Pwr off lndg practice pre-solo students

Jeanie

Jeanie

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
2,239
Location
Alpine, TX
Display Name
Display name:
Jeanie
Do you as a CFI teach power off landings to your pre-solo students?

Why.... Why not?
 
yes. flying a 150 or 172 the descent rate is totally manageable and flaps/speed/pattern size can be used to adjust your touchdown point. makes those "engine out" approaches on the checkride a total non issue.
 
Yes, I will, it's part of our school pre-solo syllabus. A student shouldn't be set free unless he's competent to deal with everything that might happen to him. For solo work in the pattern, an engine failure is a possibility. So in addtion to the engine failure procedures we also practice the steps to take to land in the event of a failure. Ideally, you should be able to fail the engine anywhere on downwind, base, or final, and have the student land the airplane.

When grading, we give good grades for landing on the runway. If the student is too low, we stress the importance of maintaining aircraft control all the way to the ground, even if it is short of the runway (rather than losing control trying to "stretch" the glide).
 
(c) Pre-solo flight training. Prior to conducting a solo flight, a student pilot must have:
(1) Received and logged flight training for the maneuvers and procedures of this section that are appropriate to the make and model of aircraft to be flown; and
(2) Demonstrated satisfactory proficiency and safety, as judged by an authorized instructor, on the maneuvers and procedures required by this section in the make and model of aircraft or similar make and model of aircraft to be flown.
(d) Maneuvers and procedures for pre-solo flight training in a single-engine airplane. A student pilot who is receiving training for a single-engine airplane [rating or privileges] must receive and log flight training for the following maneuvers and procedures:
(1) Proper flight preparation procedures, including preflight planning and preparation, powerplant operation, and aircraft systems;
(2) Taxiing or surface operations, including runups;
(3) Takeoffs and landings, including normal and crosswind;
(4) Straight and level flight, and turns in both directions;
(5) Climbs and climbing turns;
(6) Airport traffic patterns, including entry and departure procedures;
(7) Collision avoidance, windshear avoidance, and wake turbulence avoidance;
(8) Descents, with and without turns, using high and low drag configurations;
(9) Flight at various airspeeds from cruise to slow flight;
(10) Stall entries from various flight attitudes and power combinations with recovery initiated at the first indication of a stall, and recovery from a full stall;
(11) Emergency procedures and equipment malfunctions;
(12) Ground reference maneuvers;
(13) Approaches to a landing area with simulated engine malfunctions;
(14) Slips to a landing; and
(15) Go-arounds.
Click to expand...

An engine-out would be an emergency procedure, mais non?
 
I'd be pretty surprised if an instructor wasn't teaching them. It'd be a major disservice to the student.
 
tonycondon said:
yes. flying a 150 or 172 the descent rate is totally manageable and flaps/speed/pattern size can be used to adjust your touchdown point. makes those "engine out" approaches on the checkride a total non issue.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: My thoughts and practice also.
 
I do power off 180 landings with primary students, like everybody else. Out in the wild emergencies are mainly practice getting set up parallel to the landing area at about 1000' AGL.

I thinks that's the best way to practice because they can take it all the way to the ground. Then pretend the runway is only 2000' then 1500'.

Joe
 
Like everyone else mentioned, it's perfect for simulated emergencies. CFIs can make it a tad more realistic and use a grass runway. I personally like teaching Emergencies by picking a field first, then move to an actual runway. One reason is the plain fact that some students don't believe it when you tell them you don't agree that they could have "made it" no matter how hard you explain why. Sometimes 500 ft AGL recovery isn't a good determination point for someone new to the idea. The "oh!" factor is quickly seen when you give them a familiar aiming point. The grass runway explains itself. It's not going to compare to a rough corn field but it's the best I've come up with.

I've noticed emergencies can be one of the toughest maneuvers to master. There is a lot going on and students must treat it like a real emergency (just don't pull anything red!). I was having an especially hard time during my training so my instructor made a game out of it. We would take turns and whoever could land the closest to a specified point would buy the other person a coke. You can mix it up however you like. :)

Gotta remember to make it fun for both student and instructors. We can get bored and frustrated too. :p
 
Jeanie said:
Do you as a CFI teach power off landings to your pre-solo students?

Why.... Why not?
Click to expand...
Yes, I do, as part of the emergency approach/landing training required prior to solo. I do not, however, teach it as the "normal" approach/landing technique, because the FAA recommends otherwise based on a lot of landing accident data. For that, I teach the FAA-recommended partial-power VFR stabilized approach method described (among other places) in the PP PTS Normal Approach and Landing task.
 
Preparation for an "emergency power-off" landing is a good reason for teaching power off landings, ...however, it has been my experience that teaching power-off landings as the primary, basic initial way of learning to feel the controls during landing, is the best way to start this training.

If the power is on, even a little, during the final approach, and is reduced to idle at the start of the flare, or somewhere in that area, the subtle change in elevator feel (due to prop thrust sudden decrease), and yaw control (due to sudden decrease in torque, P-Factor, etc,), and just the mental task of reducing power while feeling the flare, can be a little overwhelming for the beginning student.

Keep It Simple. I teach, having the throttle reduced to idle somewhere early on final, if not a complete power off approach.

Local traffic may prevent full power off approaches as a routine, but I teach a pattern that allows the student to have the throttle to idle, and the airplane trimmed for power off and final flap setting by at least 300 ft AGL, so that he/she has a few seconds of the power off feel of the controls before beginning the final flare and hold-off to touch-down.
 
nosehair said:
Preparation for an "emergency power-off" landing is a good reason for teaching power off landings, ...however, it has been my experience that teaching power-off landings as the primary, basic initial way of learning to feel the controls during landing, is the best way to start this training.

If the power is on, even a little, during the final approach, and is reduced to idle at the start of the flare, or somewhere in that area, the subtle change in elevator feel (due to prop thrust sudden decrease), and yaw control (due to sudden decrease in torque, P-Factor, etc,), and just the mental task of reducing power while feeling the flare, can be a little overwhelming for the beginning student.

Keep It Simple. I teach, having the throttle reduced to idle somewhere early on final, if not a complete power off approach.

Local traffic may prevent full power off approaches as a routine, but I teach a pattern that allows the student to have the throttle to idle, and the airplane trimmed for power off and final flap setting by at least 300 ft AGL, so that he/she has a few seconds of the power off feel of the controls before beginning the final flare and hold-off to touch-down.
Click to expand...

+1

I'm based at an airport that has a busy flight school and flying club, and it kinda bothers me that it's only the very rare occasion when someone makes a "simulated engine out" call, that they do a power-off approach...as if it's only an emergency procedure. And typically then, touchdown occurs about 2,000 ft or more down the runway. But interestingly enough, even with the hot, low, flat, power-on approaches that they all do, very few of them touch down less than 1,500' down the runway - many around 2,000' or more (6,500' runway). I feel some fundamental flying skills are not being taught or enforced. In the hundreds of ops I've seen here, I can count on two fingers the number of times I've seen a flight school or club aircraft slip to lose altitude on final.

The club has very conservative requirements...they're restricted to something like <10kt of wind and cannot land on a runway shorter than 3,000' due to a couple pilots running off the end of a "short", slightly under 3,000' runway. I hate to say it, but that does not surprise me, given what I have observed.

So the logic goes that since statistically there are more landing accidents associated with power-off approaches, that we should not teach them as SOP? I can maybe understand this from the perspective of the flight school operator who has money to lose, but I cannot understand this if pilot development and prudent skill are the primary focus. The flipside of the coin is that though safety is theoretically "improved" (I question that), that it is reduced in the event of a true engine-out emergency, due to significant lack of skill in this department. I think the latter (rare as though it may be) is much more likely to get someone killed.

Tailwheel airplanes have more landing accidents, but I would hate for the FAA to issue some sort of AIM edict that tailwheel airplanes not be used for primary training, and CFI's feel they must dutifully follow along.
 
nosehair said:
Preparation for an "emergency power-off" landing is a good reason for teaching power off landings, ...however, it has been my experience that teaching power-off landings as the primary, basic initial way of learning to feel the controls during landing, is the best way to start this training.
Click to expand...
Personally, I believe that the law of primacy is important, and the habits built initially will be dominant later on. That's why I teach what the FAA considers to be the "best" technique for normal operations. Also, unless you're somewhere that there is no traffic using the more normal 3/4-1 mile width pattern the AIM suggests, it's harder to fit in with the other traffic, and that can reduce the number of "reps" the trainee gets, which is always an important factor in training progress. But at the end of the day, it's an instructor preference issue as long as the trainee knows and can do both by the time s/he gets to the PP practical test.
 
Ron Levy said:
Also, unless you're somewhere that there is no traffic using the more normal 3/4-1 mile width pattern the AIM suggests, it's harder to fit in with the other traffic...
Click to expand...

Disagree. There are times when, due to traffic ahead of me, I am unable to fly my normal power-off 180...though in reality I could "cut" in front of someone on a mile long final and be clear of the runway long before I am a factor, but I don't typically do this. But anyway, this does not mean I'm forced to drag it in low like the rest of them. I will not do that in the Pitts.

If I have to extend and fly a larger pattern than normal, I will just continue to chug along at pattern altitude on my extended downwind, base, AND final. I will fly final at pattern altitude without changing my power setting until I have reached the point where I can pull power to idle and make a normal power-off approach to landing. Nobody is disrupted by doing this, and I maintain my normal approach profile. If this was done during the learning process, students would still be able to learn the proper "angle" below the horizon needed to glide power-off to their intended landing spot. You can sequence yourself in a busy pattern without having to resort to the low, dragged-in approach.
 
whifferdill said:
Disagree. There are times when, due to traffic ahead of me, I am unable to fly my normal power-off 180...though in reality I could "cut" in front of someone on a mile long final and be clear of the runway long before I am a factor, but I don't typically do this. But anyway, this does not mean I'm forced to drag it in low like the rest of them. I will not do that in the Pitts.
Click to expand...
We're not talking about you in your Pitts -- we're talking about a pre-solo student in something like a C-172. Very different story.
 
Ron Levy said:
We're not talking about you in your Pitts -- we're talking about a pre-solo student in something like a C-172. Very different story.
Click to expand...

My Pitts and I are irrelevant. Anyone in a 152, student pilot or otherwise, could do the same as I described if they prefer not to drag it in just because they are stuck behind other traffic flying a large pattern. I would probably do the same regardless of the type of plane I was flying.

You said power-off approaches don't always fit well with those flying larger patterns, and have said the same thing in the past regarding power-off approaches in general. It just doesn't have to be the case. The fact that it might be a student in a 172 doesn't change anything as it relates to your assertion.
 
dmccormack said:
Uh oh -- here we go :rolleyes2:

(Strapping into harness preparing for the "Stabilized approaches" debate)
Click to expand...
Stabilized approaches are an advanced maneuver that is demonstrated on checkrides and used in the normal operations of day to day flying and I am not talking about flying the PTS during pre-solo training.

Primacy, as Ron alludes to, does not mean teaching a PTS maneuver during the primary initial introduction to a control movement.

Primacy is the first learning of anything, and I am talking about the initial learning of a control movement, or combination of those movements.

Learning how to pull the elevator, and manipulate the rudder and aileron at the same time. That is what have focused this discussion on.

And sometimes, I will control one or two of those controls while the student does the one or two others - whatever it takes for him to get the feel of moving each control until he is able to combine them all.

Including the throttle. Once the student can land power-off, then I increase the load to making the stabilized power approach which will be a normal operation in high traffic areas.

And this will become the normal day to day approach to most all landings, but on the occasional engine-out practice, the power off landing has already become his prime instinct.
 
nosehair said:
Stabilized approaches are an advanced maneuver that is demonstrated on checkrides and used in the normal operations of day to day flying and I am not talking about flying the PTS during pre-solo training.

Primacy, as Ron alludes to, does not mean teaching a PTS maneuver during the primary initial introduction to a control movement.

Primacy is the first learning of anything, and I am talking about the initial learning of a control movement, or combination of those movements.

Learning how to pull the elevator, and manipulate the rudder and aileron at the same time. That is what have focused this discussion on.

And sometimes, I will control one or two of those controls while the student does the one or two others - whatever it takes for him to get the feel of moving each control until he is able to combine them all.

Including the throttle. Once the student can land power-off, then I increase the load to making the stabilized power approach which will be a normal operation in high traffic areas.

And this will become the normal day to day approach to most all landings, but on the occasional engine-out practice, the power off landing has already become his prime instinct.
Click to expand...

I'm not as sold on "Primacy" as a law.

If it were true we'd all be sucking on bottles, peeing our pants, and crawling on all fours.

Humans can adapt and learn -- some faster than others.

And yeah, I know the "law" is in the FAA FOI, but there's more to educational psychology than is written in FAA pamphlets.
 
whifferdill said:
My Pitts and I are irrelevant. Anyone in a 152, student pilot or otherwise, could do the same as I described if they prefer not to drag it in just because they are stuck behind other traffic flying a large pattern. I would probably do the same regardless of the type of plane I was flying.
Click to expand...
I've got to see you fly a Baron some time.

You said power-off approaches don't always fit well with those flying larger patterns, and have said the same thing in the past regarding power-off approaches in general. It just doesn't have to be the case.
Click to expand...
Actually, it does. The basic equations of lift, thrust, weight, and drag make it impossible to maintain the same descent gradient power-off, so the pattern must be tighter than using a partial-power stabilized approach.

And there's a big difference between flying a proper partial-power stabilized approach and "dragging it in."
 
dmccormack said:
I'm not as sold on "Primacy" as a law.

If it were true we'd all be sucking on bottles, peeing our pants, and crawling on all fours.
Click to expand...
If that's what you believe the Law of Primacy means, you need to go back and look over that part of the Aviation Instructor's Handbook again.


Primacy
[FONT=Times,Times][FONT=Times,Times]Primacy, the state of being first, often creates a strong, almost unshakable impression and underlies the reason an instructor must teach correctly the first time and the student must learn correctly the first time. For example, a maintenance student learns a faulty riveting technique. Now the instructor must correct the bad habit and reteach the correct technique. Relearning is more difficult than initial learning.

Also, if the task is learned in isolation, it is not initially applied to the overall performance, or if it must be relearned, the process can be confusing and time consuming. The first experience should be positive, functional, and lay the foundation for all that is to follow.
[/FONT][/FONT]
Click to expand...
 
Ron Levy said:
If that's what you believe the Law of Primacy means, you need to go back and look over that part of the Aviation Instructor's Handbook again.
Click to expand...


And how is what you quoted contradictory?

Sorry, Ron -- but some of us have more training and professional development in education and training than what's in the FOI, and thereby can't uncritically swallow all the precepts therein.
 
As a matter of personal preference, I actually like to make all my landings power off, as Whifferdill says. It obviously can't happen ALL the time, and does not apply to flying an instrument glideslope, but VMC operations? You bet.

In fact, just yesterday I pulled the power at 7,500' in my 172 and never touched it again until I turned off the taxiway, it's good practice and you need to be able to do it. Energy Management is a critical-thinking skill that will never go out of style and will never serve you wrong, no matter what aircraft (or spacecraft) you are flying.
 
Last edited:
airguy said:
As a matter of personal preference, I actually like to make all my landings power off, as Whifferdill says. It obviously can't happen ALL the time, and does not apply to flying an instrument glideslope, but VMC operations? You bet.

In fact, just yesterday I pulled the power at 7,500' in my 172 and never touched it again until I turned off the taxiway, it's good practice and you need to be able to do it. Energy Management is a critical-thinking skill that will never go out of style and will never serve you wrong, no matter what aircraft (or spacecraft) you are flying.
Click to expand...


Absolutely -- I think the question is -- should pre-solo student's be using this technique?

I think they should be able to get the airplane back on the runway when abeam the numbers with power to idle (and there's some residual thrust at idle -- so it's not "power OFF" unless you kill the mags).

But a controlled, some-power-setting approach should be default. Later on they can get all aviator.
 
dmccormack said:
Absolutely -- I think the question is -- should pre-solo student's be using this technique?

I think they should be able to get the airplane back on the runway when abeam the numbers with power to idle (and there's some residual thrust at idle -- so it's not "power OFF" unless you kill the mags).

But a controlled, some-power-setting approach should be default. Later on they can get all aviator.
Click to expand...
+1 here's some random text to get past the minimum post length.
 
dmccormack said:
Absolutely -- I think the question is -- should pre-solo student's be using this technique?

I think they should be able to get the airplane back on the runway when abeam the numbers with power to idle (and there's some residual thrust at idle -- so it's not "power OFF" unless you kill the mags).

But a controlled, some-power-setting approach should be default. Later on they can get all aviator.
Click to expand...

~~~~~~~~~ OK, I'll add another variable into the mix.... abeam the numbers or abeam the 1,000 foot markers. Some say to use the "captains bars" (1000 ft markers) and some say numbers....

And, yes the original notion was power off pre solo practice at the airport either before or after, as Tristar said, the ER approach / landing practice over an open non airport area.

We don't have nice fields out here to choose from - most of it's mountains, arroyos and pasture w/ creosote, cactus and boulders...
 
airguy said:
As a matter of personal preference, I actually like to make all my landings power off, as Whifferdill says. It obviously can't happen ALL the time, and does not apply to flying an instrument glideslope, but VMC operations? You bet.

In fact, just yesterday I pulled the power at 7,500' in my 172 and never touched it again until I turned off the taxiway, it's good practice and you need to be able to do it. Energy Management is a critical-thinking skill that will never go out of style and will never serve you wrong, no matter what aircraft (or spacecraft) you are flying.
Click to expand...

~~~~ Airguy, do you fly out of Midland Airpark KMDD?
 
Jeanie said:
~~~~~~~~~ OK, I'll add another variable into the mix.... abeam the numbers or abeam the 1,000 foot markers. Some say to use the "captains bars" (1000 ft markers) and some say numbers....
Click to expand...

Many (most?) Small GA fields have few runway markings. I'm at one with numbers and centerline. Period.

At fields with additional cues I'm fine with whatever.

Though there's something about landing short in the lights or bushes that gets attention more than "oh, your 200' past the markings..."
 
dmccormack said:
And how is what you quoted contradictory?
Click to expand...
You suggested that the Law of Primacy means whatever we did in infancy is what we'll continue to do all our lives, and that is both untrue and not what that law says. What it really says is that the first way we're taught how to do something has a very strong influence on how we do it later on, especially under stress, and that if we're taught incorrectly or inappropriately the first time we learn a task, it's much harder to learn how to do that task properly or better later on.

The problem here is that is we teach folks initially to use only pitch to manage both speed and descent rate, they don't get the fundamental understanding of the relationship between pitch/power and speed/descent rate that is essential for precise aircraft control. That manifests itself later, when trying to teach them skills such as maintaining glide path without large variations in airspeed, or staying at an appropriate altitude in the pattern when following other aircraft.
 
Jeanie said:
~~~~~~~~~ OK, I'll add another variable into the mix.... abeam the numbers or abeam the 1,000 foot markers. Some say to use the "captains bars" (1000 ft markers) and some say numbers....
Click to expand...
I say neither is mandated -- you pick your desired touchdown point appropriate to the situation and then do what is required to hit it.

And, yes the original notion was power off pre solo practice at the airport either before or after, as Tristar said, the ER approach / landing practice over an open non airport area.
Click to expand...
From a regulatory standpoint, it is required before solo. The only question is whether the instructor should teach that as the "standard" landing up through solo, or only as an emergency maneuver in event of engine failure.

We don't have nice fields out here to choose from - most of it's mountains, arroyos and pasture w/ creosote, cactus and boulders...
Click to expand...
I don't think we're discussing taking engine failure drills in the practice area to a landing (unless there is a handy airport out there). Those should be conducted only to the point where the instructor is satisfied the trainee would land in the desired area, and never beyond the limits of either safety or 91.119. I think we'd all agree that engine failures to a landing should be limited to appropriate failities.
 
dmccormack said:
Hang on -- we're discussing descending 800'-1000' feet from pattern altitude to landing at idle.
Click to expand...
You may be, but in the quoted section of my post that you omitted, it was clear I was responding to someone talking about idle descent from 7500.

Where is that prohibition?
Click to expand...
No prohibition (and I never said there was -- you that word in my mouth), just recommendations against rapid cooling, and extended idle operation without aggressive leaning.
 
Cap'n Ron: "From a regulatory standpoint, it is required before solo. The only question is whether the instructor should teach that as the "standard" landing up through solo, or only as an emergency maneuver in event of engine failure."

~~~~~~~~~ I realize that it's required pre solo to practice engine out approach/landing procedures... just wondered if folks did that at their airports all the way to a landing or only out over fields to no lower than 500 AGL

Now I know! Thanks, ya'll for your help as usual.
 
Last edited:
If you have a runway with fixed distance markers, I find it helpful to teach a student to pick a mark down the runway maybe 250 or 500 feet. That allows you to set up for a landing on that spot, and if short you can make the point about maintaining control all the way to touchdown (on the numbers instead of the aiming point). And if you have a problem for real during the practice you've got a cushion against being short.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top