How to Properly Land a C-172.....

[skiandsurf]

huh??? This demonstrates what? You want to up their confidence, Can their motor at 700 feet when climbing straight out. IF they remember to turn around and can make the runway safely, buy them a steak dinner. I would actually do this in the simulator with the weather at 1/2mile and 100ftovc. The sharp ones were able to intercept the backcourse and actually make the runway. The rest of the sheep just crashed straight ahead into the abyss.

Well, being that I taught for over 1700 hrs (more than your total time), I can assure you that if my student can recover from a bad approach and put it down nicely, we are both satisfied.

As far as doing a 180 back to the runway after an engine failure, I think that is the wrong thing to be teaching. back when I was a student and an instructor, we never taught to come back. Lose too much lift and altitude. much better off going straight ahead the safest place....street, field. Remember we are talking 152's not 737's.

 

[pilotyip]

Yea I teach 1000" AGL 180 OK, 500' AGL 90 OK, less than 500' straight ahead, make your decisions in advance so you don't waste time in a critical situation. Have a plan stick to it.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

On thing to mention regarding a 180 after departure with a failed engine. Always turn into the wind if a crosswind exists. This will allow you to remain more aligned with the departure runway should you need to turn back. A tailwind behind you will put you further away and require more manuevering. Since many airports have multiple runways which intersect, sometimes a 180 back to the same runway isn't always necessary. In terms of banking, I recall a study done which showed that an approximate 45 degree bank was safe and provided a better return on altitude during the turn than did a shallower bank. The shallower bank took longer to get turned around and left you further from the runway.

 

[avbug]

I can assure you that if my student can recover from a bad approach and put it down nicely, we are both satisfied.

Bad approaches tend to lead to bad landings, though not always. The best salvation to a bad approach is a go-around. Setting the example of attempting to salvage bad approaches is setting a bad example. Far better to teach a student to be conservative and go around...then teach the student to make a good approach.

 

[skiandsurf]

Bad approaches tend to lead to bad landings, though not always. The best salvation to a bad approach is a go-around. Setting the example of attempting to salvage bad approaches is setting a bad example. Far better to teach a student to be conservative and go around...then teach the student to make a good approach.

This is a very good point. But what I am trying to see, is that the student has "control" of the airplane. The student has the skills to add a little power, maneuver the plane to where he wants it, and can finish with a nice landing. This is after doing slow flight, steep turns, stalls, touch and gos and go-arounds. This is the last confidence builder for both of us, to ensure that the student is flying the plane and not the plane flying the student.

This was my technique and may not be one for you.

 

[DCAinstructor06]

Cessna 152, I demo the 180 at NIGHT and at 500AGL. Believe me, superstick I am NOT! It only takes practice, given the options of sitting on my thumb and riding it into the trees in the dark or turning it around, I'll make the field.

 

[DCAinstructor06]

Bad approaches tend to lead to bad landings, though not always. The best salvation to a bad approach is a go-around. Setting the example of attempting to salvage bad approaches is setting a bad example. Far better to teach a student to be conservative and go around...then teach the student to make a good approach.

I agree, if it smells like pooh, guess what? It is. I'll let someone take me around ALL day until they get the approach correct. Only when they feel comfortable should they be allowed to land. Allowing anyone to continue a crappy approach to landing will only teach bad habits. Monkey see monkey do, or will 16000 hours cause one to forget this basic CFI tool. FOI.

 

[chitownflyer]

The Cessna 172 is a good plane, the only thing that irks me about it is there are supposedly a million different techniques to land the thing. That's what I like about Piper & Cirrus.....there is ONE way to land, that's it. Fly by the numbers.

What I have found that works (I learned in a 172R, and my flight school is just retiring 172Rs now) is fly the approach by the numbers according to the POH. About twenty feet off the ground, start reducing power to idle and about ten feet off, begin your round out. As the bottom starts to sink, slowly raise the nose. Shouldn't have a problem.

 

[minitour]

I realize this is just a bit on the late end of things but I'll chime in with my two pennies.

To land a 172:
Whatever it takes to be on final (~600 AGL) at 65kias slowing to 61kias at 50' (roughly over the threshold) with full flaps as this is the "short field" technique. Once at the threshold, smoothly reduce power to idle. Notice the word "smoothly". Nothing in flying needs to be done knee-jerk...no yanking the throttle out so bad that the entire control comes out of the panel...just smoothly reduce it to idle. At this point, the nose starts to drop (it helps if you trim slightly nose up on final, but not necessary) and the natural reaction is to pull back...don't! FLY THE PLANE to ground effect, then you start the flare.

IMHO, the flare is a two part process. It's a "level off" and a "flare". In the "level off" phase, you are going from descent with the nose low, into ground effect and leveling off in ground effect. At this point, your view should be down to the far end of the runway so you can see yourself sinking. As you start to sink (which should be pretty soon if you're 61KIAS at 50' with full flaps and go to idle throttle), you just raise the nose enough to keep it in the same spot relative to the horizon. In other words, when you "level off" in ground effect, the nose is in a particular position...during the "flare" you simply keep it in that position by applying back pressure and letting the aft end of the aircraft (including the mains) sink onto the runway. Keep the back pressure in as the mains touch down until you can no longer keep the nose up. Let the nosewheel drop on its own as the airspeed deterioriates and the elevator loses any authority to keep the nose up.

Now, for the 180 to the runway...I'm going to abstain from that comment as the only "experience" I have with that is "simulated" at 3,000'. At that altitude, it just simply didn't work. I tend to teach small turns to avoid obvious obstacles below 600' such as a 20 degree turn to avoid a radio antenna and typically 600' on up to TPA I will let the student make a 90 degree turn. But then, I also teach upwind to 600', turn crosswind, downwind at 1000' (or TPA in which case, I adjust the upwind leg also except in the cases of noise sensitive areas), so that has a lot to do with it.

Good luck with the landings! It gets better and easier with practice.

-mini

 

[Dizel8]

The 180 back may work, but to many stall/spin accidents have shown more often than not, that it doesn't.