AOA & Power Techniques. Look up the Landing Signals Officer (LSO) “Rules to Live By” noting two only apply to instrument approaches not landings as GA aircraft round out and flare. Power techniques are those you might think are “back side,” but they work across the entire power curve while most don’t understand true back side techniques and those that do prefer to avoid them.
A great technique for sure! Doesn't really apply here though, since these are single engine piston aircraft with no AoA indicators (the pitch angle is not interchangeable with AoA), and with a signficantly smaller thrust-weight ratio, landing on runways which comfortably accommodates them. These are very much techniques for high-perfoermance military aircraft landing on aircraft carriers (from my understanding, which I know could be incorrect, since my military flying knowledge is extremely limited).
@@MerryfaceAviation you don’t need AOA to use AOA concepts while power techniques work great in GA. The only place they have difficulty is in turbine aircraft that land with low rpm hence have long spoolup times therefore sluggish response to power.
Absolutely. However, most GA aircraft are not installed with AoA sensors, and while I agree that one should fly with AoA in mind (think as an example pitching for speed instead of power for speed on final), flying low to the ground behind the drag curve in aircraft like the one depicted here is just not something I would endorse. The aircraft is speed unstable, and unable to “power out” of the rear end of the curve without sacrificing altitude in the landing configuration. Therefore flying the aircraft at published speeds is the best approach. The only advantage of doing an approach behind the curve is to reduce the landing distance, which is simply not needed in these smaller aircraft. Heck, this airplane could land on a carrier deck using normal approach and landing speeds and still have room to spare! 😂
That was terrific, thank you. I received my private certificate back in 2008, but I haven't flown a real plane since 2010. I wish I had your advice about power-reduction back when I was training. I always made sure to nail the approach speed, but I still I had a tendency to make the plane "hang" in the round-out. I think the problem was, for some reason, I would wait until I was a little more than a wing-span above the ground before reducing power.
Glad it helped! Having too much energy for the flare is very typical, and everyone makes that mistake. Try to reducing the power a little bit earlier and see what that gets you.
The flare height was okay for the C172 flown single. However with another airraft it may have been way too high. It depends how long it takes to bleed off the extra speed before stalling. With the Tecnam 2008 that I am flying, the touchdown would have been aprupt as it doesn't have the cinetic energy to flare out longer.
The problem with a lot of people is that they were taught wrong in regards to pitch and power. A pretty significant group of instructors teach pitch for speed and power for altitude, which is backwards and will make an approach less stable.
the reality is more nuanced than one or the other. I teach both, because we use both, whether we like it or not. Using pitch for speed and power for vertical speed control is as valid as the inverse.
@@MerryfaceAviation pitch only controls airspeed with a fixed power setting. Either full power, idle power or an intermediate power setting chosen by the pilot. Does a change in one, requires a change in the other, usually, yes. But that doesn’t take away that pitch controls altitude and power controls airspeed first.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 like I said, the reality can be more nuanced, and there's more than one correct technique. I teach both, since pilots use both. saying pitch for airspeed and power for altitude control is "backwards" is perhaps a little close-minded. All I'm saying is to understand that it's a valid technique, and that both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 As I said, the reality is a little more nuanced. There's more than one correct approach to doing this. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. Saying that one is "backwards" is perhaps a little closed minded :)
@@MerryfaceAviation go do a visual approach in a small single engine aircraft with another pilot. Pilot A will have control over the yoke. Pilot 2 will have control over the throttle. First approach, have pilot A control airspeed with pitch. And pilot B control altitude with throttle. This approach won’t be easy and the pilots have to communicate to make it happen. Pilot A will have to look outside to line up correctly and look inside to maintain the correct speed. Pilot B will have to look outside to maintain the correct path. Now switch it around. Pilot A uses pitch for glide path and pilot B will use the throttle for speed. They won’t need to communicate. Pilot A doesn’t even have to look inside at any instruments. He simply points the airplane where he wants to land. Put in the correct pitch to aim at the runway. Now pilot B waits and sees where the airspeed goes. He makes on throttle adjustment and the speed will be right on. Now he bare needs to look at the speed. If you fly with a flight director, the FD will give you pitch, to maintain a glide path. And if you have auto throttle, the throttle will ONLY look at speed. You know, there is this joke. I forgot how it went, but it’s one pilot, while sitting on the runway moving the joke back and forth. And the other pilot asking: what are you doing? Then the first pilot responds: I’m moving the yoke to get our speed up, once we hit rotation speed, go ahead and give us a hand full of throttle to gain altitude.
For me, the problem isnt the stable approach, but when to start each step of it. With a C172 and a mile long runway or more all my landings would be ok or better.
AOA & Power Techniques. Look up the Landing Signals Officer (LSO) “Rules to Live By” noting two only apply to instrument approaches not landings as GA aircraft round out and flare. Power techniques are those you might think are “back side,” but they work across the entire power curve while most don’t understand true back side techniques and those that do prefer to avoid them.
A great technique for sure! Doesn't really apply here though, since these are single engine piston aircraft with no AoA indicators (the pitch angle is not interchangeable with AoA), and with a signficantly smaller thrust-weight ratio, landing on runways which comfortably accommodates them. These are very much techniques for high-perfoermance military aircraft landing on aircraft carriers (from my understanding, which I know could be incorrect, since my military flying knowledge is extremely limited).
@@MerryfaceAviation you don’t need AOA to use AOA concepts while power techniques work great in GA. The only place they have difficulty is in turbine aircraft that land with low rpm hence have long spoolup times therefore sluggish response to power.
& the FAA has made installing AOA in GA much more simple than getting other stuff while fitting inside certification concerns.
Absolutely. However, most GA aircraft are not installed with AoA sensors, and while I agree that one should fly with AoA in mind (think as an example pitching for speed instead of power for speed on final), flying low to the ground behind the drag curve in aircraft like the one depicted here is just not something I would endorse. The aircraft is speed unstable, and unable to “power out” of the rear end of the curve without sacrificing altitude in the landing configuration. Therefore flying the aircraft at published speeds is the best approach. The only advantage of doing an approach behind the curve is to reduce the landing distance, which is simply not needed in these smaller aircraft. Heck, this airplane could land on a carrier deck using normal approach and landing speeds and still have room to spare! 😂
That was terrific, thank you. I received my private certificate back in 2008, but I haven't flown a real plane since 2010. I wish I had your advice about power-reduction back when I was training. I always made sure to nail the approach speed, but I still I had a tendency to make the plane "hang" in the round-out. I think the problem was, for some reason, I would wait until I was a little more than a wing-span above the ground before reducing power.
Glad it helped! Having too much energy for the flare is very typical, and everyone makes that mistake. Try to reducing the power a little bit earlier and see what that gets you.
The flare height was okay for the C172 flown single. However with another airraft it may have been way too high. It depends how long it takes to bleed off the extra speed before stalling. With the Tecnam 2008 that I am flying, the touchdown would have been aprupt as it doesn't have the cinetic energy to flare out longer.
thanks for the comment
Thank you for this amazing video!
Glad you liked it!
The problem with a lot of people is that they were taught wrong in regards to pitch and power. A pretty significant group of instructors teach pitch for speed and power for altitude, which is backwards and will make an approach less stable.
the reality is more nuanced than one or the other. I teach both, because we use both, whether we like it or not. Using pitch for speed and power for vertical speed control is as valid as the inverse.
@@MerryfaceAviation pitch only controls airspeed with a fixed power setting. Either full power, idle power or an intermediate power setting chosen by the pilot.
Does a change in one, requires a change in the other, usually, yes. But that doesn’t take away that pitch controls altitude and power controls airspeed first.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 like I said, the reality can be more nuanced, and there's more than one correct technique. I teach both, since pilots use both. saying pitch for airspeed and power for altitude control is "backwards" is perhaps a little close-minded. All I'm saying is to understand that it's a valid technique, and that both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 As I said, the reality is a little more nuanced. There's more than one correct approach to doing this. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. Saying that one is "backwards" is perhaps a little closed minded :)
@@MerryfaceAviation go do a visual approach in a small single engine aircraft with another pilot.
Pilot A will have control over the yoke.
Pilot 2 will have control over the throttle.
First approach, have pilot A control airspeed with pitch. And pilot B control altitude with throttle.
This approach won’t be easy and the pilots have to communicate to make it happen. Pilot A will have to look outside to line up correctly and look inside to maintain the correct speed. Pilot B will have to look outside to maintain the correct path.
Now switch it around. Pilot A uses pitch for glide path and pilot B will use the throttle for speed.
They won’t need to communicate. Pilot A doesn’t even have to look inside at any instruments. He simply points the airplane where he wants to land. Put in the correct pitch to aim at the runway.
Now pilot B waits and sees where the airspeed goes. He makes on throttle adjustment and the speed will be right on. Now he bare needs to look at the speed.
If you fly with a flight director, the FD will give you pitch, to maintain a glide path. And if you have auto throttle, the throttle will ONLY look at speed.
You know, there is this joke. I forgot how it went, but it’s one pilot, while sitting on the runway moving the joke back and forth. And the other pilot asking: what are you doing? Then the first pilot responds: I’m moving the yoke to get our speed up, once we hit rotation speed, go ahead and give us a hand full of throttle to gain altitude.
For me, the problem isnt the stable approach, but when to start each step of it. With a C172 and a mile long runway or more all my landings would be ok or better.
That'll come with practice! The video talks about when each stage starts and ends. Then, it's just a question of practicing the process.