CTSW - landing mishaps

[Ed Cesnalis]

Thanks @FlyingMonkey and @Runtoeat for painting the picture for me where tailstrikes (and bent gear that Roger talks about) come from.

The scenario is the pilot (prolly lacking target sight picture close enough to the runway) bleeds of the speed (which happens rapidly in a CT) at 5 feet above the runway.  This happens without controlling or permitting sink and the result is damage.  

This scenario seems to be motivation for fast landings including for 'beginners'.  Now I understand.

Is speed the right fix?  I think the right fix is to bleed off the speed differently.  If you allow sink as you bleed off speed this won't / can't happen.  If you blow it you get a bounce and your judgement improves next time.  CTs loose energy so fast that float gets lost in the golf swing and if it doesn't, if you have a float phase then subtract a knot.

Holding it off at 5' will result in damage but why would you?  The funny thing about adding speed to fix is you can enter with the additional speed and still hold it off at 5' and that's why its a funny fix (to me).

[Tom Baker]

I agree that speed bleeds off quickly, especially with 30° or more flaps. That is why I start someone new out with 15° flap landings. While it is still possible to drop it in with 15° flaps the risk is less. By using 15° flaps it gives someone new almost twice the amount of time from when the round out is started until touchdown, giving them more time to learn the sight picture with each landing. After all that last 10-20 seconds before you touch down is the hardest thing to learn when learning to fly an airplane. Anything you can do to increase that time is a good thing when someone is learning.

Because of the slower bleed off of energy it allows time to fix the mistake of rounding off to high, and still make a nice landing. If you get the stick all the way back at touchdown your speed should only be 2 knots faster than with full flaps, because of the stall speed difference between the flap settings.

Once they have the sight picture, and that all important position above the runway sorted out you can then work on using greater flaps.

[FlyingMonkey]

More speed is not the fix, and I don't think anybody has said so.  Back to your golf swing analogy, properly judging height of the roundout, landing attitude, and proper airspeed all at the same time are the "fix".  All of those elements have to be within pretty narrow parameters for the landing to come off without any corrections or drama.  That said there are several ways to get it all done.  You can come in at minimum speed, round out at exactly the right time and just "stick" the landing.  Or you can come in faster, round out at the appropriate height, and then hold off while you use up some runway until the airplane is ready to land.  

I found roundout height and control pressures were my biggest challenge when learning.  I'd round out too high, and/or use too much stick too soon, and balloon up a bit.  I could either add throttle and save the landing, or drop in from a foot or two in a "carrier style" landing.  This was not ideal (though I got GREAT at knowing how much and when to add throttle to save a landing), and once I figured out the problem and waited until the proper height to ease the stick back, my landings improved dramatically.

Others might have trouble with airspeed, or runway alignment, or holding the nosewheel off.  There are lots of ways for a landing to go bad in any airplane, and the CT seems a bit less forgiving than most.  But when you get it down, it's very rewarding. 

[Roger Lee]

Ed,

Speed has nothing to do with their motivation or height above the runway or a fix for it.

It just means more practice for a better site picture and spacial awareness in that situation. Too high is just too high.

[Ed Cesnalis]

1 hour ago, Roger Lee said:

Ed,

Speed has nothing to do with their motivation or height above the runway or a fix for it.

It just means more practice for a better site picture and spacial awareness in that situation. Too high is just too high.

That confuses me because you always trend to more speed for the newbie as the fix for bent gear.  

[WmInce]

4 hours ago, Roger Lee said:

It just means more practice for a better site picture and spacial awareness in that situation. Too high is just too high.

Concur.

There is no reason to over complicate the obvious.

The information on how to land an airplane is out there. I have found that nothing works better than practice, practice and more practice.

Contrary to some opinions here and elsewhere, one size does not fit all.

These are entertaining discussions, but it boils down to one thing . . . "pilot technique." And pilot technique is a never ending debate.

 

 

[Runtoeat]

This discussion is kind of taking me back to where I was just learning to fly.  My first hours in a plane were in a CTSW.  I overthought everything and felt I'd never properly land the CT.  Eventually, as Bill says, by doing things over and over (practice, practice, practice), to my amazement things began to fall in place.  I'll go a little further with Ed's analogy about golf and add that learning to juggle is the same thing.  I had a sore stomach bending over to pick up the balls and then, it all clicked.  It is the sight picture combined with the sensing of the accelerations in one's butt with the learning of how the plane responds to one's input.  Like the golf swing or the juggling, this can only be learned by practice.  As Roger says, it is about knowing spatially where we are and sensing what our CT is doing and we all are fairly good at this and have successfully learned to know if corrections need to be made and how to do these more by just reacting without giving thought to this.  It is our learned responses from putting in hours and hours of stick time.  Just one final thought about landing.  My friend saw I was struggling with the final phase of touchdowns.  He had me just fly the plane and he'd work the throttle.  When we got down to 5', he'd hold me off the runway with throttle and then he had me wander around the runway.  He'd let me fly until I told him I was ready to land - we've got some long runways at KYIP.  He'd back off the throttle gradually which provided a very slow sink to the runway.  I had time to figure out if the nose was high or low and had time to get back to the center.  If I guessed wrong, he had time to take over the controls and show me.  This was done at 45 to 50kts and all was in slow motion.  Maybe if I could do this with a golf club, I might be a pretty good golfer.

[coppercity]

The CT is a numbers plane, its slick with the nose down, dirty with the nose high and power off, so the best approach is flying the numbers for the configuration.  We start our students at 15deg and 0 flap until they are able to maintain a steady glideslope and approach speed and figure out where the ground is to time the round out and flare appropriately.  Common errors in the CT landing is ballooning by an over pitch at the transition from the round out to flare, failure to recognize elevation above the runway, or failure in maintaining an appropriate altitude while reducing speed to touchdown speed near stall.  Using 15 or 0 flaps allows some addition time in the flare while the speed is depleting for touchdown, and yes if you are patient and continue increasing pitch as speed decreases then you should touchdown near stall speed. If you are not patient enough in increasing pitch while reducing speed you will touch flat and may bounce and get a second landing practice.   If you cross the runway threshold above target approach speed then you will have to work longer in the flare to reduce the speed to near stall touchdown and float further down the runway (long runway or long landing desired, no problem just takes longer).  Cross the threshold to slow and the transition from round out, to flare, to touchdown will be very timely, firm if not timed correctly, or over pitched because of rapid sink, followed by a balloon then quickly run out of airspeed.  The CT with 30 or more flap is certainly manageable with the appropriate airspeed and is not terribly difficult once you have mastered the sight picture for round out and flare. However, the CT is very easy to balloon during the initial round out with 30 or more flap when it hits ground effect.  You have to make a smooth level off, almost pause for a couple seconds until a little sink is observed, then continue with pitch increasing into flare.  With 15 or 0 flap this transition is a bit easier plus if a balloon occurs it is easier as an instructor to salvage it into a go around or landing.  With 30 or more flap the instructor has to really be close to the throttle as it can quickly bleed speed during the balloon.

[Ed Cesnalis]

Its a new era! We can actually discuss the landing techniques we use and why.

[Roger Lee]

6 hours ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

That confuses me because you always trend to more speed for the newbie as the fix for bent gear.  

Because full stall for a newbie has caused far more issues than 5-7 knots above stall. Once he gets his skill level honed and his site picture down then he should be able to do it all with more practice and keep himself out of trouble.

 

There is no one landing technique. That's a proven fact from all the pilots and aircraft around the world. There are many and all should be learned for different situations and how to recognise trouble and how to stay out of it.  Like Bill said it isn't a one size fits all and practice, practice, practice until any landing is second nature.

The new guy isn't at that level.

 

And as Eric (Copper City) stated newbies don't have those skill sets right up front so transition into those skill sets come a little later and each person learns at different rates.

Suggesting a new person due full stall landings up front sets them up for failure. It's a learning curve that needs to be adhered to because no one is perfect on the first flight.

[WmInce]

25 minutes ago, Roger Lee said:

Because full stall for a newbie has caused far more issues than 5-7 knots above stall. Once he gets his skill level honed and his site picture down then he should be able to do it all with more practice and keep himself out of trouble.

There is no one landing technique. That's a proven fact from all the pilots and aircraft around the world. There are many and all should be learned for different situations and how to recognise trouble and how to stay out of it.  Like Bill said it isn't a one size fits all and practice, practice, practice until any landing is second nature.

The new guy isn't at that level.

And as Eric (Copper City) stated newbies don't have those skill sets right up front so transition into those skill sets come a little later and each person learns at different rates.

Suggesting a new person due full stall landings up front sets them up for failure. It's a learning curve that needs to be adhered to because no one is perfect on the first flight.

Roger,

You are making way, way, way too much sense there.

You are absolutely correct.

[Ed Cesnalis]

1 hour ago, Roger Lee said:

Because full stall for a newbie has caused far more issues than 5-7 knots above stall

you said its not about speed, 

[Roger Lee]

Height off the runway isn't about speed. It's learning the sight picture. Speed has nothing to do with height. Dropping the plane from 6" isn't quite the same as 6'.

Falling out at 6" at full stall isn't that bad, but make that 6' for the new guy trying to land at full stall is catastrophic.

Newbies to CT's should learn in gradual steps and not be thrown into the proverbial deep end with no skills in the CT.  Learning good solid useful skill sets in a CT is a learning curve and that learning curve should include learning the correct time to move on to a more advanced skill set and then learn which type of landing works best in each situation and then you need to learn how to recognise a bad landing and how to fix it before you crunch the plane.

Recommending all pilots should land at full stall at the begining takes nothing into account for their own skill level, learning curve or piloting history.

There are CFI's that passed their test and then there are good CFI's. They may not be one in the same. There are by far a lot more of the first one vs the latter.

[Ed Cesnalis]

34 minutes ago, Roger Lee said:

Recommending all pilots should land at full stall at the begining takes nothing into account for their own skill level, learning curve or piloting history.

No, it prioritizes primacy. as more important than skill level.

Funny how it sounds extreme when you say 'full stall'.  There is no stall involved its a silly name.  Say minimum speed like the FAA recommends and it sounds reasonable, even correct.

You always argue that 'not only one way' yet no one advocates an 'only one way' mentality.  If you want to simplify this argument say 'primacy' vs 'faster' instead.  Then we are arguing the same point just from different sides instead of past each other.

[Tom Baker]

10 hours ago, Roger Lee said:

Because full stall for a newbie has caused far more issues than 5-7 knots above stall. Once he gets his skill level honed and his site picture down then he should be able to do it all with more practice and keep himself out of trouble.

 

There is no one landing technique. That's a proven fact from all the pilots and aircraft around the world. There are many and all should be learned for different situations and how to recognise trouble and how to stay out of it.  Like Bill said it isn't a one size fits all and practice, practice, practice until any landing is second nature.

The new guy isn't at that level.

 

And as Eric (Copper City) stated newbies don't have those skill sets right up front so transition into those skill sets come a little later and each person learns at different rates.

Suggesting a new person due full stall landings up front sets them up for failure. It's a learning curve that needs to be adhered to because no one is perfect on the first flight.

Roger, you are confusing full stall with full flaps. I am like Eric, I don't teach full flap landings from the beginning. From his description and what I teach we both try to have the student touch down near stall speed, the only difference is he teaches 0°-15° flaps and I use 15° flaps.

 

13 hours ago, coppercity said:

you should touchdown near stall speed

 

[Tom Baker]

1 hour ago, Roger Lee said:

Height off the runway isn't about speed. It's learning the sight picture. Speed has nothing to do with height. Dropping the plane from 6" isn't quite the same as 6'.

If you are fast the sight picture isn't correct. Yes you can judge your height, but sight picture isn't just about height. It is about having the correct pitch attitude with the correct height at the same time.

[Ed Cesnalis]

41 minutes ago, Tom Baker said:

If you are fast the sight picture isn't correct

DING DING DING we have a winner! (Chicken Dinner)

[Roger Lee]

50 minutes ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

DING DING DING we have a winner! (Chicken Dinner)

Wrong. We’re not talking about an approach, just the landing. You can cross the numbers at 100 and still land at the same slow speed and a soft touch. No one here says the landing must be within a specified distance. 

[Roger Lee]

Full stall and full flaps aren’t the same, but you may stall at either

[WmInce]

1 hour ago, Ed Cesnalis said:

DING DING DING we have a winner! (Chicken Dinner)

So you think this discussion is some kind of contest?

[Ed Cesnalis]

35 minutes ago, Roger Lee said:

Wrong. We’re not talking about an approach, just the landing. You can cross the numbers at 100 and still land at the same slow speed and a soft touch. No one here says the landing must be within a specified distance. 

If your fast at landing the sight the sight picture isn't correct.  This doesn't bring approach into it.

[Ed Cesnalis]

12 minutes ago, WmInce said:

So you think this discussion is some kind of contest?

Not at all.  I'm just emphasizing an important point.  

Ding, Ding, ...  is something I would hear on the tennis court, no big deal.

[WmInce]

2 hours ago, Tom Baker said:

If you are fast the sight picture isn't correct. Yes you can judge your height, but sight picture isn't just about height. It is about having the correct pitch attitude with the correct height at the same time.

Sight picture (what you see out front) is more about approach angle and closure rate. Pitch attitude can change within the sight picture and is dependent on speed, power and flap setting. During the landing, sight picture is not static, but is continuously changing.

[Ed Cesnalis]

1 minute ago, WmInce said:

Sight picture (what you see out front) is more about approach angle and closure rate. Pitch attitude can change within the sight picture and is dependent on speed, power and flap setting.

In this case sight picture is being used to respond to Roger's contention that first a beginner should learn the sight picture at a higher landing speed. Its worth pointing out that it will be a different / faster / flatter sight picture.

You say pitch can change within the sight picture and thats true but now your talking about a bigger sight picture that you would have to move your head to change.  Are we not generally referring to the picture framed within the wind screen frame and how it changes?  

[Roger Lee]

You can fly 100 mph 12" above the runway and let the speed bleed and touch at stall if you wanted. So in truth numbers are nice for some, but not necessary for others.  Speed and approach is just a pilots setup. Someone that is highly skilled which is many here do not need numbers. They could fly any approach, high, low slow or fast and still make a nice landing and many could still hit a target area without a lot of difficulty.

If you have good sight picture  skills then numbers aren't important to make a good landing. I can make my panel dead and make landings all day long.