Ban student pilots from our CTLS flying club?

[FastEddieB]

Someone tell me, what is "flying it on"?

 

 

CharlieTango has it.

 

One method is to round out into ground effect, then continue to hold off the plane for as long as you can. When you can no longer hold the plane off, the stick is all the way back, or nearly so, and the plane touches down at or near its stall speed. The Private Pilot Practical Test Standards calls for the applicant demonstrating touchdown "at approximately stall speed", and this method accomplishes that.

 

The other method is to round out into ground effect, bring the nose up enough to land on the main wheels first, but make no effort to get as slow as possible. This may result in a touchdown 3kts to 5 kts fast (pretty benign, and acceptable), but some pilots touch down 10k or even 20k above stall speed, and this on a pretty regular basis.

 

The second method has its place - gusty conditions, jets, carrier landings, night landings with no landing light (as already mentioned) particular aircraft configurations, that sort of thing, each for its own valid reason(s).

 

But there's lots of extra energy carried into the landing in the second method, and that energy can on occasion result in proposing or bouncing or swerving or other untoward behavior.

 

Of course, dropping a plane in from a height in a full stall can damage a plane as well. But my camp holds the problem there is not the stall, its the inability to judge height - an ability a student should be able to demonstrate consistently before being soloed.

 

For newcomers, I started a thread titled "A (cautionary) tale of two landings" which covers some of this same ground. The two camps are pretty firmly entrenched, and each has made a case for their position. Pilots will just have to decide what works for them.

[Anticept]

That's what I thought. I would like to correct my previous statement then: I don't fly it TO the ground, but I do let it settle while trying to judge distance from the ground, while keeping a couple knots of airspeed in reserve. I don't like training students to full stall to the ground, but rather, get close to it and settle on the runway.

 

CT: how the heck can you land with the stick at the aft stop? I know i can do that with a Mooney or a Cessna, but my CTLS will drag the tail on the ground if i tried that!

 

EDIT: FastEddieB, you need to clear out your inbox! I can't send you a PM!

[Joel Severinghaus]

Price of an engine mount: $4700 plus $1200 airfreight from Germany. We've been waiting about five weeks now. A big part of our downtime frustration has been waiting for out-of-stock landing gear parts, but that's a topic for another thread.

 

Review with another CTLS instructor: Good suggestion, Anticept. I'll pursue that.

 

Ballast to replace CFI's weight upon solo: That idea came up in our club safety board review of the latest incident, noting that the weight of the missing CFI is a much larger percentage of the gross weight of the CTLS than it is for a Cessna or Piper. But I can already picture the NTSB report if we tried to strap a 200-pound sandbag into the right seat. Replacing CFI weight with fuel is an idea, though. On the other hand, generations of pilots have soloed lighter planes than the CTLS without needing ballast to replace the CFI...

 

Judging height: I agree with FastEddieB's analysis. In two of our accidents/incidents, the pilot dropped it in in a full stall, having misjudged height above the runway. Judging height seems to be one of the most difficult skills for new CT pilots to learn. Any of you CFIs have an effective technique for teaching that?

[Anticept]

Look out the left window! The wheel is RIGHT THERE!

[Ed Cesnalis]

CT: how the heck can you land with the stick at the aft stop? I know i can do that with a Mooney or a Cessna, but my CTLS will drag the tail on the ground if i tried that!

 

 

My normal landing is with 30 degrees, if I use less than 30 I am probably flying it on to deal with wind shear.

 

My target is to get close to the ground and behind the power curve and move the stick to the aft stop and hold it there till it settles on the mains, then keep it there to save the brakes plus holding the nose makes directional control easier. Allowing the nose to settle early sometimes gives me an unwnated turn.

 

Sometimes I will hit the aft stop while still a few feet in the air in an attempt to arrest the sink. This works well, more of a short field result. If I am already at the aft stop while I am descending the last few feet I am ready to advance the throttle if I begin to run out of energy.

[Tom Baker]

Joel, I know I'm not real close, but I'm naot that far either. I would be glad to fly with you when you get your airplane back, or you could come down and fly mine. Tom

[Anticept]

 

 

My normal landing is with 30 degrees, if I use less than 30 I am probably flying it on to deal with wind shear.

 

I'll have to do some more flight testing!

[Ed Cesnalis]

This touch down is at 39kts IAS, full aft stick (pretty close) and by the pitch attitude you can tell the tail is well clear.

 

[ralarcon]

Price of an engine mount: $4700 plus $1200 airfreight from Germany. We've been waiting about five weeks now. A big part of our downtime frustration has been waiting for out-of-stock landing gear parts, but that's a topic for another thread.

 

Review with another CTLS instructor: Good suggestion, Anticept. I'll pursue that.

 

Ballast to replace CFI's weight upon solo: That idea came up in our club safety board review of the latest incident, noting that the weight of the missing CFI is a much larger percentage of the gross weight of the CTLS than it is for a Cessna or Piper. But I can already picture the NTSB report if we tried to strap a 200-pound sandbag into the right seat. Replacing CFI weight with fuel is an idea, though. On the other hand, generations of pilots have soloed lighter planes than the CTLS without needing ballast to replace the CFI...

 

Judging height: I agree with FastEddieB's analysis. In two of our accidents/incidents, the pilot dropped it in in a full stall, having misjudged height above the runway. Judging height seems to be one of the most difficult skills for new CT pilots to learn. Any of you CFIs have an effective technique for teaching that?

 

FYI, I just had an engine mount replacement about 10 Mo.a go, my CTLS was damaged prior to me acquiring it. Price was $7,200 and shipping from FD was discounted to $750.00 US. OF course that does not Include labor fees for dismounting the engine and then placing it back.

 

Cheers.

[FastEddieB]

Judging height seems to be one of the most difficult skills for new CT pilots to learn. Any of you CFIs have an effective technique for teaching that?

 

Joel,

 

As a CFI, it can be very frustrating.

 

For instance, you see the plane has rounded out maybe 4" or 6" above the runway. Great.

 

But then the student climbs. And climbs. And climbs. I mean, its REALLY obvious. Finally, at 3 or 4 or 5 FEET in the air, and running out of airspeed, the instructor finally has to either call for a go around or take the controls. Student's typical reaction? "Wow! I had no idea we were that high!"

 

Why not? I think most instructors will agree its because the student is looking in the wrong place - because if he was looking in the right place, its just really, really obvious what's happening, as said before.

 

Here's a link to an article I wrote for the Cirrus Owner's magazine, which I've posted in similar threads before:

 

https://www.dropbox....Wheretolook.pdf

 

That should work - its a Dropbox link.

[Joel Severinghaus]

Tom, thank you for the kind offer -- I may come take you up on that. Wish I could bring a cashier's check for your plane too .

 

Anticept, point taken, but I have reservations about training pilots to look out the side window at the wheel to judge height above the runway. I think most experienced CT pilots have learned to judge their height while looking forward out the windshield, where they need to be looking to spot sideways drift, especially in a crosswind, and longitudinal axis alignment with the runway. And, as the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook (page 8-4) puts it,

"If the pilot attempts to focus on a reference that is too close or looks directly down, the reference will become blurred, and the reaction will be either too abrupt or too late. In that case, the pilot's tendency will be to overcontrol, round out high, and make full-stall, drop-in landings."

 

I think the CTLS presents some sight-picture challenges on final until one gets experience. At 54 knots with 15 degrees of flaps, the sloping cowling of the CTLS seems to make the descent angle look steeper than it is. Then the student pilots gets a "ground rush" sensation as the ground suddenly comes into sharp focus at about 20-30 feet, feels like he's diving into the ground, and pulls back on the stick too soon, flaring too high. I find myself saying a lot of "Keep flying it to the ground" (to not onto) and "Not yet. Not yet. Not yet. Now, gradually, gradually, pull back."

 

FastEddieB, great article about "Where to look on landing". I find that more useful than the Airplane Flying Handbook's discussion of the "angle at which the pilot's central vision intersects the ground ahead" (page 8-5) or Wolfgang Langewiesche's "perspective shift" (Stick and Rudder pages 295-302.)

 

Looking through my bookshelf, I also found this in Alan Bramson's Make Better Landings (page 54):

"

Exercises for improving ground-proximity appreciation

"Simplistic as it may sound, great benefit may be derived from sitting in the aircraft with the nosewheel standing on a small beer crate to simulate the landing attitude as it will be seen on touchdown. Spend time adjusting the gaze back and forth along the left of the nose -- 30 minutes or more is not too long. This method has the double charm of being effective and remarkably cheap!

"The second exercise... requires the pilot under training... to sit, lightly holding the controls, while the instructor, by prior arrangement with ATC, flies low and slow down the runway at hold-off height. As he deliberately undulates the aircraft above the runway, the student must look along the left of the nose in the manner already described and repeat, 'Rising', 'Sinking', etc., throughout these slightly eccentric feats of aerial navigation. It may be undignified, but it works like a charm, and after a few such demonstrations those experiencing trouble with their landings will have learned:

1. How and where to look along the left of the nose.

2. How to recognize aircraft height above the ground while holding-off.

3. How little control movement is required to achieve the correct attitude/height prior to touchdown."

 

Anybody else have a good technique for teaching "ground-proximity appreciation"?

[FastEddieB]

I think most experienced CT pilots have learned to judge their height while looking forward out the windshield, where they need to be looking to spot sideways drift, especially in a crosswind, and longitudinal axis alignment with the runway. And, as the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook (page 8-4) puts it,

"If the pilot attempts to focus on a reference that is too close or looks directly down, the reference will become blurred, and the reaction will be either too abrupt or too late. In that case, the pilot's tendency will be to overcontrol, round out high, and make full-stall, drop-in landings."

 

Yes, but best not to truncate it there.

 

To continue...

 

"When the pilot focuses too far ahead, accuracy in judging the closeness of the ground is lost and the consequent reaction will be too slow since there will not appear to be a necessity for action. This will result in the airplane flying into the ground nose first. The change of visual focus from a long distance to a short distance requires a definite time interval and even though the time is brief, the airplane’s speed during this interval is such that the airplane travels an appreciable distance, both forward and downward toward the ground. If the focus is changed gradually, being brought progressively closer as speed is reduced, the time interval and the pilot’s reaction will be reduced, and the whole landing process smoothed out. "

[FastEddieB]

"Simplistic as it may sound, great benefit may be derived from sitting in the aircraft with the nosewheel standing on a small beer crate to simulate the landing attitude as it will be seen on touchdown. Spend time adjusting the gaze back and forth along the left of the nose -- 30 minutes or more is not too long. This method has the double charm of being effective and remarkably cheap!

 

Well, I never did it for 30 minutes (!) but I often pushed down the tail with the student in to plane to have him grasp the landing attitude and visual cues for the proper attitude. And I would also go stand about 30' ahead and to the left of the plane to give them a rough idea of how far away to focus.

[coppercity]

Doing plenty of low approaches with students as they are entering the "learning to land" phase of training has served us well. I start students with 15 flap approaches having them work the pattern at appropriate airspeeds and power settings, descend thru the final, then I usually start by letting them work pitch and roll while I handle throttle and any extra rudder inputs for straight. I do this until they can maintain a constant altitude above the runway and learn the sight picture for the start of the round out and what straight looks like. Once they can maintain an altitude and keep over centerline I start reducing throttle some during a few approaches so the student has to make a pitch adjustment to maintain the altitude. Once the student understands that concept, then I reduce to lower power settings until we are touching the ground in a nose up attitude on the mains. We continue this letting them advance to all the controls as they gain experience. Once the student has a good handle on 0 and 15 flaps using a soft field landing technique (maintaining a slight bit of power) to touchdown then we work power off approaches and landings at those flap settings. Once those are mastered we can work to 30 and 35 flap landings and increase the crosswinds at lower flap settings. A solo doesn't come until we see good judgment, consistancy in approaches, patterns, landings and of course proficiency in the required presolo maneuvers.

[Runtoeat]

Agree with Eric's comments. My friend owns a CTLS and is also a CFI. He worked with me on landings after I got my LSA certificate and my CTSW. One of the most effective things he did was to have me fly while he controlled power. He had me bring the plane into a landing configuration - i.e., set the flaps (we worked with 15, 30 and 40 flaps), get the plane trimmed out and then get it down to the runway and just concentrate on flying it, keeping just a few feet off the surface. While doing this, he controlled power, reducing it until we touched down. This also gave me a good feeling for the "stall landing" technique. This slowed the landing process down - sort of like slow motion landing - and allowed me to really see where I was vertically in regards to the ground and also to get the correct sight picture for pitch. We have the luxury of 8,000 foot runways which allowed us to just hang there and set down when ready. We also practiced "go 'rounds" during this time. He would arbitrarily say "abort the landing, we're going around" and apply power and I would react with the controls. Later, he turned all control over to me and I would repeat the same, this time controlling both flight controls and power. This seemed to be an effective teaching method and one that I repeat occasionally with my CFI friend to determine if I've picked up any bad landing habits and work on eliminating these.

[Anticept]

Sadly the FAA issued a regulation to ATC which now forbids them from giving clearance for "hover" landing in class D, C, and B airspace, calling it "unusual maneuvers" and stating it is a danger to people and equipment. Or tower guys don't care, but they cannot give clearance for it.

[FlyingMonkey]

Sadly the FAA issued a regulation to ATC which now forbids them from giving clearance for "hover" landing in class D, C, and B airspace, calling it "unusual maneuvers" and stating it is a danger to people and equipment. Or tower guys don't care, but they cannot give clearance for it.

 

Ask for touch-and-go, then call a go around? Probably can't get away with that more than a couple of times per flight though...

[Runtoeat]

Anticept, would you happen to know what is the FAA's official definition of "hover landings"? Just curious how ATC would be able to tell the difference between a normal landing and what they might refer to as a "hover landing" in regards to a typical landing by a light aircraft in windy conditions? Heck, most times I probably do "unusual landings" just trying to get my CTSW on the ground during windy/gusty times. I get the picture in my mind of Cub pilots actually moving backwards relative to the ground during landings in high winds! Sounds like your ATC guys are like ours here at KYIP (class D). I've never been told by our ATC to discontinue any type of landings done at our airport. I guess if there is any hangups by ATC, there are other uncontrolled airports than could be used. This landing method is really effective.

[FastEddieB]

A bit off topic, but an anecdote and photos (reprinted from the COPA site with permission) of why you really may want to go around after a bounce or two:

 

"This is what you don't want to do (in a Cirrus SR20). After (an experienced pilot's) check out I told him to always go around on the second bounce. He didn't want 2 bounces so this is what it looks like when you hold the control full forward. A 3 bladed prop, no less. I live on the runway and heard the prop strike and ran outside to see him struggling back into the air. Just barely cleared the community college at the end of the runway, and flew 16 miles north to xxx. The go around was his big mistake, but it worked."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess my point, if not obvious, is that there's more than one way to damage a plane on a botched landing!

[Anticept]

I am calling a landing where you hold it off of the runway on purpose for a long distance a "hover" landing. Rickenbacker airfield (KLCK) yelled at one of my instructors for doing it (they were holding it off for 2k feet, and then the controller started yelling over the radio), and prattled off turning him into the FSDO. The regulation he was referring to does not apply to pilots, and therefore could not be used to violate him, but the controller would not give him further clearance.

 

As said, I think many controllers don't care. Just letting you guys know.

[coppercity]

The great thing about uncontrolled airports!

[Joel Severinghaus]

Thanks again for all the helpful suggestions. Getting back to my original question, some of you would vote against using a CTLS for primary instruction, but some of you CFIs have proven it can be done, despite multiple hard-landing incidents with your airplanes. Student pilots break Cessnas and Pipers too, but the CTLS presents some different training challenges.

 

So, in the spirit of humble self-criticism (how often do you hear that from a CFI?) here is my list of "things I'll do differently" that I'll present to our flying club board of directors.

 

1. Do a training techniques review with another, experienced CTLS instructor.

 

2. Use a second CFI for "second opinion" pre-solo and pre-checkride stage checks before signing off student pilots.

 

3. Maintain tight wind restrictions on solo flight: max crosswind 5 knots, max headwind 10 knots, max gusts 5 knots.

 

4. More and earlier emphasis on go-arounds.

 

5. More emphasis on where to look during the flare.

 

6. More emphasis on judging height above the runway.

 

7. Hold transitioning Private/Commercial pilots to the same standards as pre-solo Student pilots: as many hours of dual as necessary, landing proficiency in varied conditions, pre-solo knowledge exam, second opinion from second CFI.

 

Does that cover it?

[Anticept]

Pretty much.

 

Also, if it helps: over half of LSA related accidents are actually high time pilots transitioning to LSA, according to AFS 610. LSA are some of the most challenging aircraft to land, on par with airliners. Let your experienced pilots know this.

 

Something more to add: IF the student can tolerate it, take the time to really push the plane to the edge of the envelope. One technique I use is to line up with a land feature, such as a long straight road, and have them perform an approach in a crosswind. They are to move side to side of the object while at altitude, but with one stipulation: they are not allowed to let the nose stray from being parallel to the road. This allows them to see how forward slipping really works. Have them do this as hard as they can, bringing one of the controls to the stop (the rudder), and play with the roll to the point that the nose doesn't doesn't change heading. Have them REALLY play with the plane to see how far it can be taken. Then change the airspeed, and do it again (remember that Va is 98 kts in a CTLS, don't do this anywhere close to that, to be safe). After you experiment with the approaches, take them high up and try various power and flap settings for stalls too, and get them to stay ahead of the plane.

 

They need to feel where the envelope edge is. That was one of the problems I had when I was training, I didn't truly know how much a plane can really take until after I got my license, and started doing it for fun. I was completely astonished at how much a Piper Tomahawk, a Mooney M20J, and especially my CTLS could take, and are still surprised from time to time.

[Roger Lee]

Quote:

"I am calling a landing where you hold it off of the runway on purpose for a long distance a "hover" landing. Rickenbacker airfield (KLCK) yelled at one of my instructors for doing it (they were holding it off for 2k feet, and then the controller started yelling over the radio), and prattled off turning him into the FSDO. The regulation he was referring to does not apply to pilots, and therefore could not be used to violate him, but the controller would not give him further clearance."

 

 

 

Once a controller gives permission to land and without any restrictions given he has no further say so on the way the pilot lands and I would have called and told him so. If that was an issue then get his supervisor involved and if he tried to retaliate I would get his supervisor involved. Controllers aren't Gods and have rules to follow like anyone else.

We had a controller at our field once trying to dictate beyond their authority and that was handled after people quit being afraid. I have seen controllers called on the carpet more than once.

[Anticept]

Hi Roger!

 

You're right, he's a dick. However, they are fully within their authority to deny further clearance, and I told my (nervous) instructor that he can't violate him because the regulation is an ATC regulation, not a pilot reg.

 

By the way, KLCK's tower is military, and this controller IS the tower manager.