landing procedures..

[2cerv4]

I have a friend taking lessons in a Citabria. He's taught to land via the following procedure: from downwind, chop the power, set up 80 mph, no flaps, no power, to a full stall landing. That's 80 across the threshold, no flaps, and no power. I can see no power, to learn what you can make and what you can't, but I just can't come up with a reason not to use flaps and not to slow it down on final. Can anyone come up with a reason why he's taught this way?

The guy is very excited about getting his Privates, but I'm afraid he's missing out on some stuff. He just solo'ed with around 10 hrs. No hood work, short field/soft landings, etc.

Thanks,

 

[JoeSelch]

What model Citabria? They don't all have flaps.

 

[poadeleted20]

Can anyone come up with a reason why he's taught this way?

An instructor whose thinking is rooted in the early/mid-20th century?

 

[Fearless Tower]

Been a little while since I flew a Citabria, but 80 crossing the threshold seems a bit high.....particularly for a full stall landing.

 

[2cerv4]

He does a full stall landing, but it's way down at the other end of the runway..

 

[eman1200]

...The guy is very excited about getting his Privates,....

I was very excited when I got mine too.

(I know, I'm a dooooshbaaaag)

 

[James331]

Some citabrias don't have flaps,

But 80 is WAAAY too hot.

That instructor should also be teaching him 2pt landings, flaps (if equipped) and slips.

He also needs to calculate vref.


Your approach speed is exactly the same regardless of 2pt or 3pt BTW

 

[woodchucker]

I was very excited when I got mine too.

(I know, I'm a dooooshbaaaag)

I'm so glad you went there first. I was gonna ask how old this guy was to just be getting his Privates!

 

[Maciej]

He does a full stall landing, but it's way down at the other end of the runway..

 

[Ravioli]

Privates.

They're good for a lifetime, unless revoked. (jenner)

 

[timwinters]

An instructor whose thinking is rooted in the early/mid-20th century?

Or one who might want the student to actually learn to fly and get to know the plane instead of using the throttle as a crutch to cure all mistakes made while flying the pattern.

One can "sit in the plane" for their entire flying stint or they can get to where they "wear the airplane." Most I know never truly do the latter, regardless of the number of hours in their book. Especially if they have, and regularly use, an auto pilot.

I don't know approach speeds appropriate for a citabria though. 80 indeed sounds fast. Heck, I use 80 mph for my 182...on downwind...65 across the fence.

 

[poadeleted20]

Or one who might want the student to actually learn to fly and get to know the plane instead of using the throttle as a crutch to cure all mistakes made while flying the pattern.

While you are entitled to your opinion, the FAA doesn't agree with you, and hasn't taken that position in almost half a century. Hence, my comment that the thinking of an instructor who says that is rooted in the distant past.

 

[James331]

Whether you're using your throttle for the new "stabilized approach" method, or you're doing to the safer method of just managing energy and not relying on the engine, 80 is still way, way too fast.


If you aren't flying even remotely a correct approach speed, how on earth do you expect to be able to preform a good landing?

 

[James331]

You're looking for 60-70MPH on approach, ofcourse crossing the threshold you should be slower.

So shy of being full gross, the student should be shooting for 65MPH. Which was about what I would come in at when I was instructing in citabrias

 

[timwinters]

If you aren't flying even remotely a correct approach speed, how on earth do you expect to be able to preform a good landing?

I certainly don't know his thinking as I sit here in Missouri.

However...

before I even soloed, my crusty old army vet primary instructor would have me fly a normal pattern, then as I was rounding out, gradually increase the throttle and maintain landing attitude about 3' above the runway for about 2/3 the runway length, and then go around. This taught me how the aircraft feels at the edge of the envelope...and more importantly how to control it...and far more clearly than doing slow flight at altitude. He had me practice many other "edge of envelope" maneuvers during my training also.

Maybe that's what this instructor is doing. One is basically doing the same thing as they hold the plane off the runway as they bleed off the excess speed carried across the fence. It gives them "the feel" for a lot longer than a pattern flown at the correct speed would. Or, maybe not, maybe he's just an idiot...hard to tell from Missouri.

While you are entitled to your opinion, the FAA doesn't agree with you, and hasn't taken that position in almost half a century. Hence, my comment that the thinking of an instructor who says that is rooted in the distant past.

And, I'm sure the FAA is quite happy keeping all student pilots safe as they fly right in the middle of the envelope. Less bad press, less lawsuits against instructors and flight schools, etc.

But when something unexpected happens later that throws them towards one edge...where they've never been before...

Again, it's the difference between "sitting in" an airplane and "wearing it."

 

[docmirror]

I learned in a Citabria with no flaps. We would do the pattern at 80MPH, and since it didn't have flaps, we would maintain 75-80 to final. On final, I would reduce throttle further to hit 70 over the fence, and then do a 3 point landing.

I think this is pretty close to the OP's friend method. Also, I think it's being done because the Citabria has; A - no stall warning mechanism. B - an abrupt and definitive stall. C - poor glide ratio compared to other trainers. D - TW aircraft.

Is it the best way? Heck - I don't know, but it might be the safest way for a 10 hour pilot. Pretty sure the CFI is going to advance him toward a more refined approach and landing speeds in the 60-70MPH later when his skill level gets better. Right now, there's a real potential for a stall-spin in the Citabria due to the above. Honestly, I don't mind that he's landing long. Long is better if it's stabilized and there's enough runway.

When I started, I would turn off the runway at 2500-3000' from the start. By the time I was towing gliders, and knew what the plane would do, and I could handle it right I was turning off at 1500', and wore out brake pads.

Old plane, old school. Leave em alone for another 15 hours.

YMMV

 

[James331]

I learned in a Citabria with no flaps. We would do the pattern at 80MPH, and since it didn't have flaps, we would maintain 75-80 to final. On final, I would reduce throttle further to hit 70 over the fence, and then do a 3 point landing.

I think this is pretty close to the OP's friend method. Also, I think it's being done because the Citabria has; A - no stall warning mechanism. B - an abrupt and definitive stall. C - poor glide ratio compared to other trainers. D - TW aircraft.

Is it the best way? Heck - I don't know, but it might be the safest way for a 10 hour pilot. Pretty sure the CFI is going to advance him toward a more refined approach and landing speeds in the 60-70MPH later when his skill level gets better. Right now, there's a real potential for a stall-spin in the Citabria due to the above. Honestly, I don't mind that he's landing long. Long is better if it's stabilized and there's enough runway.

When I started, I would turn off the runway at 2500-3000' from the start. By the time I was towing gliders, and knew what the plane would do, and I could handle it right I was turning off at 1500', and wore out brake pads.

Old plane, old school. Leave em alone for another 15 hours.

YMMV

It's easy to feel the stall coming on, no horn needed, and if you step on the high wing you ain't going to spin.

If he is just doing low passes, it's still not the best way to teach it, when the first thing the student learns is flying a approach way too fast, that's a bad foundation every day of the week.

I do the low pass thing, I have the student come in at the correct approach speed, round out, bump in a little power to hold her off 6", if the wheels touch burp in a little power to get back up and go till there is no more runway. Rinse and repeat

Once the student has that down, tracking the runway well and has a good feel for the plane, I tell them that once the mains touch pull the throttle back, but keep flying her down the runway till the tail is about it die, then let it down, then stick full aft.

Then same deal but getting her down on the numbers

Then three points (which come quickly to most)

Then power off abeam 2 points

Power off abeam 3 points

Cross wind landings

Tail wind landings.


No where in here are we flying our final approach at a incorrect speed.

I can think of no reason to fly your final at 80 MPH, that's cookin' in a 7ECA!

. By the time I was towing gliders, and knew what the plane would do, and I could handle it right I was turning off at 1500', and wore out brake pads.

Old plane, old school. Leave em alone for another 15 hours.

YMMV

A 7ECA should be able to be stopped in 1500" without needing much, if any brakes.

I'm not old, but learned to fly in planes older then the 7ECA, been accused of being old school in how I teach, but shooting a approach at 80% cruise speed just doesn't make sense.

 

[docmirror]

It's easy to feel the stall coming on, no horn needed, and if you step on the high wing you ain't going to spin.

OK, I have three points to make since you quoted me.

He's a new pilot. You think while in landing phase he's proficient in 'feel'ing the stall coming on, and taking immediate corrective action while at 700' AGL?

Is it the best way? Heck - I don't know, but it might be the safest way for a 10 hour pilot.

Now most important:

YMMV

 

[James331]

OK, I have three points to make since you quoted me.

He's a new pilot. You think while in landing phase he's proficient in 'feel'ing the stall coming on, and taking immediate corrective action while at 700' AGL?

Is it the best way? Heck - I don't know, but it might be the safest way for a 10 hour pilot.

Now most important:

YMMV

I gotcha, and I'm not trying to give you chit, so please don't take it the wrong way.

Before that student ever got into pattern work he should have stalled the bejesus out of that plane, tons of slow flight, and if his CFI is honestly skilled and old school, he should have also done full spins, with the student entering and recovering, then falling leaf stalls, all before pattern work.

It's doesn't take much for a ab initio student to feel like they are wearing a 7ECA, not just flying it, they are super forgiving and responsive aircraft, one of the very best trainers IMO.

And I agree, everyone is different, and milage will vary, but teaching a guy a crappy final approach from the very start is just wrong IMO.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I learned in a Citabria with no flaps. We would do the pattern at 80MPH, and since it didn't have flaps, we would maintain 75-80 to final. On final, I would reduce throttle further to hit 70 over the fence, and then do a 3 point landing.

I think this is pretty close to the OP's friend method. Also, I think it's being done because the Citabria has; A - no stall warning mechanism. B - an abrupt and definitive stall. C - poor glide ratio compared to other trainers. D - TW aircraft.

Is it the best way? Heck - I don't know, but it might be the safest way for a 10 hour pilot. Pretty sure the CFI is going to advance him toward a more refined approach and landing speeds in the 60-70MPH later when his skill level gets better. Right now, there's a real potential for a stall-spin in the Citabria due to the above. Honestly, I don't mind that he's landing long. Long is better if it's stabilized and there's enough runway.

When I started, I would turn off the runway at 2500-3000' from the start. By the time I was towing gliders, and knew what the plane would do, and I could handle it right I was turning off at 1500', and wore out brake pads.

Old plane, old school. Leave em alone for another 15 hours.

YMMV

Then you are obviously a horrible pilot and a poor excuse for a human being (THAT WAS SARCASM!!!)*.

I actually answered the OP's question in another forum, leaving aside the speed issue since I don't fly Citabrias:

Is he being taught to land that way as the permanent way to land or as an early step in his instruction?

I’ve known both instructors and entire flight schools that, even in the primary stages of teaching a brand new student pilot to land a 172, taught no-flap landings first. The two primary reasons are that It can be an effective tool in teaching airspeed control (not treating flaps as speed brakes) and touchdown pitch attitude (a slightly longer time in the flare to build visual memory of the correct pitch attitude)

[* this is nothing new at all. Shooting at CFIs who aren't here is a long-time sport. As an example, I've been on the Red Board for about 15 years. My first exposure to it came before I was a participant. A student of mine posted a technique I was using as part of his initial training and was immediately informed that he should get rid of me immediately because I was an idiot who knew nothing. (and yes, before someone kind points it out, I might indeed be an idiot who knows nothing)]

 

[timwinters]

Is he being taught to land that way as the permanent way to land or as an early step in his instruction?

exactly.

 

[docmirror]

I gotcha, and I'm not trying to give you chit, so please don't take it the wrong way.

Before that student ever got into pattern work he should have stalled the bejesus out of that plane, tons of slow flight, and if his CFI is honestly skilled and old school, he should have also done full spins, with the student entering and recovering, then falling leaf stalls, all before pattern work.

Assuming facts not in evidence. Shoulda woulda coulda.

If you are right, I still don't mind the speeds right now while close to the ground. If it minimizes the risk for stall/spin while ruddering the plane around on base to final, then so be it. That's killed a lot of people over the years. Very few have been killed running off the end of the runway at 20MPH, or flipping it over at 0MPH.

 

[RoscoeT]

Funny we are arguing about someone teaching an 80 MPH approach in a Citabria when most of the rental pilots and students I see at the flight school fly final about the same speed (~70 KTS) in the 152s and 172s...also too fast by about the same amount. Apparently they are taught that way. But the difference with the rental guys is that not only do they fly 10 KTS too fast, they're also dragging it in with power. So hell, Citabria CFI here at least improves on this slightly.

This is the perfect example of when pilots should eventually learn to operate at a higher level than what they "were taught". Many pilots never break out of this "I was taught" mentality, though. There is absolutely nothing wrong with power off and 1.3Vso in most light GA aircraft.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Funny we are arguing about someone teaching an 80 MPH approach in a Citabria when most of the rental pilots and students I see at the flight school fly final about the same speed (~70 KTS) in the 152s and 172s...also too fast by about the same amount.

Don't worry. We argue about that too.

 

[Henning]

I have a friend taking lessons in a Citabria. He's taught to land via the following procedure: from downwind, chop the power, set up 80 mph, no flaps, no power, to a full stall landing. That's 80 across the threshold, no flaps, and no power. I can see no power, to learn what you can make and what you can't, but I just can't come up with a reason not to use flaps and not to slow it down on final. Can anyone come up with a reason why he's taught this way?

The guy is very excited about getting his Privates, but I'm afraid he's missing out on some stuff. He just solo'ed with around 10 hrs. No hood work, short field/soft landings, etc.

Thanks,

Does it have flaps? Not all of them do. I used to fly a PA-12 that had no flaps either.

 

[Henning]

The one thing about teaching in a TD and withholding flaps is that you start learning at a more difficult energy level for primacy and really get started with as bad as it gets for your "getting a feel for things" period, and anything after that is easier and within your scope of experience energy management wise as you transfer onto the runway surface. I could see it being a valid option in TW training.

 

[MAKG1]

Funny we are arguing about someone teaching an 80 MPH approach in a Citabria when most of the rental pilots and students I see at the flight school fly final about the same speed (~70 KTS) in the 152s and 172s...also too fast by about the same amount. Apparently they are taught that way. But the difference with the rental guys is that not only do they fly 10 KTS too fast, they're also dragging it in with power. So hell, Citabria CFI here at least improves on this slightly.

This is the perfect example of when pilots should eventually learn to operate at a higher level than what they "were taught". Many pilots never break out of this "I was taught" mentality, though. There is absolutely nothing wrong with power off and 1.3Vso in most light GA aircraft.

The other difference is that those 152s and 172s have barn door flaps that make a helluva lot of drag at full.

I generally aim for the SLOW end of the "normal" range (generally pretty close to the short field approach speed) at max gross, not the middle. 5 knots can make a disproportionate difference in float.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Your approach speed is exactly the same regardless of 2pt or 3pt BTW

Ideally, yes, but you can pull off (or salvage depending on your point of view) a wheel landing at a higher speed whereas if you are crossing the fence at 80 with the intention of a 3 point, you are either going to bounce something fierce or eat up a lot of runway slowing it down to a full stall.

 

[vkhosid]

Granted, I just got my ticket a few weeks ago, so take what I say with a grain of salt.....but, I learned in a C-140, and my instructor beat into my head that abeam the numbers I am to extend 50% flaps and trim for 70. Then turn base, extend the rest of the flaps and maintain 70. After turning to final, I should aim for 60-65 (keep in mind this is a '48 cessna with the airspeed in mph).

I haven't looked in the owners manual recently, but I recall that the Vs in the 140 is 49mph while the Vso is somewhere around 45. So, flaps or no flaps, basically, it didn't matter much....

but then again, thats just how I was taught.

 

[RoscoeT]

The other difference is that those 152s and 172s have barn door flaps that make a helluva lot of drag at full.

It's all relative. What some pilots feel is "lots of drag", isn't much for others. Same with descent angle/rate. I know this comes across as condescending, but I chuckle inside when I hear pilots talk about what a fast and steep descent they see in the 172, power off with full flaps. Even at 60KTS, they feel like a damn glider that won't come down to me. Depends on what you're accustomed to flying. The Citabria is a draggier airplane than a 152/172 to begin with, so adding 30 degrees of flaps to the Cessna actually makes them comparable in drag to the Citabria without flaps. Flying 70KTS in a 172 even with 30 degrees of flaps will still create a huge float. I regularly witness 1500-2000' floats down the runway in 172s. I swear I seem some pilots cross the threshold at 75KTS in a 172 driving it along in ground effect with the damn nosewheel lower than the mains.

 

[docmirror]

Granted, I just got my ticket a few weeks ago, so take what I say with a grain of salt.....but, I learned in a C-140, and my instructor beat into my head that abeam the numbers I am to extend 50% flaps and trim for 70. Then turn base, extend the rest of the flaps and maintain 70. After turning to final, I should aim for 60-65 (keep in mind this is a '48 cessna with the airspeed in mph).

I haven't looked in the owners manual recently, but I recall that the Vs in the 140 is 49mph while the Vso is somewhere around 45. So, flaps or no flaps, basically, it didn't matter much....

but then again, thats just how I was taught.

That head beating was to minimize the chance of the stall/spin.

Do you have a stall warning device? Back in the day, stall warning was usually limited to fancy planes like the Bonanza, and even then it was an option install.

 

[vkhosid]

That head beating was to minimize the chance of the stall/spin.

Do you have a stall warning device? Back in the day, stall warning was usually limited to fancy planes like the Bonanza, and even then it was an option install.

Stall warning device? It didn't even have an Attitude indicator. My stall warning was feeling the controls get mushy.

 

[docmirror]

Stall warning device? It didn't even have an Attitude indicator. My stall warning was feeling the controls get mushy.

There ya go. Mystery solved.

 

[Henning]

Ideally, yes, but you can pull off (or salvage depending on your point of view) a wheel landing at a higher speed whereas if you are crossing the fence at 80 with the intention of a 3 point, you are either going to bounce something fierce or eat up a lot of runway slowing it down to a full stall.

Exactly. Unless I have screwed up my approach and am carrying extra energy, or I'm in a plane that demands it, I'm three pointing on. If I have the extra energy at the bottom I'll wheel it on. Most people fail to recognize that once you figure out how to manage to keep your energy path stable, that landing a Tailwheel is in some ways easier because the wheel landing allows you a much wider latitude of energy at which you can touch down. If you try to land a tricycle at the energy you can wheel on TD, you'll end up porpoising down the runway, and if you don't GTFO of there you're going to do the same or more damage as a ground loop.

 

[FastEddieB]

You can have a Citabria with flaps?? wow

7GCBC - 150hp w/flaps.

I owned one:

 

[docmirror]

Hmmmmm, Citabria. What a weird name.

Wonder where it came from.

hhhmmmmmmmmmmmm

Maybe it's Latin? Or Greek? maybe it's African?

hmmmmmmmm

 

[Henning]

Hmmmmm, Citabria. What a weird name.

Wonder where it came from.

hhhmmmmmmmmmmmm

Maybe it's Latin? Or Greek? maybe it's African?

hmmmmmmmm

Mirror mirror on the wall, reveal this strangest word of all...

 

[poadeleted20]

Whether you're using your throttle for the new "stabilized approach" method,

40 years of FAA recommendations is your idea of "new"?

or you're doing to the safer method of just managing energy and not relying on the engine,

The FAA has a ton of accident stats to show that the partial-power stabilized approach is a lot safer that the power-off approach you seem to be recommending. Do you have some statistics to dispute the FAA's and support your position?

 

[James331]

40 years of FAA recommendations is your idea of "new"?

The FAA has a ton of accident stats to show that the partial-power stabilized approach is a lot safer that the power-off approach you seem to be recommending. Do you have some statistics to dispute the FAA's and support your position?

Sure do, look at every engine failure in a SE plane where they landed short or overshot due to poor energy management.

Besides it's more fun and requires more skill, a trained monkey can power them self onto a runway, there is a reason CPLs need to demonstrate a power off precision landing.

 

[FastEddieB]

Sure do, look at every engine failure in a SE plane where they landed short or overshot due to poor energy management.

Besides it's more fun and requires more skill, a trained monkey can power them self onto a runway, there is a reason CPLs need to demonstrate a power off precision landing.

When I saw a student going way wide or getting low in the pattern, I'd often simulate an engine failure. If the student aimed for a field or a parking lot or whatever, I'd ask, "Why not just glide to the runway?" Typical answer was that we were too low for that. My response? "Exactly."