Landing Judges wanted....

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/ALieb...htlandingMBO17
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/ALieb...n34LfromMBOavi
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/ALieb...rgMSfromMBOavi
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/ALieb...sburgMSfromMBO
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

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"

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

"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

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

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"

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_s...veloperid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

"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

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.

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