Consistent Landing Help

[Tarheel Pilot]

As I've stated in the Flight Following section of the forum, I've been busy getting checked out in the Czech Sportcruiser, which is a fun aircraft to fly. However, I have had a small problem of landing the aircraft.

The flight school like to do a no flap landing because from their reasoning, it's an LSA and flaps would just cause it to get toss around in the wind. Which I'm okay with, it's their aircraft, their rules.

However, I can't really get over the idea that you don't flare the Sportcruiser the same way you'd do in the Piper Cherokees (what I've been flying previously).

What they've been teaching me is to hold the aircraft off the ground and let it come down on it's own and to hold the stick in an almost neutral position, yet my mind keeps telling me to pull the stick back for the flare.

All of this is done with a 75 knots approach speed, and with no flaps, which does cause ballooning which does cause me to want to push the stick forward a bit to get out of the balloon, apparently I'm supposed to keep the stick near to neutral and let the aircraft fly out of that as well.

So...it's def. a new way for me to land an aircraft, and since we have a few LSA flyers on here, I was wondering if y'all could give me some pointers for better and more consistent landing in a Sportcruiser?

 

[Clark1961]

Not much help but I can commiserate. I flew a couple different LSAs the way the club wanted and had a horrible time with landings. Just to see what was wrong, I flew the final at 1.3Vso (as opposed to 10 kts faster as spec'd by the club) and the aircraft landed just fine. At that point I stopped flying with the club since I didn't want to fly the aircraft the way they specified. It's a tough call.

 

[ebetancourt]

75 Knot final? That is the right approach speed for an airplane with a 58 Knot stall speed. Surely that can't be right. I would say good luck getting consistently good landings in a tricycle gear airplane that much above what I suspect would be 1.3X stall speed for an LSA even with no flaps.

 

[Tarheel Pilot]

75 Knot final? That is the right approach speed for an airplane with a 58 Knot stall speed. Surely that can't be right. I would say good luck getting consistently good landings in a tricycle gear airplane that much above what I suspect would be 1.3X stall speed for an LSA even with no flaps.

Well this says that the Cruiser's stall speed is 39, so I'm guessing the approach speed should be 50.7?

 

[Dan Thomas]

They're risking a wheelbarrowing or porpoising accident. Landing fast and flat like that is very poor technique and frequently breaks airplanes.

Dan

 

[Clark1961]

They're risking a wheelbarrowing or porpoising accident. Landing fast and flat like that is very poor technique and frequently breaks airplanes.

The club I tried LSA with had these types of problems. One aircraft off the runway and through a ditch. Same aircraft needed nose gear repair just from "normal use."

For them, I suspect the gear repair was better than the fatal stall-spin they had with a brand new instructor who flew over max gross.

Poor decisions all around...

 

[Henning]

As I've stated in the Flight Following section of the forum, I've been busy getting checked out in the Czech Sportcruiser, which is a fun aircraft to fly. However, I have had a small problem of landing the aircraft.

The flight school like to do a no flap landing because from their reasoning, it's an LSA and flaps would just cause it to get toss around in the wind. Which I'm okay with, it's their aircraft, their rules.

However, I can't really get over the idea that you don't flare the Sportcruiser the same way you'd do in the Piper Cherokees (what I've been flying previously).

What they've been teaching me is to hold the aircraft off the ground and let it come down on it's own and to hold the stick in an almost neutral position, yet my mind keeps telling me to pull the stick back for the flare.

All of this is done with a 75 knots approach speed, and with no flaps, which does cause ballooning which does cause me to want to push the stick forward a bit to get out of the balloon, apparently I'm supposed to keep the stick near to neutral and let the aircraft fly out of that as well.

So...it's def. a new way for me to land an aircraft, and since we have a few LSA flyers on here, I was wondering if y'all could give me some pointers for better and more consistent landing in a Sportcruiser?

Run away from these jokers. Go train somewhere where the trainers have much more sense.

Are these people LS-I or CFI-A? If you have flaps available you land full flaps every time. The reduce float, not increase it, these guys are idiots. 75 is 20 kts too hot on that wing.

 

[Tarheel Pilot]

Run away from these jokers. Go train somewhere where the trainers have much more sense.

Are these people LS-I or CFI-A? If you have flaps available you land full flaps every time. The reduce float, not increase it, these guys are idiots. 75 is 20 kts too hot on that wing.

I would, but they're kinda the only game in town when it comes to LSA training. I have another flight on Thursday, I'm going to talk to the guy and see if I can get him to see that he was landing the aircraft wrong.

 

[Dan Thomas]

I would, but they're kinda the only game in town when it comes to LSA training. I have another flight on Thursday, I'm going to talk to the guy and see if I can get him to see that he was landing the aircraft wrong.

And quote the bunch of us on it. Many of us have been flight instructors.

Dan

 

[jesse]

Landing an airplane 20 knots too fast, without flare, and without flaps is indeed pretty difficult to do. That's why you shouldn't be doing it

 

[Clark1961]

I would, but they're kinda the only game in town when it comes to LSA training.

It's not worth it.

Bad training is one of the worst things you can do when pursuing the initial cert.

 

[Henning]

I would, but they're kinda the only game in town when it comes to LSA training. I have another flight on Thursday, I'm going to talk to the guy and see if I can get him to see that he was landing the aircraft wrong.

You're going to have to instruct your instructor then.

 

[jnmeade]

Let me assure you that many leading LSA instructors are firm believers in hot, flat approaches. They may not use 75 knots, but they will want more than 60.
They will teach 0 or 15 flaps in any kind of crosswind and will fly it on.
Some LSA instructors will claim that more conventional pilots are incompetent to land LSA in the way they are used to - they must be transitioned. These people are zealots.
I land my LSA the same way I landed a T210, but am lambasted in every LSA forum for claiming I can.

 

[denverpilot]

I see nothing good coming of this trend.

 

[Clark1961]

I see nothing good coming of this trend.

Shorts and softs have to be tough with the stated method. How do they pass the checkride?

 

[jpower]

As I've stated in the Flight Following section of the forum, I've been busy getting checked out in the Czech Sportcruiser, which is a fun aircraft to fly. However, I have had a small problem of landing the aircraft.

The flight school like to do a no flap landing because from their reasoning, it's an LSA and flaps would just cause it to get toss around in the wind. Which I'm okay with, it's their aircraft, their rules.

However, I can't really get over the idea that you don't flare the Sportcruiser the same way you'd do in the Piper Cherokees (what I've been flying previously).

What they've been teaching me is to hold the aircraft off the ground and let it come down on it's own and to hold the stick in an almost neutral position, yet my mind keeps telling me to pull the stick back for the flare.

All of this is done with a 75 knots approach speed, and with no flaps, which does cause ballooning which does cause me to want to push the stick forward a bit to get out of the balloon, apparently I'm supposed to keep the stick near to neutral and let the aircraft fly out of that as well.

So...it's def. a new way for me to land an aircraft, and since we have a few LSA flyers on here, I was wondering if y'all could give me some pointers for better and more consistent landing in a Sportcruiser?

I fly Tecnam Eaglets a bunch, so I may be able to shed some light...but not much more than others have. 75 kts on final is asking for trouble no matter how you cut it.

Run away from these jokers. Go train somewhere where the trainers have much more sense.

Are these people LS-I or CFI-A? If you have flaps available you land full flaps every time. The reduce float, not increase it, these guys are idiots. 75 is 20 kts too hot on that wing.

If I have thousands of feet of pavement ahead of me and a very gusty crosswind, I don't use full flaps, nor do I see the harm. It may reduce float, but it makes the airplane much more susceptible to gusts. It might be different in your 2900 pound plane, but in the 750 pound airplane I fly, a little gust and some extra wing hanging out makes control much more difficult. Why make things harder on yourself?

Landing an airplane 20 knots too fast, without flare, and without flaps is indeed pretty difficult to do. That's why you shouldn't be doing it

I can vouch for the technique, I think. It accomplishes the same thing as a flare. It actually IS a flare, but you're just thinking about it a different way. Thing is, at 20 knots too fast, it turns out all yucky and there really is no flare to speak of...it's just float float float. I say this from experience . On accident, of course. Done properly, though, the technique works well.

Let me assure you that many leading LSA instructors are firm believers in hot, flat approaches. They may not use 75 knots, but they will want more than 60.
They will teach 0 or 15 flaps in any kind of crosswind and will fly it on.
Some LSA instructors will claim that more conventional pilots are incompetent to land LSA in the way they are used to - they must be transitioned. These people are zealots.
I land my LSA the same way I landed a T210, but am lambasted in every LSA forum for claiming I can.

Chesapeake Sport Pilot doesn't teach hot flat approaches, and light sport is what they do day in and day out. I was initially taught 60 kts short final, then more like 50-55 once I got the hang of it. Fly right down the PAPI's glideslope or a little above. Seemed to work pretty well.

 

[Tarheel Pilot]

Well I printed out a SportCruiser checklist (and I cross referenced it with like five others I found online) and they all say the same thing, 65 knots for landing. So on my flight on Thursday before we go up in the air, I'll have a sit down with the instructor and talk with him about it.

 

[bqmassey]

Can't comment on the SportCruiser, but I'm training in an LSA (Valor A22) at an airport with a grass strip cut out of 50 ft trees. On a windy day it is common to have a big change of wind when you get down to tree line, anything more than a slight cross-wind and we land with no flap(erons).

I was taught to fly at, or slightly above, 1.3Vs until we're through the wind shear, and then start slowing. Sometimes I'll slip a little, but I enter the flare at no more than 5-10 kts above stall speed. Rarely do we float.

I'm just a lowly student, but I'd be dubious of anyone that demands a hot, flat approach like that. To me, it seems like that some people are taught to land the plane, others are taught to just fly it at a low enough altitude that the wheels touch.

 

[Henning]

If I have thousands of feet of pavement ahead of me and a very gusty crosswind, I don't use full flaps, nor do I see the harm. It may reduce float, but it makes the airplane much more susceptible to gusts. It might be different in your 2900 pound plane, but in the 750 pound airplane I fly, a little gust and some extra wing hanging out makes control much more difficult. Why make things harder on yourself?

Because kinetic energy squares with speed and any error you make will have an exponentially increased chance of causing damage or injury. The only reason flaps would make things more difficult is if you're going too fast, otherwise flaps make everything easier. Manage your energy properly and fly the plane as it is designed to be done, don't use hackneyed operational crutches to make up for poor technique; get your plane under control and fly it.

 

[Henning]

Well I printed out a SportCruiser checklist (and I cross referenced it with like five others I found online) and they all say the same thing, 65 knots for landing. So on my flight on Thursday before we go up in the air, I'll have a sit down with the instructor and talk with him about it.

Why don't you go up and find the the correct speed to use?

Go up and do some Vso/power off stalls and see what you stall at. Take that number and go into the POH's CAS/IAS chart, get the CAS, multiply by 1.3 then convert back to IAS. That is the max speed you should be at on final.

 

[poadeleted20]

Well this says that the Cruiser's stall speed is 39, so I'm guessing the approach speed should be 50.7?

That's 39 knots indicated, not calibrated. You have to convert IAS to CAS before multiplying by 1.3 in order to remove the position error. That is no doubt why that checklist recommends on the second page an approach speed of 60 KIAS rather than 51 as you computed.

This is a point often missed in such discussions where there are large position errors near stall, such as with the C-172, which has a Vs0 of 33 indicated which is 46 calibrated. You would not do well trying to fly a 172 down final at 1.3x33=43 knots indicated, but it does just fine at 1.3x46=60 knots calibrated (at which point calibrated and indicated are about the same).

That said, some LSA's, with very low stall speeds, start to lose some control authority when flown on approach at 1.3 Vs0. The Flight Design CTsw, for example, needs more speed than that with just about any level of crosswind or you run out of aileron authority. So, an approach speed higher than 1.3 Vs0 may be necessary. However, even without having flown one, I'm guessing that 75 KIAS is still way too fast for the Sportcruiser -- that's even faster than I fly my Grumman Tiger which weighs almost twice as much and flies a lot faster.

 

[jpower]

Because kinetic energy squares with speed and any error you make will have an exponentially increased chance of causing damage or injury. The only reason flaps would make things more difficult is if you're going too fast, otherwise flaps make everything easier. Manage your energy properly and fly the plane as it is designed to be done, don't use hackneyed operational crutches to make up for poor technique; get your plane under control and fly it.

In a steady crosswind, I agree--drop the flaps all the way and leave them there. They make life easier. But they don't when it's gusting. If you approach at the same speed, which is what I do, your KE will be the same. All else being equal, having more wing hanging down in a gusty airstream will make you more susceptible to the gusts.

 

[Henning]

In a steady crosswind, I agree--drop the flaps all the way and leave them there. They make life easier. But they don't when it's gusting. If you approach at the same speed, which is what I do, your KE will be the same. All else being equal, having more wing hanging down in a gusty airstream will make you more susceptible to the gusts.

Using a crutch to make something 'easier' while simultaneously increasing the hazard is poor form. It's not always easy to fly, that's not an excuse to not do it correctly. With full flaps you can make up an energy deficit with the throttle without having the same increase in kinetic energy, also you cut the float. The float is where it goes bad for most people.

 

[jpower]

Using a crutch to make something 'easier' while simultaneously increasing the hazard is poor form. It's not always easy to fly, that's not an excuse to not do it correctly. With full flaps you can make up an energy deficit with the throttle without having the same increase in kinetic energy, also you cut the float. The float is where it goes bad for most people.

I get that the float is where it all usually goes wrong and that flaps cut that float. But in a steady crosswind, I can fly an airplane down the runway for as long as I want right over the centerline. I've done plenty of low passes with an instructor. So the float in and of itself is not the problem. It's the gusts that beat you around while you're floating. And it seems like it's a little bit of a tradeoff. Either you float longer and don't get batted around as much, or you get batted around and don't float as long.

Next time I'm out at the airport with a gusty crosswind, I'll make it a point to stay for a few extra trips around the pattern and try both to see which works better.

 

[RoscoeT]

The flight school like to do a no flap landing because from their reasoning, it's an LSA and flaps would just cause it to get toss around in the wind. Which I'm okay with, it's their aircraft, their rules.

They are FOS...just realize that. Flaps do not make you get "tossed around" more. Jeez, this plane has the same wing loading as a 152. Flaps are there for a reason. The Sportcruiser is clean. It benefits from flaps. You will decelerate quicker and touch down with less energy, with flaps. You will have LESS exposure to getting "tossed around" if you use flaps.

What they've been teaching me is to hold the aircraft off the ground and let it come down on it's own and to hold the stick in an almost neutral position, yet my mind keeps telling me to pull the stick back for the flare.

All of this is done with a 75 knots approach speed, and with no flaps, which does cause ballooning which does cause me to want to push the stick forward a bit to get out of the balloon, apparently I'm supposed to keep the stick near to neutral and let the aircraft fly out of that as well.

What you have is a bunch of neo-instructors who have aligned their training techniques around jet operations. This is at the expense of good basic flying skills. Don't succumb to their level of non flying skills. Do what they want to get checked out. But after that, are they actually going to watch you land with flaps from a normal approach speed and prohibit you from renting their planes?

 

[dell30rb]

What you have is a bunch of neo-instructors who have aligned their training techniques around jet operations. This is at the expense of good basic flying skills. Don't succumb to their level of non flying skills. Do what they want to get checked out. But after that, are they actually going to watch you land with flaps from a normal approach speed and prohibit you from renting their planes?

I agree. Just play dumb. Land it by the book numbers after you get checked out.

 

[Tarheel Pilot]

Well good news on the landing front, I talked to my flight instructor on the phone today and voiced my concern about the high landing speed, and he agreed to let me try to land with flaps and 65 knots speed (What the POH/Checklist for the Cruiser recommends) and see how it works out.

Here's hoping I'll get better landings and more consistent landings now.

 

[alfadog]

I have about 25 hours in the CTLS and fly with a few buddies with a lot more. The problem with low-mass aircraft and the flare is that the airplane loses momentum (speed) very quickly and drops out. The more flaps and the slower you are in the flare, the quicker you are going to run out of lift. I was taught to round out low with mid-setting on the flaps and very low with full flaps. In other words, with full flaps you fly it all the way down and round out at 12 inches. That does not leave a lot of room for error so my friends' generally used 15d flaps max or none at all and that was as suggested. That said, we were certainly not taught to approach at some high speed or to not flare.

 

[Henning]

I have about 25 hours in the CTLS and fly with a few buddies with a lot more. The problem with low-mass aircraft and the flare is that the airplane loses momentum (speed) very quickly and drops out. The more flaps and the slower you are in the flare, the quicker you are going to run out of lift. I was taught to round out low with mid-setting on the flaps and very low with full flaps. In other words, with full flaps you fly it all the way down and round out at 12 inches. That does not leave a lot of room for error so my friends' generally used 15d flaps max or none at all and that was as suggested. That said, we were certainly not taught to approach at some high speed or to not flare.

So, rather than practice and learn to do it correctly, just use a kludge?

 

[alfadog]

So, rather than practice and learn to do it correctly, just use a kludge?

Note that I said that is how my friends do it. Not for me to tell someone that they cannot land no flaps, especially when the owner of the airplane prefers they do.

 

[alfadog]

Wrong thread

 

[MDeitch1976]

As I've stated in the Flight Following section of the forum, I've been busy getting checked out in the Czech Sportcruiser, which is a fun aircraft to fly. However, I have had a small problem of landing the aircraft.

The flight school like to do a no flap landing because from their reasoning, it's an LSA and flaps would just cause it to get toss around in the wind. Which I'm okay with, it's their aircraft, their rules.

However, I can't really get over the idea that you don't flare the Sportcruiser the same way you'd do in the Piper Cherokees (what I've been flying previously).

What they've been teaching me is to hold the aircraft off the ground and let it come down on it's own and to hold the stick in an almost neutral position, yet my mind keeps telling me to pull the stick back for the flare.

All of this is done with a 75 knots approach speed, and with no flaps, which does cause ballooning which does cause me to want to push the stick forward a bit to get out of the balloon, apparently I'm supposed to keep the stick near to neutral and let the aircraft fly out of that as well.

So...it's def. a new way for me to land an aircraft, and since we have a few LSA flyers on here, I was wondering if y'all could give me some pointers for better and more consistent landing in a Sportcruiser?

Is this a Czech Piper Sport?
I fly the Piper Sport.
We still flare in this plane, otherwise you are going to land flat, and possibly damage the nose gear.
We practice no flap landings at 65 knots, with no flaps. It floats like nobodies business. Wow, 75knts? I probably wouldn't be flying that day, if the winds required no flaps. Usually, we use 10 to 20 flaps with cross winds. Under normal circumstances, 60 knots full flaps. Short field landings we use 50 knots.
LSA aircraft have a max stall speed of 45knts. I just couldn't imagine coming in at 75 knots. Maybe when I get to land at one of the Bravo airports around, we can give that 75 knts a go.

 

[jesse]

The problem with low-mass aircraft and the flare is that the airplane loses momentum (speed) very quickly and drops out.

I've piloted aircraft ranging from 1 oz to 6,000 lbs and having the airplane "drop out" in the flare has been a larger problem on the heavier side then the lighter side. Even then -- one can still have a bit of a flare when they get the hang of things.

 

[alfadog]

I've piloted aircraft ranging from 1 oz to 6,000 lbs and having the airplane "drop out" in the flare has been a larger problem on the heavier side then the lighter side. Even then -- one can still have a bit of a flare when they get the hang of things.

I agree and we were not taught to land the CTLS without flaring. We were taught to flare low and to forgo full flaps. It does seem that landing without a flare is what the OP is being taught. I was also taught to land an Arrow without a flare and perhaps it is more appropriate there but I have been lately bringing it to a stall on landing with good results in the way of short field.

 

[Henning]

I agree and we were not taught to land the CTLS without flaring. We were taught to flare low and to forgo full flaps. It does seem that landing without a flare is what the OP is being taught. I was also taught to land an Arrow without a flare and perhaps it is more appropriate there but I have been lately bringing it to a stall on landing with good results in the way of short field.

Nope, if you were taught to land an Arrow with no flare you were taught incorrectly there as well. I am not aware of a small GA aircraft that does not use a flare to land correctly.

 

[alfadog]

Nope, if you were taught to land an Arrow with no flare you were taught incorrectly there as well. I am not aware of a small GA aircraft that does not use a flare to land correctly.

I do it half the time in the Luscombe.

 

[Henning]

I do it half the time in the Luscombe.

That is the advantage to conventional gear that many people do not recognize, you can do a wheel landing perfectly at any speed.

 

[Dan Thomas]

Airplanes need to go fast in the air, slow on the ground. Forcing an airplane to go too slow in the air is bad unless you are expecting it to stop flying. Forcing it to land at a speed where it still has too much margin over the stall is really unwise. I would bet that far more airplanes are busted because of excessive touchdown speeds than because of stalling on final. An awful lot of pilots also assume that the flight is over once the wheels are on the ground and they stop flying the airplane. A gust or crosswind then makes them passengers instead of pilots and they aren't in control anymore. Runway-loss-of-control accidents are distressingly common and most often due to rotten training as we hear about from the OP.

Dan

 

[eetrojan]

That's 39 knots indicated, not calibrated. You have to convert IAS to CAS before multiplying by 1.3 in order to remove the position error. That is no doubt why that checklist recommends on the second page an approach speed of 60 KIAS rather than 51 as you computed.

This is a point often missed in such discussions where there are large position errors near stall, such as with the C-172, which has a Vs0 of 33 indicated which is 46 calibrated. You would not do well trying to fly a 172 down final at 1.3x33=43 knots indicated, but it does just fine at 1.3x46=60 knots calibrated (at which point calibrated and indicated are about the same).

I am being taught to land an LSA with full flaps. Still trying to master the flare, but I'll get there.

I know this thread is old, but wanted to say thanks for this explanation. I could never figure out why the Evektor SportStar's POH specified 60 knots for a full flaps landing given that Vs0 is 37 and 1.3 x 37 = 48. However, in KCAS, Vs0 is 42 and 1.3 x 42 = 55. And, at that faster airspeed, KIAS and KCAS are pretty closer, eg 60 KIAS is 62 KCAS.

Does this seem right?