CTLS landing for beginners

[Buckaroo]

25 minutes ago, Hambone said:

Both zero and 15, but preferring zero.

I think zero flaps are the easiest and smoothest but the others need to be practiced a lot as well!

[Ed Cesnalis]

21 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

My first instructor told me to always keep a hand on the throttle.  I almost never take my hand off the throttle lever, even in long distance cruise flight.  

good thing it's handy then

[Ed Cesnalis]

51 minutes ago, Hambone said:

Both zero and 15, but preferring zero.

color me:

• 30 degrees
• closed throttle

both from abeam, tight patterns

notice the big pitch change when you hear the flap motor the 2nd time.

 

[FlyingMonkey]

34 minutes ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

good thing it's handy then

Agreed, I have flown airplanes where the throttle is awkward to hold on to all the time.  It makes for a tiring flight and a numb hand.  The CT throttle is practically a hand rest by comparison.

[FlyingMonkey]

58 minutes ago, Buckaroo said:

I think zero flaps are the easiest and smoothest but the others need to be practiced a lot as well!

I like 30° and power off for calm winds, 15° power off for almost everything else.  I'd really have to have the wind howling to want to land 0° flaps.  It just feels too fast and sink-prone to me, and since my brain doesn't want to do an approach that fast I almost *have* to be power on.

Different strokes and all, everybody has a favorite technique.  

[Roger Lee]

Hi Andy,

You hit the nail squarely on the head.  "Different strokes and all, everybody has a favorite technique. "

 

 

[Ed Cesnalis]

1 hour ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Different strokes and all, everybody has a favorite technique. 

When you boil it down to ford vs chevy you loose sight of the fact that minimum speed landing mishaps result in less damage, fewer casualties and fewer fatalities.  This fact remains true across aviation even if the sample set from our CTs alone is too small to be conclusive.  Energy rises exponentially with speed, which is really the point more than preference.

----------------------------

Edit, the point that more damage is caused by slow landings is debatable.  In these cases the pilot generally doesn't even know what went wrong and can't assign the cause correctly.  There is one sitting near my hangar right now, pilot explained how it was the gusts fault but a thinking pilot would note he drifted into and damaged his downwind gear, his inputs were wrong was the truth.

[FlyingMonkey]

3 hours ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

When you boil it down to ford vs chevy you loose sight of the fact that minimum speed landing mishaps result in less damage, fewer casualties and fewer fatalities.  This fact remains true across aviation even if the sample set from our CTs alone is too small to be conclusive.  Energy rises exponentially with speed, which is really the point more than preference.

----------------------------

Edit, the point that more damage is caused by slow landings is debatable.  In these cases the pilot generally doesn't even know what went wrong and can't assign the cause correctly.  There is one sitting near my hangar right now, pilot explained how it was the gusts fault but a thinking pilot would note he drifted into and damaged his downwind gear, his inputs were wrong was the truth.

Every landing style has disadvantages and advantages.  Landing slow means low inertia and high sink rate, and can make it harder to make the runway if the engine quits.  

I personally tend toward slower landings like Ed does.  But I don’t have any problem with somebody selecting a faster landing style if that suits them.  I think the key is understanding the risks of all the available techniques, so that you can make an educated decision in which risks you choose to accept.  I don’t think there is a right answer.

[Buckaroo]

Well said! I think it’s best to be as proficient as possible with all landing configurations as each one has a important role at times! For me I need to work on short field full flap landings. A short field landing over a 50 foot obstacle is a wonderful practice exercise. Combining this with a power off on downwind and landing without any application of power will test your proficiency in your plane.

[Ed Cesnalis]

45 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Every landing style has disadvantages and advantages.  Landing slow means low inertia and high sink rate, and can make it harder to make the runway if the engine quits.  

I personally tend toward slower landings like Ed does.  But I don’t have any problem with somebody selecting a faster landing style if that suits them.  I think the key is understanding the risks of all the available techniques, so that you can make an educated decision in which risks you choose to accept.  I don’t think there is a right answer.

You are supporting the consensus (ford vs chevy) with argument that doesn't work.  The rapidly increasing energy state is undeniable but making the runway is a question of angle / judgement not speed.  

[Buckaroo]

12 minutes ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

You are supporting the consensus (ford vs chevy) with argument that doesn't work.  The rapidly increasing energy state is undeniable but making the runway is a question of angle / judgement not speed.  

???

[FlyingMonkey]

1 hour ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

You are supporting the consensus (ford vs chevy) with argument that doesn't work.  The rapidly increasing energy state is undeniable but making the runway is a question of angle / judgement not speed.  

https://youtu.be/pWdd6_ZxX8c

[Roger Lee]

Hi Ed,

Now you did it. You insulted Chevy & Ford. 

I mean no disrespect because I think you're a good pilot, but you (and Fast Eddie) may be the only advocate for this type of landing to be the norm.

Sure Chevy vs Ford works. Thousands of people do it every day. If this is so critical why don't jets land like this? Why don't very large prop aircraft land like this? 

You're the only guy I personally know that likes full flaps and stall landings all the time. I've ask this question of at least a couple hundred pilots since 2007 at airports and functions just because this conversation pops up about every 6 months.  Rarely do I ever find someone that likes to land like that.  Don't get me wrong they have their place, but not all the time. More people crash land their planes from too slow and dropping it verses  a little extra speed. That's why so many prang their gear. No one ever says I dropped it out of the sky solely because they were 5 - 10 over stall. I don't even know of a CFI that teaches these as the norm for every day landings.

I haven't seen many supporters here advocating these types of landings as the norm.

[Ed Cesnalis]

13 minutes ago, Roger Lee said:

Hi Ed,

Now you did it. You insulted Chevy & Ford. 

I mean no disrespect because I think you're a good pilot, but you (and Fast Eddie) may be the only advocate for this type of landing to be the norm.

Sure Chevy vs Ford works. Thousands of people do it every day. If this is so critical why don't jets land like this? Why don't very large prop aircraft land like this? 

You're the only guy I personally know that likes full flaps and stall landings all the time. I've ask this question of at least a couple hundred pilots since 2007 at airports and functions just because this conversation pops up about every 6 months.  Rarely do I ever find someone that likes to land like that.  Don't get me wrong they have their place, but not all the time. More people crash land their planes from too slow and dropping it verses  a little extra speed. That's why so many prang their gear. No one ever says I dropped it out of the sky solely because they were 5 - 10 over stall. I don't even know of a CFI that teaches these as the norm for every day landings.

I haven't seen many supporters here advocating these types of landings as the norm.

Hi Roger,

Your point that I hold the minority opinion is well taken.  FAA has always advocated minimum speed and it has always been required training yet the trend with pilots over my lifetime has been towards more speed and less flaps.  

In light sport the trend is even farther along.

Consensus is a poor match for physics.  Andy thinks its just my opinion but we all know that energy rises exponentially and that isn't my opinion and it isn't arguable.

I appreciate that you blame most crashes on being slow and I think that is a different issue, really one of controlling sink and understanding your height above the runway. When it comes to high energy mishaps with bad results excess speed is generally at play.

You argue that no-one drops it out of the sky because of too much speed, but again that's not the concern. Excess forward speed at impact as well as excess lift in wind sheer leading to impact are the concerns.

I'm arguing that minimum speed landing pilots avoid fatalities and serious mishaps and you are countering with they risk bending their gear. It is better to increase your proficiency controlling sink than to land with otherwise unwanted speed.

[Ed Cesnalis]

25 minutes ago, Roger Lee said:

Why don't very large prop aircraft land like this? 

They are a perfect example because they are flown professionally. The employers require minimum speed landings with landing flaps and no unwanted excess energy due to excess speed. The consequences of crashing large aircraft are too great to leave it up to preference.

None of them are designed to operate on wheel barrow tires and wheels.  Our lack of weight and lack of structure make us more vulnerable.

[Buckaroo]

The fact that landing slower with flaps is more difficult and risky exemplifies the fact that slower and more flaps statistically is more risky! End of discussion!

[Hambone]

25 landings today, and some good progress! Give a monkey enough bananas...

However, I still have a tendency to land on the left side of the runway, despite calm winds and lining up on the centerline on final. Also, despite plenty of right rudder after touchdown, I always drift to the left side of the runway, with the nose pointing to the right!

I think I'll try right seat landings tomorrow to see the difference.

[andyb]

8 hours ago, Hambone said:

25 landings today, and some good progress! Give a monkey enough bananas...

However, I still have a tendency to land on the left side of the runway, despite calm winds and lining up on the centerline on final. Also, despite plenty of right rudder after touchdown, I always drift to the left side of the runway, with the nose pointing to the right!

I think I'll try right seat landings tomorrow to see the difference.

When I transitioned to the CT, I found this happened all the time.  More specifically, I would land at the center then move to the left.  I've found that this is born of using the incorrect sight picture.  In my plane, if it looks like I'm aimed down the center I'll veer to the left, and if it looks like I'm aligned about 10 degrees to the right, then I stay on the centerline.  Eric Swisher's manual outlines this very clearly...it was very helpful to me.

Not sure if this is the situation you're facing.  If so, hope it helps.

Andy

[Roger Lee]

"Consensus is a poor match for physics. "

May be, but it must work because most around the world I bet don't land this way as the norm.

Physics in this situation don't take into account pilot skills.

[Roger Lee]

Hi Kevin,

That left tendency happens to many in the begining. You can either trim it out on final or leave it alone and just start adding more right pedal and or aileron depending on wind. Trying to land too slow will aggravate this situation with mushy controls.  Let me know and if you want I'll come out with you.

[Ed Cesnalis]

9 minutes ago, Roger Lee said:

"Consensus is a poor match for physics. "

May be, but it must work because most around the world I bet don't land this way as the norm.

Physics in this situation don't take into account pilot skills.

Your saying that consensus must be right because 'consensus' ....   that's not argument its just words.

must work, you argue?  energy rises as velocity squared - that must work, its physics.

[JLang]

9 hours ago, Hambone said:

However, I still have a tendency to land on the left side of the runway, despite calm winds and lining up on the centerline on final. Also, despite plenty of right rudder after touchdown, I always drift to the left side of the runway, with the nose pointing to the right!

In addition to the good advice about sight picture given by others, when transitioning to my CT I discovered that what I initially thought was a centered stick in the near- to full-aft position was actually off to one side.  At least in my plane, centered aileron throughout the travel is slightly off-axis, angled to the left.  This makes sense, ergonomically speaking, since a natural motion aft with the left hand will tend to also move to the left side, but it took some trial and error to get the correct feel, with some drifting on landings both ways.

[Runtoeat]

11 hours ago, Buckaroo said:

The fact that landing slower with flaps is more difficult and risky exemplifies the fact that slower and more flaps statistically is more risky! End of discussion!

Buckaroo, wondering where you got this "fact" from?   Personally, and FWIW, I have less difficulty and am more under control landing with flaps and use "squirts" of throttle to adjust my sink and am ready to go full power if I need to get up and away from the runway due to bad judgement on my part.  This is my personal preference.  I often land with "0" flaps and all other settings to stay in touch with my CT and to be able to land if I might loose electrical power.  I'm now over 2,600 landings with a Flight Design.  It is important to keep in mind that there are as many landing techniques as there are pilots and it is useless to "preach" on one method since this does no good.

Question #1:  If use of flaps makes landings more difficult and risky, why do aircraft manufacturers continue to waste money and add weight by providing them?

Question #2:  If you enjoy speed during landings, why do you only use "0" flaps?  Why don't you use "-6"?

[FlyingMonkey]

12 hours ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

 

Consensus is a poor match for physics.  Andy thinks its just my opinion but we all know that energy rises exponentially and that isn't my opinion and it isn't arguable.

 

I don't think the physics is a matter of opinion.  I think your choice of landing technique is.  You conveniently brush off any mention that your technique has any downsides, while simultaneously warning that anybody who doesn't follow your landing doctrine is courting disaster.  THAT is a matter of opinion.

I don't understand why you can't just let people land in a way that works for them.  Your thoughts on this are well known, but can you not just let people make their own choices?  Not everybody has to be a convert.

[FlyingMonkey]

10 hours ago, Hambone said:

25 landings today, and some good progress! Give a monkey enough bananas...

However, I still have a tendency to land on the left side of the runway, despite calm winds and lining up on the centerline on final. Also, despite plenty of right rudder after touchdown, I always drift to the left side of the runway, with the nose pointing to the right!

I think I'll try right seat landings tomorrow to see the difference.

Do you often land in a crosswind?  You might need some aileron into the wind on rollout to counter the crosswind.