Landing Problem

LauraE51

LauraE51

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Nov 24, 2013
Messages
272
Location
Modesto,CA
Display Name
Display name:
Laura
I have a few questions about my landings that i hope you can help with.

After a 42 year hiatus, i returned to flying in July and received my BFR after 5 lessons (8 hours) of flight. Previously, i had flown C150s and tail draggers, both which are quite easy to land, particularly because they’re light, are slower, and have 40 degree flaps.

the C172P i currently rent is, of course, faster and heavier, which i’ll appreciate when my wife and I travel. however, i’m continuing to experience problems with my landings. They’re not horrible, since the CFI did sign-off my BFR, but i’m not happy with them. This, i know, will be corrected with practice, so i’ve gone out twice, alone, to just practice T&Gs. Here’s what i’m experiencing and what i’m learning.

1. i’ve no problem with the pattern or the landing speeds and i’m able to bring the plane over the threshold at around 60-65 knots. (I found that despite 42 years, some things are like riding a bicycle). The problem begins with the round out. At what i think is the right elevation, i round out the plane and wait for the remaining speed to dissipate. Early on, i would get impatient and put a little back pressure on the control wheel. Not much, but the plane would begin to nose up and the plane would rise about 3 feet. i’d push the nose down a bit, the plane would level off again for a bit, and then, plump, my wheels would hit the runway.

My thoughts have been that i’m leveling off 2-3 feet higher than i should, which seems like it shouldn’t be a big deal, but apparently it is. During today’s T&Gs, i found the sweet spot during two of the six landings, rounding out just a bit lower, waiting the 5-6 seconds for the speed to bleed off, and then settled the main wheels on the runway. However, the nose wheel is touching down within a second or two of the mains.

My fear is that because my minor back pressure caused the plane to nose up during the flare, that i’m not creating enough back pressure after the mains are down. I really do think (please tell me if i’m wrong) that i should be able to gradually put more and more back pressure on the wheel during the flare so the nose is higher when the mains touch down. However, i think i’m afraid to pull back more because of the ballooning problem.

So, is it better for me to land the way i am and then increase back pressure once the mains are down? that is, once the mains are down, is it possible i’ll balloon again if i pull back the wheel so that the nose wheel holds off for a bit longer?

thanks for your advice in advance.

Brian
 
Ballooning is usually a result of excessive airspeed.
 
Slow down. What are the posted speeds for landing with flaps? Take a look in the POH. RPM should be in the neighborhood of 2000 and over the numbers at 65 kts.
 
Where are you looking?


Also the flare isn't something you do, it's a side effect of holding the plane off

Once you're runway assured pull the power, change your focus from your target (the part of the runway on approach that isn't moving up or down in your windshield)

Once youre low, look all the way down the runway to the infinity point, try to hold the plane 2 inches off the deck, and just fly her down the runway holding her off as long as you can.


***Also remember pretend that the yoke has a ratchet on it, once you start pulling it back you can't push forward.

If you really screw the pooch and it starts sinking out a foot or so too early, just burp in some power then pull it back out.
 
Last edited:
I continually add back pressure as airspeed (and hence, energy) bleeds off. Do you hear the stall horn before/when you touch down? If not, you're probably touching down at a speed where the plane's not quite done flying yet. If you give a hard yank back, you could become airborn again. I would try to concentrate on keeping altitude with pitch (remember slow flight?) just above the runway. The plane will want to sink, but don't let it. Keep pulling back (as much as necessary) to keep it from touching down. Eventually you'll run out of energy and/or back pressure and the plane will touch down at minimal speed. I generally hold the back pressure for aerodynamic braking (to save the brakes) and then release it once I'm down to taxi speed. (Hold any wind correction all the way to the hangar/tie down, though).
 
All above is good.

One way to practice much of this is to find a nice looooong runway (8000 feet and longer) and practice holding off the airplane a few inches above the runway. Helps to improve site picture and control feel (including trim) during this phase of landing.
 
Try this...when you level the plane over the runway...fly a bit and wait for sink. As you fly at idle and bleed off speed and get close enough to the runway in ground effect, start to pull back steadily, slowly while looking at the end of the runway (do not let the yoke go forward at any time while you are still in the air).

After touchdown keep the yoke back and try to keep the nose wheel off or lightly on the runway till you slow to taxi speeds.

The slow pullback is the key, a sudden jerking back and still having too much speed and being too high will cause the plane to 'fly' again. You should be near or at stall speed when you touchdown.
 
CTLSi said:
You should be near or at stall speed when you touchdown.
Click to expand...

Please do not fill this forum up with you dangerous misconceptions of aerodynamics. You do not want to be near the stall on touch down. If you were in a convetional gear you'll hit tailwheel first if you're in a tricycle gear you will drag the tail.

You were fine in your description before this last line. The idea is to be in a fairly level attitude just above the ground and then let the speed die off which will allow the plane to settle on the runway.

You will not be AT or near stall.
 
flyingron said:
Please do not fill this forum up with you dangerous misconceptions of aerodynamics.
Click to expand...

This board would be so much more helpful if I could create a filter to remove such unhelpful posts as yours. They guy you're responding to gave good, solid advice in response to a legitimate question. Your response added nothing to the conversation. Unfortunately, neither does mine - I'm just tired of seeing people jump in and argue semantics where it doesn't contribute to anything but their own egos.
 
flyingron said:
Please do not fill this forum up with you dangerous misconceptions of aerodynamics. You do not want to be near the stall on touch down. If you were in a convetional gear you'll hit tailwheel first if you're in a tricycle gear you will drag the tail.

You were fine in your description before this last line. The idea is to be in a fairly level attitude just above the ground and then let the speed die off which will allow the plane to settle on the runway.

You will not be AT or near stall.
Click to expand...

Lord knows, CTLSi has given us all plenty of reason to jump on many of his posts.

But not this one.

To become a private pilot, one must meet certain standards. For landing, he or she must demonstrate:

"Touches down smoothly at approximate stalling speed"

That's right from the Private Pilot Practical Test Standards.

Conditions permitting, in most of the planes I've flown my goal is to get the stick to the aft stop at touchdown. I may or may not succeed, and the wing may not technically be in a full stall, but it think that's what is generally meant by a "full stall landing".

I think someone owes CTLSi an apology.
 
CTLSi said:
(do not let the yoke go forward at any time while you are still in the air).
Click to expand...

Sort of.

I have my students picture a "ratchet", so that, in general, the stick should be moving progressively aft.

But in real life, the stick often can and does move forward at times, most noticeably on bumpy days.

Watch my hand on this landing on a relatively calm day (start at about 5:25 to avoid a lot of boring stuff).

http://youtu.be/0WF6gT-dj-Q

Makes my point, I think.

BTW, focusing on the far end of the runway is not what the FAA recommends. Nor do I. It must work for some pilots since so many reference it, but I often found that pilots having trouble with landings were looking way too far down the runway, making height judgment problematical. IMHO, of course.
 
Last edited:
Juristo said:
This board would be so much more helpful if I could create a filter to remove such unhelpful posts as yours. They guy you're responding to gave good, solid advice in response to a legitimate question. Your response added nothing to the conversation. Unfortunately, neither does mine - I'm just tired of seeing people jump in and argue semantics where it doesn't contribute to anything but their own egos.
Click to expand...

You said it. Anything I've ever flown, when it flops onto the runway with tires say 6 inches above the runway with the stick or wheel all the way back, it's not flying any longer. I call it a stall. If by chance it balloons back up in the air, it's not stalled, it's still flying. I speak mostly of tail draggers but I fly tri gears the same way including shrike commander and especially Mooneys.
 
flyingron said:
Please do not fill this forum up with you dangerous misconceptions of aerodynamics. You do not want to be near the stall on touch down. If you were in a convetional gear you'll hit tailwheel first if you're in a tricycle gear you will drag the tail.

You were fine in your description before this last line. The idea is to be in a fairly level attitude just above the ground and then let the speed die off which will allow the plane to settle on the runway.

You will not be AT or near stall.
Click to expand...

I call BS! How fast are you landing? Using arresting wires to stop?
 
Paulie said:
172 will float big time. You are too fast.
Click to expand...

Which is what i was afraid of, BUT, the POH calls for landing speeds of 60-70kts. Best glide is 65. yes, Vr is 55, Vso is 33, but i'm not going to cross the threshold at 50 or 55. i'm crossing at 60-65kts which doesn't seem unreasonable.

Regarding the nose up problem, i'm not "yanking" back the wheel, only applying gradual back pressure, but even that (in the 3rd to 4th second) seems to result in a slight balloon.

I AM looking down the runway, but i'm still not feeling like i can gradually "ratchet" back the wheel.

thank you for the replies.
 
FastEddieB said:
Sort of.

I have my students picture a "ratchet", so that, in general, the stick should be moving progressively aft.

But in real life, the stick often can and does move forward at times, most noticeably on bumpy days.

Watch my hand on this landing on a relatively calm day (start at about 5:25 to avoid a lot of boring stuff).

http://youtu.be/0WF6gT-dj-Q

Makes my point, I think.
Click to expand...

Good video, but it also brings up one of my problems. A c172 is higher off the ground than a C150 or the plane in the video. The lower you are, or the better your view out the window, the easier it is to judge how high off the ground you are when you round out. Today, i tried rounding out a bit lower which resulted in better landings. Still, i don't feel comfortable slowly pulling back the yolk, afraid i'll bubble back up.

yes, i often hear the stall warning before i touch down. Would this be a better time to begin pulling back the yolk?
 
Brian,

Best to always specify whether you mean approach speed or landing speed.

For instance, my Sky Arrow approaches at 50-55k, but lands at about its 39k stall speed.

Confusing those terms has led to a lot of misunderstandings.

Old timers are probably sick of thus, but here's a link describing where I think one should look when landing. If you check out the Airplane Flying Handbook, I think you'll find it agrees. It should, it was the original source of my methods.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yj9oez6gk40jk36/Wheretolook.pdf?dl=0
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
Brian,

Best to always specify whether you mean approach speed or landing speed.

For instance, my Sky Arrow approaches at 50-55k, but lands at about its 39k stall speed.

Confusing those terms has led to a lit of misunderstandings.
Click to expand...

I guess i'll have to make a mental note to quickly look down at the airspeed indicator during the float to see how the speed is bleeding off.

Yes, approach is 60-65, but if a dirty stall speed is 33, people here aren't saying i should round out at Vr, are they?
 
bbridges51 said:
Which is what i was afraid of, BUT, the POH calls for landing speeds of 60-70kts. Best glide is 65. yes, Vr is 55, Vso is 33, but i'm not going to cross the threshold at 50 or 55. i'm crossing at 60-65kts which doesn't seem unreasonable.

Regarding the nose up problem, i'm not "yanking" back the wheel, only applying gradual back pressure, but even that (in the 3rd to 4th second) seems to result in a slight balloon.

I AM looking down the runway, but i'm still not feeling like i can gradually "ratchet" back the wheel.

thank you for the replies.
Click to expand...

I was having similar problems with landing my CTSW, especially with more than 15 degrees of flaps. I was using 55kt all the way to the flare, as I was taught. I would as often as not over rotate in the flare, balloon a little, then either add a little power to cushion the landing or "drop in" for a carrier style landing.

The problem was not resolved until I slowed down. I went to 52-54kt on approach, and once clear of obstructions and with the runway made I drop it to 48-52kt. Like magic, my landings got a lot better. In addition to less float and ballooning, the slower speed means less energy to dissipate if you are a little side loaded or have other minor issues. That means less violent action to correct.
 
bbridges51 said:
Which is what i was afraid of, BUT, the POH calls for landing speeds of 60-70kts. Best glide is 65. yes, Vr is 55, Vso is 33, but i'm not going to cross the threshold at 50 or 55. i'm crossing at 60-65kts which doesn't seem unreasonable.

Regarding the nose up problem, i'm not "yanking" back the wheel, only applying gradual back pressure, but even that (in the 3rd to 4th second) seems to result in a slight balloon.

I AM looking down the runway, but i'm still not feeling like i can gradually "ratchet" back the wheel.

thank you for the replies.
Click to expand...

Vso = 33 kts, 1.3* Vso = 43 kts ...at 60 to 65 kts you are nearly 2*Vso and the float will be forever

Now Vso is calibrated airspeed. Go fly the plane and note the indicated airspeed for a power-off stall (landing config). Either multiply that indicated airspeed by 1.3 (which will be a bit fast) or simply add 10 knots (0.3*33). That should be the indicated airspeed on final. Drop to indicated Vso + 5 kts over the fence - remember to add gust factor too. A 172 will land beautifully and where you want it if you do that...
 
If you're bouncing, porpoising, or floating, you're too fast plain and simple.

Ignore the POH.

If you're comfortable with your stall recovery, try bringing it in as slow as you can and glance at the ASI. I think you'll be surprised just how slow a 172 can get. The airplane will let you know when it needs power or nose down. Or probably safer to go to altitude and do this and see how slow you can get in landing configuration and when you're comfortable, try it.
 
txflyer said:
If you're bouncing, porpoising, or floating, you're too fast plain and simple.

Ignore the POH.

If you're comfortable with your stall recovery, try bringing it in as slow as you can and glance at the ASI. I think you'll be surprised just how slow a 172 can get. The airplane will let you know when it needs power or nose down. Or probably safer to go to altitude and do this and see how slow you can get in landing configuration and when you're comfortable, try it.
Click to expand...

sounds like a plan. thanks.
 
txflyer said:
Ignore the POH.
Click to expand...

Sorry.

That's horrible advice to give a student.

The POH should be sacrosanct. If an instructor is teaching a student to ignore any part of it, it sends a horrible message. A student ignoring his plane's POH on a checkride may very well fail.

Advising a student to "bring it in as slow as you can" is a recipe for disaster. DO NOT DO IT!
 
Last edited:
Like I already said.... it's technique, a bounce, balloon, etc is not due to your speed, its due to chitty control inputs.

Also 1.3x isn't always a good number, remember vref is based on weight as well.

Do what I said in my other post, if when you transition from your target to looking down the runway, you fly way past that initial target you had on final, you're comming in too hot.
 
Through much of my training in a 172M with 40 degrees of flaps, my short final approach speed was 70 knots. Turns out that is way too fast. I had much better success at 60 knots (65 was still too fast when solo). As I recall, book final approach speed was 55 - 60 knots and I chose halfway between and tried to nail it every time.

What I wonder is whether your're not handling your round-out -- that is, the transition from approach to level flight just above the runway -- appropriately. For the longest time, as I passed over the threshold, I made this diving maneuver toward the runway, with a last-second pull-back. With an approach that's already a little too fast (or a lot too fast), this means you're not using the round-out phase to bleed off some additional speed. That puts you at level flight above the runway with too much speed, and consequently requiring that "dancing on the edge" of ballooning and staying level. The plane is not close to being ready to land and the controls are too effective.

Make sure your round-out is nice and smooth. It's not a dive and a pull-back, it's a nice shallow curve, beginning well above the ground, that approaches the runway asymptotically.

The best two things I ever did for my landings were nailing an appropriate final approach speed and fixing my roundout.
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
Sorry.

That's horrible advice to give a student.

The POH should be sacrosanct. If an instructor is teaching a student to ignore any part of it, it sends a horrible message. A student ignoring his plane's POH on a checkride may very well fail.

Advising a student to "bring it in as slow as you can" is a recipe for disaster. DO NOT DO IT!
Click to expand...


Sounds like he's too fast trying to keep it on the POH numbers.

And you should know darn well I meant ignore the POH 'figuratively' until you feel out the exact craft you're flying. You gotta experiment.

Like Einstein said "if you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always got." So keep flying the POH numbers around 65knots and keep bouncing if that's your thing .... :dunno:
 
Brian,

I just went back to you first post.

Once the mains are on, it's too late to get the stick back substantially - if you do you can easily pull the plane back in the air.

You've landed, and the best you can hope for it to gently feed in a small bit of back pressure to keep the nose in about the same attitude, clear of the runway, until the stick is way back and the nose comes down on its own.

Where are you located, BTW?
 
bullwinkle said:
I was having similar problems with landing my CTSW, especially with more than 15 degrees of flaps. I was using 55kt all the way to the flare, as I was taught. I would as often as not over rotate in the flare, balloon a little, then either add a little power to cushion the landing or "drop in" for a carrier style landing.

The problem was not resolved until I slowed down. I went to 52-54kt on approach, and once clear of obstructions and with the runway made I drop it to 48-52kt. Like magic, my landings got a lot better. In addition to less float and ballooning, the slower speed means less energy to dissipate if you are a little side loaded or have other minor issues. That means less violent action to correct.
Click to expand...

Good landings are slow landings. That is my mantra.

Bob Gardner
 
bbridges51 said:
Good video, but it also brings up one of my problems. A c172 is higher off the ground than a C150 or the plane in the video. The lower you are, or the better your view out the window, the easier it is to judge how high off the ground you are when you round out. Today, i tried rounding out a bit lower which resulted in better landings. Still, i don't feel comfortable slowly pulling back the yolk, afraid i'll bubble back up.

yes, i often hear the stall warning before i touch down. Would this be a better time to begin pulling back the yolk?
Click to expand...
Look out the side window. Great view and you can accurately judge how high you are.

If you're slow enough, 1.3 Vso, then you won't balloon back up.
 
txflyer said:
Sounds like he's too fast trying to keep it on the POH numbers.
Click to expand...

Are we sure the POH numbers are that far off?

I just found a 1978 C172 POH online, and it specifies 55-65k w/flaps.

I would set 55k as a hard minimum for a student. A 172 should land just fine approaching between 55-65k and holding off until at or near the stall.

Later, one could go into how approach speeds can be modified at lighter weights, but I still would not want to see much less than 55k.

BTW, Vso shows as 41k IAS. 1.3 times that is about 53k. Probably Cessna rounded up to that 55k number for simplicity's sake.
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
Also 1.3x isn't always a good number, remember vref is based on weight as well.
Click to expand...

1.3*Vso is always a good number - that's how ya get Vref. The key is to use the actual Vso for the current weight which is why one goes out and stalls the aircraft in landing config. Once can estimate Vso for the actual weight by using the square root of weight/gross as an adjustment factor - get Gismo to teach that lecture...
 
FastEddieB said:
Sorry.

That's horrible advice to give a student.

The POH should be sacrosanct. If an instructor is teaching a student to ignore any part of it, it sends a horrible message. A student ignoring his plane's POH on a checkride may very well fail.

Advising a student to "bring it in as slow as you can" is a recipe for disaster. DO NOT DO IT!
Click to expand...

I don't agree. The numbers in the POH were developed by a factory test pilot/engineer with a new engine in a new airframe. They are far from sacrosanct, and to deny a student the opportunity to learn by doing does that student a disservice. I can assure you that when I was a DE I did not have the POH open in my lap to check airspeeds...I looked for results, not methods.

Bob Gardner
 
FastEddieB said:
Sorry.

That's horrible advice to give a student.

The POH should be sacrosanct. If an instructor is teaching a student to ignore any part of it, it sends a horrible message. A student ignoring his plane's POH on a checkride may very well fail.

Advising a student to "bring it in as slow as you can" is a recipe for disaster. DO NOT DO IT!
Click to expand...

Just a reminder, i'm not a student pilot. i earned my PPL in 1969 when i was 17. Flew during college, including the C150, taildraggers and sailplanes.
 
FastEddieB said:
Brian,

I just went back to you first post.

Once the mains are on, it's too late to get the stick back substantially - if you do you can easily pull the plane back in the air.

You've landed, and the best you can hope for it to gently feed in a small bit of back pressure to keep the nose in about the same attitude, clear of the runway, until the stick is way back and the nose comes down on its own.

Where are you located, BTW?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice. I live in Modesto, CA (KMOD), but fly out of Tracy (KTCY).
 
bobmrg said:
I don't agree. The numbers in the POH were developed by a factory test pilot/engineer with a new engine in a new airframe. They are far from sacrosanct, and to deny a student the opportunity to learn by doing does that student a disservice. I can assure you that when I was a DE I did not have the POH open in my lap to check airspeeds...I looked for results, not methods.

Bob Gardner
Click to expand...

Bob: how do you handle this with, say, a 2-hour student or one who has just earned solo privilege? Do you go up very early on and figure out true Vso for the weight, and the 1.3 Vso approach speed?
 
Clark1961 said:
1.3*Vso is always a good number - that's how ya get Vref. The key is to use the actual Vso for the current weight which is why one goes out and stalls the aircraft in landing config. Once can estimate Vso for the actual weight by using the square root of weight/gross as an adjustment factor - get Gismo to teach that lecture...
Click to expand...

The problem when you say VSO in a small plane, is most pilots just look up the max gross VSO which is in their POH.

On something small like a 172/152/PA-XX you should be able to feel it out.

Also a balloon or bounce still isn't speed related
 
James331 said:
Also a balloon or bounce still isn't speed related
Click to expand...

I'd agree that a balloon *may* not be speed related. A bounce is fer sure and certain speed related. Ya can't bounce if the aircraft is done flying...or if yer Mari then done taxing too (at least that's her story about another pilot landing the Sovereign at a rather low speed).

Anyway, my thought is that education about Vso, indicated airspeed, and approach speed goes much further than teaching book numbers. My example is I had tremendous problems landing LSAs following a particular club's book numbers. When I used the indicated Vso*1.3 the landings were much more manageable. Of course then I was trapped in a conundrum of either violating club procedure (book approach numbers) or landing the aircraft safely. I left the club. YMWV and I am certain that a pilot with more skill than me could land an LSA using the club's numbers. At 50+ years old with many years of physical labor behind me I just don't have the fine motor skills that others have. To even fly an LSA I have to "eagle claw" the stick and use two fingers and a thumb to even begin to feel the control forces...so I have to learn how to fly the aircraft intellectually rather than feeling it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top