Landing Technique Question.

C

centralhome

Well-Known Member
Had a question wanted to ask. I had an instructor that taught me on approach to landing to control the airspeed by pitch and the altitude with power. But I was talking to a couple of instructors and they were saying they did not like to teach that way. Just wondering if any of you teach that same way?

Thanks For Any Replies!
 
Think of it like this: You're on final, right on your airspeed, but you're too high. What do you do? Leave the power in and pitch down? Well then you're going to be too fast. Pull some power and adjust your pitch and you can maintain airspeed and descend.

Believe it or not, pitch does control your airspeed and power controls your altitude. The most common situations where I've seen this emphasized is slow flight and on approach.
 
BLEH! This pitch controls this, power controls that, is just crap. If pitch controls airspeed, go to the end of the runway and pitch down without adding any power, how fast do you think you will go.

It is a combination of the two, if the airplane is trimmed for the airspeed (say Vref) and you are high, you pull the power out and the airplane will seek that airspeed, but it won't do it smoothly so you have to control pitch to get it where you want.

I used to have my instrument students fly an ILS with nothing more than rudder and power, trim the airplane for 90 knots and fly the thing in without touch the yoke, in that case power controls everything.

Don't get wrapped around the axel about what controls what, just realize both inputs (pitch and power) need to be made to make the adjustments smooth and understand how adding one effects what you need to do to the other.
 
Agreed. I demo on one of my first few lessons that you can control altitude with only pitch or with only power. I then demo that you can also control speed with only pitch or only power. I then explain that it is a combination of the two that you must use.

Once an instructor had a student on a perfect glideslope but way too fast and he told the student to slow down and so the guy instantly pitched way up to slow down. The instructor sarcastically said "good job, now go around because we are way to high now."
 
I really dont go into how AoA controls airspeed with students in the airplane.

I teach a simple concept that states -

"For every power change, there is a pitch change"

It works very well and is conceptual for students to apply to flying.
 
centralhome said:
Had a question wanted to ask. I had an instructor that taught me on approach to landing to control the airspeed by pitch and the altitude with power. But I was talking to a couple of instructors and they were saying they did not like to teach that way. Just wondering if any of you teach that same way?

Thanks For Any Replies!
Click to expand...

Do what you've got to do to put the plane where you want it.

If you're slow, add a little power. If you're low, add a little power and flatten your descent rate out.
 
subpilot said:
Once an instructor had a student on a perfect glideslope but way too fast and he told the student to slow down and so the guy instantly pitched way up to slow down. The instructor sarcastically said "good job, now go around because we are way to high now."
Click to expand...
I have been in a similiar situation, but 10kts fast. My instructor told me to pitch up. Once I pitched up enough the nose just hit a peak then starts to sink. I was then able to pitch down and maintain my speed and touchdown near my aiming point.

So the pitch up thing does work to an extent I guess.

But then again I am only a student pilot, so what do I know.
 
centralhome said:
Had a question wanted to ask. I had an instructor that taught me on approach to landing to control the airspeed by pitch and the altitude with power. But I was talking to a couple of instructors and they were saying they did not like to teach that way. Just wondering if any of you teach that same way?

Thanks For Any Replies!
Click to expand...


The aircraft's angle of attack controls airspeed; this is one of the fundamentals of aerodynamics. This is not the same a pitch, because the pitch is the angle that the aircraft's longitudinal axis makes with the horizon. This will be affected by both the aircraft's angle of attack and the amount of thrust the powerplant is producing.

Your glide angle is determined by the amount of thrust your aircraft's power plant is producing in excess of what is needed for level flight. You can change this excess thrust by changing your throttle setting or by changing you drag configuration; one way to do the latter is change your airspeed.

What this means is
  1. You can change the aircraft's airspeed solely by changing its angle of attack
  2. You can change an aircraft's altitude by either changing its throttle setting or its airspeed (by pulling or pushing on the yoke).
 
tgrayson said:
Your glide angle is determined by the amount of thrust your aircraft's power plant is producing in excess of what is needed for level flight.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm picturing this rather literally. The glide angle can be up from level flight as well as down, is that how you are defining it?
 
I'm another one of those guys who frames it in terms of BOTH control inputs. I sort of describe final as a "energy" situation. Add throttle when energy is low, pull throttle when energy is high, and at all other times, just trade altitude for airspeed using the yoke or stick.

So if you are high and slow, you can just trade altitude for the airspeed to be back to on glideslope and on airspeed. But high and FAST means too much energy... you need to pull throttle (and perhaps make a yoke or stick adjustment ALSO, but the throttle adjustment is necessary).

Same thing for low and fast... Energy is ok, you just need to trade the extra speed to correct the low altitude-- yoke or stick only.

Low and slow-- ENERGY is too low. You must add throttle.
 
Dugie8 said:
BLEH! This pitch controls this, power controls that, is just crap.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

The two opposing viewpoints are merely training methodologies that have somehow fallen to the level of a religious dispute, with each side thinking it won because all of the people who think the opposite way muct be dead by now.

The ultimate goal is stabilization of the airplane by the use of both pitch and power. The teaching methods represent two ways of transitioning the new student pilot from the two dimensions of driving to the three of flying. If what your instructor is using is working for you, don't listen to the yokels who want to convert you to their version of the one true way.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Thank you.

The two opposing viewpoints are merely training methodologies that have somehow fallen to the level of a religious dispute, with each side thinking it won because all of the people who think the opposite way muct be dead by now.

The ultimate goal is stabilization of the airplane by the use of both pitch and power. The teaching methods represent two ways of transitioning the new student pilot from the two dimensions of driving to the three of flying. If what your instructor is using is working for you, don't listen to the yokels who want to convert you to their version of the one true way.
Click to expand...

The problem comes when you learned one way and then you fly with another instructor who teaches another way :banghead:. You will get an earful, but I digress.

Just keep her stable.....
 
JEP said:
The problem comes when you learned one way and then you fly with another instructor who teaches another way :banghead:. You will get an earful,
Click to expand...
Only if the second instructor views it as gospel rather than technique. Unfortunately...
 
Katzenjammer said:
I guess I'm picturing this rather literally. The glide angle can be up from level flight as well as down, is that how you are defining it?
Click to expand...

/hijack/ Hahaha.. Katzenjammer. I love that word! Actually I have one of them right now, but it's gettin better. Great word, though.

/end hijack/
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
The two opposing viewpoints are merely training methodologies.
Click to expand...

Sorry, this is not correct. One is in accordance with the science and the other is not. The "wrong" explanation can work, but not for the reasons provided, and the recipient of this incorrect model is crippled if he desires to advance in his understanding of aircraft flight.
 
fish314 said:
/hijack/ Hahaha.. Katzenjammer. I love that word! Actually I have one of them right now, but it's gettin better. Great word, though.

/end hijack/
Click to expand...
General Stillwell, the son not old Vinegar Joe, was in Tripler Army Hospital for an exam.
"General," says the doctore, "you have an ulcer."
"Bull Crap," says Stillwell. "I don't get ulcers, I give them!"
Katzenjammer
 
tgrayson said:
Sorry, this is not correct. One is in accordance with the science and the other is not. The "wrong" explanation can work, but not for the reasons provided, and the recipient of this incorrect model is crippled if he desires to advance in his understanding of aircraft flight.
Click to expand...
Well, for us non-aerodynamic engineers (i.e. dumb pilot), I have had great success with the power for airspeed and pitch for altitude method. All I know is that if I am fast, I pull back the power and a bunch of magical stuff happens and then the airplane slows down. I also know that if I am high and pitch down then once again pixy dust surrounds the airplane and I begin to go down.

Furthermore, I have yet to have a captain tell me after I got done adding power for being slow "you know son...you were suppose to pitch down to fix your airspeed problem."
 
subpilot said:
Well, for us non-aerodynamic engineers (i.e. dumb pilot), I have had great success with the power for airspeed and pitch for altitude method.
Click to expand...

If that's the model that you fly with, fine. But when someone asks for an explanation about the "pitch vs power" argument, then they deserve one. To say "it's a matter of opinion" is to say "Because I don't understand the science, there is no science to be understood." Unfortunately, this is a common attitude of the layman towards science in general, particularly in the US. One of my students is strongly skeptical of Einstein's theory of relativity.:rolleyes: I suggested the radical idea that he actually learn about it before deciding that it was false.

I can understand a pilot or instructor not understanding "why" AOA controls airspeed, but I would expect an instructor to defer to the scientists and engineers that do.
 
To quote Midlife's sig line:

"I don't understand" doesn't mean it's grey



Love that line. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top