Pulling it too soon....

[dmccormack]

On takeoff, if they think airspeed is all that matters, they'll be alive.

On landing, if they think airspeed is all that matters, they'll be alive *IF* they don't buy into the "more speed = more safety" myth. If they fly right on the book numbers for both, they'll be alive. They'll float more on landings when they're light... But they'll be alive. .

A pilot who thinks airspeed is the only indicator of airplane performance has a serious lack of understanding, and this lack will eventually cause problems.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

A pilot who thinks airspeed is the only indicator of airplane performance has a serious lack of understanding, and this lack will eventually cause problems.

But they aren't deadly problems - If Mr. T plows into the Kenworth on the other side of the lot and he's still going 10 knots (meaning if he nailed the correct speed he'd have just tapped the spinner on the truck) he's gonna be alive.

The guy who pulls his 10 degrees pitch up in a high-DA situation and either stalls or can't outclimb the terrain ahead as a result is dead, dead, dead.

I think we're *almost* saying the same thing - But what we should both be saying is *SET* attitude first, *VERIFY* with airspeed. Control, performance.

 

[jesse]

But they aren't deadly problems - If Mr. T plows into the Kenworth on the other side of the lot and he's still going 10 knots (meaning if he nailed the correct speed he'd have just tapped the spinner on the truck) he's gonna be alive.

Tell that to the guy at 6y9:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030611X00850&key=1

 

[dmccormack]

But they aren't deadly problems - If Mr. T plows into the Kenworth on the other side of the lot and he's still going 10 knots (meaning if he nailed the correct speed he'd have just tapped the spinner on the truck) he's gonna be alive.

The guy who pulls his 10 degrees pitch up in a high-DA situation and either stalls or can't outclimb the terrain ahead as a result is dead, dead, dead.

I think we're *almost* saying the same thing - But what we should both be saying is *SET* attitude first, *VERIFY* with airspeed. Control, performance.

Well, I've been saying "set attitude" all along.



And "setting the right airspeed" is no panacea, as airspeed will need to adjusted proportional to weight.

Yet attitude will remain fairly constant across the airplane's weight limits, except for high DA/PA situations -- and in that case the difference in attitude is small -- probably 2 or 3 degrees less.

However, 10 knots "extra airspeed" on final does not equal rolling at 10 knots at the end of a 1400' ground run.


A 10% increase in airspeed = 21% longer landing distance (also in Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators).


Newton will reach up and bite Mr T on the posterior -- Kinetic Energy = 0.5 * (Mass * Velocity Squared).

 

[SkyHog]

durrr....I can't read gud.

 

[dmccormack]

If something is only the same during a certain circumstance that means that they are not the same. I simply don't see how a CFI (him) can say that they are.

They simply *are not* the same thing or even similar to each other. The most important thing to understand about AoA is that it is completely unrelated to your pitch.

It's going too far to say AoA is unrelated to pitch, especially in the context of this discussion which is takeoff.

Within the normal flight regimes (Not inverted, etc), we learn to associate high angle of attack with high pitch. Don't believe me?

Think back to hour 5 as a new student pilot -- you're at altitude or in the pattern and learning how to slow the airplane. You learn to reduce power and then...?

Right -- pitch up. Why? So you increase the angle of attack so that you can maintain altitude at the slower speed.

Again, if we think this through we know that we have to combine several different cues to know what that wing is doing. Airspeed alone is insufficient data. Don't believe this? Get some spin training and take a look at the ASI and tell me what it's doing.

Right -- 0 KIAS. So does that mean we're suspended in space?

No. The other cues -- the world flying by, the sensations, the VSI, the altimeter, and the Turn Coordinator all give you cues about what is happening -- you are in a autorotation where one wing is fully stalled and the other partially stalled.

Pitch attitude is reflected in the Attitude Indicator. While it's correct that the AI is not an Angle of Attack indicator (though I only said it was the closest thing to an AOA indicator) -- because it doesn't give us the AoA of each wing -- the AI does give us a very good cue, especially in level or nearly level flight (such as takeoff).

So does the appearance of the world outside the windscreen.

 

[jesse]

We're going to have to agree to disagree. You can try to relate them as much as you'd like--but they aren't the same thing as pitch is in relation to the horizon and AoA is in relation to the airflow.

I see no benefit in trying to join them into a single concept for flight training. Pitch is valuable information for takeoff. I am with you on that. But I wouldn't start to draw lines between it and AoA especially with a student who is likely to confuse your message early in training.

 

[dmccormack]

If you're on a downslope takeoff roll into a headwind, all the wind in front of you is going to deflect upslope and run parallel to the ground, thus not allowing you to have a negative AOA. Now, if you're at altitude and you start a descent, then you can have a negative AOA, but it doesn't seem logically possible if you're on the ground.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "negative AoA"?

To clarify -- When you descend, the wing may be pointed down 3 degrees from level ("level" defined as 90 degrees perpendicular to the center of the earth). When you climb, the wing may be 4 degrees up.

But the Angle of Attack -- as several others have mentioned in this thread -- is a function of the relative wind.

(I think the term relative "wind" is a bit confusing when we talk about airplane wings, since wind in other contexts implies air moving with it's own energy, and in the wing case it's all about displacement, but that's what we call it.)

So imagine an airplane in a box of air in space with no gravity. The wing is passing though this viscous fluid called air -- which direction is the "relative wind" coming from?

Right -- some direction nearly opposite the wing's motion.

There's almost no relationship between "level" and AoA in the box-in-space, because "level" doesn't exist.

In a descent the wing is moving through the air, still resulting in a "wind" flowing past nearly opposite the relative motion. The same is true in a climb. If you have enough power to keep the wing moving through the air at an angle of 78 degrees, you still have relative wind, and you still have "lift."

 

[dmccormack]

We're going to have to agree to disagree. You can try to relate them as much as you'd like--but they aren't the same thing as pitch is in relation to the horizon and AoA is in relation to the airflow.

I see no benefit in trying to join them into a single concept for flight training. Pitch is valuable information for takeoff. I am with you on that. But I wouldn't start to draw lines between it and AoA especially with a student who is likely to confuse your message early in training.

If you think I meant they were absolutely the same thing, I was unclear.

But we cannot pretend there is no relation between Pitch and AoA.

In most normal flight regimes, there most certainly is a correlation, and pilots need to know when that correlation applies and when it doesn't.

I think this fits into the argument about which controls airspeed -- pitch or power?

I'll tell you my iron clad rule in the pattern -- PITCH CONTROLS AIRSPEED and POWER CONTROLS ALTITUDE.

We can argue all we want on the ground, but if airspeed is low the first thing I will do is pitch forward because there is a correlation between pitch attitude and airspeed.

 

[jesse]

I think this fits into the argument about which controls airspeed -- pitch or power?

Both. I'm not sure why people try and pick one or the other.

 

[dmccormack]

Both. I'm not sure why people try and pick one or the other.

So you're on short final and you are a bit low, but airspeed is right on target approach airspeed.

What do you do?

 

[Greebo]

Both. I'm not sure why people try and pick one or the other.

Ooooh, jesse. Back to remedial stick and rudder skills for you, bud.

 

[jesse]

Ooooh, jesse. Back to remedial stick and rudder skills for you, bud.

The whole pitch vs power rule is a stupid argument that only serves one purpose and that is to give pilots something to argue about. I wish this would go away along with all the other stupid aviation OWT(s). There are few hard and fast rules in aviation and those that go trying to use them all over the place end up needing 20,000 exceptions to them to make them work.

There are flaws with either argument and in the end you make the airplane go where you want it to go and you will do that using every method there is. If you are thinking about pitch and power in the air you need to fly more often.

John Deakin had some good input: http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182148-1.html and I beleive this was touched on in Stick & Rudder as well. But I don't remember what that guy had to say.

 

[Greebo]

What argument?

Pitch determines airspeed.
If you're low on approach but your speed is good, you add power.

 

[dmccormack]

The whole pitch vs power rule is a stupid argument that only serves one purpose and that is to give pilots something to argue about. I wish this would go away along with all the other stupid aviation OWT(s). There are few hard and fast rules in aviation and those that go trying to use them all over the place end up needing 20,000 exceptions to them to make them work.

There are flaws with either argument and in the end you make the airplane go where you want it to go and you will do that using every method there is. If you are thinking about pitch and power in the air you need to fly more often

OK.. now answer the question...

 

[jesse]

OK.. now answer the question...

The question isn't real world. Am I below the glideslope but at the desired glide angle? Is my angle decreasing so I am drifting even further below the glide slope? When you say desired approach speed what do you mean by that? My desired speed changes constantly. Sometimes I might be just hauling ass just because or sometimes I might be dragging it in with the stall warning blaring.

If I am hauling ass I'll just pull back and climb back up and let the plane slow down. Drag increases with velocity so I'm likely to have enough power (probably too much power) once the plane slows down.

I know the answer you want. But I can give you a question that gives me the answer I want. What is the point?

 

[dmccormack]

The whole pitch vs power rule is a stupid argument that only serves one purpose and that is to give pilots something to argue about. I wish this would go away along with all the other stupid aviation OWT(s). There are few hard and fast rules in aviation and those that go trying to use them all over the place end up needing 20,000 exceptions to them to make them work.

There are flaws with either argument and in the end you make the airplane go where you want it to go and you will do that using every method there is. If you are thinking about pitch and power in the air you need to fly more often.

John Deakin had some good input: http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182148-1.html and I beleive this was touched on in Stick & Rudder as well. But I don't remember what that guy had to say.

And.. once again -- read the context.

In the pattern (where you're low and slow) it must be instinctive.

• Slow? Pitch down.
• Fast? Pitch up.
• Low? Add power.
• High? Reduce power.

This also works for IAPs.

How is this an OWT?

 

[dmccormack]

The question isn't real world. Am I below the glideslope but at the desired glide angle? Is my angle decreasing so I am drifting even further below the glide slope? When you say desired approach speed what do you mean by that? My desired speed changes constantly. Sometimes I might be just hauling ass just because or sometimes I might be dragging it in with the stall warning blaring.

I know the answer you want. But I can give you a question that gives me the answer I want. What is the point?

Hunh?

This question comes up on every single approach, VFR pattern or instrument approach (and you'd better have an approach speed in mind on a Non Precision approach so you know how much time you have...)

As far as desired approach speed -- you don't fly a target airspeed on final?

When do you "drag it in" and what is the purpose of that?

 

[jesse]

And.. once again -- read the context.

In the pattern (where you're low and slow) it must be instinctive.

• Slow? Pitch down.
• Fast? Pitch up.
• Low? Add power.
• High? Reduce power.

This also works for IAPs.

How is this an OWT?

Because you're not always low in slow in the pattern. Instinct should have you doing whatever it takes to make the airplane go from your current point to your desired point. This might mean a ton of things.

For example. I might have dropped low because I was doing a slip into the wind. The slip creates drag which requires more power. I might not want to add more power so I might just crab into the wind instead. The switch to the crab might be all I need to grab my glideslope again. But you probably didn't consider this situation did you?

Or..I might just retract some flaps...

Flying is a fluid dynamic experience. Hard static rules don't always work that well. The closer you look--the worse it becomes.

 

[jesse]

Hunh?

This question comes up on every single approach, VFR pattern or instrument approach (and you'd better have an approach speed in mind on a Non Precision approach so you know how much time you have...)

As far as desired approach speed -- you don't fly a target airspeed on final?

When do you "drag it in" and what is the purpose of that?

I don't fly IFR. Why would I drag it in? Maybe it is because I don't want to go off the other end of the runway. Or maybe it is because I am practicing so that I don't go off the other end of the runway at 6Y9 this fall. Or maybe I am practicing so that I don't crash into the fence at the end of the field the next time the engine quits.

A target airspeed on final? Nope. I don't generally look at the airspeed much on final. I'm not flying a Baron.

 

[dmccormack]

Because you're not always low in slow in the pattern. Instinct should have you doing whatever it takes to make the airplane go from your current point to your desired point. This might mean a ton of things.

For example. I might have dropped low because I was doing a slip into the wind. The slip creates drag which requires more power. I might not want to add more power so I might just crab into the wind instead. The switch to the crab might be all I need to grab my glideslope again.

Well, who can gainsay "instinct?"

But, if you are going to explain what should happen given certain circumstances, there's no easier, more accurate, more predictable way that Pitch = airspeed, power = altitude.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Tell that to the guy at 6y9:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20030611X00850&key=1

Doesn't correlate. The guy at 6Y9 tried to go around way too late. If he'd have pulled power, he would have bent the airplane but he would have lived.

 

[dmccormack]

I don't fly IFR. Why would I drag it in? Maybe it is because I don't want to go off the other end of the runway. Or maybe it is because I am practicing so that I don't go off the other end of the runway at 6Y9 this fall. Or maybe I am practicing so that I don't crash into the fence at the end of the field the next time the engine quits.

A target airspeed on final? Nope. I don't generally look at the airspeed much on final. I'm not flying a Baron.

Then I'd submit you're landing longer than you need to if you're "dragging it in."

Unless you mean going slow = "dragging it in" -- which it's not.

There is a target airspeed for every airplane for short field landing -- if it's not in the POH, it's 1.3 * Vso -- which is also the recommended IAW FAA PP and CP PTS.

If you're going slower than that, you're going to probably have an unacceptable descent rate. Faster, and you're wasting runway.

An A36 Bonanza can be safely landed over 50' obstacle in less than 1600' (it's the same airframe, just has one less engine than a Baron). I use 1.3 Vso once established on short final. It works, every time, no guessing involved.

Do I "look" at the ASI?

No, I may glance occasionally, but it's usually confirming what I know based on the descent rate, out-the-window view, airframe sounds, control feel, power and trim position.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Well, I've been saying "set attitude" all along.

Yeah, but missing the "verify airspeed" part.

And "setting the right airspeed" is no panacea, as airspeed will need to adjusted proportional to weight.

Vy remains the same with weight, doesn't it?

However, 10 knots "extra airspeed" on final does not equal rolling at 10 knots at the end of a 1400' ground run.


A 10% increase in airspeed = 21% longer landing distance (also in Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators).


Newton will reach up and bite Mr T on the posterior -- Kinetic Energy = 0.5 * (Mass * Velocity Squared).

I know the landing distance will be 21% greater, but does that mean the airspeed after the same distance will also be 21% greater?

Either way... 10 knots, 21 knots... Mr. T will be alive. At least until his CFI kills him.

 

[Everskyward]

Pitch determines airspeed.
If you're low on approach but your speed is good, you add power.

If you are on the glideslope but a little slow you add power, you don't pitch down. If you pitched down without adding power you would be below the glideslope.

I agree with Jesse in that this is an old argument. Pitch, power, airspeed and altitude are all interconnected. There's also the variable of how much extra power is available. That said, I can't believe I just replied to this thread. LOL.

 

[dmccormack]

Yeah, but missing the "verify airspeed" part.

Nope -- see my 3,245 posts above about "cues."

I know the landing distance will be 21% greater, but does that mean the airspeed after the same distance will also be 21% greater?

Either way... 10 knots, 21 knots... Mr. T will be alive. At least until his CFI kills him.

Earlier you said Mr. T will "hit the Kenworth at 10 knots."

If the landing distance has increased 21% for each 10% increase in airspeed, how does that correlate to Kinetic Energy, hmmm?

(Hint -- something something V squared)

Sorry, the accident record emphatically states otherwise.-- Mr T landed long and at the very least, has wrecked a perfectly good airplane.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It's going too far to say AoA is unrelated to pitch,

Agreed... But I don't think that's what Jesse was saying. I think he was saying that to say they're the same without qualifying the statement is completely incorrect.

especially in the context of this discussion which is takeoff.

Which, if you'd said so along with what you were saying in the first place, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

Within the normal flight regimes (Not inverted, etc), we learn to associate high angle of attack with high pitch. Don't believe me?

But again, that's only true in wings-level flight. Start to bank, and you have to increase AoA while keeping pitch at 0.

Don't believe this? Get some spin training and take a look at the ASI and tell me what it's doing.

Right -- 0 KIAS. So does that mean we're suspended in space?

No, it means you're in that part of the flight envelope where CAS is not sufficiently close to IAS to have them be interchangeable.

where one wing is fully stalled and the other partially stalled.

Uh oh, here we go again. Explain to me how a wing can be "partially stalled."

(though I only said it was the closest thing to an AOA indicator) -- because it doesn't give us the AoA of each wing -- the AI does give us a very good cue, especially in level or nearly level flight (such as takeoff).

Which is why I contend that the airspeed indicator is closer to an AoA indicator than the AI. The AI only indicates AoA in level flight, period - The AoA will be the same at a given airspeed for any wings-level steady-state flight (including climbs and descents). Since the airspeed indicator works in more situations than the AI does, that tells me that it's a better indication of AoA.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "negative AoA"?

He means negative AoA. Duh.

Now, to actually get negative AoA at the top of the descent you'd have to push hard enough to lift your butt out of the seat. Whee! A more normal transition to descent would be a slightly less positive AoA than we had in cruise.

 

[jason]

What argument?

Pitch determines airspeed.
If you're low on approach but your speed is good, you add power.

Ok, now what if you're straight and level at 75% power (yes, Felix, we can say that we're also running LOP ) and you want to go two knots faster?

 

[dmccormack]

Uh oh, here we go again. Explain to me how a wing can be "partially stalled."

That's too easy.

From the Airplane Flying Handbook, Chapter 4:

"Most airplanes are designed so that the
wings will stall progressively outward from the wing
roots (where the wing attaches to the fuselage) to the
wingtips. This is the result of designing the wings in a
manner that the wingtips have less angle of incidence
than the wing roots. [Figure 4-4] Such a design feature
causes the wingtips to have a smaller angle of attack
than the wing roots during flight.
Exceeding the critical angle of attack causes a stall; the
wing roots of an airplane will exceed the critical angle
before the wingtips, and the wing roots will stall first.
The wings are designed in this manner so that aileron
control will be available at high angles of attack (slow
airspeed) and give the airplane more stable stalling
characteristics."

And...

"SPINS
A spin may be defined as an aggravated stall that
results in what is termed “autorotation” wherein the
airplane follows a downward corkscrew path. As the
airplane rotates around a vertical axis, the rising wing
is less stalled than the descending wing creating a
rolling, yawing, and pitching motion. The airplane is
basically being forced downward by gravity, rolling,
yawing, and pitching in a spiral path. [Figure 4-9]
The autorotation results from an unequal angle of
attack on the airplane’s wings. The rising wing has a
decreasing angle of attack, where the relative lift
increases and the drag decreases. In effect, this wing is
less stalled."

 

[dmccormack]

He means negative AoA. Duh.

Now, to actually get negative AoA at the top of the descent you'd have to push hard enough to lift your butt out of the seat. Whee! A more normal transition to descent would be a slightly less positive AoA than we had in cruise.

So you're saying AoA is different in a descent than in cruise?

[Hint: THINK before you answer]

And -- can you descend with a greater AoA than what you had in cruise?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Nope -- see my 3,245 posts above about "cues."

Airspeed is too important to lump in with "cues." Set pitch with attitude, verify with airspeed - That works for somebody on day one, and must be taught. With more experience, they'll get the other cues on their own.

Earlier you said Mr. T will "hit the Kenworth at 10 knots."

If the landing distance has increased 21% for each 10% increase in airspeed, how does that correlate to Kinetic Energy, hmmm?

(Hint -- something something V squared)

Yeah, I had to think about it for a minute - Because in this case, landing distance is equal and some of the kinetic energy will be dissipated into the side of the truck.

Sorry, the accident record emphatically states otherwise.-- Mr T landed long and at the very least, has wrecked a perfectly good airplane.

Right - But he's alive. And frankly, how likely is he to have that engine failure? I tell ya what, I've never had an engine failure, but I *am* going flying in the mountains in August. So using airspeed only, we have a guy who might bend an airplane if his engine fails, but he won't stall after departing from a mountain airport. Using attitude only, we have a guy who's dead.

In addition, I never said anything about excessive airspeed - Airspeed must be accurate. Vy+10 will result in less of a climb, and 1.3Vs0+10 will result in increased landing distance. Both of those should be taught as well!

 

[jesse]

A stalled wing still produces some degree of lift. Therefore it is entirely possible for a wing to be more stalled than the other--which is what you get when you do this:

 

[TMetzinger]

Ok, now what if you're straight and level at 75% power (yes, Felix, we can say that we're also running LOP ) and you want to go two knots faster?

Point the nose down! You'll go faster. You didn't, after all, say you wanted to STAY straight and level.

 

[dmccormack]

Airspeed is too important to lump in with "cues." Set pitch with attitude, verify with airspeed - That works for somebody on day one, and must be taught. With more experience, they'll get the other cues on their own.

Well, you won't be figuring out the cues "on your own" with me as your CFI, because I'm going to cover up the panel eventually.

And, consider this tidbit from AFH:

"Maneuvering at minimum controllable airspeed should
be performed using both instrument indications and
outside visual reference. It is important that pilots form
the habit of frequent reference to the flight instruments,
especially the airspeed indicator, while flying at very
low airspeeds. However, a “feel” for the airplane at
very low airspeeds must be developed to avoid
inadvertent stalls and to operate the airplane
with precision."

And:RECOGNITION OF STALLS
Pilots must recognize the flight conditions that are
conducive to stalls and know how to apply the
necessary corrective action. They should learn to
recognize an approaching stall by sight, sound, and
feel. The following cues may be useful in recognizing
the approaching stall.
• Vision is useful in detecting a stall condition by
noting the attitude of the airplane. This sense can
only be relied on when the stall is the result of an
unusual attitude of the airplane. Since the airplane
can also be stalled from a normal attitude, vision
in this instance would be of little help in detecting
the approaching stall.
• Hearing is also helpful in sensing a stall condition.
In the case of fixed-pitch propeller airplanes in a
power-on condition, a change in sound due to loss
of revolutions per minute (r.p.m.) is particularly
noticeable. The lessening of the noise made by the
air flowing along the airplane structure as airspeed
decreases is also quite noticeable, and when the
stall is almost complete, vibration and incident
noises often increase greatly.
• Kinesthesia, or the sensing of changes in direction
or speed of motion, is probably the most important
and the best indicator to the trained and
experienced pilot. If this sensitivity is properly
developed, it will warn of a decrease in speed
or the beginning of a settling or mushing of
the airplane.
• Feel is an important sense in recognizing the onset
of a stall. The feeling of control pressures is very
important. As speed is reduced, the resistance to
pressures on the controls becomes progressively
less. Pressures exerted on the controls tend to
become movements of the control surfaces. The
lag between these movements and the response of
the airplane becomes greater, until in a complete
stall all controls can be moved with almost no
resistance, and with little immediate effect on the
airplane. Just before the stall occurs, buffeting,
uncontrollable pitching, or vibrations may begin.
Several types of stall warning indicators have been
developed to warn pilots of an approaching stall. The
use of such indicators is valuable and desirable, but the
reason for practicing stalls is to learn to recognize stalls
without the benefit of warning devices."

 

[dmccormack]

If you are on the glideslope but a little slow you add power, you don't pitch down. If you pitched down without adding power you would be below the glideslope.

I agree with Jesse in that this is an old argument. Pitch, power, airspeed and altitude are all interconnected. There's also the variable of how much extra power is available. That said, I can't believe I just replied to this thread. LOL.

On an ILS glideslope, you trim for an airspeed, then manage the descent with power.

If you "slow down," but are on the glideslope, your descent rate will need to decrease (at 90 kts groundspeed the descent rate is 450 FPM. At 80 it is 400, etc).

So if you "speed up" by adding power, what happens to your descent rate?

So..to avoid all this calculation (unless you like this sort of thing while bumping your way down through the clouds), PITCH for airspeed, trim, power for descent rate.

Works like Magic.

 

[Greebo]

Ok, now what if you're straight and level at 75% power (yes, Felix, we can say that we're also running LOP ) and you want to go two knots faster?

Pitch down and add power.

If you only pitch down, you'll gain speed but lose altitude. If you add power, you'll gain altitude, not speed.

 

[jason]

Point the nose down! You'll go faster. You didn't, after all, say you wanted to STAY straight and level.

DAMMIT!

 

[dmccormack]

Right - But he's alive. And frankly, how likely is he to have that engine failure? I tell ya what, I've never had an engine failure, but I *am* going flying in the mountains in August. So using airspeed only, we have a guy who might bend an airplane if his engine fails, but he won't stall after departing from a mountain airport. Using attitude only, we have a guy who's dead.

Let me reiterate since the bad info keeps getting recycled...

"Attitude only" is a single cue. What have I been saying about multiple cues?

As far as engine failure -- if it's not already part of your contingency planning on every flight -- you need to reconsider your position.

 

[jesse]

On an ILS glideslope, you trim for an airspeed, then manage the descent with power.

If you "slow down," but are on the glideslope, your descent rate will need to decrease (at 90 kts groundspeed the descent rate is 450 FPM. At 80 it is 400, etc).

So if you "speed up" by adding power, what happens to your descent rate?

So..to avoid all this calculation (unless you like this sort of thing while bumping your way down through the clouds), PITCH for airspeed, trim, power for descent rate.

Works like Magic.

Dan:

I suspect that, someone like Mari, is pretty qualified on this subject.

The thing is--no matter what I say--you're not going to see the light. You just aren't getting that they are both connected and it works both ways. Think about this:

ILS Problem Mari brought up

Your view:
Pitch for airspeed, power for altitude

1. Decrease Pitch
2. Increase Power
3. Equals more airspeed with same glideslope

The other view:
Power for airspeed, pitch for altitude

1. Increase power
2. Decrease Pitch
3. Equals more airspeed with same glideslope

Your original question:

So you're on short final and you are a bit low, but airspeed is right on target approach airspeed.

The answer you want me to say is:

1. Increase Power

That is fine. Because of course--that is the first thing you're going to do. But you'll find yourself doing this as well:

1. Increase Power
2. Increase Pitch (this may happen some on its own on SOME planes. not all)

You could swap number one for two, and as long as you did them both, you would be fine.

Dan, the point I'm trying to get at, is really its both. Depending on the question one throws out there you can switch which one most pilots are likely to do first.

If Mari needs more airspeed in her Learjet and is on the glideslope I suspect she will just increase power a little bit. She may have to change pitch some--but it will be very small--as she barely increased power and is pretty much a super pilot, so it will be natural without thought.

I really don't want to defend either rule because I wish they would both disappear. But that is just how I feel.