When money was no object in pilot training

E

ebetancourt

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
694
Location
Middle Tennessee
Display Name
Display name:
Ernie
The March/April 2012 issue of the FAA Safety Briefing has an article by Rich Stowell with this quote, "According to a recent Accident Data Set prepared by the General Aviation Joint Steering Committee (GAJSC), LOC-I was the dominant cause of fatal general aviation accidents over the last decade." The article defines LOC-I as "loss of control inflight" as opposed to LOC-G which is ground LOC.

I just received a copy of the "Civil Pilot Training Manual" dated September 1941. I haven't read it yet, but looking at the table of contents is interesting. It is in five parts; the second, third and fourth are the flight training sections. In Part Two, Chapter I, Elementary Flight Course, the pre-solo section includes power off 180s, steep turns and spins. Chapter II is solo. Chapter III is stalls spins, "360 overhead approach precision landing," a "Spiral Approach precision landing," power approaches and power landings (the implication being all landings pre-solo were power-off). Chapter IV, Cross-Country Flying and Flight Test starts with slips (they were planning to land in places we don't much anymore) and ends with the "flight test for the pilot certificate." Part III, Secondary Flight Course is basically "advanced precision maneuvers" (pylon 8s, chandelles, lazy 8s and more precision landings) and "advanced confidence maneuvers" basically advanced stalls, spins and aerobatics. Part IV is seaplane flying.

I think anyone that finished the course had less issues with LOC-I. :idea:

I bought the book for two reasons, one was curiosity about how they used the Waco UPF-7s that were a big part of the CPT program and two looking for ideas for a syllabus to use while teaching my granddaughter how to fly. So far I am happy I found it. A power-off spiral to a precision landing sounds like fun, and the instructions are included. :D

Wonder if the CAA left a copy for the FAA?
 
Ahhh, this is just one of those threads where it'll degrade to the 'oldtimers' telling how much better it was.

We don't treat medical problems with leaches anymore either. Times change...sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. But times change.

I'd imagine a major reason power off approaches aren't emphasized as much is the better reliability of todays motors.
 
However, today's training methods have us with Airline cockpits filled with pilots who can't recognize a stall and believe an A330 will fly with the power levers in flight idle.

The problem with training is that we removed the fundamentals of flying and replaced that training time allocation with teaching the technology. A PP loses what, 3 hrs to Instrument flying?

Luckily the FAA has seen the errors in the training system and from the sounds of things it's gonna change in the not too distant future. It sounds like they are planning on combining the PP&IR, probably turn it into a 75hr rating and put some fundamentals like spinning the plane back into training. The fear of spinning is what keeps people from exploring the low speed envelope of their airplane and is contributory to a bunch of bad flying and worse decision making.
 
Captain said:
Ahhh, this is just one of those threads where it'll degrade to the 'oldtimers' telling how much better it was.

We don't treat medical problems with leaches anymore either. Times change...sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. But times change.

I'd imagine a major reason power off approaches aren't emphasized as much is the better reliability of todays motors.
Click to expand...

I suppose it can degenerate into whatever the group wants. The point of my post was aircraft control. I don't worry too much about losing engine power, even behind my radial which is why I generally fly VFR at 1,000AGL. I do think continual learning is important, and since we have an apparent problem with LOC-I, a program that focuses on aircraft control seems worth examining. I am looking toward the future in teaching my granddaughter how to fly, so I am constantly looking for ideas. This is a source for me if it disturbs you to review history with a thought to learning... so be it.
 
No, it's a fine topic Erine. I wasn't saying otherwise. I was just guessing where it'll go and post #3 sorta made my point. We'll see. I'm all for an open discussion of all things aviation.

I'd put up my little 'popcorn' emoticon but history has proven I tend to get too involved to eat popcorn.
 
Captain said:
I'd imagine a major reason power off approaches aren't emphasized as much is the better reliability of todays motors.
Click to expand...
That, plus the higher accident rate with power-off versus partial-power stabilized approaches. The FAA figured that out back in the 70's, and that's why they changed that particular recommendation for the "normal" approach to landing.
 
Henning said:
Luckily the FAA has seen the errors in the training system and from the sounds of things it's gonna change in the not too distant future. It sounds like they are planning on combining the PP&IR,
Click to expand...
No such plans. They are planning to continue the current system as one option for those with no interest in instrument flying, but have created a new option for a combined PP/IR program with one practical test for PP and IR at the end for those who have no real need or interest in VFR recreational flying, such as trainees in professional pilot training programs. FWIW, last I heard, students in such a combined program at MTSU were running about 80-85 hours from zero to the combined PP/IR practical test.

...and put some fundamentals like spinning the plane back into training.
Click to expand...
Again, that isn't on the FAA's agenda. Stall/spin prevention training rather than spin recovery training remains the primary focus, and there is to my knowledge not even a glimmer of an idea of putting spin entry and recovery training back in the PP requirements as it was over half a century ago.
 
Ron Levy said:
That, plus the higher accident rate with power-off versus partial-power stabilized approaches.
Click to expand...
Ron, can you say more about this? Why would there be a higher accident rate with power off approaches?
 
...and What is the dividing line between power off, partial and normal power landings?
 
I'll let Ron speak for himself.

My opinion is the stabilized approach is the backbone of safe approaches. The 121 world enjoys the highest safety record of all types of operations and a major contributing factor for that is standardized procedures. And right at the top of standard procedures are standard stabilized approaches.

With a constant 3 degree glide slope, with power, many of the variables are removed for the pilot. With a power off approach descent rates go up, closure rates increase and precision decreases. The margins for error narrow and that trends towards a higher accident rate.

Old timers (I use that term loosely) like to talk about the what-if's of an engine failure. They preach the virtues of always being within glide distance of the runway. Well, first...that's a piston GA plane. Can you imagine a B767 trying to fly a pattern within glide distance? There's a reason they open up the pattern...it's to get a stabilized final. Second, even in a GA plane with the power at idle there is some thrust. For proof walk behind a C-152 in the chocks at idle power setting up for flight while holding a birthday cake with the candles lit. I bet that not only do the candles blow out but you will be wearing cake. The force that did that is idle thrust.

If you do a power off approach and on final, aiming for the numbers, at say 125 feet and that idle engine really dies I have a strong feeling you're going to land short. If you were in a tight downwind and it quits you may have a fighting chance...but it will be a different descent rate and glide path than what you practice doing engine idle approaches.

There's my .03. I look forward to Ron's response.
 
Last edited:
Captain said:
I'll let Ron speak for himself.

My opinion is the stabilized approach is the backbone of safe approaches. The 121 world enjoys the highest safety record of all types of operations and a major contributing factor for that is standardized procedures. And right at the top of standard procedures are standard stabilized approaches.

With a constant 3 degree glide slope, with power, many of the variables are removed for the pilot. With a power off approach descent rates go up, closure rates increase and precision decreases. The margins for error narrow and that trends towards a higher accident rate.

Old timers (I use that term loosely) like to talk about the what-if's of an engine failure. They preach the virtues of always being within glide distance of the runway. Well, first...that's a piston GA plane. Can you imagine a B767 trying to fly a pattern within glide distance? There's a reason they open up the pattern...it's to get a stabilized final. Second, even in a GA plane with the power at idle there is some thrust. For proof walk behind a C-152 in the chocks at idle power setting up for flight while holding a birthday cake with the candles lit. I bet that not only do the candles blow out but you will be wearing cake. The force that did that is idle thrust.

If you do a power off approach and on final, aiming for the numbers, at say 125 feet and that idle engine really dies I have a strong feeling you're going to land short. If you were in a tight downwind and it quits you may have a fighting chance...but it will be a different descent rate and glide path than what you practice doing engine idle approaches.

There's my .03. I look forward to Ron's response.
Click to expand...

There are lots of reasons 121 is safer. I would put stabilized approaches toward the bottom of the list. There are a lot of reasons to fly stabilized approaches in a jet in my very limited experience (1,700 /H hours); essentially a requirement. BUT 121 training, lot's of flying (proficiency), equipment, rules (enforced), multiple crew members, CRM, stricter regulations (e.g, can't start an approach if field is below minimums), and much more. Most 121 pilots fly more in a month than most GA pilots in a year.

I admit, I like to discuss engine failure with my student (singular) and we practice forced landings. The reason I practice engine out with her though is more about learning aircraft control than worrying about having an engine quit. (Although since her love is antique cabin Wacos, that is something for which she should be well prepared.)

I think there is some question about your idle thrust comment. The truth is that a prop, unless you are full decrease with a constants speed prop, is a high drag item even at "idle" thrust. the engine is not adding much at idle, and having it quit isn't going to make much difference. And if you have a choice, why would you aim for the numbers with no power?
 
Well, you quoted me so I'll quote me too. I never said stabilised approaches are the top or middle of the list of why 121 is safer. I did say standard procedures are at the top and stabilised approaches are at the top of that list. Stand to reason as approaches are the most dangerous part of any flight.



Captain said:
I'll let Ron speak for himself.

My opinion is the stabilized approach is the backbone of safe approaches. The 121 world enjoys the highest safety record of all types of operations and a major contributing factor for that is standardized procedures. And right at the top of standard procedures are standard stabilized approaches.

With a constant 3 degree glide slope, with power, many of the variables are removed for the pilot. With a power off approach descent rates go up, closure rates increase and precision decreases. The margins for error narrow and that trends towards a higher accident rate.

Old timers (I use that term loosely) like to talk about the what-if's of an engine failure. They preach the virtues of always being within glide distance of the runway. Well, first...that's a piston GA plane. Can you imagine a B767 trying to fly a pattern within glide distance? There's a reason they open up the pattern...it's to get a stabilized final. Second, even in a GA plane with the power at idle there is some thrust. For proof walk behind a C-152 in the chocks at idle power setting up for flight while holding a birthday cake with the candles lit. I bet that not only do the candles blow out but you will be wearing cake. The force that did that is idle thrust.

If you do a power off approach and on final, aiming for the numbers, at say 125 feet and that idle engine really dies I have a strong feeling you're going to land short. If you were in a tight downwind and it quits you may have a fighting chance...but it will be a different descent rate and glide path than what you practice doing engine idle approaches.

There's my .03. I look forward to Ron's response.
Click to expand...
 
jaybee said:
Old school engine out practice...
snip:
I believe the old school term was "high key"... which was promptly prohibited at all AF Aero clubs shortly thereafter this event
Click to expand...

At night? The CPT manual says night is one of the best reasons for power on approaches and landings, so I don't know how "old school" it is. I can't imagine even trying this, much less letting a student try it.

Night is near instrument flight even CAVU in terms of maneuvering. Too easy to become disoriented and pick up the wrong queues. Same reason I discourage night straight-ins with out visual slope guidance.
 
Tracey said:
Ron, can you say more about this? Why would there be a higher accident rate with power off approaches?
Click to expand...
Because power-off landings require you to cut the power at just the right point (and that point changes with wind direction and velocity) and then you have to manage speed and glide path with only angle of attack. That complicates matters significantly because then neither speed nor glide path are stable during the approach. If you use angle of attack to manage speed, and power to manage glide path, you have a lot easier time keeping both stable, and that makes for better landings.
 
ebetancourt said:
At night? The CPT manual says night is one of the best reasons for power on approaches and landings, so I don't know how "old school" it is. I can't imagine even trying this, much less letting a student try it.

Night is near instrument flight even CAVU in terms of maneuvering. Too easy to become disoriented and pick up the wrong queues. Same reason I discourage night straight-ins with out visual slope guidance.
Click to expand...

Well the retired Colonel had a reputation for being "old school" and part of the regimen was that engines don't only fail at day time. So.... the question was posed by the OP about doing it "old school" style. Where do we draw the line at where "old school" begins. For you it was night but for the next guy :dunno:
 
Jaybird180 said:
...and What is the dividing line between power off, partial and normal power landings?
Click to expand...
The dividing line between power-off and partial-power stabilized approaches is the use of power. Power-off, you just pull the power to idle and leave it there. Partial-power, you use power to manage glide path. So, either you cut power and leave it there, or modulate power throughout the approach. As for "normal power landings," I have no idea what that is -- maybe another name for partial-power stablized approaches.
 
Ron Levy said:
Because power-off landings require you to cut the power at just the right point (and that point changes with wind direction and velocity) and then you have to manage speed and glide path with only angle of attack. That complicates matters significantly because then neither speed nor glide path are stable during the approach. If you use angle of attack to manage speed, and power to manage glide path, you have a lot easier time keeping both stable, and that makes for better landings.
Click to expand...

I like that too.
 
Ron Levy said:
The dividing line between power-off and partial-power stabilized approaches is the use of power. Power-off, you just pull the power to idle and leave it there. Partial-power, you use power to manage glide path. So, either you cut power and leave it there, or modulate power throughout the approach. As for "normal power landings," I have no idea what that is -- maybe another name for partial-power stablized approaches.
Click to expand...


I still think there's a bigger differance between 'power off' and 'engine quit' than people realise.

When that power plant turns into a steel plant with zero thrust it's going to be different. Maybe folks practicing should aim for the mid point of the runway (or 3,000 feet down on a long runway). Seriously, that thing is going to turn into an anchor and that a fact. Pulling the power back simulates, doesn't 'duplicate'.
 
Captain said:
There's my .03. I look forward to Ron's response.
Click to expand...
Only thing I'll add is that there are a few technique and parameter differences between the turbine aircraft stabilized approach and the partial-power VFR stablized approach the FAA and I preach for light GA. You can read more about the latter in the FAA's "On Landings, Part I" pamphlet. For more discussion on the why's, see http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2000/approach0011.html. Or just google "stabilized approach" -- there's a ton of stuff out there.
 
Training is the way it is because it provides the most consistent result for the lowest common denominator pilots. It's all back to Nanny State mentality of protecting the stupid and incompetent from themselves. Back in the day before we prized every consumer for what they could spend, we demanded pilots prove they could handle the s-t be thrown at them and recover. Now we give up everything including competence for the illusion of safety that is coming home to roost as we are now so far into the system with not enough military trained aviators to teach them what they don't know and cover for them when their training fails them, like AF 447 and Colgan to name a couple.
 
Henning said:
Training is the way it is because it provides the most consistent result for the lowest common denominator pilots. It's all back to Nanny State mentality of protecting the stupid and incompetent from themselves. Back in the day before we prized every consumer for what they could spend, we demanded pilots prove they could handle the s-t be thrown at them and recover. Now we give up everything including competence for the illusion of safety that is coming home to roost as we are now so far into the system with not enough military trained aviators to teach them what they don't know and cover for them when their training fails them, like AF 447 and Colgan to name a couple.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with that.

There is no basis supporting that a student starting today can't become a proficient pilot. 'Nanny State mentality' quotes make me believe the poster is more dissatisfied with current political climates than the state of aviation.
 
Henning said:
Training is the way it is because it provides the most consistent result for the lowest common denominator pilots. It's all back to Nanny State mentality of protecting the stupid and incompetent from themselves. Back in the day before we prized every consumer for what they could spend, we demanded pilots prove they could handle the s-t be thrown at them and recover. Now we give up everything including competence for the illusion of safety that is coming home to roost as we are now so far into the system with not enough military trained aviators to teach them what they don't know and cover for them when their training fails them, like AF 447 and Colgan to name a couple.
Click to expand...
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20110623X90738&key=1

The retired Colonel CFI was neither stupid or incompetent I can assure you that. He threw the **** at the student and the the **** hit the fan. Now we are one less military trained aviator to teach... go figure - did it the way you are preaching and still reached the conclusion you hoped to avoid.:sad:
 
ebetancourt said:
I just received a copy of the "Civil Pilot Training Manual" dated September 1941.

Chapter III is stalls spins, "360 overhead approach precision landing," a "Spiral Approach precision landing," power approaches and power landings (the implication being all landings pre-solo were power-off).

Wonder if the CAA left a copy for the FAA?
Click to expand...

Can you tell me why they would be teaching that in 1941?

and why they don't now?
 
jaybee said:
Well the retired Colonel had a reputation for being "old school" and part of the regimen was that engines don't only fail at day time. So.... the question was posed by the OP about doing it "old school" style. Where do we draw the line at where "old school" begins. For you it was night but for the next guy :dunno:
Click to expand...

I guess I was looking at "old school" as being a school, not a rogue instructor. And you are right, my opinion is just that. It's why I bought the CPT training manual, I wanted to see what "old school" was and see what lessons I could learn. At the risk of sounding like a no-it-all I am not convinced something is so just because the FAA says it's so.

The accident rate is what it is, but it is among other things a symptom. Why were power-off approaches a problem? Were they always a problem? Is there a right way to teach them? Is there in fact a right place to reduce the power? Or should that be varied as part of the training? Is instructor training adequate, or is it a victim of cost control? Is it ok that you can be a CFI and not really understand and be comfortable with spins? Spin avoidance sounds good, but it can be as simple as "never go below 25KIAS above stall." Then we'll see an increase in RLOC.

The two air show acts I have been most impressed with over the years were Duane Cole's Taylorcraft and Bob Hoover's Shrike. Both managed some impressive energy management. The first recorded outside loop was done in a Waco Taperwing. I doubt it had inverted systems.

Are we in fact increasing the accident rate by limiting the training programs to "safe" maneuvers? I really don't know, but not really convinced we are looking in the right places for answers.
 
Many factors have led to the changes in procedures and techniques. When power-off landings were common, many GA airplanes were NORDO 65-85 hp beaters. We flew 600' traffic patterns (and were in many cases happy to reach 600' prior to starting the base-leg turn) and traffic pattern size was only slightly longer than the runway and not much wider.

All that changed along the way, especially as the number of towered airports grew. Somehow we survived, but nobody who trained where I did ever anticipated that some guy would advise "extend your downwind leg, I'll call your base." Instead we made the base-leg turn just past abeam the numbers then cheated the base and final legs as much as necessary to arrive over the numbers in landing configuration and about 10' above.
 
ebetancourt said:
Beats the hell out of me. Aircraft control does not seem to be high priority nowadays.
Click to expand...

Really? What exam would be passed without 'aircraft control'?

Seriously, during ANY phase of flight. When would it be okay to not demonstrate 'aircraft control'? If the answer is 'NONE' then I'd suggest it's a pretty high priority.
 
jaybee said:
that is how you went from above a cloud deck to below a cloud deck if i remember correctly.
Click to expand...

Well the book says fly into the wind between 1,000 and 1,500 feet and cut the power directly over the selected landing spot. "Common faults: (1) usual faults in gliding turns, (2) Improper allowance for drift, and (3) Faulty planning of flight path.

Sounds like an exercise in aircraft control to me, but I wasn't there.
 
Captain said:
With a constant 3 degree glide slope, with power, many of the variables are removed for the pilot.
Click to expand...
In training, it is precisely the these variables you speak of that we need to learn to deal with in situations where the constant stabilized approach is not possible. We have lost the ability to train beyond the "norm".
Yes, a stabilized power approach has it's distinct advantages, and should be the "norm", but things just don't always turn out like we would like them, and pilots should be trained and able to perform under "unusual" conditions that experience tells us he will likely encounter.

I am an old timer, and we did use the old "engine-failure scare" to try to convince pilots to learn to glide and maneuver the airplane as if your life depended on it. But it isn't always an engine failure. Weather forces most of us to get in over our heads, and better flying skills will help.

Most inexperienced pilots cannot "get it" that the maneuverability you learn in power off landings, slips, use of flaps, stalls (all stalls- real stalls) is what makes you the master of the machine. No matter what.

It ain't about the stinkin' engine failure. That's nothin'. When you can do consistent power-off landings in a wide variety of situations and you routinely put it on the dime, no matter what, that engine failure just becomes another day at the office.

Of course, I'm talking light single-engine airplanes, and initial training for certification, which is what the discussion is about - not "normal" flying under "usual" conditions.

But our training has become just training to the "norm" with no real emphasis on basic skills that teach the pilot how to respond in unusual situations.

It has become acceptable to "talk" about how to recover from a spin or cross controlled stall, or do a slipping turn to a crosswind landing, or...
...these skills teach us to fly.
With a power off approach descent rates go up, closure rates increase and precision decreases. The margins for error narrow and that trends towards a higher accident rate.
Click to expand...
As in all pilot training, when training accidents go up, that means more training needs to occur. Specific emphasis on the specific cause.
The FAA, a government agency, finds it easier and more appealing to public pressure to just eliminate the training than find the causal reason and mandate the additional training.

That's a political fact. You cannot use the FAA's logic when it comes to pilot training requirements. Not any more. They are controlled by politics and public refusal to pay for more training.

Use your own logic. Does it make sense to only learn to make "normal", or only powered approaches, when you know you will experience times when you will want to pull the power off and get it down now.

And don't tell me you would just go-around. Sometimes, that isn't an option due to weather or maintenance.

Matter of fact, those two words keep coming up- weather and maintenance. They cause a lot of changes to our plans - including a 'normal' approach.

Keep on keepin' on. ;)
 
Captain said:
Really? What exam would be passed without 'aircraft control'?

Seriously, during ANY phase of flight. When would it be okay to not demonstrate 'aircraft control'? If the answer is 'NONE' then I'd suggest it's a pretty high priority.
Click to expand...

We are using the same words to define different things.
 
nosehair said:
Matter of fact, those two words keep coming up- weather and maintenance. They cause a lot of changes to our plans - including a 'normal' approach.

Keep on keepin' on. ;)
Click to expand...

Not in my experience. I've had many of one and a few of the other and I've ALWAYS been able to get a stabilised approach out of the deal.
 
Captain said:
I'd imagine a major reason power off approaches aren't emphasized as much is the better reliability of todays motors.
Click to expand...
Are they really that much more reliable than in 1941? They haven't changed much. Brand-new engines have failures due to manufacturing flaws or improper maintenance/operation, and there are 1941 engines that haven't quit yet. :dunno:

My guess is that power-off approaches have been de-emphasized in PPASEL training for the same reason as spins: too many accidents after, somehow, the standard of training began to slip. Or maybe it's related to the accident rate among newly-certed pilots who try doing such things on their own, but not quite the way they were taught.

Aside from all of that, even with very reliable engines, the fact remains that they can and will let you down (especially if fuel isn't getting to the engine for whatever reason- still a common problem nowadays). It's good to know how to deal with that, at the very least through simulation with an idling prop, for the simple reason that if you suddenly have little or no power, you can't just pull over and call AAA- you have to land the machine without power, probably much sooner than you would like, in some place that would not be your first choice. You have one shot, and you usually have to put the plane on a very precise spot.
I usually explain this sort of thing to the uninitiated, especially if they are going to fly with me- the emergency procedures are important not because emergencies are more likely when flying, but because they can occur when you are flying through the air, where the margin for error is pretty slim.

But I agree that even if you are a whiz at making a spiral descent to base with the prop idling, landing smack on the numbers or whatever, it is not a foregone conclusion that you will be successful if the prop actually stops while you are in the pattern or overflying an airport or suitable emergency site. Even if you also fly gliders, where every landing is a power-off precision landing, that experience will only help so much if you find yourself attempting the same thing in an aircraft with a worse glide ratio and higher approach speed.

On a side note about "old school" power approaches: the old-timer who taught me to fly taildraggers had been teaching in that same Champ for 40 years. On our first circuit together, I of course asked him what my rpm target should be as I initially reduced power... he told me the old-timer who taught him had explained that ideally, with just about any piston aircraft, the best thing was to begin reducing power at the abeam point, with no specific rpm setting in mind, in such a way that the throttle would be closed as you came over the threshold. He admitted that he still couldn't do that consistently, but it seems very logical to me.

One caveat would be "when conditions allow"- sometimes you just have to jockey the throttle- but I see the sense in not chopping the throttle at the abeam point or carrying some specific setting, but simply starting a steady reduction, ending with idle power when the moment is best for idle power.
I tried it several times, and although it never worked out perfectly, I got damn close, and I never seemed to have too much or too little power, especially between downwind and final (where so many bad landings are actually spawned).

It certainly works well with a Champ, if you time it right... and I have seen too many light single pilots who seem over-focused on the "stabilized" approach as some sort of fits-all method. They either wind up high with too much power, then chop the throttle and dive for the numbers, or they are too low on final, adding power to try to regain the intended glide path.

I'm no landing master for sure, but I attribute my best approaches to a mixture of the stabilized setting-oriented way from the official syllabus and old-school "finesse". You have to know what the mfr. says is best for that plane, but you also have to just do what is needed to make a good approach and landing. Add variable conditions, and the latter becomes even more important.
 
If some is doing this:

... and I have seen too many light single pilots who seem over-focused on the "stabilized" approach as some sort of fits-all method. They either wind up high with too much power, then chop the throttle and dive for the numbers, or they are too low on final, adding power to try to regain the intended glide path.
Click to expand...

Then they are not that -----> Stabilised
 
Ron Levy said:
That complicates matters significantly because then neither speed nor glide path are stable during the approach.
Click to expand...
I'm consistently landing with no power. "When you see that you have the runway made, pull power to idle" has been drilled into my head.

Am I learning everything the wrong way???? Or does learning it the "harder" way make me a better pilot? (Not sure if that is the "harder" way... I'm just taking a stab at why I might be being taught this way).
 
Tracey said:
I'm consistently landing with no power. "When you see that you have the runway made, pull power to idle" has been drilled into my head.

Am I learning everything the wrong way???? Or does learning it the "harder" way make me a better pilot? (Not sure if that is the "harder" way... I'm just taking a stab at why I might be being taught this way).
Click to expand...


I wouldn't teach it or fly it that way. I don't think passengers would like it much either. Landing is scary enough (for them) without giving them a death plummet followed by a yank-and-save.



edit to add (for them). thought it made it clearer what I meant...
 
Last edited:
Tracey said:
I'm consistently landing with no power. "When you see that you have the runway made, pull power to idle" has been drilled into my head.

Am I learning everything the wrong way???? Or does learning it the "harder" way make me a better pilot? (Not sure if that is the "harder" way... I'm just taking a stab at why I might be being taught this way).
Click to expand...

No, please don't let anyone converting technique into rules confuse you. There are many different aircraft and they frequently have different characteristics. What works in one doesn't work in the other. If this is working for you, in the airplanes you are flying, it is great technique. Just be aware that it may not be the right method when you are flying something else later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top