Power Off 180s

[killbilly]

So, the best advice you've gotten here came from @USMCmech - the man knows a thing or three about flight instruction and what he said absolutely mirrors what I would tell you. ACS says you get -0 / +200 ', so if you're using the 1000' markers, they're 150 feet long. In my experience, if you do it right in a 172, no wind, aiming between 2nd-3rd stripe usually gets you into a roundout that puts the mains on the base of the markers.

Don’t be afraid to go around if you know you screwed it up. It’s a hard maneuver, imo.

This is true, but on the checkride - depending on which checkride you have and which examiner you're working with - this may not be an option - some will let you do it because a go-around is also a required task, but others have argued that because it's an emergency maneuver, a go-around is not an option.

@MikeD - on the advice about full trim....I agree with everything you said, but I do want to minimize some of the risks for students trying to practice these at busy fields where the go-around is more likely. Go around with full nose-up trim will go south REALLY quickly if they're not Johnny On The Spot with the trim wheel. Probably makes sense to force that very issue with practice and an instructor a few times so they can see just how much forward yoke/downforce is needed to counter that trim when power is applied abruptly. We find that about 2.5-3 turns of nose up trim and flaps 10 yields a good power-off glide that can be managed and then, as @USMCmech said, managing the energy with the slip helps the situation.

Not saying you're wrong at all...this is more about technique than anything else.

 

[MikeD]

@MikeD - on the advice about full trim....I agree with everything you said, but I do want to minimize some of the risks for students trying to practice these at busy fields where the go-around is more likely. Go around with full nose-up trim will go south REALLY quickly if they're not Johnny On The Spot with the trim wheel. Probably makes sense to force that very issue with practice and an instructor a few times so they can see just how much forward yoke/downforce is needed to counter that trim when power is applied abruptly. We find that about 2.5-3 turns of nose up trim and flaps 10 yields a good power-off glide that can be managed and then, as @USMCmech said, managing the energy with the slip helps the situation.

Not saying you're wrong at all...this is more about technique than anything else.

The trim and the effects on a go around, hence why I emphasized being on top of taking out trim quick as power is applied for a go. They obviously have to be practiced that way so they aren’t a surprise and the effect expected, when executed.

Slips and such are only corrective measures, albeit good corrective measures, but corrective ones nonetheless, I don’t like to teach students to be dependent on them or do things like be high and plan to use them. Better to get an idea of general usual descent rates with head/tail/no wind and cage the eyeballs to those for a good setup of altitude vs geographic position, and keeping other measures as backups to judging it right initially.

 

[mwflyer]

172s are the worst for these because they glide relatively well. I did all mine in a Bonanza. Thing sinks like a rock.

right there with you. I did mine in an arrow, with a 3 blade prop. Tons of drag. Floating was never a problem. In fact, on the checkride, the examiner looks over at me and says “remember, this thing is a pig, don’t come up short.” LOL!

 

[CFI A&P]

Anyone got tried and a true tips for power off 180s? I’ve got my CSEL coming up and have got worse at them over time somehow, usually being fast and high floating past the landing point. Thinking I need to turn base later than I am just worried about getting too far out. I’m in a 172 if that matters..

This maneuver is entirely about energy management and quite often the student will rush the turn because they're thinking "engine out better get on the ground ASAP." to avoid crashing short of the runway. This usually results in a dive to the approach end with extra energy floating, floating, floating, floating, still floating and if executed poorly enough - exiting the runway at the departure end with excess energy.

Start abeam the numbers, power to idle start the counter: one magneto, two magneto, three magneto then begin a smooth coordinated turn towards the runway. Did you come up short, or long... evaluate and determine how effective the energy management was.

 

[MikeD]

This maneuver is entirely about energy management and quite often the student will rush the turn because they're thinking "engine out better get on the ground ASAP." to avoid crashing short of the runway. This usually results in a dive to the approach end with extra energy floating, floating, floating, floating, still floating and if executed poorly enough - exiting the runway at the departure end with excess energy.

Start abeam the numbers, power to idle start the counter: one magneto, two magneto, three magneto then being a smooth coordinated turn towards the runway. Did you come up short, or long... evaluate and determine how effective the energy management was.

Yes. And do it in different wind conditions of headwind and tailwind, to see what those affects are, as well as crosswind in order to see what overshooting or undershooting winds do to turns, and what they require the pilot to do. Teach what different flap settings do what at given speeds and when to utilize them. All of this is to most importantly, as building blocks, teach the maneuver setup correctly for general pattern spacing and descent rate expectations. A well executed setup and a caged eyeball to performance, is worth 100 crutch fixes such as slips and S-turns. Definitely teach those fixes, but don’t teach a dependency on them.

 

[DropTank]

Fly directly over the runway, Split 'S' to touch down.


(please don't)

 

[MikeD]

Fly directly over the runway, Split 'S' to touch down.

(please don’t)

Roll inverted and pull, is one way to effectively make a final approach.

 

[DropTank]

Roll inverted and pull, is one way to effectively make a final approach.

No matter what, you WILL land.....
(technically)

 

[Constellation]

This is true, but on the checkride - depending on which checkride you have and which examiner you're working with - this may not be an option - some will let you do it because a go-around is also a required task, but others have argued that because it's an emergency maneuver, a go-around is not an option.

At my former school the DPE's definitely didn't allow go-arounds for Power-Off 180's other than for external reasons (tower calls it, etc.).

Their reasoning was the ACS provides a go-around skill element for every landing except a Power-Off 180:

Because that element is omitted for the Power Off 180, they deemed it a one attempt only event.

 

[bimmerphile]

config set abeam numbers, start descent and the turn and monitor your aim point, moving up in your field of view are things you will undershoot, moving down you will overshoot. what the airplane is aimed at is the point that is not moving but "blossoming" in the window. if you're in a constant turn from low key all the way to final you just monitor your rate of turn and aim point. coming up short? cut across the downwind-final circle and drive straight to the aim point. coming up high? square the turn or considering flying through the final a bit to add some more x for your given y. be cognizant of the winds aloft between TPA and surface and use that to help change your groundspeed and therefore your descent angle, given a constant airspeed and VS

 

[ppragman]

Go out and play test pilot.

So. So find a really long runway, then:

Go up and fly some power off 180s. Make all your turns at the same bank angle, and initiate your turn when a land mark on the ground passes an easily discernible point (I used the back of the strut in high wings).

See how much altitude you lose in 90 degrees of turn. Do that until you have it down to a science where you can predict where you’ll roll out altitude wise. Then do it again for the point on the ground you’ll roll out on.


Do it again where you predict where you’ll roll out on final. Repeat.

After you’ve got it clean, add flaps, do it again and recompute.

If you do that a half dozen times or so, and do it scientifically so as to take as muchof the guesswork out of it as possible, you’ll get really good at them.

If you’re having trouble that, start out backwards. Build back from the touchdown point. When you’re Doing touch and goes, find which point you can pull power in various configurations and still make the runway. As you build back to downwind abeam,take note of the altitude you need to fly through at each point. At each “keyhole” you should hit a certain point in space at a certain speed, altitude, and flap setting.

We actually had it as a pass fail checklist event in the PC12 and C208 and as a whole profile where you hit the upwind at 1500’ AGL close in then roll into a series of turns and you manage your energy with flaps.

upwind abeam - 1500’AGL
downwind abeam - 1000 AGL
Mid Base - 500 AGL
Touch down 0.

We did it so often that I’ve done it under the hood with the gps as my only guide, it works really well if you practice and have targets to fly through.

Similarly, you can fly a whole approach this way if you get good at it, but in that scenario you’ll need a long runway and to descend much faster than best glide and much steeper than 3 degrees.

 

[Boris Badenov]

We actually had it as a pass fail checklist event in the PC12 and C208 and as a whole profile where you hit the upwind at 1500’ AGL close in then roll into a series of turns and you manage your energy with flaps.

The last actual Good Time I had in an airplane was doing power off 180s to short runways in the PC-12 with a highly competent check airman. Slip it in! Not like that, get your mind out of the gutter.

 

[ppragman]

Oh and I forgot to mention, once you’ve got the “keyholes to fly through” the wind is much easier to deal with.

Headwind? Omit dropping flaps. Or drop them slightly later. Big headwind? Round off the corners of your turn (use slightly less bank and start early).

But be scientific about it - you should fly through specific holes in space at a certain speed, flap setting, and altitude.

If you’re high, add flap or increase speed to burn energy faster.

If you’re low reduce flap or start turning sooner.

 

[MikeD]

At my former school the DPE's definitely didn't allow go-arounds for Power-Off 180's other than for external reasons (tower calls it, etc.).

Their reasoning was the ACS provides a go-around skill element for every landing except a Power-Off 180:

View attachment 65503

Because that element is omitted for the Power Off 180, they deemed it a one attempt only event.

Out here, there’s the luxury of being able to not just practice this at airports. Remote paved or dirt road in the middle of nowhere that has been previously scouted and found to be suitable, even with some mild obstacles? I use it as something for the student to find and utilize that they haven’t seen before, to a touchdown. Again, this is only something that there’s suitability out in the rural area here and not something that can be done everywhere, but it does give the advantage of teaching some quick site evaluation to a student and judgement of something that isn’t fixed and established like and airport, food for thought.

The evaluation process I described above in response to CFI A&P’s post, is the same judgement and inflight evaluation I use for teaching expected aircraft performance for an engine failure on takeoff upwind: as in, when and at what altitudes AGL, with a reasonable buffer, can a successful 180+ degree turn (180 plus maneuvering space for lineup) be attempted, and at what altitude AGL should it not be attempted, and a forced landing area from 10 to 2 attempted instead for success.

 

[ppragman]

The last actual Good Time I had in an airplane was doing power off 180s to short runways in the PC-12 with a highly competent check airman. Slip it in! Not like that, get your mind out of the gutter.

We did them a lot, every 6 mos in each airplane and we did them as training events more often. It was fun, and it’s pretty easy to get good enough at them eventually to do them IMC. Which I believe is a critical skill in SE IFR.

Being able to lose an engine in the flight levels, then glide to a runway, shoot an approach or build your own to a runway, fly in and land after only doffing the hood at a couple hundred feet is not only a critical skill to have, but great deal of fun.

Honestly, after a while all of my approaches were “through keyholes” like this after I learned the technique - the only difference was power on keyhole height/location and power off, and it made me a better pilot.

 

[Boris Badenov]

As per above, it wasn't just fun, it was a reminder that you can actually fly the damned thing, and do it well.

This is why airline pilots buy airplanes. Too stupidly expensive to be a humblebrag, a Ferrari is way cheaper. It's a desire to utilize skills built up over a lifetime and which are basically surplus to requirements at this point.

Not that I'm thinking about buying an airplane! Fiscal insanity! I'd never use it! Money pit! Etc. Etc.

 

[bimmerphile]

As per above, it wasn't just fun, it was a reminder that you can actually fly the damned thing, and do it well.

This is why airline pilots buy airplanes. Too stupidly expensive to be a humblebrag, a Ferrari is way cheaper. It's a desire to utilize skills built up over a lifetime and which are basically surplus to requirements at this point.

Not that I'm thinking about buying an airplane! Fiscal insanity! I'd never use it! Money pit! Etc. Etc.

life is short...

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Slips and such are only corrective measures, albeit good corrective measures, but corrective ones nonetheless, I don’t like to teach students to be dependent on them or do things like be high and plan to use them. Better to get an idea of general usual descent rates with head/tail/no wind and cage the eyeballs to those for a good setup of altitude vs geographic position, and keeping other measures as backups to judging it right initially.

Slips to Landing is the glider equivalent maneuver, taught to PPLs. It is normal to fly a glider traffic patter with about 50% dive brake, which allows for a margin to adjust the descent rate higher or lower -- essentially the same as using a throttle. This manuever simulates a dive brake failure. Since there is never an option to add power to make up for an energy shortage, you always need to have more speed or altitude than needed. The slip to landing is basically the same as a power off 180. Speed stays constant, so always a bit higher and bleeding of that height with the help of the slip.

I've flown and teach them both exactly the same way -- using a slip to control the descent rate. Not at full rudder travel, but not with no slip at all either. That way, you have the option of adding a bit more or less slip as needed to stay on the descent profile you want. Having about half flaps is also helpful - you still have the option to add more on final if you end up high and the slip won't be enough. The slip is more useful than flaps to control descent rate, because you can take it back out.

 

[ppragman]

As per above, it wasn't just fun, it was a reminder that you can actually fly the damned thing, and do it well.

This is why airline pilots buy airplanes. Too stupidly expensive to be a humblebrag, a Ferrari is way cheaper. It's a desire to utilize skills built up over a lifetime and which are basically surplus to requirements at this point.

Not that I'm thinking about buying an airplane! Fiscal insanity! I'd never use it! Money pit! Etc. Etc.

This was a big part of why I stayed flying small airplanes for a living. I got a great deal of satisfaction from the work.

If I wouldn’t have gotten sick I’d likely have stayed flying the Twinotter for 20 more years.

 

[MikeD]

Slips to Landing is the glider equivalent maneuver, taught to PPLs. It is normal to fly a glider traffic patter with about 50% dive brake, which allows for a margin to adjust the descent rate higher or lower -- essentially the same as using a throttle. This manuever simulates a dive brake failure. Since there is never an option to add power to make up for an energy shortage, you always need to have more speed or altitude than needed. The slip to landing is basically the same as a power off 180. Speed stays constant, so always a bit higher and bleeding of that height with the help of the slip.

I've flown and teach them both exactly the same way -- using a slip to control the descent rate. Not at full rudder travel, but not with no slip at all either. That way, you have the option of adding a bit more or less slip as needed to stay on the descent profile you want. Having about half flaps is also helpful - you still have the option to add more on final if you end up high and the slip won't be enough. The slip is more useful than flaps to control descent rate, because you can take it back out.

Agreed. Though I don’t necessarily teach a full slip as a normal maneuver, but as a corrective maneuver and a tool that is available for same. The ultimate in knowing your aircraft, is developing that feel for its engine out performance, which won’t be the same in different aircraft, I stress to students to make a reevaluation….a recaging of the eyes…. when going from one aircraft to another. Flaps same, some flaps are useful to provide some more lift.

But like anything, nothing is free…..everything done by the pilot, will cost something somewhere else. So to setup as accurately as possible from the beginning, best for the particular aircraft you are flying, where you aren’t having to cash-out on different areas of performance and pay out in others, is best.