I use it because it gets me softly onto the numbers,or onto the first foot of the numbers as Rob the Thrush driver says, without having to be really slow way high and way out. It works. I love it. Every pilot who has flown with me loves it. In thousands of spray and pipeline hours I changed brakes just a few times. I couldn't afford them and Uncle Rick (Brenco) was too cheap to buy them.

hotrod180 wrote:I've never even been in a helicopter, but I'm not sure that applying helo approach tactics to flying a fixed wing airplane is necessarily the best way to go. The army's training tactics for the L19 Birddog, U17 Skywagon, or the L20/U6 Beaver might be more appropriate for most of us.

I don't think those aircrew training manuals were ever digitized. And I can't find paper copies of them.

But I disagree, as long as you aren't a poor enough pilot to continue slowing below stall speed while on approach it is a good and transferable technique.

I have a certain "feel" that I won't
slow below - I back this up with glances at the ASI but I'd sure love an AOA to validate my seat of the pants. When I get into ground effect I have a bit more energy to work with.

But I'm still mastering the technique in a FW. I need to meet up with Jimmy and do some flying.

From the L-19 Manual:

Regrettably I have not had the opportunity to fly with Jim. I have however flown a fair share in the Cessna 305 / O1 / L-19.
I would and do use Jim's approach in that aircraft (and pretty much everything) and would vastly prefer it to what is depicted in the manual above.

Before flying any of the family aircraft solo our son flew me around in them with a towel over the dash until I was convinced there was absolutely nothing in that dash he had to have to get around safely. Pretty easy to do in an airplane that does everything at 60-80 mph, but a bit more of a challenge in the faster ones. His first instructor had him doing touch and goes in a Taylorcraft at 70 mph for 'landing practice' … Lots of unlearning to do to fix that He now uses Jim's approach. Doubt I'll do it any different when the next in line is ready…

Take care, Rob

I've tried it and it works ok in fairly moderate or high winds. In no wind or a down wind landing or high density altitude it is less useful as the same "apparent rate" can get you too slow. For those of us with experience, we know what is happening and adjust to different conditions, but for new students I wouldn't use this method. I like the idea of having a progressively slower airspeed until touchdown and I use that myself when landing my own plane sometimes. I guess I've been subconsciously doing that with visual clues (apparent rate), while maintaining enough airspeed by feel and pitch all along.

I teach my new students to slow all the way down early ( downwind abeam the numbers) and maintain the slow airspeed with attitude/pitch and not the airspeed indicator. My idea is that if student pilots are familiar and comfortable flying slowly during the approach, they will be comfortable flying slowly to the runway and won't have a lot of excess speed when they reach touchdown. It seems to work, although sometimes when my students fly with another instructor the instructor feels uncomfortable. One downside of this method is that the approach takes longer as we bump along at 57-60 knots all the way in.

I'm sure you have had success with your method or you wouldn't use it. To each his own.

Much thanks to all for the good comments, questions, and criticism. I sincerely hope we have all benefited.

I'm also a former Army Aviator (Instructor Pilot in OH-58A, back in the late 70's & early 80's). We used this "brisk walk" apparent rate of closure all the time. Now 30+ years later, I still find it useful in flying my current Citabria 7ECA, the Commander 114 I owned before that, and the Grumman Traveler I owned before that... The trick is learning where to look for each plane to establish the "brisk walk" apparent rate of closure. If you look too close to the approach end of the runway, and you will find yourself very slow on short final. Look too far down the runway (like the far end of my home airport's 7000-ft runway!), and you'll be way too fast over the numbers. Adjust your sight point to the stall speed of your airplane, and you can become pretty consistent at touching down very close to your desired "contact" point.

And to Contact's other big point: Make sure you are very familiar with your airplane's stall attitude and characteristics, and don't let yourself get into an unsafe (too slow) situation!

Jim, I flew Charlie models and then Cobras, with an occasional flight in an H model. Got frequent rides in Loachs on days off. All of this was in RVN in the Ankhe área in 69. Then back to Wolters for Th-55s. Now I am flying a 185
Gilbert

Gilbert,

The First Cav moved south in 70. I was shot down in a Cobra in the Song Be Mountains. Didn't take a round in the aircraft after that. White was my hootch mate so I enjoyed flying with the scouts some too.

Garyowen,

Jim

Jim,
I was actually there mid 69 t0 mid 70. Started out in Pleiku, them we mved to AnKhe. We were housed in an ex Chinook área on the north end of the Golf Course. Great hooches. Got shot down in a Charlie model across the border from Ben Het SF camp, past Dak Too. That too was the only round(s) I took.

gdaniels wrote:Jim, I flew Charlie models and then Cobras, with an occasional flight in an H model. Got frequent rides in Loachs on days off. All of this was in RVN in the Ankhe área in 69. Then back to Wolters for Th-55s. Now I am flying a 185
Gilbert

Gilbert,

I'd already conversed with Contact about it....but FYI my father was a Cobra guy in 69 based in Vinh Long. 7th of the 1st air cav. Instructed at Wolters after that. CW02 Knox.

Bill

For those who haven't flown with me or others who use the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach, the big concern seems to be stalling on short final. I've never done that.

I thought of a safe fear of stalling mitigation technique for those who don't get a chance to fly with me or one who has. It won't be exactly accurate because the speed from short final on down will be fixed, but find an easygoing Ercoupe guy. Make a stabilized approach to short final and then gradually pull the control wheel back to the stop while adding sufficient power to maintain desired sink rate. Using power and full available pitch (limited by design of the airplane), you will be able to touch down slowly and softly. This will be similar but not as efficient as the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach in other airplanes. Other airplanes with full elevator deflection available can shave a bit more airspeed off coming into ground effect. With the Ercoupe, you will have to soften the touchdown with power as no more up elevator is available.

I taught a student with zero depth perception to do this. He later was able to solo the 172 but made apparent rate of closure till over the numbers and soft field from there.

1.3 Vso or some reduced airspeed is how we get to the beginning of the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach that starts when the numbers appear to speed up somewhere on short final. We prevent the apparent speed up of closure rate by pitching up. This pitch up will reduce our airspeed below 1.3 Vso and cause greater descent rate. We prevent the greater descent rate by adding power. Pitch up to control or stabilize apparent rate of closure and power to control rate of descent as needed. Rudder only to maintain longitudinal alignment. Aileron only to maintain level wing or desired bank angle for crosswind. Full flaps if we have them.

NO Wind Condition:
If we maintain the stabilized apparent brisk walk rate of closure by continuously pitching up when necessary, we will go through VsoOGE or Velocity stall everything out Out of Ground Effect while descending in ground effect. The objective is to touchdown slowly and softly on the numbers at VsoILGE or Velocity stall everything out In Low Ground Effect.

Strong Headwind Component:
Less pitch up will be necessary to maintain the apparent brisk walk rate of closure. We will touchdown with a more level fuselage attitude requiring a wheel landing or slight pitch up to protect the nose gear. In a thirty knot headwind component, some trainers could be touching down at zero ground speed. However, to maintain a stabilized apparent brisk walk rate of closure, we would be moving forward a bit.

Downwind Component:
To maintain a stabilized apparent brisk walk rate of closure on short final, we will have to pitch up a bit more than in no wind. We will pass through VsoOGE at higher ground effect. Gusts will be more problematic requiring very aggressive static reactive throttle movement. Don't go here without full flaps and a willingness to use throttle movement aggressively to control balloon and sink.

The fact that airspeed indication is a poor landing attitude indicator should be apparent in that we have been discussing V speeds that are not published or even publishable. And we haven't even covered Vmo or Velocity mush Out of Ground Effect and the various mush airspeeds at various heights of IGE or In Ground Effect.

Zzz wrote:I'm familiar. I think my issue is the terminology.

I guess that is my limitation in this discussion as well. Speaking of Primacy, I'm used to describing things in a certain language, not one I personally made up. Things like buoyancy are terms that strike a major discord in my understanding of the flying/airborne environment. Energy I understand, Kinetic and Potential. I guess my degree in Physics limits me here, I just can't get my mind around these terms.

Jim if these are terms you got from flying in the Army, fine. But, if you'll allow me to suggest they are probably more applicable to helicopters and incredibly capable STOL airplanes than most of the airplanes folks here fly. Brisk walk is hard to do at 60 mph.

Closure rate, is closure rate. It varies with true airspeed and is affected by winds. The effects of perception is affected by the nature of how our eyes are constructed. The operation of Rods and Cones and the concentration of Cones in the Fovea and our evolved drive to look directly at something to see it (which does not help in detecting closure rates either in the vertical or horizontal). These are things I think about and try to teach. I just can't get my arms around the terminology.

Sorry, I guess I'm just not that flexible.

gunny

No sweat gunny. Primacy is a huge part of training. That is why I started teaching my stuff to primary students prior to their going to regular instructors for PPL prep.
They were able to do both and complete in the same or less time than their peers.

We have to take into account that the system is bureaucratic as well. If we learn to turn more than 20 degrees bank and create less load factor and danger than the limited bank crowd, we will have stepped on toes.

It is understandable I probably won't get the privilege of flying with most of the old guys. We all make contributions. It threw me for a loop when I messed up so as to not be able to teach primary anymore. I have thankfully been able to fly with some of the younger guys though.

Throw a rock in the water and you are going to cause a ripple effect. Could be interesting what might come of it, however.

Thanks for the critique gunny. It is much appreciated.

contactflying

Gunny wrote:

Zzz wrote:I'm familiar. I think my issue is the terminology.

I guess that is my limitation in this discussion as well. Speaking of Primacy, I'm used to describing things in a certain language, not one I personally made up. Things like buoyancy are terms that strike a major discord in my understanding of the flying/airborne environment. Energy I understand, Kinetic and Potential. I guess my degree in Physics limits me here, I just can't get my mind around these terms.

Jim if these are terms you got from flying in the Army, fine. But, if you'll allow me to suggest they are probably more applicable to helicopters and incredibly capable STOL airplanes than most of the airplanes folks here fly. Brisk walk is hard to do at 60 mph.

Closure rate, is closure rate. It varies with true airspeed and is affected by winds. The effects of perception is affected by the nature of how our eyes are constructed. The operation of Rods and Cones and the concentration of Cones in the Fovea and our evolved drive to look directly at something to see it (which does not help in detecting closure rates either in the vertical or horizontal). These are things I think about and try to teach. I just can't get my arms around the terminology.

Sorry, I guess I'm just not that flexible.

gunny

Again, where's that "like" button?

" VsoOGE or Velocity stall everything out Out of Ground Effect"? Really?
I'm reminded of Amy on The Big Bang Theory tv show who has her own made-up language.

Hotrod 180,

It was a protest. I was never a disciple of V speeds. The airspeed indicator can do nothing for a pilot in the short final portion of an approach because various altitudes of ground effect each have different mush and stall speeds. And we need to be looking outside on short final anyway.

Many pilots on this site, including you, fly to higher standards than the practical test you passed. Why do we have to use only its lower standard language. A major educational standard of the FAA is that we limit instruction and learning to those things they think are appropriate to our level of certification. My techniques are not difficult for low time pilots to perform well. They are more natural and easy than those in the old PTS. At least my students learned them quickly and well. My problem is that I have only my own, far less than perfect, language to describe them. That is why I have asked others to describe what they see out there and what techniques they use. Many, including you, have been very helpful. They/you have described your techniques in your own words.

We are on our own here. Those above our pay grade have marching orders to make their bureaucratic agencies look good. The public, the people who fund the budgets through taxes, see limits as positive. I don't. I see arbitrary limits as self defeating. They can lead to insecure pilots. The argument as to which is more dangerous, the confident or the happily limited (considered good judgement) will go on forever.

Yes, the V speeds seem insufficient to me as well.

Contact

Oh! The "don't like" button is noted. I am trying to improve my dissertation. The techniques have gone through tens of thousands of iterations. They are pretty well set. Again, we all can learn from each other. Some don't change and that is fine. We all can consider, think, judge. Judgement is not an arbitrary decision. It should not be a look good in public. It is a choice between options.

Ironic that Yoda as your avatar you selected it is.

CAVU

CAVU,

I'm not that good with the computer. Someone put it up. I don't know who. Zane put my e-book, Safe Maneuvering Flight Techniques, on the signature position at the bottom of all my posts. I am from a prior universe.

Contact