When to pull throttle idle on landing.

[Dana]

Of course. But in the flare, with the airplane a few inches above the runway for maybe 100 feet, the flight path is essentially the same as the runway surface.

True, if you carry enough speed into the flare to float 100 feet. What I meant was that you can land 3 point fully stalled (not the smoothest landing as I said) if you don't round out... as done by many a novice pilot or STOL hero.

My Hatz likes to land slightly tailwheel first. It will easily take off in a 3 point attitude.

 

[ArnoldPalmer]

That should be a new game show. ‘Are you smarter than your flight instructor?’

Winners get a place in the NTSB archives.

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Indeed. But even with power at idle, when you touch down in a wheel landing the wing is still flying.

It’s still flying in a three point attitude for most tailwheel I’ve flown. Full stall often requires tail first.

 

[pfarber]

CFIs are just regurgitating what they memorized. I do not see them as all knowing..most are just time building.

Even the FAA is changingits tune on stalling right above the runway. There absolutely nothing wrong not being at stall speed when landing

How many people give a an extra hundred or two RPM to grease the landing? Ill fly it in a little high and and little fast. Nothing says i need to keep a 3 deg glide slope for vfr.

Also: conventional gear.

 

[Sierra_Hotel]

CFIs are just regurgitating what they memorized. I do not see them as all knowing..most are just time building.

Well, that's certainly one way to look at it...

 

[Dan Thomas]

Ill fly it in a little high and and little fast.

That's the exact recipe for landing problems. High and fast. As an instructor I saw it thousands of times, and as a mechanic a I sometimes had to rebuild airplanes that were landed that way. One 150 we rebuilt TWICE due to that.

High and fast limits you to longer runways, as well. It's a very bad habit.

 

[FastEddieB]

Every knot over stall increases energy at an exponential rate. Most times you get away with it. But when things go wrong, that extra speed is not your friend.

 

[flyingron]

I fly (and most GA probably should) a steeper than 3 degree slope. It is not necessary to carry any extra speed to do so.

 

[FastEddieB]

I fly (and most GA probably should) a steeper than 3 degree slope. It is not necessary to carry any extra speed to do so.

The question on final in singles should be, “If the engine failed how, could I make the runway?”

Notwithstanding instrument approaches and edge cases, if the answer is “no”, then you’re too low. In my opinion.

 

[Derald Madson]

I can land a glider with no engine/power no problem; shallow approach, steep approach, the way your supposed to do it approach, no airbrakes, etc. But in the 182 it gives me the heebie jeebies to take power out before I'm in the flare. Being in a nose heavy aircraft, and since I have to pay for repairs, I'd rather land a little smoother and longer with more energy than slam it into the ground. Usually 15'' makes for a nice stable approach at 60ish knots with almost full flaps and I just slowly eek throttle out until I'm 5-10ft above the ground.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I fly (and most GA probably should) a steeper than 3 degree slope. It is not necessary to carry any extra speed to do so.

A three-degree slope is a 19:1 glide ratio. I don't know of any GA lightplane with a glide like that. Maybe half that, at best. Other than a motorglider, of course.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Every knot over stall increases energy at an exponential rate. Most times you get away with it. But when things go wrong, that extra speed is not your friend.

Yup. 10% over book approach speed means 21% more energy to dissipate. 20% over is 44% more energy. And once you add ground effect into it, those numbers turn into double and triple the runway distance.

Landing like that means long floats. Or ballooning when the flare begins. Or porpoising when the mains hit first (taildragger, when three-point was anticipated) or the nosewheel in a trike. Wheelbarrowing in the trike, which means it becomes a nasty taildragger. Or just running off the end of the runway. Pilots who come in too high tend to dive at the runway, which just adds more speed and eats up even more runway, since the extra speed often puts the airplane closer to its best L/D ratio and it will go farther. Totally counterproductive.

When one gets used to doing that, an actual forced landing is going to be all messed up because the pilot is unreasonably afraid of stalling. Whatever field he can use is very likely going to be too small and he's going to run right into something harder and heavier than the airplane.

 

[MauleSkinner]

The question on final in singles should be, “If the engine failed how, could I make the runway?”

Notwithstanding instrument approaches and edge cases, if the answer is “no”, then you’re too low. In my opinion.

I disagree (imagine that!)

unless you fly all the way down final at idle, you’re not going to be able to make the runway without power…and even then, an engine failure will result in a steeper glide than idle power.

I think there’s far too much emphasis on making the runway in the event of an engine failure. There are normally a lot of suitable landing sites around an airport. If there aren’t, being outside of gliding range on final really isn’t increasing your risk all that much above the risk involved just getting to the airport.

 

[brcase]

I can land a glider with no engine/power no problem; shallow approach, steep approach, the way your supposed to do it approach, no airbrakes, etc. But in the 182 it gives me the heebie jeebies to take power out before I'm in the flare. Being in a nose heavy aircraft, and since I have to pay for repairs, I'd rather land a little smoother and longer with more energy than slam it into the ground. Usually 15'' makes for a nice stable approach at 60ish knots with almost full flaps and I just slowly eek throttle out until I'm 5-10ft above the ground.

If you want to take the heebie jeebies out of a power off approach in a 182, 1st don’t insist on full flap landings unless you need them. 10 degrees flaps is plenty 20 is ok. More and the descent rate starts becoming a bit excessive without using power. Also add about 10 knots to your approach speed probably 70kts. This will give you the energy to arrest the descent and float just long enough to set it on the runway. You may have to adjust you sight picture a bit to still touch down at your desired point if you but probably not since the reduced flap and reduced power may cancel each others effects out. You may have to learn to fly in ground effect, a lot of pilots never learn this and often get into a PIO trying to set the airplane on before it is ready. I think this is usually the cause of 182 bent firewalls, along with the fact that it is so hard the get the nose up with full flaps, so landing on the nosewheel 1st happens more than it should. If you are not at the forward CG limit and touching down with nosewheel off the ground (easier with less flaps) you won’t be bending any firewalls.

I know the argument is to use full flaps to touch down at the minimum speed and reduce wear and tear on the airplane. For which I have two questions.
1. Look at the stall speed chart in the your airplane how much difference in stall speed is there between 20 degrees of flaps and full flaps.
2. What speed do you actually touch down at at 20 vs full flaps settings. A lot of pilot actually will touch down as slow or slower with 20 degrees flaps than pilots using full flaps because it is easier to pull the nose up and slow down before touch down.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Hours in 182’s = 440
Instruction provided in 182’s = 410 hrs
Landings in 182’s = 1064
# of 182’s flown = 34

 

[flyingron]

You gotta get out of gliding distance of the airport sometime.

 

[Rgbeard]

I can land a glider with no engine/power no problem; shallow approach, steep approach, the way your supposed to do it approach, no airbrakes, etc. But in the 182 it gives me the heebie jeebies to take power out before I'm in the flare. Being in a nose heavy aircraft, and since I have to pay for repairs, I'd rather land a little smoother and longer with more energy than slam it into the ground. Usually 15'' makes for a nice stable approach at 60ish knots with almost full flaps and I just slowly eek throttle out until I'm 5-10ft above the ground.

Hear, Hear!!

Yes, ownership makes you treat the equipment differently!

 

[Mxfarm]

I've watched multiple accidents, err wrecks, and several 'saves', because of coming in too fast, because pilots are afraid the engine will quit right before they land. I guess if I thought my engine was that likely to stop @ the end of a flight, @ a low power setting, w/the nose pointed down ( not much 'load' on the engine ), might consider taxing to a A&P as soon as one has landed.

 

[Albany Tom]

Mostly, I agree that it's not about making the runway if you lose the engine. The exception to engine out to me is if you're learning in something like a Cub, where the engine likes to make ice, and SOP is to cut power to idle abeam numbers on downwind.

But that said, just because you're coming in with a little power doesn't mean you can't make the runway with an engine out on final. In a typical PA-28, I'll come in with a little bit of power, at about 1.3 Vs0, with flaps 40. That's quite a bit slower than best glide, and it's pretty steep.

The learning to fly in ground effect sounds like learning how to recover from landing way too fast. Where I fly out of, that would include seeing if the brakes and tires are good enough to keep me out of the trees at the end of the runway. Maybe I'm reading that wrong, and you're not over 1.2-1.3 Vs0 over the numbers. Or you're always flying out of 5000 or whatever, and you just don't care about the length.

For students, or pilots for that matter, if they can't land simulated power out into a normal size airport, say 2-3000, from circling above an airport, how are they possibly going to make a successful off airport landing anywhere if they lose an engine? Or are we just training future airline pilots or Cirrus drivers that won't have to worry about that?

 

[Tantalum]

When to pull throttle idle on landing

..if the runway is under you then under typical circumstances any trainer means you are pulling the power to idle, and managing your pitch/flare to a smooth touch down. In different planes the equation starts to vary.. but generally if the runway is under you you oughtn't need to carry power. Listen to your CFI

1500 RPMs

Two things
(1) many people try and over metric out flying into these specifics like '2200 on downwind' and '1700 base' and nonsense like that. While these RPM/MP values can be useful as benchmarks flying is much more about feeling the airplane, managing the energy, etc. If I'm near max gross and landing a twin on a hot windy day at elevation (7K feet like L35) that's going to be much different power/flap/speed technique then by myself on a cool day at sea level in a C-172. I cringe when I'm right seat and see someone start dragging it in 3 miles out because their CFI said 'X' RPM on final.. well guess what buddy there are four of us in the airplane, you're going to need a little more juice!

(2) it's RPM, no 's' sorry to be pedantic, but it's already 'revolutions per minute'. Do you take cash out of the ATM, or out of the ATM machine..? it's the former, but for some reason people like to say the latter, which is just repetitive and redundant

CFIs are just regurgitating what they memorized

Ideally, no. Plus, even if it's just someone 'building hours' in most cases that 22 year old CFI is going to have many more landings and overall flying experience under their belt than their student.

 

[MauleSkinner]

But that said, just because you're coming in with a little power doesn't mean you can't make the runway with an engine out on final. In a typical PA-28, I'll come in with a little bit of power, at about 1.3 Vs0, with flaps 40. That's quite a bit slower than best glide, and it's pretty steep.

But how many pilots are prepared to dump back to zero flaps and dive the airplane to best glide in the event of an engine failure?

 

[flyingron]

If you're on the back side of the power curve, you can often just nose down and get more range if the engine quits.

 

[Rgbeard]

(2) it's RPM, no 's' sorry to be pedantic, but it's already 'revolutions per minute'. Do you take cash out of the ATM, or out of the ATM machine..? it's the former, but for some reason people like to say the latter, which is just repetitive and redundant

You've inspired me to create a new, enhanced initialism, RsPM.



Yes, world, you're welcome.

 

[Sierra_Hotel]

 

[MauleSkinner]

If you're on the back side of the power curve, you can often just nose down and get more range if the engine quits.

I’d be happy if most pilots could nose down enough to keep what they’ve got. Amazing how many can’t resist the temptation to pull the windshield up so they don’t see so much dirt.

 

[brcase]

I've watched multiple accidents, err wrecks, and several 'saves', because of coming in too fast, because pilots are afraid the engine will quit right before they land. I guess if I thought my engine was that likely to stop @ the end of a flight, @ a low power setting, w/the nose pointed down ( not much 'load' on the engine ), might consider taxing to a A&P as soon as one has landed.

Wrong reason to stay within gliding range of the runway or make power off approaches or normal approach.
Your most likely time to have a power failure is likely in cruise flight. After all you probably spend more time cruising than anything else. So that one time in your flying career that you have a engine failure you will be required to maneuver to a landing area and land power off, unless of course you are flying Cirrus.
When that one time comes would you prefer to be that pilot that last did a power off landing a year ago on your flight review or the guy that practices normal power off approaches every time he does not need a maximum performance (short/foot field) landing.

Which guy would you rather have flying with you when that happens?
I will agree there are a few single engine airplanes where it isn’t appropriate to make power off approaches. The 2 out of the 100 or so single engine airplane types I have flown that I felt it was inappropriate to do normal power off approaches was the Viking and the Cherokee 6. Somehow I haven’t flown a Bonanza yet, but I kind of suspect it might be another one.

I order to overshoot a reasonably long runway (200% of required landing distance) in most airplanes you have to both mess up the approach (quite high) and be fast. If you are power off and dirty and within 20 feet over the end of the runway even a Mooney can pretty easily slow down land safely at 20% over the recommended approach speed. As long as he pilot can fly it in the ground effect without doing PIO’s. I was practicing this summer getting a pilot ready for the Power off 180’s for his commercial check ride in his Mooney. Cross the Threshold about 50ft about 20mph over approach speed and 10 deg flap and float up to the 1000 ft mark to touch down and still stop in under another 1000 feet. We would add flap if we were a bit slow and needed to float up to our touchdown point a bit more.


Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Example of when you haven’t been practicing power off approaches…

 

[Dan Thomas]

I’d be happy if most pilots could nose down enough to keep what they’ve got. Amazing how many can’t resist the temptation to pull the windshield up so they don’t see so much dirt.

Yup.

Push forward, the houses get bigger. Pull back, the houses get smaller. Pull back some more, the houses get bigger again and go 'round and 'round.

 

[brcase]

As confirmation…

I like to have my students speak up if something I tell them is different from what another instructor has told them, or something they’ve read. The possible reasons are: The prior instructor was wrong, I’m wrong*, we’re saying the same thing in different ways, or it’s just a matter of technique. The worst thing is for the student to remain silent and confused.


*Being wrong is humbling, but a good opportunity to learn.

Exactly,

 

[Dan Thomas]

Your most likely time to have a power failure is likely in cruise flight. After all you probably spend more time cruising than anything else.

Are there numbers on that?

Carb ice (in carbed airplanes) is a major cause of power loss. And that's a training and understanding problem, not a design problem. And carb ice happens most often at low power settings, meaning on letdown or approach or sometimes in the circuit. Sometimes it turns a practice forced approach into the real thing, as the pilot glides for a few thousand feet and the exhaust system cools off and the carb isn't getting the heat it needs to keep the ice from forming. This is the reason an instructor is supposed to teach the student to apply power for awhile every thousand feet of altitude to warm that system and keep the ice out so it will respond in the abort. And it takes more than three seconds to do that. Start flying a carbed Continental and find out the hard way.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I’ve had carb ice while practicing stalls in the summer. +80 deg F OAT…in my Six.

 

[Rgbeard]

I’ve had carb ice while practicing stalls in the summer. +80 deg F OAT…in my Six.

Damn! What an ice-maker. Was this the carb'd 300 or 260?

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Damn! What an ice-maker. Was this the carb'd 300 or 260?

Carb’d 0-540…..260HP. Surprised me. I’d seen it in my C-150 with an 0-200. That was a real ice maker.

after that experience I went back to using regular carb heat below 1,800 RPM.

 

[FastEddieB]

You gotta get out of gliding distance of the airport sometime.

Trivially true.

But I’m talking unnecessary risk. Obviously.

 

[Albany Tom]

But how many pilots are prepared to dump back to zero flaps and dive the airplane to best glide in the event of an engine failure?

It's a good question, I don't know. I know that when I learned to fly, if my pattern got a bit wide, I'd hear the engine go idle, and a voice in the headset "ok, now what are you going to do?" Or, if I'm all happy climbing out, sometimes I'd hear the same thing. Dozens and dozens of times. Required aircraft checkouts was a simulated engine out to full stop landing. So one of my primacy things is to get the damn nose down, to an angle approaching best glide. I don't know how common that is. I don't know how I'd react in an actual engine out, either. But if I screw it up, it won't be from lack of training, or lack of knowledge.

 

[MauleSkinner]

It's a good question, I don't know. I know that when I learned to fly, if my pattern got a bit wide, I'd hear the engine go idle, and a voice in the headset "ok, now what are you going to do?" Or, if I'm all happy climbing out, sometimes I'd hear the same thing. Dozens and dozens of times. Required aircraft checkouts was a simulated engine out to full stop landing. So one of my primacy things is to get the damn nose down, to an angle approaching best glide. I don't know how common that is. I don't know how I'd react in an actual engine out, either. But if I screw it up, it won't be from lack of training, or lack of knowledge.

Pushing the nose down on downwind is an entirely different animal than pushing it into ground effect with the windshield full of dirt.

 

[Albany Tom]

Pushing the nose down on downwind is an entirely different animal than pushing it into ground effect with the windshield full of dirt.

I'm missing the reference... Only time I see mostly ground in the window in anything I fly is way high in a descent, or a high speed taxi in the cub. Neither is all that close to ground effect. If I lose power on final, it's not going to be all that big of a deal, I don't believe, because I'm not much over idle anyway, unless I have an unexpected headwind. Now then, could I be in trouble? Yep! But if the engine doesn't die, the headwind isn't a big deal, because I have lots of power left.

 

[Daleandee]

Pushing the nose down on downwind is an entirely different animal than pushing it into ground effect with the windshield full of dirt.

Absolutely correct. My instructor taught me that the hardest thing I would ever do is look at the ground coming up at me and push forward on the stick ...

 

[Lindberg]

Pushing the nose down on downwind is an entirely different animal than pushing it into ground effect with the windshield full of dirt.

So do it on downwind so you don't have to do it on final.

 

[MauleSkinner]

So do it on downwind so you don't have to do it on final.

Let us know how you schedule your engine failures.

 

[Crashnburn]

I'm learning to fly in a SportStar. The plan is to descend at 60 knots with one notch of flaps, so the nose will be low enough I can see the runway. I use power to stay on the glide slope. As soon as we cross the fence, pull the throttle to idle, and go to full flaps. After that, keep descending until you feel like you're about to hit the runway. At that point, raise the nose a bit to start the round out, and as we get closer to the runway, keep pulling the nose up to try to keep the plane off the runway. Eventually, the main gear will touch, but keep the nose up until there's not enough speed for the elevator to keep the nose off the runway. I've done it, but nowhere near consistently.

 

[Jayboard]

If winds calm then yes, power to idle over the numbers and glide in. You should hear the stall horn just at touchdown if done right. But in crosswinds, strong headwinds, or tailwind (gulp!) keep some power in for control authority. Watch your airspeed. Another trick is power to idle over the fence and then ease a little power back momentarily in the flare and continue to touchdown back to idle. Because you’re on the backside of the power curve, a little bit of throttle will serve to grease wheels on runway.