LivingInMEM

If you are taking off into suspected windshear conditions (ATIS, observations, PIREPS, etc), do you not increase your rotation speed?

sqwkvfr

I don't like this method for two reasons:

1. If you bring your power back to the proper approach speed, the aircraft is suddenly out of trim. This will make it difficult for pilots with less upper body strength to properly flare.

2. It completely screws with stabilized approach criteria. I'm a big proponent of a long final with configuration and speed set and the aircraft trimmed for hands off flight. Reducing the power makes a stabilized approach that much more difficult.

I can see teaching this method to more advanced students as a method to go into larger airports with faster traffic on your tail.....BUT, I would only do so with a reduced flap setting. It's been a while since I've flown a single, but in a Seneca, the drag flaps usually reduce speed by anywhere from 5-10 knots, so with reduced flaps, it just might work. If a person wanted, he could add the flap at the same time the power is reduced....doing so would reduce the amount of forward trim that is normally required when adding flap. I would say that if one thought that groundspeed is important, using reduced flaps until touchdown would be the way to go.

The method that you describe seems like a lot of work for very limited (if any) benefit. I'd also submit that most of the other aircraft in the pattern are not using this method, so you'll find yourself or your students crowding preceding aircraft by being fast on final, despite being in the same relative position as no-wind situation. It seems that one of the most difficult things to teach students is how to properly space themselves in the pattern to allow room for the aircraft in front of them, since it requires the development of judgment.

I think that this method is incongruent with good airmanship, isn't mentioned in the FAA's "Airplane Flying Handbook," and seems to serve no purpose other than to satisfy someone's view of how it "should be" done. I've flown with, learned from and been instructed by pilots with over 10,000 hours from both the US and UK. I've heard of many. many ways to fly an aircraft and I've never heard of this one.

Personally, I'm not sure I would teach it, at least not early in the course. However, it's tough out there right now and if you want to keep your job, you're gonna have to find a way to make it work.

atlmsl

Of course, but the original poster was talking about a headwind, not windshear.

the King

Another question I have: What are students going to do when they encounter a shorter field? The short-field technique (really most landing techniques) require precise control over airspeed, while maintaining visual reference to the runway. If a student has never made the approach at the manufacturer's speed, how will they be able to do a short-field landing (especially on a checkride)?

ZBowFlyz

I'd like to see this attempted in a place that is blowing 30-40 is a small piston single make it 100 F+, and a short strip too. Sounds like the boss is making things up...

Primacy...

varkdriver

Gchamp3 has it right in my estimation...the Aircraft Op Manual should take precedence. In 30+ years of flying I've heard no mention of this technique (not that that's relevant). I do of course adjust speed (up to 20 knots) for approach for gusty conditions, maintaining gust factor to touchdown and increase my rotation speed (up to 20 knots, if performance allows) for takeoff in suspected windshear/gusty conditions.

250 or point 65

As a CFI, you should always be open to new techniques, however, this is one of the most idiotic and dangerous procedures i've ever heard of. Ok, so he has "fixed" the problem of descent planning with this procedure, but the amount of other problems this will bring up is too much of a price to pay just to make your approach "look" pretty.

Has he done all the flight tests to be able to recalculate what his landing distance is going to be? The plane is going to hit the ground at the same speed, but going to slow down faster with a headwind on the ground.

Has he contacted the manufacturer to ensure that this is an accepted way of doing things?

Has he contacted the FAA to see what they think of this?

Think about it this way, as a CFI, your job responsibilities are:

1) Keep your students and yourself safe. (this doesn't sound safe)
2) Keep your certificates safe (I bet the FSDO would love to see YOU stand up for this one after your student botches a checkride or runs off the runway)
3) Teach your student the proper way to fly an airplane (This boss of yours has no business teaching people how to fly. Airline pilots fly certain airspeeds for ONE reason: They are SOP handed down from the manufacturer, the company, and the FAA, not joe blow)

twebb

So we have a couple people saying that their ops at an airline say to add your headwind, and a majority of people saying no. If an airlines ops said to do that, and the reason is for windshear, I can see it, and it would be approved by the FAA.

Reading the PTS it says for private and commercial checkrides...

Maintains a stabilized approach and recommended airspeed, or in
its absence, not more than 1.3 VSO, +10/-5 knots (+5/-5 for commercial), with wind gust factor applied.

Stabilized approach would be by 500...so by 500 feet you need to be at 70 knots (manufacture recommended) or 60 knots (our Vso*1.3). With this method, you're not suppose to add your headwind UNTIL you turn final at 500', then once close to the runway, you start bleeding out that airspeed. If there is any wind over 10 knots for a private or 5 knots for a commercial student, they are not within PTS standards. Wind gust factor by definition is just that... a change of wind of 10 knots or more. Not just wind.

This is a 141 school with examing authority, is it possible they just got an exemption from the PTS standards?

the King

No I doubt it. They are teaching and examining a method that might technically fit within the FARs, but leaves students without adequate knowledge to fly in anything but light gusts to a long runway. Flying a light trainer like an airliner is a good way to get yourself in trouble. Heck, flying a C172 the same as a DA20 or PA28 won't work either. There are small differences in technique that can really help when things get hairy. The basics to flying an airplane are the same throughout, but the individual characteristics of aircraft is why we have specialized training, type ratings, etc. It's also why a pilot is required to be onboard.

ryan1234

what he said

someone mentioned wind shear.... I'm not certain how smart it would be to take off in a 172 that has a rotation of 60-65KIAS in wind shear conditions.

Good Landings are mostly a combination of precise airspeed control / sink rate along with stabilized touchdown. To be honest with you, from what I remember the normal approach speed in a 172 was enough to compensate for most gusts < 15knots if you are going for a short field landing. Usually most piston aircraft I've flown I've used the short field approach speed for even normal landings with or without headwind... gusts slightly more.... why not land on the spot you want to?