I Googled the latest Nall Report and found similar data to past reports. While high altitude cruise is the safest phase of flight, loss of control (stall/spin) on takeoff and climb out results in the most GA fatalities by far. And loss of control during landing results in the most incidents and accidents.

Is Vx or Vy as appropriate (slow takeoff and climb) a Federal Air Regulation or a suggestion? Is 1.3 Vso all the way to the fence (fast landing) a Federal Air Regulation or a suggestion? Could taking off fast and landing slow be the solution to most loss of control problems?

-0-

contactflying wrote:I Googled the latest Nall Report and found similar data to past reports. While high altitude cruise is the safest phase of flight, loss of control (stall/spin) on takeoff and climb out results in the most GA fatalities by far. And loss of control during landing results in the most incidents and accidents.

Is Vx or Vy as appropriate (slow takeoff and climb) a Federal Air Regulation or a suggestion? Is 1.3 Vso all the way to the fence (fast landing) a Federal Air Regulation or a suggestion? Could taking off fast and landing slow be the solution to most loss of control problems?

I have just returned to flying 15 years after my USAF fini flight. It had been 33 years since I flew GA. My flying tours were: C-130 x2, T-38, T-1 x2. Because it has been so long, GA is very fresh to me right now. I have a couple of observations on this topic.

My CFI initially told me to fly 70 KIAS on final in a 172. My landings were safe but didn't feel right, and I had a problem with ballooning. So I read through the POH and saw where the recommended speed range for flaps was 60-70 KIAS. I told my CFI I wanted to try 65 KIAS. That made landings much better.

After I completed my BFR (4 flights and 5.9 hours since my return), I worked a lot on landings solo. I was fine most of the time but only occasionally excellent which bugged me a lot. I went up with two more instructors, the second of which had me fly final at 60 KIAS. That was the magic. All of a sudden no more ballooning and I was getting the plane fully flared.

I acknowledge I am still overcoming the big airplane habit of establishing a landing attitude and letting the plane settle, but whenever I would try the full flares the CFIs wanted at the higher approach speeds I would balloon, nor matter how slowly I pulled back the yoke. Further, I could feel the plane didn't want to land. Flying at the slower approach speed allows a shorter and steeper final, and it final feels right when I flare. "Slower" approach speed isn't really right, since both the POH and the stall speed I noted for full flaps at max gross is around 42 KIAS, which makes 1.3 VSO about 55. When it's time for the back country, I am not interested in ballooning and am all about slower and steeper.

I got to fly a C182 a couple weeks ago, and again the CFI had me fly at the high end of the approach speed and my results with landing the 182 were the same as with the 172. Fair to good, but with ballooning issues. Tomorrow I fly the 182 again and his time my speed on short final will be 60 KIAS vs 70 KIAS.

Now I am not going to tell anyone else what speed to fly on final. Some pilots may fly 10 knots faster and then pull the power farther out so they end up crossing the threshold at the proper speed. When you tell me to maintain a certain speed on final, that is the speed I'll be at the threshold. "Aimpoint/airspeed" on final was pounded into my head during my training many years ago in an airplane that would kill you if stalled a few feet above the runway.

I get it that a student may have sloppy airspeed control and so adding extra speed likely prevents the worse case scenario of stalling and coming down hard short of the runway. However, trying to land with too much speed is almost as bad and can lead to ballooning, bouncing, hard landings, prop strikes and buckled firewalls. The answer is to teach disciplined airspeed control and then cross the threshold at the correct speed. I think would mitigate many if the GA landing incidents we read about.

The balloon, and perhaps when finally slow the drop in, is the result of arriving where we want to land both going too fast to land and without the most effective altitude control.

You have mostly solved the problem by reducing stabilized approach airspeed to the slowest advocated by the POH. That has mitigated the balloon, but still gives up the the most effective altitude control, the throttle.

Click on my signature box below to download "Safe Maneuvering Flight Techniques." The chapter on the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach will explain how to decelerate on short final in order to touchdown slowly and softly on the numbers consistently.

When we further reduce airspeed (from the 1.3 Vso stabilized approach to where the rate of closure APPEARS to speed up) we will sink. This will require adding some power. It is a short trip, short final, but the ability to control altitude with power and rate of closure (we want to decelerate in order to maintain the apparent brisk walk rate of closure) with elevator is twice as effective as elevator to control both airspeed and altitude.

Whether well down the runway after hold off and deceleration or on the numbers after deceleration, we want to touchdown slowly and softly at the slowest airspeed the wing will fly in low ground effect. That very important number is not in the book, but it is well below Vso out of ground effect.

Wolfgang called it the stall down, but final was short final in those days. So the long approach at 1.3 Vso to short final is good. The quarter mile pattern at 600' and quarter mile final still works as well.

INTJ,

Which Springfield? I am near Springfield Missouri.

Springfield, Oregon.