Lessons learned after getting my complex endorsement

[Pilawt]

I've owned three high-wing airplanes and three low-wing airplanes, so I can't say I'm overwhelmingly biased one way or the other. However, now that I'm flying out of a busy airport in Arizona with lots of time spent on the ground in very hot weather, high wing (with big openable windows on both sides of the cabin) has definite advantages.

 

[deyoung]

I don't remember the exact numbers now, but I remember watching a shuttle approach (annotated with someone supplying some numbers) and when they were maybe six minutes to wheels down they were still at something like 150,000 feet and mach 3.something...

I may be mis-remembering the numbers a bit, but it was dramatic like that.

 

[Pilawt]

I don't remember the exact numbers now, but I remember watching a shuttle approach (annotated with someone supplying some numbers) and when they were maybe six minutes to wheels down they were still at something like 150,000 feet and mach 3.something...

I once heard that if the Shuttle were flying a classic ILS approach it would cross the outer marker at something like 14,000' AGL., roughly seven times the angle of a typical ILS.

 

[BrianNC]

Love flying low wing. Just really hate getting in and out of a low wing. That's where Cessna wins for me.

I like the high wing better during cruise, but landing I like the low wing better. It's nice to see the runway during the turns.

 

[denverpilot]

I guess the best way to demonstrate the difference between aircraft would be descent rate while in landing configuration at approach speed?

At different power settings, yes.

 

[midlifeflyer]

You guys pull power out before the flare in a PA28? Well, I was taught to slowly ease it out over the numbers and start the flare while at the same time cutting power, seems to work perfect to me (shrug)

It’s all a matter of technique. None inherently right or wrong. Most every single can be landed with power, without power, and with power reduced at varying points and in various ways.

There are limited exceptions. For example, the nose-heavy 182 has a history of nosewheel and firewall damage if power is quickly reduced in the flare. That just means, don’t reduce power quickly in the flare. It doesn’t dictate the use of only one other technique.

It’s just a different version of crab and kick vs slip all the way.

 

[midlifeflyer]

For what its worth guys, my own prop strike in my own Mooney was because I came in over trees power-off. I was right on the money speed wise, but the aircraft didn't have enough energy to arrest the sink in the flair. A few mph more airspeed or 12" of manifold pressure would have saved it. Expensive lesson. I should learn to do power off 180s in the aircraft though, to get a better handle on energy amazement

Just a thought. A very common error in power off landings is a natural tendency to start pulling the nose up early on final. We intellectually know it doesn’t work - all it does is reduce glide range, reduce energy, and bring us closer to the critical AoA - but it takes conscious effort for us to avoid it.

You brought it to mind because you mentioned Mooney. The last time I had to battle that tendency in myself and keep that nose DOWN! all the way to the beginning of the flare was a power off 180 during an Ovation checkout. My instructor and I chuckled about it because it was the best landing of the series.

 

[Caramon13]

I like the high wing better during cruise, but landing I like the low wing better. It's nice to see the runway during the turns.

Agree..I LOVE the visibility that low-wings provide for landing. First time I did a landing in one I was like..wow..this is game-changing. And, I also agree with the folks that said low wings feel more stable.

My wife doesn't really like flying at all and when I took her up the first time in a Cessna, she didn't have much fun. She tried again when I had my Cherokee and she said yeah..this feels more comfortable.

The other major benefit to low wings for me: fueling. No more ladder, no more hopping on pegs and feeling like an acrobat with a fuel hose.

 

[mscard88]

I like the high wing better during cruise, but landing I like the low wing better. It's nice to see the runway during the turns.

You know you can have it your way, not Burger King, but this:

 

[steingar]

Just a thought. A very common error in power off landings is a natural tendency to start pulling the nose up early on final. We intellectually know it doesn’t work - all it does is reduce glide range, reduce energy, and bring us closer to the critical AoA - but it takes conscious effort for us to avoid it.

You brought it to mind because you mentioned Mooney. The last time I had to battle that tendency in myself and keep that nose DOWN! all the way to the beginning of the flare was a power off 180 during an Ovation checkout. My instructor and I chuckled about it because it was the best landing of the series.

I've had instances where I flared too high or too much. Thankfully the runways were big enough to allow a blip of power to smooth it out. If that happened on a smaller runwayI'd go around. But a power off 180 would be a trick in my aircraft. I did them all the time in my old Cherokee.

 

[mscard88]

I used a PA32R Lance that the flight school had for complex. Did the 180* accuracy landings with no problem, as long as you turned base leg like right now.

 

[Sinistar]

....There are limited exceptions. For example, the nose-heavy 182 has a history of nosewheel and firewall damage if power is quickly reduced in the flare.

So maybe I am missing something here (@denverpilot )? I think I've landed the old 182 about 350 times now. With the exception of Soft Field, I usually have all the power off about the time I cross the numbers and often a bit before. Then just continue flying it into ground effect, then level off for what seems like just a second, maybe two, then flare is needed and the standard yoke back until touchdown.

By "power is quickly reduced in the flare" do you mean the throttle is pulled back as you are flaring?

The only time I recall pulling the throttle anywhere past the numbers is right after a soft field landing touchdown, then gradual off the throttle, yoke back carefully (man will it fly again if you don't do that step right) and coast it out. I think we've been using 1500rpm for Soft Field landings. I might experiment with 1400rpm next as the flare goes on and on but wow is it gentle.

 

[Caramon13]

So maybe I am missing something here (@denverpilot )? I think I've landed the old 182 about 350 times now. With the exception of Soft Field, I usually have all the power off about the time I cross the numbers and often a bit before. Then just continue flying it into ground effect, then level off for what seems like just a second, maybe two, then flare is needed and the standard yoke back until touchdown.

By "power is quickly reduced in the flare" do you mean the throttle is pulled back as you are flaring?

The only time I recall pulling the throttle anywhere past the numbers is right after a soft field landing touchdown, then gradual off the throttle, yoke back carefully (man will it fly again if you don't do that step right) and coast it out. I think we've been using 1500rpm for Soft Field landings. I might experiment with 1400rpm next as the flare goes on and on but wow is it gentle.

Can't speak for Nate, but that's the exact procedure I'd use in the Cherokee 180.

And according to the POH, it was the right one:



However, the 182 may be different.

 

[flyingron]

REDUCING SPEED is not the same as REDUCING POWER.

 

[Caramon13]

REDUCING SPEED is not the same as REDUCING POWER.

The way its worded implies power to me. If you are carrying power all the way up to the point of flare what else would you say reduces speed? More flare? Time? Magical fairy dust?

Why write "reduce speed" if the flareout was the cause of the speed reduction?

Simultaneously reducing power while maintaining the flareout will reduce speed.

 

[denverpilot]

I think what @midlifeflyer was trying to get across was FAST changes of power destabilize any aircraft, but the 182 specifically tends to be nose-heavy, so if you're already slow and there's therefore, little airflow over the nice big elevator, the nose tends to drop too quickly for most people to stop it without practice.

With practice and awareness of how much of the prop slipstream is "holding the nose up", you can add a good solid pull of elevator if you have some reason to honk the power off quickly in or near the flare, but the consequences for not pulling enough, is touching down nosewheel first. Especially forward-CG loaded like a lot of folks are when practicing landings... couple of bug dudes up front, nothing in the back...

Anyone can help their 182 landings a whole lot by putting a small toolbox in back, and getting the CG away from the forward limit. Plus... tools! Or a couple of slabs of bottled water.

But it's a crutch. You can yank power quick in a 182, just have to be already moving the yoke aft at the same time. Usually not recommended, just because it's such a timing specific thing, and if you goof, nosewheel landings in the 182 tend to wrinkle the firewall and get expensive.

That said, the amount of force on the nosewheel required to wrinkle a firewall is pretty extreme. Touching down lightly nose wheel first isn't going to do it. Most folks I've talked to who had that sort of damage described the landing as someone "slamming" the nosegear on. So... don't do that.

Personally if I'm flying fast enough that I need to yank power that low, I'm way too fast and there's plenty of airflow over the tail to keep the nose up. And if I'm deciding the airspeed is way out of whack in the flare, I'm noticing that waaaaay too late. Time to go around.

Smoother flying is always preferable to jerky flying, right?

Anyway, prior to these questions directed at me, my only point in this thread was that power isn't always necessary to land any airplane. Energy is. A steeper than normal gliding approach can provide plenty of airspeed for a totally normal landing.

 

[Clark1961]

With practice and awareness of how much of the prop slipstream is "holding the nose up", you can add a good solid pull of elevator if you have some reason to honk the power off quickly in or near the flare, but the consequences for not pulling enough, is touching down nosewheel first. Especially forward-CG loaded like a lot of folks are when practicing landings... couple of bug dudes up front, nothing in the back...

I jus' can't keep up these days. What's a 'bug' dude? Some sorta big eyed guy? Wings under a hard shell? This is all very confusing...

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

REDUCING SPEED is not the same as REDUCING POWER.

Thank you.....I was wondering.

 

[flyingron]

The way its worded implies power to me. If you are carrying power all the way up to the point of flare what else would you say reduces speed? More flare? Time? Magical fairy dust?

Raising angle of attack generally helps. In fact, that's the whole purpose of the roundout is to reduce the speed. Otherwise, you'd just fly on to the runway at a minimal sink but higher speed.

 

[Caramon13]

Raising angle of attack generally helps. In fact, that's the whole purpose of the roundout is to reduce the speed. Otherwise, you'd just fly on to the runway at a minimal sink but higher speed.

Ok, and so you are advocating that if you are IN a flareout, you want to increase the angle of attack without reducing power to reduce speed?

I'm not talking about roundout, I'm taking about the flareout as the snippit from the POH indicated. I understand the roundout is to bleed off the extra speed but if you still have power you are going to basically be doing a low approach. You have to eventually reduce power.

The flareout is the last part of the roundout simultaneously reducing power and flaring = reducing speed. Maintain power at that point and you'll land fast and/or if you have ENOUGH power, possibly fly out of ground effect...

 

[Zeldman]

Love flying low wing. Just really hate getting in and out of a low wing. That's where Cessna wins for me.

The low wings I fly have stairs in the back to help ease getting in and out....

 

[MauleSkinner]

Ok, and so you are advocating that if you are IN a flareout, you want to increase the angle of attack without reducing power to reduce speed?

I'm not talking about roundout, I'm taking about the flareout as the snippit from the POH indicated. I understand the roundout is to bleed off the extra speed but if you still have power you are going to basically be doing a low approach. You have to eventually reduce power.

The flareout is the last part of the roundout simultaneously reducing power and flaring = reducing speed. Maintain power at that point and you'll land fast and/or if you have ENOUGH power, possibly fly out of ground effect.

What if "enough power to maintain the desired airspeed and approach path" is idle? that paragraph is also saying there's no need to add power to maintain approach airspeed.

 

[Caramon13]

What if "enough power to maintain the desired airspeed and approach path" is idle? that paragraph is also saying there's no need to add power to maintain approach airspeed.

Note the beginning of the paragraph starts with "Normally". And, enough power <> idle. Enough power means, enough power. I doubt they would have written the POH for a non-stabilized approach.

 

[denverpilot]

The way its worded implies power to me. If you are carrying power all the way up to the point of flare what else would you say reduces speed? More flare? Time? Magical fairy dust?

Why write "reduce speed" if the flareout was the cause of the speed reduction?

Simultaneously reducing power while maintaining the flareout will reduce speed.

Increasing angle of attack, increases drag, reduces speed, increases sink rate, requiring more up elevator, which increases angle of attack, increases drag, reduces speed, and increases sink rate... it's a locked loop that continues to touchdown without the addition of power.

In the stuff with Johnson bar flaps you could add a whole bunch of flap in a hurry, too. They're not all that effective in the Pipers and they're too slow in the Cessna with electric motors, but it's an option.

Yes, you can slow down without a power change. And the POH doesn't say how to reduce speed for a reason. There's multiple ways to reduce speed.

If you're Bob Hoover or Sean Tucker, you could even add a slip and land on one wheel, if you'd like to slow up that way... personally I kinda suck at it, but can do a crappy rendition of it.

Since I have to pay for the tires, I tend not to do it, which is sad. I'd be a better pilot if I could practice it. Anyone want to buy me a set of tires so I can practice that for a while?

Purposefully making one wheel landings is kinda fun. "That'll get your feet hooked to your brain..." as my first instructor used to joke.

Accuracy landings by modulating a slip is a good exercise. I haven't done that one in quite a while. I want to go play now! That'd be a great exercise to wake up my feet after not flying for a month.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Note the beginning of the paragraph starts with "Normally". And, enough power <> idle. Enough power means, enough power. I doubt they would have written the POH for a non-stabilized approach.

Why is idle an unstabilized approach?

 

[Caramon13]

Yes, you can slow down without a power change. And the POH doesn't say how to reduce speed for a reason. There's multiple ways to reduce speed.

Never said you couldn't. I'm arguing that during that particular phase of flight, power is reduced which contributes to a reduction in speed. From the FAA Flying Handbook, not regulatory I know...:

When the AOA is increased, the lift is momentarily increased and this decreases the rate of descent. Since power normally is reduced to idle during the round out, the airspeed also gradually decreases.

Granted they use roundout instead of flareout, but whatever same difference.

 

[Caramon13]

Why is idle an unstabilized approach?

The objective of a good, stabilized final approach is to descend at an angle and airspeed that permits the airplane to reach the desired touchdown point at an airspeed that results in minimum floating just before touchdown; in essence, a semi-stalled condition. To accomplish this, it is essential that both the descent angle and the airspeed be accurately controlled. Since on a normal approach the power setting is not fixed as in a power-off approach, the power and pitch attitude are adjusted simultaneously as necessary to control the airspeed and the descent angle, or to attain the desired altitudes along the approach path. By lowering the nose and reducing power to keep approach airspeed constant, a descent at a higher rate can be made to correct for being too high in the approach. This is one reason for performing approaches with partial power; if the approach is too high, merely lower the nose and reduce the power. When the approach is too low, add power and raise the nose.

I'll not argue the fact that sometimes power NEEDS to be at idle to adjust speed.

 

[flyingron]

Ok, and so you are advocating that if you are IN a flareout, you want to increase the angle of attack without reducing power to reduce speed?

Certainly, it's done all the time. There's a large category of people who'd have pulled power to idle before they got to the roundout/flare.'

I'm not talking about roundout, I'm taking about the flareout as the snippit from the POH indicated. I understand the roundout is to bleed off the extra speed but if you still have power you are going to basically be doing a low approach. You have to eventually reduce power.

You seem to be missing basic aerodynamics. Roundout and Flare both you are increasing AOA and deceasing speed. Power isn't directly related to speed. Yes you want (well the FAA wants you to want) minimum energy at touch down, but that doesn't mean that you are "slowly reducing power" in the final landing sequence. You could dead stick it from the base to final turn, or do what I typically do, chop it over the numbers, you're still complying with the handbook "reduce airspeed" to touch down close to the stall speed.

To the credit the book says "near the stalling speed" rather than chuckingd the nonsense about landing in a full stall (It is near impossible to be stalled with the mains on the ground ,you can't get the AOA high enough).

The flareout is the last part of the roundout simultaneously reducing power and flaring = reducing speed. Maintain power at that point, and you'll land fast and/or if you have ENOUGH power, possibly fly out of ground effect...

Bullpoop. That's not what the handbook says. That's not how aerodynamics works. It's not what the FAA espouses.

 

[flyingron]

I'll not argue the fact that sometimes power NEEDS to be at idle to adjust speed.

Agreed, but that's not what you said. You said you slowly reduce power in the landing. THat's not the case. You can slowly reduce speed without touching the throttle or chopping it immediately.

Landings are an energy management issue. Power, airspeed, descent rate are all deeply intertwingled. It's a mistake to thing one is directly associated with the other.

 

[Caramon13]

Certainly, it's done all the time. There's a large category of people who'd have pulled power to idle before they got to the roundout/flare.'

That is not a stabilized or "normal" approach. Do people do it? Sure. Hell I do it all the time. Note the first word in the paragraph I sent you is "Normally".

You seem to be missing basic aerodynamics. Roundout and Flare both you are increasing AOA and deceasing speed. Power isn't directly related to speed. Yes you want (well the FAA wants you to want) minimum energy at touch down, but that doesn't mean that you are "slowly reducing power" in the final landing sequence. You could dead stick it from the base to final turn, or do what I typically do, chop it over the numbers, you're still complying with the handbook "reduce airspeed" to touch down close to the stall speed.

Again, what you can do and what is "normally" done are two different things.

It's not what the FAA espouses.

See post #66.

 

[flyingron]

That is not a stabilized or "normal" approach.

Again, I disagree. It can be perfectly stabilized, the glide path is just steeper. 3 degree glideslopes aren't exactly "normal" for light aircraft. You're safer flying them a bit steeper.

Your quote from the AFH doesn't support what you say. It doesn't call for a continual gradual reduction, it just says it is reduced. It doesn't also say it hasn't already been reduced, just that you are reduced at that point.

 

[Caramon13]

Agreed, but that's not what you said. You said you slowly reduce power in the landing. THat's not the case. You can slowly reduce speed without touching the throttle or chopping it immediately.

Landings are an energy management issue. Power, airspeed, descent rate are all deeply intertwingled. It's a mistake to thing one is directly associated with the other.

I said reduce power in the flareout. Or roundout if you prefer. If you are carrying power at some point you have to chop it or idle it. The "normal" time to do that is during roundout, which reduces speed along with AoA increase and a couple other factors.

Don't reduce power and you're doing a soft landing perhaps. Chop it from pattern altitude and glide it in isn't "normal". It can be argued that it's stable, but I disagree with that. No power = no ability to adjust or stabilize the approach BEYOND a certain point. Energy manage all you want, but if you need power to stabilize and you don't have it..it ain't stabilized.

 

[flyingron]

Again, you define "normal" in your own mind. People have been doing stabilized power off approaches since the beginning of aviation. Unless you need a shallower approach angle for some compelling reason, all you are doing is throwing power in to a situation that you are going to eventually have to get rid of.

but if you need power to stabilize and you don't have it..it ain't stabilized.

Then by your own arugment, your approaches aren't stabilized as they require power.

However, STABILIZED doesn't mean the controls are immobile. That's not how the FAA defines it. A Stabilized approach is one that maintains a constant glide angle towards the desired touch down zone at a defined speed. It may involve having ower, it may not. It may require throttle changes.

ALL APPROACHES CEASE TO BE STABILIZE one you round out. Otherwise you'd just hit the runway at the 3 degree (or what ever slope you desire).

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

evidently being pedantic is a virtue.....

 

[Caramon13]

Again, you define "normal" in your own mind. People have been doing stabilized power off approaches since the beginning of aviation. Unless you need a shallower approach angle for some compelling reason, all you are doing is throwing power in to a situation that you are going to eventually have to get rid of.

Then by your own arugment, your approaches aren't stabilized as they require power.

However, STABILIZED doesn't mean the controls are immobile. That's not how the FAA defines it. A Stabilized approach is one that maintains a constant glide angle towards the desired touch down zone at a defined speed. It may involve having ower, it may not. It may require throttle changes.

ALL APPROACHES CEASE TO BE STABILIZE one you round out. Otherwise you'd just hit the runway at the 3 degree (or what ever slope you desire).

Why do approaches cease to be stabilized once you round out?

I think I've provided at least three different references that define a "normal approach" and none of them are written by me. All of them may or may not require power at some point to be stable. Gliding it in at idle your power IS immobile and that isn't normal. If it requires throttle changes, then by your argument you need power. If you have no power (aka idle) it ain't stable.

What's so hard to understand about that?

You can't remove power and keep a control idle (power) and call it a normal/stable approach. The reason is because power is potentially a part of a stable approach.

This all goes to @MauleSkinner's comments about why it's "unstabilized". I think it's more accurate to say it's just not stabilized rather than it IS unstabilized.

 

[Caramon13]

evidently being pedantic is a virtue.....

Not sure who that was directed at, but if me, thanks!

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Not sure who that was directed at, but if me, thanks!

not really to you....as much as some here can get all wrapped up in details. Not that it really matters....IMHO.

 

[chartbundle]

I think my first true power-off landing in the Mooney was my flight review a couple weeks ago. Pulled power south of the field plenty high and took it straight in, but keeping the speed up to have the energy for the flare.

Of course, then Sunday an almost power-off landing for a different reason, midfield downwind at 2500 AGL and about 170KTS, speed brakes already out, slowed to gear speed, slowed to flap speed, turned final about 1.5 miles at about 1000AGL. Finally brought the speed brakes back in at about 1/2 mile, and gently touched down on the 1000' marker. I really enjoy busy controlled fields and TFRs keeping you too high for too long.

So, yes, it's all about energy management. Also, for a good time fly a SR22 turbo to a checkout in a 206 Turbo(Doesn't this thing go any faster?)

 

[Caramon13]

I really enjoy busy controlled fields and TFRs keeping you too high for too long.)

Wasn't a TFR, but Tampa approach kept me at 4,000 until about 2 miles from the field then switched me over to tower at KSRQ. That was fun .

 

[MauleSkinner]

Of course, then Sunday an almost power-off landing for a different reason, midfield downwind at 2500 AGL and about 170KTS, speed brakes already out, slowed to gear speed, slowed to flap speed, turned final about 1.5 miles at about 1000AGL. Finally brought the speed brakes back in at about 1/2 mile, and gently touched down on the 1000' marker. I really enjoy busy controlled fields and TFRs keeping you too high for too long.

So, yes, it's all about energy management.

Back in the "good old days" we used to go to idle in the Falcon 10 at 5000 ft over KMSP to land on 14 at KSTP. Energy and drag (52 degrees of flaps worth) management is a wonderful thing!