In short, we do. The entire point of this series is to add some context where it might be lacking. These questions are specific and, while the answers can’t be so broad that they cover every nuance I am looking to give you, they should provide additional context that will help motivate you to dig deeper and find more information.
The average life of a flight instructor is traditionally 18 to 24 months and many of them never actually set out to teach people how to fly—it’s a step on a career path. Because of this we see a highly variable level of effort and knowledge put into primary flight training (the private pilot certificate). And because of the nature of speech and education, some terminology can lose context through the years to the point where it can sound like some things don’t exist anymore when that’s actually not true.
Recently I hosted an AOPA Rusty Pilots seminar, and I was asked a question by one of the participants before it started. He asked, “Why don’t we teach people to fly like we did in the war anymore?” The unexpected question caught me off guard, so after a few seconds of staring blankly I responded with really the only logical question that I could: “What war?” His aggravated response, “World War 2—they were really good pilots.” Ok, I understand that those young aviators faced terrifying odds and did amazing things, but if we just assume we don’t train them like we used to, we’re doing those who came before us a great injustice. In WW2 there were approximately 55,000 airmen killed in the span of the war, roughly 40,000 in combat and 15,000 during training. That means during that time you had about a 27% chance of dying during flight training. If you’re looking for answers based on logic, we actually train pilots much better now, because both modern civilian and military training combined don’t have even close to that fatality rate. This is an example of lack of context regarding a situation, much like this question.
We do teach full stall landings. Now here is the thing: Your instructor or pilot friends around the water cooler might not call them that, but that doesn’t mean they have gone away. In the tailwheel flying world, we address this very early in training (hopefully) when you’re learning about the aerodynamic forces and handling characteristics of the conventional gear craft. Now not everyone flies tailwheel—most pilots never get off the “trike,” and that’s completely fine. However, just because you don’t hear someone call a landing a “full stall” landing doesn’t mean that they aren’t performing one.
Per FAA recommendations, when you are coming in fully configured for landing your approach speed is (typically) 1.3 Vso, meaning that you are approaching at 30% above your published stall speed in the “dirty” or landing configuration. Now, it’s important to understand how you are arriving at that airspeed, because for most pilots it isn’t a power-off, pure-pitch approach to maintain that speed. Most pilots are flying with some power in until the runway is made, and then they reduce the power to idle and land, most of the time. Why this is important is because as a pilot you really want to know where you are on the power curve on your approach, because it has significant implications as you get closer to the runway and your landing flare.
Approach style can affect perception. If you fly a pure-pitch approach then when you approach the round-out-to-flare, you will have the most available energy on the wing to use to round out (fly straight and level at 10 feet, breaking your rate of descent) and then flare. Bleed the energy off the wing by increasing pitch attitude until the wing no longer produces lift and—you guessed it—the wing stalls you as you touch down onto the ground.
This method of approach to landing will have a steeper pitch profile, giving you a higher usable angle of attack. If you’re a powered approach person like most, you’re arriving at your final approach speed and landing position with a combination of power and pitch—meaning you will arrive at a shallower pitch profile, and you will have a higher angle of attack that you are supplementing with power. This means you will have a shallower pitch for the roundout portion of the landing, and if you’re slow on the throttle reduction you can have a very shallow pitch increase on landing, giving the illusion that you didn’t full stall to land.
A powered approach becomes dependent many times on glide path—and we are keeping this to a landing approach executed in VFR conditions not from an instrument approach where you’re typically flying a 3° glide slope. (We can joust in comments if you only fly those because they’re “safer,” we can’t joust in the comments if you’re a “land with power” in person because you’re dead to me. Just kidding.) The shallower the glide path of your approach, the higher angle of attack you will be flying, and you will be further on the backside of the power curve, and that’s important to understand.
Having covered some basic aerodynamic principles, let’s talk about the outcomes of landings—we’ve all seen them, and we all make fun of certain pilots on the internet for their 921-mile finals that end in a big bounce—but let’s talk about why that happens. A bounce can happen for one of two reasons, and they are equally as dangerous. First you come in at too high of an approach speed, touch the runway, and go back up into the air, with your wings still producing lift at this point, because with excessive speed combined with ground effect the runway rejects you, and you find yourself still flying. Many times instead of doing the only correct maneuver in this instance, pilots “save” it by adding some power and letting the airplane settle softly onto the runway, quadrupling their planned landing distance—but that second landing was butter.
The second and much more dangerous of the two is rounding out too high or too low and ballooning, and just trying to hold the airplane off the ground to land softly. Now you’re really doing a full stall landing, but not because you intended to, and it will lead to a teeth-clacking bounce that will keep you on the ground, but you’ll feel really ugly about it for the rest of the day. Both are bad technique and demonstrate a lack of aerodynamic understanding of the wing in flight.
You can use any combination of the two techniques and should get good at both if you really want to fancy yourself an aviator. The important thing to understand in each is the roundout to flare portion of the approach. What you are doing here is bringing your rate of descent or vertical speed down to zero momentarily so that as the airplane settles and slows down (with all the power off) and starts to increase that vertical speed in the descent you can use your remaining angle of attack to control that speed and roll the wheels onto the runway at the exact moment your airplanes wing stalls. The mastery of that element of landing (which starts with an understanding of the approach to landing and technique being used) is what will give you a good old-fashioned greaser every time.
Every landing a pilot intentionally executes should be a full stall landing—just because someone doesn’t call it that during training doesn’t make it not true.
“Every landing a pilot intentionally executes should be a full stall landing”
No, this is not the appropriate technique for all aircraft.
For example, try this in a canard type and you’re likely going to hit nose-low and hard, shearing off your landing gear.
For most GA singles – sure. But this is not universally good advice. I understand the point about not carrying excess energy into the landing, and that for most trainers that ideal point is a full-stall landing. But not all aircraft and situations are alike.
You’re correct, though we don’t usually use canard aircraft in primary flight training.
True, that’s but one example.
A type I have used extensively as a CFI is the Alpha 160 (Robin R200). No full-stall landings in that, either, due to it’s low rudder – full-stall would result in a tailstrike. Not a great design in that respect!
I always thought that a full stall landing meant that the stall warning horn was screaming full blast. Apparently there are other opinions.
That’s not necessarily a stall at all!
Yeah that’s usually the case (stall horn activating), but the landing shouldn’t be a stall and fall.
During WW2, a USAAF cadet stood just under a 1% chance of dying in flight training accident.
(The 27% number is correct only in that about one in four aircrew who died in an aircraft during the war did so during flight training.)
You beat me. I was going to comment the same
If you get a chance to watch Bob Hoover in the movie, “The Feathered Edge,” he said that he had an engine failure every other day when the government had him testing airplanes before shipping them to the combat pilots.
The most common question CFIs ask is “why do students fail checkrides?” My answer is invariably, “they don’t follow the ACS”. Honestly, it’s my polite way of saying “because you don’t teach according to the ACS”.
The private pilot ACS’s Normal Approach and Landing task lists 12 Skill elements. That’s a lot for a student to synchronize within the stated standards. There’s only one mention of airspeed: “Maintain manufacturer’s published approach airspeed…” (trainers list that in the POH); nowhere does it say to land at a full stall.
The first element for all the landing tasks is “Complete the appropriate checklist(s)”, yet it’s often missed. Why? Because many CFIs force their students to focus on techniques that are unrelated and sometimes even in direct contravention to what DPEs are required to consider on a checkride, the ACS.
A CFI’s most sacred responsibility is to educate students in such a way that they will be safe pilots.
In many, perhaps most, cases, the guidance of the ACS aligns pretty well with good, safe flying practices. But the FAA’s requirements to pass the test to earn a Private Pilot Certificate have changed several times over the decades, and probably will continue to do so. The specific wordings (“power-on stall” vs. “departure stall,” for example, or terms such as “slow flight”) evolve, and each new generation of desk drivers wants to leave their mark on the process.
What doesn’t change is the set of physical principles that govern the flight of manmade machines through the atmosphere. During my relatively brief stint as a CFI, I signed off sixteen students for the private and three for instrument rating tests. All of them passed on the first try, though I never paid much attention to the specifics of the PTS, which was the test standard at the time. They passed because they knew what they were doing and had developed the skills and judgement to operate safely.
The ACS is not God, and teaching a student with “passing the test” as the ultimate goal misses the point. Instilling the skills, habits and judgement that a pilot will take with them for the rest of their lives is the goal, and is a mandate of the highest order.
Good job on a 100% pass rate.
The tension between “passing the test” and what constitutes good “skills, habits and judgement” will outlive all of us. To my point, however, all of the twelve skills listed in the Normal Landing task are good pillars upon which to base a foundation for lifetime flying.
The full-stall landing is a technique that is absolutely not. My RV-7 and other tailwheel airplanes I’ve flown don’t behave optimally in that situation, and you don’t want to try that on turboprops and jets.
Flight schools advocate full-stall landings because it’s natural to keep the nose up to achieve that airspeed and a student is more likely to land on the mains (landing gears) than on the nose — it’s a “nose gear” not a “nose landing gear”. It’s the best way to avoid nose gear collapses, crinkled firewalls, and other expensive disasters.
I would submit that it’s not “because you don’t teach according to the ACS”, it’s because “you don’t use the ACS source documents”.
With so many commercially produced “learn to fly” books, systems, programs being used it appears that many CFIs have drifted away from the publications the FAA produces other than the ACS. I know that there maybe flight schools that require the CFI to use the commercially produced programs, but as a minimum CFIs need to know if/how it’s different from what Airplane Flying Handbook etc. says/recommends.
Not saying the FAA is always right or has the best methods, but they do write the ACS. Finally,the CFI can always say “I taught in accordance with FAA standards/recommendations.
Keep in mind that more pilots were killed in training than killed in combat during WWII. The fact that we don’t teach like we did in WWII is a very good thing!
There was an urgency during the war that doesn’t exist now.
A 200 hour pilot in WWII was considered to be a highly experienced veteran.
Mover and Gonky say the government is getting desperate for pilots again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW6seidg_r4
Many years ago while learning to fly, I heard this phrase frequently from my instructor, “Hold it off, hold it off, hold it off. ” A good phrase in a tri gear to avoid folding up the nose gear. Or another explanation was, “Those wheels out on each wing, those are the landing gear. The wheel up on the nose, that’s a steering gear, to be used when taxiing on the ground.”
Ya. Holding the C-180 off for too long often results in a tail-first landing. Depending on the height at the time, this can result in the mains smacking down with a resulting bounce. It can get much worse from there. I never held much stock in the “Land-O-Matic” gear marketing phrase.
Quite true, when I started flying jumpers in a C185, the owner did not want me doing full stall landings instead did wheel landings to minimize wear and tear on the tailwheel.
Absolutely! Wheel landings are easier than three-point, though I keep in practice with 40 degree flaps on lower wind days, and wheel landings make cross winds much easier, as well.
When I replaced the 42-year old tail wheel assembly on the 180, the cost was almost $6K! That’s now up to over $8K. Recapped main tires are much cheaper.
My Dad was old school and he used the hold it off instruction during part of my training as a young pilot. But he also had another old slogan that said, “Don’t run out of airspeed, altitude and ideas all at the same time.” A stabilized approach is one thing at a safe speed that compensates for gusts and wind shear on final, but a stabilized airspeed landing is going to use up a lot more runway and I’m not even sure it’s in the aviation dictionary. When you chop the throttles, forget stabilized and just use the reserve airspeed you have left to kiss the runway at the selected aiming point. A 10 mile final is not going to give you a feel for the aerodynamic condition of the airplane like a reasonably tight turn to final does.
Hallelujah! A descending 180 turn to touchdown is my preferred approach.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=893ywfypxqo
check it out starting at the 11 minute and 20 minute marker on the video.
Yes, you got it right.
Wow, a clickbait article. I feel the same way as when it happens in a video. I don’t read it.
Nah. Thats not clickbait. I’ve seen plenty of airline pilots that still don’t know how to land an airplane because their instructors didn’t know either.. They just drive it onto the runway making the passengers wonder if it registered on the Richter scale overseas somewhere.
Like the old said “sonny, did we land or were we shot down?”
When I was teaching any C150, c152, c172, c177, c182, c206, c208 can be landed full stall. Even the Pa-28 and Bonanzas can be landed full stall. Where I was teaching at had only 2300ft long runway. I had no problem teaching full stall landings in those planes on that runway. Normal category tricycle planes nosewheels don’t like to be landed on. There are plenty of C182 and C206’s that have wrinkled firewalls because pilots aren’t “holding it off” landing nosewheel first. As I moved on to Transport category planes landing full stall is not recommended for reasons already pointed out by other posters. If you did you would risk a tail strike. Swept wing jets usually don’t have docile stall characteristics so you would not want to get close to stall with them. If private students are not being taught to full stall land a Piper or Cessna trainer, that is a big mistake.
In the roundout and float, I have always followed the flight path shown in the handbook – i.e. one roundout to just above the surface. A higher roundout (you mention straight and level at 10ft) will leave you with far less energy to manage what is in reality going to be a second descent. You are actually taking away one of the resources needed to make great touchdowns.
Just food for thought Warren. But landings are not a one size fits all. For the sake of new aviators watching the forum, it’s important for them to know that you don’t use the same technique landing on a 12000 foot runway at DFW that you would use at a short runway in Mississippi, Alabama or Arkansas with a tall power line 100 yards from the approach end.
Well, I’d have to disagree completely. One of my favorite and most productive lessons with students was to make some landings at 7B9 (1800 x 50ft), and then go straight to Bradley International and make a few landings (9510 x 200ft). For the student or any pilot, it emphasizes the real basics – straight line to the aiming point safely clear of obstacles at the appropriate speed.
Watch out for those power lines across the end of the runway. They can really sneak up on you. And they only give you 3 options.
Yes – awareness of obstacles and runway length is a must. The trajectory should be established from the very beginning to safely pass over any obstacles. (made me just think of the truck that was hit on the New Jersey turnpike).
Um, no. Like most every firm, fast rule in aviation always do full stall landings isn’t a good one. 1) First, I’d argue that almost no one does them, even when they’re convinced they do. Go up to 3,000′ agl, pull the power and do a full stall (in an airplane even capable of a full stall). What happens at the break? The nose pitches down, abruptly and uncontrollably. Are you doing the same thing at 6″ agl? Hopefully not and if you’re not, you’re not doing full-stall landings. 2) With a stall speed of 50 kt, the x1.3 Vso is 65 kt. Few note that a headwind component of 10G20 also implies the condition of 20G10. 65 KIAS can suddenly become 55 kt. Intending a “full stall”, slowing to 55 kt can suddenly become 45 kt 10′ agl. 3) Getting really slow at flare time makes go-arounds difficult, if not dangerous. Control response is sluggish, rudder and flap management is critical. You’re a long way from best climb speed and, if in a twin, under Vmc and an even longer way to blue line.
It’s sad that very few light GA planes have the big spoilers/airbrakes common on sailplanes. They give very precise glidepath control, respond instantly and after touching down, even well above stall speed, glue the glider to the ground on roll out. One LSA with such airbrakes is the Pipistrel Sinus/Virus which, from stats, has a landing/ground incident rate about 1/4 that of the average LSA.
Really good post, thanks.
..
I also prefer a steeper glidepath on final because of the safety factor in the remote chance of a power loss on base/final.
I do have a question about the actual magnitude for your comment “The shallower the glide path of your approach, the higher angle of attack you will be flying, and you will be further on the backside of the power curve, and that’s important to understand.” How much does Angle of Attack increase when flying a 3 degree approach vs, say, an 8 degree approach?
I’m just a mechanical engineer (from the days of slide rules), not Aero, but my quick, back-of-the-envelope calculations appear to show that, when flying at 1.3 times the KCAS stall speed, flying a 3 degree approach only increases absolute AoA about 0.1 degree above flying an 8 degree approach. If true, the delta AoA would not be noticeable..
I based my calculations on the assumptions that lift required is closely proportional to the cosine of the approach angle, and that the lift formula can be rewritten to “Lift = Absolute AoA * KCAS squared * a constant (to account for wing area, air density, and the linear relationship between Coefficient of Lift vs Absolute AoA).” Note: Absolute AoA is referenced to Zero AoA occurring at the point of Zero lift, as opposed to geometric AoA where lift may be created at Zero geometric AoA.
Do you think my calculations are valid, and that the increase in AoA is negligible?
I think you lost some of us after the first paragraph… A 3 degree approach path would be a powered approach, whilst a 5 to8 degree approach would be with a windmilling prop. If you’re “dragging it in” with power and the engine burps your options of making the field shrink mighty fast. A higher approach path allows you to watch what’s happening and use sideslip to adjust your point of touchdown (preferably on the runway) without worrying about what your engine has in mind the last half mile or so. AOA? worry about what’s in your windsheild view of the world.
Tom, you are totally correct, and a steeper is what I prefer (although that can get into discussions/heated debate on whether or not it is a stabilized approach.
I was just looking for some feedback from the author about his comment on how much the angle of attack needs to increase for a shallow approach. AoA does increase (because total lift must increase while airspeed remains constant), but AoA increase appears to be negligible.
Everyone needs to do spins. That feeling when the airplane quits flying and rolls over cannot be adequately described.
Yes, right on Steve