Landing, not "by the numbers"

TexasAviation

TexasAviation

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 9, 2014
Messages
214
Display Name
Display name:
TexasAviation
I've had my PPL for 10 months and have 117 hours in my logbook ... so I'm still a pretty fresh pilot.

I'm getting a much better feel for landing the plane in different conditions now, and I'm developing a preference for landing a bit faster than what the book says. Not crazy, float-way-down-the-runway fast, but 5-10 knots faster on final than the recommended 66 knots in the POH with full flaps (it's an Archer II).

I tend to make smoother landings when I land in the 72-75 knot range. It feels better to me for some reason. Maybe it's just in my head ... or maybe it's because carrying a bit of extra speed gives me extra time to leisurely bleed it off in ground effect and grease the landing ... but I'm liking it, whatever the reason.

I also like the extra buffer above stall speed. If I ever (heaven forbid) get distracted and lose airspeed on base or final, I'd much rather have that cushion.

On the flip side, carrying any extra speed would make a crash worse if there was an incident on the ground. There's more energy going into the collision.

Assuming I've got plenty of runway, is a slightly fast landing a problem? Is it dangerous? I know not to do it at short fields, obviously. I'm guessing this is a normal part of a pilot growing up and figuring out their own preferences, but I don't want to do anything dumb either.
 
Yes, in order to land that fast you have to land very flat and you are setting yourself up for this:

 
You get more rudder control at the slightly higher speed, while giving up a little accuracy.

Henning beat me to it. A very good example of why not to land flat.
 
Last edited:
Now why does anyone suppose that the recommended approach speed is 1.3*Vso + 1/2 the gust factor? Did someone just pull that formula out of their lower orifice?

On the other hand, I think some of the LSAs might list a higher approach speed in the POH. I was very briefly a member of a club which flew LSAs and the approach speeds they used seemed high. I had trouble with the pattern and landing so once I got signed off I flew an approach at 1.3*Vso and darned if things didn't work out really well. I decided that I couldn't fly their aircraft the way they wanted so I left the club.
 
There's approach speed, and then there's landing speed.

You seem to conflate the two, and you're not the first.

TexasAviation said:
On the flip side, carrying any extra speed would make a crash worse if there was an incident on the ground. There's more energy going into the collision.
Click to expand...

You answered your own question. I'd sum up your post as, "I've gradually lost the skill to land at the lowest speed possible, so I now land faster and accept the extra energy that could bite me someday."

Obvious solution would be to train back to Private Pilot Practical Test standards:

"Touches down smoothly at approximate stalling speed (ASEL)."
 
Not for me.....if I come in fast I'll probably balloon. ONE POINT THREE VEE ESS OOHHH for me and.......wait a minute.....did you hear that? NO? Oh, that was just me greasing the mains on....
 
Man, like most pilot forums, you guys sure do a great job of scaring new pilots away. If I were OP, I'd never want to post here again.
 
jimmyjack said:
Man, like most pilot forums, you guys sure do a great job of scaring new pilots away. If I were OP, I'd never want to post here again.
Click to expand...

What is your response to the OP then?
 
Theres nothing wrong with carrying extra speed if you have the runway to do it. You don't have to land flat at a pancake either. Just bleed off speed as your flaring.

I routinely landed faster then the book , and I am still here... no ballooning if you keep the nose up as you bleed off.

Everyone on this board would have you believe they are top guns, but that's not the case. You're PIC, just be safe about it.

Short field landings, you're going to have to learn to accept a lower speed to nail them.
 
Experiment and learn to "approach" at varying speeds, power, flap settings, weights and descent rates. I think you are approaching by the numbers right now. AFM's state 66-75 kias. The 66 kias for short final. You already understand that you are going to use more runway with more energy built up. Keep practicing.

I still practice slow flight and stalls up high often, then I come down 1' above the runway and do the same until I am comfortable. Varying flap settings and with/without my family on board. They understand the importance of my being familiar with flying on the edge of stall. I have yet to scare them by letting it get out of control. When the wing drops it will become second nature to pick it up with rudder(although my ailerons are still very effective but mushy at stall).

There are times when you will need to approach faster(high xwinds or a jet behind you) and times when you will want to be as slow as you can be. Have fun and safely explore the envelope with a CFI if needed.
 
Get on the numbers. You can get away with it in training airplanes, but there are later, very slippery aircraft where an extra 10 kts will put you 3000' down the runway.

Ditto on the porpoise. Landing fast is the first link in the accident chain.
 
Learned to fly out here in W Texas where crosswinds are common.
This makes the low time pilot to tend toward keeping extra speed while landing.
 
oilburner said:
Learned to fly out here in W Texas where crosswinds are common.
This makes the low time pilot to tend toward keeping extra speed while landing.
Click to expand...

Crosswinds are an excellent reason not to float down the runway. Be on the numbers.
 
SmashTime said:
Theres nothing wrong with carrying extra speed if you have the runway to do it. You don't have to land flat at a pancake either. Just bleed off speed as your flaring. [...]
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

With the proper landing technique you could come in at Vne, assuming the runway is long enough.
However, you have to resist the urge to put it down NOW, as this will result in a 'landing' similar to the one in Henning's video.

Coming in faster means that you have more time in the flare to put it exactly on the center line and to gently put it in the ground. It however also means that the faster you go, the longer the flare will be, the more runway will be needed and the longer the plane will have to be kept precisely a few inches above the runway. A crosswind will make it even more of a challenge to keep is this precisely in an extended flare.

Personally, I feel that keeping it in a flare until the plane wants to land it s the easiest, when I look at the end of the runway and keep pulling until the plane is in a nose high attitude and the stall warning starts blaring. Still, I am often surprised, how long the plane wants to fly, even if I come in only at the published numbers.
 
I land by the seat of my pants... with a couple of glances at the airspeed indicator. Just dont get on the backside of the power curve and drag the stupid thing in.

Believe it or not, the approach speed on these spam cans does vary depending on weight. The range just isnt as dramatic as an airliner.
 
bflynn said:
Crosswinds are an excellent reason not to float down the runway. Be on the numbers.
Click to expand...

Ore more appropriately, per the PTS,
Touches down smoothly at approximate stalling speed (ASEL).
Touches down within the available runway or water landing area, within 400 feet beyond a specified point with no drift, and with the airplane’s longitudinal axis aligned with and over the runway center/landing path.
Click to expand...

but don't be one of those pilots who think the first 3000-4000 feet of runway are unusable in crosswinds.

As to the original question, what really hasn't been discussed is WHY the OP's landings are better with a faster approach speed, which is probably something best assessed by a qualified instructor rather than on a web board.

Also, is it REALLY only 5-10 knots? Published speeds are generally at max gross weight, and 10% under that (about 250 pounds in an Archer) would reduce those speeds by a couple of knots, so are we really talking about 7-12 extra knots instead of 5-10? It tends to creep up on you.;)
 
Another vote for get back on the numbers. If your landings are not up to spec when done by the numbers there's something else going on. Is it possible that you are gettting comfy enough to just relax when you land and maybe get a bit lazy? The landing should be right at stall speed or very close to it. And it should be with the elevator nearly in your stomach. If these two things aren't happening, then you need some remedial work.

If you want to get real good at touchdown speed control, go get some time in any TW plane with a good CFI. This will reinforce good habits very quick.
 
docmirror said:
Another vote for get back on the numbers. If your landings are not up to spec when done by the numbers there's something else going on. Is it possible that you are gettting comfy enough to just relax when you land and maybe get a bit lazy? The landing should be right at stall speed or very close to it. And it should be with the elevator nearly in your stomach. If these two things aren't happening, then you need some remedial work.

If you want to get real good at touchdown speed control, go get some time in any TW plane with a good CFI. This will reinforce good habits very quick.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
There are all types of situations that call for different styles of landing, short field, soft field, cross wind, gusty headwinds, gross weight, less weight.... list goes on. You have to be able to adjust for it all.

With that said, the shortest field ive landed on is about 2400x48 iirc and i had about 800ft to spare. I can do short field if I need it.

My point is, on an average xc or joy flight you wont be needing to land directly on the numbers or fight a 15kt cross wind. So carrying a bit extra speed for a crisper control of the plane is acceptable.

Some people even add a touch of power for softer landings.

You're PIC. JUST BE SAFE
 
Thanks for the replies! Several thoughts ...

1. I'm not offended at all. I wouldn't have posted the question if I didn't expect honest criticism. Not all fresh pilots are thin skinned :)

2. I'm not forgetting how to do landings by the numbers. Most of the time I fly 66 (or a bit slower, depending on how light the plane is). When I fly a 75-knot final, it's on purpose.

3. I still practice short-field landings and takeoffs, too. I need to go up and practice slow flight more often, I'll admit.

4. I think the distinction between landing speed and approach speed is important. If I approach at 75, the plane definitely won't set down at 75. It just takes more time to bleed off that speed, flying just above the runway a bit longer while it bleeds off. With an 8,000-foot runway at my home airport, that's not an issue.

And yeah, the big question is why the faster approach (and longer float) feels better to me and seems to result in smoother touchdowns. I'm beginning to think it's all in my head ... either that, or I'm interpreting flatter landings as smoother landings. I do have a tendency to land a little flatter when I get lazy or complacent ... not a big, graceful flare like I want.

Thanks again for the thoughts! I agree that some CFI time would be way more useful than internet posts ... but it's still fun to talk/think about this stuff in the interim.
 
SmashTime said:
Theres nothing wrong with carrying extra speed if you have the runway to do it. You don't have to land flat at a pancake either. Just bleed off speed as your flaring.

I routinely landed faster then the book , and I am still here... no ballooning if you keep the nose up as you bleed off.

Everyone on this board would have you believe they are top guns, but that's not the case. You're PIC, just be safe about it.

Short field landings, you're going to have to learn to accept a lower speed to nail them.
Click to expand...

This landing-at-higher-speed-than-recommended is not something that new pilots figure out to make smoother landings. It's a very common problem that develops all by itself, and sometimes leads to broken airplanes. At the very least, it becomes a habit that is hard to break, and could someday cause untold grief when the pilot absolutely has to land on a shorter field due to worsening weather or some emergency, or to join his buddies on the ground for the $100 hamburger, and floats or skids or bounces off the end of the runway or road or field and crashes. Seen it/read about it too often myself.

In any case, it's harder on the airplane even if the porposising that can result doesn't develop. When I was maintaining the flight school airplanes we often had to replace flat-spotted tires and burned-out brake linings and discs due to pilots trying to fix a bad approach using the brakes. Often had to repair nosewheel stuff worn by shimmy that develops much more easily, and gets more violent, at high speeds. Often had to inspect firewalls and internal structure and prop tips for damage after bad landings. If the pilots owns his airplane and does those things to it he will soon enough smarten up, unless he doesn't mind haemorrhaging money and having the plane tied up often. Besides looking incompetent.


Another factor often at play here is the habit of maintaining approach speed right down to a rather abrupt flare. That just causes endless float. The correct technique is to get the power off and the nose coming up while still 15 to 30 feet up so that the speed is mostly gone by the time the airplane reaches the surface. Makes for a much more controlled landing.
 
Last edited:
eman1200 said:
Not for me.....if I come in fast I'll probably balloon. ONE POINT THREE VEE ESS OOHHH for me and.......wait a minute.....did you hear that? NO? Oh, that was just me greasing the mains on....
Click to expand...

When calculating 1.3 x Vso, should one convert Vso to calibrated airspeed before doing the calculation, and then convert it back to indicated airspeed?

The reason I ask is that a while back, someone said that the calculation should be based on calibrated airspeed. I notice that for a 172N, it results in about a seven knot higher indicated airspeed.
 
Palmpilot said:
When calculating 1.3 x Vso, should one convert Vso to calibrated airspeed before doing the calculation, and then convert it back to indicated airspeed?

The reason I ask is that a while back, someone said that the calculation should be based on calibrated airspeed. I notice that for a 172N, it results in about a seven knot higher indicated airspeed.
Click to expand...

Yes..
 
Well, a PIO has nothing to do with speed, it's just poor technique.

Coming in fast and holding the plane off like you're supposed to for landing is just going to cause you to eat up more runway, that's it.

So if it makes you feel better and you have a runway to support bleeding off all that speed, come on in at VSOx2 for all I care.

It's just a question of how much real estate you're going to use.
 
TexasAviation said:
Thanks for the replies! Several thoughts ...

1. I'm not offended at all. I wouldn't have posted the question if I didn't expect honest criticism. Not all fresh pilots are thin skinned :)

2. I'm not forgetting how to do landings by the numbers. Most of the time I fly 66 (or a bit slower, depending on how light the plane is). When I fly a 75-knot final, it's on purpose.

3. I still practice short-field landings and takeoffs, too. I need to go up and practice slow flight more often, I'll admit.

4. I think the distinction between landing speed and approach speed is important. If I approach at 75, the plane definitely won't set down at 75. It just takes more time to bleed off that speed, flying just above the runway a bit longer while it bleeds off. With an 8,000-foot runway at my home airport, that's not an issue.

And yeah, the big question is why the faster approach (and longer float) feels better to me and seems to result in smoother touchdowns. I'm beginning to think it's all in my head ... either that, or I'm interpreting flatter landings as smoother landings. I do have a tendency to land a little flatter when I get lazy or complacent ... not a big, graceful flare like I want.

Thanks again for the thoughts! I agree that some CFI time would be way more useful than internet posts ... but it's still fun to talk/think about this stuff in the interim.
Click to expand...

Very likely it's because you're not trimming for 1.3 Vso so to fly it, and slow down further ver the fence, you are having to hold excessive back pressure.
 
Fly the approach as fast as you like. The faster the approach speed, the more runway you'll use. But no matter what the approach speed, just hold it off until the wing quits flying. The LANDING speed will always be the same

I fly a Mooney. Landing at my home field, I can often make the turn off at the only taxiway. It's 850' from the threshold. When I fly formation with other Mooneys, SOP is Approach and cross the numbers at 90kts. And yet I roll it on every time. Of course we don't land in formation on runways less then 6000 ft.

I'm speculating somewhat from personal experience, but at a higher approach speed, there is much more time/distance between the round-out/hold-it-off and the flare/wheels down. That extra time can make it slightly easier to get a nice smooth flare. Often times though, pilots tend to rush the flare force the wheels on the runway resulting in the PIO in Henning's video.
 
OP, can you list your speeds throughout the approach?

I know in a 172 (all models), 70kts on final and 65 kts over the fence leads into real nice landings- either with the stall horn chirping or the mains kissing the runway until I lower the nose.

Sort of remember the same from my limited time in a warrior III.
 
From the perspective of a low time Archer II pilot....

75-80kts approach speed... this is where your indicated airspeed should read before turning base. Try to hold around 74 on base and the base-final turn.

Speed should decay to around 65kts over the fence.
 
warthog1984 said:
OP, can you list your speeds throughout the approach?

I know in a 172 (all models), 70kts on final and 65 kts over the fence leads into real nice landings- either with the stall horn chirping or the mains kissing the runway until I lower the nose.

Sort of remember the same from my limited time in a warrior III.
Click to expand...

Really? I do that in my 172M and I float all the way down the 2100' runway. I find 65 on final and 60 through the gap in the trees works well.

My problem is that I trained in a 172M with a STOL kit, and am still adapting to mine without a STOL kit. Speeds need to be just a hair higher, and I have the dumb habit of flairing too high. Working on it.
 
cowman said:
From the perspective of a low time Archer II pilot....

75-80kts approach speed... this is where your indicated airspeed should read before turning base. Try to hold around 74 on base and the base-final turn.

Speed should decay to around 65kts over the fence.
Click to expand...

How big is your pattern when you're flying these speeds? Does an Archer drop speed pretty quick, or are you out pretty far on your pattern?
 
UngaWunga said:
Really? I do that in my 172M and I float all the way down the 2100' runway. I find 65 on final and 60 through the gap in the trees works well.
Click to expand...

2100' is short field territory- different speeds than a normal approach. If you have a STOL kit, the speeds will be slower yet. But for a clean wing 172, 65kts at the fence will grease them on ~500ft.
 
warthog1984 said:
2100' is short field territory- different speeds than a normal approach. If you have a STOL kit, the speeds will be slower yet. But for a clean wing 172, 65kts at the fence will grease them on ~500ft.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.

I trained on 2300 feet and still fly there frequently. All types of landings are doable in that space. Even too-fast 172 approaches.

I generally make the midfield turnoff without much effort, in calm wind.

Heck, there is a King Air that lands on that runway every evening.
 
Depends what's at the ends of the runway on whether 21-2300 is short or not. Toss some 75' trees right at the end and it changes everything. 2100 with no obstructions is different than 2100 with.
 
TexasAviation said:
................gives me extra time to leisurely bleed it off in ground effect and grease the landing ... .....
Click to expand...

I did the same thing years ago. I didn't always have a real good feel for the roundout and flare but I sure liked to "grease em." Saying you'll fly your approaches slower when you have a short runway and need to is fine up to a certain point. How long has it been since you've done that? Do you practice it? I'm kinda thinkin you should buy a little time with a good instructor who has been around the block, describe to him your concerns and get some practice flying at the appropriate speeds AND greasin em (most of the time anyway, lol)
 
We are 36+ posts into this thread and no one has asked what power settings you are using on approach and landing. Power off a few extra knots will help give you the time to round out and touch down nicely at a landing speed only a few knots above stall. The higher sink rate of the airplane the more speed you may need. If the nose is up on the horizon (about the same attitude as you climb out at) when you touch down, you will be landing on the main wheels 1st and your landing speed is fine. If you have the skills to fly in ground effect as the plane slows down you will seldom if ever balloon. I am surprised at how many pilots can't float down the runway, power off as the plane decelerates to landing speed.

You might also try landing partial flaps or even no flaps, with less power if you landing with some power. Some will argue increased wear and tear, but I would argue if you landing at minimum speed the wear and tear is minimimal maybe even less if you touching down smoother and more nose up.


Brian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top