Jacobson Flare

Stingray Don

En-Route
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
2,964
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Display Name

Display name:
Stingray Don
Has anyone else tried this? I had never heard of this landing technique and just stumbled across it. I had an old iTunes gift card gathering dust so I downloaded the app and studied the material. I went out this morning and practiced some landings using this method. I have to say my landings were more consistent. I wish I would have had this when I was a student pilot!

http://www.jacobsonflare.com/
 
The link (on mobile at least) takes one to a sales site with no information about the technique.

So being the naturally curious sort and skeptical of anything that claims to teach flying techniques that is stuck behind a pay-wall, I Googled.

Lots of astroturfing of the technique with vague references by CFIs mostly associated with one particular seller of training materials online and very little real-world leakage of what normal pilots think of it.

But beyond that, it appears it's simply applied geometry. Something someone could calculate with a spreadsheet in an hour or so.

Nothing wrong with applying hard numbers to any phase of flying, but at least one CFI reviewed the concepts and mentioned a big problem - not all runways have painted visual markers at known distances.

Interestingly that CFI was also somehow loosely associated with the sales company. And he didn't mention the biggest problem: The technique assumes a specific angle for the glide path.

One has to set up a specific power setting and *ground* speed to nail that desired glide path and a solid headwind will blow the technique all to hell. Not by much, which probably leads to why the few CFI reviews found, indicate that students get a "7 out of 10" using the technique. But they say it's consistent.

Makes sense.

More Googling turned up a PDF of a paper written by Jacobson himself, which starts with the blow-hard line that "prior to me figuring this out, *nobody* had done this!" (paraphrased...) which is always a red flag to me in aviation training circles. Flares have been around for over 100 years and the idea that no one has applied simple geometry to a glide path is, well, simply retarded.

Ask the TERPS folks or the Part 121 carriers if they don't have people on staff that do this math. Hahaha. Sure buddy.

Getting private aviators to apply said math to their own approaches and landings and their CFIs, may be a bit "novel" due to simple laziness, but not really anything new. He claims he figured it out in 1987.

I haven't run into a CFI teaching the technique in 24 years. That probably says something.

$24.95 isn't that much money in the Grand Scheme of things, but in general, if the technique was so amazing and radical that it was worth that, everyone at the airport would have been using it for years before I started flying, in 1991. 4 years is plenty of time for news of its greatness to spread, even in the days when you had to wait for a magazine to show up or needed USENET access to discuss techniques with pilots all over the world. By 28 years, it would be written into multiple books and part of every structured training program.

So... I doubt it's as "revolutionary" as the author would like one to think it is.

But if it gets pilots to look out the window and land the damn plane, fine. Whatever works. :)
 
Just from previewing the App it looks like it presents an ability pilots naturally develop (use of references to determine glide path) in a concise manner. It's pretty well discussed in Langeweische's Stick and Rudder.
 
I should write an app called the Saconian Leaning method and sell it for twenty five bucks a pop.

What a joke.
 
Gee, none of us know how to land?

Student pilots don't know how to land. If you are an experienced pilot and have consistent landings, then I would not waste the time and money. If you are a student pilot or a low time pilot wanting more consistent landings, this probably will help.
 
For landing most GA planes on short precise fields, I'd be wanting to talk to a backcountry pilot, not a airline guy.

$24 bucks, I might buy a extensive technique ebook from a winner on the Maldives.


Plenty of good precision landing pointers here, I'd wager you'll get better information here too, plus is FREE

https://www.backcountrypilot.org/knowledge-base
 
My first few flights just figuring out how the E6B worked in the air took all my brain power. Trigonometry in my head while approaching to land.. Not a snowballs chance hahaha. I remember sitting in my kitchen looking at this super simple whiz wheel device and trying to figure out how it knew when we were in the plane so it could morph into a complex impossible to use super computer hahaha.
 
Student pilots don't know how to land. If you are an experienced pilot and have consistent landings, then I would not waste the time and money. If you are a student pilot or a low time pilot wanting more consistent landings, this probably will help.

Or......if your flying a Taildragger and have a high time instructor , he will teach you easily. You might even look up the videos which explain it exactly. They re free.
 
I'm sorry but this sounds like a scam. Never heard of this method until today which probably speaks volumes. $20 for perfect landings? Ya ok.....

Practice, practice, and more practice in different planes, on different runways and in different conditions make for good consistently good landings.
 
"So that's what I was doing wrong ... !"

N4619C_KFUL_19650606.jpg
 
Put this right up there with the Vern Foster Precision Visual Approach that someone in the Colorado Pilots Association thinks is somehow different from what most of us would call flying a normal pattern.
 
I can understand the skepticism. The podcast provides a pretty good description and is worth a listen. The app has a lot more detail and includes several videos demonstrating the technique.

I was trained to aim for the numbers and begin the flare about 10' over the runway. The problem is that this requires guesswork and the development of a sight picture through trial and error, and is difficult to repeat with precision. Also a different runway environment or night can throw your sight picture out the window (flaring too high on a wider runway). His technique provides a precise point in three dimensional space to start the flare which is repeatable. He also provides a method for the rate of flare and the final landing attitude rather than the traditional "just hold it off when your close".

I'm a low time pilot with just over 100 hours. My landings are safe but still inconsistent. I tried his technique today and every landing was a carbon copy because the method is repeatable with much greater precision. This is just another tool in your toolkit. At least I'm willing to learn and try new things.
 
Last edited:
I can understand the skepticism. The podcast provides a pretty good description and is worth a listen. The app has a lot more detail and includes several videos demonstrating the technique.

I was trained to aim for the numbers and begin the flare about 10' over the runway. The problem is that this requires guesswork and the development of a sight picture through trial and error, and is difficult to repeat with precision. Also a different runway environment or night can throw your sight picture out the window (flaring too high on a wider runway). His technique provides a precise point in three dimensional space to start the flare which is repeatable. He also provides a method for the rate of flare and the final landing attitude rather than the traditional "just hold it off when your close".

I'm a low time pilot with just over 100 hours. My landings are safe but still inconsistent. I tried his technique today and every landing was a carbon copy because the method is repeatable with much greater precision. This is just another tool in your toolkit. At least I'm willing to learn and try new things.
You described the main problem which is very low time. If you fly a certain type for over a hundred hours, with several hundred hours logged, you should be able to plant it anywhere you want it or your instructor was lousy. Practice , with good instruction is the key.
 
Hello everyone, from Australia.

A good friend has drawn my attention to your great discussion, regarding my Jacobson Flare, the world's first and only universal,quantifiable and consistent approach and landing training technique.

I can understand some skepticism - that's healthy - but please, don't take my word alone for it: I'd like to invite you all to visit my website, http://www.jacobsonflare.com/tributes/ (and maybe the other tabs) and check what a wide range of other pilots have had to say, for a very long time, now.

Or you might like to check the podcast on Jason Miller's Finer points of Flying, at https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/what-if-world-was-round-aviation/id84885574?i=348465971&mt=2

Or, then again, you could check with Marc Santacroce, at http://www.blueskygraysky.com/

Please understand that I wouldn't have wasted 30 years of my life, flogging a dead horse; or waste your precious time, either, if this technique did not work!

I can contribute further if you wish, or I'm happy to respond to your questions, here or by email, at jacobsonflare@bigpond.com

Thank you so much for your interest.

With kind regards,

Captain David M Jacobson FRAeS MAP
Porepunkah 3740
Victoria
Australia
 
Put this right up there with the Vern Foster Precision Visual Approach that someone in the Colorado Pilots Association thinks is somehow different from what most of us would call flying a normal pattern.


Heh. One big difference there was Vern worked for the FAA when he came up with the idea and was concerned by the number of pilots he met who were not capable of making a repeatable, consistent, visual approach. He also came up with it in the 70s, the heyday of weekend warriors, FWIW.

And AFAIK, he wasn't charging $24.95 for it behind a pay-wall. Ha. :)

His visual approach has been overblown a bit by those who knew him.

His later book had a number of techniques that were all good and the approach techniques were just one of a small part of the overall work he did. Which was mainly to write down and organize the various things instructors were teaching in the region at the time.
 
I'm a low time pilot with just over 100 hours. My landings are safe but still inconsistent. I tried his technique today and every landing was a carbon copy because the method is repeatable with much greater precision. This is just another tool in your toolkit.


Nothing wrong with building a consistent sight picture. That is the whole point at your stage of the game.

Just be careful of primacy and falling into the trap that it will always work right, in that the technique does have significant flaws when the *groundspeed* changes dramatically.

You'll get to try it in a 25-30 knot headwind someday and see that it isn't quite right, then.
 
Nothing wrong with building a consistent sight picture. That is the whole point at your stage of the game.

Just be careful of primacy and falling into the trap that it will always work right, in that the technique does have significant flaws when the *groundspeed* changes dramatically.

You'll get to try it in a 25-30 knot headwind someday and see that it isn't quite right, then.

Would you mind expanding on the ground speed issue? I don't fly on days with 25 - 30 knot winds because I know my own limitations. I'm not familiar with the concept of changing flare height based on wind conditions. I'm always willing to learn.
 
I was taught, and went on to teach, to begin the flare roughly one wingspan above the ground. That helps compensate for the need to begin earlier in larger planes.

I don't think I adjust that for wind. What does change is the approach angle - it will be steeper with a stronger heading.

Reductio ad absurdum, if the headwind was equal to your approach speed, what would your descent angle be?
 
Would you mind expanding on the ground speed issue? I don't fly on days with 25 - 30 knot winds because I know my own limitations. I'm not familiar with the concept of changing flare height based on wind conditions. I'm always willing to learn.


I'm not great math teacher so I won't do the geometry here, but imagine looking at your glide path from a side view perspective, and holding the airspeed constant (which is required for this mental exercise).

(Just for clarity lets say you're watching yourself land from right to left.)

You're flying toward a runway and a particular power and pitch combination gives you a "perfect" 3 degree glide slope as viewed from the side. (Or pick any glide slope you like...) On a no-wind day.

The right triangle defined by the ground, the glide slope, and your constant decent path is fairly flat.

Now add wind from the left side of the picture.

Same airplane, same airspeed through the air, same power setting, but not the same glide path over the ground, because you're taking longer to get to the runway on the left side of the picture.

The right triangle and the glide path becomes a steeper slope.

Obviously, one can compensate for this behavior. But I assume the technique is based on a no-wind calculation of the glide path to determine the sighting points mathematically.

To maintain the same airspeed all the way to touchdown, the flare and touchdown points would have to compress together slightly.

It's not going to be a *huge* difference, but the geometry will definitely change slightly.

To make the point clearer with a goofy example, let's say you fly a 70 knot approach and you have a 70 knot headwind. (It's hurricane season as you make bad weather choices in life... Haha)

You adjust and decide you'd like to get to the airport sometime today so you fly a 120 knot approach. So you're headed to the runway at 40 knots.

That triangle is going to be pretty steep. A calculated target on the runway to flare is fine, but you'll touch down a lot sooner than the calculated touchdown point beyond the flare point, when you flare and start to pull that power off and your groundspeed quickly drops to zero for the landing.

(I also think you'll have a hard time taxiing in. You may just want to sit there and fly the airplane on the ground until the wind abates. Hahaha!)

Make sense?

The angle problem is why glider pilots don't want to be caught downwind with a strong wind, of their landing airport without enough altitude. They can't add power to flatten out that angle. They're not going to make the airport. Power pilots can flatten the descent rate with power.

The difference with small wind numbers isn't huge in the aiming points, but it's there. See how it all interrelates? You can fly a constant glide path at a constant airspeed, but the power setting will change. As will the amount of drag on the airframe when you start the flare and reduce power to land. So reduce gingerly and don't try to "stretch" to that second aim point and it'll land just fine.

Try to stretch and pull the nose up to get to that second aim point in a big headwind, and the airspeed will decay rapidly and you'll "plop" it on prior to that second aim point.

Nothing *wrong* with the technique. It's just that it's not going to seem "consistent" in higher wind conditions than you're flying in now.

(And really my angle argument is almost a moot point anyway because if and when you do find yourself flying in high winds someday, it often comes with gobs of mechanical turbulence near the surface and the wind is pretty unlikely to be constant, so your hands, feet, and throttle aren't going to be anywhere near "constant" anyway. You'll be working hard for that landing, moving and changing everything such that predicting the exact glide path -- and more importantly airspeed -- will be an exercise in averages.)

Fun stuff, isn't it? How all of the controls and their resulting changes in the aircraft's angle of attack, change the outcome in a fluid way?

I'm definitely not saying "don't use the technique". Finding a "groove" that works well in no or low wind days is right where you're at in the learning curve. That phrase "groove" is essentially saying you've found a sight picture and combination of pitch and power that results in a consistent approach glide path. And applying a technique on how to transition out of that glide path into a landing flare and touchdown is what you're pounding into your brain, right now. No harm done by the technique.

Just keep in the back of your mind that when you pull the power for the flare at the first aim point and are aiming for that second spot -- the touchdown spot -- on a heavy headwind day, the wind has "moved it closer". You'll land sooner than the second spot. And a tad harder if you don't leave a little more power in to flatten that angle. "Plop." :)

After a while of doing it, you'll just be able to see the runway rising up a little too quickly in your peripheral vision and you won't pull the power out that quick. Constant smooth adjustments to put the aircraft exactly where you want it.
 
Vern was also instrumental in setting up the CPA Mountain Flying course. I had the privilege of flying with him. He started his career teaching new pilots for the Army Air Corp in World War II. Much more to Vern than Mr Jacobson.

Heh. One big difference there was Vern worked for the FAA when he came up with the idea and was concerned by the number of pilots he met who were not capable of making a repeatable, consistent, visual approach. He also came up with it in the 70s, the heyday of weekend warriors, FWIW.

And AFAIK, he wasn't charging $24.95 for it behind a pay-wall. Ha. :)

His visual approach has been overblown a bit by those who knew him.

His later book had a number of techniques that were all good and the approach techniques were just one of a small part of the overall work he did. Which was mainly to write down and organize the various things instructors were teaching in the region at the time.
 
Vern was also instrumental in setting up the CPA Mountain Flying course. I had the privilege of flying with him. He started his career teaching new pilots for the Army Air Corp in World War II. Much more to Vern than Mr Jacobson.


I'll be nice and say technically we don't *know* that about Mr. Jacobson, but your hunch is probably right.

Vern has a lot more published material and folks vouching for his *various* techniques, than Jacobson does.

But maybe in another 28 years, Jacobson will catch up. ;)
 
Thanks, you're right I did pass judgement on a person I don't know. No reason to do that. Vern's accomplishments and dedication to flying speak for themselves.

I'll be nice and say technically we don't *know* that about Mr. Jacobson, but your hunch is probably right.

Vern has a lot more published material and folks vouching for his *various* techniques, than Jacobson does.

But maybe in another 28 years, Jacobson will catch up. ;)
 
Thanks DenverPilot. That does make sense. I checked the material in the JF app, and the author does acknowledge the need to vary the flare point or rate of flare in strong headwinds.
 
So I need to weigh in on this discussion, with the caveat that I have become friends with Capt. Jacobson, and have received compensation in the form of two baseball caps with his logo.

Like most, I learned the "use power to control altitude; estimate your height above the runway; round out at about (fill-in-the-blanks) feet; hold the airplane off until it lands." method.

No argument, it works, most use this method. BUT, it does, especially with low time students, involve lots of trial and error, and an erratic, non-stable approach.

I was checking out in a new airplane (DA-40) and the check airman said, I see you use "the Jacobson Flare." I'd never heard of the Jacobson Flare. I googled, stumbled on his site, and ordered the app. It was NOT an immediate success, unlearning the old way is much harder than learning one way from the start. After about 4 flights, I got it down.

The math seems boggling, but basically you need to know your eye height above your main gear. You can't see your main gear, but you can learn what the correct sight picture is. For me, I aim at the top of the first stripe past the numbers, and begin a 4-5 second flare as the bottom of that same strip disappears under the nose. Doesn't matter if you come in slightly steeper, or shallower, you still flare at the same point. What varies is how far you have to move the nose in that 4-5 seconds (depending upon your angle of approach. In that 4-4 seconds you travel about 400' down the runway (at 60 KIAS).

The most controversial aspect of this approach is that you use power to control airspeed, pitch to control rate/glide slope - just the way an autopilot does with a could approach.

I've employed the method with several students, and they "get it" in just 2 or 3 rides It results in a repeatable, consistently stable approach that is NOT affected by runway illusions, and works whether the runway is striped, undulating, or 150 feet wide and level.

Some of you may have heard the stories about how the USAF and the USN use different "control methods" with the USAF using power for airspeed and the USN using pitch for airspeed. This is a variation on that-another way to skin the cat.

The best part of this method is that it eliminates guesswork. You know how to ai, when to flare, and how much to flare-every time, every runway.

Go out and try it. Most US runways are striped 120 feet with an 80 foot space. I'm 5'9". Aiming at the top of the first strip gives you about 35' height above the runway numbers for ground clearance. To flare, just move the nose up to the end of the runway in 4-5 seconds. If I knew how to do it, I'd load a short video taken in the DA-40.

It's repeatable, it'll put you on centerline because you're so focussed on it, it works.

Thanks for letting me comment. Looking forward to further discussions,

Marc
 
It's repeatable also if you are comfortable flying the airplane. Have flown it enough to the point that landings become very similar. I learned in a champ, got my ppl in a champ. The instructor said " if you can fly this well you can transition into most any light aircraft. " I learned and a Stearman, a mooney, a bonanza , a 180 cessna, a cub, a 140 cessna, a taylorcraft, etc. We're pretty easy to fly. Landings are a lot of fun and practice is the key. Few short cuts. ( I used to have a Jacobson lawn mower.)
 
As publication was delayed by my only just joining the Forum, I invite you all to review my first post: September 29th, 2015, 08:05 PM and perhaps also visit www.jacobsonflare.com , particularly the Tributes tab http://www.jacobsonflare.com/tributes/.

It's great that you find the topic of landing stimulating. I wish more pilots did!

Kind regards to all,

David Jacobson
Porepunkah
VICTORIA
AUSTRALIA
 
Last edited:
The most controversial aspect of this approach is that you use power to control airspeed, pitch to control rate/glide slope - just the way an autopilot does with a could approach.



Marc

Don't this will make every approach a power on landing? I was trained that you need always to be able to do a power of landing once in final... The rest is help for "grease landing" for the crowds...

I see a big safety issue here
 
I heard about this on the Finer Points podcast mentioned above. Landings being something I'm constantly working on it peaked my interest enough to check it out.

I did a cursory look at it and found I wasn't interested. Didn't test it but for me I didn't want to get used to a system that relies on runway markings, since sometimes I land on grass or runways without markings.

I would guess that this technique works fine assuming you do the calculations and the runway is flat with clear markings. That just doesn't go along with how I fly.
 
I'm no math wizard but aren't most apps around $2.99? :rolleyes:
 
Go out and try it. Most US runways are striped 120 feet with an 80 foot space. I'm 5'9". Aiming at the top of the first strip gives you about 35' height above the runway numbers for ground clearance. To flare, just move the nose up to the end of the runway in 4-5 seconds. If I knew how to do it, I'd load a short video taken in the DA-40.

I get the math, and it makes sense.

In daytime.

How the hell can it work at night?
 
Bush pilots ought to get a big kick out of this rather silly post. If you have some hours and you had a good hi time instructor who taught you correctly, it all falls into place, no math to do. It's all computed in your azz and you know exactly what the particular aircraft is doing no matter if it's grass or concrete. ( not many markings on a grass runway.)
 
I find that if a student is struggling with flare, they are probably struggling with many other elements anyway. The flare probably does not deserve to be as dissected and overanalyzed as it often is.
 
Apparently David's responses were not published when the thread was active due to a new account. Appreciate him taking time to chime in on this.

By the way, I emailed David with questions and he was very detailed and helpful in his response. This gentleman clearly has a passion for aviation and helping others. I took a friend flying yesterday and greased both landings using the JF - hope he doesn't expect that every time!


As publication was delayed by my only just joining the Forum, I invite you all to review my first post: September 29th, 2015, 08:05 PM and perhaps also visit www.jacobsonflare.com , particularly the Tributes tab http://www.jacobsonflare.com/tributes/.

It's great that you find the topic of landing stimulating. I wish more pilots did!

Kind regards to all,

David Jacobson
Porepunkah
VICTORIA
AUSTRALIA
 
Back
Top