Landing Judges wanted....

[A Lieberman]

Been out the past couple days with my nephew flying around and about. He
videod some of my VFR approaches and landings.

The file can be downloaded from the bottom of the following pages. Video
behaves better if you right click and save as to your local computer rather
then play over the net.

http://www.archive.org/details/ALiebermanNightlandingMBO17
is base to final night landing at my home airport MBO (Madison MS) 75 foot
wide runway.
6.7 meg file - 1 minute 21 second video

http://www.archive.org/details/ALiebermanNightLandingJackson34LfromMBOavi
is base to final at JAN (Jackson MS) 150 foot wide runway with centerline
and ILS approach lights. This was a touch and go.

10.4 meg file - 1 minute 25 second video.

http://www.archive.org/details/ALiebermanLanding36HattiesburgMSfromMBOavi
is base to final at PIB (Hattiesburg-Laurel, MS)
13.2 meg file - 1 minute 35 second video

For those with extra high bandwidth
http://www.archive.org/details/ALiebermanApproachintoHattiesburgMSfromMBO
is the PIB landing from downwind to to landing to taxiing to the FBO to
shutdown. The file weighs in at 65 meg and is 6 minutes and 17 seconds.
The PIB base to landing file described above is an extract of this file.

Any input for helping me improve on my landings most welcomed!

Allen

[Jay Honeck]

> Any input for helping me improve on my landings most welcomed!

I've found that not video taping them helps a little.

What really helps a lot, however, is to make sure that no one else is
watching. This almost guarantees a greaser, every time!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[A Lieberman]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 05:59:16 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

> What really helps a lot, however, is to make sure that no one else is
> watching. This almost guarantees a greaser, every time!

Geez Jay,

I thought you greased every one of your landings!

Ya mean it's like that hole in one that nobody ever sees?

That elusive greaser is the one that you are the sole occupant of your
plane?

Allen

[Peter Duniho]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Any input for helping me improve on my landings most welcomed!

Some thoughts (other than the true comment Jay offered :) ):

Watching handheld video of someone else's landing doesn't really give much
insight into how good the landing was, nor what might be done to improve the
landings (assuming anything needs to be improved in the first place).

I watched two of the landings: the first night landing listed, and the
daytime landing at PIB. Neither of them presented any obvious faults, IMHO.
That doesn't mean they couldn't be improved, nor does it mean that they
could be. It just means that it's too hard to tell in the video what might
be good or bad.

That said, that won't prevent me, a person posting to a Usenet newsgroup,
from offering advice anyway. :)

In the daytime video, one can get a feel for power setting by watching the
propeller as it "strobes" with the frame rate. The engine sound might have
been useful too, but I couldn't perceive any distinct engine pitch in the
audio. Probably too much wind or other noise masking it.

Anyway, my interpretation of the changing nature of the strobing of the prop
is that the engine RPM was changing, and thus the power setting was
changing. It seemed to be changing nearly constantly throughout the entire
landing. Ideally, one should only need a couple (or even just one) major
power setting change, and two or three minor adjustments at most.

Of course, I'm looking only at secondary evidence, and it's entirely
possible there weren't any power changes at all. Still, the video does
suggest that the final approach wasn't stabilized, from a power setting
perspective (or possibly an airspeed perspective).

The only other thing that I might comment on is the apparent lack of a
relatively nose-high pitch attitude at touchdown. However, both of the
landings I watched included the stall warning horn, so that suggests to me
that the video simply doesn't do a good job of depicting the actual pitch
attitude.

Which of course brings me back to my first statement. This kind of video
makes for great armchair piloting, where people can make up all sorts of
second-guessing. But it doesn't do much for actually conveying what
happened in the airplane. :)

If you really want advice and accurate assessments, you'd need to provide
much more detailed information. At a minimum, I'd want to see an exterior
shot of the airplane as it touched down, as well as a running display of the
current airspeed. That, along with the specific "book numbers" for that
airplane, would give a reasonably objective reference point from which to
comment.

Pete

[A Lieberman]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:59:36 -0800, Peter Duniho wrote:

> Some thoughts (other than the true comment Jay offered :) ):

Hi Peter,

'preciate your thoughts!

> I watched two of the landings: the first night landing listed, and the
> daytime landing at PIB. Neither of them presented any obvious faults, IMHO.
> That doesn't mean they couldn't be improved, nor does it mean that they
> could be.

Practice makes better, not perfect :-) I am probably more critical of my
own handling of the plane then most.

> In the daytime video, one can get a feel for power setting by watching the
> propeller as it "strobes" with the frame rate. The engine sound might have
> been useful too, but I couldn't perceive any distinct engine pitch in the
> audio. Probably too much wind or other noise masking it.
>
> Anyway, my interpretation of the changing nature of the strobing of the prop
> is that the engine RPM was changing, and thus the power setting was
> changing. It seemed to be changing nearly constantly throughout the entire
> landing. Ideally, one should only need a couple (or even just one) major
> power setting change, and two or three minor adjustments at most.

I control descent rate with power, so I tend to adjust power as needed.
(pitch for airspeed, power for altitude)

One thing probably would have been helpful in the original post would have
been to post wind conditions. Winds for the daytime landing was winds out
of 010 12 knots gusting to 18. Night landings, winds were out of 040 at 5
knots or less.
>
> Of course, I'm looking only at secondary evidence, and it's entirely
> possible there weren't any power changes at all. Still, the video does
> suggest that the final approach wasn't stabilized, from a power setting
> perspective (or possibly an airspeed perspective).

Airspeed was within a couple of knots on final, not "spot on" as I like it
on calm days, but a few thermals didn't help.

> The only other thing that I might comment on is the apparent lack of a
> relatively nose-high pitch attitude at touchdown. However, both of the
> landings I watched included the stall warning horn, so that suggests to me
> that the video simply doesn't do a good job of depicting the actual pitch
> attitude.

I tend to fly the plane to the ground. As I pull back on the yoke, my goal
is to get the stall horn to kick off and then apply 25 rpm to ease the
plane on the runway. As soon as the wheels touch, I pull the power to
idle. Short runways, I do not do this, power to idle when ever possible.

*I think* the way the camera was being held up high would change the actual
pitch altitude view. Since I had the nose pitched up, my nephew had to
raise the camera to see the runway.

> If you really want advice and accurate assessments, you'd need to provide
> much more detailed information. At a minimum, I'd want to see an exterior
> shot of the airplane as it touched down, as well as a running display of the
> current airspeed. That, along with the specific "book numbers" for that
> airplane, would give a reasonably objective reference point from which to
> comment.

*big smile*, test planes are hard to come by. Guess I will have to settle
for my lil ole Sundowner and amateur videoing.

Allen

[Jay Honeck]

> I thought you greased every one of your landings!

I did have an amazing (to me, anyway) streak going there for almost a year,
where I simply couldn't do anything *but* a greaser -- but now I've reverted
back to more "normal" landings. It sucks.

I don't know what that is, either. I'm flying just as much (1 to 3 times
per week), my health is great, eye sight is as good (or bad) as always, I'm
intimately familiar with every nuance of my aircraft -- yet, sometimes,
somehow, some way, I land with a thud instead of with a sigh.

Luckily, Mary's landing slump has seemingly ended, so we're not really
abusing the plane any more than before!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John T]

A Lieberman wrote:
>
> Practice makes better, not perfect :-) I am probably more critical
> of my own handling of the plane then most.

This was my main motivation for putting a camera in the cockpit. Secondary
was a "video logbook".

> *I think* the way the camera was being held up high would change the
> actual pitch altitude view. Since I had the nose pitched up, my
> nephew had to raise the camera to see the runway.

Try setting the camera on the dash next time (perhaps with a hand on the
camera to hold it in place). Most modern cameras have some form of image
stabilization to reduce jitter that may be introduced by engine/airframe
vibration - and a padded dash helps, too. I've had decent results with this
on several of my flights and it provides a better impression of what you
saw.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Peter Duniho]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
.. .
> [...]
> I control descent rate with power, so I tend to adjust power as needed.
> (pitch for airspeed, power for altitude)

Me too. But I don't generally need to fiddle with the power throughout the
entire approach. I start with a rough guess taking into account the current
weight of the plane along with the reported winds, and then after I've had a
little bit of time to note how well that does, I make any necessary
adjustment to power, so that I wind up at the right spot at the runway.

Depending on how well I'm estimating, I might get it just right the first
time, need only a second adjustment, or I could find myself changing the
power setting four or five times. But even in the worst case, there are
extended periods of time during the approach during which the power setting
stays constant.

Pete

[john smith]

> Airspeed was within a couple of knots on final, not "spot on" as I like it
> on calm days, but a few thermals didn't help.

> > The only other thing that I might comment on is the apparent lack of a
> > relatively nose-high pitch attitude at touchdown. However, both of the
> > landings I watched included the stall warning horn, so that suggests to me
> > that the video simply doesn't do a good job of depicting the actual pitch
> > attitude.
>
> I tend to fly the plane to the ground. As I pull back on the yoke, my goal
> is to get the stall horn to kick off and then apply 25 rpm to ease the
> plane on the runway. As soon as the wheels touch, I pull the power to
> idle. Short runways, I do not do this, power to idle when ever possible.

I am going to guess that you do not reduce your approach speeds based on
landing weight?
If you do not, you are landing too fast and floating down the runway
before landing.
If you are on speed, as you rotate in the roundout to flare, the
aircraft will continue to slow and gently settle onto the runway without
floating.
You shouldn't need power on the approach nor additional power in the
flare.
I fly 180 degree, power off approaches in everything I fly.

[A Lieberman]

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 02:24:47 GMT, john smith wrote:

Hi John,

'preciate your input!

> I am going to guess that you do not reduce your approach speeds based on
> landing weight?
> If you do not, you are landing too fast and floating down the runway
> before landing.

I fly a Beech Sundowner. Down final I fly 68 knots whether I fly by myself
or have 4 in the plane. My pitch is the same regardless of weight. I
control my airspeed by pitch.

I control my descent via power. With four people, it requires more power
to slow the descent. When I am by myself, 1500 rpm seems to be a good
power setting for my final approach. When I got an extra 450 pounds of
meat (AKA 3 passengers) in my plane, I find that 1700 - 1800 rpm seems to
be a good final approach setting. These numbers are not "hard coded" as
heavy duty head winds may require a higher power setting to account for my
slower ground speed.

> If you are on speed, as you rotate in the roundout to flare, the
> aircraft will continue to slow and gently settle onto the runway without
> floating.

Agree with you here. As I round out to flare, to ease the plane to terra
firma, I try to configure the plane into a "slow flight" configuration as I
pull back on the yoke in the flare. My goal on EVERY landing is to have the
stall horn blaring when the wheels touch. That's a good clue to me, the
plane will stop flying when the wheels kiss the ground.

> You shouldn't need power on the approach nor additional power in the
> flare.
> I fly 180 degree, power off approaches in everything I fly.

I find that once I am in ground effect, if I don't carry some power, the
plane drops like a brick, especially with back seat passengers on my round
out to flare, thus adding 25 rpm power in my flare.

Not sure if you looked at the video's, but with my technique, if there is
float, it is barely perceptible.

Like I said in my original post, if it's a short runway, all bets are off
with using power for landing, I do a power off landing rather then carry
power.

Hope this clears up why I do what I do. If not, ask away *smile*.

Allen

[john smith]

> > You shouldn't need power on the approach nor additional power in the
> > flare.
> > I fly 180 degree, power off approaches in everything I fly.
>
> I find that once I am in ground effect, if I don't carry some power, the
> plane drops like a brick, especially with back seat passengers on my round
> out to flare, thus adding 25 rpm power in my flare.

This sounds like you are flaring/rounding out too high.
If your timing is right, you should only be inches above the surface.
The trailing link gear on your aircraft will provide smooth landings.
I have 20-30 hours in a friends A23-24.

[A Lieberman]

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 03:16:49 GMT, john smith wrote:

> The trailing link gear on your aircraft will provide smooth landings.
> I have 20-30 hours in a friends A23-24.

You are so right about the above.....

There has been a couple of landings, where I said "I guess I am on the
ground" *smile*.

When you do it right, the gear makes you look like a pro. When you do it
wrong..... well suffice it to say, it ain't pretty.

Allen

[john smith]

In article >,
A Lieberman > wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 03:16:49 GMT, john smith wrote:
>
> > The trailing link gear on your aircraft will provide smooth landings.
> > I have 20-30 hours in a friends A23-24.
>
> You are so right about the above.....
>
> There has been a couple of landings, where I said "I guess I am on the
> ground" *smile*.
>
> When you do it right, the gear makes you look like a pro. When you do it
> wrong..... well suffice it to say, it ain't pretty.

It is all about getting used to what the "sight picture" looks like when
you are just sitting on the ground. These are your cues as to how high
above the runway you are.
Learn to use the picture over the nose and your peripheral vision.
Find a runway and a sunny morning or afternoon with the sun behind you
that will project a long shadow that you can see out the side window. It
is easier with a high wing aircraft because you can see the shadow of
the wheel and close it is to the ground.
With a little practice, you will determine the proper wing shadow
placement.

[Peter Duniho]

"A Lieberman" > wrote in message
.. .
> I fly a Beech Sundowner. Down final I fly 68 knots whether I fly by
> myself
> or have 4 in the plane. My pitch is the same regardless of weight. I
> control my airspeed by pitch.

If you always fly the final approach at 68 knots, then your pitch is NOT the
same regardless of weight. At 68 knots, the pitch required at a lower
weight is lower than that required at a higher weight.

IMHO, constant pitch approaches are more useful than constant speed. This
actually means flying more slowly at lower weights than at higher.

I think you will find that the required power doesn't vary so much with
weight if you keep the approach pitch constant, rather than airspeed. For
the same reason that the best-glide airspeed changes with weight, but the
best-glide performance (angle and distance) doesn't, by changing your
approach airspeed you can leave your power settings relatively constant for
a given set of conditions (wind being the most relevant, as you pointed
out).

> [...]
> I find that once I am in ground effect, if I don't carry some power, the
> plane drops like a brick, especially with back seat passengers on my round
> out to flare, thus adding 25 rpm power in my flare.

If the plane drops like a brick, you need to fly the approach faster. As
you note, added weight exacerbates this problem. This relates to my point
above: at higher weights, you need a higher airspeed to maintain the same
angle of attack.

Conversely, if you don't fly the higher airspeed at higher weights, then you
will require a higher angle of attack. This results in higher-weight
approaches being done closer to your stalling angle of attack, which leaves
you less time during the round-out for a smooth landing. Even before the
wing stalls, the airplane's descent rate will increase dramatically, if you
don't keep up with the rapidly changing net lift (due to the rapid
deceleration) during the flare (and near the stalling angle of attack, this
can be very difficult, and deceleration rate increases regardless).

You can fix this, of course, by adding power. This compensates mostly by
reducing the deceleration the higher angle of attack causes (and
consequential loss of lift for a given angle of attack), but also does
slightly contribute to lift as well. All of which smooths out the landing.

But you can accomplish the same thing simply by flying at a slightly faster
airspeed for the approach and then beginning your flare earlier. The higher
airspeed gives you more time for the flare, and beginning it earlier ensures
that you will still wind up in the same position for landing and touchdown
as with your current technique.

Pete