Pitch. Power. Trim.

[ppragman]

I've had people preach at me about how important it is to have all your powersettings memorized for every phase of flight, and while that works great in a 172, you'll kill yourself looking for consistent power settings in anything bigger.

The only time you really care about flying the numbers is in airspeed control, and altitude. Your speed should be pegged on your selected airspeed, and your altitude/glide path should be maintained as desired. Each flight is not a preprogrammed deal, and being flexible is a must. All those pretty powersettings you've learned go right out the window in every airplane with a headwind. Even in a 172.

Our company has a 172 that we use occasionally, and the only powersettings I really use for that is:

Carbheat comes out at the green arc
Downwind abeam reduce power to 1500RPM, adjust power and pitch accordingly to produce desired glide speed.

 

[Roger, Roger]

Just so we're clear-
I don't say you must memorize pitch and power settings. I realize that the bigger and heavier an airplane gets, the more you have to adjust.
However, I fly the same airplanes at the same weight in similar weather conditions every day. I can set the airplane pretty darn close to the required speed without using the gages, and I expect my students to be able to get somewhere in the general vicinity of the correct attitude without looking inside.
Regarding final, sure, the only number I look at is airspeed-other than that, its power to keep the airplane flying to the point where I want to start my flare, and small, small pitch changes to keep the airspeed set.
I strongly suspect that this is really what all of us teach, and how we fly the airplane. We all know that to climb, we need lots of power, and the nose needs to go up. Each of us probably has a pretty good idea of what the pitch should look like in our airplane to get the desired climb speed.

 

[ppragman]

Just so we're clear-
I don't say you must memorize pitch and power settings. I realize that the bigger and heavier an airplane gets, the more you have to adjust.
However, I fly the same airplanes at the same weight in similar weather conditions every day. I can set the airplane pretty darn close to the required speed without using the gages, and I expect my students to be able to get somewhere in the general vicinity of the correct attitude without looking inside.
Regarding final, sure, the only number I look at is airspeed-other than that, its power to keep the airplane flying to the point where I want to start my flare, and small, small pitch changes to keep the airspeed set.
I strongly suspect that this is really what all of us teach, and how we fly the airplane. We all know that to climb, we need lots of power, and the nose needs to go up. Each of us probably has a pretty good idea of what the pitch should look like in our airplane to get the desired climb speed.

No, I'm not saying that's bad, that's good. That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying don't hunt for airspeeds and powersettings to the extent that you forget to really fly the airplane. I understand what your saying, and if you're driving around a 172, or a 152, or anything really if your weights and CGs are consistent it makes sense, but when you get to be loaded in all sorts of funny ways it doesn't work that well.

 

[Roger, Roger]

Gotcha. I wish I flew something where I had to think about that...
Sounds more interesting than "ok, now set your pitch to level...ok, now we're descending, can you feel that in your ears? here, adjust the pitch, let me know when you've got it trimmed, we'll take a look at the altimeter..."

 

[ppragman]

Gotcha. I wish I flew something where I had to think about that...
Sounds more interesting than "ok, now set your pitch to level...ok, now we're descending, can you feel that in your ears? here, adjust the pitch, let me know when you've got it trimmed, we'll take a look at the altimeter..."

The 207 is a strange airplane aerodynamically, nothing really once you get the hang of it, but it will do some weird things like, at aft cgs it may pitch upward after a reduction in power. I've only noticed that in one of our airplanes which went swimming a few years ago, but its still there.

The other issue is running out of trim. Never count on trim because sometimes you can run out of it even with properly loaded CGs.

 

[escapepilot]

First, let me say that I did NOT get through all five pages of this thread so I may have missed a few things.

Second, I applaud you, AC, for learning all that you can before getting into the cockpit. However, I think you would benefit greatly from just a basic intro flight to put theory into practice at this point.

I personally am not a fan of teaching power settings for primary students because I am one of those "feel" instructors. If you need pitch/power/trim settings to feel better prepared, get a copy of the Practical Test Standards (PTS) and ask your instructor what are typical power settings for each required maneuver. However, since air is a fluid and dynamic, these settings are not going to work 100% of the time. Your training will be teaching you the art behind the science of flying.

 

[fish314]

I've been lurking, but I'm one of the few guys who does use target pitch and power settings for most things. I'm a military IP with about 1000 hours of instruction (Just over 3000 hours total time). About 330 hours instructional in the T-6, about 570 hours instructional in the T-37, and about 140 hours instructional in the KC-135. I've also got some experience in C172's and C152's, although not very much (like 60ish hours). Just so you know where I'm coming from.

For the T-6 and T-37, our typical student has between 0 and 20 hours of GA time, so he's a comperable student to a beginning private pilot student (at least in terms of experience...).


But we give those guys a chart with pitch and power settings for quite a few different regimes or conditions. For each of those maneuvers, we give them a VFR and an IFR pitch setting. So for example, level flight is 1/2 ground, 1/2 sky (VFR) or 0 degrees on the ADI (IFR) and power 50% torque plus your altitude in thousands. In the T-37 we did the same thing (and it was actually the same visual reference 1/2 ground, 1/2 sky or 0 degrees, and 82% + alt./1000).

For ppragman, who thought that you'd kill yourself in anything larger, in a KC-135, you could set 50% plus fuel weight/10000 lbs. in the N1, or 2000lbs/engine fuel flow + 100 lbs./engine for every 10,000 lbs. of fuel. to hold level, 20 flaps gear up, or 50 flaps, gear down, 3 degree glideslope. Or you could just set 55% N1, or 10000lbs/hour total (all four engines) and then adjust slightly from there. There were some others, but I haven't flown a tanker in almost 4 years, so I don't remember them all.

One of the things that we stressed was that each of those settings was an initial guess, and would change based on weather and weight.

An advantage to this method of instruction is that it was directly transferable over to instruments and formation flying. For example if you know that 3 degrees nose high will hold level flight configured (120 knots) then you also know that as you transition to the glideslope intercept point, if you reduce pitch by 3 degrees to 0 degrees, you'll be flying a 3 degree descending glideslope. Power will need to come back to hold airspeed (from about 30% torque to about 21%), but if you keep the airspeed the same, you should see a VVI of 600 (2 miles/minute *3 degrees of pitch change).

If you're flying on the wing, and you know that lead is supposed to be flying the departure with a power setting of between 85-95% torque set, then you know that when you are 2 feet forward of the correct position, you probably don't need the engine back below 60% to fix it. On the other hand, if you are foward of position in an echelon turn (a level maneuver) then lead should have about 60% set (that same 50% plus alt/1000), so you probably want to have the power about 50% or so until you are back in position, then 60% to hold.

As for the argument that guys will not develop "seat of you pants" feel for the airplane, I think that would be valid were it not for area work. The area maneuvers (power on stalls, tp stalls, ground reference maneuvers, steep turns, slow flight, spins, etc.) are all about the "feel" of the airplane.

Of course, we military types are huge "control and performance concept" instructors.

 

[Matt777]

As a student pilot, your pitch for straight and level should be using the horizon as the reference. Set the power for cruise to your recommended power setting, pitch the yoke to maintain altitude,

trim to relieve your pressure on the yoke and then take a mental picture of what it looks like outside.

It varies on different airplanes, but once you have the reference (Like the top of the compass 2" below the horizon or whatever) you can then use that for your pitch setting as long as you keep the power setting consistent...


For power on stalls, I have heard of some instructors teaching their students to use rudder to keep the ball centered, which I think is horrible advice for a student pilot. Every reference should be OUTSIDE of the airplane.

>GASP< I agree 100%!!! Before every manuever you do your pre-maneuver check, which includes the flow (fuel, mixture, mags, 1500rpm), clearing turns, and picking your point. For every maneuver that does not involve a turn "Right rudder for your point". Your eyes must be outside because your primary instrument in the REAL horizon- your guide to attitude flying, which is what you use to control the airplane.

For power on stalls with your nose so high up you can't see your point what substitutes for the point? You can glance QUICKLY at the heading bug you set for the power-on stall.

You can also try to sense the rotation of the ground in your peripheral, but a new student probably wouldn't have any luck with that

Do not ever fixate on any instrument, except your primary instrument, the REAL horizon. Briefly glance at the results on the airspeed and altimeter etc., but only a quick glance to check for results (I snap my fingers over the instrument and then point back up to the windshield), then get those eyes back outside where you adjust your attitude in response to those results you just glanced at by adjusting your attitude.
And don't stare at the Tach, as others have said- you need to be looking outside at your primary instrument to see how you need to adjust pitch and trim in response to the power change. Go by sound, and then quickly glance at it it check. Don't fixate on ANY instrument.

If you are ever pushing against or pulling back on the yoke for any prolonged length of time you are out-of-trim and you are making flying difficult- when flying is not difficult.
This is even more important than a crutch like "pitch, power, trim", even though it IS useful in the beginning.

#1 Do not write anything down on your kneeboard that you should have memorized. I've had a couple guys do this and its a crutch- they look at it in the aircraft (to the detriment of flying the airplane)... it's like it steals their confidence in a strange way... they've always gotta look at it.
Don't do it. Put it on paper, take it home and memorize it.

For private training we don't give out configuration charts because VFR is not that hard. We use them for IFR.

How do you fly the airplane differently IFR/IMC than VFR/VMC?
NOT ANY DIFFERENT! Pitch attitude flying out the windshield becomes Instrument attitude flying on the artificial horizon with all the same "results instruments" radiating off the spoke that is the AI.

Here's your power settings:
Climb: Full - learn what the pitch attitude looks like out the windshield to get Vy
Cruise: 2200-2400 (not *THAT* terribly critical- in the green, as required for desired speed)
Descent: 1500 (or as required for airspeed/descent rate)
Downwind: 2000-2200
Abeam touchdown: 1500 again

Controlling flight: Go by visual pitch attitude, check quickly on instrument
Controlling RPM: Go by sound, check quickly on instrument.

If you fixate on a results instrument you are not flying the airplane with attitude- you are chasing needles instead because you must correct the results instruments by making attitude adjustments by looking at your attitude- not the results you are trying to correct.

EDIT: I talked about checking the instruments, but I didn't type about feeling it in the seat of your pants, which is what should be taught before you get them staring at instruments instead of feeling it.
The post below reminded me that I forgot that!

Hey Fish314, the first time read about the control and performance method in the IFH I thought, " That is awesome! Why would anyone use anything else"?! And I'm not in the military!

 

[nosehair]

Primary Flight Training - the initial learning of the 'effects of the controls' should be focused on what we have called "feel", or "seat of the pants" flying.

We call it that way because that is the term that was handed down to us by our teachers. It is a 'sink or swim' method. Most of us finally got it; figured it out somehow, but the results varied wildly, as is evidenced by the variety of teaching methods presented here.

"Feel" is where you feel the center of gravity of the airplane. Small Primary Training airplanes have their CG approximately in the pilot's seat. Close enough for this discussion.

You first learn, in accordance with the law of Primacy, how to 'feel' this CG. You learn how to feel it move left and right when you push the rudder pedals left and right and you feel the airplane rotate left/right around you: You are CG. You feel the various pressures, infinitely varying pressures and speed of left/right movement of the longitudinal axis (nose) as you feel the movement about the CG. You.

You do this same thing with the push/pull of the yoke: "Feel" the pressure. Feel how it changes as speed changes. Feel how the aircraft rotates about it's CG (you) as you see the pitch change. You can feel it in your stomach.

Roll the wings from side to side as you feel the rotation about it's cg and you see the wings bank as you feel the pressures and speed of movement of the banking. Rolling around you.

Push and pull the throttle all the way in and out and feel the physical throttle movement as you feel the effect on all the axies we have discussed so far. Everything changes. It all feels different with different speeds and throttle movements, and attitudes.

Most flight training programs do not put enough emphasis on these fundamentals in the Primary initial learning of how to control an aircraft.

It really does take quite a bit of time (each person is different) to get fully in control of basic pitch, roll, yaw, and thrust before you try to start coordinating it all together to make a turn. Most instructors and training routines brush briefly on these control effects, and too quickly move on to more complex maneuvers that really require that you have a "feel" first.

You want to be able to comfortably push and pull all flight controls - rudder, elevator, aileron, and throttle - through their full control movement, instinctly.

Instinctly: with no hesitation; with full confidence of your range and authority of motion.

This is rote learning. Left/Right/Up/Down/Push/Pull - and how much of each. No set amount, just feel, sight, sound, through all the nose left/right movements with rudder, the nose up/down with elevator, rolling from bank to bank with aileron. Throttle in and out with speed-torque-and pitch changes.

The desired motions or corrections have to be as automatic as when you eat, and you bend your elbow to stick food in your mouth, your mouth automatically opens. You don't think about it, do you?

Your control response must be at least that automatic.

ALL aircraft, jets, props, helicopters, gliders, (not baloons) work this way.

But the speed and direction of motion the you induce around yourself by feel is your first priority because that is where you fall back to when all the "normal procedures" go bad - and you must prepare yourself for that.

Like, for instance, being on autopilot while icing up so that you don't get the "feel" that something is wrong, and you are suddenly in an unusual attitude. That's when your Primacy Training kicks in.

 

[Douglas]

First, let me say that I did NOT get through all five pages of this thread so I may have missed a few things.

Then you missed the 750 word post requirement...

Just joking, but these posts have been HUGE.

 

[Roger, Roger]

The 207 is a strange airplane aerodynamically,

So I've heard...I have a co-worker who flew one last summer in AK. He said he never did really figure out how to land the thing well, especially empty.

 

[ppragman]

So I've heard...I have a co-worker who flew one last summer in AK. He said he never did really figure out how to land the thing well, especially empty.

Its tough to land it very well, and every individual 207 has a slightly different feel to it on touch down. Which also makes going from airplane to airplane difficult. The large steel spring gear plus the fairly heavy empty weight (around 2500lbs with pilot plus fuel but no cargo) make the touch down prone to bouncing. But I've got almost a 1000hrs in 207s now, and really its not that bad of an airplane. You just have to treat it with some modicum of respect. The australians call the thing the widow maker, I think that's a tad bit offensive. I like the term "sled."

 

[Matt777]

Wrong in an application sense as well. If an airfoil is stalled and you attempt to increase the lift on that airfoil by increasing the AOA, you will be in for a surprise- such as trying to lift a wing that is dropping in a power on stall with aileron.
It is dangerous because it teaches a student the false information that increasing their AOA should increase lift. Are you saying this is NOT dangerous?? If a pilot is in a stall and the ground is rushing up, they should just pull back harder on the yoke and increase the AOA to increase lift and stop the descent?? Not that there has EVER been an accident where this has happened.

Blackhawk, it is clear that CFIs teaching AOA as though it were equal to Cl is a very irritating thing to you, and you have clearly explained the accurate, logical and correct reason why... but with all due respect, and I am not being rude AT ALL, there is not one student on earth who suddenly decided that the critical angle of attack suddenly no longer exists because their instructor just told them that AOA = Cl.

Logically, your problem with this makes total and complete sense. It does.
Except that we don't teach AOA without teaching the critical angle of attack.

Teaching "AOA" and the critical angle of attack instead of teaching Cl and the critical angle of attack is not dangerous. It is not 100% accurate either, so I see your point.
But if the student understands that the wing stalls at the critical AOA (regardless of "pitch"), EVEN THOUGH they have also been taught that increasing the AOA increases the Cl- it is not dangerous because they understand the critical angle of attack.

Is that what your issue is with this?

 

[Approach Control]

Look, if you need airspeed you can lower the AoA or add power or both. Those are the only combinations.....

Clear as mud? Clear as crystal! Thanks. That was one of the most well articulated and structured pieces of thinking I've seen on this subject. Thanks for the "structure" and none of the ego! Exactly what I needed. The 100,000 ft view [first] followed by the rubber meets the road details [second]. Perfect.

Now, is there anyone in disagreement with Ppragman?

He seems to have strategically mapped out my entire question with the structural feedback I was hoping for - mixing the technical with the rubber meets road application.

Thanks again, Ppragman - that was timely and practical and you put your ego aside, to deal with the actual question on the table.

I bet you are a damn good Instructor. Oh, wait a minute - you are from Alaska! That means you must be a damn good pilot to begin with, operating in all those mountains. I guess, in many ways that must be like flying up in high-country Colorado. I actually thought of packing my bags and just finding an Instructor who lives and flies [constantly] in and around high density airport territory and mountains ranges. My theory was that such an Instructor really must understand the concept of energy management, or at the very least, have a better "appreciation" for the same.

My Wife always wanted to cruise to Alaska, anyway. A great excuse for her at least....

 

[Matt777]

..... Not worry about lift??? Probably why we have pilots crash in high DAs each year. They don't worry about that old pesky 1/2p in the lift equation. Lift is over rated. Pilots should most certainly know about lift and the things they can alter in the lift equation.

The guy who is not worrying about lift is an F-15 pilot?
If you and I were F-15 pilots I don't think we'd worry about lack of lift too much either- since we could always get the power needed from those huge engines... mix in a bit of AOA and there ya go.

An exercise I do to demonstrate all this to spin students is a deep power on stall where I can induce reverse command- the aircraft will roll and yaw away from the stick deflection due to the increase in AOA on the wing with deflected aileron having a decrease in lift and an increase in drag (relative to the opposite wing).

That is very cool!!! I've never thought about demoing adverse yaw like that! It's perfect- it completely takes the directional stability provided by the tail right out of the equation, in the same way slowflight almost takes much of its effectiveness out.

I'm gonna try that one! In fact my current student I'm working with from overseas NEEDS that demo because his understanding of spins he brought to the US with him was not correct.

 

[SteveC]

My theory was that such an Instructor really must understand the concept of energy management, or at the very least, have a better "appreciation" for the same.

Just as important as understanding is the ability to communicate and teach. Any one without the other(s) is worthless.

I've known some great pilots that were awful instructors. Vice-versa as well.

 

[Blackhawk]

Blackhawk, it is clear that CFIs teaching AOA as though it were equal to Cl is a very irritating thing to you, and you have clearly explained the accurate, logical and correct reason why... but with all due respect, and I am not being rude AT ALL, there is not one student on earth who suddenly decided that the critical angle of attack suddenly no longer exists because their instructor just told them that AOA = Cl.

Logically, your problem with this makes total and complete sense. It does.
Except that we don't teach AOA without teaching the critical angle of attack.

Teaching "AOA" and the critical angle of attack instead of teaching Cl and the critical angle of attack is not dangerous. It is not 100% accurate either, so I see your point.
But if the student understands that the wing stalls at the critical AOA (regardless of "pitch"), EVEN THOUGH they have also been taught that increasing the AOA increases the Cl- it is not dangerous because they understand the critical angle of attack.

Is that what your issue is with this?

My initial issue was with the statment that lift is related to speed and AOA. Again, I agree that this is the case up to critical AOA, and the key to a stall recovery is a decrease in the AOA. But it is not a complete statement and I know of NO text that teaches L=1/2p*S*V2*AOA.
Unfortunately I have seen several CFI applicants who do not really understand what happens as the airfoil exceeds the critical AOA. I'm not just talking a lack of theory, but of application. I've also seen the application side of this with other pilots in such scenarios as I described- trying to raise a stalled wing with aileron.

 

[Matt777]

Well, so much for PRIMACY (five pages ago)!!!
Oh well, moving on...

... If I can find the Induced and Parasite Drag values and produce a Power Curve for my training aircraft for any aircraft I fly, won't it be possible to locate the exact region [range] of throttle positions for all of the six (6) phases of flight that are optimal for that particular aircraft? And, if I can do that, won't that give me an advantage over this pilot who ended up crash landing short of the runway because he either forgot or never knew what the power requirements were for that particular segment of his flight [the Approach and Landing]?

In my mind, I don't yet see a compelling enough argument for merely "guessing" at these critical operational numbers.

Yes, a gust of wind here and there while on Final, or a downdraft, or all of the smaller details of unstable air masses that will impact the aircraft while on Final, will be at play. But, if I have a range of values [high through low] for the Power setting based upon the Pitch attitude of the aircraft, does that not put me light years ahead of most brand new students? If not, why?

Thanks, again!

Do you two mind if I respond to this one too?

Approach Control, I see that you are a very logical and analytical thinker like I am...
You can logically analyze everything you've read, but until you get in the airplane you wont know if your ideas work well if you try to apply them.

So, good idea on knowing the throttle settings, but here's why you don't want to do that:
1. If it puts your head down in the cockpit looking at the Tach for a grand total of 3 to 5 seconds on final- that is too long to not be looking outside. You would become the crashed plane when teh windshear hit you while you were looking at the Tach and thinking about the next memorized power setting you might need.
2. In practice here is what you really do on final: because you are below best glide speed with the flaps out and you have a bunch of induced and parasite drag you ARE in the region of reversed command. REVERSED. You use power for altitude, because you have lots of induced drag to overcome. By default, airspeed is controlled with pitch- what you have actually done is TRIMMED for 65kts... while adjusting descent rate with power.
3. When you get low or windshear hits, your eyes need to be outside so you see the sink and add power to arrest your descent rate (don't let the windshear part scare you- it is not THAT common (and you'd know to expect it is certain gusty wind conditions), but you need to be spring-loaded for it.

Adjusting descent rate on final with power is as seat-of-the-pants as it gets! That's all it is. Just have it trimmed for 65 and let the nose stay down at that low pitch attitude- leave it alone and don't lift it.... unless you are adding power for a go-around and are pitching up for Vy.

I have to get to sleep so I'm going to post more tomorrow to explain precisely the two sides of the argument that are actually both saying the same thing... one side is forgetting that they are subconciously pitching and trimming down after they add power... which means that if they didn't subconciously pitch and trim down after they add power the airplane would climb because of POWER.

I had to think it through to realize this for myself because. like many here, I too was thinking Region of Normal Command vs. Region of Reversed Command (below best glide speed- 73 in a 172?), like of final when you are using the reverse... power for altitude.

WHEN SPECIFICALLY THINKING ABOUT the REGION OF REVERSED COMMAND (above best glide speed- least induced drag) we *THINK* of power controlling airspeed and pitch controlling altitude... only BECAUSE IT IS SAFE TO DO SO, when not on the back side of the power curve in the region of reversed command, BUT that is wrong because we are all forgetting that, WITH THE TRIM LEFT ALONE, when we add power, the airplane DOES CLIIMB... it doesn't accelerate unless we prevent the nose form rising with pitch and trim.

I've got to get going to bed... I have a whole page of notes and responses form reading 4.5 pages of this thread to post here tomorrow.
One point is that, when on final at 65kts on the back side of the power curve, in the region of reversed command, adding power for altitude works great in a PROP aircraft because teh prop blows an accelerated slipstream of air over the wing, adding lift, and also over the horizontal stabilizer, increasing its lift (which is down because it is an upside-down wing), causing the nose to rise.

This is why power for altitude works so well in prop airplanes! Especially in the ones that have a conventional horizontal stabilizer right smack in the middle of the propwash!
(During a go-around in the T-tail Diamonds I instruct in you do have to add a bit of back pressure to raise the nose to maintain Vy or it will accelerate too much- when you could be exchanging that airspeed energy for altitude energy.

I am ALWAYS talking about the airspeed indicator and altimeter TRADING ENERGY and adding energy with the throttle.
Honestly, that is more important than "pitch power trim" or any other difference of opinion all us CFis can get in to. A pilot is an energy manager so it perfect that you like thinking about energy!

Guess what? Power for altitude does not work in a jet because the jets are not blowing air over the wing to increase lift or over the horizontal stabilizer to push the tail down.
If you are on approach in a 737 and you add power for altitude, without pitching up, you are gonna have a bad day (but all I've flown is a C-Jet for 2 hours).
In a jet without the Cessna's helpful propwash you have to pitch up to climb and also power up to maintain airspeed. Re: Physics...

[EDIT: F-15 pilot didn't say what I just deleted!!! tgrayson did]

This is what my understanding is.
Jet pilots please correct me if neccessary, but I wouldn't have posted it to a student if I felt unsure about what I was saying. And I've never flown an F-15, so go easy on me!!!

Oh yeah... there is no " Myth or rumor or innuendo in flying"- it is all physics and aerodynamics- things that are not subject.

But there are differences in how people present their understanding of those carved-in-stone laws and how think *THINK* about moving the controls.
Everyone here moves the controls in the same order- but some are thinking in opposite orders!

If you're low on final and you think you just need to pull up for altitude... that will be your last flight! Because you are in the region of reversed command with a huge prop on the front of your airplane that is just begging to blast a bunch of air over the wing and stabilizer, that adds lift and a pitch up, respectively- and also overcomes the induced drag of the wing caused by the high angle of attack and flaps drag.

When you trim you are trimming for an AIRSPEED.

When you fly an Instrument Landing System glideslope as an instrument pilot you are going 90 kts, which is above best glide so you are not in the region of reversed command and that is why you pitch for the desired descent rate and power for airspeed.
That opens a whole 'nother can of worms because there are CFIs who teach power for altitude on an ILS glideslope.
If I was an judgemental and opinionated person who was not thinking clearly because of lack of sleep I would go ahead and say that discussion should not go anywhere because using power for altitude on the glideslope is simply wrong unless you are flying it below best glide at 65kts (which no one does).

So there!!!

Comments and corrections are welcomed!

Now go easy on me everyone- I'm really tired and my judgement is not good for social interaction right now:

 

[Matt777]

... I'm not just talking a lack of theory, but of application. I've also seen the application side of this with other pilots in such scenarios as I described- trying to raise a stalled wing with aileron.

Yikes! I too have had to break people of that and explain spin theory (coordination) to them!

 

[Roger, Roger]

Yikes! I too have had to break people of that and explain spin theory (coordination) to them!

Scary when they try that in a multi...

Power on stall recovery...hmm, why are we yawing....OH CRAP STOP USING AILERONS UNTIL YOU GET US UNSTALLED!!!!

Fortunately the DA42 is pretty uneventful when they try that, it just sort of adverse yaws all over the place.