Stick & Rudder

[motzartmerv]

qwerty, you didn't upset me mate, not at all. I love discussion such as this. That is a problem i face alot on here as do most others, what we are trying to say, doesn't translate well in text.

 

Im sure there's nothing at all wrong with the way you do things, if the result is a good angle, speed controlled and a nice touchdown, what difference does it make what terms we use on a forum to describe how we do it??

 

My points relate directly to the patter I give when teaching. Its well defined, simple and to the point, without useing too many words. Thats a fundamental part of how we get people doing things. The KISS principle. By saying to a student, " Point the nose at the threshold and use throttle to maintain 70 knots" we have basically given all the words we need them to hear to be able to fly the approach. Its with clear, easy to understand patter like that we are sometimes able to talk a TIF (first timer) through a reasonable approach.

 

As they begin to learn and become competent we introduce more involved principles, but only after the basics are cognitive.

 

cheers, ps, say hi to jill and norm when you see them at temora.

 

 

[Guest Qwerty]

Motzart, I am aware that I take things too literally, and trying to discuss the complexities of approach on a forum, I have concluded, is beyond me. I'm going to keep trying with other stuff, its good practice for me. I really do feel like an alien sometimes but I wouldn't be neuro-typical for quids.

 

Who are Jill and Norm?????

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Jill is the CFI at temora, and norm is her husband.

 

 

[skeptic36]

. That is a problem i face alot on here as do most others, what we are trying to say, doesn't translate well in text.

There are two ways two alleviate this problem

 

1) Use the smilies, they aren't just there for fun, a smile or a wink can be used to moderate otherwise offensive words as you would with facial expression in a face to face discussion.

 

2) The preview post button, it takes a little extra time to re-read your post, but it is quicker than having to apologize and better than intimidating potential contributors.:thumb_up:

 

 

Regards Bill

 

 

[ahlocks]

..... trying to discuss the complexities of approach on a forum, I have concluded, is beyond me.

I'm just glad I went for blat yesterday before reading this thread.:uhoh2:

 

Since reading through it, I've figured that landing is just too hard :ne_nau:and the beercan has to go...

 

 

[turboplanner]

Nah, just point where you want to go, and hit the gas with your knee now and again.

 

 

[ahlocks]

Tubz! don't tease. I'll get into strife if I start giving cheek here....

 

 

[pudestcon]

Nah, just point where you want to go, and hit the gas with your knee now and again.

TURBO,

 

Don't start everybody off again!!!

 

Pud

 

PS. Have enjoyed this thread discussion a lot.

 

 

[Guest vhinov]

Mine is $24.95 US from a local bookstore. Borders.com Great book.

 

 

[GraemeK]

Great discussion here, took me a while to catch up after being away for a while.

 

First, I reckon it all ends up the same, it's just the way you think about it. Way I was taught, if I'm undershooting the aim point, I add power first to control altitude, then exert back pressure to maintain my approach speed. If I'm too fast, I exert back pressure to slow down, and reduce power to maintain glidepath. The alternative method does the same thing, except in reverse. On undershoot, pull back on stick to maintain altitude, add power to hold airspeed. If too fast, drop power to slow down, pull back to maintain altitude. Same thing.

 

But the mental process is quite different. I prefer the way I was trained because I reckon we need to think always about energy management. If we are too low (ie low potential energy) then the only sustainable way to increase our height is to add energy from the engine - the elevators just won't cut it (you can only trade off so much kinetic energy for height before you stall). So in the back of my mind, I'm always thinking that way.

 

The other day, I struck major sink on short final, nearly at the fence. So I applied a decent burst of power instinctively, as a result of my mindset. But to be honest I was shocked at the really strong temptation to just haul back on the stick with the ground coming up so close - I even commented to my instructor that I was surprised at how I almost had to fight it. Had I been taught the other way, my instinct might have been to go for the stick - not a lot of time to react or think, and not a good idea at low speed 50 feet off the ground!

 

I'm not sure about other schools, but at ours roughly 4 RAAus instructors teach power for altitude, and one t'other way. My instructor explained both to me, however.

 

 

[DarkSarcasm]

Out of curiosity for the instructors out there, would your choice of method to teach vary if you knew your student was going to eventually transfer to GA? It sounds from comments on here that the 'point and power' technique is better for the heavier GA planes (true or false?) so, if you knew that your student was (or wasn't) eventually going to fly GA as well, would that affect which method you taught them? (I'd argue that it doesn't, but I'm curious...)

 

My instructor explained both to me, however.

I had both explained to me as well :thumb_up:

 

I'm not sure about other schools, but at ours roughly 4 RAAus instructors teach power for altitude, and one t'other way.

Really? Interesting to know...

 

 

[turboplanner]

Darky, I'm pretty sure if you just buy the book, you'll get your answer.

 

GrameK's post underlines what I was saying about instinctive reaction - you could probably use either method for years and never have a problem, but safe flying is all about the one day when the unexpected does occur, and he fairly graphically described how his training helped him from pulling back on the stick before the dynamics made that action safe.

 

 

[Powerin]

But the mental process is quite different. I prefer the way I was trained because I reckon we need to think always about energy management. If we are too low (ie low potential energy) then the only sustainable way to increase our height is to add energy from the engine - the elevators just won't cut it (you can only trade off so much kinetic energy for height before you stall). So in the back of my mind, I'm always thinking that way.

Hmmm. I like your way of thinking Graeme. But I guess Darky's right in that either way ends up with the same result and whichever way of thinking gets you on the ground is OK.

 

But I have another question (remembering this is just a thought experiment for me): On short final your aircraft has low airspeed (kinetic energy), low altitude (potential energy), and high angle of attack.

 

So if you are taught that elevators (not power) make you go up and you find yourself suddenly sinking towards the fence your first instinct would be to pull back and then add power to maintain airspeed. Correct?

 

If this is the case aren't you in real danger of suddenly increasing your AoA past critical angle and stalling when you have little height and little airspeed to recover?

 

Peter

 

 

[facthunter]

low level stall.

 

The concept of stick stall position, would be useful here. You are LOW and slow. Short both on kinetic energy and with no height to convert Potential energy to velocity (kinetic energy). FULL power and milk the elevators to get the maximum lift without stalling. Use ground effect, if you have to. Not useful if you are over trees, big rocks etc. as you will only get it close to the ground/ water.. About 1/3rd wingspan. Nev

 

 

[GraemeK]

If this is the case aren't you in real danger of suddenly increasing your AoA past critical angle and stalling when you have little height and little airspeed to recover?

Yep, my thinking entirely.

 

Let's take the example of encountering windshear at VREF in the Jab (63kt) with full flaps (VS0 = 48kt) at 50 feet.

 

The trade-off between potential and kinetic energy is 9 feet per knot, per hundred knots. So, haul back on the stick as hard as you can until you reach stall speed. That's a speed reduction of 15kt, so you've gained 70 or 80 feet, but now you're stalled. Plus you've lost a fair bit of height anyway because of the sink. So there you are, at around 100 feet or so, stalled and falling faster than ever.

 

That throttle is starting to look like a good option!

 

But, as I said before, I reckon the two techniques in practice are much of a muchness - on final you're constantly making small adjustments to power and attitude, almost instinctively - so whatever suits you best! For mine, I find it helps me to think of the elevator as the speed control - because it may just prevent me trying to just pull back on the stick when what I really need is more power.

 

BTW - I'm not saying you should never take advantage of your speed to quickly gain some height - one example could be "jumping" over an obstruction in a deadstick landing

 

 

[octave]

First of all I will say that I have been taught and used both methods and I see little practical difference. I think I tend to use the method described in the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook.

 

The objective of a good final approach is to descend at

 

an angle and airspeed that will permit the airplane to

 

reach the desired touchdown point at an airspeed

 

which will result in minimum floating just before

 

touchdown; in essence, a semi-stalled condition. To

 

accomplish this, it is essential that both the descent

 

angle and the airspeed be accurately controlled. Since

 

on a normal approach the power setting is not fixed as

 

in a power-off approach, the power and pitch attitude

 

should be adjusted simultaneously as necessary, to

 

control the airspeed, and the descent angle, or to attain

 

the desired altitudes along the approach path. By lowering

 

the nose and reducing power to keep approach

 

airspeed constant, a descent at a higher rate can be

 

made to correct for being too high in the approach.

 

This is one reason for performing approaches with partial

 

power; if the approach is too high, merely lower

 

the nose and reduce the power. When the approach is

 

too low, add power and raise the nose./I]

 

 

 

I think the problem with many of these debates is that we seem to take two legitimate methods and assert that method (A) is the only way to do it, whilst method (B) will result in "blood on the tarmac" if this true would there not be flying schools out there with much higher accident stats?

 

 

 

I would hope that as rational and logical pilots we would not be overstating the dangers of one legitimate method over another, whilst one method may have advantages the fact that both are routinely taught and written about must tell you something.

 

 

[facthunter]

. Spoilers etc.

 

Power or elevators.....This is a bit like saying "which do you use in x-winds, CRAB or Slipping. To do it properly you do both, sometimes together and sometimes separately.

 

A comment on the elevators/power thing. Glide approaches went out in GA in the early 60's. A moderate amount of power became the normal approach configuration. I was there. I started out doing glide approaches and changed half way through my training to PPL. The throttle is another control. Why not use it?

 

Incidently ALL powered aircraft can be flown this way. The approach can be much more precise. You have to accept that in the event of engine failure you will not reach the runway. An engine failure on low throttle settings is VERY unlikely, probably less likely than when at idle.

 

Re the spoilers/ speed brakes. They are generally not used once the aircraft has extended flap. Most aircraft do not permit it and you may get spoiler "float" at low speeds and it will be assymetric and requires lots of control wheel displacement to correct.

 

Ground spoilers are used on the ground to assist braking, (put more weight on the wheels) and don't enter the equation as far as our discussion is concerned. Nev

 

 

[newairly]

Having come from a gliding background, attitude for speed and spoilers(throttle) for angle seems natural. If I start to sink on final the automatic response is with throttle. I want to keep my speed at around my selected approach speed and this is usually near best glide in any case for most aircraft.

 

Phil

 

 

[Methusala]

Good thread, just came across it. BTW agree with Turbo that when low and slow the only way to arrest a high sink rate is to add energy ie. power. As we say airspeed and altitude= money in the bank. Safety:clap: depends on honing your best reactions for the time when time to think is just not available. Kind regards to all, Don

 

 

[Mazda]

This is from the CASA Flight Instructor Manual December 2006 - (i.e the CASA guide used by flying instructors):

 

"The selected approach speed is normally controlled with power and the approach path with elevator. There is an alternative technique which is sometimes used where approach speed is controlled with elevator and approach path with elevator. Both techniques may be validly taught. However, it must be remembered that regardless of technique, power variation will effect both airspeed and approach path as will changes in aeroplane attitude.

 

Note: When teaching a student in a modern training aeroplane with relatively low drag and high power compared to older types (C172 vs J1 Auster as an example), the first technique is normally used successfully."

 

 

[Methusala]

With the greatest of respect to Mazda and all others on this thread it is my belief that CASA see flight training thru the prism of commercial aviation. That is, they believe that GA is a step towards career aviation. This would explain to some extent their advice as quoted in the previous post. They don't really expect engines to stop (sometimes they do!). This site is nominally a recreational aviation site where low powered and high drag machines are represented. As noted before, low and slow is not the place to experiment with pitch control to correct lack of altitude. Add energy, and you will climb without further loss of airspeed or as Stick & Rudder puts it increased A of A. Engines do in fact stop at low power settings such as on approach if icing is present! Don

 

 

[djpacro]

The instructor who taught me to fly over 40 years ago had been in the business for about 20 years by then. I dropped in for a chat this morning. He has always taught elevator to control airspeed and throttle to control flight path. Of course, he has always flown the older types referred to in the CASA Manual and currently instructs RAA. His last two students to solo in the Gazelle took about 6 hours.

 

This is from the CASA Flight Instructor Manual December 2006 ......Note: When teaching a student in a modern training aeroplane with relatively low drag and high power compared to older types (C172 vs J1 Auster as an example), the first technique is normally used successfully."

Interesting that they didn't give any examples of the "modern training aeroplane" with "low drag and high power" where the point and shoot method is meant to be successful.PS - I still haven't finished Stick & Rudder

 

 

[Guest rocketdriver]

Out of curiosity for the instructors out there, would your choice of method to teach vary if you knew your student was going to eventually transfer to GA? It sounds from comments on here that the 'point and power' technique is better for the heavier GA planes (true or false?) so, if you knew that your student was (or wasn't) eventually going to fly GA as well, would that affect which method you taught them? (I'd argue that it doesn't, but I'm curious...)

 

I had both explained to me as well :thumb_up:

 

Really? Interesting to know...

Darky, in my experience in RAA or GA or Glider a/c, the "elevator for speed, power for glide path" method always works ... I think this is because both controls have primary and secondary effects. can't say for the big jets and other massive slippery airframes etc tho'

 

In my view the confusions arise due to the "cross connected " primary and secondary effects of both controls.

 

However the effect of power for altitude is always in the same sense whilst elevator for altitude is generally a transient effect that can and does reverse mightily as the stall is approached ..... Its also true that stick forward for more speed always works (when you are the "right way" up) and I always prefer to stay away from stalls when close to the ground (unless at touchdown of course!!)

 

 

[Mazda]

It has been mentioned on the site that the second book in the Fly Better series is now available for download.

 

Following all the debate on here, people might be interested to read lesson 2, the landing approach. (From Page 14).

 

"Aim the aeroplane at a point near the runway threshold and control the airspeed with power." :thumb_up:

 

 

[Methusala]

Fly Better or Stick and Rudder? That's the flaming question I suppose. (Sorry about the language... not meant to offend, just for emphasis. Regards again, Don