When Not to Aim for the Numbers

I never noticed the 182 being nose heavy.

It's really not that bad, but you just cannot plop it on like a 172. As I said using a bit of power just makes it that much smoother and easier. I've done it power off, but you either have to muscle the elevator or use a crap ton of nose up trim. Neither one of which I am a big fan of.
 
It's really not that bad, but you just cannot plop it on like a 172. As I said using a bit of power just makes it that much smoother and easier. I've done it power off, but you either have to muscle the elevator or use a crap ton of nose up trim. Neither one of which I am a big fan of.

I got my HP checkout in a 182, so I don't have a lot of time in them, but I was prepared for this need of Herculean strength to keep the nose from slamming into the ground, and I was like "What? That's it?" Maybe you 182 guys need to eat more spinach? :)
 
Yup...I do. It helps with elevator authority in my C182. I have a STOL kit, and 40 degrees of flaps.....a tad bit of power and 30 degrees of flaps makes for SMOOTH landings. Without it, and at 40 degrees, welcome to the elevator ride down, with some pretty firm landings.

Almost (*but not all*) C182 drivers I know use a tad bit of power on landing...as stated it helps the firewall! :D
I have a lot of time in a 206 which is more nose-heavy than a 182 and I never landed with power. I would do the approach with power but never touched down with it.
 
I have a lot of time in a 206 which is more nose-heavy than a 182 and I never landed with power. I would do the approach with power but never touched down with it.

I have alot of time in a 205/210 (precursor to the 206).

That airplane requires significant back pressure to hold off when lightly loaded. When it's full of folks and gear and near max gross, it becomes very light in pitch and its very easy to overcontrol if you try to land the way you normally do.

I love the 40 degrees of flaps, though. :yesnod:
 
If there are changes in pressure, temperature and wind, wouldn't you also need to make changes to your pitch and power. That doesn't sound very stabilized to me. Sounds like a lot of changes being made...something stable doesn't require changes.
Your definition of a "stabilized approach" seems to differ from the FAA's. Their definition is very briefly summarized in the PTS excerpt above, which clearly states that power and pitch changes are expected to maintain the stability of the configuration, speed, and glide path. For a fuller explanation, read about the "Stabilized VFR Approach" in the FAA pamphlet "On Landings, Part I."
 
I'm flying the oldest Lycoming airplane engine made, and I don't worry about "shock cooling" since I'm gradually reducing power to idle once I start to big left turn to final.
That's not a "power-off" approach as the FAA defines it. The power-off approach involves a direct reduction to idle at the abeam position, with no power applied again until after landing. In every plane I've flown with an engine analyzer, that produces cooling rates exceeding 100 deg/min, which is well in excess of Lycoming recommendations.
Power allows a flatter descent, period.
It's no more/less stable than a power-off approach, wind or no. If you are flying in wind then stay a bit high -- all that changes is how long you slip, period.
A power-off approach cannot help but be less stable (as the FAA uses that term in this context) since the only means you have to use pitch or configuration changes to control glide path, and varying pitch with power off means speed changes. As noted above, the FAA's definition of a "stabilized VFR approach" means stable speed, glide path, and configuration. You just can't do that power-off unless you're incredibly skilled and conditions are perfect.
 
Your definition of a "stabilized approach" seems to differ from the FAA's. Their definition is very briefly summarized in the PTS excerpt above, which clearly states that power and pitch changes are expected to maintain the stability of the configuration, speed, and glide path. For a fuller explanation, read about the "Stabilized VFR Approach" in the FAA pamphlet "On Landings, Part I."

I still dont see the requirement for power in that article.

In fact, the definition of "Stabilized approach" there is "On glide slope, on airspeed."
 
Last edited:
What's the difference if I fly 12" of MP all the way down the approach and kill the power over the numbers, or if I go to idle abeam the numbers from 12" ??
The cooling rate, which changes dramatically due to changes in airflow through the engine from the typical 1.5 Vs0 on downwind to the near-stall speed over the runway, and between cutting from the typical downwind 15-18 inches to 12 inches to idle in increments over a minute or two rather than from downwind power to idle in one big stroke.
 
Is it even possible to shock cool a small mass such as an O-200?
I hate the term "shock cool" since that implies quench cooling, which isn't happening here. However, the effects of uneven cooling as I've described it can occur in any air-cooled engine.
My 0-145 has a hard time getting up to operating temps on a cold day (such as today -- 30 degrees).
I'll bet you're looking only at oil temp and not CHT.
 
The cooling rate, which changes dramatically due to changes in airflow through the engine from the typical 1.5 Vs0 on downwind to the near-stall speed over the runway, and between cutting from the typical downwind 15-18 inches to 12 inches to idle in increments over a minute or two rather than from downwind power to idle in one big stroke.

I must plan ahead better than you, I'm at 12" of manifold pressure before I get to the pattern.
 
The cooling rate, which changes dramatically due to changes in airflow through the engine from the typical 1.5 Vs0 on downwind to the near-stall speed over the runway, and between cutting from the typical downwind 15-18 inches to 12 inches to idle in increments over a minute or two rather than from downwind power to idle in one big stroke.

Hmmm...

By the time I arrive in a IO-520 or IO-470 the MP is around 14" and the engine's had plenty of cooling in that big long descent to the airport.

Please explain how there can be "shock cooling" dropping from 14" to idle...?
 
If this from the FAA's Airplane Flying Handbook (AFH) is the definition of a stabilized approach:
A stabilized approach is one in which the pilot establishes and maintains a constant-angle glidepath towards a predetermined point on the landing runway ... the point on the ground at which, if the airplane maintained a constant glidepath and was not flared for landing, it would strike the ground.
That's edited a bit, I think. As stated in the PTS and the On Landings pamphlet, the FAA considers maintenance of speed and configuration also part of a stabilized VFR approach. If you maintain glide path by changing pitch, you're not maintaining speed.
 
Your definition of a "stabilized approach" seems to differ from the FAA's. Their definition is very briefly summarized in the PTS excerpt above, which clearly states that power and pitch changes are expected to maintain the stability of the configuration, speed, and glide path. For a fuller explanation, read about the "Stabilized VFR Approach" in the FAA pamphlet "On Landings, Part I."

So, what you are saying is that if I fly "power-off" it is impossible to make any power or pitch adjustments to be stabilized? I don't kill the engine, it's still running, I can add an inch or two or MP if needed.

New from the Ron Levy school of Aeronautics...
 
As for the "stabilized" approach, same thing, only required in transport planes.
The FAA requires a stabilized approach even light planes on a Private Pilot practical test, as described above. However, the Stabilized VFR Approach in our context is rather different than the big jet stabilized approach, which is a much more rigorous definition.
And there's an argument to fly an approach with a changing speed, and perhaps different descent angles, flaps, no flaps... or whatever. It depend on the goals, and all of the above can be done safely.
Nobody says you have to use the same speed or configuration every time, but the FAA feels it's safer to maintain a stabilized approach on final with whatever combination of speed, configuration, and glide path is appropriate to the situation.
Also, there's no requirement to fly a power off approach, and in fact, often it's inappropriate.
While I agree with the latter, the former isn't true. Power-off approaches are part of the Private and Commercial single engine airplane PTS's, although they are considered a demonstration of your emergency engine-out skills, not a "normal" landing.
 
That's edited a bit, I think. As stated in the PTS and the On Landings pamphlet, the FAA considers maintenance of speed and configuration also part of a stabilized VFR approach. If you maintain glide path by changing pitch, you're not maintaining speed.

I makes sense to have power available in a powered airplane, so in the theoretical PP Practical, if a student chops power and glides all the way to the numbers and rolls off before the first taxiway that would be a bust?

If so, I shouldn't have passed... I slipped off about 1500' on a straight in final to 26 at LNS in a C152 -- power to idle and flaps full.
 
I look at it the other way. I don't really care where I get off the runway but I want to be darn sure that I make it to the runway. By planning to land on the 1,000 ft marks I know that many things can go wrong and I'll still arrive on the pavement. To each their own and YMWV.
It's not so much choosing where to touchdown as it is touching down where you chose. Sometimes that may be 5000 feet down a 9000-foot runway. Sometimes that may be 10 feet from the approach end of a 1500-foot runway. They key there is being able to touch down where you intend; the choice of touchdown point is another matter entirely.

BTW, a point of continuing frustration for me has been the inability of nearly half the competitors in the AYA's annual Spot Landing contest to touch down within 100 feet of the target line -- with no restrictions on power, flaps, slipping, etc. After nearly 15 years of standing by the runway watching folks flail away unsuccessfully in their efforts to nail the landing zone, I'm more than ever convinced that the problem is failure to establish a stabilized VFR approach as the FAA describes it, and to use pitch/trim to set speed and power to control descent rate.
 
I still dont see the requirement for power in that article.

In fact, the definition of "Stabilized approach" there is "On glide slope, on airspeed."
Just how can you stay on glide slope and on speed without varying power unless conditions don't change at all from TPA to the runway? And how often does that happen? Even the change of an inch of air pressure from TPA down to the runway changes engine power, and thus requires a change in pitch to maintain speed, which then affects your glide path -- not a lot, perhaps, but some.
 
I must plan ahead better than you, I'm at 12" of manifold pressure before I get to the pattern.
I'm having trouble understanding how you can maintain pattern altitude with 12 inches and then descend to the runway without changing power. All in all, to be able to fly as you have said in this thread, it sounds like you're a better pilot than any I've ever flown with. My hat's off to you.
 
I makes sense to have power available in a powered airplane, so in the theoretical PP Practical, if a student chops power and glides all the way to the numbers and rolls off before the first taxiway that would be a bust?
Not on the power-off approach task.
If so, I shouldn't have passed... I slipped off about 1500' on a straight in final to 26 at LNS in a C152 -- power to idle and flaps full.
That doesn't sound like what the PTS calls for in the Normal Landing task, but I'll take your word for it.
 
Just how can you stay on glide slope and on speed without varying power unless conditions don't change at all from TPA to the runway? And how often does that happen? Even the change of an inch of air pressure from TPA down to the runway changes engine power, and thus requires a change in pitch to maintain speed, which then affects your glide path -- not a lot, perhaps, but some.

There is a big difference between slight, momentary increments of power to maintain a desired glideslope and a 3 degree, power on approach that started this whole discussion.

I'm a bit high on nearly every VFR pattern until I have the runway made. From that point on all I'm trying to do is dissipate energy, not add to it.
 
There is a big difference between slight, momentary increments of power to maintain a desired glideslope and a 3 degree, power on approach that started this whole discussion.
I agree -- there's no requirement to maintain a 3-degree glide path for normal VFR traffic pattern ops, and I don't think I ever said otherwise. If you follow the FAA's recommendations in the AIM, etc, you'll be turning final at about 400 feet and 3/4 mile from the end of the runway, which works out to about a 4-1/2 degree glide path to the touchdown point. Light planes generally require some power to maintain that glide path and 1.3 Vs0 on final.
 
Not on the power-off approach task.
That doesn't sound like what the PTS calls for in the Normal Landing task, but I'll take your word for it.

Maybe because DEs use discretion?

The objective of the PTS is to provide a consistent evaluation template for assessment, not a gin rummy rule book.
 
I agree -- there's no requirement to maintain a 3-degree glide path for normal VFR traffic pattern ops, and I don't think I ever said otherwise. If you follow the FAA's recommendations in the AIM, etc, you'll be turning final at about 400 feet and 3/4 mile from the end of the runway, which works out to about a 4-1/2 degree glide path to the touchdown point. Light planes generally require some power to maintain that glide path and 1.3 Vs0 on final.

The AIM is advisory. Every airplane is different, every airport is different.

The AIM recommends a squared off pattern.

In a high wing tailwheel, a squared off pattern is at best, dumb.

A slipping left turn dissipates altitude while providing the best view of the runway environment all the way to just before touchdown.

I'm sure you've seen what I've seen on BFRs and students do when you pull the power midfield in the pattern -- they continue flying a squared off pattern, and wonder why they don't make the runway.
 
The AIM is advisory. Every airplane is different, every airport is different.

The AIM recommends a squared off pattern.

In a high wing tailwheel, a squared off pattern is at best, dumb.

A slipping left turn dissipates altitude while providing the best view of the runway environment all the way to just before touchdown.

I'm sure you've seen what I've seen on BFRs and students do when you pull the power midfield in the pattern -- they continue flying a squared off pattern, and wonder why they don't make the runway.
I've seen a lot of folks who weren't able to make the runway on an engine-failure-in-the-pattern situation, but not because of the shape of the pattern they flew. I've seen plenty who fly a squared off pattern make the landing just fine, and plenty blow it while flying the sort of continuous turn you describe.

But that has nothing to do with the issue of making one's normal approach a stabilized VFR approach as the FAA describes it or following the FAA's recommendations on flying the pattern on that normal approach. While I note that some commenters have seemed very proud to tell how they can demonstrate their superior skill by making some sort of approach to landing work despite deviating from all the FAA's recommendations on point, if you look at many years of landing accident data (as I've done), you'll see a continuous thread of unstabilized approaches leading to accidents. If you stand by a runway and watch light plane after light plane go by, you'll also see a continuous thread of unstabilized approaches end in bad landings. As an instructor, I teach what seems to work best for the vast majority of light plane pilots and is recommended by the FAA. YMMV.
 
I've seen a lot of folks who weren't able to make the runway on an engine-failure-in-the-pattern situation, but not because of the shape of the pattern they flew. I've seen plenty who fly a squared off pattern make the landing just fine, and plenty blow it while flying the sort of continuous turn you describe.

But that has nothing to do with the issue of making one's normal approach a stabilized VFR approach as the FAA describes it or following the FAA's recommendations on flying the pattern on that normal approach. While I note that some commenters have seemed very proud to tell how they can demonstrate their superior skill by making some sort of approach to landing work despite deviating from all the FAA's recommendations on point, if you look at many years of landing accident data (as I've done), you'll see a continuous thread of unstabilized approaches leading to accidents. If you stand by a runway and watch light plane after light plane go by, you'll also see a continuous thread of unstabilized approaches end in bad landings. As an instructor, I teach what seems to work best for the vast majority of light plane pilots and is recommended by the FAA. YMMV.


I think we're in violent agreement -- the exception, the definition of "stabilized approach."

I don't see where the FAA requires power, and my opinion is that idle or near idle on speed and on selected glideslope meeets the "stabilized" criteria. A slip is an acceptable manuever, and is no less "stabilized" that a shallow, power-on approach.
 
I've seen a lot of folks who weren't able to make the runway on an engine-failure-in-the-pattern situation, but not because of the shape of the pattern they flew. I've seen plenty who fly a squared off pattern make the landing just fine, and plenty blow it while flying the sort of continuous turn you describe.

But that has nothing to do with the issue of making one's normal approach a stabilized VFR approach as the FAA describes it or following the FAA's recommendations on flying the pattern on that normal approach. While I note that some commenters have seemed very proud to tell how they can demonstrate their superior skill by making some sort of approach to landing work despite deviating from all the FAA's recommendations on point, if you look at many years of landing accident data (as I've done), you'll see a continuous thread of unstabilized approaches leading to accidents. If you stand by a runway and watch light plane after light plane go by, you'll also see a continuous thread of unstabilized approaches end in bad landings. As an instructor, I teach what seems to work best for the vast majority of light plane pilots and is recommended by the FAA. YMMV.

I still haven't seen any citation of any sort of the FAA saying that a power on approach is recommended.

Stabilized does not necessarily mean power on (although, in my case, it certainly helps).
 
The FAA also reccommends about the dumbest short field take off approach. Ok, maybe not the dumbest, but certainly not the best. Just because the FAA says does not mean it is the best way. They are, after all, a government agency, and as history has shown, governments rarely do things the best.
 
I still haven't seen any citation of any sort of the FAA saying that a power on approach is recommended.

Stabilized does not necessarily mean power on (although, in my case, it certainly helps).
:sigh: As I said, it's hard to use power to maintain glide path without using power. And as I've also said, despite some claims to the contrary, I've never seen anyone fly a truly stabilized approach without using some power. But I'm willing to be impressed.
 
The way I used to do my approaches were thusly (C172):

Abeam the numbers, chop power down low (but not idle) and add 10 degree flaps.
When 45* from the numbers, turn base, add 10 more flaps, and leave power on.
Turn final, last notch of flaps, power idle, and keep it that way to the runway.

Now, I found it it better to keep power all the way down to the flare, because it seems to be a smoother and better approach....

Are people actually talking about chopping to idle when abeam the numbers and riding the whole rest of downwind, base and final at idle?
 
Are people actually talking about chopping to idle when abeam the numbers and riding the whole rest of downwind, base and final at idle?

That's the way I made my last 200 landings in the Cherokee. Of course, I didn't really have a base leg.
 
Are people actually talking about chopping to idle when abeam the numbers and riding the whole rest of downwind, base and final at idle?
I think so, but they must not be learning/teaching at airports with much traffic...
 
:sigh: As I said, it's hard to use power to maintain glide path without using power. And as I've also said, despite some claims to the contrary, I've never seen anyone fly a truly stabilized approach without using some power. But I'm willing to be impressed.

According to your interpretation, it is IMPOSSIBLE to maintain a stabilized approach even with power, because you are never, ever going to be at EXACTLY the same airspeed, nor the same approach path because of ever changing conditions.

You also keep ignoring the fact that you can fly a stabilized approach at idle+(x for adjustment) MP, and do not have to fly it at y" of MP + (x for adjustment)
 
Are there people who actually touch down with power other than at idle?
In revisiting this in my mind, the answer is yes, including me -- on soft-field landings, where a little power is used for very fine control of sink rate approaching touchdown, and a smooth reduction to idle is made after touchdown.
 
You also keep ignoring the fact that you can fly a stabilized approach at idle+(x for adjustment) MP, and do not have to fly it at y" of MP + (x for adjustment)
If you're adding power for adjustments, it's hardly a "power-off" approach, is it?
 
Tell ya what, Clark, come fly my Aztec and show me how you'll land it, then I'll show you how I land it. If you can do better than me, I'll buy you a beer. It ain't your Dakota, even though it does generally fly like an oversized Cherokee. My point is that you are making a generalized statement that does not apply to all aircraft. Your Cherokee is not an Aztec is not a King Air is not a Citation is not a 747.

Mari is correct. I don't land with power, I just use power throughout the pattern and only pull it back for that last bit once close to the runway. Have you flown anything much larger or having a much greater sink rate than your Cherokee? I have about 130 hours in one, and the technique I use for greasers on it is different than on the Mooney and Aztec.

If you're so concerned with "proper technique" then I'd question your focus on "fly the plane," which is more important. Do what it's asking you to do. That may not be completely in line with what "proper technique" states, at least per your book. Your passengers care about what they perceive as a controlled, safe flight, not about you following a book of suggested techniques that they've never read. I'd argue that if you pull the power back to idle abeam the numbers and come in you'll arouse a lot more concern from many than if you bring it back slowly, and getting that last bit done over the numbers.

Ted, you're reading way to much meaning into my posts. Stick with what I've written and we won't have a problem. As I posted, I fly the approach at low power and land power off. I never suggested pulling power abeam the numbers. In a similar vein, you've written, "Smoothing out the last bit of landing with a hair of power." To me, and I believe most folks, the last bit of landing is the touchdown so you did advocate landing with power.

Since you're wanting to play CFI even though you've never flown with me I'll explain a bit more. Now I'm not concerned so much with "proper technique" as much as operating in a safe manner. There are many different ways to interpret the statement and it has many implications. On landings, to me it means that I'll aim long (suitable for length) and I'll have the power back to idle as early as I can (making the runway is assured and I'm adding the final notch of flaps). I've learned to manage the round-out and touchdown with power off and I think it is a really good practice. Occasionally, when I screw up I'll carry power to touchdown and that is what I call cheating.

Will landing power off work for all aircraft? I certainly wouldn't make such a claim but I will point out that even the Space Shuttle flys the approach and lands power off! :D Purty high wing loading on that brick! Also excellent pitch authority. I wonder if those approaches are stable enough for Ron?:rolleyes:

As for the Aztec, I'm sure your technique, what ever it may be, is right for you. I'm also sure there are several techniques to use for landing it. I think it is your call entirely on what is best since you own it. As a free lance critic about all I do get is my opinion on what is cheating. I certainly don't mean any harm with my opinion or really even think less of other people for "cheating" when landing. We all do what we need to do or file an insurance claim...or both sometimes. :smile:

On the Cherokee, some folks say to keep power on or not to use full flaps or even go to full nose up trim just before touch-down. All I've found necessary is to stay on speed and be willing to pull as firmly as required. It did take some practice to get there, learning the timing of the pull and what the descent angle was like with different flap settings but it worked out.

I suspect I'm no different than any other pilot on the practice requirement and that is where we each develop our own style of landing. Of course we're influenced by our training and our individual experience and priorities when developing our techniques.

You're obviously putting a lot of emphasis on the passenger's experience and take full advantage of two engines.

While I want to be sure that a passenger is never bothered by what I do with the aircraft, I also will operate in a manner I believe to be appropriate. From that perspective, I detest shallow (<3 degrees) approaches. Other folks might detest high sink rates (>500 fpm) but I know that in the Cherokee as long as I'm on speed I can arrest the sink and land smoothly power off. As Mari noted, when the power comes off depends on what is being flown. Passengers are the easy part, I tell them what will happen, they see it happen and know I'm in control. Beyond that, their mental health is their own problem.

Here's a side story about when I was learning to land a Remos G-3. The darn thing is almost a motorglider but seems to lack in its ability to arrest sink rates at approach speed. I couldn't figure out an approach profile that I liked. Discussing the problem with an instructor, a long shallow approach was suggested. The instructor quickly followed that suggestion with the comment that the method would result in an off airport arrival if the engine was lost. The method was taught by the instructor to her primary students and I'd seen them in the pattern (well, sort of if you accept a 1.5 mile pattern). I never could reconcile the shallow approach with the risks it presented. We each make our own choice.
 
Back
Top