Snoopy wrote:
I’ve never seen such appalling landings. Where is this? Which flight school? It’s like they train for consistent bounces…
It’s in Taiwan, Taitung airport (RCFN)
Pilot_DAR wrote:
Okay, as long as you plan for the reality that doing so displaces your flare down the runway a few hundred feet
I often just “hoover” a few feet off the runway until I reach the correct exit. Full flaps and enough throttle to have a decent speed. When I want to land, idle and keep the alt until the speed has dropped to approximately short field final speed. You can do this also when coming in fast. There is no need to flare forever (although the effect is much the same, only with much better control of the aircraft). It’s not the “proper” way to land I’m sure, but fun to do.
The design requirements specify that a stall warning must sound by not less than 5 knots before the stall in all configurations, and must not be warning more than 10 knots before the stall in all configurations. I have found properly rigged planes to conform to this very well. The installation of a STOL wing cuff on a Cessna will affect this, and the stall warning must be adjusted.
Stall warning systems can become inoperative. That’s no excuse for a horrible landing, though may be reason for a longer one….
It’s really difficult to judge well without complete audio of what was being taught.
The stall warner for a DA40 (as has been mentioned on forums many times) seems to come on too early to be of any use but did actually sound.
I always like to hear it at touchdown, but in the Cessna (despite it seeming fine on stalls) never sounds on landing. If it does it’s it’s going to be messy as the controls are sloppy and the sink is high.
In this video, if we consider this as the 1st lesson that the instructor allows mostly unaided landings, with perhaps a little inexperience on the part of the instructor (reluctance to get slow for fear of stall or stall-spin) then this may be a little more acceptable.
I know speed control and lack of skill was an issue when I 1st tried, and it wasn’t much better than some of these.
If however this is the usual M.O. of this instructor then perhaps there is some concern, or if this is the 4th lesson on circuit work, perhaps the student needs a different instructor.
Luckily, most career pilots in the world never get back into the cockpit of small aircraft after they get their licenses…
I’ve never seen such appalling landings. Where is this? Which flight school? It’s like they train for consistent bounces…
arj1 wrote:
I’ve been taught to fly 70kts and not 65kts on final for PA28-161 full flaps because at our airfield we’ve got a windshear on rw26 short final
Okay, as long as you plan for the reality that doing so displaces your flare down the runway a few hundred feet, to the point where you have slowed to the correct speed (Piper says 66 kts). The landing won’t be “normal” until you’ve slowed to the proper speed, and “fence crossing” altitude. If you have lots of runway, no problem.
You can force a plane to contact the surface at about whatever speed you want. But, you’ll only get a presentable “landing” out of it, if you have allowed the plane to decelerate to the speed at which it would like to stop flying. Forcing a plane onto the ground will never result in a presentable landing. You may get down, but it was not good.
As for carrying extra speed to allow for turbulence, sometimes doing so has merit, though if you need a lot, perhaps you’re just trying to do something which is unwise in those conditions. Bear in mind that the plane will have shown compliance to the requirement:
Sec. 23.153
Control during landings.
[It must be possible, while in the landing configuration, to safely complete a landing without exceeding the one hand control force specified in Sec. 23.143(c) following an approach to land—
(a) At a speed 5 knots less than the speed used in complying with the requirements of Sec. 23.75 and with the airplane in trim, or as nearly as possible in trim, and without the trimming control being moved throughout the maneuver;
(b) At an approach gradient equal to the steepest recommended for operational use; and
(c) With only those power or thrust changes that would be made when landing normally from an approach at 1.3 .]Quote
So it can handle a 5 knot gust effect.
Just a guess, more pilots die due to flying too slow (especially base/final turn at low altitude, increasing stall speed due to g load) than because of high energy landings. Not outweighing one against the other here, just adding some risk awareness.
On a long runway it’s not a problem to bleed off speed before touching down. On a short, wet grass runway a long final at minimum speed is needed. It’s not black and white, but depends on the situation. At least that’s what works for me.
In light winds, wind shear will not be a problem. Excess speed will be.
In strong winds, unless across the runway, ground speed will be low, even with higher speed over the threshold.
In crosswinds sideslip seems to shorten float.
There are runways which in some winds require special procedures, which over-ride the Aircraft Manual for normal airfield operation.
EG near summit of hill. Downdraft and windshear on very short final. And an uphill landing loses groundspeed faster.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
More pilots will come to grief with too fast approaches, than too slow. Yes, a stall spin is a risk, but if the final approach is being flown straight, and the ball is anywhere near the middle, a spin is not a risk. It’s the too tight base turns which trigger spins.
Pilot_DAR, I’ve been taught to fly 70kts and not 65kts on final for PA28-161 full flaps because at our airfield we’ve got a windshear on rw26 short final hence margin.
I think that the stall spin is not the biggest problem for most pilots and adding extra margin comes from other reasons (wind shear, gust factor, etc).
I’ve got to agree with Jacko,
More pilots will come to grief with too fast approaches, than too slow. Yes, a stall spin is a risk, but if the final approach is being flown straight, and the ball is anywhere near the middle, a spin is not a risk. It’s the too tight base turns which trigger spins.
Poor instructors teach un knowing students to carry extra speed across the fence for some reason. An example of this was an instructor crashing a club 172 into a friend’s short runway. When the accident investigator interviewed the only witness, a slightly knowledgeable older lady, her question was: “after he lands, don’t his main wheels have to be on the ground for the brakes to work?”
I teach into small and narrow runways, as it reminds pilots that extra space in both directions is not always available. I just keep the option of a briefed overshoot. There are lots of shorter runways available in Canada, and the US. In particular, Alaska has many very short runways. I went to pick up a helicopter in Alaska at a private aerodrome. We drove in the driveway to the hangar. I looked round and asked where the runway was – you just drove along it! I was okay departing it – in the helicopter!
When I first made my home runway, it was 700 feet, but a takeoff on a warm day told me to lengthen it (which I already knew), so I dozed out a stone fence and it was 1400 feet. When I started operating the Cessna 207, I lengthened it to 2100 feet, which was all the property I own.
For teaching landings, I teach precise technique first, and then compressing that good technique into a shorter distance. I don’t focus on getting in short first, it leads to abusive technique on airplanes.
