Should "Normal Landings" be made WITHOUT POWER?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 чер 2024
- Are your "Normal Landings" made with Power off? If so, you might want to watch this video.
Check out FlyBoys/Pivot Gear here:
flyboys.com
Buy OUR Cool Pilot Merchandise HERE:
free-pilot-training.myspreads...
The links below are affiliate links which allows “Free Pilot Training” to receive a small payment from Amazon any time you use the link below to sign up for programs or purchase items on Amazon. Please consider supporting this channel so we can focus on bringing you more high quality FREE training!
Free Digital copy of the Airplane Flying Handbook
www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...
Paperback copy of the Airplane Flying Handbook
www.amazon.com/gp/product/151...
Paper back copy of the Pilot Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge
www.amazon.com/gp/product/165...
Please consider supporting us without spending any money!
Try Amazon Prime for FREE for 30 days!
www.amazon.com/tryprimefree?r...
#freepilottraining
Good presentation. Default power/pitch and full flaps allow us the slowest and therefore safest short final airspeed. I'm old enough to have started before PTS which is now ACS. In 48 years teaching, I have noticed a few common problems that need not make takeoff and landing hard. Have your student put the centerline between her/his legs. It will then also appear to be between your legs. (Optical looking ahead) Putting it under the prop is what causes all those tire marks on the left side of the runway. On final jam your thumb under the bottom one side of the yoke. The student will look over when trying to make coordinated turns on final. Say, "rudder only to line up." Aileron works well for stabilized bank against drift control but is otherwise causing problems. In a turn are never directing the longitudinal axis toward the target. You are keeping airplane going where the nose is pointed well, but the small coordinated turns (mini Dutch rolls) is not necessary. Dynamic proactive rudder is effective. Be a tail wagger not a wing wagger. Finally notice how the numbers appear to speed up on short final. If we use full flaps and elevator to slow enough to get a sink or mush (still above Vso) on short final, we bring variable throttle into play as the true glide angle and rate of descent control. Now use elevator (pitch) to keep the apparent rate of closure with the numbers from speeding up and power to control decent angle to touchdown slowly (at velocity of stall in low ground effect) and softly (power still controlling rate of descent), Close throttle. Come to Aurora, Missouri 2H2 to fly with me or work on it a little at a time. There is no need to close throttle, round out, and hold off. If you practice on your own you will have to round less and less until it comes. Out further than an eighth mile or so we appear to close with the numbers at a brisk walk no matter what the airspeed. Same as with you automobile, as you close with the intersection the rate appears to speed up unless you decelerate. Again, good job. We old guys need replacements.
Thanks for the tips Jimmy! I’m going to try some of those out
Engine idle approaches are 100% best practice
Good video! The one thing I was taught and made sense about slipping with flaps on a high wing aircraft is that you could lose a little rudder control due to blocking the airflow to the tail section. But I guess just go with what your POH says for that aircraft. I always have power right until time to level and flare unless practicing slips or power off 180's. Again, everyone does it a little different and guess it is what you get used to and a comfort level but I like to come out of my comfort level once in awhile and try something different just in case I get thrown into that un-foreseen scenario!
Thanks Bob! That makes sense on the slip blocking the rudder. Never thought of that. Thanks for the comment!
Love it best example of engine failure and or fire emergency power off landing as well as out of fuel
Thanks mate!
No problem
THANK YOU!
You’re welcome!
Great training ! I think it’s a good idea ,you need to know the glide rate of your aircraft ,so if you run into a situation you can scope out where you can land your plane . even if it’s on the highway ,so I think doing this is good to know 🙂
For sure! The first time I flew a Cherokee, I was very surprised at how much worse the glide ratio was than a Cessna. It’s good to know these things for sure
I like stabilized approaches and apply corrective power adjustments as needed around the time of flare. Wind, supprise wet spots, & animals can change things.
So true!
I enjoyed your presentation, and thought it was outstanding. I had an engine-at-idle-while-landing situation years ago at Riverside Airport, California, that might interest you. At that time, Riverside had a single 9-27 runway about 5,000 feet long as I recall. I was a licensed pilot working on my commercial on a cloudy Saturday afternoon in October. There was a solid overcast at about 2,000 AGL, so I was flying beneath the clouds doing lots of touch-and-goes. I had done 10 or so and was on my downwind leg for another one when the tower called and asked me to shorten my downwind and land due to incoming IFR traffic. I was just about abeam of the numbers and had plenty of runway (flying a Cessna 172) for landing roll-out, so I did an almost immediate base turn, brought in all the flaps in increments, and was perhaps 50 feet above ground on final and well over the runway when my engine stopped completely. Didn't even windmill! I cancelled my touch-and-go to touch only, and coasted off at the nearest taxiway. Turns out it was carb ice according to an instructor and mechanic who came out to my position to check things out. I had carb heat on while landing, but with engine at idle, there wasn't enough air being pulled through to prevent icing in the humidity condition of that day. I re-started the engine while the instructor and mechanic were standing alongside, and continued my flying, never ever going to full idle in landing after that day.
This is an awesome story! Thank you for sharing. I never considered this possibility. I have read of people flash heating older engines when approaching at idle, then going around with full power, but I never considered your carb heat scenario.
Didn't know you were out of Vanita! I am based at KPTS, Great channel!
Awesome! That’s cool! Thank you!
That whole concept is thrown out when you have to deal with thermals, variable winds and condition of the airplane. I find sometimes the intent to not use any power winds up having to do so because the winds were gusty, we’re large cross winds or there were thermals crossing short of the threshold. One thing to add. Unless it’s an emergency or you are the only be in the pattern, some people and especially the tower don’t like huge deviations to their traffic pattern and or procedures. This is especially true if a fast plane in inbound on an instrument approach; even a visual. Great video!
Yes, winds are a huge factor in power off approaches.
JME 🤔
A little turbulence won't roll the airplane over.
Let it bounce. Stop sawing on the ailerons = Pilot induced oscillations. Correct by "pressing" the aileron for correction, not jerking. JMO/JME 50 yrs CP+.
THE best advice I ever got: "You can do all the snappy manuvers. Now you have to learn to fly like you've got 40 people in the back."
SMOOTH is impressive. 👍😎
BTW That was Bob Hoover. 1968
I appreciate your comment!
I believe this choice depends upon your goals as a pilot and your skill level. If you want to be a safe pilot, and possess the proficient skills to do so, then power-off landings are preferred under normal conditions. In this manner, you: 1) are familiar with the aircraft's glide ratio, and 2) are familiar with making an emergency landing with a loss of power. Otherwise, you'll face an unfamiliar situation with no options if this would ever occur.
Need to have some power all the way in . Agree
It depends how you were trained.
Please talk to a glider pilot.
Thanks!
Well, the glider pilot will tell you that it really comes down to what gives you the best/most direct and immediate control over glide angle. The glider's air brakes/spoilers are perfect for this - as they need to be as you only get one shot. Second best seems to be power adjustments and absolutely the worst are flaps, as they react slowly and should only be manipulated in one direction.
I also fly a motor glider where I have both options, spoilers and power - with the spoilers being preferable.
If you want to achieve better landings, ensure you are nailing the correct airspeed by using power as appropriate. During the flare, ensure the throttle is fully closed, align the aircraft with the runway with rudder, keep the wings level, or if a crosswind, lower the into wind wing a few degrees with aileron. Then squeeze every bit of lift out of the wings with appropriate back pressure, elevator. When the lift is all gone, gravity will put the wheels on the runway for you. Your job as as a pilot is to fly the aircraft. It will LAND itself quite successfully if you FLY it properly.
Adjust pitch for airspeed. Power controls descent.
Either work equally well. However, during the teaching phase the aiming point technique with its easier-to-control constant attitude visual aiming point, for short finals, CONTROLLING SPEED WITH POWER is the easier method for the student to assimilate. That is my objective conclusion based on a lifetime of managing an international FTO. It also helps if when the throttle is FULLY CLOSED the student puts two hands on the control wheelie. If it is a control wheel rather than a stick.
@@tomarmstrong1281 I agree they work equally well in normal operations, but teaching fundamentals that airspeed is ultimately a direct function of pitch to the point that it's instinct will save lives when the plane gets too slow. It should be an instinct, and teaching it the other way leads to pilots making fatal mistakes like Colgan 3407, and countless GA crashes that could be avoided. If you put a pilot that learns airspeed is a function of power in a plane that doesn't have any power for whatever reason, they will have to learn this the hard way.
@@ryanmcgowan3061 You are entitled to your opinion. I strongly disagree. Most accidents are attributable to pilots being taught by rote, which is a useful teaching tool during the learning phase. A well-rounded, well-taught pilot will be a much safer pilot in any emergency situation. In my capacity as a flight examiner it was evident which pilots were well taught and the others who often failed their skill test and had to be sent back for retraining. Sadly often by to the same hapless instructor. I felt sorry for them.
@@tomarmstrong1281 I'm not sure how my opinion contradicts any of what you just said. It's all entirely compatible with controlling airspeed with pitch. In loss of power situations, the skill remains consistent if the pilot knows to control airspeed with pitch, and doesn't require a secondary set of techniques. In normal operations, the only difference between our techniques is which comes first: pitch or power. For your technique, you adjust power to get your airspeed, which will shallow the descent rate, so you then pitch down, even if you aren't realizing it. In my approach, I would pitch to change speed and adjust power to maintain the approach. Same inputs, different order. In the case of loss of power, I don't change my technique. Starting off mostly in gliders, this is very much muscle memory and comes perfectly natural.
Something occurred to me that came from flying gliders: Every aircraft is capable of 1:1 power to weight ratio. From a paper airplane to a Airbus A380. Gravity is that powerful, and is enough to rip the wings off nearly every aircraft. Gravity is immediately responsive and will accelerate the heaviest aircraft at 1g if the pitch is that extreme. Very few methods of propulsion are capable of changing your airspeed that quickly. As well, I can decelerate from VNE to a stall in a matter of seconds, and vice-versa. I'm also acutely aware of the trading of potential energy to kinetic energy, and have a feel for how much I have left based on my visual perception of the distance to the ground. If I need +20 knots in 3 seconds, I have it at my disposal. All of these paradigms whisk away if I think of airspeed as something that is controlled by propulsion. It's not my opinion. If it's anyone's opinion, it's Newton's.
I used to routinely land C-172’s deadstick, often practicing from high altitude 10 miles away. They’re basically gliders. My RV-8 is a whole nuther thing…its wingspan is only 24 ft and has a constant speed prop. I always do power on approaches. If you chop power with a constant speed prop set at “full fine”, the prop suddenly acts as a powerful air brake….its like an extra set of flaps. For landing any single engine plane, I adjust my descent rate so that I roll out on final at 400 ft AGL which helps create an identical sight picture on final, which really helps making for a stabilized approach and landing every time.
Awesome comment. I haven’t flown a ton of planes with constant speed props, but I fly large aircraft that use FADECs to control the propellers. Once we’re on the ground, you can place the throttles into the ground range and they fully “unfeather” that creates some good drag like you’re talking about. We can also throw the props into reverse so that makes it even better.
@@FreePilotTraining Thank you. With a CS prop, part of the GUMPS check is to set the prop to full-fine, which is where it needs to be in the event of a go-around. The first several times I landed the RV-8 it tended to sink like a rock when pulling the throttle back during approach due to the prop braking effect. So it helps to define a target minimum altitude when turning final. So after my GUMPS check, with the prop full-fine, I adjust manifold pressure to provide between 2300-2400 rpm which provides a nice descent rate of ~ 500 fpm. Of course, this RPM has to be adjusted for winds so that I don't bust my 400 ft AGL on roll-out. However, maximum glide distance is achieved by setting the CS prop to full-coarse and then adjusting airspeed to best glide speed. Love the CS prop..on takeoff it launches like a muscle car and pins you to the seat. ;)
Interesting. I fly out of a very small air park in Illinois (LL10). 2300’ with obstruction on the south side. Most of us land with power because it is much easier to ‘drag’ the airplane in with power like you were landing on a sand bar on a river. However can you imagine an engine failure situation where you need to precisely land the plane power off. In our case a power off landing from the south is preferred because you are over residential houses directly underneath final. From the north, once you clear Walmart there is a prairie area you can safely ‘crash’ if you lost power there.
Thanks for the comment! Yeah, I do think it’s important to practice power off approaches, but lowering the risk for something that’s rare to increase the risk on something that’s not is not too smart. I love your plan though. If you have an engine out plan, that’s perfect
@@FreePilotTraining and finally, my current habit is to pull the power to idle opposite of the numbers on our north landing over the houses, leads to a steep approach ( that is good on my 1969 182 with full flaps) that makes sure I won’t crash into any house if I lose power on short final. That is not the case for others here, and it concerns me. The RNAV IFR approach is pretty scary over the houses.,.
I was practising full stop landing the other day , I done 3 into the wind and every time with power off with 2 of the landings I experienced wind gusts that prolonged my decent and causing the plane to loose speed so by adding a little power it prolonged my glide slope but gave me a smooth landing so on this occasion you are correct but it all depends on a factor of a few things ,
Landing with power in most cases is going to lengthen your landing distance and if for some reason you need to go around you need to be sure you have enough runway left to do so.
So there's to many variables to take into account when landing and will change depending on where you are what the wind is doing and so on .
But I will state that you can be right and can also be wrong.
Fly safe everyone from Australia 🇦🇺
Thanks for the comment!
Your channel is free gold to me. I know your channel will get up there, no doubt.
Idea for a video. Gives a video of terminology used in the ppl community that is NOT used or explained in ground school. From formal to just fun expressions.
Thank you! Yeah, we’re growing! It’s great to hear that you’re enjoying! I’m planning lots more, so I’ll see you in the next one!
My power settings during landing are directly related to outside air temperature (to prevent shock cooling) and turbulence (aileron authority).
This is definitely something to think about
Power on/off is dependent upon the aircraft. Everyone should practice power off descent, approach, and landing. Some aircraft are very draggy (e.g. Zenith CH-750-STOL) and require some power, under normal circumstances, to make best use of the aircraft's capabilities.
Awesome videos!! even though I need to rewind to wrap my mind around it! lol. So you are in the Tulsa area?? I'm in Owasso! studying my ground material now!
Thanks! I live in Chelsea. I work a lot for the AF reserves in Little Rock, but I go to Owasso all the time!
@@FreePilotTraining awesome! I work at American Airlines as a aircraft mechanic. I don’t know anyone that flies. It’s be great if you ever wanted to meet up! Trying to break into that side of the world, it’s be nice to join the community!
I used flaps and a slip to control my altitude on power off.
Regarding rollouts and less flaps taking more, I t’s not less drag to stop the airplane with less flaps; it is more energy to dissipate as you landed faster. The drag of your flaps down or up is insignificant on the ground compared to wheel friction. Consider Cirrus states to put flaps up for better braking as you’ll have more weight and more friction on those wheels. This wouldn’t be possible if drag were the dominant factor. Note also floating with zero flaps is airplane specific, your Cessna may float more but the Cirrus won’t.
You even did such later in the video with “flaps up, simulate maximum braking.”
Rather than that sixty knots for that short field landing, get yourself an AOA with adequate range and precision so as to be able to see “on-speed” for landing. Then you can target the perfect “speed” for short field already adjusted for weight with no thought to doing it. (Same will apply for normal landings) Watch out, many civilian indexers target stall warning and do not provide range of AOA band to cover landings. So long as they don’t tie into other systems, the regs to add an AOA in GA are fairly unhindered.
I’d like to have one! That’d be nice
Hi nice video ( I need to watch it again to fully appreciate it !). I have one question regarding your landing : Flaps up whan on the ground. Ok I used to did it, but my last instructor told me to keep it down. My question is : flaps up to stick the plane on the ground, or flaps down to break the IAS ?
Thanks! This is a great question. It really depends on 2 things… what kind of airplane you’re flying and what you need to accomplish on the “touch and go” or “go around”. You never want to go around or keep full flaps in if you’re doing either, but you may need to keep some of them in to climb out over an obstacle or something. Also, when you make a short field landing, you should raise them every time to decrease the amount of lift your airplane is producing. This maximizes your airplanes braking ability. So to answer your question, if you need more braking energy, raise those flaps as soon as you touch down.
@@FreePilotTraining So yes it is a C172 too. And so I understand that to land on a short field, it's better to raise the flaps as soon as your wheels touch the ground
Regulate ones approach techniques. Glide approaches ( engine at idle) gives one the picture for unscheduled engine off landings. For me, l do Point and Power approaches. Short field landings are a different technique again, as are flapless so each approach is different depending on the different circumstances. The application of Airmanship in planning for why a particular approach is necessary and maintaining one's proficiency in each is all that is needed.
Thanks for the comment!
Another way to look at the strong headwind case is to treat it similarly to your groundspeed versus true airspeed discussion. You have two glide paths. One through the airmass and one over the ground. You visually see that over the ground which is steeper than you actually fly (except with tail wind). Your VASI/PAPI/ILS /GlideSlope/internal sight line will typically seek a three degree path but you may be flying only two degrees with that wind.
The Navy uses a similar idea flying at the boat. The systems typically show a four degree path but either due to wind across the bow, or when wind is not present, due to the ship driving away from landing aircraft (in effect producing a relative wind), while seeing a four degree glide slope, the aircraft fly a three degree glide slope.
That is super interesting. Thanks for sharing
Depends on the aircraft , the wind condition and runway length
Another reason to use 1500 to 1700 rpm during decent for a Cessna 150 or 172 with a Continental engine is to maintain exhaust manifold temperature in order to keep carburetor heat effective. In the event of power failure during final approach, raise flaps to 20 deg to establish a longer glide distance. Can raise flaps to zero but will raise stall speed. The engine on my C150 stalled on the runway after an engine out simulation from pattern altitude. After touchdown, applied power and momentarily rpms increased then stalled due to ice melt and restrictive airflow. Engine restarted promptly after exiting the runway. Lesson learned.
This is another excellent point I didn’t even consider Colin. I really appreciate this one. You’re right, this could definitely cause a problem. That’s one of the reasons we test “idle” with carb heat on the runup.
So true. I fly a Cirrus SR20 at the moment. If you look at the torture for the old 6cyl. engines on the engine page, if a student is high on final and puts power on idle, your EGT and CHT completely vanish from the display. And next of course the student after touchdown (maybe still a bit to fast and long) slams the throttle forward to full power. You can feel the engine resist. Rinse and repeat. So maybe the engine failure you want to prepare for is actually caused or helped by idle approaches. In the US, patterns are also defined more with reaching the runway from every point in mind than in e.g. Germany where noise complaints dictate traffic patterns all to often. I don't idle before I transition usually and never before making the runway is assured. I prefer treating the engine well and a stabilized approach (that is by definition not idle) over the theoretical possibility to make the runway with engine out. And the POH of the Cirrus has anyway full flaps on base so an idle approach would violate normal landing procedure. I wasn't aware normal landings idle are even a thing, thanks for clarification in the video.
@@BlueSideUp thanks for the comment! It’s great to hear feedback like this! I’ll see you in the next one!
Almost all of my landings are power off partial flaps, and i'll bring in full flaps, and take them back out, to control my descent exactly as you describe.
AGREE TOTALLY... too many instructors teach total power OFF ACCROSS the numbers, I never agreed and always had my hand on the throttle ready to give it more power as thing changed
YOU are expecting a PERFECT landing every time for no power to make sense, is no such thing ! Keep your hand on the throttle all the way to the ground !
Exactly! Thanks for the comment!
I've been confused about all the conflicting info out there on this topic, but this video swiftly puts an end to the uncertainty with solid reasoning and detailed explanation. Nice work.
You’re welcome! And thank you for the super thanks!
If you’re flying conventional gear and haven’t done your tail wheel landings in a while, I recommend landing at a longer field and actually landing with a bit of power on. Consider this training wheels as you’ll want to be power off at touchdown once again proficient. The reason here is that a pull tractor style propeller is a stabilizing force for partially countering your unstable ground characteristics of that tail wheel. Adding a little power as you flare can also help you cushion and reduce VVI on a drop should you have flared a touch too high thus reducing or alleviating that “bounce” as your tail drops through after your mains touch, though perhaps go for three-points not wheel landings unless really current and proficient.
Yeah, i definitely want to get back in a tailwheel soon
There is a difference between a power off approach and a glide approach.
A glide approach assumes no engine power is available.
A "normal" landing with a power off approach means emgine power is always available.
A glide approach is made with an aiming point 1/3 into the field and once making the field is assured flaps and sideslip are used to shorten the touch down point.
A glide approach should NEVER be made to a short field aiming point!
In a normal approach pitch controls airspeed and power controls rate of descent.
In a power off approach, power is used as necessary to adjust rate of descent to hit the aiming point.
By the way, when I ws a student , back in 1997, I was told not to retract flaps during an approach once they had been extended.
During an Instructor rating renewal, I was attempting a forced landing drill and realised I was goling to be short. I anounced this to the examiner and he said "why not take the flaps off?".
HE "said why not try it"> We were at 300 feet with 30 degees out in a Warrior. To my surprise, after the initial sink our glide path extended.
We were lined up on a short grass private strip and he got me to compete the landing.
As I said there is a difference between a glide approach and a normal power off approach.
It is VERY different from the long flat power on approach that so many pilots seem to do in single engine aircraft.
Those maybe approriate in jet or a twin, but I aim for "normal" power off approanches with power used on short final to hit my spot in my own light single.
The added benefit is if you ever HAVE to do a glide approach you will be practiced and much more likly to land on the strip!
Of course there are differnt tecniques for different aircraft.
In a C300 or 4000 Series a power on appproach is always done. Speeds above "blue line" are held until short final.
When short fielding these aircraft the same power setting is used but it is flown at a different airspeed.
ON these aircraft the airsped is reduce on short final but power is NOT reduced till the wheels are on the ground!
Learn the basics first, the advanced stuff comes later!
That’s exactly right. You can also use flaps to increase your glide distance slightly as well. I’ve done it. If your just barely not going to make it, sometimes the balloon of the flaps will be just enough to get you there
Could you comment on why we should be concerned with slightly higher touchdown speed for the partial flap / steeper approach combination when most runways are plenty long and where a concern is maintaining engine out proficiency along with deadly hazards on the ground in the event of engine out on final?
Engine out proficiency is one thing, but making them your “normal landings” is another. In addition to the high sink rate that can develop with power off landings. I challenge anyone to maintain a 3 degree glide slope during a power off approach. In class D airspace, you are required to follow PAPI guidance. You won’t be able to maintain that with power off. As far as the higher touchdown speed, runway distances are your main concern in that case.
you can always reduce flaps to 20, forward slip, then re-establish your final descent.
Also, S-turns, but be careful with parallel runways and other situations.
Yes! These are all great tools!
For what it's worth all the cfi's in my area (metro Atlanta) teach ppl students power on full flaps for every landing except slips, high wind, or emergencies. Maybe theoretically power off is best if you nail your glide and nothing ever needs a correction. Imo that's just not how life works. This argument will never end though. People will always argue safer practices for 99.9% of the time is better than avoiding risk .1% of the time and vice versa.
Thanks for the comment. I like hearing how other CFIs are teaching so I appreciate that. I was just speaking to a DPE just yesterday, and he was totally backing me up on the subject and for a reason that I didn’t even mention in the video. I’m hoping to include that in a future episode
Know Your aircraft Good lesson
Thanks Mike!
@@FreePilotTraining shucks H04 doesn't have a grass strip in the Simulator so I land beside the Runway lol
@@mikecoffee100 that’s weird. Yeah. It’s not a real runway
@@FreePilotTraining ok then
@@mikecoffee100 it’s probably cuz it’s too short for most planes to take off on. Our 172 needs at least 2,000 feet of grass for a takeoff. I could probably do 1,500 if I’m by myself, but she’s a pig.
I don't think I've ever landed a 172 with power after established on final. Absolutely no reason to. Now my Maule is totally different: you can't land short without power. At 55mph and full flaps the descent rate is horrendous so you have to control it with power. Touch down at 55 and possibly even a bust of power, dump the flaps and the done.
With a 172? No reason in the world to approach with power. Even the old ones with 40 degrees of flap.
Shock cooling with the O-300. I’ve heard that can be an issue
@@FreePilotTraining Urban myth.
When I was a child I learned basic of flight on ms flight sim2004 and did tons of 737 landings, not saying it’s anything close to the real thing but when I started my ppl training, my instructor told me every landing should be a power off landing and that confused the hell out of me because it goes against my muscle memory and instinct of adding a bit pf throttle and taking it back right around touch down to reduce decent rate and smoothen the touch down. It took me pretty long to get myself to land with no power but then now it makes so much sense that you need to land with 1500-1700 rpm and gauge for wind. The question is no power landing is actually bad for the cylinder head metallurgy because of unstable heating and cooling of the cylinder and increases the potential of cylinder cracking and potential engine failure ?
Yes. Shock cooling can damage the engine. I don’t think it’s as common as everyone says, but it’s still an issue
For much of my training I was doing the worst of both worlds…coming in with too much energy (high and fast), then pulling out all the power with full flaps and plummeting Ike a rock. Hard pull on the yoke and either rounding out too high because I was scared or ballooning.
Now I’m accepting whatever additional “risk” is entailed in a more reasonable glideslope (still >3 degrees typically), approaching a little slower with power and my landings have become pleasant non-events.
It makes all the difference in the world
Nice using the slip as opposed to flaps to retain follow-on options. Too many these days are afraid of slips. Or they’re afraid they’ll be called out for slipping.
You’ve got your “engine out” with the turn somewhat early for heavy wind, nice, any discussion to adding a couple knots versus “best glide” as best glide is really no wind (though max weight forward cg)? Incorporating Glider handbook’s extra discussion on the drag polar with head/tail wind and rising/sinking air is illuminating. As is incorporating best glide AOA versus only ideal in one condition speed. Add another glider idea, aim a third of the way down the runway giving margin to under energy not just over energy. We’re so used to aiming at the numbers in powered planes to maximize pavement for stopping but that’s not the best optimization if you don’t have power.
Very true
Hello do you accept or give flight instructions for international students? Looking forward ppl training
I don’t at the moment. I’m sorry.
Thanks! Do you offer private lessons.
You’re welcome! I’m not taking any new students at the moment because I’m right in the middle of a move, but if I start taking new students once I get settled, I will probably make an announcement on my channel
I think it is extremely dangerous to land in a way that requires power, because if your motor quits, you will need to know how to land without it, and the best way to get proficient at that is to practice it a lot. You can alter the length of the base leg if you are low, proceeding direct to numbers, while keeping full flaps to land short (slow). Landing with power allows for more shallow, stabilized approaches where you have a lot of time. But if the motor quits, there are very few options if you are low over a residential area on a shallow approach angle.
Better to land short, steep and slow.
I like the way you think. Train for no power.
If you have an engine, then great, use it if needed.
You’re certainly entitled to you opinion. If I haven’t convinced you after this video, I probably won’t convince you lol
There is great value in practicing power-off landings, but consider this: making power-off landings gives you a lot of margin to use power to solve a low-energy condition on approach, but it affords no margin for correcting high-energy conditions on your approach. Flying a stabilized approach means being able to dampen both high-energy and low-energy conditions before you reach your landing decision point. Because of the presence of rising terrain and obstacles, many approaches flown in mountains have a "committed" point that is well before the landing point, some even at a downwind or base leg equivalent. Nobody who is committed on an approach would want to fly without the ability to correct for high-energy conditions.
@@FreePilotTraining If you are going to convince anyone of anything, you need to include all the factors relevant to the topic of discussion. Altering the flight path is a way to address a low approach without adding power or increasing airspeed. I would be curious to hear your thoughts on that. Not including it just creates an appearance of unfounded bias, which undermines your ability to convince people to change their thinking. The reasons for practicing any type of approach inform whether that approach type is wise. Want to prepare for engine failure? Practice short approaches with engine at idle. Want to practice short landings at high DA with no go around? A long, shallow, stabilized power-on approach seems to be the recommended method. I would not practice power off to prepare for mountain strip landings in Idaho.
Yeah youfly a really tight pattern, cut the power and put all the flaps in and land. We usually make the first taxiway.
I like to fly nice tight patterns
I learned by a rare breed in Tulsa at 1h6 late 99-2000. My first 6-7 hours in a 152 by David Lowen great instructor. I was young and he wanted to be sure I could handle anything that might happen. For the first 6-7 hours I had no airspeed indicator purposely I found out lol. Slight back pressure and the plane knows when it wants to fly. We always made power off landings. Because he always said never fly your pattern any wider than you can make the runways in an engine out. At the numbers on downwind to base is where we went to idle. That method i believed saved my life 10 years ago in a mountain situation. Fully loaded and had a prop governor failure on the 177b. It was so damn close I had no time to look at any instruments. Knowing my plane and a few different instructors styles all put into my knowledge bank is why I’m still here. In the same boat some people can’t feel it out like others and that could be a bad deal.
Great story. I totally agree. Your patterns should always be close enough to make the runway if you lose your engine. As I mentioned in the video, if you are making approaches with power on, there may be a really small area on short final where you might not make it, but if this concerns you, you can always plan to land on the captain’s bars to mitigate this problem.
@@FreePilotTraining you are a fine pilot! I’m always looking to learn technique. I enjoy your videos for sure. Keep them coming!
@@joshc7091 thanks man!
Long story short: short/soft field landing should be the default landing for a student. The only reason to use a “normal” landing in a 172, is if you’re trying to vacate the runway for trailing traffic, or there are big gusts, requiring a higher approach speed. A power-off approach is not a stabilized approach, and it teaches terrible habits.
Those "terrible habits" can certainly become valuable the day the engine quits. I know what kind of pilot I prefer for sure. Happy landings (and don't worry, the engine won't quit)
@@kch2005 You’re talking to a glider CFI here. My point is that there are a lot of hack instructors churning out baby pilots who are incapable of flying a stabilized approach, and hitting their mark at the target speed. I see them daily smoking around the pattern, burning up tires and brakes, using 60% of the runway to get a trainer stopped. What’s going to happen when they land on snow or ice or with a tailwind?
@@PostcardsfromAlaska I agree that is a problem. Not sure that is related to power off approaches though. I bet you and I can agrees as fellow glider pilots, that you can fly a stabilized approach power off (as you always do in a glider). And the habits of using TLAR in stead of mechanically adding 20 degress flaps on base, and full flaps on final. If the day comes, that they really need to land power off, I bet they don't have the needed judgement and experience.
I enjoy both power off and power on. When I do power on I feel like a B737 on a 3 degree glideslope and that is typically with un experienced passengers. Alone or with fellow pilots, I do mostly power off, honing the skill of judging the wind, slipping when needed etc. The speed is bang on, but the glide angle varies according to my aim point. Excactly like a glider approach. Happy landings and blue skies :-)
@@kch2005 By “stabilized approach” I’m not talking about rigid adherence to turns and flap settings. Just a lower-energy approach, that allows power adjustments in two directions, instead on only one. This is absolutely essential in larger aircraft, or you would never get stopped on a 7000’ runway. It’s weird that so many people habitually fly small aircraft like powered gliders. You may get really good at your hybrid glider-powered approach,but you will never be capable of spot landing under 200’ or operating off-airport without wrecking.
If you have a constant descent rate with constant speed and heading for your touchdown point -you're on a stabilized approach. It's nonsensical to say that if your power is off you can't fly a stabilized approach.
Power off (idle)/gliding landings should be taught right from the start of flight training. They represent the worst case situation...engine failure. Also, the student should be able to use ALL available flight controls. Knowing when and how requires a lot of time in the training area with lots of altitude. These skills must be practiced in each aircraft type you fly.
Agreed, but NORMAL landings are more important to know how to perform properly because they are done more often
@@FreePilotTraining Power off/idle/gliding should be the norm and taught first. Power off requires the student to quickly understand pattern and landing dynamics. Then, adjustments..including the use of power can be added later. This will produce a pilot who is safe, competent, and comfortable in the pattern.
I never look at my airspeed indicator after I turn base. I look out the window and land thr plane. I sometimes use flaps, sometimes I don't, depending on how I feel. When flying instruments, I fly by the numbers, but VFR, I just fly the plane.
I’d be careful about that. It’s good practice to occasionally land without the airspeed indicator, but it’s required for VFR flight for a reason. Thanks for the comment
@@FreePilotTraining I fly by feel and visual reference when flying VFR. Nothing in the regs say what speeds you have to fly downwind, base, and final. On a normal takeoff, I don't look at s I ends. I put the nose in position and let it fly when it's ready. That's part of pilotage. I fly a 172 and a 182 primarily
@@mattbasford6299 You’re right. There’s not anything that says you can’t! Some people have crashed because they didn’t have one to look at. It’s definitely a great skill to have
@@FreePilotTraining I respect your videos (and others like them). My problem with many aviation educational videos is that many have a narrow view of the proper way to fly an airplane. At the risk of sounding immodest, I am a very good stick and rudder pilot. Many pilots who have flown with me (including a retired Air Force General who did one of biannual reviews) have commented highly favorably about my skills. I'm not real keen on standard operating procedures. Unless I'm flying IFR, I just sort of free wheel it.
I've been to that McDonald's. Was driving to Indianapolis from California. Who doesn't want to stop at the world's largest McDonald's? 😁
Awesome! Yeah, it’s fun to go get a hamburger sometimes!
I'm a little confused, what's stopping you from putting down any amount of flap (including full flap) at the end of a power-off approach should you so choose once the runway is made? I don't understand this entire line of thinking that suggests you'll be touching down with partial flaps if your approach is power off.
On a power off approach, flaps are used to control your descent. If you aren’t going to make the runway, you’re not going to put more flaps in. So you may have full flaps or you may have no flaps on a power off approach
@@FreePilotTraining sure, but once the runway is made - aren't you supposed to put down whatever flap setting you want for touchdown? Certainly with power you can drag it in with full flaps from 3 miles out, but nothing prevents you from doing a power-off approach and then putting down full flaps on a short final, correct? You're making this assertion that power-off approaches often result in landings with partial flaps, but you're just not explaining why. I personally was trained to land with power, but whenever my CFI asked me to do a power-off 180 he would always expect me to put down full flaps before touchdown as that's what one would do in a real off-airport landing emergency to minimize the groundspeed.
Title is incorrect, should be why you shouldn't do power off approaches
Flaps do not reduce the approach speed because you never aim for speeds near stall during the approach and stall speeds really don't change that much with flaps; 60 knots target in the Cessna 172. Flaps are mostly about dumping energy (stored in altitude). Flaps do reduce the landing roll, but mostly because of the reduced speed of the flaring, nose up on contact, and drag created during landing. Flaps make you much more vulnerable to gusts. All that said, flaps are a distraction from the power off (idle) landing question, because obviously you add power to make the runway, as needed. But power off landings teach you to fly the plane like a glider, and to be more prepared for engine out scenarios.
I’m not sure where you’re getting your information, but flaps DO reduce approach speed. Here’s why. According to the Airplane Flying Handbook, on base, you should be flying at 1.4 x Vso (this is the aircraft stall speed in the landing configuration - in other words…FULL Flaps. This gives you an adequate buffer to keep you from stalling. This is especially important when turning base to final. Most accidents happen here. Also, flaps DO reduce stall speeds. In my airplane, it will stall with 0 bank with flaps up at 57 mph. Flaps 40 with 0 bank, the airplane will stall at 49 mph. A difference of 8 MPH. These speeds are roughly where the critical angle of attack will be exceeded. Sorry, but you are wrong, and this mentality is what has killed a lot of pilots in the pattern. And as I’ve already mentioned, power off landings are important to learn, but a glider is a completely different category of aircraft, so you shouldn’t even compare the two. That would be like applying landing principles that are safe in a helicopter…
On the Cirrus SR20 stall speed is 9 kt. less with flaps down and it will be different on different aircraft, there was a fatal SR20 crash in Houston a few years ago where the flaps were raised on a go around too early. If I recall my long ago time in the 172 we did add at least 5 kt if doing a flaps up landing depending on wind conditions and load onboard.
I have a question
If an altimeter setting is not available, the pilot can set the altimeter to the airport's field elevation before takeoff. is this true?
Yes. My airfield doesn’t have any kind of weather reporting capabilities and that’s what i do there. You might like my video which gives a lot more detail ua-cam.com/video/q27N5EFWmpM/v-deo.html
@Free Pilot Training thanks for the answer. I'll always remember that now
@@adrianchapa6439 you’re welcome
Here’s some crazy discussion items - Front Side versus “Back Side” really Power versus actual Back Side Techniques. For this, we should note our basic motions Climb/Descend, Accel/Decel, Turn are an incomplete list. We also have Zoom and Dive. To climb or descend, we change power thus giving excess to climb or letting drag dominate to descend. To accel/decel, we change pitch typically while also changing power so as to stay level or stay on a constant glide path. Turning isn’t relevant to this discussion. Zooming and Diving, however, are trades between kinetic and potential energy. Different than climb and descend.
On the Front Side, if we’re high, we can nose down as that adds drag. There’s a limit to this as ground effect changes our polar. If we’re low, we can nose up to stretch. There’s a limit to this as we’ll eventually bleed through L/Dmax to the back side. Why might we like Front Side flyers? Turbines with long spool-up times. Front side gives us responsiveness in these sorts of planes.
What some mistakenly consider back side though really are power techniques. Use Pitch (trim) to control AOA (or speed as proxy). Power for glide path. It works on any plane in any position of the curve. Its working is just too slow and thus both susceptible to PIO and inadequate for landing glide path control responsiveness with turbines back near idle. To prove it, consider cruise flying obviously front side. What happens if you add power with no other changes? Note: gliders use this method too though by simultaneously adding drag and reducing lift through spoilers. These are mechanized to act in the same manner as a throttle or power lever with more spoiler control back less spoiler control forward. Nominal spoiler is midrange allowing for adjustments in both directions. Trim for AOA (or speed), Spoiler in lieu of Power for Glide Path.
What is true Back Side? If you’re high, pull up thus slowing and increasing drag thus sinking then dump the nose to accelerate and catch desired glide path. If low, push the nose gaining speed reducing drag to float further. Obviously, these are uncomfortable, hence we prefer the power techniques. They’re also more susceptible to mistakes, hence again we prefer power techniques. Though you’d be technically correct per physics to nose up to correct a high in your glide as you’re likely at L/Dmax hence nosing up slows you into the back side. I’d do the forward slip too in lieu of this which is really shifting the parasite drag of your curve leftward while also amplifying it. And I’d agree with you that avoiding having to use these particular true back side techniques in favor of the power techniques, which again work on both sides of the curve, is a safer game plan with much more precise glide path control done with much more ease of control.
This is something I could definitely do more studying on. Thanks for the good read
@@FreePilotTraining I omitted the main focus of front side flying - on the front side we use pitch for glide path and power for speed. We can see this Same technique regardless of the side with autopilot aircraft that have no corresponding auto throttle. If you’re in Altitude Hold, VNV, or VS, throttle will control speed as “Hal” will be trimming for you behind the scene. If, however, you’re in FLC, then “Hal” tries to maintain speed hence power controls VVI more in line with those power techniques. These become factor when teaching or doing Instrument Approaches with Technically Advanced Aircraft. The mind shift from Front Side while Coupled to Power Technique when Hand Flying especially in a transition to land as opposed to approach to approach can confuse your student or novice Instrument flyer.
And with that, we should also rewatch “Children of the Magenta.”
Around 6:20 you called left downwind, but you turned right. Were turning a 45 into the pattern?
It’s a right turn when you turn onto left downwind from that direction. It’s referring to the pattern direction you’re flying. Not the direction of turn
@@FreePilotTrainingunless I’m missing something here, doesn’t a left pattern indicate all left turns?
@@adsfasdf1847yes, once you’re in the pattern but not to enter the pattern
@@FreePilotTraining oh my bad, I thought you were saying crosswind to downwind not entering the pattern
Isn't the only question whether you would make the runway if your engine failed and secondly is the runway long enough?
According 91.129, in class D airspace, you are required to follow the glideslope (PAPI guidance). This is virtually impossible to do on a power off approach
@@FreePilotTraining It doesn't require that though. "At or above" is the wording used. A power off approach would generally be steeper than the glideslope, putting you in compliance with the regs.
Whatever you do, make sure to use trim👍🏻
Definitely
My instructor says no power on landing and I have a 172 Cessna 1961 so am I doing this wrong?
Lol. You have a good instructor
This is an interesting topic. It's been said in other comments, but I don't think you can blanket that all approaches should be with power. I personally land my Stinson largely with power off. My goal at typical small GA airports with no crazy approaches/obstacles is to always be within gliding distance while in the pattern. I think that should be a golden rule for any pilot/plane. I'm blown away by some pilots taking downwind 2 miles past the threshold. Yes, the odds are low that your engine quits somewhere in that base/final area, but why subject yourself to the unnecessary risk when there's no need? Don't get me wrong, there are places that require a longer, stabilized approach (think airports in valleys/mountains), in which a power on approach is definitely the way to go. But at your average airport with clear approaches: Power comes out abeam the touchdown point, hold the nose up until flap speed, add necessary flaps to touch down at your desired location, utilizing slips if necessary. Maybe there's something I am missing, but I don't think I would call that dangerous.
Thanks for the comment. Even with power I stay within a mile of the runway. This alleviates most of that risk. If I haven’t convinced you from this video, you probably will keep your opinion, lol. I’m interviewing a well respected examiner in the Arkansas area very soon. I’m hoping to get his thoughts as well
@@FreePilotTraining I’d love to hear them as well. Differing train of thoughts makes us think, and ultimately smarter.
@@caseyhutson5392 that’s a fact. I certainly welcome different trains of thought. It’s interesting to hear about other pilots who have lost their engine and what they did in that situation
Powered planes I use power on approach
Gliders I use geometry, airbrakes and side slips
Engine out then I'm in a glider
Drag doesn’t matter hardly at all for ground roll. Energy is all that matters. (Drag will help slow you down, but at low speeds in light aircraft, it isn’t significant.) Which means mass and velocity. If you touched down at the same speed and had the same braking effectiveness but with different flap settings, you would have the same ground roll.
Flaps are helpful for all kinds of other reasons, but they impact ground roll only by reducing stall/touchdown speed.
Which means: if you put full flaps in on landing, whether or not you use power, you’ll have the same ground roll.
Note: I’m not advocating for power off approaches, I’m just saying the reasons are different. They aren’t good standard practice because of safety margins for possible engine failures.
But if you do do them, use the same flap setting every time.
That’s a great perspective. I appreciate your comment
Yeah. V is a squared term.
Wouldn’t raising flaps after touchdown also increase break effectiveness
@@Krenson_Kniphfer yes, but I took that factor out by saying we’re keeping the same braking effectiveness.
Also, I was taught to not retract flaps on landing because it increases the risk of accidental gear retraction. Maybe your plane has fixed gear. If you fly an RG anywhere, you should think hard before making flap retraction after landing SOP, as it will become motor memory and increases risk of accidental gear retraction in your RG plane. Just something to think about. I was trained that way because my training track was toward complex aircraft and they didn’t want bad habits to unlearn.
16:00 go around
Great topic. Couple things to note... While most flight schools teach in 172's/152's which have tons of elevator authority while landing at idle, many of us fly many other types. In my case a Piper Cherokee 140. Not only is an approach with power even more appropriate in a Piper 140, but also is landing with a touch of power. Landing a Piper 140 at idle and you don't have enough stabilator authority to hold the nose off after the mains touch. I land typically with about the same throttle setting as I use to start the engine. By doing this I can let the nose wheel down when I want to. I will add though, that I recently added wing root fairings (knots2u) and now I have a bit more slow speed stabilator authority, but still need some power to keep the nose off. I always have the option of doing idle landings in situations that absolutely require it (short fields), but landings are way smoother and much easier (less maintenance $$$) on my aircraft when landing with some power. Bottom line... Know your aircraft, it's limitations, and be able to fly in it's entire envelope and you will have the tools for all situations. There is no one "right way", but many ways, depending upon the situation.
Thank you! I regularly fly a Cherokee 140. I land without power all the time and they are smooth, but that is a great tip because it is very tricky to keep the nose off the ground on grass landings. I’ll try a bump of power and see if it makes it more consistent
That says more about the poor handling characteristics of the PA28. The elevator on a light single SHOULD have sufficient authority to hold the nose well off in a power off landing. It does on a C150, and easily enough on my favorite aeroplane, the dH Chipmunk where there is ample elevator authority to get a lovely 3-pointer with the power off - or even a tail first landing if you are ham fisted.
They say you can't teach good judgement. I would never alter the safe, stable flight path of my aircraft just to hit a predetermined target (line) on the runway.
That’s a fact. But I believe that videos like this that build understanding allow students to make those calls by themselves when they get in the plane
@@FreePilotTraining I appreciate your videos and they do help students to learn, but aviation accidents are littered with bad decision making, and "allowing students to make those calls themselves" I believe, shows poor judgment, which, as the experts say, can't be taught, obviously.
One answer to the question about what to do when high and already at idle: Increase speed, up to max flap speed, to burn off excess energy. -have to move aim point well ahead of runway so you can transition back to normal approach speed prior to reaching runway.
You might find this video interesting as it is related to this topic of energy management in landings. All are full flaps. One is shallow (ILS'ish) and lots of power, one 'typical' descent angle with just a touch of power, one steep requiring excess energy be dissipated to avoid landing long. The key is that all arrive at the threshold in exactly the same energy state.
ua-cam.com/video/VyhTr8FXU2g/v-deo.html
That does work, but decreasing airspeed and dropping flaps before descending works in almost every plane you go fly
@@FreePilotTraining The landing config drag polar in my aircraft doesn't yield much benefit in descent angle slowing from 1.3Vso all the way to just above stall speed. There is much more descent angle available by increasing speed to max flap speed. (2,000 fpm & 11 degrees)
Another reason for not slowing below final approach speed is that you put yourself in a very low energy state combined with a high sink rate. You risk not having enough kinetic energy available to stop the descent.
You MUST be comfortable and proficient doing BOTH in single engine aircraft.
You were not “taught wrong”….
CAPTAIN 👨✈️ your exactly right. I totally 💯 agree with about not only dangerous. I feel it’s very poor judgement and deadly. I live in NC Emerald Isle I recently went on a very small jet 🛩️ from RDU to ST THOMAS. We started final approach too land. Felt and looked to me that we were coming in to fast 💨. As we got around 40 feet from the ground pilot 👨✈️ pulls all power back then proceeds too engage reverse thrust before our main gear has touched the pavement. Which when reverse thrust was engaged before main gear touched down it though the left wing dangerously close too the ground also the aircraft just fell on the runway. Very hard landing 🛬. Yea BRO that was crazy 😜. Anyway I totally 💯 agree with you CAPTAIN 👨✈️. I have seen this happen 2 2 many times now. I personally wouldn’t risk it would actually be afraid if something happen and needed to climb up wouldn’t have the power to do so. Just my opinion tho. GOOD DAY TOO CAPTAIN 👨✈️. Definitely 💯 wish I was your student here. The ones that you teach are very lucky and so fortunate too have you as an instructor. thanks 🙏 LANDON B from Emerald Isle NC here. Best channel ever !!! 💯💯💯💯💯💯💯
Crazy story! Thanks for the comment! I’m always blown away when pilots do stuff like that. I can’t even imagine going into reverse that high
@@FreePilotTraining thanks 🙏 for replying back CAPTAIN much appreciated. see you on the next comment. Good 😊 day too you Landon
why would you land on a grass runway when you have a nice paved runway?
Just for practice
Regarding your strong wind scenario:. If you look like undershooting, you add a burst of power to get you on the correct glide slope again and then cut the power again. You don't just add little more and fly a shallower angle.
you need to recognize EARLY when you are getting low, then you don't need a BURST of power only a gentle nudge almost unrecognized by passengers it is so small. when you don't recognize it soon enough is when you tend or overdo on the power.
First, my airplane does not have flaps. Second, so all the pilots trained for WWII were taught wrong?
Your airplane is an obvious exception to the rule on the flaps discussion. However, that doesn’t mean “normal approaches” should be made with power off. I love the heritage that comes from WW2. My favorite airplanes are from that era, but just because we taught something during that time doesn’t mean it’s the best way to do something. Since that time we have made numerous improvements in technology. Plus, over 15,000 pilots died in basic aircraft training during WW2 and didn’t even make it to the fight. With those stats, there must have been some things that they weren’t teaching properly
@@FreePilotTraining So I rent a C150. I land at 55 with flaps, make the first turnoff. I land at 55 with full flaps, make the first turnoff. Flaps don't control the landing roll out. Brakes not used in either landing. So, if you are not proficient at power off landings, RIP on an engine out situation.
I'm sorry but I totally don't agree with you. Statements like "power off landings are extremely dangerous" or "once you deploy flaps you're pretty much stuck with them" are just plain wrong.
1. Always plan for a go around. Landing is a nice bonus
2. You can and should retract your flaps if you see you're not gonna make it.
However, I totally agree that power off landings should not be your regular landing style
Always plan for a go around? What it that’s not an option in mountainous terrain? If you’re not going to make it on an engine out scenario, raising the flaps will kill a considerable amount of lift. That will not help you make the runway…
Funny.. The wing that is actually holding you up doesn't know the throttle position.
Considering lift is directly related to thrust, I’d say that it does. Lol
@@FreePilotTraining Tell that to a glider.. Lift is directly related to the flow of air over a wing.
@@stevepowell842 fair enough, but this video is talking about airplanes
I learnt to fly a glider and landed without power. 😅
Lol, that’s different
Are you a CFI?
Yes
You always have to plan to land without power, because your engine *will* fail and if you count on power when landing you'll have zero margin for any change in wind (even if right on glideslope) and if you always come in with power and white lights (to have margin, for when the engine inevitably fails), your landings will always be dangerous.
Land like a glider pilot every time, then when your engine fails (it is *absolutely guaranteed* that it will) you'll make the same landing you always make.
Pilots who assume their equipment will work, are not long for the world. A good pilot always makes sure their equipment can't fail prior to flight, and then flies assuming that it will fail at any moment.
Do you go around without power as well when you are going to land long on a short field?
@@FreePilotTraining can't go around with no engine, can you? You have to assume your engine will fail in the next second for every moment throughout the flight including landing. Gliders can't ever go around, so a bad approach means certain crash unless, by some miracle your engine is still working. Every time you do a go around, you have killed yourself, but by nothing other than pure luck you happen to have a working engine that saved you.
@@FreePilotTraining You practice power-off landings so that you can learn to manage your energy and land on a known point. This is done with four things: airspeed, flaps, flight path, and in some cases, a slip. But no, normal landings are not power-off until after performing the pitch-power transition to touchdown.
I'm guessing you only fly under VFR...
Forget instrument approaches with that kind of paranoia about your engine reliability
@@voorlok yup, IFR in single piston engine aircraft is basically suicide. IFR in single engine turbine is highly questionable. Planned IFR flight requires a twin engine.
How crazy is it that in cat3 IMC in a single engine that you lose the engine and that it automatically means that everyone on board is dead? I guess a single engine with a parachute might be a little better than single engine turbine without a parachute though.
I might be convinced that single engine IFR should be legal in aircraft equipped with a parachute. I understand that single engine IFR *is* legal in part 91, but it absolutely shouldn't be (without the parachute qualification).
Always remember that there are lots of things legal under part 91, that aren't even remotely safe.
I disagree. When you land you want your plane to fall out of the sky just as your wheels touch the ground. Some day your engine is going to fail... when it does you're going to land WITHOUT POWER.
Every landing is Practice for a future emergency... I'll keep doing what I've been doing for the last 50 years thank you very much.
I appreciate your opinion. I just wanted to give students something to think about when they decide what they want their “normal landings” to look like. As stated in the video, power off landings are important to learn, but I was tired of other pilots telling me that I should only teach my students “power off” landings when there is a very important reason why students should fly “ normal approaches” with partial power. Once they understand the reason for that, they can decide what’s right for them
I always land with power in the pattern, power to idle over the numbers, touch down on the 500ft marks.
I very much disagree with your reasoning. You obviously have not lost an engine on final. I did with no warning whatsoever. Fortunately the 25 years of flying before that time helped me to better understand the importance of setting up for a power off approach all the time and I landed on the runway at my intended touchdown point. I believe you are teaching your students to “drive” the airplane to the runway based on numbers and speed. “Flying” the airplane requires skills in judgement that I don’t believe you are teaching. Please reconsider your reasoning. Meanwhile, I’ll pray that you never lose an engine.
I appreciate your position. It’s definitely something to think about. However, I have to stick with my position as stated in the video. I’m hoping to interview a well respected examiner very soon in a future episode and I’d like to include this question in the conversation
Talking to different folks is a great way to develop your own understanding and best practices. The examiner is most likely spending a lot of time testing to FAA standards. In addition to the examiner, I would also encourage you to talk with different types of pilots that fly real world challenges as well. Maybe interview a pilot that has many years making a living in piston powered airplanes. Maybe a crop duster pilot, aerobatic pilot, a missionary pilot, a true bush pilot, a business charter pilot, etc. All of these pilots can offer fantastic tips that are far from FAA standards and guidance. Take care. Blue skies and tailwinds.
@@WingWright For sure. I hope to have lots of conversations like this in the future, and I hope to have more videos like this in the future that drive these conversations so pilots can make sound decisions
As you progress to heavier light aircraft, you should ALWAYS land with _SOME_ power. Example: with C152 or PA28-140/180/181 chop the power as you reach ground effect. However when flying heavier aircraft such as C-205/206/207 I always land with about a quarter inch of throttle lever applied.
Much smoother landings.
1 Cessna = death. 2 You are talking from experience with a pterodactyl Cessna. 3 People hate Cessna training because it is not an aircraft that most people want to fly. 4 Get into the 2023 tech. Homebuilts are more sophisticated than your 1950's baking tin. 5 Do some conversions on planes like Diamond, Sling, Aeroprakt, Jabiru, Zenith, Kitfox, Bearcat and many more. 6 You are most likely aspiring to a Cessna 310 that is even more of a killer, anyhow it is a matter of time.
Lol. I am a huge fan of homebuilt aircraft, but there’s a reason why the 172 is the most produced aircraft of all time. The stability, performance, and durability as a trainer is unmatched on many levels.
Thank you for response. 172 suits training schools, not student pilots. I had a Jabiru J430 and my kids could not train on it, but were told to train on a 172 first. Cessnas are out of pace with reality.
@@FreePilotTraining
how do get really good at something? practice and REPETITION? in a small single engine trainer if you make all your routine approaches power off you got very good at it. that's why many CFI's are good at it. this advice is terrible and contributes to typical incompetence of the pilot community. if your engine is still running why on earth would it be any more dangerous to make a power off approach if there is no reason not to?
Might be good to watch the video all the way through. It explains that in detail
@@FreePilotTraining might be better yet to read and comprehend my comment. you did not refer to any comment i made, you continued to recommend using power on all normal approaches. if you can't teach a student to use proper pitch control with power you should not have them even consider a short field landing because yes that IS dangerous as you demonstrate clearly! if you need to slip a cessna with full flaps to get down you definitely need to work on your short field approaches.
I made every landing without power from the point of turning base. It not only guards against engine failure but provides exactly the right practice for engine failure every time you land.
Gliders land safely without an engine every time they fly. Flap or no flap. Slip or no slip. These are just tools to adjust the flight path. It is how and what oitside feedback and when you apply them that makes them appropriate and the whole procedure to begin with. To go as far as to say it is dangerous or telling pilots they are "doing it wrong" is either calling for click bait reactions or demonstrates clear lack of understanding. Is this not all about knowledge? Perhaps you might learn something if you went and flew with the chap offering to show you another method. We taught glide approaches for thousands of hours. Safely. I dont know anyone who rips out the landing charts before selecting a field after an engine failure. Perhaps your video misses some of the basics in teaching this but in fairness it is a hard one to get across in a video.
As mentioned in the video, I agree that power off approaches are very important to learn, but the key point is trying to make in this video is that they should not be used for “normal approaches” to landings. If I haven’t convinced you after you’ve watched the whole video, I probably won’t convince you, and you certainly are entitled to your opinion, but I don’t feel that it is clickbait, because I truly believe what I said in the video. Also, gliders are awesome, but they are in a completely different category of aircraft, so you really shouldn’t compare the two
You missed the point in respect of gliders. I don't need convincing. In terms of the "practice" it is just another glide approach and safe. The reason most people don't teach glide approaches is either they were not taught properly themselves or it is EASIER to drag it in with power. And arguably yes in that sense safer. The industry has gone to the path of least resistance. Sadly
This is a purist discussion. It is not unsafe. How I land every time. And yes. I have flown larger high performance machines and there are obvious engine management issues to not pull certain engines back to idle but ypur video is talking about the average bug smasher here
@@PromoJetAus according to the AFH on page 9-4, for the untrained or inexperienced pilot, it can be unsafe. You obviously have a lot of experience, and this method has obviously served you well, but I hope you see my point, that if landing distance is a factor, if it’s gusty, or you need to maintain a glideslope, you may want to consider a power on landing
@@FreePilotTraining If you need to maintain a glideslope then you will need power. That is an artificial man made path through space. If landing distance is a factor - that is, if it is so tight, a powered approach is what I taught to effect a shorter landing. Thrust to overcome drag assists with margin in respect of stall speed and allows a shallower path through the wind gradient. (Less instantaneous potential for loss of airspeed - particularly low near the trees and buildings where is all usually happens). But Gusty - does not make a glide approach unsafe - rule of thumb 1/3 max gust to your approach speed 1.5Vs (+ Gust factor) to be safe. I still disagree with your premise that the default use of a glide approach is "unsafe and we are doing it wrong" - even for newbies - with the caveat they have been taught properly to begin with - anything can be dangerous if not taught properly. I guess that is why most drag it in! They're being prepared to monitor an autopilot and a glideslope in general anyway. Again - this is a purist discussion fundamentally.
Sorry dude as a CFI I could ask that you remove this video but that I am guessing that is unlikely. It is unfortunate that you were not instructed as thoroughly as you could have been during your traing. Your primary control of your descent on final should not be limited to what you can do with flaps and a gentle slip. The first rule every instructor should be teaching a student, is not to fly a pattern that is so wide they can't make it back to the runway without the engine. By definition, you are encouraging them to do just that. Students who train in power off landings from the beginning have no problem whatsoever in making normal landings sans power. Beter yet, if they have to do it for real, it is just another power off landing in hundreds they have done. So to not make this just a flame, I will extend an invitation to you. I teach about an hour from KOSH. If you are going to be out that way next summer, drop in for an afternoon and we can go out together. I suspect you will have a different view after a couple of hours and a much better grasp of physics that are in play.
I appreciate your feedback, but I won’t be removing it. I guarantee that my patterns are just as tight as yours if not tighter. I certainly don’t train students to make huge patterns. I agree, that is super annoying. You can make tight patterns with power. I do it all the time. I hope you watched the whole video to see my reasoning in making “normal approaches” with power, because I think you would see my position. Also, I spoke with a highly respected examiner in the Arkansas area and he backs up my position for another reason. I’m hoping to interview him in a future episode.
Feldman, you’re teaching people wrong, and wasting their time and money. They will have to be retrained before they can become competent. I’m willing to bet you’ve never flown anything big or fast. That crap about maintaining glide range to the runway is counterproductive, and a load of horseshit.
You should be teaching stabilized approaches (per the FAA, and common sense) and that means 3 degrees and carrying power at 1.3 VsO or less. Otherwise, your students are going to make or break their landing with the timing of their downwind/base turn. Impossible to do with any measure of precision. Best case scenario: they’re smoking brakes and tires, and learning bad technique. Worst case, they’re burnt to a crisp, the first time they try to fly a bonanza or light twin.
If you think I’m full of crap, We’ll do a spot landing contest. Standard day sea level, no wind, I’ll hit my spot plus or minus six feet and stop under 200’ every time in a 180. 150’ in a 172.
It’s good to see other people teaching things correctly
Ya, it's a conundrum, getting quality instruction without breaking the bank. I fly Part 135, only instruct sporadically. Like most guys I instructed to reach part 135 mins, then gave it up. Now that I've got 15000 hours of AK Bush and mail flyjng, I can offer specialized instruction, and charge an honest days wage. Wanna learn glacier landings, or floatplanes, get insurance mins in your new beaver or 185? I'll help, but it'll cost a helluva lot more than primary instruction.
@@PostcardsfromAlaska that’s awesome! I was stationed at JBER for about a year and a half. I’d like to make it back up there at some point and get into some serious bush plane work. Sounds awesome
I’m sorry but was “Landing lights off” a checklist item while still in rotation over the runway? And credibility out the window 🙄
It’s called checklist discipline and it was well after I was safely airborne. the way the video was cut may have made it look lower than it was. Good habit patterns like this keep you from overspeeding gear and flaps on much more powerful aircraft and if you don’t gear the gear up once you’re safely airborne on a multi-engine aircraft, you could potentially fail to meet you OEI climb gradient which could cause you to crash into an obstacle on an instrument departure procedure
You're assuming one thing here that's kind of foolish: that people mean no power at all allowed during a landing. Of course you're going to use power if you're at risk of being short, need to go around, etc.; the point is to use power as little as possible. Obviously if you set yourself up properly for a power off approach, like you failed to do throughout the video, you won't need very much, if any, power, but the option is there. But then you started to twist the subject by going into flaps and regs about preflight prep in the middle which makes no sense whatsoever as it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
In any case, the entire goal of a power off approach mindset (for that IS what it is, a mindset) is to make sure you can make the runway if your engine quits, no matter where in the pattern. Engines don't care if you're on downwind, base, or final. So when you're doing your nice wide approach dragging it in with power and full flaps deployed, what are you doing when you lose your engine at 200 ft on final? You're hitting the trees, that's what.
Finally, the power off approach is taught by master CFI/Is with decades of teaching experience, flight time, and experimentation under their belts. I'd say they have a bit more credibility than a guy who reacts to an operating limitation with "they say it can be dangerous or something like that" (15:57).
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. I recommend reading the AFH. If normals approaches were meant to be taught without power, that’s what they would teach. Of course I would go around on a power off approach if you were going to land short, but this raises a very important question… where does a new student do that? Do they stretch final out with backstick pressure and risk a low altitude stall? An inexperienced pilot may very well do that and the AFH even says this is the danger in teaching this method to new students. If you don’t think a low altitude stall is dangerous, then I don’t know what is. And by the way, I landed right on my target during my power off 180, so I’m not sure where you are getting that “I failed to do that throughout the video” the other approaches were intentionally “power on” approaches to prove a point.