My Landings Suck

My Landings Did Not Suck (tonight)

Flew the 172 tonight (after 10pm) next to the Golden Gate Bridge. So much more comfortable than the 152 with a "normal" to "larger than normal" sized adult male (is 230 normal?)

I used pillows in certain places to improve my sight picture (under me) and my rudder control (behind me). I was awash with pillows but my landing was really good. Remembered to just "hold it off, hold it off" with a lot more force than that little 152 yoke requires.

The passenger thought the landing was "great". Though he had only been in one or two other small planes before. I was so relieved.
 
Re: My Landings Did Not Suck (tonight)

kimberlyanne546 said:
The passenger thought the landing was "great".
Click to expand...

That sounds good enough to me! Just learn the numbers that work in each situation (of density altitude and wind) and do it the same way everytime.
 
Re: My Landings Did Not Suck (tonight)

kimberlyanne546 said:
Flew the 172 tonight (after 10pm) next to the Golden Gate Bridge. So much more comfortable than the 152 with a "normal" to "larger than normal" sized adult male (is 230 normal?)

I used pillows in certain places to improve my sight picture (under me) and my rudder control (behind me). I was awash with pillows but my landing was really good. Remembered to just "hold it off, hold it off" with a lot more force than that little 152 yoke requires.

The passenger thought the landing was "great". Though he had only been in one or two other small planes before. I was so relieved.
Click to expand...

I love flying at night, can't imagine seeing the Goldgate bridge at night. May have to add the to my bucket list.

Glad to hear you are getting more comfortable with your 172 landings. Practice makes perfect.
 
Asking for opinions... I was riding in the back of a 182, and after a nice landing, the pilot held off the nose, but kept increasing the back pressure, and then the nose came down, hard, although the pilot didn't let go.

I'm assuming the elevator stalled.

I can see where if the same elevator angle of attack is maintained on the rollout, the nose will come down gently as speed (and lift) decrease. But if one continues to increase the Elevator AoA, you can stall it which will result in a "bang".

So, is the proper technique (during the rollout):

To just hold the elevator where it was for the touchdown, and let the nose come down as you slow down.
Positively and gently "fly" the nose down by releasing back pressure
Increase back pressure to maintain the nose-up attitude?
 
TMetzinger said:
Asking for opinions... I was riding in the back of a 182, and after a nice landing, the pilot held off the nose, but kept increasing the back pressure, and then the nose came down, hard, although the pilot didn't let go.

I'm assuming the elevator stalled.

I can see where if the same elevator angle of attack is maintained on the rollout, the nose will come down gently as speed (and lift) decrease. But if one continues to increase the Elevator AoA, you can stall it which will result in a "bang".

So, is the proper technique (during the rollout):

To just hold the elevator where it was for the touchdown, and let the nose come down as you slow down.
Positively and gently "fly" the nose down by releasing back pressure
Increase back pressure to maintain the nose-up attitude?
Click to expand...

The Arrow is guilty of this, much moreso than the 182 I fly. It kind of glides like a piano to begin with, but the tail stops flying at a very specific speed, and when it does the nose will be on the ground. I really wish that airplane had more elevator effectiveness, when I touch down I am at almost full travel on the elevator, doesn't leave much control surface to keep the tail flying long enough to lower the nose.
 
Arbiter419 said:
The Arrow is guilty of this, much moreso than the 182 I fly. It kind of glides like a piano to begin with, but the tail stops flying at a very specific speed, and when it does the nose will be on the ground. I really wish that airplane had more elevator effectiveness, when I touch down I am at almost full travel on the elevator, doesn't leave much control surface to keep the tail flying long enough to lower the nose.
Click to expand...

Yes - this was discussed in another thread too. Putting some weight in the baggage compartment and/or having passengers in the rear seats makes a huge difference.
 
I think it's pretty normal for the relatively new pilot have some trouble transition from one airplane to another. At least it was for me at the time. It just should take some time for everything come along :) But of well I'm still learning how to land airplanes :)
 
TMetzinger said:
Asking for opinions... I was riding in the back of a 182, and after a nice landing, the pilot held off the nose, but kept increasing the back pressure, and then the nose came down, hard, although the pilot didn't let go.
Click to expand...

I haven't really gotten this "consistent" with lots of 182 landings, sadly.

I've seen the scenario where the touchdown on the mains is hard enough to overcome the elevator up force and push the nose gear down to the runway surface.

Have also seen your scenario where you pull and then "run out" of elevator and the nose plops on.

Somewhere in-between there's a nice medium. It's somewhat hard to get it consistent. At least it is for me, anyway.

If you're RIDICULOUSLY quick, you can arrest a nose drop with a tiny blip of power, but that usually causes all sorts of other problems with the landing.

I tend to err on the side of "just haul it back"... I figure that way the aircraft is slowing as much as possible before the nose gear comes down, and it's not really all that "violent" in any way. The strut can handle that.

The big ol' fat O-470 on the nose is heavy. I'm not so sure the elevator is really stalling so much as it is just losing it's downward "lift" quickly as the aircraft slows.

The one that bugs me the most is short-field stuff where you land nose-high and then *have* to get on the brakes immediately and aggressively. That'll rotate the nose down *right now* and plop it on pretty good. I can't modulate the brakes lightly enough during that initial braking to not "bump" the nose gear down.

Dunno. Maybe I just need more practice.
 
There are three simple rules to making perfect landings. Problem is, no one knows what they are.

Don't sweat it, kiddo. I remember a flight with a high-time IFR pilot where I thought he'd broken the airplane. Seriously, gave me a LOT of respect for Skylanes. If the plane survived and it didn't feel like you broke anything, you're doing just fine.
 
steingar said:
There are three simple rules to making perfect landings. Problem is, no one knows what they are.

Don't sweat it, kiddo. I remember a flight with a high-time IFR pilot where I thought he'd broken the airplane. Seriously, gave me a LOT of respect for Skylanes. If the plane survived and it didn't feel like you broke anything, you're doing just fine.
Click to expand...

I didn't break anything. So thanks!
 
Sac Arrow said:
For what it's worth, my landings in a 172 were always turds after I'd been flying my Arrow or other low wing airplanes due to the reduced ground effect and long glide ratio (an Arrow drops like a rock once the gear comes down.)
Click to expand...
Funny, I had a similar experience on my Commercial ASEL addon. I had been flying tons of Piper singles and alot of twins leading up to it. I had just breezed through my Comm AMEL checkride a few days before and was doing the SE addon in a 172......went up with the instructor and we did all the commercial maneuvers with no trouble. Then came back to practice the landings. Holy cow did I suck! I mean, I've seen 1st time solo students who could land a 172 better than I was doing....it was unreal. Took me a couple flights to get the hang of it, but now I am as comfortable in 172 as any Piper or Beech.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
Thanks. I still wish all my landings were "perfect" but I appreciate the feedback.
Click to expand...

Pushing 350 hours TT and I wish all my landings were "perfect", too. I save my worst ones for PWT so the people at the cafe have something to talk about. :D

Sac Arrow said:
For what it's worth, my landings in a 172 were always turds after I'd been flying my Arrow or other low wing airplanes due to the reduced ground effect and long glide ratio (an Arrow drops like a rock once the gear comes down.)

Also 172's are more stable airplanes than 152's, meaning you have to muscle them around a bit more to make them do what you want to do, like for example proper landing flares. Just like any other plane you get used to them though.
Click to expand...

My Arrow time is in a Hershy bar wing version (1969 model). Once the mains are on the ground that puppy is finished flying. And you don't need to drop the gear to have it come down like a rock. Just pulling the power has the same effect. Safe mode glide, my CFI called it. As in, glides like a safe.

150 - a kite (as I recall)

172 - more stable, more power, still can float a landing quite well

182 - trim is your friend on approach. That nose is heavy, but I can get the stall horn on landing far more consistently than I do in a 172.

Arrow - a touch of power on final and round out helps with elevator effectiveness to avoid dropping the nose. And, watch W&B. We've got a 3 bladed prop on the club's Arrow and that adds furtner to the nose heaviness. Over 400 pounds in the front seats and you need some weight in the baggage compartment to get the CG back aft of the forward limit.

Have fun!
 
PS - Learned how to lean the mixture to 50 degrees rich of peak using a new instrument called an EGT.

Oh and learned how to use a parking brake - either the 152 doesn't have one or it is broken, since we've never once used it.

Found out the throttle lock on the 172 is sort of unscrewing in a weird way, the gas gauges sort of shake, and I am not at all used to the trim. But little things, little things. Oh and I accidentally reclined my seat, so many knobs and adjustments! It is like a limo compared to my no frills 152
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
PS - Learned how to lean the mixture to 50 degrees rich of peak using a new instrument called an EGT.
Click to expand...
FWIW, while 50F ROP is where a lot of POHs and people recommend running an engine, it's actually about the most abusive, creating the highest peak pressures inside cylinders as well as the highest CHTs. Typically that's not a big issue with the engines in a 172 since they're pretty robust and relatively low power. But when you get to airplanes with bigger engines it's not a good idea to operate them that way so you might not want to get in that habit. When you run out of more important things to learn aviation wise there's a lot of good info about aircraft engine management on the internet.

Oh and learned how to use a parking brake - either the 152 doesn't have one or it is broken, since we've never once used it.
Click to expand...
It should be there on the 152 but it wouldn't surprise me if it was broken. IIRC, it's a T-handle you pull out and twist but I could be mis-remembering. On some airplanes you operate a valve while pressing on the on the brake pedals to set the parking brake.
 
Hey, for a normallly aspirated O-360 or O-320 that's going over TBO no matter what you do, it's just fine.
 
bbchien said:
Hey, for a normallly aspirated O-360 or O-320 that's going over TBO no matter what you do, it's just fine.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I only wanted to plant the "proper engine management" seed for future equipment upgrades.
 
All three of the 152's I've flown had INOP parking brakes...not a huge deal, I just throw a pair of chocks in the back. Must be a symptom of the rental fleet getting really old. :D

One of the 152's I've flown had a loosey goosey flap lever that would fall from "flaps up" to the "flaps 10" setting. Now that was annoying.
 
Ghery said:
Pushing 350 hours TT and I wish all my landings were "perfect", too. I save my worst ones for PWT so the people at the cafe have something to talk about. :D
Click to expand...

Only thing worse is doing it with pilot friends aboard.

I saved my worst landing for the year for a time when I had two other pilots aboard during the Colorado Pilot's Association Poker Run.

Oh, and one of our PoA board members standing beside the runway judging the spot landing contest. Just to add to the embarrassment.

It wasn't so much a landing as a controlled crash. It was so bad we wondered if we had a tail-strike and we checked the tail ring after we shut down and climbed out. (No tail strike.)

Only landing since Private training I actually scared myself and two other rated pilots.

Talk about embarrassing. I was trying way too hard to hit that spot on a gusty day. Way too hard.

Of course our CPA president in his 210 greased the damn thing right on the spot. Walt's a good stick.

My only condolence was that very few participants in total hit the spot. Or so someone told me to make me feel better. ;)
 
Note: PoA member, of the message board. Not the PoA Board. Badly worded.
 
One of my worst landings in years was my -- umm -- "arrival" at Windwood last October.

I planned on landing on 24 but those trees seemed awfully close to the approach end. So I went around for 6 (winds were light and variable).

I thought I had it all set, tail wheel rolling, when suddenly I'm airborne again -- I reverted to training and held the yoke all the way back and dropped it in from about 3' AGL.

Fortunately, I landed on the first third of the runway. Houses blocked the view from the restaurant balcony.

:redface:

It happens. It happens less often when you're flying the same airplane from the same seat frequently.
 
dmccormack said:
One of my worst landings in years was my -- umm -- "arrival" at Windwood last October.

I planned on landing on 24 but those trees seemed awfully close to the approach end. So I went around for 6 (winds were light and variable).

I thought I had it all set, tail wheel rolling, when suddenly I'm airborne again -- I reverted to training and held the yoke all the way back and dropped it in from about 3' AGL.

Fortunately, I landed on the first third of the runway. Houses blocked the view from the restaurant balcony.

:redface:

It happens. It happens less often when you're flying the same airplane from the same seat frequently.
Click to expand...

Last year I used all 3000 feet of that runway for landing. Had it been 2900 I would have had an excursion. The only thing scarier was my departure. Gave me some serious respect for the mountains.
 
steingar said:
Last year I used all 3000 feet of that runway for landing. Had it been 2900 I would have had an excursion. The only thing scarier was my departure. Gave me some serious respect for the mountains.
Click to expand...


I took off on 6 and those trees looked 200' tall.... :yikes:

I drifted left over the parking lot on departure to miss the trees. I flew a few miles north before I could head west and clear the ridges.

We're finishing up an overhaul on the Mighty Lycoming and I suspect I'll get a few more ponies out of those 145 cubic inches....

:thumbsup:

I won't be attending this year as a hangar just opened at S37 and I'll be moving in October.
 
I did my check ride in a C-172 after flying nothing but Warriors and Archers, I had never flown a 172. They gave me three days of training in the 172 prior to my check ride. My landings in that thing were awful. I could get up to four landings out of one.

The morning of my check ride, my instructor covered every flight instrument, all of them, except for the engine monitoring instruments. We did touch and goes, full stops, all the maneuvers, everything, with no instruments. My landings and all my flying improved tremendously.

That afternoon I used the same plane for my check ride. The examiner cracked up when he saw the blanked out instrument panel. He said I would not have to take my check ride that way, and he uncovered everything.

I don't know why it made such a huge improvement in my landings, but it did.

My first landing in my check ride was at Kidman airport, a very long desert dirt strip, I greased it in, kept the nose up almost the full length of it, never let it bog down in the sand.

I have no desire to fly a 172 anymore. I like the way low wings land a whole lot better.

John
 
John Baker said:
The morning of my check ride, my instructor covered every flight instrument, all of them, except for the engine monitoring instruments. We did touch and goes, full stops, all the maneuvers, everything, with no instruments. My landings and all my flying improved tremendously.

John
Click to expand...

Airspeed indicator as well?
 
You don't need airspeed to fly safely in VMC, day or night. You can tell how fast you're goin by sink rate and control responsiveness

I had the same treatment from my instructor. Actually as a pre-solo student the flip up pitot protector did not flip up one day and I did my first no- airspeed pattern and landing that day. It turned out really well. Got me to focus more on sight picture and really improved my flying.

For my night instruction we did a simulated electrical failure pattern and landing - no lights in the cockpit (i couldn't see the airspeed) and no landing light. Not exactly a greaser but a controlled, safe landing.
 
dell30rb said:
You don't need airspeed to fly safely in VMC, day or night. You can tell how fast you're goin by sink rate and control responsiveness
Click to expand...


You do according part 91.205
 
danhagan said:
Had ASI covered on many flights ... sight picture for landing and Tach at 1700 abeam the numbers. Came in handy one week after PPL when it actually failed.
Click to expand...

I would argue that "sight picture" or RPM really can substitute ASI
 
sdflyer said:
I would argue that "sight picture" or RPM really can substitute ASI
Click to expand...

can or can't?

Interesting to note that 91.205 does not care if you have cockpit lights or a flashlight. What good are those instruments if you can't see them?
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
PS -

Found out the throttle lock on the 172 is sort of unscrewing in a weird way, the gas gauges sort of shake, and I am not at all used to the trim. But little things, little things. Oh and I accidentally reclined my seat, so many knobs and adjustments! It is like a limo compared to my no frills 152
Click to expand...

LOL! That all sounds familiar. Those seats drove me nuts at first. And it does take a while to figure out how much to turn the trim wheel.

Some advice: NEVER trust those Cessna fuel gauges. More than one more experienced pilot has warned me that they are only accurate when the tanks are full or empty, and I have verified this myself. Best to ignore them.
ALWAYS verify how much you have before you depart (by sticking the tanks or whatever method), and know the plane's fuel burn rate. It's a habit that cwill serve you well with just about any plane, even one with better gauges (no system is perfect, even a good ol' cork with a wire through the filler cap).
 
rottydaddy said:
LOL! That all sounds familiar. Those seats drove me nuts at first. And it does take a while to figure out how much to turn the trim wheel.

Some advice: NEVER trust those Cessna fuel gauges. More than one more experienced pilot has warned me that they are only accurate when the tanks are full or empty, and I have verified this myself. Best to ignore them.
ALWAYS verify how much you have before you depart (by sticking the tanks or whatever method), and know the plane's fuel burn rate. It's a habit that cwill serve you well with just about any plane, even one with better gauges (no system is perfect, even a good ol' cork with a wire through the filler cap).
Click to expand...

Thanks, I was just complaining. I always use a dipstick and measure my tanks and the flight school has a gas card so if within WB I will fill up to be safer. This is another advantage with the 172 - I can actually fill it up.
 
rottydaddy said:
Some advice: NEVER trust those Cessna fuel gauges. More than one more experienced pilot has warned me that they are only accurate when the tanks are full or empty, and I have verified this myself.
Click to expand...
Hey that's good...the only requirement for fuel gauges that the FAA has is that they be accurate when empty!
 
The early 170/172 fuel gauges were very good, (the ones in the wing root) very simple mechanical gauge, A float, gear and magnet in the tank, and a needle in the gauge, as the magnet moves the needle on the other side of the bulkhead follows.

But after 50 years of bobbing around in the tank, the gear has worn until it is no longer attached to the magnet, but you can buy a whole new gauge from AS&S for less than 50 bucks.

one more reason I believe the early 170/172s are a better aircraft than the later versions
 
Fearless Tower said:
Hey that's good...the only requirement for fuel gauges that the FAA has is that they be accurate when empty!
Click to expand...

That's one of the reasons that you never accept the minimum in training or maintenance.
 
denverpilot said:
The one that bugs me the most is short-field stuff where you land nose-high and then *have* to get on the brakes immediately and aggressively. That'll rotate the nose down *right now* and plop it on pretty good. I can't modulate the brakes lightly enough during that initial braking to not "bump" the nose gear down.

Dunno. Maybe I just need more practice.
Click to expand...
It's a short field landing, forget grace, plop in on and get on the binders. :wink2:

That's what i was taught and it works well. I don't know if the brakes lower the nose wheel or if I beat them with relaxing the back pressure to assure the weight is on the wheels. I suspect it's about a tie.

Just be sure to land on the mains, I'm currently 107hrs of riveting into repairing someones laps in attention:yikes:
 
Yeah, I hear ya. I just don't want to treat her like a rental trainer! ;)

We still need that modified bumper sticker from the automotive workd:

"Fly it like you stole it!"

Ooh, or is that...

"Fly it like you STOL it!"

I like that one! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top