Instincts on final

[skidoo]

Not to hijack the third person in the rear seat thread, I am wondering about your instincts related to the following situation.

It is a sunny day, wind is fairly calm on the sock but there are a few bumps in the air. I am on short final, with full flaps and a little power applied. My target (perhaps 200 ft beyond the threshold) looks correct and is fairly steady in the window. When I approach an estimated 50 ft AGL, my target starts moving up the window even though my attitude stayed the same (indicating my descent rate is increasing). I glance at my AS indicator and it shows a bit slower than I like (about 62). My target is 65 to 70.

Seeing that I am descending faster than normal and my AS is bit low, my instinct is to lower the nose to ensure I have sufficient AS to control the flare when near the ground. I did not desire to raise the nose because my perception is that I could stall at too high AGL.

My instructor says not to lower the nose or else I may drive the nose into the ground. He also would rather me keep a steady power level rather than constantly moving the power around.

I'm figuring that since I already have a little power, lowering the nose for a few seconds to keep the AS up will allow me to raise the nose when closer to the ground.

So, in the situation above, These are what someone may do.

1) Lower the nose to ensure sufficient AS when closer to the ground.
2) Raise the nose to reduce the descent rate.
3) Add Power
4) Some combination of 1-3 above

My instinct is to do 1. What is yours and why or tell me why 1 is not good?

Thinking back I sensed that the AOA increased due to the higher sink rate and steady attitude which is counter intuitive. So, I suppose that must have been from a down draft.

 

[SkyHog]

Not to hijack the third person in the rear seat thread, I am wondering about your instincts related to the following situation.

It is a sunny day, wind is fairly calm on the sock but there are a few bumps in the air. I am on short final, with full flaps and a little power applied. My target (perhaps 200 ft beyond the threshold) looks correct and is fairly steady in the window. When I approach an estimated 50 ft AGL, my target starts moving up the window even though my attitude stayed the same (indicating my descent rate is increasing). I glance at my AS indicator and it shows a bit slower than I like (about 62). My target is 65 to 70.

Seeing that I am descending faster than normal and my AS is bit low, my instinct is to lower the nose to ensure I have sufficient AS to control the flare when near the ground. I did not desire to raise the nose because my perception is that I could stall at too high AGL.

My instructor says not to lower the nose or else I may drive the nose into the ground. He also would rather me keep a steady power level rather than constantly moving the power around.

I'm figuring that since I already have a little power, lowering the nose for a few seconds to keep the AS up will allow me to raise the nose when closer to the ground.

So, in the situation above, These are what someone may do.

1) Lower the nose to ensure sufficient AS when closer to the ground.
2) Raise the nose to reduce the descent rate.
3) Add Power
4) Some combination of 1-3 above

My instinct is to do 1. What is yours and why or tell me why 1 is not good?

Thinking back I sensed that the AOA increased due to the higher sink rate and steady attitude which is counter intuitive. So, I suppose that must have been from a down draft.

I would add power and simultaneously lower the nose slightly. That should allow you to proceed as expected.

 

[Trapper John]

Certainly not #2!

Trim for speed, power for glidepath control...

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I'd add power, based on what I read. You're only a few seconds from starting the flare- things are happening fast at 50', that's one reason not to put the nose down.

A go-around may even be in order.

 

[dmccormack]

A good technique (not required -- just technique) is to manage altitude with power, and airspeed with attitude (pitch).

This works visually and on a precision glideslope IFR.

 

[dmccormack]

Thinking back I sensed that the AOA increased due to the higher sink rate and steady attitude which is counter intuitive. So, I suppose that must have been from a down draft.

Umm... maybe what you found was "counter intuitive" was the addition of power resulted in slower airspeed.

Go up with a CFI and have him teach you all about the "back side of the power curve." It will be an enlightening exercise!

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I glance at my AS indicator and it shows a bit slower than I like (about 62). My target is 65 to 70.
...


2) Raise the nose to reduce the descent rate.

Assuming you are slower than best glide (which appears to be the case), raising the nose will end up increasing the descent angle. You will get a momentary reduction in descent rate as the aircraft slows down, but in the end if you are short, you will end up even shorter.

Glides are not like rubber bands - they don't stretch.

Easing the backpressure a little to get your speed back will help. Also if you are in a downdraft speed is your friend.

 

[dmccormack]

Assuming you are slower than best glide (which appears to be the case), raising the nose will end up increasing the descent angle. You will get a momentary reduction in descent rate as the aircraft slows down, but in the end if you are short, you will end up even shorter.

It always surprises students (and some experienced pilots!) when about to overshoot the intended landing point that puilling up on the nose can address the overshoot.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Seeing that I am descending faster than normal and my AS is bit low, my instinct is to lower the nose to ensure I have sufficient AS to control the flare when near the ground. .

Here's your problem. Since you have both a yoke and a throttle, thinking in terms of one and not the other leaves you in a potential quandary.

You are right that airspeed is important but if you are already descending faster than normal, simply lowering the nose and leaving all other things static will increase your airspeed, but it will also increase you already high descent rate. Even if you have enough altitude that you won't plow into the ground, the overall increased energy will likely end up increasing the amount of runway you need in order to land.

If you have managed to put yourself into that situation, since you have both throttle and elevator, use them. The correct application of both pitch and power will allow you to increase your airspeed to where you want it and decrease your descent rate to where you want that.

Of course, religious zealots on one side of the eternal power-power debate will insist that what you did was control your airspeed by adding power and reduced your descent rate with pitch. The zealots on the other side will insist with equal vehemence that the power slowed your descent rate while pitch is what kept your airspeed where you wanted it.

Bottom line is that both of those are nothing more than teaching techniques. Whichever one your CFI prefers is a-ok since they both produce the same operational result.

 

[mantakos]

... My instructor says not to lower the nose or else I may drive the nose into the ground. He also would rather me keep a steady power level rather than constantly moving the power around...

That advice violates a fairly basic principle: "if something's not right ... fix it".
-harry

 

[bobmrg]

It's all about energy control. You have three sources of energy available: potential, based on height above the surface; kinetic, which is the square of airspeed; and petroleum. You sense that you are running short of total energy. Lowering the nose decreases potential energy but increases kinetic energy by a bunch. The petroleum knob is available if you need it. I'm in the "lower the nose" camp.


I used to shake up Part 135 check pilots by aiming about 50 feet short of the threshold and floating onto the runway. It's all about energy.

Bob Gardner

 

[poadeleted20]

My instructor says not to lower the nose or else I may drive the nose into the ground.

Good so far.

He also would rather me keep a steady power level rather than constantly moving the power around.

Oops -- one "oh, foot" wipes out a lot of "attaboys." Your instructor is trying to get you to solve for two variables with a single equation -- can't be done. Unless the conditions are absolutely constant (and they never are), pitch and power will both be changing during a stabilized approach in order to maintain constant speed and glide angle.

So, if I start to sink and am close to on speed, power's coming up a proprotionate amount, and the nose will go where the trim takes it with the increased power (slightly higher, but at the same speed due to the increased power). And I would point out that if the airplane is sitting 5 knots slow, either I haven't trimmed it right or I'm holding some unnecessary back pressure.

 

[PilotAlan]

I glance at my AS indicator and it shows a bit slower than I like (about 62). My target is 65 to 70.

Is your target 65 or 70? That's a big range.

If your target's 65, you're only a couple knots off. You can arrest your deceleration (hold 62) add power to change the touchdown point, then flare at the appropriate time.
If your target's 70, you're WAY slow and a go around is probably in order.

BUT, what is the IAS stall speed of your plane in landing configuration? Do you really know how much margin you have? Regardless, at your level of experience, if the airspeed you're 13% below target speed, that should probably be a go around.

My instructor says not to lower the nose or else I may drive the nose into the ground. He also would rather me keep a steady power level rather than constantly moving the power around.

Ya gotta do something. Pulling the nose up is the one thing you do NOT want to do, so one of the other two (or both) are the correct answers.

If I were 3kts below target and low, add power and hold airspeed. If I were 8kts below target and low, go around.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

<SNIP>
He also would rather me keep a steady power level rather than constantly moving the power around.
<SNIP>

My instructor said the same thing...

Good so far.
Oops -- one "oh, foot" wipes out a lot of "attaboys." Your instructor is trying to get you to solve for two variables with a single equation -- can't be done. Unless the conditions are absolutely constant (and they never are), pitch and power will both be changing during a stabilized approach in order to maintain constant speed and glide angle.

So, if I start to sink and am close to on speed, power's coming up a proprotionate amount, and the nose will go where the trim takes it with the increased power (slightly higher, but at the same speed due to the increased power). And I would point out that if the airplane is sitting 5 knots slow, either I haven't trimmed it right or I'm holding some unnecessary back pressure.

Ron- you are correct in what you say above. But to put my comment, immediately above what I quoted, into context, my approaches weren't completely stable at the time. She wanted me to stop "hunting" for the correct air speed with the throttle. When we landed I asked for clarification, and she had to time to explain in more detail. "...keep a steady power level rather than constantly moving the power around" was said to me during during the approach and there wasn't a lot of time to go into the rest of the explanation. I wouldn't be so fast to critique the instructor at this point as we weren't there.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron- you are correct in what you say above. But to put my comment, immediately above what I quoted, into context, my approaches weren't completely stable at the time. She wanted me to stop "hunting" for the correct air speed with the throttle.

That would explain the instability of your approaches. You get the speed right by adjusting trim, not throttle.

When we landed I asked for clarification, and she had to time to explain in more detail. "...keep a steady power level rather than constantly moving the power around" was said to me during during the approach and there wasn't a lot of time to go into the rest of the explanation.

Quotes out of context are often misleading.

 

[skidoo]

My instructor said the same thing...



Ron- you are correct in what you say above. But to put my comment, immediately above what I quoted, into context, my approaches weren't completely stable at the time. She wanted me to stop "hunting" for the correct air speed with the throttle. When we landed I asked for clarification, and she had to time to explain in more detail. "...keep a steady power level rather than constantly moving the power around" was said to me during during the approach and there wasn't a lot of time to go into the rest of the explanation. I wouldn't be so fast to critique the instructor at this point as we weren't there.

I would say that is the context of what my instructor meant too...

 

[brcase]

What you are probably seeing is the wind shear that often occurs near the ground. The wind speed 50 to 100 feet above the ground is often significantly greater than it is on the ground.

So as you pass into the slower air near the ground you suddenly lose a few knots of airspeed, Do nothing and your attitude will lower and you descent rate will increase as the plane attempts to correct back to it's trim speed.

Additionally many students have a natural fear of the ground and at the 50 foot level will subconsciously start pulling back on the yoke.

I often advise students that at about the 100 to 50 foot altitude to lower the nose just a couple degrees. At this altitude you aren't going to gain much airspeed, but it will cause the student consciously keep the airspeed up until the round out. It also tends to cancel out any wind shear affects as well.

My recommendation is the next time you notice this happening have your instructor do landing for you. Keep your finger lightly on the yoke and as he encounters the sinking observe what he does to counteract it. It may be he does it subconsciously and doesn't even realize he is correcting for it with attitude or power.

Brian

 

[poadeleted20]

So as you pass into the slower air near the ground you suddenly lose a few knots of airspeed, Do nothing and your attitude will lower and you descent rate will increase as the plane attempts to correct back to it's trim speed.

In an L-1011, yes, but not so much in a light trainer. Consider it the difference in what happens if you drop a leaf into a stream versus a rock. Generally speaking, in a light trainer, you feel a bit of a jolt as you cross the boundary, and a quick twitch of the ASI, but the airspeed almost immediately goes back to what it was.

I often advise students that at about the 100 to 50 foot altitude to lower the nose just a couple degrees. At this altitude you aren't going to gain much airspeed, but it will cause the student consciously keep the airspeed up until the round out. It also tends to cancel out any wind shear affects as well.

... and kill your lift and drop you like a rock. Two degrees of attitude change at approach AOA makes a big difference in C-sub-L. I see this resulting in either slammed nosewheels or overreactions to the drop leading to ballooning/porpoising. I'll pass on that idea.

 

[COFlyBoy]

Does anyone else get a big kick out of the subject for this thread?

I have absolutely no flying instincts. If I flew by whatever instinct I have I'd have balled it up on climb out on my first solo.

All of my flying is done by evaluating the current conditions against what I was taught to do given the current conditions, and then doing it.

This is in spite of practically growing up in an airplane. Some of my earliest memories are of flying. I could fly a plane long before I could see over the instrument panel without two pillows.

I'm just a ground-bound biped with enough money to use a flying machine.

 

[dmccormack]

Does anyone else get a big kick out of the subject for this thread?

I have absolutely no flying instincts. If I flew by whatever instinct I have I'd have balled it up on climb out on my first solo.

All of my flying is done by evaluating the current conditions against what I was taught to do given the current conditions, and then doing it.

This is in spite of practically growing up in an airplane. Some of my earliest memories are of flying. I could fly a plane long before I could see over the instrument panel without two pillows.

I'm just a ground-bound biped with enough money to use a flying machine.

OK, so we all are... BUT...

Even in the old days pilots referred to those who had "bird sense" -- an apparently inate feel for the air and the airplane.

Instinct? Probably not.

Internalization? Hopefully.

 

[PittsDriver]

My instructor says not to lower the nose or else I may drive the nose into the ground. He also would rather me keep a steady power level rather than constantly moving the power around.

I'm sure what he means by that is that you should think ahead enough to be able to fly the approach with minimal inputs down low. Otherwise, he's an idiot because you're not flying a theoretical approach in perfectly still wind - you're flying one in which the air you're moving through is constantly changing requiring inputs. But as a rule, the earlier you recognize what's required to change, the less you'll have to change it to correct it - small and often as required, not sit and wait for something egregious and have to wrack the controls around or go-around.

 

[COFlyBoy]

OK, so we all are... BUT...

Even in the old days pilots referred to those who had "bird sense" -- an apparently inate feel for the air and the airplane.

Instinct? Probably not.

Internalization? Hopefully.

I'm not really picking on the term "instinct." It just struck me as funny the first time I read it and thought about what my flying instincts are (ie. None)

It would be cool to know what sense/perception a person with "bird sense" has that us GBBPs don't.

My Dad would talk about feeling the float in the flair in the seat of his pants, and he told me to use that to judge how much to flair. The problem is that that works for his pants, not mine. My pants don't sense sink rate.

I agree about internalization. As my time builds things are getting easier and I no longer have to think about them, but I'd never go so far as to call it instinct.

 

[dmccormack]

I'm not really picking on the term "instinct." It just struck me as funny the first time I read it and thought about what my flying instincts are (ie. None)

It would be cool to know what sense/perception a person with "bird sense" has that us GBBPs don't.

My Dad would talk about feeling the float in the flair in the seat of his pants, and he told me to use that to judge how much to flair. The problem is that that works for his pants, not mine. My pants don't sense sink rate.

I agree about internalization. As my time builds things are getting easier and I no longer have to think about them, but I'd never go so far as to call it instinct.

Fly an airplane with the bare minimum instruments -- you'll quickly develop "feel" since you won't have the gauges to look at.

 

[poadeleted20]

Fly an airplane with the bare minimum instruments -- you'll quickly develop "feel" since you won't have the gauges to look at.

OTOH, try flying an F-111 without looking at the gauges. Sure, you can pretty well fly a Cub that way, but as you move from Cub to 'Vark, there is a gradually increasing reliance on instruments to provide essential information. At the end of the day, the best pilot is the one who can achive the correct balance between the two as suited to the aircraft s/he is currently flying.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

That would explain the instability of your approaches. You get the speed right by adjusting trim, not throttle.

I agree...this was some years ago. Thi will help the OP...

Quotes out of context are often misleading.

I'm glad we agree here as well. This was part of my point...the other part was because the context was unknown, criticism of a CFI was unwarranted.

 

[dmccormack]

OTOH, try flying an F-111 without looking at the gauges. Sure, you can pretty well fly a Cub that way, but as you move from Cub to 'Vark, there is a gradually increasing reliance on instruments to provide essential information. At the end of the day, the best pilot is the one who can achive the correct balance between the two as suited to the aircraft s/he is currently flying.

We weren't talking about instrument flying, now were we?

 

[AdamZ]

A good technique (not required -- just technique) is to manage altitude with power, and airspeed with attitude (pitch).

This works visually and on a precision glideslope IFR.

Yup my primary instructor still echos in my head pitch for speed power for altitude.

 

[dmccormack]

Yup my primary instructor still echos in my head pitch for speed power for altitude.

Both my primary and Comm CFis said the same. Dr Pete (comm CFI) stressed it was technique.

We explored all sorts of ragged edge pitch-trim-power-config combinations at altitude.

Good stuff

 

[poadeleted20]

We weren't talking about instrument flying, now were we?

Nope -- my comments apply to flight in visual as well as instrument conditions. Few planes can be flown safely/accurately in any conditions without reliance on something more than "instinct," and the level of that reliance varies with the size/sophistication of the aircraft.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yup my primary instructor still echos in my head pitch for speed power for altitude.

I prefer "trim for speed, power for flight path," as there are always those bozos who give you the "pull out on the runway and start pumping the elevator" routine, but the basic concept is there either way.

 

[Dan Thomas]

In an L-1011, yes, but not so much in a light trainer. Consider it the difference in what happens if you drop a leaf into a stream versus a rock. Generally speaking, in a light trainer, you feel a bit of a jolt as you cross the boundary, and a quick twitch of the ASI, but the airspeed almost immediately goes back to what it was.

I've encountered performance decrease in light airplanes due to wind shear numerous times. Doesn't have to be an airliner. If I know that the wind aloft is 25 knots, determined by drift and groundspeed, and see that the sock on the airport is showing five or 10 knots, I expect a drop in airspeed and glidepath at some point on final.

Dan

 

[Dudley Henriques]

Not to hijack the third person in the rear seat thread, I am wondering about your instincts related to the following situation.

It is a sunny day, wind is fairly calm on the sock but there are a few bumps in the air. I am on short final, with full flaps and a little power applied. My target (perhaps 200 ft beyond the threshold) looks correct and is fairly steady in the window. When I approach an estimated 50 ft AGL, my target starts moving up the window even though my attitude stayed the same (indicating my descent rate is increasing). I glance at my AS indicator and it shows a bit slower than I like (about 62). My target is 65 to 70.

Seeing that I am descending faster than normal and my AS is bit low, my instinct is to lower the nose to ensure I have sufficient AS to control the flare when near the ground. I did not desire to raise the nose because my perception is that I could stall at too high AGL.

My instructor says not to lower the nose or else I may drive the nose into the ground. He also would rather me keep a steady power level rather than constantly moving the power around.

I'm figuring that since I already have a little power, lowering the nose for a few seconds to keep the AS up will allow me to raise the nose when closer to the ground.

So, in the situation above, These are what someone may do.

1) Lower the nose to ensure sufficient AS when closer to the ground.
2) Raise the nose to reduce the descent rate.
3) Add Power
4) Some combination of 1-3 above

My instinct is to do 1. What is yours and why or tell me why 1 is not good?

Thinking back I sensed that the AOA increased due to the higher sink rate and steady attitude which is counter intuitive. So, I suppose that must have been from a down draft.

At the spot on the approach you indicate and assuming the parameters given, my first advice to you would be to NEVER fall prey to a 1-2-3 method of flying the aircraft. In this situation, as in ALL situations involving flying, the answer involves a FLUID solution rather than doing one thing specifically.
If you are in this close and are noticing an increased descent rate, by all means use power to stop it, BUT, and this is quite important, don't be misled into a mind set that denies lowering the nose a bit to stabilize angle of attack. In a situation such as the one you are describing, lowering the nose is more a subtle and very gentle releasing of some back pressure rather than a forward stick or yoke pressure.
One thing I notice is that you are concentrating too much on your ASI reading at the point of your decision. In that close you should have a fairly good handle on your airspeed. In this close you are feeling the aircraft and responding directly to what the aircraft is telling you.
Don't get hooked on nailing the airspeed at the nearest mph or kt. Just get it right going through your approach window at the end of the runway then HAND FLY the aircraft through the flare using the visual and physical senses as the aircraft throws them to you.
Remember, basically speaking POWER controls altitude (descent rate) and PITCH controls airspeed. There is a VERY IMPORTANT CAVEAT that goes along with this axiom however. Corrections with power or pitch are actually corrections to BOTH as both are directly related through energy and ONE AFFECTS THE OTHER. Flying an airplane requires a FLUID approach to control pressures and use so you will seldom be doing one specific thing to solve an attitude problem with your aircraft.
Hope this helps a bit.
Dudley Henriques

 

[dmccormack]

Nope -- my comments apply to flight in visual as well as instrument conditions. Few planes can be flown safely/accurately in any conditions without reliance on something more than "instinct," and the level of that reliance varies with the size/sophistication of the aircraft.

No kidding.

Just for grins I flew for 45 minutes after work tonight, before dark. The only time I looked at the panel was during startup, runup, and a glance at takeoff at oil press/temp and every so often (though I would probably hear something amiss with the engine -- but why push it?)

I took off, climbed, turned, flew around, did turns about a point, steep turns, stalls, chandelles, and a couple of patterns.

It's not "instinct, " it's "internalization" or "feel for the airplane" coupled with outside visual references.

Obviously that is meaningless in IMC -- the whole point there is to ignore feel and trust instruments.

Some psychologists say there are no human "instincts" -- all behaviors are somehow learned.

Whatever.

I think what we're talking about here is "feel for the airplane" -- a state where the circuit skips the "think about it" step and just performs.

 

[DutchessFlier]

No kidding.

Just for grins I flew for 45 minutes after work tonight, before dark. The only time I looked at the panel was during startup, runup, and a glance at takeoff at oil press/temp and every so often (though I would probably hear something amiss with the engine -- but why push it?)

I took off, climbed, turned, flew around, did turns about a point, steep turns, stalls, chandelles, and a couple of patterns.

It's not "instinct, " it's "internalization" or "feel for the airplane" coupled with outside visual references.

Obviously that is meaningless in IMC -- the whole point there is to ignore feel and trust instruments.

Some psychologists say there are no human "instincts" -- all behaviors are somehow learned.

Whatever.

I think what we're talking about here is "feel for the airplane" -- a state where the circuit skips the "think about it" step and just performs.

+100

 

[SkyHog]

So what everyone is saying is that the first response to the question was the right answer?

 

[sba55]

I think what we're talking about here is "feel for the airplane" -- a state where the circuit skips the "think about it" step and just performs.

That's funny, I was just reading a book about show jumping (horses) that was talking about exactly what you're describing and how it's crucial to get to that point. At least your plane doesn't get annoyed if you're over-thinking it, though

A friend of mine has flown the same plane for 20 years. He doesn't look at the ASI on landing, yet he's always spot on....

 

[dmccormack]

That's funny, I was just reading a book about show jumping (horses) that was talking about exactly what you're describing and how it's crucial to get to that point. At least your plane doesn't get annoyed if you're over-thinking it, though

I never show jumped, but rode lots.

You get to the point with a horse you ride regularly that when you think, "trot", you're trotting, when you look to the right, that's where you go.

I loved our horses but that state made all the work worthwhile.

 

[Tom-Flying]

So what everyone is saying is that the first response to the question was the right answer?

Yup, but we can't let the opportunity to lecture get by!

One caution I'd put out there for the "don't worry about lowering the nose" crowd. While that's a good technique for someone that understands the power curve and the way a plane handles during landing I'm guessing the CFI is trying to avoid instilling a bad behavior.

I'd bet a fair number of prop strikes get caused by students trying to force a landing by pushing the nose down and pointing the plane where they want it to land.

So where I am in flying now I would push the nose a bit and add a bit of power. When I was a student I would have just used some power to correct it and also been ready for a go-around.

 

[brcase]

Yup, but we can't let the opportunity to lecture get by!

One caution I'd put out there for the "don't worry about lowering the nose" crowd. While that's a good technique for someone that understands the power curve and the way a plane handles during landing I'm guessing the CFI is trying to avoid instilling a bad behavior.

I'd bet a fair number of prop strikes get caused by students trying to force a landing by pushing the nose down and pointing the plane where they want it to land.

So where I am in flying now I would push the nose a bit and add a bit of power. When I was a student I would have just used some power to correct it and also been ready for a go-around.

The "don't worry about lowering the nose" crowd isn't talking about doing this below 25 ft. this is done at the 100 to maybe as low as 50 ft to maintain airspeed.

I'd bet a fair number of prop strikes get cause by students stalling (or just getting behind the power/drag curve) at 10 feet and dropping it in onto the runway was well. True pushing the nose down at 3 feet can easily wheelbarrow and get a prop as well.

As also mentioned it probably isn't actually much of an actual attitude change as just a reduction in back pressure on the yoke.

Glider pilots are obviously in the "Lower the Nose" crowd as well. Especially those that fly Non-spoiler equiped gliders.

Brian

 

[Tom-Flying]

The "don't worry about lowering the nose" crowd isn't talking about doing this below 25 ft. this is done at the 100 to maybe as low as 50 ft to maintain airspeed.

I'd bet a fair number of prop strikes get cause by students stalling (or just getting behind the power/drag curve) at 10 feet and dropping it in onto the runway was well. True pushing the nose down at 3 feet can easily wheelbarrow and get a prop as well.

As also mentioned it probably isn't actually much of an actual attitude change as just a reduction in back pressure on the yoke.

Glider pilots are obviously in the "Lower the Nose" crowd as well. Especially those that fly Non-spoiler equiped gliders.

Brian

Brian,

I don't disagree with you. Probably wasn't as clear in what I was trying to say as I was hoping.

Sometimes the responses I see when a student is looking for advise come from very experienced pilots that may not quite be in touch with the way they thought/reacted with they were a 20 hour student still very wet behind the ears. I'm still pretty new at this, ~200 hours and two years with my PPL, so I think I have a good memory of what it was like to learn the basics of "How do I fix this landing I'm fubar-ing".

Once you get to be an old hand it's second nature to use your experience to make subtle adjustments and deal with more than one variable at once. When you're still white knuckling the yoke (why was his AS dropping so low?) or taking a bit longer to know you need an adjustment (if the site picture showed a too steep descent why wait so long for a power shot?) the reaction and execution times are longer than you guys in the know. Especially a glider guy who is constantly aware of energy management.

So i wasn't trying to suggest one way was right or wrong I was trying to give some perspective on how a student might want to consider the options. Not knowing the size of the runway or the wx conditions it's really impossible to say what should have been done. If it's a tight runway hit that gas and get out of there with a well executed go-around. Have 7000 feet of runway in front of you take the opportunity to work it out and fix a bad approach.

When I was first learning I could make faster decisions operation with one variable than two. When I learned more I was comfortable with 2. The OP needs to evaluate where s/he is on the learning scale and then add that to the bag of tricks they use to bring it in where s/he wants it.