Nose wheel

[Yenn]

I see that RAAus are concerned about the number of collapsed nosewheels on landing that are occurring.

They say they have a significant number of these occurrences. They also say that the majority are done by student pilots who bounce the landing. THey say that go arounds should be practiced.

What I wonder is why RAAus have a problem. Could it be that they have poor instructors, or is their training curriculum lacking somewhere. It is no good blaming the light weight and poor strength of the nosewheel assembly, especially as most of the planes flown nowadays are supposedly designed and built by manufacturers to suit the job they were designed for.

It is many years since I had anything to do with an RAAus instructor in an instructional role, but the last one who did a BFR for me didn't impress. He seemed to lack understanding of what was required for him to observe me in a single seat plane. He was the same instructor who approved a BFR for a pilot who landed wheels up on his BFR flight. He gave the pilot his review and RAAus later revoked it when they heard of the wheels up landing.

The real question is, are our instructors competent?

[turboplanner]

RA Instructors rarely seem to post here, even when outrageous aircraft handling is being recommended, however, to be fair, that's very much over-simplified.

 

Before you get to the instructor, you have to separate out:

 

• Under-Designed nosewheels
• Nosewheel collapse as a result of prior/multiple prior strikes.
• Whether the landing strip is suitable for a lightweight RA aircraft

 

[Old Koreelah]

I’m almost too nice to suggest the plurry wheel is on the wrong end!

[IBob]

19 minutes ago, Old Koreelah said:

I’m almost too nice to suggest the plurry wheel is on the wrong end!

Are you saying we're backward??????????????

[aro]

Anecdotally, bending firewalls in GA aircraft seems to be common so it might be more a measure of what bends first rather than relative competence.

 

3 hours ago, Yenn said:

The real question is, are our instructors competent?

That question can be applied to both GA and RAA instructors. My own experience has been that instructors with RAA qualifications are on average better than GA only instructors.

 

Almost all the RAA instructors I have flown with have also had GA instructing qualifications, most had extensive commercial (or military) experience outside the training environment, and most had experience in many different aircraft types.

 

The worst instructors were the GA instructors who didn't seem to have much experience outside of the training environment. They tended to look down on RAA even though they had no experience with it.

 

3 hours ago, Yenn said:

Could it be that they have poor instructors, or is their training curriculum lacking somewhere.

I think that the biggest problem is that people are taught to fly the approach too fast. Most schools seem to add 5-10 knots to the book speeds for "safety". That means the approach is flown with a lower nose attitude, and you have to wait longer and use more back pressure in the flare to land on the main gear.

 

Watch a few landings and see how many people land on all 3 wheels at once, or with the nose wheel barely in the air. If the nose wheel touches first the nose is pitched up and you will bounce - the effect is much stronger than in a tailwheel aircraft because the nosewheel is much further forward.

 

A C172 specifies 60-70 knots for the landing approach. One school I knew specified 70 knots as the approach speed to be flown - which would be OK, except that they then applied the CASA margins of +5, -0 to the speed. So flying the approach at 75 knots was OK, but straying into the book speed range was outside tolerances.

 

Then you send the student out solo, the aircraft is lighter so flies with a lower nose attitude, the student has been drilled not to get too slow, and it's a recipe for landing on the nosewheel.

 

[turboplanner]

7 hours ago, aro said:

A C172 specifies 60-70 knots for the landing approach. One school I knew specified 70 knots as the approach speed to be flown - which would be OK, except that they then applied the CASA margins of +5, -0 to the speed. So flying the approach at 75 knots was OK, but straying into the book speed range was outside tolerances.

 

Then you send the student out solo, the aircraft is lighter so flies with a lower nose attitude, the student has been drilled not to get too slow, and it's a recipe for landing on the nosewheel.

 

No doubt that's the cause of a few of them.

A variant on that is the hundreds of students, particularly in C150 and C152 who skim almost the full length of the runway in ground effect before touching down, and a few of those, seeing the end of the runway may shove the stick forward thinking they can force the aircraft down.

 

However, by far the worst group of instructors are the ones who for some reason actually teach the point and shoot method of landing where the yoke is used to control altitude, pointing at the proposed touch down point and the throttle is used to control speed. Using this method you're almost certain to touch down nose wheel first often.  We had a group of instructors on this site about a decade ago who vehemently argued for this method because it was used n parts of the military, and blasted anyone who said different.When that debate was on a cople of the members bent nose legs. Those instructors moved on from here but I know at least one of the is out there lurking and probably teaching the same thing.

[RFguy]

I've only ever (briefly ) pointed the nose down when I have rounded out WAY TOO HIGH  (20 feet ?) and I am getting a bit slow. A very brief nose push down to bring up the airspeed slightly and to lose 10 out of the 20 feet,  and then pull  back on the stick  to settle back into a float onto the ground with the nose up.   It's like half a second of nose down. It's like having a second go at the round out..... But it's not a manourver for the inexperienced, or one unfamiliar with the airplane.....Yeah you cant fly it nose down into the deck !! LOL. If this high round out and decaying airspeed is not corrected,  you would face a situation where you are 20 feet above the ground with the speed and lift decaying fast , with a result of a likely very hard three pointer.

 

But I equally could/should have gone around- it depends how much airspeed I had in reserve and the conditions, and level of recent experience. 

 

If she's floating down the runway due to too much airspeed over the fence,  and power is already at idle , slowly pulling progressively back on the stick as do no more than bleed off a little speed and increase rate of descent --gently  -- without losing too much airspeed, should do the trick. Of course depends on conditions......and how much runway you have.

 

Edited May 8, 2022 by RFguy

[trailer]

I don't know the details behind the incidents but my experience over 40 years is that many times when someone has asked me to jump in with them for a fly, a lack of currency is often very evident. I have experienced it myself. Ability and confidence can return quickly which would be how bfrs get signed off. I have never had an issue with an instructor and BFR reviews with GA or RAA. There have been a couple I did not think much of but that is just a numbers game. 

 

I think the busted nose wheels may be a combination of things, least of all specifically attributed to the instructor cohort. Not unreasonable that RAAus made the observation as a reminder and conversation point for us all to concider.

[facthunter]

It's easy for any pilot flying at a long runway aerodrome to gradually keep adding speed to the approach and develop other bad habits like assisting the turn with rudder. and other corner cutting (lazy) habits. Flying needs self discipline and honest self evaluation and constant practice of useful self training exercises. A few circuits now and again at the local aerodrome on a calm day falls short of what's required to keep up with the standard you need.   Nev

[Yenn]

Turbs said.

"Before you get to the instructor, you have to separate out:

 

• Under-Designed nosewheels
• Nosewheel collapse as a result of prior/multiple prior strikes.
• Whether the landing strip is suitable for a lightweight RA aircraft"

Does this mean that an instructor who is using a plane with a poorly designed nosewheel, or one that has had prior strikes is fully competent

Surely the instructor must be able to see where the weak points are and also to know the history of the aircraft he is teaching in.

What sort of an instructor uses a strip that is not suitable for the plane he is using.

Sorry Turbs. I reckon your comment increases the chance of incompetence.

Any instructor must be able to gauge the level of ability of his student and also make sure that the plane is suitable for the job, anything less is just not acceptable.

[Old Koreelah]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

A few circuits now and again at the local aerodrome on a calm day falls short of what's required to keep up with the standard you need…

Very true, Nev. Very easy for our skills to soften if we keep inside a narrow comfort zone.

All my recent flying has been off a nice long gravel strip (ideal for a taildragger) with mobs of flat farmland all around. Lots of perfect weather as well, so that I get uncomfortable with a few mild bumps as the day warms up. 

Just looked up when my next BFR is due and will be using a different instructor in a more challenging location.

[facthunter]

People are not fully fledged pilots when they first get licenced and some do no serious training after that.  IF you go backwards from your initial training you are not in a good place. Even a bare CPL is still a licence to learn more and you will be checked more often and do more endorsements where you will be put through the ringer if it's done properly. Regarding the nosewheel it's NOT strong on many planes and always has to be treated gently.  You land the mains  and then the nosewheel with it's own flare to the contact  on heavy stuff..  A nosewheel makes planes  easier to control directionally. NOT if you land on it first though. Nev

Edited May 9, 2022 by facthunter

[trailer]

https://m.facebook.com/groups/UtahGeneralAviation/permalink/3016234188679668/

[Old Koreelah]

Does he have to pay landing fees for all seven?

[poteroo]

Disclosure:  As a recently retired GA Instructor 1, and  + RAAus CFI, I'm possibly able to now make comment without kickback.

 

One of the unappreciated factors in badly handled landings is the positioning and height of the pilots seat. Unless the pilots eyes can see along the top of the engine cowl, and down the left hand side of it, then they are unable to judge positioning the aircraft so as to have it touchdown only on the mains.  I always taught that the nose should be held up in the flare so that it was just above the horizon, but this works only if the student isn't sitting too low.

 

Student pilots are usually too fast on approach, and this leads to the need for an extended flare, chewing up runway/strip distance rapidly. Hence the urge to 'plonk-it-on' and get on the brakes. Aerodynamic braking is the best way, both in the air, and once on the mains. I tried to have students hold the nosewheel off for an extended time - even encouraging them to use enough power to keep it there while rolling along the runway. Gives them a 'feel' for just how easy it is to do, and how little power is needed to give elevator command.

 

Trimming is a major omission from the technique of many pilots.  At mid final, a pilot should be able to take hands off the controls, and the aircraft should be at stable IAS and ROD.  With C172, 182, 206 types, it's often impossible to gain enough aft trim to cope with full flaps: what's needed in training on these types is to place some load aft, so that there is sufficient trip for approach. 182's have a sad history of nosewheel/firewall damage due to poor management during training ops. (I have lots of time on them, and I always have 20-30kgs water in the baggage compartment.)

 

As to whether strips are suitable, or not, as instructors we need to have enough length to be able to use 1/3 of the distance for the students áim point' and stiff be able to decelerate without any braking to a safe stop.  Brakes should be taught as your 'last resort' when taxying, and landing.  If we can instruct so that the student clears the strip end comfortably, but not above 50ft, then thats even better for their future success on shorter strips. Consistency is the important consideration.... golf comes to mind!

 

happy days,

 

 

[Flightrite]

‘poteroo’ we’ll said 👍

I’ve always maintained that it’s too easy to get a plane drivers ticket and keep it! It’s rare to witness a full on stall landing nose high or 3 pointer in a proper aeroplane. Flying heavy metal the App speed is a disciplined figure yet in the light A/C world it’s a ‘guide’ to some and it shows! Virtually nobody lands at gross weight (accept for those that are cowboys from the get-go) which is what the stall book figures are calculated on in a lighty.

Speedo errors, calibrated & indicated all play a part in what you actually read off the speedo hence 1.3 Vs is a typical App speed. Taking conditions into account touching down at min flying speed should be a common practice.

[Yenn]

I just renewed my plane rego and in doing so I looked at the incidents report.

A pilot was oserved having trouble landing several times, so an instructor talked him down. Had to remind him to fully close the throttle when landing.

Where did that pilot learn and who was his instructor? One, or both of them look incompetent to me.

[facthunter]

"Anyone " can fly a plane, Yenn. I've never believed it myself but it's a good line to run if you are after money before ethics.  IF you are not situationally aware , you don't belong there.  Get another hobby.  Nev

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, Yenn said:

I just renewed my plane rego and in doing so I looked at the incidents report.

A pilot was oserved having trouble landing several times, so an instructor talked him down. Had to remind him to fully close the throttle when landing.

Where did that pilot learn and who was his instructor? One, or both of them look incompetent to me.

That can happen; a student can lose his her nerve. I've heard about three now including yours. Others make other mistakes. It's part of the big picture of training and learning.

[Thruster88]

5 hours ago, Yenn said:

I just renewed my plane rego and in doing so I looked at the incidents report.

A pilot was oserved having trouble landing several times, so an instructor talked him down. Had to remind him to fully close the throttle when landing.

Where did that pilot learn and who was his instructor? One, or both of them look incompetent to me.

It could be the throttle in said aircraft is not operating as it should. Friction in the cable requires more of a pull to get the throttle closed for example. In maintenance we get to see it all.

[Flightrite]

That’s so true T88. I recently drove/ferried a basic toy plane interstate for somebody and it was a horrible thing as far as the gas pedal goes! Pull it to idle and watch the tachometer creep up 150 rpm or so! 
 

Edited May 28, 2022 by Flightrite

[facthunter]

Yes you nearly have to pull the throttle out by the roots. They have a spring loaded "fail to OPEN" set up.  Nev

[Yenn]

It could also be that when the throttle is closed, the pilot puts the nose down which increases the speed and also the rpm.

[APenNameAndThatA]

On 9/5/2022 at 4:48 AM, turboplanner said:

No doubt that's the cause of a few of them.

A variant on that is the hundreds of students, particularly in C150 and C152 who skim almost the full length of the runway in ground effect before touching down, and a few of those, seeing the end of the runway may shove the stick forward thinking they can force the aircraft down.

 

However, by far the worst group of instructors are the ones who for some reason actually teach the point and shoot method of landing where the yoke is used to control altitude, pointing at the proposed touch down point and the throttle is used to control speed. Using this method you're almost certain to touch down nose wheel first often.  We had a group of instructors on this site about a decade ago who vehemently argued for this method because it was used n parts of the military, and blasted anyone who said different.When that debate was on a cople of the members bent nose legs. Those instructors moved on from here but I know at least one of the is out there lurking and probably teaching the same thing.

IMHO, the big problem with this technique is what will happen when the engine fails… 

[APenNameAndThatA]

I wonder if trying to land nose-high will cause accidents by people accidentally running out of lift when they are too high and stalling?