pitch=airspeed; power=altitude

[shdw]

breaking down a skill into its components, explaining how and why each movement is made, then teaching the student how to combine them to produce the desired effect.

Exactly. This should be written on a plaque.

 

[sdfcvoh]

Exactly. This should be written on a plaque.

+1

 

[The Gardener]

I've never once found myself in a stall thinking "Hey, what was that equation again for lift. If I could only remember, I'd be able to recover right now. Dang!"

 

[wjmiller3]

I've never once found myself in a stall thinking "Hey, what was that equation again for lift. If I could only remember, I'd be able to recover right now. Dang!"

Ha, me neither!!

 

[Roger, Roger]

I've never once found myself in a stall thinking "Hey, what was that equation again for lift. If I could only remember, I'd be able to recover right now. Dang!"

Maybe that's what happened to Capt. Renslow.








....too soon?

 

[rockman2343@aol.com]

Eitherway done correctly works. In both methods if you increase pitch, you are going to have to decrease power, regardless of which is controlling altitude and which is controling airspeed. In both methods you have to recognize the exceptions, for example if your speed is low and you are high, I just need to pitch forward. In my opinion anyone who makes an argument that either way is better is just wasting time, its aa mattewr of personal preference. I am of course speaking only about piston engine aircraft as with no jet time I couldn't tell you.

 

[rockman2343@aol.com]

Also, what are you going to teach on an ILS when the student gets fast? Pitch up and lose the GS or pull some power out to get the speed where it needs to be?


I think you make a good point. While it is possible to fly a glide slope using power for altitude, I think that the time it takes the aircraft to lose or gain the altitude through a change in power, is longer than it would through a change in pitch. To fly it correctly using this method would require (A) a higher level of skill, (B) familiaraity(how ever you spell it, lol) with the aircraft.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

My favorite pitch-power argument was one where I contributed a real experience.

I was in Mooney M-20C and had diverted for weather/ At my diverson airport I encountered windshear on short final - so strong that it felt like the bottom dropped out of the plane while it stopped moving forward. It's the first time I've had full power all the way into the flare.

The fun part was watching the arguments about whether the technique I used was pitch for airspeed and power for altitude or vice versa, with each side absolutely convinced that I did it their way. If not, I would have surely crashed.

 

[Blackhawk]

I've never once found myself in a stall thinking "Hey, what was that equation again for lift. If I could only remember, I'd be able to recover right now. Dang!"

True... yet knowing what you can control is very important. For example, knowing the equation helps pilots understand why their performance decreases with an increase in DA.

 

[Brian Z]

I agree but which would you do first? If I'm on the glideslope and riding it down perfectly I'm not going to change my pitch right away without pulling power first. You will have to do both eventually but im going to adjust the power and slowly change the pitch to compensate for the loss of lift from a reduced airspeed. Is this the only way? Not at all but it makes the most sense to me.

What about in cruise if you have to slow down for spacing? Are you going to pitch up first or pull power first? Me, I pull power and compensate with pitch to hold altitude...it seems logical to me to do it that way but theres other ways to slow down too. I guess where I'm getting is do it the way you want but don't get deadset on "theres only one way, its the way my CFI taught me and any other way is wrong" mentality.

Pitch+Power=Performance they work together

Sorry to add to this MikeD, but since I am taking my CFI initial ride in a week or so I want to be sure I can explain this.

Sometimes I find that thinking through things backwards helps clarify the idea. You are confusing the concept by having too many variables in the equation. Take a look at what each action does by itself and not by trying to hold a glideslope or altitude.

Let's say you are in perfectly trimmed level cruise at 110 KIAS. You apply full power without changing anything except the appropriate control inputs for the turning tendencies. What happens? Once the airplane stabilizes you will be in a 110 KIAS climb. So you are changing the altitude with power. That one is easy to wrap your head around because you have one action that causes one change.

Now for changing pitch you have one action that causes two changes and that is where I think people get confused. Same conditions, level trimmed cruise at 110 KIAS. Without changing power you pitch up five degrees. Obviously, you start to climb so it would seem you are changing altitude with pitch, but are you really? Sure, you gained some altitude with the pitch change, but that is only at the expense of airspeed which is now less than 110 KIAS. Eventuality, the airplane will stabilize in level flight at a higher altitude, but with a lower airspeed. This is assuming there is enough power to hold the altitude at the new airspeed created by the change in AoA. If not then the airplane will start a decent at a stable airspeed and rate of decent if nothing else changes with either pitch or power. The altitude gain was a byproduct of the energy that the plane had at the higher airspeed.

 

[nosehair]

One of the reasons this dead horse keeps twitchin is the very simplicity of the formula in the title of this thread; ie. pitch=airspeed and power=altitude.

This is true when power is at idle, as in the way all primary flight training was conducted a way long time ago. Power to idle at the abeam point and touchdown on a spot with no additional power, except a good clearing of the engine on base, so the concept of this simple formula became the etched in stone mantras of most all pilots and instructors back when the current model of flight training was developed, and is still with us.

Until they got into using power on an approach. Things changed. This debate came up, for one. Like the spin debate. There was no debate on the necessity of spin training. Of course, there was also no apparent need for a pilot to get spin training in large aircraft, or more specifically, aircraft that you use power on an approach. They flew differently, and only experienced high-time pilots flew them as well as instrument approaches.

Instrument approaches, specifically, for the small airplane pilot, are what will make you realize that the simple formula you have been using with power off approaches will just not work in a power on approach.

The pitch=airspeed/power=altitude formula only works when you use only one at a time, ie, power-off approaches, full-throttle climbs, or set-throttle cruising or maneuvering.

So,..the world changed and primary flight training changed to training as if you already had the basics and move right into 'real world' flying where you usually always use power on a visual approach in a light airplane, usually right up into the flare.

The techniques used in trying to explain or apply the mathmatical/theoretical combinations of pitch and power get confused by what I see as differences in 'primary', or 'basic fundamentals', and real world flying, or using the basic tools you learn in primary to adjust to your personal style of flying or the machine you are flying.

So, it has developed into this classic debate, or deadhorse, which I like seeing resurface from time to time. Always a fresh viewpoint - maybe not of the pure science of it, but of the student's viewpoint; another 'facet' of the never-ending well of knowledge in this fascinating attempt to turn theory into practice.

I am still a proponent of teaching power-off approaches during the primary phase, primarily because it is simplest: power to idle, trim and fly the controls. Flying and feeling the basic flight controls in a power-off glide to the runway (with no traffic) is the easiest way, and follows the basic instructor's fundamental of 'keeping it simple', at first.

During this period, the student develops the automatic response of pitching to airspeed and this is good. But soon, the student must learn to use power in an approach, and that is when it changes. The student must ultimately learn to coordinate both, so I start with short-field approaches, after solo.

On a short-field approach, on a hot bumpy day, the updraft on final will cause an increase in both airspeed and altitude, so the student who reacts with a pitch-pull due to increased airspeed will add significantly to the altitude already added by the updraft. Same thing happens on an ILS.

The point is, on a precision approach with significant use of power, such as a short field or ILS, pointing the nose at the intended runway impact point (glidepath) and controlling speed with power is easier and more precise in turbulant air.

These two different types of approaches require two different types of technique. Spread the word. Help wipe out "one-way-itus".

 

[tgrayson]

Eventuality, the airplane will stabilize in level flight at a higher altitude, but with a lower airspeed. ...The altitude gain was a byproduct of the energy that the plane had at the higher airspeed.

This isn't quite true. Yes, there is a balloon involved in the pitch up, which is a conversion of kinetic into potential energy, but the new lower airspeed slides you left along the power required curve, producing an excess of power that you didn't have before, unless the lower speed puts you behind the power curve. So you will achieve a sustained climb by using the yoke. However, it is still true that the climb is produced by excess power, it's just that you created it by reducing power requirements, rather than increasing power available.

 

[shdw]

The fun part was watching the arguments about whether the technique I used was pitch for airspeed and power for altitude or vice versa

What you and most other are confusing is a physical explanation vs pilot technique.

The only reason to make an early student use pitch for airspeed/power for altitude is to instill the physical explanation. That is why I argue using it for a private pilot. I would also do repeated reviews through later training to ensure it is still there.

Knowing the physical explanation allows the pilot to understand why a technique works and properly apply it to techniques they use. Practicing the physical explanation proves to them that it works.

Now about your technique with this, I am curious. Did you pitch Vy and apply full power? It does seem silly that you said "full power into the flare." Why not clean up and go around?

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Now about your technique with this, I am curious. Did you pitch Vy and apply full power? It does seem silly that you said "full power into the flare." Why not clean up and go around?

Couple of reasons. Primary was that my pitch-power reaction was sufficiently automatic that I re-stabilized my approach speed and descent rate very quickly and didn't see the need for a go around at that point, although I was ready for one if necessary. The landing itself was smooth and under control. Even in retrospect, I'm not certain that a go-around would have been a good choice.

The only reason to make an early student use pitch for airspeed/power for altitude is to instill the physical explanation. That is why I argue using it for a private pilot. I would also do repeated reviews through later training to ensure it is still there.

If you taught whichever technique you chose correctly, in a later =flight= review, you should not be able to tell which they are using.

 

[shdw]

On a short-field approach, on a hot bumpy day, the updraft on final will cause an increase in both airspeed and altitude

Try this: Stable pitch approach. Do not, no matter what, change pitch all the way through final. Use power for any altitude discrepancies and your pitch will hold the AS +/-5 knots.

You have a false notion that an updraft creates an increase in AS, it doesn't. We have a natural tendency to push forward when we feel the aircraft creeping up our butts, that can cause a real increase in AS. However, the AS increase, if you keep pitch stable, only occurs from minor instrument errors.

If you keep the pitch and reduce the power, which is the proper response for this scenario, when the lifting air subsides the AS will remain unchanged and you will still be on glide path. This works equally well for instruments but is harder to recognize.

Until they got into using power on an approach. Things changed.

Apply constant pitch as mentioned above and see how it doesn't change.

 

[shdw]

If you taught whichever technique you chose correctly, in a later =flight= review, you should not be able to tell which they are using.

It isn't about the technique, it is how they understand the technique. Do they know that when they pitch, regardless of technique, the result is always a change in airspeed. Similarly for power changes. I could care less what the technique is that they use, I want to know that they understand what each control input used for their technique is doing to their aircraft. (I am speaking of a flight review at this point.)

One thing I do on every flight review is to have them control the power while I hold the pitch at a given point. Yes, they don't fly for one approach. Then I have them do one where they hold the pitch and fly with the power in. Just to make sure they understand the intricacies of their technique and as a 5 minute refresher.

 

[nosehair]

Try this: Stable pitch approach. Do not, no matter what, change pitch all the way through final. Use power for any altitude discrepancies and your pitch will hold the AS +/-5 knots.

..um, ok, I don't know if we are on the same page or not. My scenario is about a turbulent approach where pitch is a forced change from outside by upward moving air causing a sudden increase in lift and airspeed, as in a small wind shear. I think we agree here that the immediate objective is to re-establish pitch, but your scenario starts with the notion of a stable approach.

You have a false notion that an updraft creates an increase in AS, it doesn't. We have a natural tendency to push forward when we feel the aircraft creeping up our butts, that can cause a real increase in AS. However, the AS increase, if you keep pitch stable, only occurs from minor instrument errors.

No, actually it is an observation over thousands of hours in light airplanes on hot bumpy days with the aircraft hands off trimmed and watching the little thing pitch to the sky on every bump all the way down.
Now, after the nose has pitched up some, on it's own, the airspeed will start backing off, but the first needle reaction when you first feel the 1.7G "bump" will (or may) be a forward "jump". This is where you fly attitude, or pitch, for altitude, or glidepath. You point the nose at the spot on the runway, you will have to keep changing the pitch, or actually correcting back to a new pitch, constantly re-establishing the glideslope, as in level cruise, but on a descending incline, like a sliding board.

 

[Champcar]

"Just fly the damn airplane"

 

[poser765]

.If you taught whichever technique you chose correctly, in a later =flight= review, you should not be able to tell which they are using.

I would like everyone to stop for a second and read the above quote. Then read it again. THIS is everything that makes this debate stupid summed up in once sentence.

 

[TheBritishBaron]

"Just fly the damn airplane"

:clap: Couldn't have said it better myself...