That was definitely my time 
A great time to let your Copis learning by doing.
We always tried to find out what the trigger items were for the Airbus to automatically send a voyage report.
1 Like
We found out that when removing the ILS frequency when visual it wouldnāt send reports when landing outside the touchdown zone 
.
No idea when you started flying but Iām going to guess mid 90s?
Watched the industry change A LOT since I first sat in a cockpit. Not the least has been the improvement in training and focus on safety. When I got my first job, right seat on a DC-3, there was no such thing as Crew Resource Management. My captain was an SBD pilot. I had less than 500 hrs. I wouldnāt want to guess what he had, but he seemed like a cross between Methuselah and Hitler. Only a few of the old timers spoke with him and nobody ever questioned him.
My point is that over the generations, a lot of training has changed and the things we thought were sop are now taught as things we should never do. I have had to be very open to change over the years. When my son recently got his PPL I just kept my mouth shut and let his instructor, instruct.
I have always been a āfeelā pilot and can do things with an airplane that they were never designed to do, things I would never try to teach, but in certain circumstances I donāt hesitate to stall an aircraft onto the ground. Sometimes it was the only way to get stopped before the runway did.
1 Like
To get back to the original post, I just did a few tests with the 172, flaps up and down.
Both tests were pretty close to the RW numbers 
The POH mentions 600ft/1400ft with flaps down and 800ft/1900ft with flaps up.
With an almost 3 point touchdown I could even reduce the total distance by ~200ft in both cases.
My vote is that the gliding of default aircraft is very real on landing flare. When I saw the title of this thread I though it was going to be about something like the Spitfire after it lost itās engine at the end of the Dunkirk movie. It glided on and on and on and on.
Not when considering the TBM, Kingair or airlinersā¦ there is a definite lack of drag making the deceleration and flare unrealistic.
Iām not so sure anymore. I havenāt flown the TBM since quite some time and just did the same tests I did with the 172.
Each of them 3 times and the results were a surprising.
The landing distance with and without flaps is considerable less than the POH valuesā¦
I should qualify my reply that I have only studied this issue on the C172 and C208.
How is the Kingair? Iām basing my opinion on pre USA world update, maybe they fixed somethingā¦
Going to test in a minute.
I noticed with the TBM that the nose doesnāt lower after touchdown, have to give nose down input to lower the nose onto the runway. I havenāt flown the TBM in real life but Iām assuming it drops like brick as any other turboprop when cutting the power too early.
The KingAir is way off and cheats with excessive flap drag.
With flaps down I can achieve the POH values, but with the flaps up I canāt even fly an ILS approach with the recommended 120kts (12000lbs) without accelerating.
Level off at 10ft and the speed doesnāt decrease below 110kts!
Balked landing ROC should be ~2500ft/min and I get ~500.
1 Like
Since the prop doesnāt disturb the airflow over the wings, not necessarily.
Just check this āaerobrakingā TBMā¦
I guess so but the prop should still create loads of drag at the flight idle stop. I think the real aircraft stops flying and starts falling quickly when cutting the power and the nose should drop as well.
Something I also noticed but this is more subjective. I find it really easy to grease most aircraft onto the runway, its way harder in real life. And Iām using a cheap ā ā ā ā ā ā joystick which doesnāt have much accuracy for those small inputs normally requiredā¦
Maybe itās the prop shape and minimum pitch of the TBM?
In all videos the pilots are reducing the power to idle almost like in a jet.
1 Like
I can think of two more reasons to hold off to stall warning in the flare in light aircraft only that are sometimes relevant:
-
On bumpy runways (uneven grass fields) to reduce landing gear stress.
-
To ensure students achieve an acceptable pitch attitude on touchdown to prevent nose wheel first landings, porpoising, and wheel barrowing. If the stall warning is starting to chirp they probably have their main wheels lower than their nose wheel. What makes me unhappy with that method is that the reason it is even necessary is that students are so often taught to carry too much speed over the threshold. I know people who were taught to maintain 70 or even 75 KIAS over the threshold in a C172 in calm winds with just the student onboard ā they just float and float and floatā¦
I guess you are right, I saw one video where the power was cut really late and one where it was really early. I should check the flight idle stop from the POH. I did find a video from Daher explaining different throttle positions and flight idle is still producing a small amount of thrust according to their schematic.
Valid points.
When I was an instructor there was a period where the approach and landing speeds from our SOPs were 5/10 kts above that published in the POH for āsafetyā. With as result that students were landing on the nose gear, flared down the whole runway etc. There is sufficient margin built in to the normal approach and landing speeds already, adding more speed is not increasing safety.
1 Like
Just did some glide ratio testing on the 172.
According to the POH, 65kts should give me a power off glide of 10 nm from 6500ft.
Using GPS I set up 10 nm from CYDQ lined up for the runway at 6500ft. Pulled off the power and held 65kts. Made the runway. Just, but that is pretty much dead on.
Oh, and I chirped the horn on touchdown. 
1 Like
Yeah the Cessna seems ok, I did a similar test with the TBM some time ago and that was not so realistic.