Flat approaches & landings - wth?

saddletramp

saddletramp

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
722
Location
Walla Walla. WA
Display Name
Display name:
saddletramp
Today I was out at my small airport tinkering on my 182. There were several airplanes that either landed or were shooting touch & go's. I made an interesting observation. Most of the pilots made shallow approaches carrying power & landed fairly flat. Why?

Okay, maybe I'm old school but what happens if that power plant up front quits being a power plant? Stay high & make the runway without the engine...right?

I teach & usually make rather steep approaches. On short final, I'm power off, flaps as needed, but attempt to make the runway without throttle. I also carry enough airspeed to make a nice flare & attempt to touch down, nose high, with the stall warner chirping. I thought touching down at minimum airspeed was important. It saves runway & brakes. Isn't that normal?

What is it with all these pilots landing flat & producing power on final?

I don't get it.
 
saddletramp said:
Today I was out at my small airport tinkering on my 182. There were several airplanes that either landed or were shooting touch & go's. I made an interesting observation. Most of the pilots made shallow approaches carrying power & landed fairly flat. Why?

Okay, maybe I'm old school but what happens if that power plant up front quits being a power plant? Stay high & make the runway without the engine...right?

I teach & usually make rather steep approaches. On short final, I'm power off, flaps as needed, but attempt to make the runway without throttle. I also carry enough airspeed to make a nice flare & attempt to touch down, nose high, with the stall warner chirping. I thought touching down at minimum airspeed was important. It saves runway & brakes. Isn't that normal?

What is it with all these pilots landing flat & producing power on final?

I don't get it.
Click to expand...


Ive seen and thought the same things...
I like the idea of staying high and close to enable a power fail glide to a safe,, On field landing!
I have Never,, practiced the long, low, power up, drag it, in to a landing...
 
Standard configuration for bigger iron. What you can do in a 172 doesn't always work as well if at all in a large piston twin, jet, etc.

Coming in a little faster and losing airspeed while hovering over the runway will add a couple of hundred feet, but usually makes a smoother touchdown.

I know one instructor that teaches students to go around if the stall horn goes off.

Jim
 
Topper said:
I know one instructor that teaches students to go around if the stall horn goes off.
Click to expand...

:yikes: That's how I was taught to land, slowly with the horn chirping!! Go around??? Where do they come up with this stuff?
 
Flying singles VFR I liked to be high, especially short field. I would slip the airplane to bleed off excess altitude, try to touch down at minimum airspeed. Less energy at TD is safer if something goes wrong on the rollout (possible stuck or inop brake, flat main tire, etc).

As the above post notes, can't do that with every airplane. The Aztec has to have some power as I cross the fence and I was taught to "fly it on to the runway". Still need to pay attention to speeds to minimize energy on touchdown, but it's not the strangely satisfying stall warning touchdowns I could do in the various Cherokees.
 
They were told that they need to fly a stabilized approach without configuration changes below 1000ft ;-)
 
That's how I was taught too. Set up the approach so the runway could be made in the event of an engine failure on final. Evidently not everybody agrees with that method.
 
Ryanb said:
That's how I was taught too. Set up the approach so the runway could be made in the event of an engine failure on final. Evidently not everybody agrees with that method.
Click to expand...

Often they're trained that way but once they have their tickets they fly like they want to. I see it on FRs. Whatya gonna do.
 
luvflyin said:
Maybe some of them were practicing ILS or LPV approaches.
Click to expand...
r

Nope. We have no instrument approaches at our field. At KALW which is five miles away, they have all those lights, bells, & whistles. Hell, there's even a guy in a tall building that tells you where to land & taxi. It's big time over there.

There you can land flat.
 
saddletramp said:
What is it with all these pilots landing flat & producing power on final?

I don't get it.
Click to expand...
It takes less skill to land this way. When you come in steeper you need to have the proper technique to flare without ballooning or bouncing or leveling off/stalling too high or touching down with too much sink rate. If you suck at flaring then dragging it in low with power and landing flat will probably result in a greaser that will impress your passengers. Of course they will have no idea how screwed they would have been if the engine quit. You're just witnessing a lack of skill.
 
saddletramp said:
Today I was out at my small airport tinkering on my 182. There were several airplanes that either landed or were shooting touch & go's. I made an interesting observation. Most of the pilots made shallow approaches carrying power & landed fairly flat. Why?

Okay, maybe I'm old school but what happens if that power plant up front quits being a power plant? Stay high & make the runway without the engine...right?

I teach & usually make rather steep approaches. On short final, I'm power off, flaps as needed, but attempt to make the runway without throttle. I also carry enough airspeed to make a nice flare & attempt to touch down, nose high, with the stall warner chirping. I thought touching down at minimum airspeed was important. It saves runway & brakes. Isn't that normal?

What is it with all these pilots landing flat & producing power on final?

I don't get it.
Click to expand...
Was the runway particularly short?

Not saying this is the best technique, but one technique that I have seen taught for short field landing is to come in flat (behind the power curve) and chop the power just before landing. It's actually how carrier pilots used to land back in the 40s.
 
Why so much fear of an engine quitting on final? How often has that happened? Other than when people select an empty tank.
 
Goofy said:
Why so much fear of an engine quitting on final? How often has that happened? Other than when people select an empty tank.
Click to expand...
Interesting thought. I suspect that most engine failures in the traffic pattern occurred when the pilot made significant throttle reductions.
 
Some teach like flying an ILS. Partial flap, power on. Thats ONE way. Good pilot should be able to do it every way.
 
What works in a 150/172/182 doesn't work in every airplane; lots of airplanes don't like steep, power-off approaches. The PA32-series, the Bonanza and the Super Viking are ones that come to mind that do much better when flown to the runway with some power. Sure, it CAN be done in those airplanes, but it's unnecessarily cumbersome. The engine quitting on final isn't something I worry about.
 
Topper said:
Coming in a little faster and losing airspeed while hovering over the runway will add a couple of hundred feet, but usually makes a smoother touchdown.
Click to expand...

It can add a thousand feet. Look at the overrun accidents: too much speed, usually, resulting in floating. Or they force it on and it wheelbarrows and runs off the side. Or it starts porpoising and gets busted. Or they skid the tires and blow them out. Too much speed on landing wrecks a lot of perfectly good airplanes. The fear of stalling, I think, is at the root of it. They probably pick it up in training, or complacency sets in after licensing.
 
There is a continuum between a mantra of "all approaches should be power-off incase the engine fails" and dragging the thing in with lots of power on a 3° glideslope (or shallower :eek:) with full flaps. The latter to me is like pressing the gas and brake at the same time in a car, while at the same time I think there are legitimate reasons why the former stopped being SOP quite some time ago.
 
Yesterday a fellow posted a video to the AOPA forum on Facebook that made me cringe:

https://www.facebook.com/johnathon.tully/posts/10154776784496329

I've resisted making a comment so far, but I see these as not so much landings, as just driving the plane onto the runway. Though the last two were at least headed in the right direction with the mains touching slightly first.

Poor nosegear!
 
Last edited:
Dan Thomas said:
It can add a thousand feet. Look at the overrun accidents: too much speed, usually, resulting in floating. Or they force it on and it wheelbarrows and runs off the side. Or it starts porpoising and gets busted. Or they skid the tires and blow them out. Too much speed on landing wrecks a lot of perfectly good airplanes. The fear of stalling, I think, is at the root of it. They probably pick it up in training, or complacency sets in after licensing.
Click to expand...
True, but what you describe has nothing to approach angle, and everything to do with speed. You can make a flat approach dragging it in with power and make a ridiculously short landing. You can also make a power off 180 with a steep approach and float halfway down the runway.

The key is speed. As they say, speed kills.
 
FastEddieB said:
Yesterday a fellow posted a video to the AOPA forum on Facebook that made me cringe:

https://www.facebook.com/johnathon.tully/posts/10154776784496329

I've resisted making a comment so far, but I see these as not so much landings, as just driving the plane onto the runway. Though the last two were at least headed in the right direction with the mains touching slightly first.

Poor nosegear!
Click to expand...
What surprises me is that the video says it is a Cardinal. You can get away with flat landings like that in a PA28, but in a Cardinal it's only a matter of time before that nose wheel gets jacked up.
 
[QUOTE="Topper, post: 2239968, member: 13464]

Coming in a little faster and losing airspeed while hovering over the runway will add a couple of hundred feet, but usually makes a smoother touchdown. [/quote]

Since the objective is to land and slow to taxi speed, I dislike the plan to slow down while in ground effect. That puts you at the mercy of a gusty crosswind for a longer time.

I know one instructor that teaches students to go around if the stall horn goes off.
Click to expand...

Yikes!!

-Skip
 
Landings like the above are WAY too common.

I would hope that all pilots were taught to land with the yoke way back - the PTS required them to demonstrate landings at approximately stall speed to get their licenses.

So what happens? Do they just get lazy or incrementally lose skills they once had?

If I were to fly with that pilot, I'd work towards getting him to do those same touch and goes without the nosewheel ever touching. Should be a skill every pilot has.
 
Goofy said:
Why so much fear of an engine quitting on final? How often has that happened?
Click to expand...

Every time this topic comes up, there is a paucity of evidence provided which shows there is any harm from a flat, or power-on approach.
Until someone shows actual harm from a particular method, it is going to be difficult to support changing it.
Show us some statistics! Otherwise, one may be led to believe it is all unsupported pilot opinion.
Same with 'most engine failures occur when the throttle/prop is adjusted'. No proof, or even substantiated anecdote.
 
Dan Thomas said:
It can add a thousand feet. Look at the overrun accidents: too much speed, usually, resulting in floating. Or they force it on and it wheelbarrows and runs off the side. Or it starts porpoising and gets busted. Or they skid the tires and blow them out. Too much speed on landing wrecks a lot of perfectly good airplanes. The fear of stalling, I think, is at the root of it. They probably pick it up in training, or complacency sets in after licensing.
Click to expand...
How many people actually go out and practice slow flight and stalls on a regular basis after getting their license? It's like parallel parking. You have to demonstrate it for the test to get your license, but after that 90% of people do not practice it often enough to retain any skills.
 
Example of the exercise I mentioned above:


Anticipating comments, the GoPro "flattens out" approaches all by itself - in real life the approaches were much steeper than they appear here, though a tad flatter than my norm since I was carrying some power for the simulated soft field landings.
 
FastEddieB said:
Landings like the above are WAY too common.

I would hope that all pilots were taught to land with the yoke way back - the PTS required them to demonstrate landings at approximately stall speed to get their licenses.

So what happens? Do they just get lazy or incrementally lose skills they once had?
Click to expand...
I think there are too many examiners who give a bit too much leeway in the
PTS.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Every time this topic comes up, there is a paucity of evidence provided which shows there is any harm from a flat, or power-on approach.
Until someone shows actual harm from a particular method, it is going to be difficult to support changing it.
Click to expand...
My primary CFI told me that the FAA changed its recommendation from a high, steep approach to a lower partial power approach after an anaysis of GA landing accidents. Sorry I have no references for this. -Skip
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Show us some statistics! Otherwise, one may be led to believe it is all unsupported pilot opinion.
Same with 'most engine failures occur when the throttle/prop is adjusted'. No proof, or even substantiated anecdote.
Click to expand...
It's hard to come up with those statistics in a truly definitive scientific way. That's the first challenge. Otherwise someone like aviation safety would have answered this question long ago.

All I can say is based on reading a lot of NTSB reports over the years (and my own personal experience as a ship engineer) that more failures occur when you change something in the system than when the system is running without any intervention. Doesn't mean that you can't have a failure without touching/adjusting something, just less common.
 
Fearless Tower said:
All I can say is based on reading a lot of NTSB reports over the years (and my own personal experience as a ship engineer) that more failures occur when you change something in the system than when the system is running without any intervention. Doesn't mean that you can't have a failure without touching/adjusting something, just less common.
Click to expand...

I don't buy this at all. You show me any NTSB or other study that this the case. I've had all sorts of engine problems (including two catastrophic engine failures) and none have been accompanying power failures. In fact, the configuration change that often causes failure is a pilot error (depriving the engine of the fuel supply or some other error).

More people wreck on takeoff or landing because of non-engine related problems (stall/spin, mishandling winds, etc...).
 
flyingron said:
I don't buy this at all. You show me any NTSB or other study that this the case. I've had all sorts of engine problems (including two catastrophic engine failures) and none have been accompanying power failures. In fact, the configuration change that often causes failure is a pilot error (depriving the engine of the fuel supply or some other error).

More people wreck on takeoff or landing because of non-engine related problems (stall/spin, mishandling winds, etc...).
Click to expand...
Wo there tough guy. Where on earth did I say that adjusting something was the most common cause of all accidents??? Don't be a dumbass for the sake of an argument.

All I am saying is that I have personally seen more engineering failures when a system is changed, and yes that includes failures that were the result of human error. Throttle or other control linkages don't disconnect (or become evident that they disconnected) in cruise vs when you touch the control. Boost pumps don't overpressurize a defective fuel system until you turn them on before landing. It's simple math. You are touching/adjusting things more when landing than in cruise.

But that is just the nature of the beast. That the difference between a cruise and landing checklist. You have to touch more things to come down than maintain cruise flight. Doesn't mean you should touch less things to land, just be aware/alert for symptoms of something bad when you do. It also doesn't mean that something isn't going to fail in cruise either. I certainly did not say or imply that.

As far as NTSB studies, please show me ANY study that has addressed this subject for either side. I have not seen the topic addressed, and I have not been able to find a truly definitive way to address it by searching the database. Again, I am only speaking from experience dealing with mechanical things and addressing MTBF in the operational testing world.
 
Look, I made a point without involving any ad hominem attacks. You were the one with an assertion. Sorry, you can't tolerate anybody expressing a contrary opinion.

You were the one who asserted NTSB data to your point, I've never seen a shred of evidence in my viewing of the NTSB data that has related configuration changes to engine failure. And you invoked your "personal" experience, and I expressed that my "personal experience" is exactly the opposite.

If we're talking piston engines, I've seen nothing over time to support the assertion that power changes are related to failures.

And my point about the other causes of crashes wasn't to refute your statement, but to address the original point you were responding to about what causes landing accidents. You'll find that engine failures (other than fuel exhaustion) are an extremely rare event on approach to landing accidents to begin with.
 
flyingron said:
Look, I made a point without involving any ad hominem attacks. You were the one with an assertion. Sorry, you can't tolerate anybody expressing a contrary opinion.
Click to expand...
I didn't make the assertion you accused me of. I'm sorry you can't be objective, but the ignore feature solves that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top