With the JC Husky pictures making the rounds again, I saw this today and thought it was worth sharing. A good example of some challenging approach variables, carrying too much speed into the landing, floating long, and then failing to make the correct decision and go around.

I may never be so lucky as to fly into St. Barts, but I'm going to keep this video in mind and make sure I'm on-airspeed the next time I make an approach into a strip with little margin for error. I'm also going to make sure I have clearly identified a point on the runway for myself by which, if I'm not on the ground rolling out, I'm going around.

I've not been extremely successful at selling the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach. Meybe it would be easier to sell the idea of a go around any time we feel we will not touch down on the numbers. Evidently someone at the FAA has accepted that too fast on short final has become a problem. The new PPL PTS uses the phrase, "no more than 1.3 Vso" rather than the phrase, "1.3 Vso" of prior years back to the 70s. 1,3 or even 1.2 is still too fast for short final to a really short field. "Arrive at the numbers at stall speed would be a better phrase." This is what Wolfgang Langewiesche was talking about in, "Stick and Rudder," when he said the experienced pilot uses the stall down rather than the hold off approach. In his day, and the beginning of mine, most runways were shorter than 3,000' and many were much shorter. Even Cub trainers, using the hold off approach, were only 35 to 40 mph over the numbers That is an estimate; I don't remember anyone using the airspeed indicator that much.. With 65 hp and a Stromburg carb that often choked the engine dead if you went to full throttle too fast, the go around was not as popular.

contactflying wrote:I've not been extremely successful at selling the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach. Meybe it would be easier to sell the idea of a go around any time we feel we will not touch down on the numbers. Evidently someone at the FAA has accepted that too fast on short final has become a problem. The new PPL PTS uses the phrase, "no more than 1.3 Vso" rather than the phrase, "1.3 Vso" of prior years back to the 70s. 1,3 or even 1.2 is still too fast for short final to a really short field. "Arrive at the numbers at stall speed would be a better phrase." This is what Wolfgang Langewiesche was talking about in, "Stick and Rudder," when he said the experienced pilot uses the stall down rather than the hold off approach. In his day, and the beginning of mine, most runways were shorter than 3,000' and many were much shorter. Even Cub trainers, using the hold off approach, were only 35 to 40 mph over the numbers That is an estimate; I don't remember anyone using the airspeed indicator that much.. With 65 hp and a Stromburg carb that often choked the engine dead if you went to full throttle too fast, the go around was not as popular.

And you could also land in less than 500 feet in a 172, any day without using breaks. All while closing your eyes and holding your breath, and and the runway had a slope of 10% downhill!!!!!

It is good to be on right at stall when you touch down, or go around. If you're floating, just go around!

Yes, that would work. But sometime you will have to land. My students learned to touch down and quit flying on the numbers every time. I hope that generally becomes more common rather than less common.

If your students "quit flying" that J3 on the numbers I bet you had a busy mechanic.

Most of the instructors at Ag Flight preferred the Citabras for zero timers. I used the 7AC Champ and the J-5 Cub. Yes, I taught the apparent rate of closure approach to touch down on the numbers every time. All my solos touched down on the numbers all three times, regardless of the airplane. They didn't know any other way to do it. They also didn't see any airspeed indicator until after solo. What is learned early is learned best. Pilots who are pressured/forced by their job situation to use short runways with big loads have to learn the basic low ground effect takeoff and some kind of slow approach. I found the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach to be the safest and easiest to teach. All of my zero timers, from various countries, soloed in three days and around 7 hours. The apparent rate of closure approach is easier to learn than the round out, flair, and hold off approach. It is not rocket science.

contactflying wrote:Most of the instructors at Ag Flight preferred the Citabras for zero timers. I used the 7AC Champ and the J-5 Cub. Yes, I taught the apparent rate of closure approach to touch down on the numbers every time. All my solos touched down on the numbers all three times, regardless of the airplane. They didn't know any other way to do it. They also didn't see any airspeed indicator until after solo. What is learned early is learned best. Pilots who are pressured/forced by their job situation to use short runways with big loads have to learn the basic low ground effect takeoff and some kind of slow approach. I found the apparent brisk walk rate of closure approach to be the safest and easiest to teach. All of my zero timers, from various countries, soloed in three days and around 7 hours. The apparent rate of closure approach is easier to learn than the round out, flair, and hold off approach. It is not rocket science.

Agreed on all points. The problem today is finding an instructor today who knows how to land on the numbers. At my previous employ, they mandated landing on the touchdown markers, and not earlier.......grrrrr. So, my students were sworn to a "don't ask don't tell" attitude. Our DPE required applicants to touch on the numbers, or they'd bust.....former ag pilot.

I was told at one point that there was to be no student solo to a 5000 foot runway that we used a lot for student solo x country......I asked why, and the answer was that they (the school we "partnered with") had two different students run off the end of that runway...... When I "explained" to management that we taught students to LAND the airplane, they lifted the ban for our students.

Unfortunately, these days, the majority of flight schools spend far too much time creating rules as opposed to teaching stick and rudder skills, like how to land an airplane. They apparently think it's easier to create a new rule than it is to go back and fix the inherent problem.

And, accidents like the recent Asiana at SFO and Air France stall into the sea demonstrate that pretty clearly.

MTV

Thanks MTV. There is hope. I met and flew with a very young DPE during a clinic I was doing who had been doing what I do all his young life. Of course he, unlike the old man, could not admit it openly. At that large school, they actually forbade their instructors and students touching down before the big airplane touchdown zone markings.

I'd land going up the grade unless wind was too strong Or pick another runway/airport . fly the approach at V1 .3 and uphill will help get you stopped in time . There are several aircraft already there that made it.

I just got done with a bunch of required training and it was the particular schools policy (according to the checklist thingy) to be hauling ass at this 1.3vso all the way down final till the numbers. I blew that off and flew like I always do and the instructor was always trying to grab the controls on short final (I learned to tune out his number shouting), we had to have a little pep talk bout that one day haha. He would complain how their Cessna 182RG just floats and floats on landing........Bout gave the guy a heart attack when we got done with some instrument training one night in my 180 and I landed in the grass off to the side of the runway

Many big flight schools seem to focus on being a computer nerd and radio operator, from my limited experience anyway (nothin against computer nerds). Stick n rudder skills are pretty much not discussed and everything about actually flying airplanes is rote BS. I know others will say I should have found a different instructor, but I had to rent a complex n options were very limited, it'd sure been nice to have learned something for my $$$ but I hang out with plenty of other pilots I'm always learning from, FAA just wants their pieces of paper etc. anyway, so they are happy now.

I write this while taxiing out on a Southwest jet, sure hope these pilots fly cubs or the likes in their free time! The last landing scared the shit outta me!!!!!!!

Obviously excess airspeed on final is the reason any airplane floats excessively. It doesn't matter whether it's a J3 or PP's Mooney or my P172D or a 747. If the numbers are right, the airplane will land.

Here's my example--sorry for the windiness. My pard and I bought one of the first TR182s out the Cessna factory door (advice: don't ever do that!). We had had a straight 70 182, and he was a reasonably good pilot. But within weeks of buying the TR182, he wanted to have a Robertson STOL kit installed, which back then was about $20,000 or so (roughly $72,000 in today's dollars). I balked--I couldn't see the need, nor could I afford it. The airplane already was a pretty good STOL airplane when I flew it. His reason was that he had patients he wanted to visit at their ranch strips, and he wasn't able to make the first turn off of 21 at Laramie, which is roughly 1600' down the runway--he figured he'd overrun any 2000' strip.

I suggested that before we spent huge sums of money on a STOL kit, that he should learn to land much slower. But he had that feeling that many people seem to get when they move up to a faster airplane, that it must also be landed faster. So we made an appointment for me to show him what I meant.

I cheated a little and practiced a number of landings the day before our appointed time, and what I learned was that with half tanks and just me, I could consistently land comfortably at 55 knots indicated on short final, no power. Much slower than that, and I couldn't hold the nose off after touching the mains.

The next day, we went out and I asked him to first do some slow flight. His idea of slow flight was that the stall warner would just occasionally bleep. I asked him to slow down to the point where it was on all the time, full flaps, high prop, power sufficient to maintain level flight. That brought the ASI to just barely above the bottom peg. Then I asked him to do some turns, and he did the little bitty 5 degree bank turns. I asked him to increase the bank to 30 degrees. "No, it'll fall out of the sky!" "No it won't." "Then you do it!" So I did, and of course it didn't fall out of the sky--I was feeling the stall burble rather than listening to the buzzer.

Then we went back to land, and his first approach was at 80 knots indicated. He touched right on the numbers, but even with heavy braking, we went right past the first turn off. So I asked him to make the next one at 70, and although he was reluctant, he did, but still it was too fast--right past the turn off again. Now I asked him to do it at 60. "No, it'll fall out of the sky!" "No it won't." "Then you do it!"

But instead of 60, I slowed it to 55, knowing that by now we'd burned off sufficient fuel, and he was pretty light anyway, so that we were probably lighter than my practice times the previous day by quite a bit. He really was uncomfortable--hands gripping his seat etc. "You're going to kill us!" "Nope." We landed gently, and with moderate but not heavy braking, I stopped the airplane in about 600'. We sat there for a moment. "Now you try it."

Well, he wouldn't slow to 55, but he did slow to around 65, and this time with moderate braking, he made the turn off.

Then we had a discussion about stall speed varying according to weight, 1.3 Vso on final, 1.2 Vso over the fence, etc. Nothing dramatic, just good approach and landing practices.

We didn't get the Robertson kit.

Cary

Yep, I know the feeling. This last fall, I needed a Flight Review, and being new to the area, I marched right down to one of the local flight schools. Nice young instructor, one of their more senior ones.....

At one point in the flight, he asked me to demonstrate slow flight. So, I slowed down to MCA. That's minimum controllable airspeed. The slowest speed you can maintain altitude.....he told me that was the slowest he'd ever seen a 172 fly.....but he then demonstrated what his school called "slow flight".....

And, it went downhill from there.

Oh, well.

MTV

Lol!

mtv wrote:Yep, I know the feeling. This last fall, I needed a Flight Review, and being new to the area, I marched right down to one of the local flight schools. Nice young instructor, one of their more senior ones.....

At one point in the flight, he asked me to demonstrate slow flight. So, I slowed down to MCA. That's minimum controllable airspeed. The slowest speed you can maintain altitude.....he told me that was the slowest he'd ever seen a 172 fly.....but he then demonstrated what his school called "slow flight".....

And, it went downhill from there.

Oh, well.

MTV

MTV...I for one would really like to hear the rest of this story...including what the school called slow flight and where it went when it went downhill...

Ive seen this video many times before, but as we speak I have my TV on a show called "worlds 10 scariest landings" which is a load of B/S i might add (i dont see them filming my landing in the drifter the other day in a near 30 knot cross wind with crazy wind shear! i thought that was pretty scary!) but just as i clicked on this thread this very crash came on the screen!

Cary said:

Obviously excess airspeed on final is the reason any airplane floats excessively. It doesn't matter whether it's a J3 or PP's Mooney or my P172D or a 747. If the numbers are right, the airplane will land.

I was reading this thread and thinking I should tell my story. Then I see Cary said it almost exactly word for word so I can keep it short...pun intended.

I was due for about my 3rd flight review in 1992 when I met a military flight instructor that had lost his military job with the downsizing of the military. He asked at the beginning what I wanted to do on the review. I said I was afraid to slow down on final and always seemed to float a long way down my short 1600 foot home strip.

For most of the review he had me fly my Cherokee 180 at 55 mph...lots of it. We were flying high near the airport when he said "Now land straight ahead on the runway". I said, I didn't think I could get down in time to land. My usual approach speed was 75 to 85 mph. His reply was, "You know this airplane will fly just fine at 55 mph". So I did and landed right on the numbers. Best flight review I ever had,

I was looking at a T-crate once upon a time a long time ago and asked the current owner if he minded if I did a short field landing. He said OK, and I managed to land in the grass before the paved runway started - and there was a road not more than 400 feet in front of the approach end of the runway. But there was a good wind blowing, right down the runway, I was familiar with the strip and the grass was good and smooth there. The seller almost messed up the interior. He had owned the plane for a while, but didn't fly it much and never asked it to do anything out of the ordinary. It was a 3500 foot strip and he usually used most of it. It was a fun ride, but I wound up buying a Citabria rather than the Taylorcraft. Most pilots, even airplane owners, don't really know what their planes can do. That's too bad, because knowing the plane's full capabilities can save your hide when things turn bad for unexpected reasons.

Flyhound-When there is a displaced threshold or some room before the approach end of the runway or an early turnoff, you have to watch for traffic taxiing out. They really don't know what to do when you get off that quick and have to taxi past you.

The last video shows the problem when we are taught to land long and add rather than detract speed for unusual situations. Before there was a 1.3 Vso or any V numbers we were allowed to teach students to land as slow as possible and to go as fast as possible in ground effect before pitching up on takeoff.

Both of these videos, the Mooney that crashed in to the pickup truck at the end of Big Creek in 2007, the Husky at JC, and many others demonstrate a horrible ability to control an airplane. There is really no excuse for using 75 or 80% of a runway due to an inability to manage energy. One who flies with this lack of precision should never pass a checkride or a BFR in my opinion. You can get away with floating 2500 ft on a 5000 ft runway in a lot of small planes, but if you don't break that habit, eventually you will have an accident.