Sigh...another nose gear bites the dust.

A lot of instructors seem to want the student pilot to focus on picking their point of impact -- sorry, touchdown -- above all else. I know all of mine did. They also instilled a deep fear of getting too slow -- to the point where we were consistently really a few knots fast coming over the fence. If you're landing on a 4,000' runway, it really does not matter if you're a few hundred feet off the mark before you finally get the airplane slowed enough to settle in at a full stall. I think students would be much better off if instructors focused on getting that part down first, THEN on managing the airspeed to be able to pick your landing spot.

Yes, being able to pick your spot is absolutely important for short field and emergency landings. It's a skill you MUST know. I think it's more of an advanced skill, though, and one that really needs to be taught only after the student has learned how to land properly. Let the guy (or gal) glide down the runway and bleed off that extra 10-20 knots, so they can figure out how much extra speed they're carrying and how that affects them in ground effect. Once they have that figured out, THEN teach the spot landing.
 
GRG55 said:
I would say too high an approach speed is a very common problem these days. Are students fearful of stalls?
Click to expand...

I usually I find that some pilots like to carry extra speed on final. They tell me the controls feel better with a little extra speed. That seems to go away when landing on less than 1000 foot runways though.....
 
Cptwing said:
If you were referring to me, to answer your question no this was not me, How presumptuous and ignorant of you to assume that.

Also looking at that one picture how can you definetly blame it on a nose wheel or hard landing (which I have never done BTW) it could have just been the bearings time to fail. If the student did hard land the plane perhaps his instructor failed to teach him correctly as others have stated, poor students are often created from bad instructors.

Either way that one picture does not tell the whole story. In fact if that did happen during a hard landing, how the heck did the "less than capable student" keep from ground looping or crashing the plane???
Click to expand...

How presumptuous and ignorant of you to assume I was referring to you. You're a flying prodigy. We know, you told us.
 
GRG55 said:
You aren't a low time student James.

These are training airplanes we are dealing with.

Airspeed has a LOT to do with it when one is in the early stages of learning how to fly and land a plane. The relationship between airspeed, attitude, sink rate and power is one that has to be learned. "Properly trained" is not intuitive to everyone; just like a consistent golf swing it comes with repetition.

Watching students land on the main runway at my airport (from the balcony of the Club with a beer and burger in hand, so I've observed quite a few) I would say too high an approach speed is a very common problem these days. Are students fearful of stalls?

Kinetic energy varies roughly with the square of speed. So even a modestly higher approach speed means a lot more energy that has to be bled off in the landing and roll-out.
Click to expand...

True, but basic good fundamentals worked just as well for my sub 15hr tt students as they do for me. Coming in too fast should only lengthen how far down the runway you’re going to land, the poor nosewheel doesn’t have any thing to do with it :)


DaleB said:
A lot of instructors seem to want the student pilot to focus on picking their point of impact -- sorry, touchdown -- above all else. I know all of mine did. They also instilled a deep fear of getting too slow -- to the point where we were consistently really a few knots fast coming over the fence. If you're landing on a 4,000' runway, it really does not matter if you're a few hundred feet off the mark before you finally get the airplane slowed enough to settle in at a full stall. I think students would be much better off if instructors focused on getting that part down first, THEN on managing the airspeed to be able to pick your landing spot.

Yes, being able to pick your spot is absolutely important for short field and emergency landings. It's a skill you MUST know. I think it's more of an advanced skill, though, and one that really needs to be taught only after the student has learned how to land properly. Let the guy (or gal) glide down the runway and bleed off that extra 10-20 knots, so they can figure out how much extra speed they're carrying and how that affects them in ground effect. Once they have that figured out, THEN teach the spot landing.
Click to expand...

Yup, self licking icecream education, that how they were taught by their CFI who left for the first low bid regional that would take him, as did the CFI before him.

Hence why it’s always better to get a CFI who has a good deal of experience outside of the flight school (on ether side of the bill).
 
DaleB said:
A lot of instructors seem to want the student pilot to focus on picking their point of impact -- sorry, touchdown -- above all else. I know all of mine did. They also instilled a deep fear of getting too slow -- to the point where we were consistently really a few knots fast coming over the fence. If you're landing on a 4,000' runway, it really does not matter if you're a few hundred feet off the mark before you finally get the airplane slowed enough to settle in at a full stall. I think students would be much better off if instructors focused on getting that part down first, THEN on managing the airspeed to be able to pick your landing spot.

Yes, being able to pick your spot is absolutely important for short field and emergency landings. It's a skill you MUST know. I think it's more of an advanced skill, though, and one that really needs to be taught only after the student has learned how to land properly. Let the guy (or gal) glide down the runway and bleed off that extra 10-20 knots, so they can figure out how much extra speed they're carrying and how that affects them in ground effect. Once they have that figured out, THEN teach the spot landing.
Click to expand...


Managing and controlling the airspeed is part of setting up a stable final approach. Learning to do that consistently is important for reasons beyond hitting the aiming point. Too high an airspeed than appropriate for the conditions is a really bad habit, and one that I think should be addressed right from the outset.

Among other things, the landing phase of flight is when a disproportionate share of accidents happen. Touching down at the lowest prudent airspeed for the prevailing conditions means less kinetic energy and momentum, and therefore a better chance of getting through it if something does go wrong.
 
GRG55 said:
Managing and controlling the airspeed is part of setting up a stable final approach. Learning to do that consistently is important for reasons beyond hitting the aiming point. Too high an airspeed than appropriate for the conditions is a really bad habit, and one that I think should be addressed right from the outset.

Among other things, the landing phase of flight is when a disproportionate share of accidents happen. Touching down at the lowest prudent airspeed for the prevailing conditions means less kinetic energy and momentum, and therefore a better chance of getting through it if something does go wrong.
Click to expand...
We're in violent agreement here... :) I should have been more clear.

My experience has been that flight instructors (and student pilots) tend to be a little paranoid about speed on final -- to the point that they'd rather see it 5-10 knots fast than on speed. And if a student pilot in the early stages of training has a tendency to come in a few knots hot, in my humble opinion it would be much better to let him or her float for a while (and later point out the fact during post-flight debrief) rather than try to plant it on the numbers regardless of speed.

YOU know, and I know, and many other pilots know this kind of stuff. But to @James331's point, it seems like we get a lot of newly minted CFIs that blow in and out of the local flight school without ever really correcting their own mistakes, let alone those of their students. I really had to learn a lot of the finesse after I got my ticket. I could land well enough to pass my checkride, but not well. I'm getting better. And the reason I'm getting better is by realizing that it's OK to miss my planned touchdown point on a mile of pavement, as long as I make a really good touchdown... then work backward from the touchdown to figure out exactly where I made my mistake and what that mistake was, then try to do it again without that mistake. Of course every day is different... different wind speed and direction, traffic, etc. New mistakes to learn from every day.

Of course I could be completely wrong. It could be a case of Dunning-Kruger effect, and I'm just an idiot who just never took advice from ace flight instructors. 50-50 chance.
 
I think there is a disconnect between what students are taught. I heard 1.3 of Vs0 many times in training, then told to fly final in a 172 (per the POH) at 60-70 knots. depending on the 172 I rent, 1.3 of Vs0 is 43 to 54 knots.
 
Timbeck2 said:
Unless you forgot the smiley, PA-28 nose gear doesn't have.....oh never mind, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

Don’t give me the benefit of the doubt. I just assumed it looked like my 182 nose gear. Always learning...
 
luvflyin said:
Dang, how many planes ya got left?
Click to expand...

The 172 from awhile back has been replaced by another 172. This one hopefully can be repaired. Mechanics looked at it this morning but will do a more in depth check later. So they have 5, down to four now until they determine the 140's fate.
 
G-force said:
I think there is a disconnect between what students are taught. I heard 1.3 of Vs0 many times in training, then told to fly final in a 172 (per the POH) at 60-70 knots. depending on the 172 I rent, 1.3 of Vs0 is 43 to 54 knots.
Click to expand...


And the book numbers are for full gross weight.
 
G-force said:
I think there is a disconnect between what students are taught. I heard 1.3 of Vs0 many times in training, then told to fly final in a 172 (per the POH) at 60-70 knots. depending on the 172 I rent, 1.3 of Vs0 is 43 to 54 knots.
Click to expand...

Been instructing since '78 and have always taught speeds on final at POH values (55-65 flaps down, 60-70 flaps up for the 172), and touchdown in the first third of the runway for normal landings. Short/soft field landings are more accurate of course and taught IAW the ACS requirement. I stress go arounds and have students perform many of them to the point they choose to do one if too high on final, not stabilized, or any other reason.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Some taildragger training goes a long ways toward fixing that. Taildraggers won't tolerate sloppiness, and their instructors won't either.
Click to expand...

It would appear that some PA28-140s don't either.:D
 
G-force said:
I think there is a disconnect between what students are taught. I heard 1.3 of Vs0 many times in training, then told to fly final in a 172 (per the POH) at 60-70 knots. depending on the 172 I rent, 1.3 of Vs0 is 43 to 54 knots.
Click to expand...

Vref is more about the speed you want to be at to begin the landing. The speed you want to be at when you begin the round out and the flare. You transition to it from your final approach speed. That may be to much of a generalization depending on what you fly..
 
With regard to training, there are The Seven Learning Factors, one of which is Primacy:

PRIMACY - Present new knowledge or skills correctly the first time. (Teach it right the first time.)

(a) When students are presented with new knowledge or skills, the first impression received is almost unshakeable. This means that what you teach must be correct the first time. Students may forget the details of lessons, but will retain an overall image of the skill or knowledge for a long time. Frequently you will be required to perform manoeuvres in the aircraft before a student has had the necessary background training. You must perform those manoeuvres correctly or the student may imitate any errors you make. For example, before the exercise on cross-wind landings, you and your student are required to land in a cross-wind. Any poor example shown at this time would have to be "unlearned" when the exercise came up in a subsequent lesson.......While the student is performing an exercise, supervise the actions very closely. Stop the student as soon as any performance error is noticed and teach the correct method. Close supervision means - NEVER allow a student to make an error during the initial stages of training. Think of how you would go about training a student to defuse a live bomb.

So, letting the student land fast for awhile is TWO mistakes: (a) letting him/her do it, and (b) landing fast. It will have to be unlearned, or sooner or later he's going to have trouble landing somewhere--a short strip, wet grass, whatever; and the accident will be traced to poor technique, and that traced to poor training. There is no need for it at all.

The speed (the right speed) should be bled off in the round-out before the airplane gets into ground effect. Power off, nose up a little, and as the airplane approaches the surface, the flare starts. Too many are flying the same speed and attitude right down to three feet above the surface, which just results in a long float. Or porpoising or wheelbarrowing or ballooning. Or busted nosegears and firewalls.

The Seven Learning Factors: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviati...5494.htm#part-i-learning-and-learning-factors
 
luvflyin said:
Vref is more about the speed you want to be at to begin the landing. The speed you want to be at when you begin the round out and the flare. You transition to it from your final approach speed. That may be to much of a generalization depending on what you fly..
Click to expand...

Vref also changes with weight.
 
James331 said:
Vref also changes with weight.
Click to expand...

Yeah. There was a real good rule of thumb for that around here not long ago. Some one had posted a link to, I think it was an Avweb article

EDIT: here it is. "A general rule of thumb is to reduce VRef by half the percentage you are below your MGW." It does take a little number crunching
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
Sure it does

When you’re rounding out just over the deck as you slowly ease back on the stick, you can’t put it back forward, if it starts to sink burp in a little power.
Click to expand...

Sure you can push it back forward. There is nothing that prevents it. It just isn't a good idea. I do not see the ratchet analogy as being a good memory tool or technique.
 
oneflewoverthecuckoosnest_large.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top