Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×