When Not to Aim for the Numbers

[Niladri]

We have been taught as student pilots to aim for the numbers while on final for landing. Aiming for the numbers (or other aim point) is good advice, since it is one way of ensuring we stay on glide slope. However, it is often what we are not explicitly told that becomes the bane of successful execution of a maneuver.

Posted a new article titled 'When Not to Aim for the Numbers', based on observing landing difficulty questions from students in several forums. Check it out at http://freepilotinfo.blogspot.com/2009/12/when-not-to-aim-for-numbers.html.

Appreciate feedback. Your own experiences welcome as well.

- Niladri
http://freepilotinfo.blogspot.com

 

[dmccormack]

We have been taught as student pilots to aim for the numbers while on final for landing. Aiming for the numbers (or other aim point) is good advice, since it is one way of ensuring we stay on glide slope. However, it is often what we are not explicitly told that becomes the bane of successful execution of a maneuver.

Posted a new article titled 'When Not to Aim for the Numbers', based on observing landing difficulty questions from students in several forums. Check it out at http://freepilotinfo.blogspot.com/2009/12/when-not-to-aim-for-numbers.html.

Appreciate feedback. Your own experiences welcome as well.

- Niladri
http://freepilotinfo.blogspot.com

I learned to land "On the numbers" at LNS, where there was plenty of unobstructed air before touchdown.

As you move to the Commercial, you'll learn to pick a spot anywhere on the runway, and land there.

Of course this doesn't require Comm dual -- you can start working towards that objective any time.

But student pilots are usually not landing within +/- 20' of a designated spot, so the numbers provides a big, visible target.

As in most things aviation, it depends on the circumstances.

Editorial comment: I prefer not to use the term "flare" as it doesn't correlate to any other manuever we practice in the air (thus lots of student pilot confusion ensues early on in training). I prefer to describe it as a transition from a descending glide to level, slow flight 1' above the surface. We can practice that transition all day at altitude.

This doesn't mean flare is a forbidden term or people that use it are wrong -- I just find there's more confusion about what the word means and so dropping the word results in more ready transfer of concept.

 

[tdager]

I think it is an excellent article and articulates well the roundout/flare maneuver.

It took me awhile after my PPL to get into my head that I had (at most airports) 3500-4000' of runway and that slam-dunking the plane to get it to land as close to the numbers was not necessary. For some reason my landings got a LOT better! LOL

 

[Dudley Henriques]

We have been taught as student pilots to aim for the numbers while on final for landing. Aiming for the numbers (or other aim point) is good advice, since it is one way of ensuring we stay on glide slope. However, it is often what we are not explicitly told that becomes the bane of successful execution of a maneuver.

Posted a new article titled 'When Not to Aim for the Numbers', based on observing landing difficulty questions from students in several forums. Check it out at http://freepilotinfo.blogspot.com/2009/12/when-not-to-aim-for-numbers.html.

Appreciate feedback. Your own experiences welcome as well.

- Niladri
http://freepilotinfo.blogspot.com

I'm afraid I'd like to offer a respectful alternative to this "approach" (pun intended

I've never been a fan of these canned, do it THIS way, articles that tend to a SINGLE SOLUTION for phases of flight such as landings.
The truth is that flying is done in a constantly changing dynamic and no single "do it THIS way" will suffice when it comes to flight instruction.
Flight instruction by it's very nature requires the student to perform in this constantly changing dynamic and because of this, these "canned articles", although presenting some basics that will hold true under a specific set of circumstances, will NOT hold true if the dynamic changes.
For example, this article and it's data concern putting the airplane on the ground safely. The approach phase of the article is fine but as all such articles do, it breaks down as the stabilized approach phase transitions through the "flare" and into the actual landing.
The transition from approach through touchdown involves much more in the way of anticipation, pre-emptive action, and correction than this article indicates. Perhaps in a zero wind condition the "steps" indicated would suffice, but even in this almost pristine condition, advising a student to
"Hold that attitude (do not release control pressure)" is advice that if the student over corrects in pitch or under corrects in pitch while establishing a landing attitude, is extremely misleading if understanding what is ACTUALLY required during the landing is the goal.

The failure of these "do it this way" articles is that they are based on an assumption, that assumption being that CONDITIONS will allow the single action suggested such as "hold that attitude (do not release control pressure)".
The truth is that every landing presents a different set of conditions during flare due to wind and how the student has to deal with control pressures in 3 axis of movement in 3 dimensional space, and these conditions will change on every landing the student attempts.
Teaching good landings results from proper preparation in basics having been done before the student enters the pattern. The landing problem should be presented to the student as a goal to be achieved under constantly changing wind conditions. From this point onward through the teaching phase involving landings, the instructor should act as a guide to help the student understand what has to be done with the airplane within these constantly changing conditions in order to achieve that goal.

Bottom line on good instruction; ALL that occurs in flying is FLUID and DYNAMIC.
Good instructional technique involved with flying as well has to be FLUID and DYNAMIC.
Dudley Henriques

 

[EdFred]

I quit reading after 3 degrees.

Unless you are flying an ILS, 3 degrees is pretty much never flown.

Edit: I slogged through the rest of it. I'll be sure to send you a bill for the damage to the Comanche after using that advice for landing.

 

[Niladri]

Thanks for the comments.

1. Agree with the confusion the word flare can cause. I prefer to break it up into approach, roundout and flare. In my definition flare being the holding nose up after the airplane starts to dip from straight and level flight above the runway. I appreciate the point made, however.

2. Completely agree that there can be no canned approach, as well as with the pitfalls of trying to follow "instructions" in an article to the letter. Every landing is different, and I have certainly seen over-correction in the matter of holding backpressure on flare causing a balloon. The article is intended for students who usually have the opposite problem, and intended to be performed under the watchful eye of an instructor on board. I was thinking that references to ballooning through over correction might be slightly detracting from the main purpose of the article. I will put it in if you think I should. What do you say?

3. Dreading the bill for damage to the Comanche! I am not advising to hold an exact 3 degrees - that isn't the point of the article. That is an example that tends to work out (between 3 and 5 degrees in most cases) and was meant primarily for beginning students in a tricycle gear trainer like a Cessna 172 or 152. I am happy to modify the article if you have a suggestion.

Thanks again!

 

[EdFred]

Thanks for the comments.

1. Agree with the confusion the word flare can cause. I prefer to break it up into approach, roundout and flare. In my definition flare being the holding nose up after the airplane starts to dip from straight and level flight above the runway. I appreciate the point made, however.

2. Completely agree that there can be no canned approach, as well as with the pitfalls of trying to follow "instructions" in an article to the letter. Every landing is different, and I have certainly seen over-correction in the matter of holding backpressure on flare causing a balloon. The article is intended for students who usually have the opposite problem, and intended to be performed under the watchful eye of an instructor on board. I was thinking that references to ballooning through over correction might be slightly detracting from the main purpose of the article. I will put it in if you think I should. What do you say?

3. Dreading the bill for damage to the Comanche! I am not advising to hold an exact 3 degrees - that isn't the point of the article. That is an example that tends to work out (between 3 and 5 degrees in most cases) and was meant primarily for beginning students in a tricycle gear trainer like a Cessna 172 or 152. I am happy to modify the article if you have a suggestion.

Thanks again!

Even 5 degrees is pretty shallow, I was always taught a lot closer to power off which is around 7 degrees. And I was also not changing anything at 50 feet, that seems a bit high in case the student gets a little punchy and stalls it out. Never did really like the term flare - because of the ballooning issues. Was always taught - and continue to teach - to hold just enough pressure to keep the nose from hitting the ground first. No conscious pulling on the yoke, just hold it so your view stays the same after you make that transition over the threshold. I will say however, that coming in shallower does allow for a smoother transition, but the student already has to be light on the countrols, because shallower generally equals higher speed, which makes it easier to balloon.

 

[dmccormack]

Hmmm.

Well, think about it -- are you "Flaring" or are you holding and angle of attack that will maintain lift?

My point is this -- you should be able to do all the steps required to land in the air, 1000' above any ground. So you would practice the transition from gliding descent to level off to slow flight to maintaining altitude as the speed decays. There's no special technique, no special nuttin.

And that's all you're doing to land -- you're transitioning form a descent to level flight and then gradually increasing angle of attack while the speed decays about 1" above the runway.

3-5 degrees will require power on all the way to tarmac. It may be better to practice power to idle and see what that looks like.

 

[RotorAndWing]

3-5 degrees will require power on all the way to tarmac. It may be better to practice power to idle and see what that looks like.

The problem today is that new instructors teach to hold power to the landing along with long shallow approaches. The majority of new instructors will not teach power off approaches with the exception of an emergency landing. Also students are taught to land with full flaps every landing and that a no flap landing is an abnormal procedure.

Instead of teaching basic airmanship and "stick and rudder" skills the new Instructors try to over analyze each situation and add complexities.

 

[dmccormack]

The problem today is that new instructors teach to hold power to the landing along with long shallow approaches. The majority of new instructors will not teach power off approaches with the exception of an emergency landing. Also students are taught to land with full flaps every landing and that a no flap landing is an abnormal procedure.

Instead of teaching basic airmanship and "stick and rudder" skills the new Instructors try to over analyze each situation and add complexities.

I teach full flaps as a default, only because I want to arrive on the ground with as little energy as possible. Obviously flap motors die, winds gust, and other reasons cause no-flap landing to be required and so the well-trained pilot will know what to do.

(I don't have flaps in the Chief -- but I have tons of rudder and aileron authority which makes for pretty steep descents!)

I think the power-on approach drill is the result of mis-reading the "Stabilized approach" requirement in the PTS coupled with a "prep for jets" mentality.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I teach full flaps as a default, only because I want to arrive on the ground with as little energy as possible. Obviously flap motors die, winds gust, and other reasons cause no-flap landing to be required and so the well-trained pilot will know what to do.

(I don't have flaps in the Chief -- but I have tons of rudder and aileron authority which makes for pretty steep descents!)

I think the power-on approach drill is the result of mis-reading the "Stabilized approach" requirement in the PTS coupled with a "prep for jets" mentality.

Yes it's the "prep for jets" mentality and how they approach teaching primary students.

When I was teaching fixed wing students pre-solo every landing was power off from the downwind and without flaps, just using basic skills. After that was achieved then we would introduce flap use and the various landings.

 

[dmccormack]

When I was teaching fixed wing students pre-solo every landing was power off from the downwind and without flaps, just using basic skills. After that was achieved then we would introduce flap use and the various landings.

That's how I learned in a C152 at KLNS. Maybe because the Chief CFI at the school had learned in the Army Air Corps and flew B-29s...?

Sadly, I can understand why flight schools might tone down the "You may lose your engine at any time so stay close to the runway!" talk.

Which is a shame.

 

[RotorAndWing]

That's how I learned in a C152 at KLNS. Maybe because the Chief CFI at the school had learned in the Army Air Corps and flew B-29s...?

Sadly, I can understand why flight schools might tone down the "You may lose your engine at any time so stay close to the runway!" talk.

Which is a shame.

Unfortunately it's a "drift" in teaching. A new flight instructor decides to change a procedure to "his way" of thinking and teaches his students this. Then these students become CFI's and decide to "better" the procedure and change it, and so on. It's the lack of standardization in training that contributes to the "drift".

Today we have CFI's trying to teach Cessna's as if they are jets with complex procedures,convoluted, inane checklist and "call outs".

 

[dmccormack]

Unfortunately it's a "drift" in teaching. A new flight instructor decides to change a procedure to "his way" of thinking and teaches his students this. Then these students become CFI's and decide to "better" the procedure and change it, and so on. It's the lack of standardization in training that contributes to the "drift".

Today we have CFI's trying to teach Cessna's as if they are jets with complex procedures,convoluted, inane checklist and "call outs".

You mean I shouldn't call "Rotate" when I bring the tail up?

 

[RotorAndWing]

You mean I shouldn't call "Rotate" when I bring the tail up?

 

[AuntPeggy]

I find that varying the spelling of words contributes to confusion.

>> roundout and flair by attempting to yank the aircraft level parallel
...
>> reach the numbers before one can flare. Keep coming down the

 

[Niladri]

Whoops! I apologize. Corrected now!
I obviously don't have a flair for spelling.

- Niladri
http://freepilotinfo.blogspot.com/

 

[brcase]

Yes it's the "prep for jets" mentality and how they approach teaching primary students.

When I was teaching fixed wing students pre-solo every landing was power off from the downwind and without flaps, just using basic skills. After that was achieved then we would introduce flap use and the various landings.

I agree with seeing to much of the "Pref for jets" mentality being transfered to ASEL flying.

I usually teach using about 10 degrees or 1st notch of flaps just to get students accustom to raising and lowering the flaps. And at this setting if they forget to retract them on a touch and go or go arround there is no harm done. Also then if they misjudge approach and turn base or final to high they have they have option of adding more flaps to increase the descent angle, this way they learn how to actually use the flaps rather then just to put them down to land. I think in small airplanes the difference in wear on tires is probably minimual between a properly flaired no flap landing and a full flap landing.

Brian

 

[poadeleted20]

The problem today is that new instructors teach to hold power to the landing along with long shallow approaches. The majority of new instructors will not teach power off approaches with the exception of an emergency landing. Also students are taught to land with full flaps every landing and that a no flap landing is an abnormal procedure.

With the exception of the "shallow" part (there's no FAA recommendation for a 3 degree glide path for VFR approaches -- as noted above, 3-5 is recommended as a good range and 6 or more is strictly for over-the-obstacle landings), this is probably because the FAA recommends it, and has been recommending it for, oh, the last 30 years or so. They even require it on the PP-Airplane practical test:

4. Establishes the recommended approach and landing configuration and airspeed, and adjusts pitch attitude and power as required.

5. Maintains a stabilized approach and recommended airspeed, or in its absence, not more than 1.3 V​

​

SO, +10/-5 knots, with wind gust factor applied.​

Instead of teaching basic airmanship and "stick and rudder" skills the new Instructors try to over analyze each situation and add complexities.

I don't think the Stabilized VFR Approach as espoused by the FAA is contrary to "basic airmanship and 'stick and rudder' skills." Rather, it teaches the true relationship between pitch/power and speed/flight path angle, which is lost when one teaches power-off approaches in which speed and altitude are controlled primarily by pitch and to a lesser extent by configuration changes.
​

 

[dmccormack]

With the exception of the "shallow" part (there's no FAA recommendation for a 3 degree glide path for VFR approaches -- as noted above, 3-5 is recommended as a good range and 6 or more is strictly for over-the-obstacle landings), this is probably because the FAA recommends it, and has been recommending it for, oh, the last 30 years or so. They even require it on the PP-Airplane practical test:

I don't think the Stabilized VFR Approach as espoused by the FAA is contrary to "basic airmanship and 'stick and rudder' skills." Rather, it teaches the true relationship between pitch/power and speed/flight path angle, which is lost when one teaches power-off approaches in which speed and altitude are controlled primarily by pitch and to a lesser extent by configuration changes.
[/left]

Hunh? I don't read in that standard a requirement for a power-on approach.

 

[EdFred]

They even require it on the PP-Airplane practical test:

I see nothing about an approach angle...I see nothing about having set power...I just see that the applicant is required to make adjustments to maintain Vso x 1.3

Is this more of the Ron Levy FAA interpretation?

 

[RotorAndWing]

They even require it on the PP-Airplane practical test:

I don't think the Stabilized VFR Approach as espoused by the FAA is contrary to "basic airmanship and 'stick and rudder' skills." Rather, it teaches the true relationship between pitch/power and speed/flight path angle, which is lost when one teaches power-off approaches in which speed and altitude are controlled primarily by pitch and to a lesser extent by configuration changes.
[/left]

You obviously don't understand the relationship of teaching basic skills vs preparing for a check ride using the PTS which is common place now among Instructors. When I taught both fixed wing and rotor wing I taught the applicant how to fly the aircraft, not just how to pass a test.

It seems today the only interest in "teaching" is how to pass a test.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Yes it's the "prep for jets" mentality and how they approach teaching primary students.

When I was teaching fixed wing students pre-solo every landing was power off from the downwind and without flaps, just using basic skills. After that was achieved then we would introduce flap use and the various landings.

Bingo.

'cep'n when I was learning, there weren't no flaps to introduce. The angle was whatever angle the old wreck glided at. Didn't even know what the angle was.

Too high, fix it with a little slip. Too low, add power and get a snide remark from the other seat.

But that was then.

Now I'm the old wreck and the airplane is a treasured antique.

 

[Geico266]

Number are fine for normal flying, but I like to aim for the middle of the runway when I dead stick. That gives you a better margin of safety of you come up short and the engine won't start.

 

[rottydaddy]

I can't say I endorse the article... for one thing, you're saying "you don't need to do it this specific way" then sort of outline a specific way to do it. And there's more, IMHO, that makes it not-so-useful as a "how to" that can be applied to any landing in any airplane at any airport under any conditions. Every plane has its "sweet spots" in terms of attitudes, configuration, power settings, and airspeeds, but the basics are the framework on which all those specifics hang.


I am not an instructor, but will always consider myself a student, and after a few hundred landings- good, bad, and mediocre, and many without an engine with which to fix my mistakes- here's what I've learned, that applies in every scenario:

-Airspeed:

Most important thing is airspeed. You barely mention it, and that bothers me. This is not some side note- it's the "secret", really, the essence of making the whole glide to touchdown work the way you want it to. With power, without power, flaps or no flaps, in wind, crosswind, gusts, no wind, tailwind, thermals, shear, in the dark, in precip, on fire, whatever. ASI not working? Airspeed- the airspeed that is best under the circumstances- is still important. Can't land smoothly or accurately with no ASI? Practice without it. It's important enough that, IMHO, everybody should be able to do it without an ASI. There are other cues, specific to each airplane... they are reliable, and using them more keeps your eyes and brain out there on the runway, not on the panel or in the POH. 1.3X Vso is a great starting point, and woe betide the pilot who strays far from that in either direction, but not all good landings are made with precisely 1.3X Vso on short final.
Same goes for the stabilized vs unstabilized approach: normally, target airspeeds at abeam, base, final, and short final work great, which is why it's the standard nowadays, but it's good to be able to simply do what you must to arrive at the selected touchdown point with the plane doing what you want it to do. In the end, that's all a stabilized approach should get you, anyway. I believe that even to fly a nice textbook stabilized approach, you need to accept that, or you will not be ahead of the airplane as you should be.

On the PPASEL check ride, the examiner may well look at the ASI to confirm you are somewhere near the target airspeeds for the plane and conditions, but they will probably be more satisfied with your demonstrated competence if they see you arrived at it without fixating on the ASI, "chasing the needle" with pitch or power adjustments.

Another thought: the guy who taught me to fly taildraggers mentioned that in most light singles, the ultimate approach is to start reducing power abeam the touchdown point, and gradually reduce it until the throttle is closed just as you reach the "flare", or "moment of truth". There's some sense in that, and I won't argue with someone who's been teaching that for 40-plus years and has also made carrier landings in piston twins. But as he pointed out, it's not easy to do consistently, and it's more of an ideal model of energy management than an easily-standardized practice.

It's good to be able to do it right without power, too- engine-failure statistics be damned. If you can land consistently well without power, you have got something special that could save your life someday. Some people will tell you that the same applies to landing with only trim and power (imagine a jammed or ineffective control scenario), and I won't argue with that, although I've never tried that in earnest.
At any rate, it is clear that there is no specific aim point, instrument indication, power setting, or control deflection that makes a landing "good"... but airspeed, directional control, and height awareness must all be nominal for the situation, or it will be a "bad" landing.

-The initial aim point:

I do agree with the thrust of the article; as a beginner, I often spoiled perfectly good approaches getting hung-up on the numbers. The "target" should be considered an initial aim point... simply a spot to aim for (using the visual cues you describe) that will get you over obstructions and onto a usable surface that is long enough for you to roll out safely (or, for "advanced users", to the taxiway you want). Ideally, there should be no heavy braking, or taxiing to where you want to exit. To do this often requires ignoring the numbers, except to confirm the runway heading. A spot of some kind is good, but it doesn't have to be the numbers, or the threshold. But whether or not it's the numbers, it's not about the glideslope itself, so much as it's about why that glideslope, if you know what I mean. The PIC should decide what glideslope, based on where they want to be when the plane stops rolling. On an instrument approach, it's best to use the published glideslope, but even that one is designed merely to get you onto the maximum amount of usable runway while still clearing obstacles. I never got any use out of worrying about degrees of glideslope, etc... and a VASI or PAPI never made me land better without considering the "big picture" as a whole.


-The "flare" or "roundout":

I was taught to "hold it there" (elevator), not "pull back" at the critical moment... encouraging use of up elevator at 50 AGL for every landing in a light airplane is not wise, IMHO. I've never made a satisfactory landing that way, in any airplane under any circumstances. Made some crappy ones, though- it's a reliable technique for crappy "arrivals", for sure.
Dudley is right in pointing out that "hold it there" shouldn't mean "freeze", but I'm talking about letting the airplane land by arriving with basically the right pitch angle and airspeed vs. forcing it to land with elevator input from some specific altitude. Naturally, conditions will require small adjustments.

"Flying it on" is not always good, either... it's kinda cool when you say "gosh- I didn't even feel that!" but if that's not what you were expecting, you did it wrong. If it was, well, good for you. But it shouldn't be a surprise. Positive, conscious control of the descent and landing is the only worthy goal, IMHO... that mindset prepares you for the unexpected, or landings in challenging conditions.



To summarize:

I never had much luck "aiming for the numbers" and "flaring"; I started making better landings when I aimed for the spot I wanted, kept it from moving in my field of view, and made sure my airspeed, height and sink rate were appropriate when I arrived there. No more, no less. Works in any airplane, under any conditions... I think everyone here will agree with that.

That is very simplistic, but it serves well enough, because only practice, adhering to these basic principles, makes for consistently good landings.


-Anyway, that's just my 2 cents' worth, and I don't claim to know anything nobody else knows, nor do I claim that I will never break an airplane trying to land it.
"My worst landing ever is yet to come" is my mantra... much more honest than "I know what I need to know to never make a bad landing", and it is a mindset that has helped me make better landings.

 

[SkyHog]

I happen to agree with Ron (now, I didn't for a long time) re: Power-On approaches, but I disagree that the FAA requires it. "Stabilized" to me doesn't mean Power-On.

However, I've found the touchdown and approach to be much smoother for passengers when I do it with power....my best landing ever came in Michael's Mooney, at night, in a power on approach. Loved it.

 

[EdFred]

I happen to agree with Ron (now, I didn't for a long time) re: Power-On approaches, but I disagree that the FAA requires it. "Stabilized" to me doesn't mean Power-On.

However, I've found the touchdown and approach to be much smoother for passengers when I do it with power....my best landing ever came in Michael's Mooney, at night, in a power on approach. Loved it.

Exactly. It means stable as in...without a lot of pitch or power changes...or none when you're good.

 

[Niladri]

rottydaddy, thanks! I agree with all your observations.

The purpose of the article was not to be a comprehensive guide to better landings - I would have started with stabilizing on downwind it is was

The reason why airspeed is not mentioned beyond the reference at the beginning of the article about holding airspeed as recommended by the POH is that the article focuses only on fixing a common enough mistake - fixating on aiming for the numbers till too late.

While I acknowledge there are multiple ways to do a thing right, I am not advocating you do it one specific way. In my defense, however, I am hard put to think how I would ever explain the point of the article without pointing out at least one way

Once again, thanks for taking the time to comment.

- Niladri
http://freepilotinfo.blogspot.com/

 

[Ted]

Just a question that I may have missed... what are the author's credentials here? This seems like the sort of site that needs a big disclaimer attached to it.

 

[Niladri]

The author has never solo-ed.

- Niladri
http://freepilotinfo.blogspot.com/

 

[poadeleted20]

Hunh? I don't read in that standard a requirement for a power-on approach.

How do you "adjust power" if it's off? Or are you assuming the power-off approach is so perfect that no power adjustment is required to maintain a stable glide path to the runway?

 

[poadeleted20]

You obviously don't understand the relationship of teaching basic skills vs preparing for a check ride using the PTS which is common place now among Instructors. When I taught both fixed wing and rotor wing I taught the applicant how to fly the aircraft, not just how to pass a test.

So you don't think an understanding for the relationship between pitch/power and speed/flight path is part of learning how to fly the plane? Or that it's a good idea to teach folks how to make stabilized approaches the way the FAA recommends based on a lot of accident data which caused them some 30 years ago to change their recommendation from power-off to partial-power/stabilized as the "normal" landing technique?

 

[poadeleted20]

Exactly. It means stable as in...without a lot of pitch or power changes...or none when you're good.

I don't care if you're Chuck Yeager -- you can't fly a stable approach (which also includes a steady glide path and configuration) with no pitch/power changes unless the air is absolutely the same temperature, pressure, and wind direction/velocity all the way to the surface, and I've not seen that happen in 40 years of flying.

 

[Ted]

The author has never solo-ed.

- Niladri
http://freepilotinfo.blogspot.com/

Then with all due respect, I'd suggest that the author (I believe to be you?) put a disclaimer in big wording on the main page, with info stating credentials, background, and the purpose of the page.

EDIT: Credentials: 560 hour pilot (ratings and airplane below), plus an engineer who plays around with aircraft engines a lot and is personally responsible for the burning of tens of thousands of gallons worth of AvGas over several thousand hours of engine operation. Not a lawyer.

 

[RotorAndWing]

How do you "adjust power" if it's off? Or are you assuming the power-off approach is so perfect that no power adjustment is required to maintain a stable glide path to the runway?

A good definition of "stabilized approach":

The stabilized approach can be defined very simply as a constant rate of descent and a constant airspeed that is utilized on final approach until the aircraft is in a position for the flare or roundout. It requires the aircraft to be flown at a specific airspeed, power setting, and configuration.

Specific power setting can be idle power.

The FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook (AFH) provides this definition of the stabilized approach:

A stabilized approach is one in which the pilot establishes and maintains a constant-angle glidepath towards a predetermined point on the landing runway ... the point on the ground at which, if the airplane maintained a constant glidepath and was not flared for landing, it would strike the ground.​

 

[EdFred]

I don't care if you're Chuck Yeager -- you can't fly a stable approach (which also includes a steady glide path and configuration) with no pitch/power changes unless the air is absolutely the same temperature, pressure, and wind direction/velocity all the way to the surface, and I've not seen that happen in 40 years of flying.

You've never flown in 00000KT conditions? You'll note I said "without a lot of...changes" I have actually hands offed an approach from TPA to 100' a couple times. Right smack dab in the middle of a high pressure system with no winds from the surface, and less than 5kts at 3000' will allow that to happen.

 

[Clark1961]

How do you "adjust power" if it's off? Or are you assuming the power-off approach is so perfect that no power adjustment is required to maintain a stable glide path to the runway?

Last time a took a check ride perfection was not required. Power adjusted to "off" is fine. Every pilot should know how to land an aircraft without power.

I almost always land power off though I typically fly the glideslope at very low power. Touching down with power on is cheating to say the least...

 

[EdFred]

Last time a took a check ride perfection was not required. Power adjusted to "off" is fine. Every pilot should know how to land an aircraft without power.

I almost always land power off though I typically fly the glideslope at very low power. Touching down with power on is cheating to say the least...

I like it.

 

[Ted]

I almost always land power off though I typically fly the glideslope at very low power. Touching down with power on is cheating to say the least...

Well, I may be a cheater (never on an FAA exam!), but on the Aztec I tend to keep a hair of power in up until the end. I also found in the Mooney that sure helped for keeping consistent greasers.

I understand your point here and agree with it, but just like there's a technique with being able to pull off good landings without power, there's also a technique to making for a highly professional flight. Ideally, my passengers should never know that we left the ground, and never know that we touched down. Smoothing out the last bit of landing with a hair of power I don't see as a problem - my passengers are grading me on their perception of the flight. For me, part of that is gradual, imperceptible reductions in power with a constant descent that occur from about 6,000 MSL up until 6" AGL. I would tend to view this as a more advanced issue, though, and for students it's far more important to be able to learn how to do good power-off landings in a single.

 

[poadeleted20]

A good definition of "stabilized approach":

The stabilized approach can be defined very simply as a constant rate of descent and a constant airspeed that is utilized on final approach until the aircraft is in a position for the flare or roundout. It requires the aircraft to be flown at a specific airspeed, power setting, and configuration.

Specific power setting can be idle power.

Yup, but it's virtually impossible to do unless there is no change in wind, temperature, air pressure, etc, all the way down the approach. I've not seen that yet in over 8000 hours of flying.