Learning to fly, or thinking of learning? Post your questions, comments and experiences here

Moderator: AndyR

  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 14
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1871595
lobstaboy wrote:Let's say the wind is from the left. As you round out you feed in a bit of right rudder to align the wheels with the direction of travel (no "kicking " please) and some left aileron to keep to the centre line - ie crossed controls aka side slip.

Yes, I understand the theory all right, I just didn't know anyone does it that way, much less that it's the 'correct' way.

'Kicking it straight' is just a figure of speech. Of course it's not 'stamp' it straight. But once the wheels are about to touch, you want the yaw to be as brisk as possible if you're not changing to the wing-down method as you describe. So it can't afford to be too gradual.

I find it very difficult to get right though.

I'm not surprised! I'd want to practise this sort of thing in a nice steady crosswind that was strong enough to be able to see what was going on, as I know I wouldn't have the finesse straightaway.
If your timing is perfect you can get away without the aileron input, yes.

As I say, it doesn't have to be perfect, although it mustn't be late, else you'll land sideways which is uncomfortable even on grass, and most unpleasant on a hard surface.

But you can usually afford to be a second or so early in all but the strongest crosswinds. You know when you're going to touch to within a couple of seconds, right? :wink:
By jcal
#1872676
Harry.Brown wrote:Looking back through some of the posts on here I would caution the OP in relation to the advice given and this also applies to most Internet advice. Trying to learn to fly through a forum isn’t the best way forward, be careful!

Thanks @Harry.Brown , lots of insightful stuff!

As the OP I just want to say that, as much as I appreciate the advice in this thread I don't take it as flight training. It's insightful and lets me look at things from different perspectives, but my training is 99% from my instructor and the rest from the official materials.

That said, I do think discussing why people handle aircrafts in certain ways and the way people approach manaeuvers, either by experienced pilots or less so, correctly or incorrectly, is a useful thing! So I wouldn't want anyone to stop :). I will always take it with the weight of "someone on the internet said this" and not as official training advice.
T6Harvard liked this
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1872757
Harry.Brown wrote:Aiming to be at the aircrafts stalling speed at touchdown is one of the common Tiger Moth Instructor myths that has prevailed since the 1940’s, its also favoured by American light aircraft pilots too.

It's a myth is it? Why do you think so many POHs say "touch down at the minimum possible airspeed", then? What do you think 'minimum possible airspeed' means?

The threshold speed is the last speed target on the final approach ( not a touchdown speed) whether you are flying an Airbus or an Auster and that target speed can be calculated by multiplying the stall speed, at the configuration you are landing with by 1.3.

1.3 Vs regardless of aeroplane? So you are actively advising a 'one-size fits all' speed rather than flying the speeds recommended by the POH for each aeroplane?

The stall angle is the critical angle of attack at which LOSS OF CONTROL takes place.

Dangerous rubbish. The stall angle at 1G (which applies during the approach) is the angle at which the wing cannot generate quite as much lift as the weight. If you stall at a height of a few inches the aircraft will settle on to the ground gently. Other than in extreme crosswinds there is still plenty enough control authority in all three axes to keep straight on the runway and lower the nose gently.

Obviously no one is recommending stalling it on from a height of several feet. And of course a good landing can be achieved with a touch down a shade higher than the absolute minimum. But in ordinary conditions, 'minimum possible airspeed' is a good target to aim for, and close to this will be achieved by holding off for as long as possible.

We teach an increment of 1. 2 x stall speed for the Performance or Short Field Landing.

Who is this 'we' that thinks a blanket approach is correct? POH speeds will often be different from this. My aircraft's POH recommends 65 kt for a normal approach with full flap. At max weight, this is about 1.2 Vs. 1.3x would be 69 kt which would generate a lot of float.

It also recommends 61 kt for a short field approach. This is 1.15 Vs at max weight. That might not sound like much of a difference from your 1.2 but an excess of 2.5 kt is not negligible.

Not only that but flying substantially below max weight reduces the stall speed considerably - 20% below max weight will reduce the stall speed by about 10%.

One piece of advice given here was to try to pick up a dropped stalled wing with either aileron or rudder. This is the sort of advice that could cause a very serious accident especially at low level.

If you stall at low level, especially in a turn close to the ground, you may not have the height to recover, and as you say if you botch the control inputs you may make the situation worse. Avoiding the stall turning base to final is vital, as others have said.

But at a safe altitude, how would you recommend maintaining wings level in the stall?
User avatar
By Rob P
#1872761
jcal wrote:discussing why people handle aircrafts in certain ways


As light relief from the weighty matters above can we stamp on this one early in your aviation career?

"Aircraft" can be singular or plural. Therefore "aircrafts" is as uncomfortable as using "sheeps" to describe more than one woolly animal.

I think this is leaking from across the Atlantic; however it's still not as unacceptable as "airplane" :D

Rob P
TopCat, mick w, lobstaboy and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1872782
Rob P wrote:As light relief from the weighty matters above
Rob P


You mean people quoting from how to land an airliner textbooks?

Seriously though, this is the students forum, and I like to think the idea is to post useful hints and suggestions that will help the learning process, not to overwhelm with theory that's inappropriate for a PPL student.
Rob P, JAFO liked this
User avatar
By lobstaboy
#1872785
TopCat wrote:But at a safe altitude, how would you recommend maintaining wings level in the stall?


When practicing the stall at safe altitude you don't try to keep the wings level (except by making sure the ball is in the middle before hand). You unstall the wing and then sort out whatever you're left with in terms of attitude.

(Btw I agree with all the rest of your post that this is a quote from).
Rob P, TopCat, T6Harvard and 1 others liked this
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1872799
lobstaboy wrote:
TopCat wrote:But at a safe altitude, how would you recommend maintaining wings level in the stall?


When practicing the stall at safe altitude you don't try to keep the wings level (except by making sure the ball is in the middle before hand). You unstall the wing and then sort out whatever you're left with in terms of attitude.

For practising recovery from the stall, of course, this is entirely correct.

Sorry for any ambiguity, I wasn't talking about recovering. I was talking about not recovering, and maintaining wings level while stalled.

I realise that this isn't part of the PPL syllabus.
By jcal
#1872801
Rob P wrote:
jcal wrote:discussing why people handle aircrafts in certain ways


As light relief from the weighty matters above can we stamp on this one early in your aviation career?

"Aircraft" can be singular or plural. Therefore "aircrafts" is as uncomfortable as using "sheeps" to describe more than one woolly animal.

I think this is leaking from across the Atlantic; however it's still not as unacceptable as "airplane" :D

Rob P

Haha, please let's! Reading back what I wrote I cringe a little :lol:.
Rob P liked this
User avatar
By VRB_20kt
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1872999
Ok. This is the student forum so let’s keep it simple.

If you try and force the aircraft at anything like a normal flying speed onto the runway you’re likely to break something.

If you stall the aircraft a few feet above the runway you’re likely to break something.

If you land on the main wheels on the centreline and at a reasonably slow flying speed then things should normally turn out ok.


There are a number of ways to teach how to land. If one isn’t working the instructor’s job is to find another that works for you. If you/your instructor aren’t seeing an improvement - even if it’s a slow improvement - then try another solution. Like so much of learning to fly, get the basic building blocks firmly established and the you’ll have a firm foundation to build upon.
User avatar
By Flyingfemme
#1873008
Interesting quote from the FAA on minimum controllable airspeed. Do they teach mca exercises in the UK?
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1873031
Harry.Brown wrote:
TopCat wrote:Having said that, if you ever touchdown nose first, go around immediately. Otherwise there's a pretty good chance of a very badly ruined day. But hopefully there is absolutely no chance of your doing that, if you're being taught properly.

jcal wrote:Yeah, that's unlikely to happen. We're comfortably far away from any nose landings. Besides, that video you posted of the Piper Warrior bouncing on the runway is still firmly etched in my mind :shock:.


@Harry.Brown please do the posters here the courtesy of getting the quotes right, so that it's clear who has said what. I've fixed them above.

Bad advice because if you make a nose first arrival and strike the prop last thing you ever want to do is go around.

You obviously aren't reading what's been posted. An initial arrival that is so nose first that the prop strikes the ground on first touchdown is a crash, not a flat touchdown. This is also extremely rare, unless the aircraft has been stalled at height, which is not the problem we're talking about here, and it's certainly not being advocated by anybody.

The problem we're talking about here is that people touch down too fast, too flat, with only a slight bounce on the nose leg initially. The prop strike doesn't usually occur until several cycles of porpoising, which gets worse and worse until the nose leg collapses.

The go around I'm talking about is the after the initial gentle bounce brought about by landing flat and the oleo compression bouncing the nose back into the air while the aircraft still has flying speed (which it must have if it was landed flat).

Going around at this stage prevents the problem getting worse, and of course touching down at the correct speed will prevent it in the first place.

Wheel barrowing it on with a low ROD can be harmless but it’s certainly not the correct landing attitude and not something to be encouraged.

IMO this is dangerous advice. It's much worse than 'not the correct landing attitude'

I'm out of this one now. It is pointless to continue to engage in debate with someone that spends 700 words trying to make out there's a huge difference between aiming to touch down at stall speed, as opposed to "approximately stalling speed", or "just above the stall speed", or "very nearly reached the stalling angle" or "correct airspeed ( slightly faster than the stall)".

Do any of the above, and you'll be fine.

All I'll say is that if the POH says to touchdown at minimum possible airspeed, that is a higher authority in my mind than any number of random training manuals.
mick w, JAFO, jcal liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1873033
lobstaboy wrote:I'm surprised nobody has mentioned ground effect yet...


You just did

Rob P
User avatar
By GrahamB
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1873037
lobstaboy wrote:I'm surprised nobody has mentioned ground effect yet...

I was going to, but then I thought 'D'you know what ....... I CBA'.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 14