Powered vs. Power at idle landings.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

PHotofly suggested we start this discussion.

So I will share how I did PBY type ratings.

During water training the circuits were three and three ( Three hundred feet above the water and three minutes touch and go to touch and go).

Turning final the throttles were closed at 200 feet above the water.

The approach and flare and touch down were done with the throttles closed.

When the student was profficient with power off approachs and landings I let them use power if they wanted to.

If they could not perform power off landings profficiently the type rating training went no further....

.....I never ever had a student who could not get comfortable with that method and they all admitted it made them feel more comfortable and better pilots.

[photofly]

Langewiesche wrote his book in 1944 in a time when power off approaches were the norm. Why have things changed?

[Beefitarian]

The pill?

[BTyyj]

Have they changed?

Speaking from personal experience, I was taught initially during my PPL to try not use any power on my approaches, and only later was allowed to use power. My instructor wanted me to learn how to properly judge distances and descent rates, which proved very useful when doing more advanced landings and forced approaches.

As for which one is better, power on gives me way more control, which is useful for me to keep the speed up when flying SEL into busier airports.

[photofly]

The pill?

It came too late for ., then.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

As for which one is better, power on gives me way more control, which is useful for me to keep the speed up when flying SEL into busier airports.

You can keep the speed up and have better control by waiting longer to start the descent that will allow for a higher glide speed.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Langewiesche wrote his book in 1944 in a time when power off approaches were the norm. Why have things changed?

Good question there sure has not been any real change in the training aircraft except they perform better.

[TG]

On a completely side note, power off landings with this one would be like doing autorotations.




(so much drags)

[BTyyj]

You can keep the speed up and have better control by waiting longer to start the descent that will allow for a higher glide speed.

From TC FTM:

However, the power-on descent gives the pilot more control of the aircraft's descent path

[akoch]

I was taught power off. Practically from the beginning of the base turn. And this is what I have been doing so far. Seems to work just fine, unless I'm missing something.

[BTyyj]

You're not. However, the argument that power-off provides more controllability is simply not true.

[akoch]

I fail to see how power-off can offer more controllability.... It can get you to the runway without relying on the engine power - yes. The engine can get you to the runway when you glide is not enough, and can make you go around if need be - that is more controllability in my books.

[Beefitarian]

During a powered approach I can control the sink rate by adding a little power or reducing it a little.

Power off if I miss judged my approach and I'm slightly high I can slip. If I'm slightly low it's time to switch back to a powered approach.

[trey kule]

Perhaps you can clarify for me exactly what we are discussing..Are we talking about teaching landings intially, either ab initio or on type, or just doing them on a routine basis?

If we are discussing teaching them that is one thing, but the many different characteristic of the different airplanes, and the variables of approaches, temperature etc, make generalizations very very difficult.

When I learned to fly back in the old days, we intially only did power off approaches. Planes were simple and had no flaps. If you taped the wind right, you could put the throttle to idle turn a nice 90 degree to base, and another 90 to final and put the wheels on the numbers.. sA bit of slipping was OK just to make certain you made the field and put the wheels precisely where you were supposed to..If you needed to slip several hundred feet it was considered to be poor judgement and bad form. This type of approach and landing , BTW had some added benefit when it came to doing forced approaches as they amounted to the same thing.

Is that a routine way to land? Well, once people leave the training world, they tend to join final straight in, from the base leg etc rather than a well defined circuit and generally like to use power to make a nice descent profile rather than blast up to near the runway, chop the power and glide in.

As to the actual landing with power..In piston prop planes, particularily tail wheels, sometimes that little addition of power blowing over the tail makes things work very nice . Landing a 185 on floats , or a beaver on wheels the power just makes things nicer as a rule.
But agan, there are times and places where a power off approach and landing are appropriate for both these type.
The long and the short of it is, training this way is a good thing, but extapolating that to a general rule is , IMHO, a bit of a stretch

[PilotDAR]

I am not an instructor, so I only get to have my opinion considered from the other side of the counter...

However, pilots must be practiced in power off landings. Once they are, I think they can approach as they like. When an instructor is training, and can train power off well, so as to build confidence in the student - excellent! During such training though, the instructor must emphasize the likely harm to the engine of pulling off the power on a cold winter day, and gliding all the way in. But the aircraft handling skill is important so as to make perfect engine care a close secondary consideration during training.

That said, there are some planes which are unpleasant to glide approach. Not that they won't do it, it's just an exciting ride. My Teal glides like the proverbial set of car keys (albeit in an envelope!) I glide it onto the water regularly, and yes, it seems about the same as autorotating a Bell 206. I had to check myself out in a Navajo, and soon learned that it was really much more happy having a little power carried right through the approach and into the flare - Sorry ., I cheated!

During flight testing I was required to demonstrate glide approaches in this:



Doable, but exciting. Much more exciting was the requirement to demonstrate a land back from 50 feet and 80 knots. Sitting at 50 feet, and snapping the power off, it pretty well stopped in the air. Action had to be decisive. Like the flying toaster, it's an odd plane, and for that reason, power off landings would be best left to well into the pilot type training. I did train glide landings from the downwind (without feathering it), but I set up the downwind to be suspiciously close to the runway, and briefed as to why! It did remind me of my 180 degree autorotation training.

Yes, power off works, just everything happens in a much shorter period of time at the flare. You must react correctly, and the chance to fix it is really diminished! (and I did scuff the tails of that bird once!)

[Beefitarian]

The pill?

It came too late for ., then.

Better late than never?

[Panama Jack]

From my very humble background in aviation, as far as I know, the few justifications for power on is for glassy-water landings (seaplanes) or perhaps wheel-landings (tailwheel landplanes). Otherwise, landings should always be power at idle.

Or are we talking about power-on approaches?

[photofly]

"Landing" in a broad sense as the whole approach right through to touch-down, I think.

[PilotDAR]

Though I very much believe in the skills to be learned and demonstrated in power off approaches and landings, I think that in an initial training environment, it could be detrimental simply because everything happens so fast, and if you get it wrong the outcome can be very discouraging for the learner. A power on approach, and even some power carried through the flare stretch it so that the student can get to understand what's happening in the flare, before it's all over.

It was said to an airline pilot friend of mine: "You've got 10,000 hours, but probably less than an hour total in the flare." And there's something to that. The flare is a phase of flight which requires skill and practice like any other phase of flight. Students need to spend some time in the flare, and that takes power.

I know that for the Teal, though I practice power off landings, power into the flare gives a much more pleasant result, particularly on runways.

Helicopter pilot students are not trained to autorotate in, before they learn to hover in to the pad!

[Colonel Sanders]

I can't think of any airplane that I fly, that needs
power during the touchdown.

Power off approaches (eg throttle to idle on downwind
abeam the numbers) works really nicely in the
Pitts, and is ok in the summer. I love the crackly-popply
sound of the unburned fuel in the exhaust! It lets people
know that there is a serious airplane in the pattern,
with a 3000 fpm descent rate ... 20 seconds from
power reduction on downwind, to touchdown

But in the winter, there is value to keep a little power
on during the approach, to keep the engine warm. A
couple winters ago, I saw the prop stop on a Piper
Cherokee 180 on final. Oops. He made the runway,
but even after he was stopped on the runway he
couldn't start it, and we had to tow it off.

I can't think of any circumstances that I would fly
a power-off approach in the C421. It's a steady
21 inches of manifold pressure until over the runway
threshold. Maybe someone else here flies power-off
approaches with a geared, turbocharged continental -
I'd sure be interested in hearing about it.

I wouldn't fly a power-off approach with an R-985
or R-1340, either, for a couple of reasons. Again,
does anyone here do that with a radial engine?

And I certainly wouldn't fly a power-off approach
(56% flight idle) in the L39. If you misjudge it, you
are dead. I would be really interested in hearing from
any of the golden arms here that routinely approach
in a jet with the turbines spooled all the way down