I have a habit of setting outside the local FBO office on the picnic table watching airplanes land. Way out they appear to be approaching me at a brisk walk regardless of size and airspeed. As they get closer the vast majority begin to appear to speed up and I can hear a whistling relative wind noise. Most then round out and hold off until the airplane slows enough to descend in ground effect and touch down around 500' to even halfway down the 3,000' runway. I think about 1.3 Vso to the fence. Where is the fence? Aurora, Missouri 2H2 has 500' of nicely mowed grass between the E-W road and the numbers 18. I understand liability and wanting to be fast to the pavement, but this often turns into the dangerous go around. I understand ACS training, but why do pilots want to continue being a passenger on every landing?

I flew with Justin's new instructor, Mark, last Friday. Justin has seven airplanes and four instructors now. Mark wanted to see the basic low ground effect takeoff, Dutch rolls to 45 degree banks, the energy management turn, and the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach. He was impressed with all, but was especially interested in the power/pitch approach to the numbers. We used a high pattern, 1,000' is very unusual for me. Making descending turns downwind to base and base to final at my normal quarter mile distance had me too fast to get slowed up for the flaps soon enough. I made an apparent brisk walk approach to the turnoff. Greg Similar, Underwood Aerial Patrol manager and mechanic, occasionally fussed at us about speed and Fowler flaps on the 172. I guess I gave him grief because I never was more than 200' up, I never looked at the airspeed indicator, and I always used full flaps. Anyway, Mark was amazed that, after backing off enough to get the flaps down, he was able to get the 172 down slowly and softly on the numbers with power by simply decelerating enough to prevent the rate of closure with the numbers to increase to more than a brisk walk. Except in training, there is no reason to give up throttle control of glide angle and rate of descent and to become a passenger between round out and touchdown well down the runway. The really horrible thing is that Mark is forced to teach the much more difficult round out and hold off. Yes, the pilot as passenger deal.

Just a thought. If we taught pilots to fly all the way to the touchdown with dynamic throttle to maintain glide angle and rate of descent during deceleration rather than teaching them to fly only as far as the round out where they close the throttle, would they be more likely to land in the beginning of the landing zone in an emergency. I know, no throttle. But at least they would know what a proper approach to landing in the beginning of the LZ looks like. Can we blame them when more than half touch down halfway through the emergency landing site? After all, we have taught them to land that way.

It drives me crazy that Vy rather than zoom reserve airspeed is taught for takeoff and that extra airspeed is taught for landing. That is just ass backwards. I mean the biblical ass, Zane. Animal, but not a dirty word. Round out and hold off is almost as bad as landing tail first and sometimes ends up that way.

Great Sunday morning sermon Jimmy !

I went out to fly with the new instructor Mike, not Mark, Friday. The wind was 280 at 23 gusting to 29. Mike was not comfortable with that much wind on Aurora's 60' wide runway, but asked some really good questions. I explained that we would use 36 and angle from the downwind corner of the runway to the upwind side about 600' down the runway. We would go to Monet for practice where the runway was very wide. He asked if we would use the nose wheel to turn down the runway at that point. I explained that we would be off into low ground effect by then and would either continue over the grass in low ground effect or rudder turn down the runway and crab in low ground effect. He asked how we would get back. I said we would go for the grass at an angle to a third way up the runway where the pavement was level with the grass. He wondered about the speed when meeting the pavement. I explained that we would not likely make it to the pavement at touchdown in low ground effect speed minus 23. I explained that the apparent brisk walk approach would actually look a bit more like standing still with that much headwind component. I explained that we would use full flaps and we could hover taxi to the pavement if that would be more comfortable.

I will fly with Mike with less wind and less angle soon. It is not that he needs to learn the angle across for instructing, but he will be more comfortable with strong crosswind after some practice. It is hard for students to learn proper side slip to landing in light winds with little crosswind component. Like the round out and hold off this is making them learn and practice the hardest first. Yes, the light crosswind component is harder to recognize and fly because the cross control is less evident. Like anything new, gross is easiest to learn and then finer discrimination requiring less control movement. Take them from where they are to where they need to be by doing the easier first to give them confidence.

Climate change from cooler to warmer, whether man made or God made (20,000 year cycle), will result in more exposure to strong crosswinds. We can either train for it or be upset. It need not lead to tin and skin damage. It can be avoided to some extent, but it's not a thunderstorm. It is not crazy to fly in the wind. We don't have to go too fast before ground effect on takeoff and headwind component is good. We don't have to go too fast on landing. It should be the same approach as no wind, just angle as necessary and use the throttle as necessary.

I am not fighting the science and POH recommended max crosswind component. Just work around that POH number by angling across to take some of the crosswind component out. Now we are within book max crosswind component.

The wind was 200 degrees at 14 today, and Mike did a fine job with the angle across both on takeoff and on landing. He asked if he should turn down the runway before liftoff. No, he did fine getting up into low ground effect and then rudder turning down the runway and crabbing into the crosswind. He decelerated well with full flaps to not allow the apparent rate of closure to speed up on short final but was rudder directing the nose to the centerline rather than the downwind corner until I had him correct with rudder. I had the aileron jammed with my thumb. He then tried to turn down the runway at the centerline until I tapped the rudder a bit to return to straight line angle. On the second one, he had everything nailed. Now he wants the big wind. More importantly, he now realizes the advantage of the big wind on ground speed. The wind is our friend.

Another young instructor comfortable with wind. When all young instructors are comfortable with wind, tin and skin will suffer less. Wind is our friend as it will reduce ground speed when we allow that. Comfort with wind and other elements of low altitude concern will increase moral and safety.

My hope is to give Mike, Shiv, Bart, and other instructors enough techniques that will allow them to comfortably teach use of the +5 knots leeway on ACS takeoff and climb V speed and comfortably teach use of the or -5 knots leeway on ACS 1.3 Vso until roundout on landing. How in the world can these young instructors teach early go around if not able to make the desired touchdown spot when the only landing technique they are allowed to teach has no knowable touchdown spot.

The probable cause of most go around fatalities is that the Airmen Certification Standards call for a round out and hold off airspeed that requires the throttle to be closed in order to get down on the runway available. That airspeed is way too fast to allow accurate evaluation of when go around should be initiated. When we say he should have initiated the go around much sooner, we assume he had use of the throttle to maintain glide angle and rate of descent all the way to touchdown. Except on very long runways, use of throttle to maintain glide angle and rate of descent all the way to touchdown is not possible after round out over the numbers at 1,3 Vso. Again, where is the fence? The only way to make round out and hold off and early go around mesh is to move the fence back a considerable distance and allow sink on short final sufficient to bring dynamic elevator into play to decelerate and dynamic throttle into play to maintain glide angle and sink rate all the way to touchdown.

To make a long story short, the round out and hold off technique does not allow for a safe early decision to go around.

ENCOURAGEMENT: I just watched a video from Airplane Academy called "This video would have helped me avoid a lot of pilot mistakes." The Number 1 recommendation was energy management as in deceleration on short final to touchdown slowly and softly where we wish. He actually said do this rather than become a passenger in a long hold off. Does this guy read my posts?

I found the fence. I live on an unpaved country road that runs E-W with a pond (tank for W Texans) just south of the barbed wire fence on the road. Walking with my dog, I watched a flight of three Canadian Geese north of the road on a stabilized 1.3 Vso power off, gear up, shallow approach. At the fence lead pitches up, drops gear, and adds a lot of power all the way to touchdown about ten feet into the pond. Chalk 2 follows in perfect coreographed timing. Chalk 3 does the same and touches down just into the pond where lead made sure there was space available. Go around only happens when my dog or something spooks the lead. They landed in the first one hundredth of pond length available.

Given mathematical comparison of Vso for a 172 vs. a goose, that would put the fence way back a hundred yards or so. If the round out and hold off has to be the school solution, why not move the fence back a bit? Yes, we humans need to get the gear down earlier and ol contact probably should slow down to put the flaps down. Anyway, the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach maths out to be pretty much identical to the goose approach.

Nature does it best.