any conscious thought you're making pitch, power and trim adjustments and you sort of just arrive there and start your flare. Getting to this point, though, involves much sweating of blood. I'm just thinking "Airspeed, airspeed, airspeed!" on final, and Happy Feet on the rudder pedals.
 
LongRoadBob said:
I'm really low hours, and only a couple (3 where I am mostly in control, 3 where I am just feeling the controls as the CFI lands) landings but this confused me a lot. I have no experience, but had read a lot (here and publications, etc.) about "the flare" and expected a lot more of a flare....really I haven't been able to clearly detect it. We come, fly low, and slowly, slowly pull back on the stick/yoke almost inches at a time and suddenly are on ground roll, smoothly.

I'm a little confused or else it is so subtle it may as well be called just creeping down to the ground.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't expect you to get it at 3 landings. You just need more practice, if you are coming in at 3 deg. it will be pretty subtle. I was rounding out too high at first, think of it more like this shape \_ you're flying straight at your aiming point then just before you reach it you aim for the end of the runway. After a few sessions in the pattern just busting out landings, you'll get it.
 
Last edited:
exncsurfer said:
I wouldn't expect you to get it at 3 landings. You just need more practice, if you are coming in at 3 deg. it will be pretty subtle. I was rounding out too high at first, think of it more like this shape \_ you're flying straight at your aiming point then just before you reach it you aim for the end of the runway. After a few sessions in the pattern just busing out landings, you'll get it.
Click to expand...
Well, don't do it TOO suddenly, or you may get a nice bounce out of it. Particularly if you're a bit slow, the aircraft will take a second or two to respond. A gradual round out is just fine as long as you do it at the correct height, and it will scare your passengers (and instructor!) much less. And then you hold it off at that height until the BACK of the plane settles onto the runway. It feels very much like the mains lower to the runway, while the nosegear stays put, when done correctly.
 
ircphoenix said:
Once I went back to my old CFI's advice of "do whatever you need to do to keep the image in the windshield where you want it" I nailed all my landings. The Rod Machado method works great.
Click to expand...

Well there you go ... keep it simple

James331 said:
You should be able to land VFR without your entire panel, I make my pre solo guys do that.
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised how that fixed all problems when I was a student back in 2006. CFI covered the ASI and told me to land by TACH RPM, set it abeam the numbers and adjust flying as necessary and don't touch the throttle again (1700 in the Cessnas and 1500 in my current Tiger). I've lost the ASI a couple of times in rentals and no big deal. I use the side window on base the same as the front ... will automatically adjust turns for high winds and cross winds without thinking. This technique dove tails into making power off 180's super simple as well.

CFI's prefer eyes outside rather than inside for PPL training ...
 
danhagan said:
CFI's prefer eyes outside rather than inside for PPL training ...
Click to expand...
We should all strive for as much eyes outside time as possible. I sent the pucker-meter off the scale on an early flight in my RV...I was spending far too much time fiddling with the EFIS, and when I looked up there was an Ercoupe blocking a good portion of my canopy. And this was somewhere east of Apple Valley in the vast nothingness of the high desert. Apparently, he wasn't looking either, but two wrongs could potentially make a mid-air. :eek::eek:
 
ktup-flyer said:
I focused way too much on the panel when I first started flying. Too much flight sim.
Click to expand...

My ASI cover up occurred right after a lesson on steep turns. I kept looking inside to setup the bank angle and he said,"What's wrong with the cowl?". I guess most students do the same ... mine told me I'd get to use the panel all I wanted once I began IFR training;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top