Pull the power when turning base.

This is an interesting discussion for me. I did 8 landings today and I finally got my first really good one. I'm training in a warrior and I go 1500 rpm abeam, pitch for 80 and flaps 1, turn base flaps 2, turn final flaps 3 and go to idle over the fence. It works perfectly when I work it perfectly. It is absolutely about nailing the speed. If I'm fast, I float. If I'm slow I have to add power late, then float.
 
Your instructor is definitely old-school. The FAA hasn't recommended that technique in about 40 years. What your instructor should be focusing on is getting you to understand the relationship between pitch/trim/power and speed/descent rate, and then applying that knowledge to nailing the desired speed and altitude at each point in the pattern, and you don't do that by pulling power to idle at the base turn. Dig into your Airplane Flying Handbook and read up on the Stabilized VFR Approach. This FAA pamphlet will also help.
 
Last edited:
Ralph said his instructor is always getting on him about too much power, so maybe the guy is pushing the extreme to get him to slow down and push the lower limits of the approach.

Doing something, even if it's wrong. :dunno:
 
txflyer said:
Ralph said his instructor is always getting on him about too much power, so maybe the guy is pushing the extreme to get him to slow down and push the lower limits of the approach.
Click to expand...
My approach would be to stop doing traffic pattern work and go back out in the practice area to work on pitch/power airspeed/vertical speed until the trainee can nail them, and only then go back to the traffic pattern. Too much else happening in the pattern to focus on fixing the fundamental problem.
 
MAKG1 said:
What do the engine out procedures look like for that aircraft?
Click to expand...

As always, the decision of to stay up as long as possible or get down now dictates one's conformance the printed procedure. In the case of the C-207 one has less time, in comparison to, say a C-172, to decide. Other than that, the procedure is the same as most other single pistons.
 
txflyer said:
Ralph said his instructor is always getting on him about too much power, so maybe the guy is pushing the extreme to get him to slow down and push the lower limits of the approach.



Doing something, even if it's wrong. :dunno:
Click to expand...


My super handsome and extremely capable super pilot CFI (I am trying to make amends for my "crusty" remark - 'cause I think he is on here) is on the right track with me.

I have to break through some difficulties that are caused by bad habits.

The other day he covered up my ASI to get me to fly by pitch attitude. This was a great exercise. :)
 
Ron Levy said:
My approach would be to stop doing traffic pattern work and go back out in the practice area to work on pitch/power airspeed/vertical speed until the trainee can nail them, and only then go back to the traffic pattern. Too much else happening in the pattern to focus on fixing the fundamental problem.
Click to expand...


Solid approach.

One of the forums at OSH, the guy said he makes his students fly down the runway a foot or two off and NOT land to slow them down and help with controlling the plane when it's real dirty.

During my tailwheel training, we did one tire on the pavement half-way down the runway and switch to the other tire holding wing down and centerline until take off at the end. That was good training I try to continue often. :yesnod:
 
txflyer said:
Solid approach.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

One of my big gripes about primary flight training is that trainees are too often rushed into traffic pattern operations and landings before their fundamental skills are established. No doubt this is driven by the too-common and misguided drive to solo as soon as possible, with little thought as to the long-term impact of skimping on the fundamentals before proceeding to the traffic pattern/landing stage.

:sigh:
 
Flying power off patterns helps you judge when you are high/low & fast/slow so if the time comes when you have to put it down with a real engine failure, you can plant it on the numbers. Not on the road 100 ft. short of the threshold and not in the corn field off the departure end with two long skid marks leading up to it. It helps you get a better feel for the glide performance of your airplane and know when to tighten up the pattern, slip, and add flaps.

You can pull the power on any light single on downwind and make the runway. Some airplanes(like an Arrow or a Glasair that were mentioned) will need a quick reaction from the pilot to make the runway as opposed to a 172. Your pattern may not be a perfect rectangle, but you're practicing for an engine out! Who cares what it looks like! I think that is great practice/training.

If you are flying a light single and can't make the runway if you pull your power abeam the numbers, you are flying WAY too big of pattern.

Whifferdill posted a perfect example of this of him in a Pitts. Perfect example of glide/airspeed control.
 
txflyer said:
A 172 you can do it, but not in a 180. Well, maybe.
Click to expand...

Interesting. My old straight tail flies a nice pattern power-off from abeam the numbers. Probably a 5/8 mile pattern...3/4 on the outside.
 
RalphInCA said:
My instructor is constantly getting on me for carrying too much power through base and final on my landings.

Next time we go up, on Friday, he wants me to pull power to idle when I turn base, and then add back if I end up below glide slope.

We will try it and see. He's probably right, he's a crusty old guy, but he knows his stuff.
Click to expand...

Yep, he's probably right.;)
 
mikeinbama said:
This is an interesting discussion for me. I did 8 landings today and I finally got my first really good one. I'm training in a warrior and I go 1500 rpm abeam, pitch for 80 and flaps 1, turn base flaps 2, turn final flaps 3 and go to idle over the fence. It works perfectly when I work it perfectly. It is absolutely about nailing the speed. If I'm fast, I float. If I'm slow I have to add power late, then float.
Click to expand...

Don't add quite so much power, you'll get the feel for it. The key is to take care of stabilizing everything by the time you get to the fence.
 
Ron Levy said:
Your instructor is definitely old-school. The FAA hasn't recommended that technique in about 40 years. What your instructor should be focusing on is getting you to understand the relationship between pitch/trim/power and speed/descent rate, and then applying that knowledge to nailing the desired speed and altitude at each point in the pattern, and you don't do that by pulling power to idle at the base turn. Dig into your Airplane Flying Handbook and read up on the Stabilized VFR Approach. This FAA pamphlet will also help.
Click to expand...

Your point is valid, but I'll bet the OP tends to be hot on final and the instructor may be trying to teach him power management from the bottom end of need rather than the top; slow the plane down and let it start to sink and then fill in power to just what is necessary to arrest the excess sink at target speed. It gives much better energy control because you can more accurately get rid of engine produced energy than you can kinetic or altitude stored energy for a more stable approach which is exactly the result the FAA is going for.

He didn't tell him to make a power off approach and landing from downwind, he told him to chop the power on base and not add any until he had to.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Your point is valid, but I'll bet the OP tends to be hot on final and the instructor may be trying to teach him power management from the bottom end of need rather than the top; slow the plane down and let it start to sink and then fill in power to just what is necessary to arrest the excess sink at target speed. It gives much better energy control because you can more accurately get rid of engine produced energy than you can kinetic or altitude stored energy for a more stable approach which is exactly the result the FAA is going for.

He didn't tell him to make a power off approach and landing from downwind, he told him to chop the power on base and not add any until he had to.
Click to expand...

^^^^ This.
 
My instructor did it to me all the time when we were abeam the numbers..

Flying a Cherokee 140... I just turned base to final early and had plenty of altitude and speed to land normally.. (even with flaps)

The trick is turn to the runway as soon as you lose power :)
 
Also, there is nothing wrong with teaching a power off 180 to a student pilot either, they should be familiar with both methods even if only proficient with the longer, shallower, easier to stabilize on correct energy, approach.
 
PHP:
The two biggest mistakes when trying to do power off approaches is trying to do them with full flaps and approaching to slow. When you can't or don't want to adjust the power use the flaps as you glide path controll instead of power. Also don't for get you can adjust the base leg to make you higher or lower on final.

Second if you are used to landing with power you may need to add 5 or 10 kts to your approach speed so you have enough energy to properly round out and flare, your touch down speed will be similar but you will have more time to position the airplane properly over they runway before touching down. This varies some from airplane to airplane.

I often start switching to power off landings when a student doesn't seem to grasp the concept the the power doesn't control the speed. When say add 5 kts and they increase power and are already high on the approach I am going to start having them pull (or set) the power abeam the numbers and tell them don't touch the power until we are on the ground. That way the only way they can control speed is with pitch and they have to control the approach path with the path of the pattern and flaps.

Brian
 
Henning said:
Also, there is nothing wrong with teaching a power off 180 to a student pilot either, they should be familiar with both methods even if only proficient with the longer, shallower, easier to stabilize on correct energy, approach.
Click to expand...

In fact, I was taught this as though it were PTS, as a student. Imagine my surprise, 100 hours later, to find out that the private pilot PTS requires an emergency approach to land and not necessarily a touchdown (which means it can happen away from an airport).

I found it immensely valuable.

I don't add airspeed to a power off approach. It's not necessary; with flaps up, best glide is DANG close to ideal (short field) approach speed. Just, don't use flaps until you have the field made. Then SLOW to a normal approach speed, generally just a few knots. At 1.3 Vs0, there is a whole lot of margin for flare. Most of us flare with the power off anyway.

The usual way to control altitude power off is to approach short to make yourself a little high, then use flaps and/or slip to lose altitude. And aim a LITTLE further down the runway than the numbers in case you get low. I like to use the VASI (300 ft) at PAO, whereas normally I'll use the numbers. Never try to stretch the glide; best glide with flaps up is as good as you're going to do until you're in ground effect. DO consider sucking up flaps if you have at least 100 feet or so altitude. Gear if it isn't going to drag like a school bus for 15 seconds (Cessna).
 
Last edited:
I'm coming into this one a bit late but I'd like to get some feedback.

My first CFI who took me through PPL + TW (in an archer then citabria) had me setup my approach so that I was decelerating after I was abeam the numbers. 80-85 on downwind, 70-75 on base, 65 on final.

When I got a share of a C172 the club made me do a check out with "one of their CFIs", who was no longer in the club. He harped on my big time about not setting my speed right away after pulling power before turning base. His point was you could make a more stabilized approach.

Now that I've had time to do both myself I like the responsiveness of the controls with a little more airspeed. So, I typically keep the speed up more than I maybe should but I plan to float in ground effect a bit before touchdown.

I still practice the slow approach speed in final for short field work so I'm not afraid to do it and handle it just fine… but as my DPE said, "a few kts for the wife and kids".

What are your thoughts?
 
timwinters said:
Interesting. My old straight tail flies a nice pattern power-off from abeam the numbers. Probably a 5/8 mile pattern...3/4 on the outside.
Click to expand...


It depends a lot on the wind.

When you turn base to final, you're turning directly into the wind and that is where you are going to find out if you're going to make it or not with a no power approach.

That's why my instructor teaches that if you lose power in the pattern, you turn immediately towards the numbers and use all of the strip if necessary.
 
There are many different aspects to be learned and one of them is how to make an approach and landing without using power. It's the same principle as the stable approach but you've got one less control to utilize. In the end you're going to have to be able to make different types of approaches to accommodate wind, terrain and other people so follow your instructor's lead and learn what he has to teach you. Learning this technique isn't going to prevent you from ever doing it a different way.
 
Henning said:
Your point is valid, but I'll bet the OP tends to be hot on final and the instructor may be trying to teach him power management from the bottom end of need rather than the top; slow the plane down and let it start to sink and then fill in power to just what is necessary to arrest the excess sink at target speed.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but the traffic pattern is not the place to be teaching that -- the practice area is. Too many distractions and other tasks in the pattern to have enough of the trainee's attention for effective learning of this skill.
 
I tend to use slips more when doing the power off 180's because I can make small adjustments easier than using flaps. I typically put in 10 or 20 degrees of flaps, then use slips until I have the runway made. I land this way most of the time.
 
somorris said:
I tend to use slips more when doing the power off 180's because I can make small adjustments easier than using flaps. I typically put in 10 or 20 degrees of flaps, then use slips until I have the runway made. I land this way most of the time.
Click to expand...

More to the point, in a 172 (excepting the really old ones), flaps take a while to adjust. Getting in and out of a slip is FAST. And you can use both if you need it.

Just make sure you really understand the recommendation not to slip with full flaps in some 172s. Like, what that's trying to avoid. It's not serious, at least for the later models.
 
MAKG1 said:
More to the point, in a 172 (excepting the really old ones), flaps take a while to adjust. Getting in and out of a slip is FAST. And you can use both if you need it.

Just make sure you really understand the recommendation not to slip with full flaps in some 172s. Like, what that's trying to avoid. It's not serious, at least for the later models.
Click to expand...


It's not serious in ANY MODELS. I've slipped the snot out of older 172s as well as G1000 172Ss, flaps, no flaps, it isn't an issue.

Infact I have yet to run into a problem slipping any aircraft, 208Bs, turboprops, all variety of taildraggers, grummans, etc

Only plane I've read about where a slip might not be such a hot idea is a F14.
 
Last edited:
mattg said:
I'm coming into this one a bit late but I'd like to get some feedback.

My first CFI who took me through PPL + TW (in an archer then citabria) had me setup my approach so that I was decelerating after I was abeam the numbers. 80-85 on downwind, 70-75 on base, 65 on final.

When I got a share of a C172 the club made me do a check out with "one of their CFIs", who was no longer in the club. He harped on my big time about not setting my speed right away after pulling power before turning base. His point was you could make a more stabilized approach.

Now that I've had time to do both myself I like the responsiveness of the controls with a little more airspeed. So, I typically keep the speed up more than I maybe should but I plan to float in ground effect a bit before touchdown.

I still practice the slow approach speed in final for short field work so I'm not afraid to do it and handle it just fine… but as my DPE said, "a few kts for the wife and kids".

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Either way works. Doing it in three stages of trim change and flap change (if you set the power right you'll be able to slow the plane to each of those speeds by just adding flaps and slowing with 2 flicks of nose up trim for each, and it is possible a calmer way, but definitely the future airline pilot way of training it, but not necessarily the simplest or least error prone. There is a lot to be said for just pulling power, putting in all the flaps, trim the plane up for final speed and then adjust your sink with thee throttle when you get there. Don't fight the airplane, trim the airplane.
 
It works really well, actually i always had power going in and now try that its kind of fun even.
 
marcoseddi said:
It works really well, actually i always had power going in and now try that its kind of fun even.
Click to expand...

The more power you carry on the approach, the easier it is to fine tune where you stabilize. The downside is the more power you use the shorter from the runway you come up should you lose power.

Now, the powers that be between the FAA and NTSB and whomever else studied the accident record and found that more accidents were caused by excessive energy energy carried into landings on misjudged power off 180 style approaches than from lack of energy from a failed engine. So in order to make it safer, as well as train in the style that future airline pilots should be trained (remember, the FAA primary mandate is safe airline travel and that includes future airline pilot training, and we are all potential future airline pilots.) they decided to promote the back side of the curve approaches. The thing is, once you get them, it is in your best interest to perfect them by continually reducing power on final to the point where you know what your sight picture has to be to be able to make it just right with the throttle closed. Work towards it from the bottom side of the energy curve rather than the top. You don't learn to parallel park by spinning across two lanes from 40mph, you work up to that.:D Always work to improve.
 
txflyer said:
It depends a lot on the wind.

When you turn base to final, you're turning directly into the wind and that is where you are going to find out if you're going to make it or not with a no power approach.

That's why my instructor teaches that if you lose power in the pattern, you turn immediately towards the numbers and use all of the strip if necessary.
Click to expand...

I find that the wind on downwind and final counteract each other nicely if I'm tuned in enough to not let the tailwind extend my downwind. It just means that I may be 650' AGL when I roll out on final instead of the typical 500'.

What I find that will bite me is if I don't adequately compensate for a headwind component on the base leg. Compensating for a crosswind that's in my face on base requires that I shorten my downwind a bit or "cheat" the base leg and angle a bit towards the runway.

A tailwind on base is no issue, that just means I get to have fun slipping down final.
 
Last edited:
The one that has the most potential to bite a solo student is the tailwind on base. I see a lt of pilots that are afraid to get the wing down in the pattern and they skid turns to try and compensate on the rate. When the crosswind is a base tailwind, they may see themselves shooting through final and stepping on the rudder just a bit too hard or get hit by a quartering gust and they aren't doing too good. That's why I still think Pre solo spins should be taught.
 
James331 said:
It's not serious in ANY MODELS. I've slipped the snot out of older 172s as well as G1000 172Ss, flaps, no flaps, it isn't an issue.

Infact I have yet to run into a problem slipping any aircraft, 208Bs, turboprops, all variety of taildraggers, grummans, etc

Only plane I've read about where a slip might not be such a hot idea is a F14.
Click to expand...

Very true. If you have some time in a certain model, and you keep the pattern close in, flaps no flaps, it makes no difference. It all depends on skill obtained by repetitive landings over time. When you decide to turn base is key. An Airliner approach may eventually kill you. A 172 is a very docile airplane , very forgiving.
 
Ron Levy said:
That may be true, but the traffic pattern is not the place to be teaching that -- the practice area is. Too many distractions and other tasks in the pattern to have enough of the trainee's attention for effective learning of this skill.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine learning good landing skills in " the practice area" or any other place other than doing it in the pattern. I can't think of anyone who was taught this way. If the CFI knows his home base he certainly knows when it's likely to be busy. ( on the eastern shore not much) except perhaps o.c.
 
Henning said:
The more power you carry on the approach, the easier it is to fine tune where you stabilize. The downside is the more power you use the shorter from the runway you come up should you lose power.
Click to expand...
You can fine-tune just as easily at a low power setting as a high one. The only difference is how steep a glide slope you'll be flying.
Now, the powers that be between the FAA and NTSB and whomever else studied the accident record and found that more accidents were caused by excessive energy energy carried into landings on misjudged power off 180 style approaches than from lack of energy from a failed engine. So in order to make it safer, as well as train in the style that future airline pilots should be trained (remember, the FAA primary mandate is safe airline travel and that includes future airline pilot training, and we are all potential future airline pilots.) they decided to promote the back side of the curve approaches.
Click to expand...
Nobody promotes flying approaches on the back side of the power curve. The usually recommended 1.3Vs0 approach speed is way on the front side of the curve. You can prove that by establishing yourself in level flight in the approach configuration at 1.3 Vs0 and then slowing the plane a few knots. If you have to reduce power to keep from climbing at that slower speed, you're still on the front side of the power curve.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
I can't imagine learning good landing skills in " the practice area" or any other place other than doing it in the pattern.
Click to expand...
Nobody said anything about landing skills, just the skills necessary to fly a good approach to a landing, and I would be happy to demonstrate the way to teach that in the practice area any time you're here on the Eastern Shore.
 
Ron Levy said:
Nobody said anything about landing skills, just the skills necessary to fly a good approach to a landing, and I would be happy to demonstrate the way to teach that in the practice area any time you're here on the Eastern Shore.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with Ron. It's about breaking the process into little bits and then putting the pieces back together in the pattern. All the stuff that you learn in the pattern (minus the landing obviously) can be taught outside of the pattern.
 
Also agree with Ron. I'm new enough still that I can vividly remember how stressful and high-workload my early pattern work was. It felt like time was compressed and I didn't have room to think. On my first flight, my instructor handled most of the approach and I wondered how she was able to deal with it all. Flying the pattern in the early part of your training is not terribly conducive to measured, effective learning.

Breaking the components of a landing approach up and performing them in the practice area with my instructor was a big help. Slow flight, in particular, was key for me. Even now after my ticket, nearly every flight I take includes slow flight outside the airport environment. I really like keeping the feel of the bottom end of the speed regime.
 
Ron Levy said:
You can fine-tune just as easily at a low power setting as a high one. The only difference is how steep a glide slope you'll be flying.
Nobody promotes flying approaches on the back side of the power curve. The usually recommended 1.3Vs0 approach speed is way on the front side of the curve. You can prove that by establishing yourself in level flight in the approach configuration at 1.3 Vs0 and then slowing the plane a few knots. If you have to reduce power to keep from climbing at that slower speed, you're still on the front side of the power curve.
Click to expand...

If you can't make the runway if the engine quits, you are flying an approach on the back side of the power curve by definition.
 
Henning said:
If you can't make the runway if the engine quits, you are flying an approach on the back side of the power curve by definition.
Click to expand...

Not by my understanding of the definition of "backside of the power curve" which is illustrated nicely here:

powercurve.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top