My landing got so much better as a student once I accepted the fact that the plane literally wants to keep flying in ground effect and there is nothing to be scared of… just keep it off the ground until it’s ready. Also watching 2 million AOPA accident videos as a student didn’t help me tbh because I kept thinking “it’s safer to be high on approach if engine fails “ lol. Which led to higher airspeed on final since I had to lose altitude. Led to a lot of work on short field before for the checkride. But man…landing is my favorite part of flying. That satisfaction of returning to earth smoothly is peak existence
Another tip I’d love to offer is, when you’re in ground effect and you start to balloon and you decide to try and land and you find the airplane falling, add a touch of power to slow the descent rate.
A good technique for runway alignment in whatever aircraft is to keep the centerline between our legs. Yes, it will appear to be between the instructors legs as well. If you walk the rudder pedals dynamically and proactively you will never have alignment problems or ground loop because you are constantly moving to stay ahead of the aircraft.
This is how Im going to explain landings when I become a CFI. Youre doing good work with the channel, hope it grows, I will make my other guys in school know about it!
I'm embarrassed that I've been interested in aviation all my life, flying gliders for twenty years, and I only just learned that in the US the C in CFI means "certified" not "chief". here you get one CFI per flying club/school, or occasionally two co-CFIs
Currently working on my IRA at a 141. I had a tough time with private, I felt as if I could not figure out my landings. My first instructor was rough, she told me a hundred different things about perfecting the landing and I just could not do it. I requested an instructor change and the first lesson my new instructor explained to me the importance of airspeed control. Immediately got it, landings were not perfect and still are not, but he completely changed my confidence and now I follow these airspeed principles.
I’m currently a student pilot and watching these types of videos really helps me learn what I should and shouldn’t do to keep learning and improving 🙏🙏
I started to learn to fly in Casper, Wyoming in 1998. Natrona County Airport is >5,000ft QFE and I flew Cessna 172s for ~36 hours. I only restarted flying lessons 24 years later in Liverpool, UK (flying a PA 28) so here are my tricks to a perfect landing; 1. 63/64kts on final (depending on a PA-28 161 or 181) or 70/75kts just to be safe. 2. As you get over the "piano keys", you'll see the runway expansion effect. 3. That's the queue to throttle back to idle and configure wings level to the horizon (usually about 10ft off the ground) 4. Look at the end of the runway but use your peripheral vision to check the VSI. 5. When you see the needle shoot down to the 6 o'clock position, exert back pressure until the VSI needle returns to 0ft/minute (i.e., 9 o'clock position). 6. Repeat Step 4 and 5 until the main carriage gently touches down...BUT *make sure* you add right rudder to straighten the nose just before touch-down.
65kts will barely, if at all, be touching the region of reverse command in a 172. Pitch for airspeed/power for altitude will work regardless of normal or reverse command on approach.
@@EarthAmbassador STOL applies this principle to well below 65 knots coming into high ground effect, where Vso has no meaning. What poor instructors having to teach Airman Certification Standards need is a workaround the 65 knots to make the outcome of the difficult and ineffective normal landing technique never in doubt. Munden needs to let his students use the -5 knots or so fudge factor to actually get nearer the realm of reverse command. He needs to kinda make the throttle a bit dynamic and allow a bit more elevator, which is safe. Someone came up with the incorrect idea that students would stall on final slower than Vso. Yet the physics of ground effect is that we must be much slower than Vso, an out of ground effect number. Instructors are making the way too fast numbers work, but LOC on landing now can be really fast and deadly. Again, a workaround in the interest of hurting only tin and saving more skin. In the days before PTS, which predated ACS, we learned Wolfgang's law of the roller coaster... take off fast and land in a three point attitude all slowed up and ready to squat. It was called flying. And we learned it in ten hours. Get rid of the old mean guy. Sorry.
I very much agree that too much airspeed is a huge factor in student problems landing and can eventually lead to more damage and even injury in LOC. Not maintaining exact longitudinal alignment with dynamic proactive rudder movement is the beginning of LOC, but extra airspeed exacerbates it. A touchdown at the thousand feet marks is a huge airplane on a very long runway, say airline, technique. You are correct about the problem students and pilots have with this in a 172 going 1.3 Vso. It is a kite and you haven't gotten control of the wiffs of wind until you get airspeed completely under power/pitch control. We have to be much slower than Vso to quit flying in one inch ground effect. Faster will cause skip and bounce and continued flying. Yes, you are teaching to the test, but fewer students will go corporate and airline than other flying professions and recreation in small airplanes. Wolfgang's "stall down" is the perfect spot landing, but add dynamic throttle to exactly control glide angle and rate of descent all the way to touchdown exactly where desired makes it STOL. While this precision is not necessary on long runways, the local instructors I work with are on three thousand feet. Giving up the first thousand is dangerous here over the long run. I'm just saying there needs to be a workaround in the interest of safety. How do I know when I am five feet from the ground? How about three or six inches? Why hasn't slow flight prepared me for the control feel of well below Vso? Try hover taxi down those long runways. Do an extended soft field technique using just enough power to stay in low ground effect and a bit of dynamic proactive elevator movement to nail level in low ground effect. Rather than less than a second in slow enough to be almost quit flying, our students can experience several seconds of this really need to know but never published airspeed. And no, don't look at the airspeed indicator. In the old trainers it would be pegged anyway. At whichever taxiway you desire, close the throttle to touchdown in a three point attitude all slowed up and ready to squat as Wolfgang says. Try having the too high for stall flare student or the ballooned student add just a bit of power to make it a soft field technique landing with some power. I had a student with poor depth perception in the CAP 172. I put him in my cheap enough for me to afford Ercoupe. On short final I had him pull back on the yoke to the stop. Yes, the Ercoupe is actually unstallable. I then had him use the now dynamic control of glide angle and rate of descent throttle all the way to touchdown slowly and softly exactly where desired. He eventually gained a sense of height above touchdown.
Outstanding words of wisdom- witnessed several poor landers of the 172 pull throttle as soon as they determine they have made the runway and f up their landings…. Using a touch of throttle as needed definitely can salvage things and make that steep landing more user friendly. Perhaps they have heard “stall it out just before touching down,” that is solid advice however adding a touch of power (say 5 more knots to soften that landing) has never been a bad thing for me personally.)
Just a side note, the last segments showing side load were shot at Freeway Airport, W00. I flew out of there for about 8-9 years. It's always interesting there sine the prevailing winds are west/east and the runway is north/south. Oh, and runway is 2400/ft X 40ft.
Hey I know you! Happy to see you're still making videos. We used to talk about camera setup and audio capture back in 2014-15 before I moved to ohio. (Confession - those landings were student pilot me lol)
The best thing I learned which I don’t really hear a lot of is that as the plane loses energy/speed, elevators lose effectiveness and most, if not all, planes are going to be nose heavy. So on the round out, students make the common mistake of “flaring” when all you need to do is keep the nose where it is and let the loss of elevator effectiveness naturally put the plane in a nose up configuration. The tricky part is when to transition to round out from approach. And I think peripheral sight picture is where I mostly determine that.
Regarding the "over control" during round out, I'd like to think of it as flying formation with the runway. I try to maintain that 3-5 feet altitude until that energy bleeds and the plane cannot sustain the lift/ground effect any longer and "settles" The controls are going to be mushy, so lots of movement in the control will be required, but not so much that the airplane rises or descents quickly. My key is quick, purposeful movements to maintain that 3-5 feet. Another great exercise for students and licensed pilots alike is to fly a LOW approach at that 5 ft level down the runway with just enough power to maintain altitude but not touch down. This exercise will provide a good reference for that feel during the round out phase and how the controls, power input and airplane feel together near the ground. Once you get a hang of flying low approaches like that, it just a matter of taking out the power and the airplane will settle to a smooth landing. This method is also a great way to learn how to control the plane laterally for center-line alignment during the final leg and landing. Enjoyed the vid and your comments. Thanks for sharing.
@@PaperPilotJack This excellent low approach technique you mention is what I call the hover taxi. Get down to three feet or so where ground effect is greater and your students will be able to experience flight at much slower than Vso, an out of ground effect number. At this very slow airspeed the elevator can be moved quickly for/aft to dynamically bracket level in low ground effect. Yes, power is altitude but we need a bit quicker bracket here. And they can learn that the aileron is completely ineffective here, same as in the falling leaf but moreso because we are slower than Vso. A demonstration they can master themselves quickly is to rudder yaw with just a bit of cross control (ailerons barely work) to move the airplane from centerline to left side of runway to centerline to right side of runway, etc. While coordination is king, we want them to understand there is a place for rudder only for longitudinal alignment. In the crop field on a spray run at max airspeed, this rudder turn to move over a row requires lots of cross control ailerons to keep the spray boom from dragging off the low wing. We need to understand how the controls work differently at different gaits as Wolfgang called V speeds. What V speeds? Anyway good technique. Thanks for mentioning it.
The round out just means when you are a few feet over the runway ignore the speed and just pull back as much as you need to hold the plane a foot above the runway until you feel the aircraft settle to the runway aka stall onto the runway.
The best drill for landing is slow flying the airplane couple of feet above the runway as long as possible, pull the power and let the airplane settle down by itself. You need a super long runway to do it safely and lots of CFIs are hesitant to fly that way.
I will disagree on one important point. Power controls airspeed and pitch controls altitude. If power id fixed pitch controls both airspeed and altitude. I agree with you about the aiming point, I never used or taught an aiming point.
Yeah energy management has been what’s killing me. Fighting that “lizard brain” and pitching down was what I really needed to start landing consistently. Since then, my energy management concerns changed. Recently my descents have been too fast because my three mile approach would be off, leaving me too high and close to the runway. All that descent speed would kill me in ground effect; the slightest back pressure felt like it would balloon me. That descent speed also messed with my landing spots by building a bad habit. I was used to gliding an excessive distance past my aim point, so once I fixed those approach issues, I was risking landing too short of my intended touchdown point. My instructor was telling me not to land short, but I thought I would just glide there based on my usual experience as someone who flew too fast in ground effect. It’s getting better, though. I just did my first night landings, and the landing I did without a landing light somehow happened to be my best touchdown yet. -Student Pilot
Can you do a vídeo on the reverse controls things you said? Pitch controls airspeed and power controls rate of descent? I was taught the exact oposite but I never got this...
coming in full flap I also do this sometimes. but even when coming with only 10 degrees on a hot day, I feel the plane drops way too quickly when pulling all the power over the fence.
Never really successfully applied the aiming point technique, even though I understand the concept. Feel like its only possible to aim at an aiming point if you have 30+ degress of flaps. If I'm coming down with no flaps and try to point my nose down, my speed will skyrocket most of the time, even with power at idle. Having said that, I understand what you mean when you say that sometimes you dont have success teaching this aiming point technique.
The video does not say anything about when to go to idle power. Can you keep 1500 rpm when you have 65kts above the runway? Thank you for the video. Very helpful.
Generally speaking, I go power idle very slowly during the round out phase. Some people go power idle well before that, but for me, I like to keep a little bit of power in. I will always touchdown with no power though. Unless I am compensating for gust, factor or something like that.
@@egamez1 If you slow down enough on short final to sink with full flaps, you have brought the throttle into dynamic precise control of glide angle and rate of descent all the way to flair completely eliminating the need for the confusing round out and idle throttle because of going way to fast to quit flying in low ground effect. If when coming into high ground effect you use the apparent rate of closure with the numbers Wolfgang talks about and you use every time you decelerate your automobile into an intersection, yes, power all the way to flair and touchdown slowly and softly exactly where desired. No, not 1500 RPM, not 65 knots. Power as needed to nail glide angle. Elevator as needed to (in high and then low ground effect) to maintain what appears to be a brisk walk rate of closure with the exact desired touchdown spot. I use the numbers, but that won't work for you on the flight test.
Hmm I'm a new student with like 10 hours and we have been doing our 172 finals at 60kts. Might be due to my CFIs teaching style or the fact that we operate out of a 2500ft runway.
Your CFI is teaching you how to do the short field landing: 60 KTS with full flaps. Once you master this, other landings will be easier. Lots of CFI teach Landing at 65 KTS with two notches of flaps, but some students find it hard to time the round out: too high floating; too low, smacking the runways.
Hey, quick question, do you really think we could see single pilot ops or even no pilot ops in the near future for the airlines? Is it worth it to try and become an airline pilot still?
Is this so much more difficult than in a simulator? In a simulator you can just land intuitivly without trying and nail it every time. Whats different? Maybe im ignorant. I only flew some DCS so dunno if those airplanes are more hands off because they have a different purpose. But this video sounds more complicated than it looks to me. Or do the trainees not fly simulators before their real flights? Edit: Is it because these small airplanes are more suceptible to wind because of their light weight?
If you want to understand how airplanes behave vs what you experience in the simulator, an easy read is Stick and Rudder by Wolfgang Langewiesche. You'll tie yourself in knots trying to use the sim to figure out flight.
21 and 15 hours and haven’t soloed yet ? What’s wrong with this generation of students. Myself and a lot of students soloed by our 10th hour. School I quit sending students to weren’t soloing students till 20 hours and their student had 60-70 hours before they got their license.
at 10 hours you can probably safely fly a pattern but can you handle emergencies? would you be able to divert if need be? would you be able to fly in/out of a busy home airport or in complicated airspace? there’s a lot more to being ready for solo then being able to fly a pattern.
@@yurtsalon THat's what I'm talking about, solo first time in the pattern, not talking about doing a cross country or something. Just make 3 takeoffs and landings like we used to do, not soak student for money spending more hours than necessary.
@@SyphenHouse A prop is very expensive, but don't talk yourself out of learning how each control works. Move the control. If you don't like what happens, move it back. How else are you going to learn what it does. There is a place for dynamic proactive elevator movement if slower than Vso in low ground effect as you should be when near the surface while landing. Also, this is the airspeed where students should learn that the ailerons do not work. Use the rudder for runway alignment and notice how the rudder keeps the wing level as well.
2:59 Why should 1500rpm be the default "sweet spot"? Once the runway is made, couldn't it be argued that "zero thrust" rpm should be the default "sweet spot", because then every routine landing trains students on the "dead stick" glide ratio of that aircraft, increasing the chances of successful emergency landings? Additionally, using 1500 rpm increases the danger of crashing short of the runway if power is lost on final.
Yeah, I should have been more clear. I just give my students that number because it gives them a good approach speed. Of course your power depends on glide slope and other factors. Good comment!
@@CFIIMunden Please take this in the (friendly) spirit that it is intended, but... if by approach speed you mean keeping out of the way of the twin behind you, then obviously 1500rpm wouldn't be the default, and if by approach speed you mean 65mph, that is determined by pitch, not rpm, as you stated...and so i still don't see where the 1500rpm comes from. The only "advantage" that I can see from 1500rpm instead of zero thrust is that the student then learns that if he misjudges high he can then just lower the rpms to idle, which I would consider giving the student an unnecessary and undesirable "crutch". Better that he doesn't have that crutch to rely on, and if he misjudges high and can't flap and/or slip is way down, then he should have to go around. How many engine failures occur with the engine stuck at 1500rpm? Later, when he is flying a heavier aircraft that actually benefits from basically "slow flying" the airplane down to the runway, THEN he can decide what rpm(s) to use for that particular aircraft.
@@jerrysmith5782 The reason why 1500 rpm is the default “sweet spot” in this example, is that it’s a value that provides consistent results. It doesn’t have to be 1500 rpm. It could be a little more, or it could be less. It depends on the airplane, the desired glideslope (or rate of descent, typically around 500 fpm) and the desired approach speed on final. The goal is consistency. If a low-time student pilot is spending an hour in the pattern doing touch and go’s, the student needs to be learning how to nail power settings and airspeeds on every lap, consistently. That means pitching for Vy on the go. Knowing when, and by how much, to throttle back when turning downwind. Knowing what throttle setting works best to maintain 85 knots on downwind without climbing or descending. 2100 rpm works well in a 152. When to apply carb heat. When to add the first notch of flaps. And so on. That’s what makes for a stabilized approach. Your assertion that an approach speed is determined by pitch and not rpm, is not entirely correct. The goal is to maintain the glideslope, while not exceeding the desired airspeed. Too slow, you risk landing short of the runway or stalling. Too fast and you’ll be floating down the runway. That’s one reason to find that “sweet spot.” Certainly, adjust accordingly. I’m not sure why you’re calling that, “a crutch.” Your approach speed is your approach speed. Anything else, like crosswind and gusty wind landings, no-flap landings, power-off 180s, and so on, are abnormal situations that can be practiced for. It is never your responsibility to accommodate fast, twin engine or otherwise higher performance airplanes behind you by flying outside of your comfort zone. Stick with your training. It’s up to the guy behind you to adjust his approach speed accordingly, or go around. And finally, understanding the relationship between pitching for airspeed, and power settings for altitude (climb rate, level flight, descent rate), is an absolute necessity when advancing toward an IFR rating. Attitude (climb, level flight, descent), plus Power (rpm or manifold pressure) plus Configuration (flaps, landing gear), equals Performance. Consistency in setting up for various stages of flight, equals predictable results. To understand this relationship more, I recommend looking into a course called, “IFR: The Missing Lessons,” available at Pilot Workshops dot com. Look at the lower left-hand corner of about any IFR approach plate. You’ll see a table with times based on varying approach speeds, from the final approach fix, to the missed approach point. If you’re in the soup, you better know what power settings deliver 90 knots on final with the landing gear down, and power adjustments required as flaps are added. The best time to build a foundation of knowledge of this relationship, is with new students while they’re still navigating the traffic pattern.
@@TenMinuteTrips I think that our disagreement simply stems from our having completely differing goals in mind. If the goal is to just train a strictly VFR pilot who avoids busy metropolitan airports like the plague, then my approach makes sense, whereas if the goal is to train the student for more advanced flying than the above, and do it without excessive cost, then your approach makes sense. IMHO, ideally, if the student could afford it, then I feel that my approach followed by your approach would be the best of both worlds...because then the student would be somewhat proficient at emergency landings even before they solo. But yes, all of my "zero thrust" approaches WOULD cost the student extra money...money which could be otherwise spent on training that would benefit them if they wish to do more advanced flying.
@ I’m not sure if it ever should be the goal of the flight instructor to determine the ultimate goals of the student pilot. It should be the goal of every flight instructor, that their student, one day, is proudly wearing their airline captain’s bars. It should be the goal of every flight instructor, that even if their student isn’t the least bit interested in an airline career, they at least grasp the importance of professionalism as a PIC. The job of being a flight instructor should be to teach the student how to fly an airplane. That’s the easy part. If a flight instructor wishes to take on only students who want to fly for fun, that’s fine. But at the end of the day, every student pilot who wants to be a certificated private pilot, has to pass their checkride. That’s why there’s an Airman Certification Standard. It doesn’t matter if the student wants to avoid busy Class Charlie or Delta airports like the plague. Exposing them to these airports, gets them out of their comfort zones. I guess I don’t understand your emphasis on “zero thrust” landings. It sounds like a money-making scheme to pad unnecessary training hours prior to soloing the student. If I’m your student with less than ten hours, and all I’m learning is what to do when the engine quits, you’re wasting my money. Or, maybe you’re more excessively paranoid about engine failures than your students.
My landing got so much better as a student once I accepted the fact that the plane literally wants to keep flying in ground effect and there is nothing to be scared of… just keep it off the ground until it’s ready.
Also watching 2 million AOPA accident videos as a student didn’t help me tbh because I kept thinking “it’s safer to be high on approach if engine fails “ lol. Which led to higher airspeed on final since I had to lose altitude. Led to a lot of work on short field before for the checkride.
But man…landing is my favorite part of flying. That satisfaction of returning to earth smoothly is peak existence
Hell yeah dude, I completely agree!
😄
Another tip I’d love to offer is, when you’re in ground effect and you start to balloon and you decide to try and land and you find the airplane falling, add a touch of power to slow the descent rate.
Great analysis. Thank you so much for the kind words. Your students are very lucky to have a CFI that cares the way you do. Keep it up man.
Thank you so much.
A good technique for runway alignment in whatever aircraft is to keep the centerline between our legs. Yes, it will appear to be between the instructors legs as well. If you walk the rudder pedals dynamically and proactively you will never have alignment problems or ground loop because you are constantly moving to stay ahead of the aircraft.
This is how Im going to explain landings when I become a CFI. Youre doing good work with the channel, hope it grows, I will make my other guys in school know about it!
Much appreciated!
Grateful for opinionated CFIs that genuinely care and know their craft. Thanks for the breakdown and further detail!
I'm embarrassed that I've been interested in aviation all my life, flying gliders for twenty years, and I only just learned that in the US the C in CFI means "certified" not "chief". here you get one CFI per flying club/school, or occasionally two co-CFIs
Currently working on my IRA at a 141. I had a tough time with private, I felt as if I could not figure out my landings. My first instructor was rough, she told me a hundred different things about perfecting the landing and I just could not do it. I requested an instructor change and the first lesson my new instructor explained to me the importance of airspeed control. Immediately got it, landings were not perfect and still are not, but he completely changed my confidence and now I follow these airspeed principles.
I’m currently a student pilot and watching these types of videos really helps me learn what I should and shouldn’t do to keep learning and improving 🙏🙏
Im teaching my cfi how to land, this is a huge help for me, ill apply this today and some of the tips i can give my “student” today!
🙏
That's actually clever.
I started to learn to fly in Casper, Wyoming in 1998. Natrona County Airport is >5,000ft QFE and I flew Cessna 172s for ~36 hours. I only restarted flying lessons 24 years later in Liverpool, UK (flying a PA 28) so here are my tricks to a perfect landing;
1. 63/64kts on final (depending on a PA-28 161 or 181) or 70/75kts just to be safe.
2. As you get over the "piano keys", you'll see the runway expansion effect.
3. That's the queue to throttle back to idle and configure wings level to the horizon (usually about 10ft off the ground)
4. Look at the end of the runway but use your peripheral vision to check the VSI.
5. When you see the needle shoot down to the 6 o'clock position, exert back pressure until the VSI needle returns to 0ft/minute (i.e., 9 o'clock position).
6. Repeat Step 4 and 5 until the main carriage gently touches down...BUT *make sure* you add right rudder to straighten the nose just before touch-down.
65kts will barely, if at all, be touching the region of reverse command in a 172. Pitch for airspeed/power for altitude will work regardless of normal or reverse command on approach.
Yes !
@@EarthAmbassador STOL applies this principle to well below 65 knots coming into high ground effect, where Vso has no meaning. What poor instructors having to teach Airman Certification Standards need is a workaround the 65 knots to make the outcome of the difficult and ineffective normal landing technique never in doubt. Munden needs to let his students use the -5 knots or so fudge factor to actually get nearer the realm of reverse command. He needs to kinda make the throttle a bit dynamic and allow a bit more elevator, which is safe. Someone came up with the incorrect idea that students would stall on final slower than Vso. Yet the physics of ground effect is that we must be much slower than Vso, an out of ground effect number. Instructors are making the way too fast numbers work, but LOC on landing now can be really fast and deadly. Again, a workaround in the interest of hurting only tin and saving more skin. In the days before PTS, which predated ACS, we learned Wolfgang's law of the roller coaster... take off fast and land in a three point attitude all slowed up and ready to squat. It was called flying. And we learned it in ten hours. Get rid of the old mean guy. Sorry.
I very much agree that too much airspeed is a huge factor in student problems landing and can eventually lead to more damage and even injury in LOC. Not maintaining exact longitudinal alignment with dynamic proactive rudder movement is the beginning of LOC, but extra airspeed exacerbates it. A touchdown at the thousand feet marks is a huge airplane on a very long runway, say airline, technique. You are correct about the problem students and pilots have with this in a 172 going 1.3 Vso. It is a kite and you haven't gotten control of the wiffs of wind until you get airspeed completely under power/pitch control. We have to be much slower than Vso to quit flying in one inch ground effect. Faster will cause skip and bounce and continued flying. Yes, you are teaching to the test, but fewer students will go corporate and airline than other flying professions and recreation in small airplanes. Wolfgang's "stall down" is the perfect spot landing, but add dynamic throttle to exactly control glide angle and rate of descent all the way to touchdown exactly where desired makes it STOL. While this precision is not necessary on long runways, the local instructors I work with are on three thousand feet. Giving up the first thousand is dangerous here over the long run. I'm just saying there needs to be a workaround in the interest of safety.
How do I know when I am five feet from the ground? How about three or six inches? Why hasn't slow flight prepared me for the control feel of well below Vso? Try hover taxi down those long runways. Do an extended soft field technique using just enough power to stay in low ground effect and a bit of dynamic proactive elevator movement to nail level in low ground effect. Rather than less than a second in slow enough to be almost quit flying, our students can experience several seconds of this really need to know but never published airspeed. And no, don't look at the airspeed indicator. In the old trainers it would be pegged anyway. At whichever taxiway you desire, close the throttle to touchdown in a three point attitude all slowed up and ready to squat as Wolfgang says.
Try having the too high for stall flare student or the ballooned student add just a bit of power to make it a soft field technique landing with some power. I had a student with poor depth perception in the CAP 172. I put him in my cheap enough for me to afford Ercoupe. On short final I had him pull back on the yoke to the stop. Yes, the Ercoupe is actually unstallable. I then had him use the now dynamic control of glide angle and rate of descent throttle all the way to touchdown slowly and softly exactly where desired. He eventually gained a sense of height above touchdown.
big fan of your work Jimmy.
Outstanding words of wisdom- witnessed several poor landers of the 172 pull throttle as soon as they determine they have made the runway and f up their landings…. Using a touch of throttle as needed definitely can salvage things and make that steep landing more user friendly. Perhaps they have heard “stall it out just before touching down,” that is solid advice however adding a touch of power (say 5 more knots to soften that landing) has never been a bad thing for me personally.)
Approach is everything. And it begins at the abeam point.
Agreed!
Just a side note, the last segments showing side load were shot at Freeway Airport, W00. I flew out of there for about 8-9 years. It's always interesting there sine the prevailing winds are west/east and the runway is north/south. Oh, and runway is 2400/ft X 40ft.
Hey I know you! Happy to see you're still making videos. We used to talk about camera setup and audio capture back in 2014-15 before I moved to ohio. (Confession - those landings were student pilot me lol)
That's the same video I watched at least a hundred times. You are right this is the one video you need in order to learn how to land.
Its so good.
Thanks so much for your videos brother
My pleasure
The best thing I learned which I don’t really hear a lot of is that as the plane loses energy/speed, elevators lose effectiveness and most, if not all, planes are going to be nose heavy. So on the round out, students make the common mistake of “flaring” when all you need to do is keep the nose where it is and let the loss of elevator effectiveness naturally put the plane in a nose up configuration. The tricky part is when to transition to round out from approach. And I think peripheral sight picture is where I mostly determine that.
Super good point.
Regarding the "over control" during round out, I'd like to think of it as flying formation with the runway. I try to maintain that 3-5 feet altitude until that energy bleeds and the plane cannot sustain the lift/ground effect any longer and "settles"
The controls are going to be mushy, so lots of movement in the control will be required, but not so much that the airplane rises or descents quickly. My key is quick, purposeful movements to maintain that 3-5 feet.
Another great exercise for students and licensed pilots alike is to fly a LOW approach at that 5 ft level down the runway with just enough power to maintain altitude but not touch down. This exercise will provide a good reference for that feel during the round out phase and how the controls, power input and airplane feel together near the ground. Once you get a hang of flying low approaches like that, it just a matter of taking out the power and the airplane will settle to a smooth landing. This method is also a great way to learn how to control the plane laterally for center-line alignment during the final leg and landing.
Enjoyed the vid and your comments. Thanks for sharing.
@@PaperPilotJack This excellent low approach technique you mention is what I call the hover taxi. Get down to three feet or so where ground effect is greater and your students will be able to experience flight at much slower than Vso, an out of ground effect number. At this very slow airspeed the elevator can be moved quickly for/aft to dynamically bracket level in low ground effect. Yes, power is altitude but we need a bit quicker bracket here. And they can learn that the aileron is completely ineffective here, same as in the falling leaf but moreso because we are slower than Vso. A demonstration they can master themselves quickly is to rudder yaw with just a bit of cross control (ailerons barely work) to move the airplane from centerline to left side of runway to centerline to right side of runway, etc. While coordination is king, we want them to understand there is a place for rudder only for longitudinal alignment. In the crop field on a spray run at max airspeed, this rudder turn to move over a row requires lots of cross control ailerons to keep the spray boom from dragging off the low wing. We need to understand how the controls work differently at different gaits as Wolfgang called V speeds. What V speeds? Anyway good technique. Thanks for mentioning it.
The round out just means when you are a few feet over the runway ignore the speed and just pull back as much as you need to hold the plane a foot above the runway until you feel the aircraft settle to the runway aka stall onto the runway.
The best drill for landing is slow flying the airplane couple of feet above the runway as long as possible, pull the power and let the airplane settle down by itself. You need a super long runway to do it safely and lots of CFIs are hesitant to fly that way.
Keep it up man thanks for these awesome educational analysises!
Thank you so much
I will disagree on one important point. Power controls airspeed and pitch controls altitude. If power id fixed pitch controls both airspeed and altitude. I agree with you about the aiming point, I never used or taught an aiming point.
If you're here and have a Mooney, do yourself a favor and watch the how to land video from the "a man and a Mooney" channel
Yeah energy management has been what’s killing me. Fighting that “lizard brain” and pitching down was what I really needed to start landing consistently.
Since then, my energy management concerns changed. Recently my descents have been too fast because my three mile approach would be off, leaving me too high and close to the runway. All that descent speed would kill me in ground effect; the slightest back pressure felt like it would balloon me.
That descent speed also messed with my landing spots by building a bad habit. I was used to gliding an excessive distance past my aim point, so once I fixed those approach issues, I was risking landing too short of my intended touchdown point. My instructor was telling me not to land short, but I thought I would just glide there based on my usual experience as someone who flew too fast in ground effect.
It’s getting better, though. I just did my first night landings, and the landing I did without a landing light somehow happened to be my best touchdown yet.
-Student Pilot
Well said. Good luck on your landings.
Where's the link to the original video?
Can you do a vídeo on the reverse controls things you said? Pitch controls airspeed and power controls rate of descent? I was taught the exact oposite but I never got this...
“I want you to become the C172” 😂
This was very helpful… great analysis! Gonna subscribe to Chapman’s channel as well. Thank you!
Awesome, thank you!
I blip the throttle when entering the flare to get some additional elevator authority in the 150/172.
coming in full flap I also do this sometimes. but even when coming with only 10 degrees on a hot day, I feel the plane drops way too quickly when pulling all the power over the fence.
Is that W00 at the end there? My first training spot 😁
You're a great Cfi!🎉
Thank you ! That’s nice m.
Never really successfully applied the aiming point technique, even though I understand the concept. Feel like its only possible to aim at an aiming point if you have 30+ degress of flaps.
If I'm coming down with no flaps and try to point my nose down, my speed will skyrocket most of the time, even with power at idle.
Having said that, I understand what you mean when you say that sometimes you dont have success teaching this aiming point technique.
what were your thoughts on the ten-hour astral projection video though
(there are browser extensions to decruftify UA-cam. Might enjoy DeArrow?)
The video does not say anything about when to go to idle power. Can you keep 1500 rpm when you have 65kts above the runway? Thank you for the video. Very helpful.
Generally speaking, I go power idle very slowly during the round out phase. Some people go power idle well before that, but for me, I like to keep a little bit of power in. I will always touchdown with no power though. Unless I am compensating for gust, factor or something like that.
@@egamez1 If you slow down enough on short final to sink with full flaps, you have brought the throttle into dynamic precise control of glide angle and rate of descent all the way to flair completely eliminating the need for the confusing round out and idle throttle because of going way to fast to quit flying in low ground effect. If when coming into high ground effect you use the apparent rate of closure with the numbers Wolfgang talks about and you use every time you decelerate your automobile into an intersection, yes, power all the way to flair and touchdown slowly and softly exactly where desired. No, not 1500 RPM, not 65 knots. Power as needed to nail glide angle. Elevator as needed to (in high and then low ground effect) to maintain what appears to be a brisk walk rate of closure with the exact desired touchdown spot. I use the numbers, but that won't work for you on the flight test.
Hmm I'm a new student with like 10 hours and we have been doing our 172 finals at 60kts. Might be due to my CFIs teaching style or the fact that we operate out of a 2500ft runway.
Your CFI is teaching you how to do the short field landing: 60 KTS with full flaps. Once you master this, other landings will be easier. Lots of CFI teach Landing at 65 KTS with two notches of flaps, but some students find it hard to time the round out: too high floating; too low, smacking the runways.
Hey man you might want to include your location. I’d love to have you as my CFI but I’m sure you’re not in my area.
Now I'm curious. Because I know what the best how to land video is but ok, let's see this.
Hey, quick question, do you really think we could see single pilot ops or even no pilot ops in the near future for the airlines? Is it worth it to try and become an airline pilot still?
Not going to happen in our lifetimes.
@@HartsfieldSpottingeven single pilot ops you think?
I’m at 29 hours and I still can’t land imma use this video to help me hopefully I get it!!
Is this so much more difficult than in a simulator? In a simulator you can just land intuitivly without trying and nail it every time. Whats different? Maybe im ignorant. I only flew some DCS so dunno if those airplanes are more hands off because they have a different purpose. But this video sounds more complicated than it looks to me. Or do the trainees not fly simulators before their real flights?
Edit: Is it because these small airplanes are more suceptible to wind because of their light weight?
If you want to understand how airplanes behave vs what you experience in the simulator, an easy read is Stick and Rudder by Wolfgang Langewiesche. You'll tie yourself in knots trying to use the sim to figure out flight.
I wish I could find a good how to use rudders video. Most on UA-cam are horrible and even include dangerous advice.
21 and 15 hours and haven’t soloed yet ? What’s wrong with this generation of students. Myself and a lot of students soloed by our 10th hour. School I quit sending students to weren’t soloing students till 20 hours and their student had 60-70 hours before they got their license.
Yeah soloing by hour 10 is kind of unheard of. The average I’ve seen is like 20-50.
at 10 hours you can probably safely fly a pattern but can you handle emergencies? would you be able to divert if need be? would you be able to fly in/out of a busy home airport or in complicated airspace? there’s a lot more to being ready for solo then being able to fly a pattern.
60-70 hours is right around the national average for PPL
@@yurtsalon THat's what I'm talking about, solo first time in the pattern, not talking about doing a cross country or something. Just make 3 takeoffs and landings like we used to do, not soak student for money spending more hours than necessary.
I soloed in a C-150 at 8.5 hours in 1975..
Instructions unclear.. How much does a prop cost? Asking for a friend.
Hahaha
@@SyphenHouse A prop is very expensive, but don't talk yourself out of learning how each control works. Move the control. If you don't like what happens, move it back. How else are you going to learn what it does. There is a place for dynamic proactive elevator movement if slower than Vso in low ground effect as you should be when near the surface while landing. Also, this is the airspeed where students should learn that the ailerons do not work. Use the rudder for runway alignment and notice how the rudder keeps the wing level as well.
@@jimmydulin928 Someone missed the joke...
No sorry, this isn't it. Look for "the jacobson flare". That's the best "how to land" video!
2:59 Why should 1500rpm be the default "sweet spot"? Once the runway is made, couldn't it be argued that "zero thrust" rpm should be the default "sweet spot", because then every routine landing trains students on the "dead stick" glide ratio of that aircraft, increasing the chances of successful emergency landings?
Additionally, using 1500 rpm increases the danger of crashing short of the runway if power is lost on final.
Yeah, I should have been more clear. I just give my students that number because it gives them a good approach speed. Of course your power depends on glide slope and other factors. Good comment!
@@CFIIMunden Please take this in the (friendly) spirit that it is intended, but...
if by approach speed you mean keeping out of the way of the twin behind you, then obviously 1500rpm wouldn't be the default, and if by approach speed you mean 65mph, that is determined by pitch, not rpm, as you stated...and so i still don't see where the 1500rpm comes from.
The only "advantage" that I can see from 1500rpm instead of zero thrust is that the student then learns that if he misjudges high he can then just lower the rpms to idle, which I would consider giving the student an unnecessary and undesirable "crutch". Better that he doesn't have that crutch to rely on, and if he misjudges high and can't flap and/or slip is way down, then he should have to go around.
How many engine failures occur with the engine stuck at 1500rpm?
Later, when he is flying a heavier aircraft that actually benefits from basically "slow flying" the airplane down to the runway, THEN he can decide what rpm(s) to use for that particular aircraft.
@@jerrysmith5782 The reason why 1500 rpm is the default “sweet spot” in this example, is that it’s a value that provides consistent results. It doesn’t have to be 1500 rpm. It could be a little more, or it could be less. It depends on the airplane, the desired glideslope (or rate of descent, typically around 500 fpm) and the desired approach speed on final. The goal is consistency. If a low-time student pilot is spending an hour in the pattern doing touch and go’s, the student needs to be learning how to nail power settings and airspeeds on every lap, consistently. That means pitching for Vy on the go. Knowing when, and by how much, to throttle back when turning downwind. Knowing what throttle setting works best to maintain 85 knots on downwind without climbing or descending. 2100 rpm works well in a 152. When to apply carb heat. When to add the first notch of flaps. And so on. That’s what makes for a stabilized approach.
Your assertion that an approach speed is determined by pitch and not rpm, is not entirely correct. The goal is to maintain the glideslope, while not exceeding the desired airspeed. Too slow, you risk landing short of the runway or stalling. Too fast and you’ll be floating down the runway. That’s one reason to find that “sweet spot.” Certainly, adjust accordingly. I’m not sure why you’re calling that, “a crutch.”
Your approach speed is your approach speed. Anything else, like crosswind and gusty wind landings, no-flap landings, power-off 180s, and so on, are abnormal situations that can be practiced for. It is never your responsibility to accommodate fast, twin engine or otherwise higher performance airplanes behind you by flying outside of your comfort zone. Stick with your training. It’s up to the guy behind you to adjust his approach speed accordingly, or go around.
And finally, understanding the relationship between pitching for airspeed, and power settings for altitude (climb rate, level flight, descent rate), is an absolute necessity when advancing toward an IFR rating. Attitude (climb, level flight, descent), plus Power (rpm or manifold pressure) plus Configuration (flaps, landing gear), equals Performance. Consistency in setting up for various stages of flight, equals predictable results. To understand this relationship more, I recommend looking into a course called, “IFR: The Missing Lessons,” available at Pilot Workshops dot com.
Look at the lower left-hand corner of about any IFR approach plate. You’ll see a table with times based on varying approach speeds, from the final approach fix, to the missed approach point. If you’re in the soup, you better know what power settings deliver 90 knots on final with the landing gear down, and power adjustments required as flaps are added. The best time to build a foundation of knowledge of this relationship, is with new students while they’re still navigating the traffic pattern.
@@TenMinuteTrips I think that our disagreement simply stems from our having completely differing goals in mind.
If the goal is to just train a strictly VFR pilot who avoids busy metropolitan airports like the plague, then my approach makes sense, whereas if the goal is to train the student for more advanced flying than the above, and do it without excessive cost, then your approach makes sense.
IMHO, ideally, if the student could afford it, then I feel that my approach followed by your approach would be the best of both worlds...because then the student would be somewhat proficient at emergency landings even before they solo.
But yes, all of my "zero thrust" approaches WOULD cost the student extra money...money which could be otherwise spent on training that would benefit them if they wish to do more advanced flying.
@ I’m not sure if it ever should be the goal of the flight instructor to determine the ultimate goals of the student pilot. It should be the goal of every flight instructor, that their student, one day, is proudly wearing their airline captain’s bars. It should be the goal of every flight instructor, that even if their student isn’t the least bit interested in an airline career, they at least grasp the importance of professionalism as a PIC.
The job of being a flight instructor should be to teach the student how to fly an airplane. That’s the easy part. If a flight instructor wishes to take on only students who want to fly for fun, that’s fine. But at the end of the day, every student pilot who wants to be a certificated private pilot, has to pass their checkride. That’s why there’s an Airman Certification Standard. It doesn’t matter if the student wants to avoid busy Class Charlie or Delta airports like the plague. Exposing them to these airports, gets them out of their comfort zones.
I guess I don’t understand your emphasis on “zero thrust” landings. It sounds like a money-making scheme to pad unnecessary training hours prior to soloing the student. If I’m your student with less than ten hours, and all I’m learning is what to do when the engine quits, you’re wasting my money. Or, maybe you’re more excessively paranoid about engine failures than your students.