If the school‘s manual says that he should do xx over the threshold, Quote
Is very worrisome. Where does that data come from, and how is it approved? Does it contradict the approved flight manual for the plane? If a newer pilot had an accident while precisely following the “school’s” speeds, not in harmony with the speeds of the flight manual, would the school take responsibility?
Aside from the right seat pilot apparently allowing an approach speed in the low to mid 80 knot range into the flare, the right seat pilot also allowed the stick to be pushed forward during the flare (I can see their hand doing it, so they either did it, or allowed/trained it). The student pilot can be effectively taught they were too fast, when realizing that they must hold the flare attitude for a silly long amount of runway, as the plane slows. Attempting to force the plane onto the runway with nose down at too high an airspeed will simply bang nosewheels.
I don’t have a DA-40 flight manual, though I hope it include the common wording of “touch down mainwheels first” for landings. A purposeful effort to keep the nosewheel off the runway at touchdown will remind the student that pushing the stick is a really bad idea. If pushing the stick seems the least bit tempting to complete the landing, a whole new landing should be set up, so probably an overshoot, and do it better next time!
Anecdotally, all landing accidents I know about in my club were caused by too high speed rather than too low speed.
Same here. A few made use of the “arrester trees” at the top end of our runway before we idiot-proofed it by extending.
Because the slow ones stallspun into the ground before landing :) ?
It’s actually quite difficult to do that on final unless way below the optimum glide-slope. Of course, if the wind is light we fly short final to a confined flat field with the stall warner bleating, but then if I haul the stick back far enough for my humble airplane to depart from controlled flight, the deck angle is such that I can’t see the landing site. That’s a clue that something is wrong. 
Peter wrote:
I would think it is almost impossible to do ab initio PPL training at Wangen-Lachen (~450m) – in any “normal” GA training plane. Well, not without selecting the candidates for aptitude.
Seems to work at Netherthorpe and Derby
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
