Skylane landings

[partialpanel]

Poll:

I've got a student who co-owns a 1964 Skylane. I have soloed him after what took a little longer than typical of a student in a more typical trainer. Now his partner calls me and tells me that they spoke with some Skylane guru who claims that I've taught the landings all wrong. Guru says that full nose-up trim should be established for landings! My student's co-owner tried this and says it works like a dream--the airplane "lands itself." I expressed my concern about go-around handling to which he adds that Guru recommends carrying full flaps back to pattern altitude! They feel no apprehension about the potential difficulties of a go-around with full nose-up trim and full flaps!

Are there any other Skylane drivers out there that can support this self-proclaimed 182 master? Am I wrong? Is the Air Safety Foundation report wrong in discouraging excessive trim in landing the Skylane? I'm fuming because now my student is convinced that he has spent extra money needlessly because of my approach to teaching Skylane landings. I am also convinced that these guys are begging for a trim-stall/spin accident on a go-around. I have apprehension about retaining my current exposure to liability with this student now that I feel he has been ill-advised and is likely to experiment with this inherently dangerous procedure. I have already demonstrated trim-stalls to him and plan to revisit these, but I don't know if I can get this other crap out of his head now!

 

[A1FlyBoy]

The Cessna POH for Skylanes only recommends "full up trim" to aid in cases where the elevator becomes non-functional and in doing so, a go around is NOT an option.

Your student's partner has learned a very poor self taught technique. This way of doing things must be STOPPED and explained WHY you don't do this... go arounds, trim-stalls, etc etc...

Break the chain before it is passed on or becomes an NTSB report.

 

[AZaviator]

I used to instruct in a 1969 Skylane and would teach students to use a lot of nose up trim, maybe about 3/4 of the way up, but definetly would not recommend full nose up trim for the reasons the previous two posts stated. The Skylane is one of the many nose heavy aircraft I've flown but I've never used full nose up trim on any aircraft I've ever flown.

I'd definetly recommend doing trim stalls again and explaining why you don't want your student landing with full nose up trim. Stick to your guns on this one because I think you'll find most people agree with you 100%.

Good luck.

 

[bobbysamd]

182 landing and go-around "technique"

Go look up "elevator trim stall" in the FAA Flight Training Handbook or elsewhere. I have a fair amount of 182RG time and, yes, unless you have a somewhat aft CG you'll land flat and/or the airplane is an SOB to flare. Okay, perhaps, maybe back trim one or two lines back of neutral. But, full back trim is definitely wrong.

Full flaps to pattern altitude? No way. Flaps 20 till you have a positive climb and then milk them up gradually. Just like in a 152, 172, 177 and most any other light Cessna.

 

[Jump Pilot]

I fly a 182 jump plane so the nose is really heavy with the seats out. I trim nose up to the last "F" in "take off" on the trim indicator and fly final with 20 degrees of flaps. At least in my bird, that puts it down on the mains with a healthy flair.

Why jump out of a perfectly good airplane? You haven't seen our airplane.

 

[DC4boy]

I own a '73 182 p and concurr with the nose up trim and have demoed the go around. First of all you should never have to slam the power on in a 182, wich is were I found the pucker to be. The 182, with full flaps and 60kts, a mere few inches of MP will get you more than flying again. If you're landing flat and on the nosewheel, be careful. The 82 is notorious for having an easy to wrinkle firewall due to hard, or too many, nosewheel landings.

 

[partialpanel]

dc4boy

So you're saying that you recommend FULL nose-up trim for landing? You also say that you "you should never have to slam the power on in a 182..." Well sometimes you find yourself facing an unforeseen situation--language like yours is idealistic. With ideal conditions and a lack of the possibility of a forced go-around requiring optimum performance, full nose-up trim might be a consistently safe procedure for landing. I favor having the airplane properly configured for a forced and timely go-around on every landing approach. Proper CG location, combined with the manufacturer's recommended procedure has been landing us on the mains and results in tame go-around behavior, as well as the option to command full performance from the airplane when needed. And this procedure only requires a little more effort and finesse from the pilot.

 

[A Squared]

Does the 182 in question have a trimmable stabilizer, or does it have a elevator trim tab?
I know that the early 182s had a trimmable stabilizer, I don't know if they all do.

The reason I ask, is this: If the Stabilizer is trimmable, increasing aft trim will increase elevator effectiveness in the flare, however, if it has a trim tab it will *not* increase elevator effectiveness in the flare, it will only redudce control pressures. In fact, full aft trim with a trim tab will actually slightly reduce the effectiveness of full aft elevator. The trim tab position which will give you the most aft elevator authority is somewhere forward of neutral, if you can handle the control forces.

Getting back to the trimmable stabilizer....
I own an early (1950's vintage) C-180. The C-182's of that era were identical to the C-180, except of course, for the landing gear and cowling. You cannot do a true, full stall, power off landing with this airplane with a forward cg and light gross weight, unless you have full, or very nearly full, aft trim. If you don't have ther trim rolled back almost all the way, the elevator loses effectiveness before the wing stalls, and the airplane pitches uncontrollably forward onto its mains, followed by a nasty bounce. The elevator's already at it's stops, so you can't do anything with that. The only ways around this are full aft trim, landing faster than full stall, or carrying power into the touchdown. The last two are not desirable when you're looking at a 400' gravel bar with water at both ends. Yes, I've been there, and the 180 handles it quite nicely, but you don't want a lot of extra speed or power. The need for aft trim decreases with higher gross weights (wing stalls at higher airspeed, thus landing is at higher airspeed) or with a more aft CG (less downforce required to flare) About the trim stall: I have tried this out with full flaps, full aft trim and full power. Yes, it does pitch up and requires a strong hand on the controls. This should be experienced at a safe altitude during a check out in the airplane, and one should be mentally prepared to deal with this on a go-around from a landing where full aft trim is required.


If the later model Skylanes have a trim tab (and I don't know if they do or not) there is no good reason for full aft trim, trim to the point where you can comfortably handle the elevator forces in the flare. Any more than this just decreases elevator effectiveness.


Regards

 

[partialpanel]

A Squared

Yes, the 182 in question has an elevator trim tab. My approach to teaching landings in this airplane has been to trim on-speed, or a little faster for added elevator effectiveness. I even showed the co-owner why this works (nose down trim increases elevator surface). Thank you for your input.

 

[starchkr]

partialpanel...

It sounds to me as if you now have a student who no matter what you say is going to do it the "guru's" way even after you show him why he shouldn't. Especially if his co-owner thinks it should be done this way. As an instructor, as you know, YOU are responsible for what that student does even after you are no longer teaching him, just by putting your name and CFI # in his book. My only thought would be to pass the student on to another instructor who may not mind taking that responsiblity. I know this sounds like a cop out, but if your student is unwilling to change, or if he pretends to change in front of you and then goes back to old ways afterwards, this could put YOU in a very bad position. You can try what was mentioned above to get him to change, but don't count on him staying true to what he tells you he is doing, especially as long as this co-owner and "guru" are around to "show him the other way."

Just remember, it's your A$$ on the line, and if he messes up, he could mess up your chances at a future in this business.

 

[Vik]

Try this -- take your student up. Level off at 3,000ft AGL or whatever you are comfortable at.

Reduce the power and trim for 60kts. Now tell the student to do the standard go around procedure. Watch as the plane goes straight up and your student has to use both hands and has a constipated look trying to keep the airplane from stalling.

If it doesn't convince him, nothing will.

I wonder if you can remove your solo endorsement? If you can, do it and do as someone recommended and send him to another instructor.

 

[Cardinal]

I've flown our privately owned 182 for about 4 years now, and this trim proposition is preposterous. I end up trimming it for 80 or so on final, and then all you have to do is flare the aircraft. is this such an obscure concept?? One does have to exert some force on the elevator (this, apparently, is surprising). Admittedly, the Skylane has a heavier nose than a 150, but compared a Saratoga, the Cessna twins, or the King Airs, it's a heck of alot easier to flare. There are few things I hate worse as an instructor than this concept of using fixed amounts of elevator trim. It's an as-needed system.

If the person is physically weak and really can't generate the needed force, well, then that's another issue. If they aren't strong enough to flare properly, then how are they going to deal with mod/severe turbulence, or an elevator trim failure? Tell your student to flare like a man or you'll un-endorse him

As an aside, one thing instructional techinique irritates me: In some of the larger aircraft instructors will recommend running back the electric trim continuously on short final, out of 50-100 feet or so. Thats all fine and dandy if you know the feel of the airplane intimately, but when you're new to the type you've just added an extra variable that entirely obscures the interface between you and the aircraft. This is a good way to never get the feel of the aircraft. Each landing, good or bad, is a mere coincidence from then on.

Unless the aircraft has a big CAT II placard on the panel YOU have to flare the thing!

Rant mode[/off]

 

[bobbysamd]

182 landing "technique"

I agree wholeheartedly with the three posts above, especially with Starchkr's comments about career implications. It just ain't worth it to put your certificates on the line for such a wiseass.

You can go to FSDO and explain that you want to renege an endorsement. I don't know the mechanics of it all, but it can be done.

Good luck with your "student."

 

[Vik]

I just saw the posting about the student not being strong enough to flare. As soon as the last power adjustment is made, let the student use both hands to flare.

 

[bigD]

It seems to me that if a student is strong enough to keep the nose pointed downward with full nose up trim, he/she should be strong enough to flare with just a few turns of trim as well.

 

[bigD]

As an aside, did Cessna do anything different with the control forces of the 182 somewhere between the 1978 and 1986 model years? I've flown both, and the '86 was MUCH lighter on the controls. It wasn't 172 light or anything, but there was a huge difference.

I looked up the weight and balance info for both, and the '86's CG was only about a half inch aft of the '78's, with an extra 100 pounds of empty weight. Weird.

 

[Vik]

Speaking of which ... this is a student pilot. Not even a private pilot. He probably needs an easier plane to fly to learn how to land. Put him in a 152 or 172 and let him fly 10ft off the ground down the length of the runway, go around, repeat. It might just require a few flights.

 

[TDTURBO]

The pilot in question is John C, Small world huh?

The 182 owner world is small indeed.......with that said, you can PM me and I will give you the link responsible for filling your students head with conflicting information. It talks about you too.

I agree with Cardinal and all of the above posts, I thinks it's suicide to trim full nose up with full flaps or otherwise and here is why.............

http://www.aaib.detr.gov.uk/bulletin/mar02/gbyeg.htm


here is a little exerp from the accident report.....

Out of trim control forces
The out of trim control forces associated with full nose-up trim were evaluated in a Cessna 182S aircraft at FL 50. The aircraft was initially configured with almost full fuel, two pilots, 10° flap and full propeller RPM in level flight at 70 KIAS. With full nose-up trim applied, the forward push force on the control wheel was estimated to be between 10 and 15 lbf. However, the push force increased markedly as engine power was increased, reaching an estimated 50 to 60 lbf push at full throttle. An in-trim condition could be rapidly restored by retarding the throttle to give a manifold pressure of 13 inches. Given that the out-of trim force was a function of engine power, and that full power at sea level would be greater than full power at FL 50, the out of trim force on take-off would probably have been greater than 60 lbf.


You can read the whole thing but you have the right idea, no way I would fly in that configuration! Although some 182 pilots land this way, I feel its wrong, dangerous and unnecessary. I am able to grease every landing with slight nose up trim, even in 30 kt crosswinds which are very common in Lansing, Il. There is only an east west runway and people that live near me can attest to winds we commonly get here. I think the guy just needs to practice, it took me awhile before I could consistantly grease it in but it's not impossible, if I can do it anybody can! With that said, just take him up to a safe altitude with full flaps and full nose up trim and firewall it and watch him loose it, that should take care of any lingering questions he has about his new technique.



P.S. I respectfully disagree with DC4boy, there are several reasons why you never NOT firewall the throttle in a go around. 1st off it's hard on the engine in both the Lycoming and Continental, the carb has an auto enrich that only engages at full throttle and it is widely known that new CFI's training in this aircraft feel the need to "back off" once at 500agl to the green arc on the manifold pressure gauge, this is a good way to ensure never seeing TBO! The other reasons are more clear, on a go around you need to get as high, as fast as you can to ensure a safe return in the event of engine failure. Density altitude, 50ft obsticles, on and on it goes.

 

[Av8trxx]

I have over 500 hours in a 1957 trimmable stabilizer C182A jumpship. (I think that is well over 900 landings based on avg jump run time.) I have always trimmed the nose very high for landing, as did most pilots at the DZ. It just worked for me and helped make perfect wheelies.

While the occasions I had to go around were few, I expected the forces that were necessary and it wasn't a problem. I guess it just depends on how one handles the go around....

 

[partialpanel]

Some clarification/update...

This student soloed perhaps a month ago and did an impressive job of his first solo landings. He has since domonstrated cross-wind takeoff and landing proficiency in as much as 25 knot cross-wind components! He's done very well with the procedures that I've taught.

Also, he's a big dude--way too big for a 152, almost too big for a 172, and plenty strong enough to handle the nose heaviness of the 182. It's just that this "guru" has stepped in with his big ideas based on his opinion that it's unusual for a student to need more instruction to solo a 182 than one would need in a 172. Anyone who has flown the 182 knows that it does indeed require more skill/finesse to land with safety and cosistency compared to the common trainer. That extra skill takes extra time to achieve. Besides, my student was only at 20 hours total time when he soloed--I do not think this is excessive, given the added complexity and performance of the aircraft and the variables in individual student learning curve.

For those pilots who favor the full nose-up trim technique, have you ever really stopped to think about it? The elevator has a physical up deflection limit regardless of where the trim is set. The elevator can be put there by pulling the yoke fully aft for the purpose of flaring. By trimming full nose-up (with an elevator trim tab) you actually decrease the nose-up force that the elevator can produce.

Finally, I did a lot of preparation on this topic before presenting my objection to my student's co-owner and then my student. I don't think I really changed the mind of the co-owner, but my student seems to be convinced and I promised him a full (re)demonstration of the potential dangers associated with this technique. Last time I demonstrated the trim stall to him we didn't even use full nose-up trim. This time I will "drive it home" so to speak.