Power n' pitch...

killbilly

Vocals, Lyrics, Triangle, Washboard, Kittens
This is one of those things that will probably be explained to me soon enough, but it's nagging at me in my reading....

As a PPL, one of the things hammered into my head during those first 40 hours was "power for altitude, pitch for airspeed." And it's something that I still practice and think about.

But in my reading assignments (presently, chapter 6 of the IFH, since I'm starting with a new CFII on Friday) the IFH specifically talks about the opposite - pitching for altitude and power for airspeed.

I know that both can be correct - my real question is twofold - 1. Why is one way taught, and then another taught? 2. Should I be choosing one over the other in instrument flying or is that incidental? What's going on here?
 
This is one of those things that will probably be explained to me soon enough, but it's nagging at me in my reading....

As a PPL, one of the things hammered into my head during those first 40 hours was "power for altitude, pitch for airspeed." And it's something that I still practice and think about.

But in my reading assignments (presently, chapter 6 of the IFH, since I'm starting with a new CFII on Friday) the IFH specifically talks about the opposite - pitching for altitude and power for airspeed.

I know that both can be correct - my real question is twofold - 1. Why is one way taught, and then another taught? 2. Should I be choosing one over the other in instrument flying or is that incidental? What's going on here?
Realistically you will be using both methods combined. Especially in instrument flying. IMO these methods need revised as they are a bit simplistic as one change will likely require the other.
 
They are related and it is a combination of both to cause the desired effect. It is easier for the human mind to correlate one action with one result and vice verse so that is why most people associate pitch and power to altitude and airspeed (or airspeed and altitude). I personally find pitch for altitude and power for airspeed works best for me but I also understand the relationship with both. It is not black and white unless you are in a glider.
 
@killbilly, also remember that there are "truisms" in GA airplanes that aren't truisms outside of GA. Things that are specific to straight-wing, piston-powered, low-HP (even those technically defined as "high performance") aircraft.

"Power for altitude, pitch for airspeed" is most definitely one of those things. That statement/R-O-T certainly is not true in any of the swept-wing pointy-nosed jets that I've spent time and instructed in.

I frequently remind my students that I'm training them to be aviators, not just (F-15/T-38/King Air/C172/whatever airplane we're training in) pilots. There are going to be some techniques that work well in one aircraft and not another. Although it is perfectly good to use those techniques situationally in the aircraft they work in, they will need to adapt their knowledge into techniques that will be applicable in virtually any aircraft (and, of course, it is my job as an instructor to ensure I'm not just "teaching the test" and I'm giving them that bigger picture as part of their training).
 
My opinion.

As a jump pilot with 2000 + landings my argument it is both. I wouldn't get too set on any one landing configuration. Conditions are ever changing, wind, traffic, your altitude etc.
 
@killbilly, also remember that there are "truisms" in GA airplanes that aren't truisms outside of GA. Things that are specific to straight-wing, piston-powered, low-HP (even those technically defined as "high performance") aircraft.

"Power for altitude, pitch for airspeed" is most definitely one of those things. That statement/R-O-T certainly is not true in any of the swept-wing pointy-nosed jets that I've spent time and instructed in.

I frequently remind my students that I'm training them to be aviators, not just (F-15/T-38/King Air/C172/whatever airplane we're training in) pilots. There are going to be some techniques that work well in one aircraft and not another. Although it is perfectly good to use those techniques situationally in the aircraft they work in, they will need to adapt their knowledge into techniques that will be applicable in virtually any aircraft (and, of course, it is my job as an instructor to ensure I'm not just "teaching the test" and I'm giving them that bigger picture as part of their training).

All good points. At this point in my training, it's about underpowered spinny-nose air machines, so those maxims mostly apply.

I'm just surprised that it's two different methods taught, and while both are accurate, they seem to be taught as separate disciplines. It's not an insurmountable problem, it's just weird to me.
 
All good points. At this point in my training, it's about underpowered spinny-nose air machines, so those maxims mostly apply.

I'm just surprised that it's two different methods taught, and while both are accurate, they seem to be taught as separate disciplines. It's not an insurmountable problem, it's just weird to me.

Don't forget that the process of becoming and acting as a CFI is as much about your personal development as an aviator as it is teaching others.

Even if you don't personally plan to fly anything more complex than a GA airplane, many of your students probably will.
 
I have nothing to offer besides empathy. I am in the same boat. I think the first thing a CFII should tell an IR student is, hey remember all that (stuff) we just taught you? Power and pitch, keep your eyes outside, etc? OK we were wrong about that and here's how you *really* fly an airplane. Of course reality falls somewhere in the middle and I think is starts to reveal how there are very few absolutes in flying planes, especially when it comes to technique.
 
This is one of those things that will probably be explained to me soon enough, but it's nagging at me in my reading....

As a PPL, one of the things hammered into my head during those first 40 hours was "power for altitude, pitch for airspeed." And it's something that I still practice and think about.

But in my reading assignments (presently, chapter 6 of the IFH, since I'm starting with a new CFII on Friday) the IFH specifically talks about the opposite - pitching for altitude and power for airspeed.

I know that both can be correct - my real question is twofold - 1. Why is one way taught, and then another taught? 2. Should I be choosing one over the other in instrument flying or is that incidental? What's going on here?
As others have said, they are related and serve different functions for different flight regimes.

I have nothing to offer besides empathy. I am in the same boat. I think the first thing a CFII should tell an IR student is, hey remember all that (stuff) we just taught you? Power and pitch, keep your eyes outside, etc? OK we were wrong about that and here's how you *really* fly an airplane. Of course reality falls somewhere in the middle and I think is starts to reveal how there are very few absolutes in flying planes, especially when it comes to technique.

Meh. Any aircraft will have a given pitch and power setting for the desired result.
 
It swaps on if you're on the backside of the power curve, I seem to remember.

Hm, I teach "pitch for airspeed, power for altitude" for certain flight regimes. Slowflight is one, but instrument approaches are another. It's so much easier to keep your airspeed at 90kts with pitch and then adjust glideslope with power than the other way around (in a 172).

Obviously all of the control inputs on the aircraft are affecting all of those things, it just comes down to which makes the most sense for your brain at a given time.
 
My viewpoint is much the same as @thevideographer.

Think about it. A PPL student knows nothing about flying and you basically want to teach them how to not kill themselves. This is most easily done by keeping things simple. While not necessarily the reason for a stall let's face it, most everyday stalls happen when velocity is insufficient to keep the plane flying and the relative wind has shifted. The relative wind coming more from underneath the wing at an angle instead of directly in front of the plane causes the wing to be beyond the critical angle of attack and stall.

So as stated, in an underpowered plane you aren't going to power out of that stall, what should you teach them? I say Pitch for Airspeed - Power for Altitude. Now what will they most likely do instinctively after getting slow: Pitch down. What will be the primary thing they do if they stall and notice their airspeed is real slow: Pitch down. KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid.

Now it's a different story when they are trying to fly instruments. It's usually an easier concept for someone to chase a glide slope with pitch than with power. That's the reason for the switch.

I don't think it's terribly hard for most to make the switch but I sure as heck want to get PPL students to react to problematic airspeed situations without any inclination that powering out is the proper reaction. For that reason I choose Pitch for Airspeed - Power for Altitude with beginners.
 
in the Cessna, for an instrument student, I teach your left hand controls the a/s indicator, your right hand controls the vsi. use the hell out of your heading bug.
the vsi tells the glideslope what to do, the heading bug tells the localizer what to do.
that equates to pitch+power=performance
 
in the king air, I click off the autopilot at 200' ...
I kid, I kid...my tribute to another thread.
;)
 
@Hacker15e nailed it. You have to think outside the box sometimes. Not everyone will be doing the same kind of flying. Think of all the variety we have in aviation and the different approaches to accomplish them.

Not sure what your flying experience is, it really pays to try out different things along the way to the CFI rating. If you haven't yet flown in a glider, tailwheel, seaplane or helicopter, give them or try or at least talk to those pilots at the airport. That way when you're a CFI and your student says "Why are they doing it that way?" or "Isn't that wrong?" you'll have a an informed answer to tell them.
 
I agree as well, both of you are hitting the nail. The OP is working on his instrument rating, so I think most would agree that one should pick a technique (in conjunction with a ii)and stick with it till checkride.
@Hacker15e nailed it. You have to think outside the box sometimes. Not everyone will be doing the same kind of flying. Think of all the variety we have in aviation and the different approaches to accomplish them.

Not sure what your flying experience is, it really pays to try out different things along the way to the CFI rating. If you haven't yet flown in a glider, tailwheel, seaplane or helicopter, give them or try or at least talk to those pilots at the airport. That way when you're a CFI and your student says "Why are they doing it that way?" or "Isn't that wrong?" you'll have a an informed answer to tell them.
 
Ill comment later - I'm on my phone now, but the answer is both and neither - because discussions about pitch and power are asking different types of questions. The real discussion is energy and energy management - which I'll discuss further when I get to a laptop.
 
All good points. At this point in my training, it's about underpowered spinny-nose air machines, so those maxims mostly apply.

I'm just surprised that it's two different methods taught, and while both are accurate, they seem to be taught as separate disciplines. It's not an insurmountable problem, it's just weird to me.
I would hope that your instructor could provide a good answer here. Buuut, here is the correct one. The actual correct answer is it depends on which side of the power curve you're on. If you're on the backside of the power curve (slow), as you get slower, induced drag increases, so you need more thrust to counteract. Long story short, pitch directly controls airspeed, and power controls airspeed. If you're at a normal cruise speed (on the front side of the power curve), pitch controls altitude, and power controls airspeed. As you slow towards best glide speed, the transition occurs, so usually at your landing approach speed in a light piston single, both pitch and power affect altitude and airspeed equally.

I've had a beer or four, so clear as mud?
 
They work conjunction and with the understanding of that then you can reach the desired goal. Like previously said, it's all about energy management and working with the tools to control it.

I usually teach small altitude changes are done with pitch, larger ones (over 100ft) are done with pitch and power.
 
Back
Top