What do you do if there is deer on the runway, you are without flaps, and you need to do a quick go-around? Your technique sounds dangerous, where the real culprit is the lack of energy control. Think in terms of energy.
One of the biggest reasons to not take flaps out right before touchdown is that it is poor pilot technique. If you transition to a Cessna with a retractable gear you are asking for trouble if you reach down while landing and move any lever up (ie flaps).
In the 210 I fly the landing gear lever and the flap switch are too close to one another to ensure you have the right one in your hand without looking. To grab the wrong one could be expensive and embarrassing.
During the flare and touchdown your eyes should be on the runway (other end of the runway) instead of in the cockpit. I don’t touch the flaps, or cowl flaps untiil I have left the runway and I am taxiing.
If I am lightly loaded in the 210 or if the wind is gusty or if I am in a cross wind, I will put in only 20 degrees of flap. 30 is just too much in a lightly loaded cessna.
I’ve only tried it on C172s, (which are quite a bit “twitchier” than an SR20) but since you’re only 5-10 ft off the runway and slow, there is little change in pitch attitude.
It’s really almost a non-event, other than you miraculously find yourself gently plunking down on the runway.
Well, yes and no. I see the problem as being caused by carrying too much flap over the numbers. You simply don’t need that much lift once you’re in ground effect. So, the “problem” is either too much speed, as you contend, or too much flap at the wrong time. As far as I’m concerned, they’re equally to blame. Choosing to correct one or the other is simply up to the pilot.
Your method certainly works, but doesn’t give you any slack for unexpected gusts or shear that might occur when, let’s say, descending below a tree-line at an unfamiliar airport, losing whatever unreported gust was keeping you aloft and having to quickly add power to keep from dropping on to the pavement. In the case of the C172, it also makes it considerably less susceptible to crosswinds.
For short fields, I fly at or slightly above published speeds, then dump ALL FLAPS just as I’m within arms length of the blacktop. This takes some practice, but it works.
Your technique assumes that the specs in the POH are the “correct” specs and that the pilot should attain that speed simply because the POH says so.
My point is that there may simply be another method which, although not jiving with the “factory” numbers, will work on a daily basis, plus allow the pilot a few other options if conditions change at the last minute.
I would, however, agree that your method is the best way to teach a new pilot to land, since power management is a fundamental part of learning to fly and my method adds a bit more complexity to a subject which is already very complex for most students.
Cheers…
In reply to:
My point is that there may simply be another method which, although not jiving with the “factory” numbers, will work on a daily basis, plus allow the pilot a few other options if conditions change at the last minute.
Jerry: I’m probably a bit old fashioned on this one, but I think “dumping the flaps” can lead to dangerous problems. The worst I see is the transition to a “complex” aircraft with retractable landing gear. It is always my practice to minimize workload, minimize thought, minimize the opportunity for mistakes and increase the standardization.
For instance, I don’t try to land with the fuel tanks exactly even. I would rather begin my approach with one tank substantially more full than the other (but not near the imbalance limit), that way I do not have to worry about the last 10 -15 minutes causing an imbalance, even if I have to go missed/around. Using this technique, it is not likely that I will misshandle the fuel switch (in some aircraft to switch from “L” to “R” the lever has to pass through “OFF.”) It would not be a stretch to miss the flap lever and hit the gear lever at the worst time, in the flare with your right hand off the throttle. It has happened.
Secondly, by using this technique, you are substituting brute force for finesse. Not that finesse is necessarily better, but in this case, the brute force technique absolutely relies on the aircraft being very close to touchdown, otherwise it exerts substantial wear and tear on the plane. I am sure the the landing gear is robust enough to withstand being plunked down from 2-3 feet multiple times, even 5-6 feet, but it is not something I would like to do with any regularity. Furthermore, being able to sense when the airplane is within inches of the runway is a skill that that requires practice to master.
Third, the last thing I want to do during the flare is move my hand off the power lever. I can be pretty ham fisted (as anyone who has flown with my can attest, right Mike & Jerry?[;)]), and if I need the power, I don’t want to have any chance at missing the lever.
Your flap dumping technique may work well for you and it is an interesting arrow to have in your quiver, but certainly not something I would give a blanket recommendation to. I am sure your technique works very well and you seem to have mastered it so that you can perform it safely. Similarly Mike R. and Gordon are both extremely proficient, current CFIs, for whom the quest for perfection in flight includes some facets that many of us would find pretty esoteric. Their techniques, which add great enjoyment to them, are not necessarily the best or right for all, and they may not be something that I would suggest to a novice pilot who has more basic skills to master first.
Safe flying.
In reply to:
Your technique assumes that the specs in the POH are the “correct” specs and that the pilot should attain that speed simply because the POH says so.
It has nothing to do with the POH. It has to do with the fact that you want to land with the wing in its landing configuration, that is, in a configuration that provides for touching down at the slowest speed. I land with full flaps on all landings, gusty/high wind or not, because I want the slow flying wing for my slow flying regime of flight, not the cruising wing. I want my stall speed to be 59, not 70. I may adjust my approach speed for gusty conditions (by adding half the gust factor). But I’m landing – I want the landing wing.
As far as it being “my” technique, well it is every CFI, ATP, airline, and book’s technique that I know of as well. Have you ever seen the pros retract the flaps just before touching down? Do you think they’re all doing it wrong?
I still think you are making up for coming in too fast. Can you consistently land the airplane full-flaps with the stall horn going off during your touchdown? If you need to retract all flaps to get a full-stall landing, you’re 11 knots too fast in the Cirrus. That energy has to go somewhere, and it’s likely it is in extended rollout and/or excessive braking. You can’t magically make that excess energy go away. And you’re carrying 28% more energy at 70 knots as opposed to 59, since it is based on the square of the velocity.
If that’s what you feel you need to do to land the airplane consistently, fine, but I wouldn’t recommend it for anyone, especially someone who is learning.
If I sound strident on this one it is because I see people day after day carrying too much speed, touching down 2/3 of the way down the runway and braking like mad so they don’t run off the end. I can only think that somewhere they got the idea that they will fall out of the sky on final if they fly it at 1.3 x Vso. So they are too fast, and then end up diving at the runway, making them even faster. Then they either try to plant the airplane waaaaay too fast, or they float float float and THEN plant the airplane, still way too fast, and then have a close encounter with the opposite threshold, brakes smokin’. I am so sick of seeing this!
I’m not saying that this is you. Maybe you do control and maintain the correct speed on final approach. But I see your recommendation as adding gasoline to the fire for someone who doesnÂ’t fly a good approach to landing and then uses your “technique” to try and bail themselves out.
Thanks for your reply.
Just for the record, the method I’ve described doesn’t make the plane descend to the runway any faster than if you were at the POH airspeed. Since the flaps are electric and retract slowly, the resulting descent is equally slow.
Done well, this method yields exactly the same results as flying a slower speed. Both cause you to lose lift.
In my mind, it isn’t “brute force” compared with “finesse”. It’s just a different way to achieve the same results, yet I think that the method I described allows more room for changing conditions on short final.
In reply to:
Just for the record, the method I’ve described doesn’t make the plane descend to the runway any faster than if you were at the POH airspeed.
Really? Then why in your previous post do you say:
In reply to:
Well, yes and no. I see the problem as being caused by carrying too much flap over the numbers.
So you’re not at full flaps over the numbers? Then you are either flying too fast over the numbers or your margin above the stall is less. Neither is a good thing.
Do you fly taildraggers?
Jerrry, very interesting. I have never tried your technique in the Cirrus, but accidentally did it in a 172 once. While I recall the incident well, I don’t recall the exact circumstances. What I do recall is that I was practicing something and while just having taken off with 20 degrees of flaps, I accidentally raised them. The plane was about 3-6 feet off the ground and it plunked firmly on the runway and then took off in a few hundred feet. I did one more circuit and landed.
Luckily there was no damage, except to my pride.
I don’t know how similar the reaction would be in the Cirrus, but I don’t want to repeat that again! Perhaps the Cirrus would react differently, and perhaps the timing of the dumping of the flaps or the attitude of the airplane would affect the results. But after reading your post, I thought about this experience. I even thought about trying your technique, and I just can’t get over the memory of the “plunk.”
If it works for you great, please continue to do it. Personally I think that if it was a technique with widespread benefits, it would be taught somewhere; maybe in the military, maybe in commercial aviation or maybe in the flight schools. It just seems like it is too easy to make a mistake and if you do, the risks are too great.
In reply to:
What do you do if there is deer on the runway, you are without flaps, . . .
Answer:
Have venison for dinner . . . and call your insurance company.
Well, if you were in the same situation, with 100% flaps, you’d have to retract some, wouldn’t you. That would take no longer than if I had to add some, right?
Actually, now that I think about it, if we’re talking about your deer running in front of me right at the time of the flair, I’d be at around 60-70kts or so with 50% flaps, perfect for a go around.
You’d be slower with 100% flaps. You’d have to power up AND wait for the flaps to come up before your airspeed would build enough for a go-around, wouldn’t you?
Your go-around will be scarier than mine, I can assure you.
You see, in a C172 (a new one, anyway) you can chose from 10, 20 or 30 degrees of flaps. For standard field landings you use 20 degrees, even though you could use 30 if you chose to.
My experience is that, with the method I’ve discussed, for normal field ops, I can stop in about 200 ft longer than the POH suggests and still have the added safety of a higher speed on final, the benefits of which I’ve already discussed. I like the tradeoff of 200 ft longer landing roll for the increase in speed during gusty conditions (again, I’ve done most of my flying in the Florida Keys where changing gusts are a way of life. My technique just evens them out)
But you are correct in that this is not a technique that should be used by low time pilots, since flying by the numbers (the POH) is critical to learning proper methods.
I truly have no problem maintaining POH airspeeds throughout the pattern. I also cluck my tongue when I see 3000 ft landings on 4000 ft runways due to bad technique.
I guess my post came across as a way of avoiding having to learn basic flying technique. That certainly wasn’t my intention.
I do maintain, however, that it is an effective method when used at the right times.
PS By the way, the guy who taught it to me was, in fact, an very high time ex-ATP and current Master CFI-I
Thanks for the reply
I mis-spoke. I certainly do carry full flaps “over the numbers”. I meant carrying too much flaps just before the landing flare, not over the numbers.
Simple mistaken use of terminology
Although I’m no scientist, I suspect that what you experienced was the result of your being in a climb at full power and losing lift, certainly a harrowing experience, whereas the method i’ve been discussing would occur when you’re in a descent with power virtually off
…this is not a technique that should be used by low time pilots…
…So we’re in agreement that these ideas are not useful for our friend chgosr20, who started this thread and who has 130 hours.
Jerry,
I think you will find the Cirrus a far more sensitive to landing speeds than a Cessna. A Cessna could never float with the same “elegance” as a low slung low wing plane a la Commanche, Mooney, Tiger or a Cirrus. The accident stats prove it out, go look at overshoots. The 172 has a far lower rate than those others.
The Cirrus needs to be landed at the right speeds. All planes do, but the window is narrower in it than particularly high wing planes. Too fast and it will porpoise. Too slow and it will drop in like you won’t believe. Look at the first couple of years accident stats. Tail strikes and porpoises were far more common than they needed to be. Your proposing fast approaches and then reacting to it. I think you will find its do-able (anything is with enough practice), but when in that realm waiting for the speed to die off you will be eating runway at a faster clip than a 172 and in a plane that is aerodynamically far cleaner that does not want to slow. In the end risking an overshoot or worse.
At any rate, do me a favor. Its your plane, your PIC. But learn the conservative approach and get a good feel for it before you go rolling your own. Then go practice on a long runway. Our insurance premiums don’t need the help of any more claims. When you go shopping for insurance you will find that out. Good luck.
In reply to:
I mis-spoke. I certainly do carry full flaps “over the numbers”. I meant carrying too much flaps just before the landing flare, not over the numbers.
Ah - I thought as much, since it didn’t jibe with what you had been saying. The “full flaps vs. partial flaps in gusty conditions” debate is an interesting one. I have heard arguments for both, and certainly it is airplane-dependent as well. I’m in the “full flaps” camp unless the airplane specifically was to be flown otherwise.
Your reasoning is sound about attaining the slowest speed for landing.
I guess I’m accustomed to landing C172s on 5000 ft strips, so I’ve had the luxury of not worrying about landing longer to get the piece of mind that comes from 5 kts extra landing speed when cold fronts hit The Keys with 35 kt gusts.
Jerry, Gordon: Interesting discussion!
I do have a little first hand experience in crosswind landings in the SR22. We were coming back from Green Bay at the Air Venture 2002 with three aboard and probably about 40 gal. fuel - about 300# under gross to Spokane.
Winds were about 25 knots off the right wing. I came in with full flaps at my usual speeds, about 80 over the fence, 75 over the numbers. I had no problem setting up or holding centerline in the crosswind with right aileron and left rudder. I didn’t notice any instability either in the landing or in the taxi.
The only dicey part came after shutdown when I opened the door. I was actually afraid that we would damage the door. My cap went flying but my main concern was keeping a good hold on the door to keep it from being damaged. It was a bit of a hike to retrieve the cap from the fence.
I don’t know what the specifics are, other than the fact of the low wing, but there is something about the SRXX that makes crosswind landing and ground handling less of a problem than with other aircraft.
All in all, I think the notion of carrying additional speed due to crosswind is a little overrated and probably used more often than necessary. I do acknowledge the wind I encountered at Spokane was steady and not gusting, but you have to remember that you are balancing the hazards. It may well be that the hazard of additional speed is worse than the hazard of a gusting wind on final.
I can’t recall a situation in which I had difficulty in maintaining the approach profile due to gusty winds on final. There has always been plenty of control authority to deal with whatever the wind was doing to me.
I do recall in the past landing with too much speed. I do not recall thinking on final approach that I did not have enough speed.
Now, I can’t say that hearing the stall warner at the moment the wheels touch is the norm, but at least a good fraction of the landings involve that.
My first post on this subject said,
“Now, this technique might add to the workload of a relatively new pilot, so it might not be for everybody, but I find it to be very effective on those days when I want to come in fast over the numbers”
I suspect that chgosr20 is probably intelligent enough to decide for himself, since he had the intelligence to ask, don’t you?