When to pull throttle idle on landing.

Dan Thomas said:
That's generally good advice, but the student should also be reading the POH and the textbooks to be sure he's getting the right stuff. There are too many instructors who are teaching wrong techniques that they picked up in their training, and some have even developed their own bad habits that they pass on to their students. I saw plenty of evidence of that when I was an instructor.

If there is no "anchor," some solid source of truth in training, students will pick up all sorts of debilitating habits. And it's getting worse all the time as reading skills have deteriorated in the age of TV and computers. Kids watch movies or pay video games instead of reading. And some even watch YouTube videos made by private pilots, teaching flying. Ugh. The dissemination of misinformation.
Click to expand...

I agree, but those are mostly questions for on the ground, not before the flare. I've had a few of those instructors, not bad instructors, just didn't read or forgot the POH. One that comes to mind is a guy who was doing a rental checkout in a Cirrus, there was one runway, albeit long, with a 15 to 28 knot direct crosswind. We decided to go, touch and goes, he says, "tough crosswind, use half flaps", I said, "Cirrus says full flaps", he says "no sir", I say "Ok, you're here to bail me out if I screw up". I greased the landings, about 5 of them. I offered one to him, he said "no thanks", lol. To his credit, the next day he came up to me and told me I was right, he had talked to a CSIP, full flaps with a Cirrus.
 
Dan Thomas said:
The student should not be allowed to develop a habit of dragging it in. Let him do that a few times and he'll do it all the time, and when it comes to landing over an obstacle he'll not be able to do it. Of it that engine coughs when he adds a bit of power to reach that runway, h might just land short and bust the airplane.
Click to expand...

I was just making a point, obviously the student should be taught how to do it properly.

I think the OP may be missing the point of learning to land. He seems to have a recipe of what control should be where during an approach, which I think (although I am not an instructor) is a recipe for disaster. In my opinion he should be learning to worry about having the airplane in the proper position, at the proper time, in the proper energy state. Control positions are secondary to that.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
30-50 feet depending.
Click to expand...

I find it makes everything a lot easier if power is smoothly back to idle by at least 50’. From that point on, it’s one less thing to worry about.

Stipulated that’s for the relatively small GA planes I’ve flown, and that some few planes may benefit from a little power held into ground effect. But most often I see it as a bad habit.
 
PaulS said:
To his credit, the next day he came up to me and told me I was right, he had talked to a CSIP, full flaps with a Cirrus.
Click to expand...

As confirmation…

7801706398_9dcc53205b_n.jpg


I like to have my students speak up if something I tell them is different from what another instructor has told them, or something they’ve read. The possible reasons are: The prior instructor was wrong, I’m wrong*, we’re saying the same thing in different ways, or it’s just a matter of technique. The worst thing is for the student to remain silent and confused.


*Being wrong is humbling, but a good opportunity to learn.
 
This is one of the things I found aggravating about picking my training back up after my 7 years off. There are differences between schools and even different instructors. In chatting about training with a friend who was going through training in texas they mentioned the same thing. They were told to leave power in until on the ground. From what he was telling me though he also ended up on a much shallower glide slope that way but its what his instructor taught him.

That being said I just got my HP endorsement in a C182 and found you DO NOT want to pull power just because you are over the runway. That thing flies like a cast iron bath tub.
 
I generally pull the throttle off as soon as I'm assured of making the runway. That being said, From the time I make the initial power reduction abeam the numbers until I'm slowed to taxi speed, my hand is on the throttle. I'm making power changes as needed to maintain glide slope. After all, the throttle is not an on/off button.

Sometimes when I round out, I might even add just a touch of power to smooth out the touch down if needed.
 
FastEddieB said:
I like to have my students speak up if something I tell them is different from what another instructor has told them, or something they’ve read. The possible reasons are: The prior instructor was wrong, I’m wrong*, we’re saying the same thing in different ways, or it’s just a matter of technique. The worst thing is for the student to remain silent and confused.
Click to expand...
I was fortunate when I started instructing that for the most part the student got whatever instructor was available when they showed up. I learned a few things that each instructor taught differently than I did, and looked for them to have changed technique from what I taught them.

“Why did you do that?”
“Chris told me to do it that way.”
“I don’t care how you do it, but now you need to explain why you chose Chris’ technique (or mine).

got them thinking a little beyond rote knowledge.

Star Keeper said:
That being said I just got my HP endorsement in a C182 and found you DO NOT want to pull power just because you are over the runway. That thing flies like a cast iron bath tub.
Click to expand...
Oddly enough, I’ve found those cast iron bathtubs to land just fine at idle. ;)
 
MauleSkinner said:
I was fortunate when I started instructing that for the most part the student got whatever instructor was available when they showed up. I learned a few things that each instructor taught differently than I did, and looked for them to have changed technique from what I taught them.

“Why did you do that?”
“Chris told me to do it that way.”
“I don’t care how you do it, but now you need to explain why you chose Chris’ technique (or mine).

got them thinking a little beyond rote knowledge.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's what I like about where I'm instructing. The other guys have far more experience with many multiples of my flight hours.
 
dmspilot said:
He didn't get the answer he wanted, so of course he did. He didn't want to learn from his instructor, and he didn't come here to learn from us either.
Click to expand...

Yep ... sometimes they're looking for an answer ... other times an argument. It was Mr. Owen (I think) that said something along the lines of, "All the world is a strange except me and thee and I'm not so sure about thee." :)
 
Regarding

Salty said: ↑
..Ideally, for maximum safety, you want to be done flying when your wheels touch down, which means you'll hit a bit harder.

Not if timed just right.
 
FastEddieB said:
Regarding

Salty said: ↑
..Ideally, for maximum safety, you want to be done flying when your wheels touch down, which means you'll hit a bit harder.

Not if timed just right.
Click to expand...
Can't time for a gust you can't see. With a bit of power you can smooth over a gust, without it, sometimes you're going to hit a bit harder.
 
Clip4 said:
I don’t recommend “pull the throttle” for a student learning landings. Rapid power changes causes rapid pitch and descent rate changes. A nice smooth reduction in power to idle over about 3 seconds works well.

Ground effect and 1500 rpm will drag you far down the runway and short field landings are in your near future.
Click to expand...

Yes. Pulling the power rapidly on short final will cause pitch and yaw changes. There is no point in flying a stabilized approach only to mess it all up at the last few seconds. Some airplanes are worse than others. The key is to gently pull the power back, over a period of 5 or 10 seconds.
 
Lindberg said:
Indeed. But even with power at idle, when you touch down in a wheel landing the wing is still flying.
Click to expand...
You can “fly it on” in most nosedraggers, too, so I’m not sure what the point of your previous post was.:dunno:
 
Lindberg said:
Indeed. But even with power at idle, when you touch down in a wheel landing the wing is still flying.
Click to expand...
It is when you three-point it as well. I've never seen a taildragger that's stalled in the three-point attitude. In fact, many small taildraggers use the three-point attitude as the short field takeoff attitude. Even if she were stalled, the wing doesn't just "go away." It's still making lift. The lift curve is pretty symmetrical around the stall AOA.
 
flyingron said:
It is when you three-point it as well. I've never seen a taildragger that's stalled in the three-point attitude. In fact, many small taildraggers use the three-point attitude as the short field takeoff attitude. Even if she were stalled, the wing doesn't just "go away." It's still making lift. The lift curve is pretty symmetrical around the stall AOA.
Click to expand...
That there. Most taildraggers are well short of stall AOA in three-point attitude. The idea that the wing is stalled when one lands three-point, or really tail-low in a trike, is what causes a lot of accidents. The pilots think the flight is over, and get complacent, and a gust or the crosswind gets them. Or they try to brake and the tires skid. Wing is still lifting.
 
Again, even if the wing is stalled, there's still lift.
 
Right... the stall is more a process than an event. As the flow starts to separate, lift decreases a bit while drag increases. The increased drag slows the plane so it drops, which further increases the AOA, and...

One other observation about tailwheel airplanes: The 3-point attitude is less than the stall angle, assuming horizontal flight. If the aircraft is descending in that attitude, the AOA will be greater because the relative wind is no longer horizontal. If it's descending steeply enough the wing may in fact be stalled to a greater or lesser extent.
 
You're not descending when you're on the ground (except at some really sloped runways).
 
No, but you can hold that attitude and AOA all the way to a 3 point touchdown. Of course it may not be the softest landing...
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
How far down the runway are you….?o_O
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what your point is. If there is airflow over the wing, there is lift. There seems to be a misconception by many that lift completely (or been nearly completely) disappears at the stall. This is untrue. The stall is merely the point where further increase in AOA causes a decrease in the amount of lift. In fact, the lift-vs-AOA curve is pretty symmetric around the stall point. The reason you see it the graph ending quickly on the stall side is because since drag also greatly increases, there's not a whole lot of "back side of the curve" sustainable flying to be done.
 
flyingron said:
The stall is merely the point where further increase in AOA causes a decrease in the amount of lift.
Click to expand...

True.

In a Citabria, if you hold the plane off as long as possible, the tailwheel will roll on with a small amount of rearward stick travel still available and the mains a couple inches off the ground. Continue pulling the stick back all the way and at some point you’re in the region you describe and the wings, incapable of supporting the plane’s weight, allow the mains to drop the final inch or two to the runway. And, barring a gust, the airplane as a whole is “done flying”.

I would generally refer to that as a “full stall” landing. And most pilots would know what that means, even if not exactly true. But, yes, due to washout and/or other aerodynamic tricks, the outer portion of the wings are likely still “flying”, giving at least a modicum of aileron control. Nosewheel airplanes can be landed exactly the same way, with rearward yoke travel generally limited to avoid striking the tail under normal circumstances.

But I think we’re all on the same page overall.
 
It has nothing much to do with washout and tricks. The wing is still an airfoil. Incapable of supporting the entire weight of the plane is not the same as not flying. This is why you put the appropriate stick inputs (well you should, at least) while taxiing. It's the same reason you can't accurately weigh an aircraft even in a light breeze.

And yes, I detest the term "full stall" landing. The aircraft usually is never stalled in such. Not being able to maintain level flight doesn't equate to a stall.
 
Ahhhhh!! Landscape! Landscape! Please, Landscape.

Looks like I was born for the Navy.
 
Dana said:
One other observation about tailwheel airplanes: The 3-point attitude is less than the stall angle, assuming horizontal flight.
Click to expand...
Of course. But in the flare, with the airplane a few inches above the runway for maybe 100 feet, the flight path is essentially the same as the runway surface.

A one-degree slope is one foot in sixty feet. The Citabria, as an example, has its wing at 12° in the three-point attitude. Stall is at around 17°, five degrees higher. The descent path, in three-point attitude, would have to be near five degrees to get the wing stalled, and five degrees is a pretty steep descent. Dropping eleven feet in a sixty-foot run, less than two wingspans.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Of course. But in the flare, with the airplane a few inches above the runway for maybe 100 feet, the flight path is essentially the same as the runway surface.

A one-degree slope is one foot in sixty feet. The Citabria, as an example, has its wing at 12° in the three-point attitude. Stall is at around 17°, five degrees higher. The descent path, in three-point attitude, would have to be near five degrees to get the wing stalled, and five degrees is a pretty steep descent. Dropping eleven feet in a sixty-foot run, less than two wingspans.
Click to expand...
I used to touch down in my Maule about 150 feet beyond the 50-foot trees, three-point, with full elevator deflection to arrest the sink rate. Wonder what my AOA got up to. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top