Slowing down on final

corjulo

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
644
Location
Avon Connecticut
Display Name

Display name:
Corjulo
I managed a couple craptacular landings this weekend (way too long). The problem was I was just too fast on final. I Cessna 172 at about 70 knots over the threshold, wind was calm, full idle, 200 MSL and it was hot. Long runways so I just sort of hung there. Any of the CFI gods on this forum have a favorite method for slowing down on final. Or is that the wrong question to be asking.
 
corjulo said:
I managed a couple craptacular landings this weekend (way too long). The problem was I was just too fast on final. I Cessna 172 at about 70 knots over the threshold, wind was calm, full idle, 200 MSL and it was hot. Long runways so I just sort of hung there. Any of the CFI gods on this forum have a favorite method for slowing down on final. Or is that the wrong question to be asking.

Not a God BUT, too fast on final or too high and too fast are both too much energy. To get rid of the energy you need to a) remove power and/or b) increase drag. If the engine is at idle and the flaps are full you are left with the forward slip which can be quite effective.

If you haven't recognized the problem prior to 200' agl then you just don't have enough altitude left to comfortably slip the airplane. Here is my suggestion. When you turn final - which I presume is 500' or higher - finish configuring for landing and point the nose where you want to land (this means place the landing point in a position in the windscreen that your experience tells you where it should be to land there) and see what happens. If your airspeed increases you have too much energy, if it decreases too little. If you can maintain your target airspeed with the power and configuration where it is and the landing spot isn't moving in the windscreen, then your energy is just about right. Too much energy - reduce power, still too much - forward slip. Too little energy - add power. I don't suggest reducing drag by changing the configuration while on final.

Remember, a pilot manages energy - if you manage the energy properly the aircraft will behave quite predictably.
 
corjulo said:
I managed a couple craptacular landings this weekend (way too long). The problem was I was just too fast on final. I Cessna 172 at about 70 knots over the threshold, wind was calm, full idle, 200 MSL and it was hot. Long runways so I just sort of hung there. Any of the CFI gods on this forum have a favorite method for slowing down on final. Or is that the wrong question to be asking.
Not a CFI, not a god of any sort but I did stay at.... seriously, the wrong time to slow down is while you are in ground effect. Slow down on final before the threshhold. Pull the power and raise the nose incrementally to preserve your glide path.

-Skip
 
corjulo said:
I managed a couple craptacular landings this weekend (way too long). The problem was I was just too fast on final. I Cessna 172 at about 70 knots over the threshold, wind was calm, full idle, 200 MSL and it was hot. Long runways so I just sort of hung there. Any of the CFI gods on this forum have a favorite method for slowing down on final. Or is that the wrong question to be asking.
Not a CFI or god either. The way I do it, and I know pilots who disagree with this method, is to trim for hands off at about 5 kt faster than I want to cross the threshold. Then on short final, I raise the nose slightly to shed those last 5 kt.

In the Archer in the absense of gusts I'm looking for 65 kt at full gross, 60 kt with one PAX, between 55 and 60 if I'm by myself.

I actually play a mental game with myself on final -- to see how well I can trim to get my target airspeed.
 
I'm not even an assistant water-boy to an angel. Dan, for the C172 try 60 KIAS and full flaps right after turning final. Manage the descent with a bit of power, but keep the runway numbers frozen in the windscreen. Remaining power goes off before or just as you begin the flare. Up the airspeed to 65 KIAS if you are near gross.

corjulo said:
I managed a couple craptacular landings this weekend (way too long). The problem was I was just too fast on final. I Cessna 172 at about 70 knots over the threshold, wind was calm, full idle, 200 MSL and it was hot. Long runways so I just sort of hung there. Any of the CFI gods on this forum have a favorite method for slowing down on final. Or is that the wrong question to be asking.
 
corjulo said:
Any of the CFI gods on this forum have a favorite method for slowing down on final. Or is that the wrong question to be asking.

Well, it is the wrong question to be asking, but don't worry about that. Was 70 kts your target speed? Who suggested that speed? IOW, the question you should be asking is, "Why am I flying final at 70 kts when the POH recommended full flaps approach speed is 55-65 kts?" Shave 10 kts off the approach speed and the thing won't float as long; shave 15 kts off the approach speed and you'll be able to put it wherever you want.
 
Last edited:
corjulo said:
I managed a couple craptacular landings this weekend (way too long). The problem was I was just too fast on final. I Cessna 172 at about 70 knots over the threshold, wind was calm, full idle, 200 MSL and it was hot. Long runways so I just sort of hung there. Any of the CFI gods on this forum have a favorite method for slowing down on final. Or is that the wrong question to be asking.

Go get your fav CFI and practice aggressive forward slips to landings... in order to salvage higher than normal speed approaches to landings (within safety reasoning).
 
corjulo said:
I managed a couple craptacular landings this weekend (way too long). The problem was I was just too fast on final. I Cessna 172 at about 70 knots over the threshold, wind was calm, full idle, 200 MSL and it was hot. Long runways so I just sort of hung there. Any of the CFI gods on this forum have a favorite method for slowing down on final. Or is that the wrong question to be asking.

Didn't Wile E. Coyote simply step on the air brake pedal? Pure genius!

acoyotechase.jpg
 
corjulo said:
I managed a couple craptacular landings this weekend (way too long). The problem was I was just too fast on final. I Cessna 172 at about 70 knots over the threshold, wind was calm, full idle, 200 MSL and it was hot. Long runways so I just sort of hung there.

Just you in the plane and stable/no wind conditions? IMHO knock 10 kts off the approach speed. Garden variety CE172 Vso=44-46 kts. (look it up for your specific plane lest you crash) The book says approach 60-70 kts with flaps and you're at the top end of that especially if you have full flaps and empty. 1.3 Vso puts you in the vicinity of 57-60 kts over the fence. 1.2 Vso is around 55 kts. Otherwise you're trying to burn off 10-15 extra knots in ground effect where drag is lower and making you float forever which gives you lots of opportunity and time to screw up the actual landing bit.

If I'm in the pattern alone or no one is going to run me over: Downwind at the numbers I slow to 70, 65 on base, 60 on final, then 55-60 over the fence depending on conditions. Usually 10 deg flap increments at each speed change. Unless something weird is happening or done on purpose for whatever reason, 70 kts over the fence is a go around for me.

To slow down, I'll often establish the desired GS then bring the power back without dropping below the GS to bleed off speed. I don't worry about needing to be 5-8 kts slower right this instant. I just run the total energy down over distance knowing I'll be at X knots at position Y up ahead. When conditions call for it (eg: high and fast and/or keep the speed up until you have to for ATC) sometimes I'll back it off to idle, arrest most of the descent rate, loose the airspeed, work in all the flaps and fall onto the GS. (It's not really drastic, just sounds that way when typed) I always make sure I'm setup for the landing at the desired speed, stable and comfortable with the plane before going below about 300-350 AGL. There's usually not much point in having a lot of crazy dynamic variables going on too close to the ground.


Not a CFI but I don't tend to scare them too badly when they are with me either. For what that's worth...
 
Last edited:
Most people land way too fast anyways. Its been a while since I've been in a 172, but you can really fly those slow.
 
corjulo said:
I managed a couple craptacular landings this weekend (way too long). The problem was I was just too fast on final. I Cessna 172 at about 70 knots over the threshold, wind was calm, full idle, 200 MSL and it was hot. Long runways so I just sort of hung there. Any of the CFI gods on this forum have a favorite method for slowing down on final. Or is that the wrong question to be asking.
CFI God? You need to indicate 60 knots with flaps over the threshold, perhaps 65 on final with full flaps. If you're fast, just keep holding it off, hold it off, hold it off (that's what butt sinking is all about) as you increase AOA

In a Hawk, you only have two tools for slowing down- more drag or less power. To increase drag, you can slip it nose a tad up, that'll frequently save the bacon.

Trim it more nose high, adjust power to get to the runway accordingly...back to basics.
 
In my study of a couple of years of Grumman accidents, excess speed on final damaged more aircraft than any other single cause. Like the road signs say, "Speed kills!" Know what speeds are in the book, but remember that they're predicated on max gross and sometimes irrationally high multiples of Vs0 (e.g., the high end in the C-172 manual being 1.5 Vs0!). Generally, in light singles, once you know your max gross 1.3 Vs0 number, you should knock off one knot per 100 lb you're under max gross to approximate the inverse square root formula.
 
Certainly no god, and even IR is kicking my a$$, so with those caveats:

Just me, little wind, I like to trim 55kts right after turning final. Over the fence, I like to be down to about 50kts. At that speed, you can put the 'hawk right where you want it, and get really sweet short field landings. Oh, btw, at these speeds, you don't get much float, and don't really have to worry much about ballooning up...just not enough energy left after the roundout.

I basically add about 5kts per pax, and/or the appropriate gust factor.
 
Last edited:
My stupid two cents to this equation, coming from someone who primarily flys skyhawks. I find that I have GOT to get it trimmed right from abeam downwind, or it simply goes too fast around base and final. I do whatever I have to, within reason, to get it down to 80 knots at the numbers, with aggressive trim to hold it there, then, as I go around and put in flaps, it tends to naturally go to 70 on base and 60 on final. More than 60 and I can count on float and a long landing. Much less than 60, at S37 anyway, and the occasionally squirrelly winds on short final may draw a brief stall horn announcement. If it is 60, and maybe as low as 55 over the fence (numbers), it generally is a decent landing.

But, if I don't get speed down and trim in on downwind, it rarely goes good the rest of the way.

Jim G
 
I have done "lazy S turns" to loose unwanted altitude and or airspeed
 
grattonja said:
But, if I don't get speed down and trim in on downwind, it rarely goes good the rest of the way.

Good point! My first primary instructor (first 7 hours) wanted me to be hauling down the downwind at cruise speed, and then deal at the numbers. My second instructor told me, "No need to rush on downwind, I think you'll find 2000rpm to work very well." And, on the 160hp 'hawk, it does. Trimmed for level flight, I get 80-85kts depending on load and conditions.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Good point! My first primary instructor (first 7 hours) wanted me to be hauling down the downwind at cruise speed, and then deal at the numbers. My second instructor told me, "No need to rush on downwind, I think you'll find 2000rpm to work very well." And, on the 160hp 'hawk, it does. Trimmed for level flight, I get 80-85kts depending on load and conditions.


The 180 horse that I routinely fly works about the same. Somewhere around 2K rpms is usually a good place to be downwind, particularly from mid-field on.

Jim G
 
I haven't flown a pattern in the last 100 hrs. I think Gaston's was that last time I did....

I sometimes hold the airspeed on red line (3/4-Full power in a descent) till 1-2 miles out on final. Then I put power to idle, pull the nose up 15 degs & full slip the plane. As the airspeed reaches the top of the white arc, I add full flaps & start trimming the nose down & pushing the nose level. In 10 seconds or less, you at at a good "over the fence" speed.

The next test of your planes slowing performance is to find a 7000 ft or greater runway. Reach the numbers at 20 ft & cruise speed & I bet you can get it slowed down & landed with the method described above. I have done this in a 150,152,172,182, 210, PA-28-150/151/180/181, B23, AA5 It might even work for you at red line. Check it out. You never know when you might pop out at mins & be way too fast. Wouldn't it be nice to know how much runway it takes to slow down?
 
Last edited:
AirBaker said:
Most people land way too fast anyways. Its been a while since I've been in a 172, but you can really fly those slow.


last night on final into MRB (story to follow) it was like we were in slow motion. right on centerline, slooooooooooow. it was so pretty. then landing back at JYO - everything seemed set up ok but for some reason too low, then I had to goose it, so then we were too fast. bam! no bounce though I don't think, just a crunch.

sigh.
 
Elizabeth, that bam, no bounce, crunch sounds like you were behind the curve even though you goosed it. Will wait for the story to follow.
 
woodstock said:
last night on final into MRB (story to follow) it was like we were in slow motion. right on centerline, slooooooooooow. it was so pretty. then landing back at JYO - everything seemed set up ok but for some reason too low, then I had to goose it, so then we were too fast. bam! no bounce though I don't think, just a crunch.

sigh.
Common error is flaring too high in the dark....
 
behind the curve? you mean still too high?

it was after sunset for sure. the airport was lit up like a Xmas tree! wow.
 
woodstock said:
behind the curve? you mean still too high?

it was after sunset for sure. the airport was lit up like a Xmas tree! wow.
Yes, there is an optical illusion named for this but I'd have to look it up in the Aviation Circular.....if I can find it.
 
bbchien said:
Common error is flaring too high in the dark....

I also see a lot of flaring too late/low due to illusion-of-haze illusion caused by artifical lights from airport & aircraft, where LDG surface seems farther away than it is.
 
As my first instructor told me, "A good landing is the inevitable result of a properly flown pattern."[/QUOTE]

Not true. Sorry.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
As my first instructor told me, "A good landing is the inevitable result of a properly flown pattern."

Not true. Sorry.
LOL! Yeah, but if your pattern sucks, your landing has a good chance of sucking, too!
 
Eamon said:
I sometimes hold the airspeed on red line (3/4-Full power in a descent) till 1-2 miles out on final. Then I put power to idle, pull the nose up 15 degs & full slip the plane. As the airspeed reaches the top of the white arc, I add full flaps & start trimming the nose down & pushing the nose level. In 10 seconds or less, you at at a good "over the fence" speed.
While that may work just fine for you, it is not what the FAA would call a "partial-power stabilized VFR approach." And I won't be teaching it to any primary students any time soon.

The next test of your planes slowing performance is to find a 7000 ft or greater runway. Reach the numbers at 20 ft & cruise speed & I bet you can get it slowed down & landed with the method described above. I have done this in a 150,152,172,182, 210, 208, PA-28-150/151/180/181, B23, AA5 It might even work for you at red line. Check it out. You never know when you might pop out at mins & be way too fast. Wouldn't it be nice to know how much runway it takes to slow down?
Perhaps, but that's a pretty advanced maneuver, and one which should initially be attempted only with a competent instructor in the right seat because there are a lot of bad things that can happen if you mess it up.
 
Ron Levy said:
While that may work just fine for you, it is not what the FAA would call a "partial-power stabilized VFR approach." And I won't be teaching it to any primary students any time soon.

Perhaps, but that's a pretty advanced maneuver, and one which should initially be attempted only with a competent instructor in the right seat because there are a lot of bad things that can happen if you mess it up.
LOL............ OK........... I wouldn't try it as a student either...............

But, as a owner or a frequent flyer, pushing the envelope is the only thing that will make you a better pilot. Knowing the limitations of your equipment is just another card to pull when needed.
 
I tried an botched app tonight with a 10700 runway. I held the small light single at red line on the ILS till 200 AGL. At 200 AGL I pulled it to idle, pulled the nose up & slipped it full, flaps to full at top of white arc & landed full stop in 3500 ft.

What I learned tonight...In a light single there is no reason to not be able to control speed on final well enough to land in a reasonable amount of time.
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
Explain.

I'll put my first instructor's credentials up against any instructor in the country. USAAF, 15th AF, North Africa & Italy, P-38's, P-47 instructor KSWW, died in his sleep in his 80's.

What are yours?

His credentials are extensive. Perhaps he has been misquoted ?

Mine are such that it is easy to see that a good landing is never "inevitable" even after flying the prettiest pattern, and experiences of student pilots on down the ranks of the highly experienced across the world repeatedly bear witness to how quickly a great pattern/approach can turn into bad landing in a crosswind, DA, or various other maladies to smooth landings.

A partial list of my credentials of which you inquire, is posted at mountainflyingvideos.com but, of course it is not really a question of credentials, but one of making a rather pompous guarantee of a certain far from "inevitable" result, when in fact the proper pattern being flown only makes it easier to land smoothly.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I've flown plenty of perfect patterns only to bounce the heck out of the landing. I've flown plenty of screwed up patterns only to smoothly kiss the pavement, too. A good pattern helps, but as Eamon demonstrated is not absolutely required (gotta try that sometime).
 
Eamon said:
LOL............ OK........... I wouldn't try it as a student either...............

But, as a owner or a frequent flyer, pushing the envelope is the only thing that will make you a better pilot. Knowing the limitations of your equipment is just another card to pull when needed.

I fully understand the desires you express above, but I suggest there is a different point of view.

I always viewed my job as a professional pilot not as an exciting adventure in aviating, but as an exercise in staying near the center of the envelope. My challenge to myself when I was flying freight at night was not to see how far I could push things, but rather to make the approach smooth - after all someday I was going to have pax, I challenged myself to always roll onto final on the VASI no matter the nature of the approach, my challenge was not how different I could make every flight, but rather how similar. I think if you develop some stabilized approach criteria and work hard to always meet them, no matter what ATC does to you, then you can be satisfied with your approach. Hot dogging it, which is what you seem to be doing, may be exciting but it is not a) what you are paid to do, b) safe or c) professional. I am not trying to make you wrong on this, obviously one can fly that way for hundreds of hours, but I do believe, that if you concentrate your energies on developing the skills that I suggest, that you will be a much more attractive candidate for an airline, you will minimize the possibility of having an incident or accident, and you can find just as much satisfaction in a job well done as being an envelope pusher.
 
wangmyers said:
LOL! Yeah, but if your pattern sucks, your landing has a good chance of sucking, too!

True, but funny how during IR training you quickly learn how to take a crappy approach and turn it into a decent landing.
 
Bill Jennings said:
True, but funny how during IR training you quickly learn how to take a crappy approach and turn it into a decent landing.

I noticed the same tendancies when doing my IFR training. "What? You want me to land without flying a patern at 300agl?" Plane flys the same at 3,000' as 300'. :)

It's just easier for a newbie pilot to have a better landing with a decent patern. I think it's more of a mind game. If you're screwing up the patern, chances are you'll be a little flustered and worry about a smooth landing instead of just doing one.
 
Arnold said:
I fully understand the desires you express above, but I suggest there is a different point of view.

I always viewed my job as a professional pilot not as an exciting adventure in aviating, but as an exercise in staying near the center of the envelope. My challenge to myself when I was flying freight at night was not to see how far I could push things, but rather to make the approach smooth - after all someday I was going to have pax, I challenged myself to always roll onto final on the VASI no matter the nature of the approach, my challenge was not how different I could make every flight, but rather how similar. I think if you develop some stabilized approach criteria and work hard to always meet them, no matter what ATC does to you, then you can be satisfied with your approach. Hot dogging it, which is what you seem to be doing, may be exciting but it is not a) what you are paid to do, b) safe or c) professional. I am not trying to make you wrong on this, obviously one can fly that way for hundreds of hours, but I do believe, that if you concentrate your energies on developing the skills that I suggest, that you will be a much more attractive candidate for an airline, you will minimize the possibility of having an incident or accident, and you can find just as much satisfaction in a job well done as being an envelope pusher.

I can do all that to, & I usually do. I am not saying Y'all should hot dog every app.....

What is going to happen to you when you loose you motor in 200 & 1/2 & you find yourself near an airport...ATC tells you the ILS freq, you dial it in & you find yourself 30 kts too fast? Are you going to go missed with no motor because you are not stabilized?

Training for the worst is the name of the game. When is the last time you did a stall? Oh maybe you shouldn't do stalls at all because they are outside the envelope????? If you ALWAYS fly in the center of the envelope, You WILL be dead when a problem occurs & you have no idea what your equipment is capable of. I would rather know what to expect.


I do fully agree with what you said as far as the airlines. I said this as an example in a "Light single" I would not do this in a twin or jet. This thread started about a guy in a 172, 10 kts too fast. It went on to be stated that you need speed control on downwind to make a good landing... I was just proving otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Eamon said:
This thread started about a guy in a 172, 10 kts too fast. It went on to be stated that you need speed control on downwind to make a good landing... I was just proving otherwise.

I may be the blame for saying that you need stabilized pattern from downwind on to make a good landing. And you are right, that is not always true. I was taught during IR training that you can pull right up over the numbers at a place with some runway to it (like an ILS equipped runway) and pull power, pull the nose up, dump the flaps and bleed speed very quickly over the threshold. You are absolutely right about that. I've done it and it works. Sometimes you float a bit, but usually you can manipulate that and control it and obtain a good landing.

However, if I am doing pattern work, it has been my experience that I routinely will fly a good pattern if I get my pitch and power well stabilized out and trimmed out on downwind, and then make small corrections to keep it there around base and final. I continue to believe that is true. And if I fail to do that, by, for example, just not getting enough trim in from the outset, I usually do not have a great landing. It can be fixed, and I do sometimes successfully do it. Not always though.

I think Corjulo was talking about being too fast on pattern work. For that, get it good from mid field downwind and you are likely to be exactly where you need to be at the end.

Jim G
 
Eamon said:
I can do all that to, & I usually do. I am not saying Y'all should hot dog every app.....

What is going to happen to you when you loose you motor in 200 & 1/2 & you find yourself near an airport...ATC tells you the ILS freq, you dial it in & you find yourself 30 kts too fast? Are you going to go missed with no motor because you are not stabilized?

Training for the worst is the name of the game. When is the last time you did a stall? Oh maybe you shouldn't do stalls at all because they are outside the envelope????? If you ALWAYS fly in the center of the envelope, You WILL be dead when a problem occurs & you have no idea what your equipment is capable of. I would rather know what to expect.


I do fully agree with what you said as far as the airlines. I said this as an example in a "Light single" I would not do this in a twin or jet. This thread started about a guy in a 172, 10 kts too fast. It went on to be stated that you need speed control on downwind to make a good landing... I was just proving otherwise.

Training is training, flying the line is flying the line. The distinction matters.
 
I still recollect (but can't find on the internet) an old NAVSAFCEN poster showing all the little pieces of what used to be an A-4 Skyhawk laid out in their proper locations in an A-4-shaped pattern on the floor of a hangar. The caption read, "There's no approach that can't be salvaged."

How 'bout "It's a whole lot easier to make a good landing if you fly a good pattern and a nice, stabilized approach"? Can we agree on that? 'Cause I like "easier" when I'm flying.
 
Ron Levy said:
I still recollect (but can't find on the internet) an old NAVSAFCEN poster showing all the little pieces of what used to be an A-4 Skyhawk laid out in their proper locations in an A-4-shaped pattern on the floor of a hangar. The caption read, "There's no approach that can't be salvaged."

How 'bout "It's a whole lot easier to make a good landing if you fly a good pattern and a nice, stabilized approach"? Can we agree on that? 'Cause I like "easier" when I'm flying.
LOL I have seen that poster.

Yes Agreed. Stabilized is always better.
 
Ron Levy said:
I still recollect (but can't find on the internet) an old NAVSAFCEN poster showing all the little pieces of what used to be an A-4 Skyhawk laid out in their proper locations in an A-4-shaped pattern on the floor of a hangar. The caption read, "There's no approach that can't be salvaged."

How 'bout "It's a whole lot easier to make a good landing if you fly a good pattern and a nice, stabilized approach"? Can we agree on that? 'Cause I like "easier" when I'm flying.

You bet ! A good pattern to short final is a great place to start the attempt at a good landing.
 
Back
Top