CTLS landing for beginners

[FlyingMonkey]

42 minutes ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

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

As speed decays, control authority is lost, that is also physics.  

Again, there are advantages and disadvantages.

[ls6pilot]

Obviously we may have to agree to disagree but I happen to agree with the following post:

https://www.aopa.org/-/media/files/aopa/home/training-and-safety/flight-training-resources/wind-strategies_tips.pdf?la=en

 

Rich

[Ed Cesnalis]

12 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

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.

Not 'conveniently brushing off' just pointing out that the pilots assign blame incorrectly and we are comparing high energy impacts to bent gear.  Its not a fair comparison in that one has lethal consequences.  Downsides are not compatible.

Consequences of high energy impacts are not opinion. The relative importance of avoiding them is.  I'm not arguing what you say I am I'm arguing that the two choices are not equivalent, it isn't ford vs chevy.

People can and do make their own choices but when I hear no-one left advocating minimum speed landings I speak up.  New members could otherwise get the impression that the consensus is unanimous.

[Ed Cesnalis]

24 minutes ago, FlyingMonkey said:

As speed decays, control authority is lost, that is also physics.  

Again, there are advantages and disadvantages.

actually control authority diminishes but remains adequate.  this is a function of design requiring things like control surfaces of sufficient size, span, deflection range ... etc.  The design objective is to blend slow and fast speed performance with the concession being operable flaps. Flaps were added long ago to reduce the speed of minimum speed landings (while permitting higher cruise speeds) and enhance safety, now the trend is to ignore them and argue they are merely an option.

[Buckaroo]

I used to land my 182 with just the trim wheel with no flaps. I used to kind of play a game of flying the whole pattern from take off to landing with no hands. Now using flaps would require more operations making this no hands very difficult. More operations equals more technique. More technique equals more that can go wrong. I shouldn’t have used the word “risky” earlier. I’m just saying that in the CT full flap landings require more practice and just by that statement alone can be more difficult to new pilots. I remember when I first got my CT most you folks advised me to start off with 15. Full flaps to me feel lumbery and take the fun away from landing but again that’s me!

[Roger Lee]

"actually control authority diminishes but remains adequate"

Sometimes. You like full flaps and stall in windy conditions. Your physics says you'll have better control if you have more authority. There are many articles out there that disagree and AOPA is one of them.

" and argue they are merely an option."

They are an option depending on what aircraft you're talking about and the situation.

You want to make it a one size fits all. That's just poor pilotage and decision making that may have resulted in lack of all practicing it all in all environments.. 

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2004/august/pilot/the-flap-about-flaps

There are planes that have no flaps. Bi-planes don't have flaps and land just fine. So your argument for full flap use doesn't fit. Many aircraft are supposed to land under power and not idle so your argument doesn't fit.

You still didn't answer my question on why jets or large transport prop aircraft land under power instead of your idle only? You can't make an argument for one size fits all.

There is no one size fits all for all circi can NEVER be won by either side. There are tons of articles out there since the begining that argue for and against flaps in given circumstances. This is why this debate will continue to come up about every 6 months.

 

It's like our saying in the medical field.

NEVER say NEVER.

 

 

 

 

[JLang]

Towards the naïve goal of avoiding the clogging of the “Activity” tab every few months with this same rehashed debate, I propose that the following are non-debatable facts:

 

In an accident, less kinetic energy is better.

Kinetic energy is increased by the square of velocity.

The severity of an accident is directly related to the kinetic energy (everything else being equal, less speed is better).

The likelihood of an accident is directly related to the loss of control (everything else being equal, more control is better).

Control authority decreases with airspeed.

Some CT pilots find that control authority decreases with increased flaps.

Some CT pilots find the opposite.

There may be differences in control feel and response between different aircraft types, and even between two aircraft of an identical type.

There may be differences not only in overall ability between pilots, but also relative strengths regarding specific tasks, due to differences in experience, training, psychology, personal preference, etc.

Each pilot should strive to refine their skills in all areas.

The goal of every pilot is to make decisions with the goal of maximizing safety, including the factors of their abilities, the aircraft, the environment, and others.

 

 

 

 

[Ed Cesnalis]

17 minutes ago, Roger Lee said:

"actually control authority diminishes but remains adequate"

Sometimes. You like full flaps and stall in windy conditions. Your physics says you'll have better control if you have more authority. There are many articles out there that disagree and AOPA is one of them.

" and argue they are merely an option."

They are an option depending on what aircraft you're talking about and the situation.

You want to make it a one size fits all. That's just poor pilotage and decision making that may have resulted in lack of all practicing it all in all environments.. 

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2004/august/pilot/the-flap-about-flaps

There are planes that have no flaps. Bi-planes don't have flaps and land just fine. So your argument for full flap use doesn't fit. Many aircraft are supposed to land under power and not idle so your argument doesn't fit.

You still didn't answer my question on why jets or large transport prop aircraft land under power instead of your idle only? You can't make an argument for one size fits all.

There is no one size fits all for all circi can NEVER be won by either side. There are tons of articles out there since the begining that argue for and against flaps in given circumstances. This is why this debate will continue to come up about every 6 months.

 

It's like our saying in the medical field.

NEVER say NEVER.

 

 

 

 

Roger,

The AOPA article is the opinion of the author and I mostly agree with him.  It has a different audience as well where heavier duty gear is the norm.  FAA still requires that you demonstrate min speed landings and they still advocate them.

 

 

In 2005 / 2006 we were having the same argument at Flight Design West. Then the consensus became that 40* landings should be avoided till the new pilot was proficient with 30*.

This and the 1st Forum helped trend even quite a distance from there.

 

There are now other CTs in the eastern part of CA and I clearly see the trend after 10 years has resulted in an extra 15kts and 1-2 flap settings.  That's according to the local CFI from doing BFRs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[WmInce]

4 hours ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

There are now other CTs in the eastern part of CA and I clearly see the trend after 10 years has resulted in an extra 15kts and 1-2 flap settings.

That is telling. Why has that been the trend?

[Ed Cesnalis]

16 minutes ago, WmInce said:

That is telling. Why has that been the trend?

That has been the trend in GA not just FD or LSA.  The reasons are the same argued here.

[FlyingMonkey]

As one who generally favors more flaps and slower landings, I do feel that in some cases it’s not appropriate.  I recently landed at a local grass field in conditions 9G19 with variable winds through about 180 degrees.  I turned base with the wind right down the runway, turned final with the wind opposite (downwind) and landed with almost a direct crosswind.

I made that landing with 30 flaps because it was on grass and I wanted a minimum energy touchdown, and it was really a handful.  I wish I had done it at 15, it would probably have been much easier and a better landing.  Honestly I should have stayed on the ground, but that’s a different debate!

[Roger Lee]

"and they still advocate them"

Actually Ed they don't anymore like they used to.

As I was reading and researching some of this this morning I found an article from them that they had backed off from being a staunch advocate. 

 

 

 

[Ed Cesnalis]

2 hours ago, Roger Lee said:

"and they still advocate them"

Actually Ed they don't anymore like they used to.

As I was reading and researching some of this this morning I found an article from them that they had backed off from being a staunch advocate. 

 

 

 

 

Did they change the PTS?  What exactly did they back off from?

[Ed Cesnalis]

2 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

I made that landing with 30 flaps because it was on grass and I wanted a minimum energy touchdown, and it was really a handful.  I wish I had done it at 15, it would probably have been much easier and a better landing.

Hi Andy, honest question, trying to understand.

How much and in what way did control inputs differ due to using 30 flaps?  How did the results suffer?

Thanks

[FlyingMonkey]

1 hour ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

Hi Andy, honest question, trying to understand.

How much and in what way did control inputs differ due to using 30 flaps?  How did the results suffer?

Thanks

Crosswind gusts required exaggerated control inputs, and the shifting wind meant running the stick almost to the stops in all directions.  Also the airplane abruptly quit flying when the wind shifted at a foot above the runway, leading to a “drop in” landing that would have been reduced or eliminated with 15 flaps and a little more speed.

it was quite a ride.

[Buckaroo]

On 12/6/2017 at 7:16 PM, FlyingMonkey said:

Crosswind gusts required exaggerated control inputs, and the shifting wind meant running the stick almost to the stops in all directions.  Also the airplane abruptly quit flying when the wind shifted at a foot above the runway, leading to a “drop in” landing that would have been reduced or eliminated with 15 flaps and a little more speed.

it was quite a ride.

1. Go arounds with less flaps are easier therefore safer! 

 

[Tom Baker]

55 minutes ago, Buckaroo said:

1. Go arounds with less flaps are easier therefore safer! 

1.    2 will be next! 

A CT is not quite like other airplanes. It will go around just fine with flaps.

[Ed Cesnalis]

2 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Crosswind gusts required exaggerated control inputs, and the shifting wind meant running the stick almost to the stops in all directions.  Also the airplane abruptly quit flying when the wind shifted at a foot above the runway, leading to a “drop in” landing that would have been reduced or eliminated with 15 flaps and a little more speed.

it was quite a ride.

Thanks again,

I'm going to have to let that sink in for a while

 

[Ed Cesnalis]

29 minutes ago, JohnnyBlackCT said:

If I'm going to crash, I want to do it as slowly as possible.  If I'm going to land, I want to do it at the proper speed and flap configuration for the conditions.  There are some crosswind and turbulence conditions that less than full flaps and higher landing speed is not only advisable but absolutely necessary.  An airplane can and will run out of control authority under certain conditions.  To argue that every landing should be full flaps and as slow as possible is naive and poor piloting technique.  On the other hand, it is also poor piloting technique to land with too little flaps at higher than necessary airspeed.  As experienced pilots, we should be able to ascertain the conditions and set up our approach and landing accordingly.  If not, you need more dual.

I think that is a very good post.  

Personally if a higher speed landing is required I consider going elsewhere or coming back later.  I realize that when making that higher speed landing the risk of losing control to shear on roll out is high due to the fact that I have flying speed and the wrong gust can have its way with me and I have no way to counter that till I slow down.

 

[ct9000]

I am in the full flap camp because that allows you to carry more power all the way to the ground and so have very good rudder authority, but that's not why I am sticking my oar in here. Turbines take quite a while to spool up and it is unsafe to have no power available. eg - a go around is virtually impossible. Different situation to our aircraft where power is more or less instantly available and a CT is quite happy to go around with full flap unlike a lot of GA types. Try it in a C150 with full flap and it will not get off the ground. A CT will leap into the air the moment you open the throttle ( and will need a bit of elevator control ). 

[WmInce]

23 hours ago, FlyingMonkey said:

Crosswind gusts required exaggerated control inputs, and the shifting wind meant running the stick almost to the stops in all directions.  Also the airplane abruptly quit flying when the wind shifted at a foot above the runway, leading to a “drop in” landing that would have been reduced or eliminated with 15 flaps and a little more speed.

it was quite a ride.

Been there . . . done that.

It has been my experience . . that is exactly what can happen. Those conditions require one to be on their toes.

That withstanding, the CTSW is a great little airplane. I enjoy flying it emmensely.

[WmInce]

1 hour ago, JohnnyBlackCT said:

If I'm going to crash, I want to do it as slowly as possible.  If I'm going to land, I want to do it at the proper speed and flap configuration for the conditions.  There are some crosswind and turbulence conditions that less than full flaps and higher landing speed is not only advisable but absolutely necessary.  An airplane can and will run out of control authority under certain conditions.  To argue that every landing should be full flaps and as slow as possible is naive and poor piloting technique.  On the other hand, it is also poor piloting technique to land with too little flaps at higher than necessary airspeed.  As experienced pilots, we should be able to ascertain the conditions and set up our approach and landing accordingly.  If not, you need more dual.

Best post of the whole thread. 

Concur totally.

[Buckaroo]

56 minutes ago, WmInce said:

Best post of the whole thread. 

Concur totally.

Agreed 100 %!

[FlyingMonkey]

51 minutes ago, JohnnyBlackCT said:

And one thing I think at least one poster here is forgetting...higher landing speeds with less flaps also means the airplane has a higher stalling speed, also due to the lesser flaps.  Therefore, it's not some huge risk unless you get crazy TOO fast.  I'm still recommending a full stall landing such that when you land the airplane is done flying.  It's not going to zoom back up into the air due to a burst of wind, at least no more than a full stall landing at slower speed with more flaps.  To me, the biggest risk is trying to plant the airplane on the runway at a speed that exceeds stall speed at whatever flap setting you are using.  This can result in all kinds of unintended consequences, none of them good.

Yes!  My touchdown speed at 15 flaps is 2-3kt faster than at 30.  

[ausctls]

•