AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS INVOLVED IN TEACHING PILOTS TO
LAND
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE
SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
BY
EMANUEL JASCHA BLOCK
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
DR. JAMES M. BROWN, ADVISOR
APRIL, 2007
i
Copyright Emanuel Jascha Block 2007
ii
Acknowledgements
Many people helped me complete this study. I would like to thank my advisor Dr.
James M. Brown who guided me through the graduate school process. His becoming a
commercial, instrument rated, and soon to be instructor pilot has been of significant help
to me in melding education theory and practice with the sometimes arcane tasks of flying
an airplane. I would also like to thank Brian Addis, Steve Anderson, Waldo Anderson,
Anders Christenson, Marlan Perhus, Cliff Tamplin, and Tom Woods who helped evaluate
my model of the landing process, its associated list of what flight instructors should
teach, and the interview process. The staffs of the local FAA Flight Standards District
Office and Department of Aeronautics of the Minnesota Department of Transportation
provided me with helpful resources.
I would like to thank the University of Minnesota and the College of Education
and Human Development for providing a supportive, student centered, environment that
was instrumental in motivating a senior citizen to achieve a lifetime goal.
The Civil Air Patrol has been a passion of mine for many years. My participation
in cadet flight academies for 35 years helped me learn much about the process of
teaching pilots to land. The idea for this study evolved from that experience. I am grateful
for having had the opportunity to serve.
iii
Further thanks to Jim Harris, Charles Robertson, and the staff of the John D.
Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences at the University of North Dakota who welcomed
me to their campus and helped me formulate the study approach.
Finally, I am indebted to all the study participants who took the time to tell me
about their teaching. Without their help, this study would have been impossible.
iv
Abstract
This study involved two research questions:
1. What do experts in the field suggest should be taught to pilots who are learning
how to land?
2. What is actually being taught to pilots who are learning how to land?
The population for this study was all flight instructors in Minnesota who were authorized
to teach in single engine land airplanes.
Research question one was answered by developing a conceptual model of the
landing process and by developing a list of items that flight instructors should teach in
order to cover all aspects of the model. The model and list were discussed with a number
of experts in the field of flight instruction. The experts agreed with the model and lists‟
applicability.
Research question two was answered by interviewing 32 flight instructors chosen
at random from a list of certificated flight instructors with current Minnesota addresses. A
pilot-study was performed to validate the data gathering method. Descriptive statistical
analysis of the interview data showed that flight instructors taught an average of 27 of the
37 items that should be taught according to the list developed in response to research
question one. Analysis of the data showed that neither total flying time nor total
instructing time had statistically significant relationships with what flight instructors
v
taught to pilots learning to land. In addition, the most experienced instructors were found
to be more aware of basic teaching considerations than were the least experienced
instructors. Finally, more experienced instructors were more likely than less experienced
instructors to teach pilots to land with full flaps.
Anecdotal data were obtained regarding details of teaching the 37 items defined
by the answers to research question one. Two general styles of teaching were evident.
One style depended more on trial and error than did the other. The other style depended
more on providing pilots with detailed visual cues.
vi
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my late brother David Block. By his
unwillingness to allow physical handicaps to stop him from enjoying life to the fullest, he
was an inspiration to all who knew him.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One – Problem
Background
Problem
Landing Accidents
Landing Incidents
Inadequate Flight Instruction
Problem Statement
Study Focus
Research Questions
1
1
2
3
4
5
7
7
8
Chapter Two – Literature Review
Areas of Interest
Population of Interest
The Facts and Skills That Must be Transmitted to New Pilots
Recommendations for Teaching Pilots How to Land an Airplane
The Seriousness of the Landing Accident Problem
The Contribution of Inadequate Flight Instruction to the Problem
Data Regarding How Flight Instructors Actually Teach Pilots
How to Land a Light Airplane
Model of the Landing Process
Stabilized Approach.
Definition
Approach Parameters
Power-on Approaches
Expert opinions
Stabilized Approach Factors
Flaps
Adequate flying skills
Trim
Altitude control and airspeed control
Non-stabilized Approaches
Centerline alignment
Centerline Alignment Factors
The windsock
Recognition of drift
The crab
The sideslip
Establishing Flare Point
11
11
12
13
15
15
15
16
viii
16
19
19
20
23
24
25
25
27
28
29
31
32
32
32
32
33
34
38
Establishing Flare Point Factors
Visual cues
Point/power
Diving at the runway
Stationary spot technique
Windows
Visual approach slope indicators
Forward slip
Level-off
Level-off Factors
Visual cues
Seat height
Low pass
Power Removal
Touchdown
Touchdown Factors
Nose attitude
Gusts/turbulence
Crosswind correction
Recoveries from skip, bounce, or balloon
Roll-out
Roll-out Factors
Alignment and drift correction
Braking
Touch and go or full Stop
Other Factors
Looking for traffic
Go-around
Psychological factors
Physiological factors
Chapter Three – Research Methods
Engaged Scholarship
Insider‟s Perspective
Methods
Answering the Research Questions
Question One
Content applicability
Number of experts
Weighting the shoulds
Question Two
Data Gathering Method
Interviewing Participants
Pilot Study
ix
39
39
40
40
41
42
43
45
46
46
46
49
49
50
51
51
51
53
53
54
55
56
56
56
57
58
58
59
60
60
62
62
63
63
63
64
64
64
65
65
65
68
68
Population
Participant solicitation
Interviews
69
70
70
Chapter Four – Data Analysis
Response to Mailings
Participants‟ data distributions
Total Flight Time
Total Instructing Time
Number of Shoulds Taught
Operational Significance
Correlation of Experience and the Number of Shoulds Taught
Relationship Between the Number of Shoulds Taught and
Instructing Experience
Relationship Between the Number of Shoulds Taught and
Total Flight Time
Frequencies of the Shoulds taught
Comparison of Shoulds Taught With Instructing Experience
Other Observations
Should 1
Should 2
Should 3
Should 6
Should 7
Should 8
Should 13
Should 14
Should 15
Should 16
Should 17
Should 18
Shoulds 20,21,28,29
Should 22
Should 26
Should 27
Should 33
Should 34
Should 37
71
71
72
72
73
73
74
74
75
Chapter Five – Summary, Implications, and Recommendations
Summary of the Results of the Study
Implications
Two Approaches to Flight Instructing
Trial and Error
92
92
92
92
93
x
77
80
81
83
83
84
84
84
85
85
85
86
86
87
87
88
88
89
89
89
90
90
90
Detailed Cues
Level-off`
Stationary spot
Touchdown nose attitude
Benefits of the Study
Flight Schools, Flight Instructors, and Student Pilots
Standardization of Instruction
Flight Instructor Continuing Education
Limitations
Population
Method
Activity
Recommendations
Publication
Research
Continuing Education
Evaluation
Data Collection
Population
Other Piloting Tasks
Visual Cues
Journal
References
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Appendix I
94
94
94
94
95
95
95
97
98
98
98
99
99
99
100
100
101
101
102
102
103
104
105
List of Shoulds
Weighting Letter Sent to Experts
Experts‟ Weighting of the 37 Shoulds
Interview Questions
Pilot Study Interviews Analysis
First Letter to Sample
Return Postcard
Second Letter to Sample
Spread Sheet
xi
112
115
116
118
121
126
127
128
129
List of Tables
Table 1
Regression statistics for number of shoulds taught
and instructing experience.
70
Table 2
Regression statistics for number of shoulds taught
and total flight time.
79
Table 3.
Should frequencies
80
Table 4.
Comparison of shoulds taught
82
xii
List of Figures
Figure 1
Landing portion of an airport traffic pattern
14
Figure 2
Model of the Landing Process
18
Figure 3
Distribution of participants‟ total flying times
72
Figure 4
Distribution of participants‟ flight instructing times
73
Figure 5
Distribution of the number of shoulds taught
by participants
74
Figure 6
Correlation between the number of shoulds taught and
instructing experience
76
Figure 7
Correlation between the number of shoulds taught and
total flight time
79
xiii
xiv
CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM
Background
Perhaps the first recorded aircraft accident was the crash of Icarus into the sea
when the wax holding his wings together melted as a result of flying too close to the sun.
Icarus‟ flight instructor was his father Daedalus, a prolific inventor who built the wings to
escape imprisonment on Crete. Little is known of the details of the accident since no
accident investigation records have survived. We are led to wonder how Daedalus taught
Icarus to fly. How did he teach the flight characteristics of the wings? Did he demonstrate
the wings propensity for thermal failure? How did he teach Icarus to judge his altitude to
avoid flying too close to the sun? Did he instruct Icarus in good aeronautical decision
making? Did he teach Icarus to recognize the onset of thermal failure and how to take
corrective action? We can only speculate about the factors involved in that accident.
However, we can learn something of how modern flight instruction is done through a
study of the instructional process.
This study focused on the training provided to pilots who learn to fly in light,
single engine, propeller driven airplanes. Almost all pilots, except military pilots, learn
this way whether or not they become professional pilots. Such pilots include pilots who
fly for recreation, for business reasons, or for travel. Some pilots trained in light aircraft
become charter, corporate, or airline pilots after further experience and training. Other
light aircraft pilots may also move to more powerful and complex airplanes, for personal
or business reasons, after suitable additional training. This study did not include military
1
flight training since military requirements and equipment may differ from those
associated with light airplanes.
Flight training is available to the public from a variety of sources. A flight
instructor who owns or rents an airplane may operate as a one person flight school.
Organizations that offer fuel, maintenance and other services may also offer flight
instruction. Such organizations are located at airports and are called Fixed Base
Operators (FBOs). Other organizations may offer flight training only. Many colleges and
universities offer flight training, often as part of a two or four year degree. Flying clubs
(shared ownership) may allow flight training, given by a member or by an outside
instructor. Common to all these enterprises are the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) regulations. Also, flight instruction must be given by flight instructors certificated
by the FAA.
During their initial light airplane training, pilots form the basic habit patterns
that guide them through the rest of their flying careers, whether or not they become
professional pilots. This study concerned the part of initial training associated with first
learning to land.
Problem
Accidents continue to plague general aviation; that is, aviation other than the
scheduled airlines, the military, or other government agencies. Landing accidents
constitute a substantial portion of the total. Inadequate flight instruction has been
implicated as a factor. This study dealt with what pilots needed to be taught in order to
learn to land an airplane, as suggested by experts. The study also examined what flight
2
instructors in Minnesota were teaching. The study was directed more toward what was
taught, rather than how it was taught; although the two were sometimes inseparable.
Modern light airplanes are well designed and are usually well maintained in
accordance with FAA requirements. This leaves pilot error as the major source of
airplane accidents. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) 2006 Nall
Report, a publication of the Air Safety Foundation (ASF), a division of the AOPA,
showed that in 2005 74.9% (1076) of 1436 fixed wing general aviation accidents were
caused by the pilot and included 242 fatalities. A significant factor was inadequate pilot
proficiency. This could be due to inadequate initial training or to lack of recent
experience and practice. The FAA (1995, tape three) stated that “Most accidents,
including most landing phase accidents, are a result of a failure in the human element”
(46 minutes, 55 seconds).
Landing Accidents
The FAA (2005) stated that “According to AOPA Air Safety Foundation‟s 2004
Nall Report, „the top trouble spots remain: too many takeoff and landing accidents due to
poor skill...‟” The 2006 Nall report showed that, in 2005, 41.4% (436) of pilot related
accidents occurred during landing and caused eight fatalities
The Nall Report findings were based on National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) records. Another report (AOPA Air Safety Foundation, 2002) showed that the
total number of landing accidents for all United States airplanes (general aviation and all
others) remained steady at about 500 accidents per year between 1994 and 2000,
including about 50 fatal landing accidents a year.
3
Landing Incidents
Although the accident data above are based on NTSB findings, landing accidents
may be far fewer than landing incidents. The NTSB only reports accidents as defined
according to part 830 of the Federal Air Regulations (FARs) (2002). A reportable
accident is one in which substantial damage occurs. Part 830.2 of the FARs excludes
damage to propeller blades, landing gear, tires, flaps, and wingtips from the definition of
substantial damage. A mishap where such damage occurs is typically called an incident
and does not require notification to the NTSB. Thus, it can be argued that most landing
problems are not reported. Benkert (n.d.) stated that “Many incidents are not reported and
many accidents are downgraded by the FAA and others to incidents. This is an attempt to
make everyone look good. The true rate is alarming” (p. 2).
The suggestion that landing incidents far outnumber landing accidents was
supported by data from AVEMCO, an insurance affiliate of the AOPA that stated that
only 17.3 % of claims and 40.3% of dollars paid were for accidents (of all kinds) reported
to the NTSB. Claims paid for landing incidents and accidents averaged $47,514 per event
and constituted 28 % of the total claims (in Collins, R., 2007).
The researcher obtained anecdotal evidence of the ratio of landing incidents to
landing accidents through questionnaires distributed at a meeting of the Minnesota
Association of Professional Flight Instructors (MAPFI) and at an FAA/Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MNDOT) safety seminar. The questionnaires asked about
involvement in landing accidents or incidents. Of 18 attendees at the MAPFI meeting, 14
responses included no accidents and nine incidents. Of 125 attendees at the safety
4
seminar, 53 responses reported two accidents and 12 incidents. This is an indication that
landing incidents greatly outnumber landing accidents.
Inadequate Flight Instruction
An AOPA Air Safety Foundation (2004) study showed that from 1992 to 2001
33.2 % of all instructional accidents occurred during landing, indicating that having an
instructor on board did not guarantee safety. The same study showed that when students
flew alone (solo), landing accidents accounted for 50.6 % of the total, possibly indicating
the need for better instruction in learning to land.
The AOPA 2003 Nall Report stated that “...from 1991-2000...pilot failure to
maintain control of the aircraft was the leading factor for both takeoff accidents and
landing accidents” (p. 2). Failure to maintain control accounted for 32.8 % of landing
accidents. Also, that Nall Report stated that “...almost without exception, loss of control
of the aircraft on takeoff or landing is an issue of either inadequate training or lack of
pilot proficiency”. Collins, R. (2006) stated “And training is an overriding concern when
considering the state of general aviation safety. Simply put, the accident rate suggests the
job is not being properly done” (p.31). Determining to what extent inadequate training is
a factor in landing accidents is difficult. However, the researcher, as a flight instructor,
and as an accident investigating committee member for the Civil Air Patrol, encountered
several cases where inadequate instruction clearly was a factor. Also, the researcher has
encountered many situations, while giving required flight reviews, where lack of
knowledge resulted in poor landing technique. A Canadian study (Henley, 1991) found
that “The quality of flight instruction also varies greatly because there is no standardized
5
syllabus for the instructor course” (p. 1). Canada is a member of the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO), as is the United States. Both countries must meet ICAO
standards. Thus, the Canadian situation might also apply to the United States.
Sporty‟s (1990) noted that “Landings are one of the most unique experiences in
flying” (34minutes, 25 seconds). Langewiesche (1944) stated that “... the landing is to
most pilots the most difficult problem in the whole art of flying” (p. 261). Langewiesche
also stated that “At one time, the whole art of flying was not considered teachable” (p.
264). Even more recently Collins, L (2005) stated that “... an instructor has to let the
student start teaching himself to fly and that the instructor‟s job is then to let the student
go the limit – as long as it‟s safe – before taking over” (p. 225). Collins, R. (1993) stated
that “The instructor‟s real role is to protect the airplane and the student while the student
teaches himself how to land” (p.1). Collins, R. was supported by McSwain (2006) who
stated “The ancient pelican who taught me to be a flight instructor about 100 years ago
once told me his view: „We don‟t really teach students. What we do is keep them alive
while they learn‟” (p. 11).
Benbassat and Abramson (2002) stated that “it is specifically the landing phase
that most pilots struggle with” (p.137). They analyzed only one aspect of landing
accidents reported by the NTSB, the flare (the level off from the landing approach glide
and raising the nose to the touchdown attitude). They found a median and mode of eight
flare accidents per month for 1995 through 1997. They also found, in a survey of 134
pilots, that pilots believed the landing flare to be more difficult than nine other common
flying tasks. Novice pilots reported more difficulty than did experienced pilots.
6
Bruce Landsberg (2005), Executive Director of the ASF, commenting on NTSB
accident data stated “Landings are easy when you know how. Nobody does. We keep
striving but not always successfully...” (p. 48). The significant number of landing
accidents and incidents and the contribution of inadequate instruction to these events
underlie this study‟s interest in how pilots are actually being trained to land an airplane. If
inadequate flight instruction was indeed a factor in the number of landing accidents
reported above, then the two research questions below arise.
Problem Statement
Inadequate flight instruction is a contributing factor to landing accidents and
incidents. Pilots that do not learn correct procedures from the beginning of their flight
training are more likely to develop unsafe habits that contribute to landing problems.
There is no detailed standard of what flight instructors should teach to pilots who are
learning to land so that they will develop efficient and safe landing practices.
Study Focus
This study examined one aspect of initial pilot training; teaching student pilots to
land. More specifically, the study explored student pilot landing training from the time
the airplane is first turned onto the final approach path and is aligned with the runway
centerline; through the descent, level-off, touchdown, and rollout (rolling along the
runway centerline on the ground until slowed) phases of a landing.
The study focused on the instruction provided to student pilots prior to their first
solo flight. The solo flight is a major milestone of the flight training process. The
7
instructor usually stands on the ground, with the runway in view, while the student, alone
in the airplane, performs one or more takeoffs and landings as directed by the instructor.
Processes were examined that were appropriate for pre-solo student pilots and that
helped pilots develop safe and efficient habit patterns. Such habit patterns also form the
basis for learning more advanced techniques as pilots gain experience following their
initial training. The study included recommendations of experts in the field of flight
training in the form of evaluation of a model of the landing process and a list of things
that flight instructors should teach regarding landings.
The study developed a method for determining how flight instructors actually
teach. The study did not evaluate the relative effectiveness of one teaching technique or
another, or of one flight instructor or another. Nor did the study evaluate the teaching of
the flight instructor participants. Although there appeared to be a problem with the
quality of instruction used to teach pilots to land, this study only compared the
recommendations of experts with what was actually being taught. Evaluation of
instruction and discussion of how things should be taught were left for further studies.
Research Questions
1. What do experts in the field suggest should be taught to pilots who are learning
how to land?
2. What is actually being taught to pilots who are learning how to land?
The following hypothesis was established before the study began:
Flight instructors teach more closely to the model as their flight instructing
experience increases.
8
The first research question was answered by a literature review and by interviewing
experts in the field. A conceptual model on page 18, Figure 2, depicts a summary of the
findings of the literature review and the interviews of experts. The model also reflects
factors that flight instructors should teach to pilots learning to land (Appendix A). The
second research question was answered by a comparison of the results of 32 interviews of
active flight instructors with the model. The FAA Aviation Instructor‟s Handbook (1999)
stated that:
The formation of correct habit patterns from the beginning of any learning
process is essential to further learning and for correct performance after
the completion of training. Therefore it is the instructor‟s responsibility to
insist on correct techniques and procedures from the onset of training to
provide proper habit patterns. (p. 1-16)
This study was designed to determine the extent to which selected flight
instructors teach the procedures defined by experts in the field. Before the quality of
flight instruction can be judged, data must be gathered to determine how flight instruction
is actually carried out. That, and not a judgment of the instructional processes, was the
research focus of this study.
Associated with the two research questions above were a number of subsidiary
questions, that while not the focus of the study, nevertheless arose as the interview
process progressed.

Is there commonality of teaching methods?

Do experienced instructors teach differently than do less experienced instructors?
9

What factors (specific bits of knowledge such as where to look or how to use
trim) do instructors use in their teaching?

How do these factors compare with those found in the literature?

Are there factors taught that are not found in the literature?

What variations exist in teaching common tasks such as how to level-off prior to
touchdown?
A section entitled Other Observations is included in chapter four and that section
provides a discussion of these issues. Further study is necessary to explore these
subsidiary questions in depth.
10
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Areas of Interest
The literature review began with a search of educational and psychological
indices subscribed to by the University of Minnesota. Several flight training magazines
and journals were reviewed. The University of North Dakota Aerospace department
(1000 flight students) was visited, its aviation library was searched, and several staff
members were interviewed regarding the proposed study. Key factors identified by the
literature review were used to develop a conceptual model of the landing process (Figure
2) and the list of items that flight instructors should teach to pilots learning to land
(Appendix A).
The literature review identified useful information related to:

the demographics of the populations of interest (students and flight
instructors) in the United States and in Minnesota;

the facts and skills that must be transmitted to new pilots;

recommendations for teaching pilots how to land an airplane;

the seriousness of the landing accident problem;

the contribution of inadequate flight instruction to the problem;
and

data regarding how flight instructors actually teach pilots
to land an airplane.
The researcher has been flying regularly since 1964, has soloed (approved a
student pilot for taking off and landing with no one else in the airplane) approximately
11
100 students, and has recommended about 20 students for various flight tests including
private, commercial, flight instructor, instrument, and seaplane examinations. The
researcher has been the chief check pilot, safety officer, and standardization/evaluation
officer of the Minnesota wing of the Civil Air Patrol, a civilian auxiliary of the United
States Air Force, and has accumulated over 6800 hours of flight time of which over 3800
hours have been flight instruction related. By comparison, a minimum of 20 hours of
flight time is required for a sport pilot certificate, 30 hours for a recreational pilot
certificate, 40 hours for a private pilot certificate, 250 hours for a commercial pilot
certificate, and 1500 hours for an air transport pilot certificate. No minimum hours are
specified for various ratings such as instrument and seaplane ratings. Flight instructors
must be commercial pilots with instrument ratings. For each certificate or rating pilots
must obtain specified types of training and experience and must pass oral and flight tests,
and for most certificates or ratings, a written test as well. Where appropriate, the
researcher used his expertise to augment data from the literature review.
Population of Interest
The population of interest was all active flight instructors in the state of
Minnesota who held flight instructor certificates valid for teaching in single engine land
airplanes in addition to their required commercial or air transport pilot certificate. These
instructors may be teaching in any of the enterprises mentioned in the Background
section above. That is, as individuals or as a full or part-time employee of a flight school.
Instructors may be flying club members who teach other members, not always for pay.
12
Instructors may be employed full-time in a non-aviation pursuit and may teach part-time
in one or more of the venues mentioned in the Background section above.
The Facts and Skills That Must be Transmitted to New Pilots
Student pilots must pass written, oral, and flight tests to achieve a higher level
certificate. The oral and flight tests are administered by an FAA inspector or by a
designated examiner. The oral and flight tests are usually administered on the same day,
weather permitting, and taken together are called the practical test.
Recreational certificate and Sport Pilot certificate requirements are not as
demanding as are the requirements for a private pilot certificate. However, flying
privileges are also more restrictive than are those for the private pilot. This study
involved only the landing training from the beginning of the final approach glide, through
the touchdown, and rollout phases of teaching student pilots to land. The pre-solo landing
training requirements are the same for Recreational, Sport, and Private certificates
(Federal Air Regulations, 2005). The FAA Private Pilot Practical Test Standards (PTS)
(FAA, 2002) established a baseline for the facts and skills that a pilot must possess to
pass the practical test for a private pilot certificate. Instructors must prepare students to be
able to demonstrate the knowledge and skills required to perform the tasks of the PTS.
That document established a minimum standard for the proficiency of a private pilot. The
PTS is supported by several other FAA publications including:

Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) (2005)

Flight Training Handbook (1980)

Airplane Flying Handbook (2004)
13

Aviation Instructor‟s Handbook (1999)

Aviation Weather (1975)
These resources help flight instructors determine what to teach and how to teach it, from
the FAA‟s point of view. However, many tasks can be approached from more than one
perspective. For example, The PTS requires correcting for wind drift in the traffic pattern
and touching down without drift. The landing portion of an airport traffic pattern is
shown in Figure 1. The pattern is entered at a speed lower than cruising speed and the
downwind, base, and final approach legs are flown leading to the touchdown. Drift
correction on the final approach leg may be achieved by using either the sideslip method
or by crabbing into the wind to maintain final approach runway alignment and
transitioning to a sideslip just before touchdown. The literature review revealed
differences in technique among the experts.
FIGURE 1. Landing portion of an airport traffic pattern.
14
Recommendations for Teaching Pilots How to Land an Airplane
Numerous sources provided a framework for teaching pilots how to land a light airplane.
Representative publications included the FAA Flight Training Handbook (1980), the
FAA Airplane Flying Handbook (2004), Kershner‟s The Flight Instructor‟s Manual
(1981), Collins‟, L. (2005) Takeoffs and Landings, Langewiesche‟s classic Stick and
Rudder (1944), and many tutorial video recordings. The review of other aviation
publications provided additional suggestions. This literature was summarized by the
model of the landing process and by the list of things flight instructors should teach pilots
learning to land mentioned above and was validated by experts in the field.
The Seriousness of the Landing Accident Problem
The literature review identified landing accidents as a significant portion of all
flying accidents. The specific numbers are included in the Problem section above.
The Contribution of Inadequate Flight Instruction to the Problem
The literature review found a number of comments that suggested that inadequate
flight instruction was a contributing factor to landing accidents. These comments are
included in the Problem section above.
The University of North Dakota (UND) Department of Aviation has a faculty of
500 and has 1500 students. Courses are offered in aviation management, airport
management, commercial aviation, flight education, air traffic control, and aviation
system management. One thousand flight students learn to fly in 120 airplanes located at
the main campus in Grand Forks and at several satellite facilities. The Grand Forks
campus was visited by the researcher in September, 2005 to learn how flight training was
15
evaluated and to explore the aviation library. UND professors and staff were unaware of
any studies that recorded the actual instructional process. Flight instructors are evaluated
at UND by the performance of their students. The UND library did, however, contain
sources regarding recommended flight instructing technique.
Files of popular aviation literature such as Flying magazine, Mentor (the
publication of the National Association of Flight Instructors, NAFI), and Flight Training
and Instructor Report (two publications of the AOPA) were also researched for data
regarding inadequate flight instruction.
Data Regarding How Flight Instructors Actually Teach Pilots How to Land a Light
Airplane
Nothing was found in this regard. A search of ERIC and Digital Dissertations
found nothing. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology and the journal Human
Factors sometimes contained articles about flying but nothing was been found in those
journals about teaching flying.
Model of the Landing Process
This section describes how the model of Figure 2 was constructed through the
literature review process and the researcher‟s experience. Beall & Loomis (1997) noted
five goals in landing an airplane (p. 202):

aligning the aircraft with the intended runway,

reducing speed and altitude through a stable descent,

arresting the descent with a landing flare,

touching down, and
16

bringing the aircraft safely to a stop.
The FAA (1995, tape two) suggested four phases:

Final,

Flare,

Touchdown, and

Roll-out.
The model of Figure 2 includes Beall and Loomis‟ suggestions. The researcher added
“establishing flare point” as an additional goal and established a “stabilized approach” as
the first phase with centerline alignment second (Figure 2). This was also consistent with
the FAA suggestion except that the FAA‟s Final phase was expanded to “stabilized
approach”, “centerline alignment”, and “establishing flare point”.
Factors that are involved in teaching pilots how to land were assimilated from a
number of flight training publications during the literature review and from the
researcher‟s experience. These factors were related to the six phases of the landing
process model.
Figure 2 shows the six landing phases and the factors involved in each phase.
Figures 1 and 2 were prepared on a Macintosh computer using Claris Draw and were
scanned into this document in JPEG format. The following paragraphs present the data
found in the literature regarding the factors of Figure 2, augmented where appropriate, by
the researcher‟s experience.
17
FIGURE 2. Model of the landing process
18
Stabilized Approach.
Definition
The FAA Airplane Flying Handbook (1999) advised that after an airplane had
turned from the base leg of the traffic pattern onto the final approach path, the final flap
(parts of the trailing edge of the wing, close to the fuselage, that when lowered increase
drag to allow steeper approaches), setting should be established, power and pitch attitude
(the position of the airplane‟s nose relative to the horizon) should be adjusted for the
proper descent angle, and the airplane should be trimmed (a control that allows the pilot
to select the airplane‟s hands-off pitch attitude) to relieve control pressure. Ideally, in a
no-wind condition, the airplane would then glide to the desired level-off point without
pilot control input. This constituted a stable approach. The FAA (1995, tape one) advised
that a good approach sets up a good landing and that a bad approach is a setup for a bad
landing. The FAA (2002) PTS required a stabilized approach for the private pilot flight
test.
The terms flare point, level-off point, and aim point are used synonymously in
this study. The term flare is usually used to describe the process of leveling the airplane
from the approach glide and raising the nose to the touchdown attitude. Level-off is the
first part of the flare. The aim point is the point on the runway above which the flare
begins. The touchdown point is the point on the runway where the airplane touches down,
approximately 200 feet past the flare point.
Jeppesen Sanderson Company, a provider of flight training material, in a 1993
video on stabilized approaches, stated that:
19
A stabilized approach is characterized by a constant rate of descent throughout the
final approach and a constant airspeed until the aircraft is in position for flare or
roundout. It requires the aircraft to be flown at a specific airspeed, power setting,
and configuration. (2min, 23 sec)
They claimed that stabilized approaches provided consistent landing accuracy,
predictable landing performance, were easier to perform due to reduced workload, and
allowed easier detection of destabilizing factors such as wind shear. Jeppesen Sanderson
Company also noted that 24% of general Aviation landing accidents was due to landing
too short or too long. Parker (2006) advised that the approach should be stabilized by the
time the airplane is 500 feet above the airport elevation.
Approach Parameters.
Airspeed in the following paragraphs is given in knots and distance in nautical
miles. One knot is one nautical mile per hour. A nautical mile is 6000 feet, in contrast to
the more common statute mile of 5280 feet. Modern airspeed indicators are marked in
knots and navigation publications use nautical miles.
The initial altitude, airspeed, distance from the flare point, flap setting and rate of
descent may vary considerably depending on the instructor‟s preferences. The FAA
(1995, tape one) stated that “The glide path becomes a personal decision” (23 minutes,
seven seconds). However, once these parameters have been chosen, an ideal stabilized
approach results in no change in airspeed, descent rate, flap setting, or pitch attitude until
reaching the flare point.
20
The length of the final approach segment of a landing may depend on the spacing
of the downwind leg (a leg parallel to the runway) of the traffic pattern. Many instructors,
including the researcher, teach students to turn from the downwind leg to the base leg (a
leg perpendicular to the runway, shown in Figure 1) when the pilot‟s sight line to the
runway threshold is at an angle of 45 degrees to the flight path. This will result in the
length of the final approach equaling the airplanes lateral spacing from the runway on the
downwind leg under no-wind conditions.
A downwind spacing of one-half mile, recommended by some experts, would
result in a rather steep final approach. For example, an approach that began at an altitude
of 400 feet, one-half mile from the runway threshold, at an airspeed of 60 knots (a typical
approach speed for airplanes used for initial training), would descend at 800 feet per
minute at an angle of 7.59 degrees. This might be considered excessive for student pilots.
Some experts recommended a descent rate of 500 feet per minute (fpm)
(Cuccinello, n.d.). A downwind spacing of .8 mile (4800 feet) would place the airplane
4800 feet from the runway threshhold at the beginning of the final approach. This would
yield a 500 fpm descent at 60 knots at an initial approach altitude of 400 feet. The
glideslope would be 4.76 degrees.
Jeppesen Sanderson Company (1993) suggested that the final approach should
begin at 200 feet above the ground a half-mile from the end of the runway. This is
consistent with most precision instrument approach regulations that allow a minimum
descent height of 200 feet and a minimum visibility of one-half mile. This is also
consistent with a 60 knot approach that began at 400 feet and a mile from the runway.
21
Jeppesen Sanderson Company (1993) used an approach speed of 70 knots in their
example. This yielded an approach glide slope of 3.81 degrees and a descent rate of 467
feet per minute. Later in the video, Jeppesen Sanderson Company advised applying the
last increment of flaps only when the landing is assured. Unless the power or airspeed is
changed, this will change the rate of descent, negating the stability of the approach as
they defined it above. Also, Jeppesen Sanderson Company advised using a visual
approach slope indicator if one is present. However the three degree glideslope of most
visual approach slope indicators would conflict with their recommended 3.81 degree
glideslope. There appeared to be some contradiction in those suggestions.
Instructors may also choose different altitudes at the beginning of the final
approach to achieve a desired rate of descent or glideslope angle. They may also select
different final approach speeds. The FAA (2004) recommended using the recommended
airspeed in the Pilot‟s Operating Handbook (POH) or, in its absence, 1.3 times Vso. (Vso
is the airplane‟s stalling speed with the landing gear down and landing flaps lowered. A
stall occurs when the wing is flown at an excessive angle to the wind striking it. This
results in a considerable loss of lift). Using 1.3 Vso was generally supported by the
experts (Jeppesen Sanderson Company, 1993; King Schools, n.d.; Ring, 1992; Rossier,
1997).
The FAA (1995, tape one) advised slowing to 1.3 times Vso when near the end of
the final approach; allowing extra airspeed to maintain a safe margin above stalling speed
in the event of maneuvering in the early part of the final approach. However, changing
22
speed on short final will destabilize the approach and might create an excessive workload
for a student pilot.
It should be noted that POH airspeeds may be given as calibrated airspeeds
(corrected for airspeed indicator errors). The pilot must then apply a correction to
calibrated airspeed to obtain the indicated airspeed to be flown. Also, the stalling speed in
the landing configuration decreases by approximately half the percentage of the
difference between the maximum certificated gross weight (the weight of the airplane and
everything in it) and the actual weight flown. For example if the actual weight flown
were 10 % less than the maximum gross weight, the stalling speed in the landing
configuration would be five percent less than the stalling speed at the maximum gross
weight. Calibration errors and actual weight should be considered in establishing the final
approach speed (King Schools, n.d.).
Faster speeds and higher altitudes require steeper approach glides unless the final
approach distance is longer. The above examples show the wide variability possible for
stabilized approaches and may explain why few experts specify exact approach
parameters. The choices are the instructors‟.
Power-on Approaches.
Flying a stable approach is required by the airlines and seems to have been
adopted by general aviation in recent years. A stable approach implies the use of power
as well as pitch to establish the correct glide path. In years past, landings were taught to
be made without power so that pilots would learn how to glide to a desired landing spot.
This was a needed skill when flying airplanes with unreliable engines. However, since
23
the advent of reliable engines such as the one that powered Lindberg‟s epic flight in 1927
and the development of horizontally opposed air-cooled engines in the 1930s, engine
failures have become a rarity. The use of power greatly simplifies the landing approach
and is necessary at busy airports where pilots must fly final approach paths of varying
lengths to avoid interference with other airplanes. Langewiesche (1944) stated that
“Engines quit very rarely nowadays” (p. 262), and that a pilot “... ought to know how to
make an extremely accurate approach and landing with power” (p. 264).
There is more to a stabilized approach than just using some power. A stabilized
approach implies final flap and trim settings as well as power. A power-on approach
might not be stabilized but a stabilized approach is always made with power on. The
stabilized approach is often established at a point about a half-mile from the end of the
runway; after the airplane has transitioned from the base leg to the final leg of the pattern.
In the event that a pilot must fly a longer approach due to traffic or for some other reason,
the pilot may elect to defer stabilization until the last half-mile.
Expert Opinions
Most experts teach students to establish a stabilized approach by establishing the
final pitch, power, flap, and trim settings at the beginning of the final approach and then
making small adjustments as necessary to maintain the desired glide path. This helps the
student adjust for the variables, usually wind related, that inevitably alter the glide path.
Parker (1997), arguing for teaching stabilized approaches, stated that “A great landing
happens because the pilot has successfully managed a complex set of variables” (p. 44),
and that “The pilot should stabilize the aircraft at the proper approach airspeed, at the
24
proper altitude, on glidepath, and aligned with the runway‟s extended centerline” (p. 44).
Parker was supported by many others including Rosier (1997) who stated that “A good
landing begins with a stabilized approach on a glidepath that carries the aircraft to a
predetermined aim point on the runway” (p. 51). Cuccinello (n.d.) stated that a stabilized
approach results in predictable landing performance, better situational awareness, less
time fidgeting with power settings, and more time concentrating on the actual approach.
Stabilized Approach Factors
Figure 2 shows nine factors as arrows pointing to the stabilized approach block.
These factors affect achieving and maintaining a stabilized approach.
Flaps. The researcher has observed that most instructors teach students to land
with full flaps. Maximum flaps provide the steepest glide which makes arriving at a
desired aim point easier and reduces touchdown speed. However, the added drag of the
flaps reduces the time from level-off to touchdown which may not allow a student pilot
enough time to establish the desired touchdown attitude. Also, the steeper approach may
be disconcerting to a student pilot. In addition, a go-around (a climb-out from a rejected
landing), or a touch and go (a takeoff almost immediately after the airplane touches
down) with the flaps inadvertently left down, may provide marginal climb capability. For
these reasons, the researcher taught half-flap approaches for many years. However, more
experience and confidence convinced him that students were capable of learning to use
full flaps prior to solo and that the benefits of added touchdown point precision and
slower landing speeds more than offset the potential safety hazard. Also, if students learn
25
to use full flaps for normal landings during their pre-solo training, those students will
develop habit patterns that will serve them well throughout their flying careers.
Applying all remaining flaps at the beginning of the approach eliminates the need
for a change of power, pitch, and trim associated with a change in flap setting later in the
approach. Sporty‟s (1990) recommended applying full flaps when lined up on the final
approach. The FAA (2004) stated that “There is no single formula to determine the
degree of flap deflection to be used on landing, because a landing involves variables that
are dependent on each other” (p. 11-3). Partial flaps (flaps may be lowered in increments)
are usually used during gusty crosswind conditions. However, student pilots are not
normally soloed in such winds or in airplanes where full flaps are not recommended for
normal landings.
The FAA (1995, tape one) On Landings video tapes advised using full flaps but
that the last increment of flaps should be applied only after the landing is assured. This
would imply that full flaps should not be applied as soon as the airplane is turned onto the
final approach but at a later time. If the approach is stabilized at the beginning of the final
approach, adding flaps later will destabilize the approach requiring power, pitch, and trim
changes to reestablish stability. This might create too high a workload for a student pilot,
close to the runway threshold.
Langewiesche (1944) stated that “Flaps have the additional advantage that any
excess airspeed which you may bring down to the ground can‟t bother you much. As you
flare out, the flaps kill your speed in a matter of seconds, and no long floating is possible”
(p. 256). This is contrary to conventional wisdom that says that diving to the runway gets
26
rid of undesired altitude but results in a longer float, negating the effect of the dive. The
researcher has found that, as Langewiesche stated, the dive is effective as long as the drag
of full flaps is available. However, students are seldom exposed to this technique or to
other more advanced techniques. The emphasis is on the development of good habit
patterns without resorting to more extreme methods.
Adequate flying skills. Of all the problems associated with teaching new pilots to
land, the researcher noticed that the lack of adequate flying skills prior to attempting
landings is the most common hindrance to learning to land. “... it‟s a mistake to think that
takeoffs and landings are the most important factors. Without the basics of aircraft
handling, which should continue to be emphasized throughout your learning program, it‟s
impossible to do the rest right” (Davisson, 2006). Regarding some of the tasks that pilots
should master before being introduced to the landing pattern Davisson (2007) stated
“Proper ground reference skills cannot be mastered in a traffic pattern, particularly at a
busy airport” (p. 48).
For many years, at the annual Civil Air Patrol cadet flight academy, the researcher
was the instructor of last resort for cadets who were having trouble landing. In every
case, the problem was that the cadet was not ready to learn landings. The solution was the
same in all cases. It was to review the basic flying procedures and to establish an
acceptable level of performance. After that, landings were mastered routinely and in
every case (about a dozen over the years) the cadet successfully soloed. Landsberg (2001)
stated that:
27
Way too many instructors rush to teach in the pattern before the student has
learned the fundamentals. It may be more exciting for the instructor to save the
aircraft during each landing but that‟s not way to build a solid foundation for the
fledgling pilot. (p. 80)
The researcher has found that students who could establish a stabilized approach
with the correct power, flap, and trim settings; correct airspeed, descent rate, and pitch
attitude; using outside visual references only, and who could properly align the airplane
with the runway centerline, were usually ready to learn to land. The FAA (1995, tape
one) noted that “A fundamental key to flying a stabilized approach is understanding the
importance of the relationship between pitch and power” (14 minutes, nine seconds). This
relationship is part of the basic airmanship skills that should be taught in the first few
hours of flight instruction.
Trim. The trim control positions a moveable tab attached to the elevator (the
movable control surface attached to the fixed horizontal tail (horizontal stabilizer), or
adjusts the initial position of the entire horizontal tail (stabilator). The trim tab determines
the hands-off position of the elevator. The position of the elevator determines the pitch
attitude of the airplane. Thus, a pilot may establish a desired hands-off pitch attitude by
adjusting the trim control. The FAA (2004) advised trimming after turning onto the final
approach. Kershner (2002) advised that the airplane should be trimmed for hands-off
flight at all times. This eases the pilot‟s workload. King Schools (n.d.) stated that proper
trim was very important. The FAA (1995, tape one) stated that “Improper trimming the
airplane is probably the biggest single contributor to the whole bounced landing problem”
28
(42 minutes, 43 seconds). Collins, R. (1993) sounded a contrary note. He claimed that a
trimmed airplane “takes all the feel out of a landing” (p. 4).
Collins, L. (2005) pointed out that while a trimmed airplane lessens a pilot‟s
workload, an airplane trimmed for a power off glide will pitch up upon application of full
power during a go-around or a touch and go. This might require significant forward
pressure on the control column to avoid too high a nose attitude that could cause the wing
to a stall (loss of lift due to an excessive angle of attack, the angle between the wing and
the wind) if uncorrected. Retrimming to reduce the forward pressure is difficult since the
pilot is occupied with adjusting power and reducing flaps with one hand while pushing on
the control column with the other hand and does not have a hand free for a second or two.
For this reason, some pilots do not completely trim the airplane for the final approach
glide. This requires back pressure on the control column to hold the nose in the desired
pitch attitude. While this reduces the need for forward pressure during a go-around or
touch and go, it increases the final approach workload.
The researcher found that for the light aircraft most often used to train student
pilots, the forward pressure needed upon application of full power is within the capability
of both male and female pilots of all ages. However, heavier and more powerful airplanes
(not often used for training student pilots) might very well require a different technique.
Altitude control and airspeed control. These two factors are considered together.
A change in airspeed will result in a change in altitude (or climb or descent rate) unless
the pilot intervenes, and vice versa. For example, if a pilot raises the nose from the
approach glide position, the airplane will climb (or the descent rate will decrease). The
29
airspeed will decrease unless the pilot adds power. When a pilot adds power, the airplane
will climb unless the pilot pushes forward on the control column. The FAA (2004)
recommended that “the power and pitch attitude should be adjusted simultaneously as
necessary to control the airspeed, and the descent angle, or to attain the desired altitude
along the descent path” (p. 8-3). The FAA (1995, tape two) stated that “Mastering
airspeed control is the most important factor in achieving landing precision” (five
minutes, eight seconds).
In the past, there had been some controversy regarding how to teach airspeed and
altitude control. The FAA, mostly in regard to other flight tasks such as slow flight and
instrument approaches, recommended using the throttle to control airspeed and the
elevator to control altitude. The flying community generally accepted this method for
flying precision instrument approaches but rejected it for other tasks. The researcher and
other flight instructor acquaintances, all teach the pilot to make the initial correction of
airspeed with the elevator (that is, raising the nose results in an immediate reduction of
airspeed and vice versa) and to use power to control altitude. However, most everyone
agrees that the effect of one control on the other usually requires both an adjustment of
power and pitch attitude (controlled by the elevator) as noted by the FAA above. The
argument centered on which control to apply first. The researcher‟s experience has been
that when a student pilot was too low on the final approach the flight instructor invariably
advised the student to add power immediately. When a student allowed the airspeed to
become too low, the instructor‟s first command was to lower the nose. The ability to
30
correct for altitude or airspeed deviations, almost subconsciously (tacit knowledge), is
key to a student‟s readiness to learn to land.
Non-stabilized Approaches
A minority of instructors do not follow the FAA and experts‟ recommendations.
Variations of the stabilized approach that the researcher has observed include:

Gradually reducing final approach airspeed until a desired airspeed is
reached over the runway threshold,

Withholding final flap setting until the airplane is too high to land without
adding the remaining flaps,

Using a forward slip to reduce altitude, and

Making a power-off approach.
It has been argued that the type of approach is immaterial as long as the aircraft
arrives at the level-off point at the proper altitude and airspeed. Collins, R. (1993) stated
“Forget that part about having a stabilized approach from some far-out point on final to
the runway” (p. 2) as long as the aircraft is properly positioned to land at the level-off
point. The advantage of the stabilized approach is that it makes it easier to arrive properly
at the level-off point. It has been said that a good landing follows a good approach. The
researcher has found that it is easy to teach a stabilized approach and that student pilots
readily adapt to it. Certainly, there are times when a stabilized approach is not feasible.
Such as when air traffic control asks for maximum speed on final or asks for a short
approach. However, these situations are not for the pre-solo student pilot and may be
31
taught after the first solo flight. This study is concerned only with flight instruction for
student pilots who have not yet soloed.
Centerline Alignment
An aviation cliché is that a good landing follows a good approach. Keeping the
airplane on the extended runway centerline throughout the approach minimizes the need
for maneuvering as the airplane nears the runway threshold and reduces the pilot‟s
workload.
Centerline Alignment Factors
The windsock. Almost all airports have a windsock (a tapered, fabric, polemounted tube, usually orange, that shows wind speed and direction). or other wind
direction indicator that can be seen from anywhere in the traffic pattern, regardless of
which runway is in use. Windsocks show both direction and velocity of the wind close to
the landing surface. Usually, pilots gage the direction and velocity of the wind before
arriving at the final approach. However, winds can change from moment to moment. A
view of the windsock while on final approach can be a valuable aid to anticipating the
need for crosswind correction. Even where wind conditions are broadcast on a special
frequency, the windsock provides a more immediate indication of wind behavior.
Recognition of drift. During the final approach glide the pilot must keep the
airplane aligned with the centerline of the runway to avoid unsafe maneuvering near the
end of the glide. Pilots must recognize and correct for any drifting from the runway
centerline. This is not difficult in a no-wind situation or when the wind is blowing
straight down the runway. When the wind blows at an angle to the centerline of the
32
runway (a crosswind) the wind will blow the aircraft away from the runway centerline.
Teaching crosswind landings is one of the more difficult flight instruction tasks. “Most
new pilots will insist that the crosswind landing is the hardest technique to master. A lot
of flight instructors will agree that it‟s difficult to teach” (Collins, R. 1984, p. 41). There
are two ways of countering the drift off course created by a crosswind, the crab and the
sideslip.
The crab. The easiest way to maintain runway centerline alignment is by crabbing
into the wind. This is done by pointing the nose of the airplane a bit toward the direction
from which the wind is blowing. The crab angle is the angle between the runway
centerline and the direction in which the airplane‟s nose is pointing. Light winds may
require only a few degrees of crab while stronger winds may require a crab angle of
twenty degrees or more. While the crab is a fairly easy way of compensating for
crosswinds, the airplane must not be allowed to touch down at an angle to the runway
centerline. Doing so can damage the landing gear which is not designed to withstand
significant side loads, except in the case of airplanes designed with crosswind landing
gear which are rarely used for ab initio instruction (the now classic Aircoupe being an
exception).
Prior to touching down, the crab must be converted to a sideslip, as described
below, to avoid landing with a side load on the landing gear. If the change from a crab to
a slip is delayed until just before touchdown, as recommended by some experts, the
change requires accurate timing and correct use of the controls.
33
The sideslip. When an aileron (the movable control surface at the wingtip) is
raised, the wing will lower and the airplane will begin to turn in the direction of the
lowered wing. The aileron on the opposite wing moves down to raise that wing,
enhancing the effect. The airplane is said to be banked in the direction of the lowered
wing. The ailerons roll the airplane around the airplane‟s longitudinal axis. A banked
airplane will turn in the direction of the bank.
The turning motion of a banked airplane may be arrested by the application of
opposite rudder (the movable part of the vertical tail, controlled by rudder pedals, that
moves the airplane around the vertical or yaw axis). For example, if the airplane is
banked to the left, the pilot may stop the left turn by pressing on the right rudder pedal.
The rudder is used to yaw the airplane around the airplane‟s vertical axis. When a turn is
arrested in this manner, the aircraft will actually slide sideways through the air in the
direction of the lowered wing. This is called a sideslip. Properly done, the airplane can be
made to slide sideways into the wind as fast as the crosswind is pushing the aircraft away
from the runway centerline. The aileron is thought of as controlling the amount of slip
into the wind and the rudder is simply used to keep the nose straight (the longitudinal axis
of the airplane aligned with the runway centerline). This is a much more difficult
maneuver to learn and to teach then the crab but it has the advantage of allowing the
airplane to land in that attitude because there is no side load on the landing gear. In strong
crosswinds, the aircraft might be banked to the extent that the touchdown is made first on
the wheel on the side to which the airplane is banked.
34
There are at least four schools of thought regarding which method of
compensating for crosswinds should be taught. Some instructors (the researcher included)
teach pilots to begin the sideslip as soon as possible after turning onto the final approach
course. Others teach the crab method until almost down and then teach switching to a
sideslip for the touchdown. Still other instructors teach pilots to use the crab method until
some point comfortably above the ground, and then to transition to a sideslip for the
remainder of the approach glide. This is called the combination method. This method has
the advantage of using the easier crab method on the early part of the approach where the
winds may be stronger (winds often increase with altitude). Also, crosswinds are often
gusty, requiring the pilot to make constant corrections with the ailerons and rudder.
On occasion, the wind may be so strong at the initial approach altitude that the
airplane does not have sufficient aileron or rudder control, or both, to compensate for the
crosswind using the sideslip method. In that event, as much sideslip as the aircraft is
capable of may be combined with as much crab as is required to stop the drift. This
method, which might be called a simultaneous method, will allow the airplane to proceed
down the runway centerline but does not allow landing in that crabbed condition.
However, since the wind often diminishes as the airplane glides lower, the crab might
become unnecessary, and the sideslip sufficient, as the airplane nears the ground. If the
centerline cannot be held with a slip alone, the wind is probably too strong to allow a safe
landing and the landing should be aborted. This is an advanced technique that is unlikely
to be taught to a student pilot.
35
Initial instruction focused on how to land an airplane is intended to prepare the
pilot for his or her first solo flight. An instructor might teach landings in difficult wind
conditions that the instructor would not allow the student pilot to experience alone. This
can build a margin of skill and confidence that will serve the pilot well on the first solo
flight. Instructors generally allow a first solo flight only under close to ideal conditions
with only light crosswinds. Thus, the crosswind techniques of crabbing and converting to
a slip at the last instant, the combination method, or the simultaneous method might be
reserved for more experienced pilots.
Langewiesche (1944) pointed out that a tricycle gear airplane is inherently stable
when landed with some side load on the landing gear. That is, the airplane will tend to
straighten itself to align the nose with the forward motion of the airplane. Thus, landing
with the nose a bit cocked into a crosswind, would, within limits, be safe. He inferred
therefore, that crosswind correction is not too critical for tricycle gear airplanes. By
contrast, landing a tailwheel airplane (an airplane with the third wheel under the tail
rather than under the nose, now obsolete for ab initio instruction) with the nose the least
bit crooked, would result in the beginning of a ground loop (an uncontrolled swerve) due
to the tailwheel airplane‟s inherent instability when subjected to side loads on the landing
gear..
The FAA Airplane Flying Handbook (2004) explained both the slip method and
the crab and last instant conversion to a slip method and stated that “The wing low
method is recommended in most cases although a combination of both methods may be
used” (p. 8-13). Leighton Collins in his 1981 book on takeoffs and landings, republished
36
by his son Richard (himself a prolific writer and recognized aviation expert) in 2005,
argued for the crab and last instant conversion to a slip method. “When it comes to a
strong crosswind in a landing, and most especially if there are strong gusts, it seems to
me that the crab method offers more and better options” (p. 203). Collins, L. also stated
that “The key element in the crab method is a precise feel for the airplane” (p. 204).
Richard Collins (1984), in an article on crosswind landings, while describing both the slip
and crab methods, stated that he used the crab method in his own flying.
A contrary note was sounded by Dorion (2005). He had over 14,000 hours of
flying time in military and civilian aircraft. He described the slip method as an Air Force
procedure and the crab method as a Navy procedure. He stated that he used the slip
method for his airline flights. Dorion also stated that “I believe that putting crosswind
rudder in during the flare is taking an unnecessary risk and flying doesn‟t need any more
risk” (p. 10). The researcher called Mr. Dorion and discussed the pros and cons of the
two methods. Mr. Dorion, now retired, admitted that the crab method has some
advantages but that it is too tricky for inexperienced pilots. Since the slip method had
worked for him in aircraft from trainers to airliners, why use the crab? However, he
agreed that some experienced pilots might find the crab useful but that their experience
mitigated the added risk. The researcher‟s experience is that student pilots do not have
the precise feel for the airplane mentioned by Collins, L. (2005) and that the crab method
is best reserved for more experienced pilots.
Kershner (2002) provided an additional perspective in his widely read flight
instructor‟s manual. He stated that “The most comfortable as well as an easy, crosswind
37
approach and landing for the more experienced pilot is a crab approach and a wing-down
landing” (p. 139). However, he also stated that “Many instructors use the wing down
method for the approach and landing for students because there is often a problem in the
transition from the crab to the wing-down procedure” (p. 139). King Schools (n.d.)
recommended the combination technique with the transition from a crab to a slip
occurring when close to the runway threshold. Sporty‟s (1990) recommended the slip
method because students were too likely to land with a side load on the landing gear due
to inadequate crosswind compensation when transitioning from the crab to a slip just
before touchdown. Marsh (1996) claimed that the argument was over and that most flight
schools were teaching the crab method.
Establishing Flare Point
The flare is the process of leveling the aircraft from the final approach glide and
raising the nose so that the aircraft will touch down on the main landing gear only. The
nose wheel is not designed to withstand the same landing loads that the main gear may
encounter. The FAA (2004) defined the roundout or flare as “... a slow transition from a
normal approach attitude to a landing attitude...” (p. 8-5). King Schools (n.d.) stated that
“The roundout or flare is a slow smooth transition from approach attitude to landing
attitude” (14 minutes, 57 seconds). The flare point, or aim point, is that point on the
runway above which the flare begins,
It is important to flare at a point that allows a landing close to the beginning of the
runway so that a maximum amount of runway remains for floating just above the runway
as the airspeed diminishes and for deceleration after touchdown. The shorter the runway,
38
the more critical establishing the flare point becomes. The FAA (2004) stated that “The
selected landing point should be beyond the runway‟s approach threshold but within the
first one-third portion of the runway” (p. 8-1). Sporty‟s also advised landing in the first
one-third of the runway. The landing point will usually be about 200 feet or so beyond
the flare point due the aircraft floating just above the runway as the speed diminishes.
King Schools (n.d.) noted that the aim point is not the touchdown point. The FAA is
silent regarding how to establish the touchdown point.
It would seem that establishing the aircraft level-off point would simply be a
matter of aiming the nose at the desired point and leveling off when the airplane gets
there. However, the level-off should begin with the airspeed at a desired value, usually 30
percent higher than the airplane‟s stalling speed in the landing configuration. If the
airplane is too fast (usually caused by beginning the approach at too high an altitude), the
airplane will float down the runway while the speed is being dissipated. This may result
in insufficient runway remaining after touchdown to decelerate to a safe turnoff speed. If
the approach is begun at too low an altitude, the resulting shallow glide angle might result
in airspeed too low to be safe.
Establishing Flare Point Factors
Visual cues. Flying the airplane so that it arrives at the desired flare point over the
runway with the proper airspeed and at an altitude appropriate for beginning the level-off
(approximately 10 feet above the runway) requires practice and instruction. Given
enough practice, students will eventually master the task. However, they may have
learned by rote and will be unable to compensate for traffic patterns that, due to traffic or
39
air traffic control instructions, will place them on the final approach higher or farther
from the runway than usual (Kershner, 2002, p. 125). A procedure for adjusting the glide
path is needed that will work regardless of altitude, airspeed, or distance from the
runway, and that will also indicate the need to go around in the event that these
parameters are not within the capability of the airplane to arrive at the aim point without
excessive airspeed or altitude.
Point/power. One school of thought is to teach the pilot to point the nose at the
intended level-off point and to control the airspeed with power. This works unless
airspeed and final approach altitude are too high to begin with and closing the throttle
does not result in sufficiently lowering the airspeed. The pilot may then be tempted to
dive at the runway, resulting in excessive airspeed, a higher descent rate, and creating
flare problems. (FAA, 2004, Collins, l., 2005). The researcher has encountered no one
who teaches this method, possibly because it does not work in all situations.
Diving at the runway. The researcher has discovered, by trial and error, and
supported by Collins, L. (2005, p. 167) that when landing modern training airplanes with
full flaps (the usual configuration), diving away altitude (and thereby picking up
unwanted additional airspeed) will result in landing closer to the intended point than will
remaining above the desired glide path while maintaining the desired approach speed.
Evidently, the added drag of the flaps due to the increased glide speed, more than offsets
the floating effect of the increased glide speed. However, this and other approach
variations are best left to experienced pilots.
40
Stationary spot technique. Langewiesche (1944) suggested that pilots learn to
judge the flare point by remembering the particular perspective (the shape of the runway)
that goes with the aircraft‟s particular gliding angle. Langewiesche also provided a
method for accurately determining where the airplane would impact the ground if it was
not flared. “As an airplane is gliding toward a certain spot on the ground, that spot, as
seen by the pilot, remains always in the same relationship to the horizon, as seen by the
pilot” (p. 276). Thus, if the pilot sees that the intended flare point is remaining fixed in its
position relative to the windshield, then that spot will be where the aircraft should be
flared. If the flare point (spot) appears to move up in the windshield, the flare will occur
before the spot and the aircraft will land short of the desired touchdown point.
Conversely, a spot that moves down in the windshield forecasts a long landing. Knowing
that unless the approach glide is adjusted, the aircraft will land short or long allows the
pilot to take corrective action. This technique was supported by King Schools (n.d.) and
Sporty‟s (1990).
The researcher‟s experience is that this technique can be taught to beginning
pilots and that once learned, every landing will touch close to a predetermined spot.
Given a stabilized approach, the stationary spot technique will work with long or short,
fast or slow, flap or no flap approaches. The pilot need only adjust power and pitch
attitude so that the aim point is stationary in the windshield regardless of whether the
approach is long due to air traffic control direction or is a short, steep approach at a field
with no control tower. If the airspeed is excessive with the throttle closed, or if the
approach began at an excessively high altitude, it may not be possible to stabilize the spot
41
and at the same time, maintain the desired approach speed. In such cases, a go-around is
advisable.
The stationary spot technique also compensates for runway width illusion
problems that occur with abnormally wide or narrow runways. When landing on a wide
runway, a pilot experiences the sensation of being too low. A narrow runway induces the
sensation of being too high (Wilson, 1993 in Galanis, Jennings, & Beckett, 2001; King
Schools, n.d.). The researcher has also found that other illusions, such as the black hole
effect, flying into the ground at night (Galanis, et al,), and the mesa illusion (King
Schools, n.d.) such as landing at an airport on top of a steep hill (for example, the
Catalina Island airport), are all avoided by using the moving spot technique. Jeppesen
Sanderson (1993) also supported the stationary spot technique for the reasons above.
Windows. Collins, L. (2005), supported by the FAA (1995), suggested that pilots
subconsciously remember how things look when the approach glide is correct and will
adjust accordingly. He suggested that a pilot should visualize a set of windows along the
desired glide path, the final window being at the flare point. The pilot should fly the
aircraft through the set of imaginary windows. This is a variation of a technique that
suggests that a pilot should aim the aircraft at the flare point while adjusting power to
maintain the desired glide speed.
Others who supported Langewiesche‟s stationary spot technique included
Davisson (1996), Laboda (1997), Parker (1997) (Parker also supported the series of
windows method mentioned above), Namowitz (2005), and Rossier (1997). Although
these and other experts supported the stationary spot technique, the researcher has not
42
seen similar interest among his flight instructor acquaintances. It is suspected that many
instructors subscribe to Leighton Collins suggestion that students teach themselves and
that the instructor rides along as a safety pilot. Such a process might work but might also
be very inefficient. After all, that was how the Wright brothers learned, at the expense of
many crashes. It might take many hours of flight for the visual perspectives mentioned by
Collins, L (2005) above to become ingrained. Meanwhile, the student might continue to
practice the same errors.
Visual approach slope indicators. Visual approach slope indicators usually
consist of a lights placed alongside the approach end of the runway. These lights are
arranged so that pilots see a particular light pattern when the airplane is on the glide path
for which the system is designed. For example, one type of indicator, the VASI (visual
approach slope indicator) system is usually designed so that two lights will appear to be
white and two lights will appear to be red when the airplane is gliding at a three degree
angle down from the horizontal toward an aim point approximately 600 feet from the
approach end of the runway. (Electronic instrument landing systems are also usually
designed for a three degree glideslope). If all lights are red, the airplane is significantly
low. If all lights are white, the airplane is significantly high (AIM, 2005, p. 544).
The researcher‟s experience is that most instructors teach students to aim for the
numbers painted near the approach end of the runway (or for a runway marker close to
the approach end of a turf runway). This point is usually much closer to the approach end
than the 600 foot flare point of the VASI system. Also, in the absence of visual approach
slope indicators most instructors teach an approach that is steeper than the three degrees
43
noted above. For these steeper approaches, a VASI will show all lights white until the
airplane is close to the aim point. When the airplane glides below the three degree
glideslope, due an aim point closer than 600 feet to the end of the runway, the VASI will
show all lights red. (When in the clouds making an instrument landing, a pilot has no
choice but to follow the electronic glideslope and centerline alignment [localizer]
instruments mounted in the instrument panel).
Instructors must deal with these differences when teaching how to use visual
approach slope indicators. They must teach either a three degree approach path (Pardo,
2004), which would require beginning the final approach farther out than a half-mile
(about 1.27 miles at 60 knots and 400 feet); or teach leveling out on final from the base
leg at a much lower altitude (probably not too safe); or defer the stabilized approach by
reducing power until the airplane sinks to a three degree approach path and then adding
power to sustain three degrees; or teach the steeper approach usually used by light
training airplanes, using the visual approach slope indicator only as an aid to avoid
becoming excessively low. Discussion of this quandary has not been found in the
literature. Perhaps because of the many possibilities of final approach length, descent
rate, airspeed, and initial final approach altitude, the FAA has not recommended specific
traffic pattern dimensions and descent rates.
The researcher believes that visual approach slope indicators add to landing
safety, especially at night, but that students must be taught their characteristics and how
to use them effectively. Chapter four identifies what flight instructors teach so that the
44
aircraft arrives at the desired flare point at the proper altitude (approximately 10 feet), the
proper airspeed, over the centerline and without sideways drift.
Forward slip. A forward slip is a means of losing altitude when the airplane is too
high to level off at the desired flare point. A forward slip is accomplished by lowering a
wing and applying full opposite rudder. If a crosswind exists, a wing is lowered toward
the crosswind. Otherwise either wing may be lowered. Correct aileron deflection will
keep the airplane moving down the runway centerline but the fuselage will be positioned
at an angle to the descent path. This presents more fuselage surface area to the wind and
significantly increases drag. The result is a steeper descent without increasing airspeed.
Earlier, tailwheel airplane trainers did not have flaps to increase drag to enable a
steeper descent without increasing airspeed. A forward slip was a commonly used
maneuver to correct final approach altitude problems and to enable steeper descents when
desired. However, with the advent of modern, tricycle gear trainers that had flaps, the
forward slip became superfluous. Also, due to undesirable aerodynamic interaction of
flaps and elevator, Cessna placarded their airplanes advising pilots to avoid slips with
flaps extended. Nevertheless, the FAA (2002) Private Pilot Practical Test Standards
required that applicants be able to demonstrate a forward slip. The FARs (2005) part
61.87(d) (14) require that student pilots be trained in “Slips to a landing ...” (p. 76). This
requirement is somewhat ambiguous since the requirement could be referring to the
sideslip used to compensate for a crosswind. The researcher‟s experience is that most
instructors teach both the sideslip and forward slip prior to authorizing a student to solo.
45
The two slips are performed in the same manner. A forward slip may be thought of as an
exaggerated sideslip.
Level-off
“Son, if you keep doing that, someday you‟re going to hurt yourself” was the
total landing instruction given to the researcher in his first attempts at landing an Aeronca
in a plowed field. Level offs were too high due to fear of crashing into the ground. The
researcher has since learned that this is a common tendency during initial landing
practice. Not much better was later instruction that consisted of “You‟re coming in
crooked”, when landing in a crosswind. The researcher finally learned to land from books
and from conversations with others. Student pilots deserve better.
The researcher, for the purpose of analysis, chose to analyze three components of
the transition from the approach glide to touchdown. These were the level off, discussed
in this section; raising the nose to the touchdown attitude; and the touchdown itself,
discussed in the next section. The first two components constitute the flare. The
touchdown follows the flare.
Level Off Factors
Visual cues. Benbasset & Abramson (2002) have studied the flare process
extensively. They concluded that:

Pilots rely on monocular visual clues to judge level off height (Benson, 1999;
Bond , Bryan, Rigney and Warren, 1962; Langeweische, 1972; Nagel, 1988),
46

Monocular depth perception is learned or dependent on experience (Benson,
1999; Bramson, 1982; Langeweische, 1972; Love, 1995; Marieb, 1995,
Tredici, 1996),

Improper level offs contribute to a significant number of landing accidents,
and

Improper flares affect pilots‟ self esteem and contribute to an increase in the
time to solo, dropout rates, self-esteem and self-efficacy.
Beal & Loomis (1997) stated that “...research has established that landing an
aircraft can be performed as well with one eye as with two (Lewis, Blakeley, Masters &
McMurty, 1973; Lewis & Krier, 1969; Plaffman, 1948; Riordan, 1974” p. 206).
Langeweische (1944) stated that “...the judgment of height in landing can be broken
down into teachable, learnable details” (p. 296). He suggested that the pilot look several
hundred feet down the runway and that the pilot would soon learn the perspective of the
objects in view at the height appropriate for beginning the level off. This was supported
by Parker (2005) who advised “...your primary focus should be out ahead of the airplane”
(p. 40). Ring (1992) stated that “Looking farther down the runway will give you a better
visual situation of where you are in the landing process, especially when flaring for
touchdown” (p. 57). Sporty‟s (1990) advised focusing far enough ahead to see clearly.
Focusing too closely to the airplane will result in blurring due to the motion of the ground
relative to the airplane. Namowitz (2006) stated:
Look a good distance down the runway during your landing. Looking too close to
the moving aircraft blurs the images, distorts relative motion, and creates an urge
47
to rush things. This single adjustment can lead to vast improvements in landing.
(p.40)
The researcher‟s experience is that failing to look far enough ahead of the aim point is the
major cause of improper flares.
Langeweische (1944) wrote of a perspective shift that occurred when the airplane
rose or sank. He advised that this shift could be seen while standing by looking ahead and
rising up and then sinking and noting the perspective shift of the objects viewed. The
FAA (2004) stated that “...the visual cues used most are those related to changes in
runway or terrain perspective and to changes in the size of familiar objects near the
landing area” p. (8-5).
The researcher discovered that the above perspective shift could be taught as an
aid to judging when to flare. Students are taught, as Langeweische (1944) suggested, to
slowly bend their knees while looking ahead but not moving forward. They were
instructed to look ahead and to note the shift in perspective. The ground appeared to rise
up. A similar effect was seen from the cockpit. Key to this technique was looking ahead.
The researcher learned to look ahead about a football field length and has so taught his
students. The distance is not critical but there are limits.
King Schools (n.d.) recommended looking as far ahead as one would look while
driving a car at the same speed. Looking too closely over the nose resulted in a delayed
perception of being close to the ground and usually resulted in a frantic, last second pull
up and a balloon that often required instructor intervention. Looking too far ahead usually
resulted in too low a level off and might also require the attention of the instructor.
48
Teaching students to look ahead and to watch for the perspective change allowed the
researcher and a few of his CAP Flight Academy fellow instructors to safely solo some
students with only ten practice landings. Such students seldom needed to go around and
go-around training was then conducted in addition to the ten practice landings.
Seat height. The use of visual cues implies that the pilot sits high enough to see
out the windshield. “A high hurdle the pilot has to clear for good landings is the annual
growth, small but steady, in the height of most of our instrument panels” (Collins, L,
2005). The researcher found that a student‟s line-of-sight that passed through the
windshield at about six inches above the instrument panel was adequate. If the student‟s
line of sight was less than six inches above the instrument panel, the student was
provided with a seat cushion.
Low pass. Students are sometimes afraid of the ground when first learning to land,
as was the researcher as noted above. This fear causes them to lose focus on the stabilized
approach, centerline alignment, and leveling off properly. To remove the fear and to
refine approach skills, the researcher and others tell the student beforehand that they will
practice the approach only and will not attempt to touch down. At an altitude of 50 feet or
so, the instructor tells the student to slow-fly (a technique taught during the student‟s first
few hours of instruction) above the runway while maintaining centerline alignment using
a sideslip. This provides practice in controlling the airplane close to the ground without
the fear of landing.
The King Schools (n.d.) video recommended low passes to familiarize students
with the slip method of compensating for crosswinds. The video showed an airplane
49
sliding across the runway centerline to the left and then to the right by the use of the
ailerons while keeping the fuselage parallel to the runway centerline by use of the rudder
(By coincidence, the pilot of that demonstration was a participant in this study). The
instructor may further relieve anxiety by controlling the throttle. The student then has one
less item to worry about. When the student shows progress in low passes, throttle control
may be relinquished by the instructor. As the student progresses, the instructor may call
for lower altitudes. Finally, when all is well, the instructor may call for a pass at the
normal level-off altitude of about ten feet. The instructor closes the throttle at the flare
point and instructs the student to raise the nose and to hold it in the touchdown position
(this requires increasing back pressure on the controls and the instructor may remind the
student to keep pulling). A good landing usually results and the instructor may then
congratulate the student on making a good first landing.
The researcher has found this technique to be very motivating. If kept from
botching landings at first, the student will maintain a positive self-image and will make
rapid progress. After a few low passes, the researcher‟s experience is that most students
were ready to learn the flare, touchdown, and rollout. Machado (2006) stated that “... fly
nearly the entire length of the runway at just a foot off the ground at a slow speed using
the sideslip method to track the centerline. A few sorties of doing this will give you a
good idea of exactly how to use the sideslip for crosswind control” (p. 51).
Power removal. The researcher has observed that most instructors tell students to
close the throttle as the airplane is leveled, assuming that the student has been carrying
some power during the final approach. Power not removed will reduce the sink rate and
50
will increase the distance before the airplane touches down. Touching down with some
power is reserved for gusty, windy conditions that students will not experience during
their solo flights.
Touchdown
The FAA Airplane Flying Handbook (2004) stated that:
The touchdown is the gentle settling of the airplane onto the landing
surface. The roundout and touchdown should be made with the engine
idling and the airplane at minimum controllable airspeed, so that the
airplane will touch down on the main gear at approximately stalling speed.
As the airplane settles, the proper landing attitude is attained by
application of whatever back-elevator pressure is necessary. (p. 8-6)
Touchdown Factors
Nose attitude. King Schools (n.d.) stated that the airplane should touch down at
the lowest possible speed with the control wheel full back and within the first third of the
runway. Kershner (2002) stated that “The nosewheel airplane should be landed at the
same attitude as a comparable tailwheel airplane” (p. 115). Kershner was referring to the
fact that a tailwheel airplane was usually landed in a three point attitude with the nose
high enough to restrict the pilot‟s forward vision. This same attitude, in a tricycle gear
airplane, will assure landing on the main gear with the nosewheel clear of the landing
surface. The nosewheel of a tricycle gear airplane is not as rugged as is the main landing
gear and must be protected from landing stresses. After touchdown, the nosewheel is
allowed to descend to the surface. Collins, L. (2005) stated that
51
The tricycles are easier to land because, while they need to be landed tail low, in
contrast to the taildragger (here Collins was referring to a wheel landing which
can be made in an almost level attitude) there‟s no critical value on how low. The
lower the better in many situations, but the key thing is to get the tail low enough
to avoid a nosewheel-first touchdown. (p.186)
The researcher‟s experience is that teaching pilots to land with the nose up
enough so that the nosewheel makes contact with the landing surface only after the main
landing gear touches requires constant reminding of the student pilot. Terms such as
“hold it off”, “don‟t let it land”, “keep it in the air”, “keep the back pressure on”, and the
like, are used to encourage the pilot to allow the airplane to dissipate its energy in the air
and to slow down in the air until the airplane can no longer sustain flight, before touching
down. As the airplane slows, the horizontal tail control surface (elevator or stabilator)
becomes less effective and requires increasing back pressure on the control wheel to
maintain the desired nose high attitude. Additionally, when within a wingspan distance
from the ground, ground effect also causes the horizontal control surface to lose
effectiveness. Student pilots should be trained to anticipate the need for increasing back
pressure as the airplane settles to the ground.
Since kinetic energy increases as the square of velocity, slower landings are safer.
Should a landing go bad, less energy equates to a lower probability of damage. Ring
(1992) stated that “If the airplane is flown to the runway with a stabilized approach, the
landing is simply a matter of closing the throttle, raising the nose, and waiting for the
wheels to touch” (p.57). The researcher concurs.
52
Gusts/turbulence. The FAA (2004) stated that “One procedure is to use the
normal approach speed plus one-half of the wind gust factors” (p. 8-15). The FAA also
stated “To maintain good control, the approach in turbulent air with gusty crosswind may
require the use of partial wing flaps” p. (8-16). The researcher‟s experience is that most
instructors teach adding half the gust velocity to the approach speed but that some
instructors teach the use of partial flaps in crosswinds regardless of gusts.
Crosswind correction. Crosswind techniques have been described above. If the
sideslip method is used, the airplane will touch down on the upwind wheel, in a strong
crosswind. As the airplane slows, the controls lose effectiveness, the downwind wheel
will touch, and the nose wheel will descend to the landing surface. To avoid drifting
downwind during the landing rollout, additional aileron deflection into the wind is
required as the airplane slows. The researcher has found that with tricycle gear airplanes,
the amount of additional aileron deflection needed is difficult to judge, in contrast to a
tailwheel airplane where precise aileron control is necessary and drift is more apparent.
The researcher instructs students to apply full aileron into the crosswind during the
landing rollout. As soon as the nosewheel touches, it becomes effective for maintaining
directional control via the rudder pedals. The nosewheel is usually connected to the
rudder pedals and is used for steering on the ground.
Collins, L. (2005) described the touchdown technique when using the crab
and last instant runway alignment method. He advised keeping the wings level with
ailerons and swinging the nose around from the crab to alignment with the runway by
using the rudder. If the timing is correct, the airplane will touch down before the
53
crosswind has had time to accelerate the airplane downwind. “The airplane has to have
time to accelerate to the full drift component of the crosswind. It can‟t accelerate to this
immediately” (p. 203). As noted above, the researcher and others suggest that this
technique should be reserved for pilots beyond the pre-solo stage.
Recoveries from skip, bounce, or balloon. Excessive speed, improper nose attitude
or a gust of wind may cause the airplane to skip or to bounce as it touches down. The
FAA (1995, tape one) stated that ballooning (and in the researcher‟s experience, many
landing problems) is usually caused by excess airspeed and poor flare technique.
Experienced pilots may reestablish the correct pitch attitude and may use power to arrest
the descent to assure a safe touchdown. Inexperienced pilots might not react correctly or
fast enough to correct the situation. The instructor must decide to what extent students
should be taught to salvage a bad landing and when to add power and go around. A skip
is of little consequence as long as the pilot maintains directional control and the proper
touchdown nose attitude.
Langewiesche (1944) summarized what in the researcher‟s experience is the
accepted method for an experienced pilot to recover from a bounce. He stated:
If you bounce, concentrate your attention on the attitude of the airplane. Do with
your stick whatever is necessary to put the airplane into a three-point attitude
(referring to the tailwheel airplanes used for training at that time but an attitude
also appropriate for landing modern tricycle gear trainers), that is, into the attitude
in which it sits on the ground (referring to the tailwheel airplane‟s nose high
attitude at rest on the ground); and, once you‟ve put it into this attitude, do with
54
the stick whatever is necessary to hold it there. And, if the bounce was at all
severe, be ready with the throttle to feed a blast of power, to keep from dropping
in too hard. (p. 294)
Kershner (2002) explained how to correct for ballooning that results in a nosehigh, low airspeed too high above the ground for the airplane to land gently; often caused
by a severe bounce or an abrupt level off. He advised stopping the forward movement of
the control wheel, using power as required, and being ready with the elevator control as
the surface is approached (implying reestablishing the nose-high touchdown attitude) thus
supporting Langewiesche (1944).
The FAA (2004) supported the use of pitch and power control to recover
from bounces and balloons as explained above. The FAA added that “When ballooning is
excessive, it is best to EXECUTE A GO-AROUND IMMEDIATELY; DO NOT
ATTEMPT TO SALVAGE THE LANDING” (p. 8-30) and “When a bounce is severe,
the safest procedure is to EXECUTE A GO-AROUND IMMEDIATELY. No attempt to
salvage the landing should be made” p. (8-31).
Roll-Out
An old dictum that was commonly heard during the heyday of the tailwheel
airplane was to fly the airplane all the way to the tiedown. The idea being that given the
directional instability of a tailwheel airplane on the ground (the tendency to ground loop)
a sudden gust of wind could cause a problem, even for a slowly taxiing airplane.
Although tricycle gear airplanes are much more stable on the ground than are tailwheel
airplanes, they are not invulnerable, particularly during the landing rollout.
55
Rollout Factors
Alignment and drift correction. The FAA (2004) stated “The landing process must
never be considered complete until the airplane decelerates to the normal taxi speed
during the landing roll or has been brought to a complete stop when clear of the landing
area” (p. 8-6). Generally, all a pilot needs to do during rollout after touchdown is to
maintain directional control by using aileron into any crosswind and by keeping the
fuselage aligned with the runway using the rudder pedals which control the steerable
nosewheel on the ground. If crosswind control is neglected the airplane may drift
downwind as the rollout progresses. Once the nosewheel is on the ground, full aileron
into the crosswind may be applied as the airplane slows and the aerodynamic controls
lose effectiveness (King Schools, n.d.).
Braking. The FAA (2004) pointed out that the brakes may also be used to aid
directional control since each main landing gear wheel is braked independently by
pushing the tip of the associated rudder pedal (toe brakes). Some modern aircraft have no
nosewheel steering and brakes are the only means of directional control at taxi speeds. A
few airplanes can only brake both main wheels simultaneously, as do automobile brakes.
The researcher and most of his colleagues teach only limited use of the brakes to student
pilots since too aggressive braking can introduce landing directional control problems,
can flatten tires, and can sometimes substitute for proper rudder usage. The FAA (1995,
tape two) noted that the brakes are ineffective until the airplanes has slowed to less than
75 % of the touchdown speed. Prior to that speed, aerodynamic braking (the drag created
by the nose high attitude and the flaps) is effective. Holding the wheel back as the
56
airplane slows helps keep the airplane‟s weight on the main landing gear wheels and
improves braking. .
Touch and go or full stop. There is a difference of opinion among flight
instructors regarding the efficacy and safety of touch and go practice landings. Machado
(2005) trained students to do touch and goes to save time, especially if the traffic pattern
was crowded. He claimed that twice as many landings could be accomplished doing
touch and goes versus full-stop taxi back landings. Turner (2002) stated “Flying a touch
and go is a very workload-intensive maneuver, and often the pilot is overloaded to the
point he or she does not adequately compensate for directional control forces” (p. 67).
Wright (2006) cautioned that students may forget to raise the flaps before applying
takeoff power leading to marginal ability of the airplane to climb out of ground effect.
Collins, R. (2006) stated:
... it has always been my opinion that touch and go landings are a questionable
practice. They do not replicate actual arrivals and departures. ... the FAA requires
three takeoffs and landings to a full stop before passengers are carried at night. (p.
34)
Collins, M. (2003) reported on a survey of flight instructors who responded to an AOPA
survey regarding Turner‟s (2002) article. Fifteen percent were opposed under any
circumstances, thirty percent endorsed the concept, and 55 percent used touch and goes
selectively. The researcher has taught touch and goes without incident for many years but
has observed other instructors who avoid the practice. Given long runways, some
57
instructors teach stop and goes where the airplane is brought to a full stop and then
immediately takes off again.
Other Factors
There are other factors involved in teaching pilots to land in addition to the factors
associated with the six landing phases discussed above. Most of these factors apply to
flight instruction in general.
Looking for Traffic.
The researcher has found that teaching students to continually look around for
other airplanes is much more difficult than teaching the mechanics of flying, perhaps due
to inadequacies in the researcher‟s initial training. During flight, both the student and
instructor are focused on the task at hand and often forget to keep looking around. The
researcher has found that teaching students to continually divide their attention between
outside visual references, including scanning for traffic, and the instrument panel to be
effective. However it requires constant repetition. Students often concentrate on the task
at hand and can become overloaded when asked to perform another task at the same time.
The instructor may focus only on the student‟s performance and may not perform an
adequate watch for traffic. Although mid-air collisions are rare, the consequences are
severe when they occur. The AOPA Air Safety Foundation (2006) found that 48% of
collisions occurred in the traffic pattern and that 76% of those occurred during approach
and landing.
58
Go-around.
A go around is a maneuver executed when a pilot determines that the risk of
continuing the landing is unacceptable. A go-around may be initiated when a traffic
conflict occurs, when the approach becomes destabilized, when the landing would be too
far down the runway to allow a safe roll-out, when called for by air traffic control, when
the wind becomes too difficult to handle, or for other reasons. Students are usually
advised to go-around rather than to try and correct a potentially dangerous situation. The
FAA (2002) private pilot PTS includes the go-around as a task to be demonstrated.
The FAA (1995, tape two) stated that “A properly executed go-around is one of
the best accident avoidance procedures available to pilots” (35 minutes, 25 seconds), and
that pilots should be mentally prepared to go around on every approach.
Landsberg (2001) stated that:
A cardinal rule that every student should know and be tested on is to go around
immediately if the aircraft is not on the ground in the first third of the runway.
Students should practice this with a CFI (certificated flight instructor) but
shouldn‟t need prompting to initiate the go-around. (p. 68)
Davisson (2000) stated that “Going around seems to be against many pilots‟ principles
(p. 18). He advised that “If it doesn‟t look or feel right, it isn‟t right. Then take it around”
(p. 20). The researcher has observed what might be considered a macho tendency,
particularly among instructors, to refuse to give up a landing that has begun to deteriorate
and to attempt to salvage the situation in spite of obvious risks in doing so.
59
The Civil Air Patrol Flight Academy held annually in Minnesota, requires
students to make three go-arounds, either for cause or artificially induced by the
instructor, before cadets are allowed to solo. The go-around is taught as a routine task,
not as an emergency procedure.
Psychological Factors.
The FAA Aviation Instructor‟s Handbook (1999) summarized the cognitive,
psychomotor, and affective learning domains. The handbook contained practical
examples of the application of learning theory. Instructors were advised to avoid behavior
that students may perceive as threatening, to provide positive rather than negative
motivation, and to counter anxiety by reinforcing students‟ enjoyment of flying.
Machado (1999) stated that “Flight Instruction is more of a people skill than a
teaching skill” (p. 65). While it may be argued that people skill is an integral part of
effective teaching, nevertheless, Machado supported the FAA‟s (1999) advice that flight
instructors need to pay attention to the psychological factors involved in learning.
Physiological Factors.
An airplane is a noisy and sometimes uncomfortable classroom. Knowles (1950)
in Knowles, Holton, and Swanson (1998) believed that adults learned best in informal,
comfortable, flexible, and non-threatening settings. Proper seating position is essential.
The use of headsets and an intercom is now universal.
The FAA (1999) suggested that “... three of four repetitions provide the maximum
effect, after which the rate of learning and probability of retention fall off rapidly” (p. 115). The researcher believes that this included landing practice. The researcher found that
60
allowing a student three practice landings followed by the instructor demonstrating a
landing provided the student an opportunity to relax. Following the demonstration most
students could profitably practice three more landings. The researcher found that grinding
around the traffic pattern for an hour without a break was counterproductive. The FAA
(1999) mentioned fatigue as an obstacle to learning.
61
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODS
This study focused on what flight instructors should teach to student pilots who
have not soloed and on what flight instructors actually teach. What flight instructors
should teach was determined by a literature review and by consultation with experts.
What flight instructors actually taught was found by the analysis of data obtained from 32
interviews.
Engaged Scholarship
Van de Ven (2006) suggested that research would be more useful to the degree
that the researcher was engaged with the community involved. He defined engaged
scholarship as:

A participative form of inquiry where researchers involve others and
leverage their different perspectives to learn about a problem.

A view of how scholars define their relationships with their communities –
other academics, practitioners, students.

A relationship involving negotiation, mutual respect, and collaboration to
produce a learning community.

Studying complex problems with and/or for practitioners and other
stakeholders – many ways to practice engaged scholarship.
Van de Ven also suggested that researchers should “Engage those who experience and
know the problem”. This study is an example of engaged scholarship.
62
Insider‟s Perspective
The researcher‟s flying and flight instructing experience of 6800 hours and 3800
hours respectively were above the mean and median of participants‟ total flying time and
flight instructing experience. As an active member of the flight instructing community,
the researcher was able to relate to the participants‟ descriptions of their flight instructing
and to formulate additional questions, as necessary, to more completely define
participants‟ practices. The researcher was welcomed as a peer and the participants were
eager to learn the results of the study. The researcher promised to send each participant a
copy of the completed study.
Methods
Since this study‟s focus was on the specific details of the landing process and on
numerical relationships of the variables involved in teaching landings, a quantitative
research methodology was used. Both descriptive and correlational research designs were
used in answering the research questions. These efforts are described below.
Answering the Research Questions
Question one was answered by the literature review and by consultation with five
experts. Question two was answered by interviewing 32 participating flight instructors
and by analyzing the interview results. Descriptive statistics of the variables involved
were prepared. Correlation statistics were prepared for relating experience and
conformance to a list of things that flight instructors should teach to pilots learning to
land. The study‟s statistics are inferential. That is, the statistics infer from the sample
studied, the results that would be obtained if the entire population had been studied.
63
Prior to the data analysis, a criterion of significance less than .05 was established
as the basis for accepting or rejecting the hypotheses that flight instructors teach more of
the items on the list of Appendix A as they gain experience. A significance of .05
indicates that there is a one in twenty chance that the correlation results could have
occurred by chance. Data were analyzed to determine differences between less
experienced and more experienced flight instructors.
Question One.
What do experts in the field suggest should be taught to pilots learning to land?
This question was addressed during the literature review. Following the literature review
the model of the landing process shown in Figure 2 was constructed. The model was then
used as a basis for a list (Appendix A) of 37 things that flight instructors should do while
teaching pilots to land an airplane.
Content applicability. The model and the list of shoulds were evaluated for
content applicability by experts in the field of flight instruction. These experts included
the director of a university flight program, an owner of a flight school, an FAA inspector,
and two senior members of the flight instructing community. The experts had an average
of more than 30 years of flight instructing experience. All but one of the five were
examiners authorized by the FAA to conduct flight tests and to issue pilot certificates and
ratings.
Number of experts. Patton (2001) in Gall et al (2002) suggested continuing to
select cases until no new information was forthcoming from new cases (referring to
qualitative research). The researcher felt that that suggestion could be applied to the
64
expert review process. The expert review process was terminated after five expert
interviews since no new information was forthcoming. The experts agreed with
approximately 95 % of the original model of the landing process and the list of things that
instructors should do (Appendix A). Changes that were made as a result of the interviews
related mostly to increasing the emphasis on teaching directional control during the last
two phases of the landing process, touchdown and rollout.
Weighting the shoulds. Following the interviews, the experts were asked, by
means of the letter of Appendix B, to weight the relative importance of the final list of 37
shoulds. Appendix C was prepared from the experts‟ responses.
Question Two.
What is actually being taught to pilots learning to land? Kepner and Tregoe
(1965) suggested that problem solving ought to begin with a determination of the should
and the actual. Only then could the dimensions of a problem be determined. The
literature review and content validation process described above established the should in
answer to research question one. Question two dealt with the actual.
Data gathering method. Three means of gathering data were considered:

Observation

Questionnaire

Interview
The first method considered was direct observation by means of a portable video
camera temporarily mounted in the cockpit and connected to the intercom system. That
an observational study would provide more accurate data than would questionnaires or
65
interviews was supported by Good (1959) who stated “In a questionnaire or interview,
the respondent may tell what he thinks he does, but human beings are not generally
accurate or reliable observers of themselves. Only direct observation of overt behavior
can reveal what the subject actually does” (p. 222). Further support was provided by Borg
and Gall (1971) who suggested that “people often bias the information they offer about
themselves and sometimes cannot accurately recall events and aspects of their behavior in
which the researcher is interested” (p. 224). However, this approach was abandoned due
to the cost and complexity of adapting the equipment to the different airplanes to be
involved in the study. Also, more than one flight would have been required to obtain a
complete record of how each instructor taught landings, since all factors might not be
present on any one flight. This presented logistical problems beyond the scope of this
study. The five experts also discouraged attempting this approach. However, as noted in
chapter five, it remains an attractive research method.
Questionnaires are advantageous for gathering data economically over a wide
geographic area at minimum time and cost (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). However,
questionnaires are subject to self-report bias and become tedious to answer when many
items are included. Devising a set of closed form questions without giving away the
should of the factors investigated would have been extremely difficult. Also, eliciting indepth responses, and allowing for exploration of alternate ways of teaching landings
required a more open ended and less structured approach than could readily be achieved
through the use of a questionnaire.
66
The method of data gathering chosen was the semi-structured interview. Gall, et
al (2003) stated that a semi-structured interview “...involves asking a series of structured
questions and then probing more deeply using open form questions” (p. 240). “The
researcher initially presents the topic area of the interview to the respondent, then uses
probing questions to obtain the desired level of detailed information” (DePoy & Gitlin,
2005).
The principal advantage of the interview is its adaptability. Good (1959) stated
that a major advantage of the interview process is that “The interviewer may follow up
leads and clues in a manner that is not possible by means of an instrument prepared in
advance” (p. 208). Gall, et al (2003) stated:
The major advantage of interviews is their adaptability. Skilled interviewers can
follow up a respondent‟s answers to obtain more information and clarify vague
statements. They also can build trust and rapport with the respondents, thus
making it possible to obtain information that the individual probably would not
reveal by any other data collection method. (p. 222)
The researcher found this statement to be true.
The researcher prepared a set of interview questions (Appendix D) that included
two general questions about teaching landings and 20 open form questions (probes) to be
used if the answers to the original two questions lacked depth. The questions were
prepared by referring to the model (Figure 1), and the associated list of 37 items that
flight instructors should teach (Appendix A). The result was a matrix (Appendix D)
showing which of the shoulds of Appendix A each question addressed. All 37 shoulds
67
were covered. The researcher referred to both Appendix A and Appendix D during the
interviews. Other questions were used, where appropriate, to explore participants‟
answers in more depth.
Interviewing participants. Research question two was answered by interviewing
32 active flight instructors with Minnesota addresses and by analyzing the data collected.
An active flight instructor was defined as one who had taught landings during the past
year and had also given at least 10 hours of dual instruction during the past year. Fifteen
of the interviews were held in 13 cities outside the Minneapolis/Saint Paul metropolitan
area. Descriptive statistics were prepared for the distributions of total flight time, total
flight instructing time, and the number of shoulds taught. The above hypothesis that flight
instructors teach more of the shoulds as they gained experience was tested using
statistical correlation methods. The data were also analyzed to determine if there were
any relationships between experience and which of the 37 shoulds were taught.
Pilot study. Pilot studies are recommended for evaluating procedures, methods
and materials (Leong & Austin, 2006). Prior to selecting and interviewing participants, a
pilot study was performed to validate the use of interviews as a means of determining
what flight instructors taught, related to the 37 shoulds of Appendix B. Two flight
instructors, one experienced and one inexperienced were interviewed by the researcher.
The interviews were transcribed and were evaluated by the researcher and by two other
experienced flight instructors. A 70 % agreement between observers constitutes
acceptable inter-observer reliability (Borg & Gall, 1971; Leong & Austin, 2006). The
results of the evaluation showed an average agreement of 78% regarding the number of
68
shoulds taught and an average agreement of 73% regarding the teaching of individual
shoulds. The detailed results of the pilot study are contained in Appendix E.
Population. The study population was all active flight instructors with a
Minnesota address who held certificates allowing them to teach in single engine land
aircraft. Activity was defined as having taught landings within the past year and having
given ten or more hours of flight instruction during the past year.
There were 2228 flight instructors and 1436 student pilots in Minnesota in
December of 2005 according to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT),
based on FAA data. A list of all Minnesota flight instructors including address, type of
pilot certificate, type of flight instructor certificate, and level of medical certificate was
obtained from Landings.com (2006). That data base was last updated in August of 2006
from the FAA pilot certificate data base. An examination of the first 600 listings found 21
instructors (3.5%) certificated for balloons, gliders, or rotorcraft only. Thus, the
population of interest was 96.5 % of the 2364 names in the data base or 2281 instructors.
The fact that instructors outnumbered students might indicate that many
instructors are inactive. Instructors must be recertified every two years. Instructors may
obtain recertification by maintaining a satisfactory level of activity. They can also
maintain their certificate by authorization from an FAA inspector, by attendance at a
Flight Instructor Refresher Clinic (FIRC), or by completion of an on-line course. Thus
flight instructors may remain in the data base without teaching. It is also possible that
some student pilots were inactive since a student pilot certificate is valid for two years.
69
Participant solicitation. The names on the list of flight instructors were numbered
from one to 2364 consecutively. A random sequence of 2364 numbers was obtained from
Random.org (2006). The first 300 single engine land instructors in the random sequence
were sent the solicitation letter of Appendix F and a return postcard, Appendix G. Three
weeks after sending the letter, a second letter, Appendix G, and another postcard were
sent to those who had not responded. 145 postcards were returned, a rate of 48%. 65 of
the 145 were active and 52 of the 65 active flight instructors agreed to an interview. No
letters were returned as undeliverable.
Interviews. “Generally in correlational research it is desirable to have a minimum
of 30 cases” (Borg & Gall, 1971, p. 123). The researcher interviewed 32 of the 52 active
flight instructors who agreed to participate. The interviews (and the interviews of the five
experts and the two pilot study participants) were recorded using an Olympus digital
recorder. The interviews of the experts and the pilot study participants were transcribed
using Olympus DSS Player Software version 3.4. The researcher marked a copy of
Appendix A immediately after each of the 32 participant interviews and did not need to
refer to the recording.
Prior to asking the questions of Appendix D, the researcher explained the purpose
of the study. Following a general explanation of the study, each participant was given a
copy of a consent form to sign (Appendix H) and a copy to keep. The University of
Minnesota Institution Review Board (IRB) informed consent procedures were followed.
70
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS
Response to Mailings
Flight instructing is often the first step in a pilot‟s career as an aviation
professional. It is a low-paying job and is a means of gaining flying experience until
accumulating the flying time necessary to qualify as a corporate or airline pilot. Pilots
moving up the ranks of professional fliers may stop instructing once they obtain a better
paying job. Others, such as several of the researcher‟s acquaintances, may stop
instructing after a time and go on to other pursuits while maintaining their certification by
attendance at a Flight Instructor Refresher Clinic (FIRC), in the event that they would
choose to become active again. Thus, it was not surprising that 80 of the 145 respondents
(55%) were inactive.
The data base of Minnesota flight instructors downloaded from Landings.com
was examined in an attempt to determine if non-respondents held higher class medical or
pilot certificates than did respondents, possibly indicating employment by airlines or
corporations and that they were no longer instructing. Sixty one percent of the
respondents held a first class medical certificate compared with sixty six percent of the
non-respondents. Forty one percent of the respondents held air transport pilot certificates
compared with 40% of the non-respondents. Thirty one percent of the respondents held
both a first class medical certificate and an air transport pilot certificate while 34 % of the
non-respondents held both. Thus, there were no significant differences among these two
sub-populations.
71
Participants‟ Data Distributions
A spread sheet (Appendix I) was prepared, collecting the data from the postcards
and interviews. Appendix I was the data base used for all statistical procedures. SPSS
Graduate Pack 12.0 was used for this study.
Total Flight Time
The distribution of total flight time of the 32 participants is shown in Figure 3.
The difference between the mean and the median was consistent with the skew to the left
shown. Two modes are apparent. Flight times less than 8000 hours and flight times of
more than 11,000 hours. The higher mode likely included only airline or corporate pilots.
The lower mode included most of the participants and also included less experienced
airline or corporate pilots.
Figure 3. Distribution of participants‟ total flying times.
72
Total Instructing Time
Figure four shows the distribution of the instructing time of the 32 participants.
This distribution was also skewed to the left. This might indicate that flight instructors
seldom make a career of teaching flying and therefore, there are few instructors with
large amounts of instructing experience.
Figure 4. Distribution of participants‟ flight instructing times
Number of Shoulds Taught
Figure 5 shows the distribution of the number of shoulds taught by the
participants. The distribution is normal. The mean and median were 27 shoulds. The
standard deviation was 3.9 shoulds. The spread was from 19 to 35. Inspection of the third
and fourth columns of Appendix I, percentage of shoulds taught and percentage of
73
weighted shoulds taught, showed that they are very close together. Thus, the experts‟
weighting of the shoulds did not affect the distribution significantly.
Operational Significance
A major finding of this study was that Minnesota flight instructors taught an
average of only 27 of 37 things that a flight instructor should teach to pilots learning to
land. There is clearly room for improvement.
Figure 5. Distribution of the number of shoulds taught by participants
Correlation of Experience and the Number of Shoulds Taught
The hypothesis stated in the Research section of Chapter One: Flight instructors
teach more closely to the model as their flight instructing experience increases, was tested
74
by correlating the number of shoulds taught with instructing time and also by correlating
the number of shoulds taught with total flight time.
Relationship between the Number of Shoulds Taught and instructing experience
Figure 6 shows the correlation of the number of shoulds taught with flight
instructing time. Table 1 shows the regression statistics associated with this correlation.
Linear regression is a means of establishing a straight line that shows a linear relationship
between two variables. The least squares regression used for this study minimizes the
sum of the squares of the distances of each data point from the regression line. Inspection
of Figure 6 shows no evidence of correlation between the two variables. The regression
line is almost flat; indicating that the number of shoulds taught by a flight instructor
cannot be predicted from the flight instructor‟s instructing experience. This was the
second major finding of this study.
75
Figure 6. Correlation of the number of shoulds taught and instructing experience
Table 1.
Regression statistics for number of shoulds taught and instructing experience.
Model Summary
Model
1
R
R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
.038(a)
.001
-.032
3.920
a Predictors: (Constant), Dual Given
Coefficients(a)
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Beta
Model
1
B
t
Std. Error
(Constant)
26.489
.859
Dual Given
.000
.000
a Dependent Variable: Raw Score
76
Sig.
30.831 .000
.038
.207 .838
Relationship Between the Number of Shoulds Taught and Total Flight Time
Figure 7 shows the correlation of the number of shoulds taught with total flight
time. Table 2 shows the regression statistics. Figure 7 shows a positive correlation with a
Pearson Coefficient (r) of .253.
The r value is not a hard and fast measure but is subject to interpretation. Borg
and Gall (1971) considered an r value of from .25 to .35 to indicate a very slight
relationship. Values around .5 allow crude group predictions and values from .65 to .85
allow group predictions that are accurate for most purposes. Best (1977, p. 260) presented
the following table as crude criteria:
r
Relationship
.00
to
.20
negligible
.20
to
.40
low
.40
to
.60
moderate
.60
to
.80
substantial
.80
to
1.00
high to very high
Royeen (1989, p. 104) stated that r values are robust when sample sizes are
greater than 25 to 30, as was the case for this study. Royeen also stated that three
assumptions underlie the Pearson statistic. These include normality of the underlying
distribution, a linear relationship between the two variables, and interval or ratio data. For
this study, the distribution of the number of shoulds taught was normal but the
77
distributions of the experience variables were not. The relationship between the number
of shoulds taught and experience was linear and the data were interval data.
The value of r2 of .064 indicates that 6.4% of the variation of the number of
shoulds taught can be explained by the total flight time variable. However, the
significance factor (p) of .163 is much larger than the .05 usually considered adequate for
acceptance of the results of statistical analysis of a sample (Creative Research Systems,
2007). That is, when p = .05 there is only a one in twenty probability of the regression
result occurring by chance (DePoy & Gitlin, 2005). The p value of .163 is reason enough
to reject the finding of a positive relationship between the two variables. Even if p was
.05 or lower, the relationship would be weak. The third major finding of this study was
that the hypothesis of a positive relationship between conformance to the model of Figure
2 and experience was rejected. That is, there is no statistically significant relationship
between either total flying experience or total flight instructing experience and the
number of shoulds taught by the population of the study.
78
Figure 7. Correlation of the number of shoulds taught and total flight time
Table 2.
Regression statistics for number of shoulds taught and total flight time.
Model Summary
Model
1
R
R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate
.253(a)
.064
.033
3.796
a Predictors: (Constant), Total Time
Coefficients(a)
Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients
Beta
Model
1
B
t
Std. Error
(Constant)
25.723
.906
Total Time
.000
.000
a Dependent Variable: Raw Score
79
Sig.
28.379 .000
.253
1.430 .163
Frequencies of the shoulds Taught
Table 3 shows how many of the participants taught each of the 37 shoulds. No
participant taught all of the shoulds, nor was any should taught by all participants. Six
shoulds were taught by all but two of the participants. These shoulds are shown in the
first six rows of table 3. Of interest, is the fact that all six of these shoulds received the
highest weighting by the experts, 4.8, and that all six are related to maintaining
directional control, particularly during the latter phases of the landing process. During the
interviews, the experts emphasized the importance of teaching these items. It appears that
the flight instructing community concurs.
Table 3.
Should frequencies
Should
Number
Abbreviated
Should
10
13
20
21
28
29
30
1
Maintain centerline alignment
Compensate for wind drift
Maintain runway alignment after level-off
Compensate for wind drift after level-off
Maintain centerline alignment after rollout
Compensate for wind drift during rollout
Avoid braking until the airplane has slowed
Be certain that pilots are able to fly ... before ... landing
practice
Recognize wind drift
Instruction in going around
Power-on approaches
Remove power after beginning level-off
Increase back pressure to maintain touchdown attitude
Go-around
Do not lower the nose during touchdown
Stabilized approach
Use trim
Use VASI
80
12
32
5
19
23
35
25
2
9
16
Number of
Times
Taught
30
30
30
30
30
30
29
29
Experts‟
weighting
29
29
28
27
27
27
26
25
24
24
4.6
4.0
3.6
3.4
4.4
4.6
4.6
4.4
4.4
3.0
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.8
3.8
3.8
24
3
4
11
31
37
14
17
22
26
7
15
36
18
27
33
8
6
34
Touch down at slowest possible speed
Use full flaps
Apply Final flap setting as part of stabilized approach
Use windsock
Look for traffic
Physiological/psychological factors
Low passes
Safe landing distance limit
Specific touchdown nose attitude
Don‟t lower nose during touchdown process
Add half the gust velocity
Establish desired flare point
Divide attention ... inside ... outside
Look down the runway
Land near a desired point
Cease pattern work when progress is not being made
Determine need for outside pattern work
Approach at 1.3Vso
Provide breaks
23
21
19
19
19
19
16
16
16
16
15
15
15
13
13
13
11
8
8
4.0
3.4
4.0
4.2
4.6
4.2
3.4
4.8
3.4
4.0
4.2
3.4
4.4
3,8
3.8
4.2
4.4
4.4
3.8
Comparison of shoulds Taught With Instructing Experience
In order to determine if more experienced instructors taught different shoulds than
did less experienced instructors, the shoulds taught by the ten most experienced
instructors were compared with the shoulds taught by the ten least experienced
instructors. The results of the comparison are shown in Table 4. Of the 37 shoulds, 11 of
them were taught by the same number of instructors in each group. The number of
instructors teaching each of 12 other shoulds was one greater in one of the groups than in
the other group and the number teaching each of 11 of the remaining shoulds differed by
two between the two groups.
Of interest was that two of the shoulds were each taught by four or more
instructors in one group than in the other group. Should 4, applying the final flap setting
as part of the stabilized approach, was taught by all of the ten most experienced
81
instructors and by six of the ten least experienced instructors. Perhaps more experienced
instructors discovered that the advantages of full-flap landings outweighed their
disadvantages. Should 37, cognizance of physiological and psychological factors, was
evidenced by all of the most experienced instructors and was evidenced by four of the ten
least experienced instructors during the interviews. Since these factors are more related to
teaching in general than to the specifics of teaching landings, perhaps flight instructors
become better teachers as they gain instructing experience. The researcher‟s experience
during attendance at many FIRCs is that the theory and practice of teaching is generally
presented while the details of teaching specific piloting tasks are not. Thus, flight
instructors might improve their teaching skills over time but not the specifics of teaching
landings.
Table 4.
Comparison of shoulds taught.
Number of shoulds
*Difference Between Groups
11
0
12
1
11
2
1
3
1
4
1
6
* The difference in the number of instructors of each group that taught the should(s).
82
Other Observations
This section includes some non-statistical observations related to some of the
shoulds based on the responses of the participants to the interview questions. The
interviews were rich in detail not necessarily related to the research questions of this
study but possibly of interest to the flying community. Rather than ignore such data, it is
presented here in the hope that flight instructors and their students will find it useful.
1. Be Certain That Pilots Are Able to Fly All Parts of the Pattern, Except the Flare and
Landing, Before Beginning Serious Landing Practice.
Most instructors, when asked for details, stated that they taught pilots to master
the slow flight, glides, and other tasks associated with the traffic pattern. A few
instructors stated that they had pilots stitch those tasks together into a simulated traffic
pattern at altitude to assure that pilots had mastered the required sequence of tasks. A few
instructors noted that they related individual tasks to their future use in the traffic pattern,
when these tasks were initially introduced. This is consistent with the FAA‟s current
recommendation for scenario based training.
Several instructors agreed that the worst place to teach the landing traffic pattern
was in the pattern. Pilots became too focused on the landing itself and not enough on
flying a proper traffic pattern to get to the landing. Traffic pattern practice away from the
airport, followed by low passes, allowed pilots to concentrate on the other important
factors rather than on the landing itself.
83
2. Flight Instructors Should Teach Pilots to Stabilize the Approach Soon After Turning
Onto the Final Approach Course, or by an altitude of 400 Feet, or at About a half-mile
From the End of the Runway, Depending on the Traffic Pattern Flown.
A few instructors who stated that they taught pilots to stabilize the approach early,
also stated that they taught pilots to delay the final flap setting until later in the approach.
A few instructors taught an airspeed reduction near the runway threshold. Such
procedures increase a pilot‟s workload and destabilize the approach.
3. Flight Instructors Should Teach Students to Use Full Flaps
Most instructors taught the use of full flaps as the normal final approach
configuration. A few instructors mentioned that while they taught the use of full flaps as
the normal final approach configuration, they also taught students to land with any flap
setting from zero to full. Most instructors taught students to use less than full flaps during
gusty wind conditions. One instructor taught students to use no flaps or only the first
increment of flaps because landing that way was more difficult and the student would, of
necessity, become more skillful.
6. Flight Instructors Should Teach Pilots to Approach at an Airspeed of 1.3 Vso.
Only a few instructors stated that they taught pilots to approach at 1.3 Vso. Those
that did often stated that they used the POH recommended values, as did most of the
other participants. However, POHs typically recommend a range of airspeeds of from 1.3
to 1.5 Vso. Thus, most instructors teach pilots to establish 1.4 Vso as the target final
approach speed. No instructor taught students to calculate Vso based on the actual gross
weight of the airplane. Many trainers are flown at less than their maximum allowable
84
gross weight. A commonly used rule of thumb states that Vso decreases by one-half of the
percentage difference between maximum allowable and actual gross weights.
7. Flight Instructors Should Teach Pilots to Add Half the Gust Velocity to the Final
Approach Speed.
Most instructors taught pilots to add half the gust velocity increment to the final
approach speed. A few instructors stated that they added five knots in gusty conditions
and if that was insufficient, student pilots should not fly.
8. Flight Instructors Should Determine When Additional Airwork Outside the Traffic
Pattern is Needed to Improve Basic Flying Skills.
Most instructors, when asked about what they do when pilots have reached a
learning plateau and their landings do not improve, or even deteriorate, stated that they
ask another instructor to fly with the student for evaluation. A few stated that they stop
traffic pattern work and practice airwork and that the landing difficulties can usually be
related to the lack of basic flying skills. The most often mentioned deficiency was the
inability to establish and maintain a stable approach glide.
13. Flight Instructors Should Teach Pilots to Compensate for Wind Drift
Most instructors stated that they taught pilots to use the crab method to
compensate for crosswinds during the initial part of the final approach. They then had the
pilots transition to the sideslip method before reaching the runway threshold. A few
instructors stated that they taught student pilots to begin the sideslip as soon as the
airplane was turned onto the final approach, even though it was more difficult to maintain
runway alignment with that technique, especially if the crosswind was stronger at
85
altitude. They explained that student pilots needed more sideslip practice before they
became proficient at switching from a crab to a sideslip during the last moments of the
approach. Most instructors agreed, however, that once a pilot gained crosswind
proficiency, and maintained it through practice, that the last instant switch from a crab to
a sideslip was an easier procedure.
14. Flight Instructors Should Teach Pilots to Make Low Passes over the Runway to
Practice Centerline Alignment at Slow-Flight Speeds Prior to Their First Attempts at
Landing.
Several instructors used the low pass technique before teaching students to touch
down. Several others used low passes as a remedial measure for students having trouble
maintaining centerline alignment during crosswind conditions. Both groups stated that
this method worked well.
15. Flight Instructors Should Teach Pilots a Technique for Establishing the Desired
Flare Point
About half the instructors did not teach pilots to use a specific technique to assure
that the level-off would occur at the desired flare point. They stated that pilots learned
where the level–off would occur through practice and through subconscious
memorization of the associated visual cues. The other instructors taught the stationary
spot technique.
86
16. Instructors Should Teach Pilots to Use Visual Approach Slope Indicators, if They are
Present
Most instructors taught pilots how to use any visual approach slope indicators that
might be present. Several instructors noted that they taught students that the three degree
glide slope of such indicators was shallower than the approach generally flown by light
trainers. They also pointed out that the flare point of such indicators was usually farther
down the runway than the flare point normally taught, usually closer to the runway
threshold. They taught pilots how to use the approach slope indicators as a guide, even
when flying a steeper approach. A few instructors taught pilots to fly a three degree glide
slope when such indicators were present and a steeper approach otherwise. A few
instructors taught pilots to always fly a three degree glide slope.
17. Establish a Safe Landing Distance Limit Beyond Which a Go-Around Should be
Performed.
Many instructors did not establish a safe landing distance limit. Those that did,
most often stated that they taught pilots to go-around if the touchdown would not occur in
the first third of the runway. A few instructors noted that the first third might be marginal
when landing on a short runway and too conservative when landing on a long runway.
Only one instructor established a limit defined by actual length, 1000 feet. A few
instructors noted that they taught only full-stop landings and that they allowed pilots to
land farther down the runway than if they were to perform touch-and-goes or stop-andgoes.
87
18. Instructors Should Teach Pilots to Look Down the Runway When Nearing the LevelOff Point
Instructors who taught pilots to shift their vision down the runway when nearing
the level-off point, most often just before crossing the runway threshold, stated that that
technique was of significant value in helping pilots pick up the visual cues associated
with nearing the ground. Looking over the nose at the flare point resulted in a late, abrupt
level-off usually accompanied by ballooning. Other instructors stated that they coached
pilots when to level off and that with practice, pilots would subconsciously learn the
associated visual cues. A few instructors taught pilots to look down the runway just as the
level-off began. The resultant visual cues were perceived too late to be of value in
determining when to level off,
Instructors who taught pilots to shift their vision down the runway used varying
distances. Several taught pilots to look at the far end of the runway. A few taught pilots to
look halfway down the runway and one instructor taught pilots to look at the far horizon.
20,21,28,29 Maintaining Runway Alignment and Compensating for Wind Drift during
Level-Off and Rollout
All instructors stated that they emphasized the need to continue to fly the airplane
until it was stopped. All instructors were aware of accidents caused by lack of attention
after touchdown. Several instructors stated that some pilots tended to relax and lose
concentration after touchdown. The instructors clearly emphasized the need for continued
concentration after landing as did the five experts who were interviewed to validate the
landing process model.
88
22. Flight Instructors Should Teach Pilots to Raise the Nose to a Specific Touchdown
Attitude Following the Level-Off.
Almost half of the instructors did not state a specific nose attitude that they taught
pilots to achieve after leveling off. They stated that they taught pilots to raise the nose so
that the main wheels would touch down before the nosewheel, thus absorbing most of the
landing shock, but did not establish a specific nose position or nose attitude limits. The
after level-off nose position taught by the other instructors varied from just above level
flight to holding the top of the engine cowling on the horizon.
26. Instructors Should Teach Pilots Not to Lower the Nose During the Touchdown
Process
Instructors who stated that they taught pilots not to lower the nose once the flare
process had begun, stated that lowering the nose due to impatience and believing that
lowering the nose would facilitate the landing, usually resulted in a bounce and often
began an oscillation called crow hopping. Other instructors allowed pilots to lower the
nose if they leveled off too high. The first group stated that they taught pilots to goaround in the event of a high level-off. A few instructors allowed pilots to stop raising the
nose momentarily if the level-off appeared to be high but within safe limits.
27. Flight Instructors Should Teach Pilots to Land Near a desired Touchdown Point.
Flight instructors who taught pilots the stationary spot technique stated that the
landing would occur a predictable distance beyond the flare point (aim point). Thus, each
landing could be considered an accuracy landing. Most other instructors did not teach a
specific touchdown point but stated that with practice, landings tended to occur at the
89
same point. Instructors who taught the stationary spot technique stated that the technique
worked for any runway, at any airport, and during the day or night.
33. Flight Instructors Should Cease Pattern Work When Progress is Not Being
Made and Should Leave the Pattern to Work on Airwork, Ground Reference Maneuvers,
or Whatever is the Root Cause of the Difficulty
See 8. above.
34. Flight Instructors Should Provide Breaks to Avoid Fatigue.
Only eight instructors routinely provided breaks to avoid fatigue during
concentrated landing practice. Most instructors stated that their students did not become
fatigued during a training session of about an hour. A few instructors stated that one of
the reasons that they teach pilots to make full stop landings rather than touch-and-goes is
that the process of taxiing back for another takeoff is relaxing for the student, avoids
fatigue, and gives the instructor an opportunity to critique the last landing. A few
instructors mentioned that they ended the session if they saw signs of fatigue.
37. Flight Instructors Should be Cognizant of the Psychological and Physiological
Factors Involved and Should be Able to Deal With Them as Required
To the researcher‟s knowledge, few, if any, of the participants were trained as
teachers. Therefore it was not surprising that no one spoke of educational constructs such
as learning domains, learning and teaching styles, learning motivation, and so on. Some
participants did, however, mention factors that they considered during the course of a
lesson. A pilot‟s state of mind and general physical condition were the factors most often
mentioned. Consideration of fatigue was sometimes mentioned but only after probing by
90
the researcher. A few instructors mentioned seating position. No one mentioned an
optimum number of practice repetitions of a task of maneuver.
91
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of the Results of the Study
The study answered two research questions:
1. What do experts in the field suggest should be taught to pilots who are learning to
land?
2. What is actually being taught to pilots learning to land?
The answer to research question one was a model of the landing process and a list of
things that flight instructors should teach. The model and the list were evaluated by a
group of experts. The answer to research question two included the findings that:

Flight instructors teach an average of 27 of the 37 things that should be
taught to pilots learning to land.

There is no relationship between experience, either total flight time or total
instructing time, and what flight instructors teach.

The hypothesis that flight instructors teach more closely to the model as
their flight instructing experience increases was rejected.

More experienced flight instructors are more likely to teach full-flap
approaches than are less experienced flight instructors.

More experienced flight instructors are more likely to be cognizant of the
physiological and psychological factors involved in teaching landings than
are less experienced instructors.
Implications
Two Approaches to Flight Instructing
92
There appeared to be two approaches to flight instructing among the participants:

Allowing students to learn by trial and error while coaching in general terms such
as too high an approach or too flat a touchdown.

Providing students with detailed cues, such as specific visual references, as much
as is practicable.
Students taught with either approach have learned to fly. The differences might be
reflected in the habit patterns developed and in the efficiency of the flight instructing
process. The Wright brothers learned by trial and error, albeit with knowledge gained
from pioneers such as Lileanthal, Chanute, and Langley. However, the Wrights‟
experience was risky, costly, and time consuming.
Trial and Error
Allowing students to learn mostly by trial and error runs the risk of creating poor
first impressions of a task in the mind of the student. The law of primacy was defined by
the FAA (1977) as:
Primacy, the state of being first, often creates a strong, almost unshakable,
impression. For the instructor, this means that what is taught must be right the
first time. For the student, it means that learning must be right. “Unteaching” is
more difficult than teaching. If, for example, a student maintenance technician
learns a faulty riveting technique, the instructor will have a difficult task in
unteaching the bad habits and reteaching the correct ones. Every student should
be started right. The first experience should be positive and functional and lay the
foundation for all that is to follow. (p. 4)
93
To the extent that students learn by trial and error, they are much less likely to have a
positive first landing experience and are less likely to develop landing habits that will
serve them well in their future flying.
Detailed Cues
Providing detailed cues, such as a specific nose attitude for touchdown, and
assisting the student to make every one of the first practice landings correctly, provides
the student with an initial picture of what a good landing should look like. A few other
landing cues are discussed below.
Level-off. In the researcher‟s experience, the most important element of a proper
level-off is looking down the runway before beginning the procedure. Twenty
participants did not teach pilots to do that.
Stationary spot. If instructors teach their students to use the stationary spot
technique to determine the flare point (and ultimately the touchdown point) every landing
will be a precision landing. There will be no need to add other procedures for teaching
accuracy landings (assuming that the instructor is also teaching the routine use of full
flaps and an approach speed of 1.3 Vso). Seventeen participants did not teach pilots to use
specific cues to determine the flare point.
Touchdown nose attitude. Providing pilots with a specific nose attitude to be
attained and maintained during the touchdown phase minimizes pilot induced oscillations
and helps assure a touchdown at minimum speed on the main landing gear. Sixteen
participants did not teach a specific nose attitude to be held.
94
The above examples represent situations where specific visual cues aid pilots to
learn tasks quickly and correctly and minimize the necessity for long periods of trial and
error practice. The researcher believes that teaching the 37 shoulds defined by this study,
will provide pilots with specific references that help them learn to land without the need
for grinding around the traffic pattern, hour after hour, as is all too commonly seen.
Assisting students to make all of their initial landing attempts successfully will imprint
the image of a good landing in their memory and will serve them well in moments of
stress, according to the law of primacy.
Benefits of the Study
Flight Schools, Flight Instructors and Student Pilots
The immediate beneficiaries of this study are flight schools, flight instructors and
student pilots. Flight instructors might use the model to help improve their teaching and
as a resource for ground instruction. Student pilots might find the material helpful in
understanding the complex process of landing an airplane. Hopefully, others will
continue this kind of research and will publish the results. In the long run, this kind of
research could lead to standardization of teaching landings as noted below.
Standardization of Instruction
Discovery of common factors used, or those not used, by flight instructors could
help lead to standardization of landing training. The military and the airlines have found
standardization to be an effective training methodology. Benkert (n.d.) stated that
“standardization in civilian flight training is something long prayed for, but remains
elusive. The military has practiced it for years and years ....but since the F.A.A. knows all
95
and will not consult with the military, no knowledge has been shared.” Benkert‟s
criticism of the FAA might be considered a bit harsh. The FAA explained the landing
process rather thoroughly in the Flight Training Handbook (1980). The FAA also
established standards for acceptable landings in the Practical Test Standards for various
certificates and ratings. The FAA has prepared video tapes called On Landings (1995)
that deal with the factors involved in landing a light airplane under all conditions.
However, Benkert is justified to the extent that the FAA has not advised flight instructors,
in detail, how to go about teaching the factors involved in the landing process discussed
in the FAA‟s Airplane Flying Handbook and in On Landings. As a result, individual
instructors are left to develop their own teaching methods. Individuals teaching at large
flight schools or colleges might be more likely to be subject to standard procedures.
Unfortunately, results have not been published and consequently there is a lack of a body
of detailed, flight training practices, based on research, to which new instructors can refer
for guidance.
The FAA Practical Test Standard for the flight instructor practical flight test
contains tasks that mostly require the applicant to demonstrate flying skills. Before taking
the flight test, applicants are required to pass a written examination called Fundamentals
of Instruction (FOI) that deals with teaching and learning theory in the cognitive,
psychomotor, and affective domains. This knowledge and the applicant‟s teaching skills
are examined during the oral examination that precedes the flight test and during the
flight test itself. However, given the amount of material to be covered, such evaluation is
96
minimal. Thus, a new flight instructor is certificated with only minimal knowledge of
how to teach and how to determine the factors involved in teaching each flight task.
Although there are a number of popular books such as Kershner‟s The Flight
Instructor‟s Manual (1981) and Langewiesche‟s classic Stick and Rudder (1944) that
contain suggestions for teaching pilots how to land, The researcher has found that
detailed how to practices for flight instructors do not cover all the factors believed
involved.
It is not known to what extent flight instructors make use of Kershner‟s, and
others‟ suggestions and whether or not instructors address the factors discussed in the
FAA material, as well as the level of detail that flight instructors reach in their teaching.
This study was an attempt to illuminate how flight instructors teach pilots to land. It is
hoped that the study will provide useful suggestions for the flight instructor community.
Flight Instructor Continuing Education
The fact that experience does not affect what flight instructors teach might imply
that flight instructors do not continue to learn more effective teaching strategies. Rusty
Sachs, the executive director of the National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI),
(2007) stated:
... we don‟t train flight instructors appropriately. We don‟t train them enough, and
we act surprised when these shortcomings lead to less qualified pilots. Part of the
problem lies in the structure of general aviation, where we place flight instructor
jobs at the entry level of the career pipeline. It‟s not quite the blind leading the
blind, but it is close. (p.2)
97
Several of the study participants volunteered that they instructed the way they were
taught. Thus, lack of knowledge of effective teaching strategies (the 37 shoulds of this
study) might be compounded by a lack of continuing education.
Instructors have other opportunities beside FIRCs to learn effective teaching
strategies. Aviation seminars are provided by both government and private agencies that
often include flight instructing material. The internet contains a wealth of information
that is useful to flight instructors. The flight training publications of the AOPA and NAFI
deal with teaching flying at the level of detail of the 37 shoulds. The Minnesota
Association of Professional Flight Instructors meets quarterly. These are examples of
some of the resources available to flight instructors. The study did not attempt to
determine the extent to which participants used these or other resources for continuing
their education.
Limitations
Population
This study is valid only for the active flight instructor community in Minnesota.
Generalization to the entire United States is problematical. Minnesota‟s climate,
geography, economy, population, regulatory environment, and demographic factors
might cause flight instructors to teach somewhat differently than their counterparts in
other states.
Method
Obtaining quantitative data by interviewing is subject to the skill, bias, and
experience of the interviewer. Although the researcher was always conscious of the need
98
to avoid leading the participant and the need to avoid influencing the answers to the
general and probing questions, it is possible that these efforts were not always successful.
It is possible that other investigators might have elicited different responses.
Activity
This study interviewed pilots that had taught landings and had given at least ten
hours of dual instruction during the past year. It is possible that other criteria such as the
number of hours of pre-solo instruction given during the past year, or the number of
student pilots soloed in a given time period, might have resulted in different conclusions.
Recommendations
Publication
The researcher found that the things that should be taught to pilots learning to
land are known but are scattered among many sources. Some of the participants of this
study did not teach particular shoulds because they were unaware of their existence and
benefits. The collection of this study‟s shoulds ought to be published as an article, series
of articles, or as a pamphlet.
This study dealt with the what of teaching landings to pre-solo student pilots, not
with the how. Dissemination of this information might be coupled with how to teach as
well as what to teach. For example, there are several ways of teaching low passes. The
instructor might have the student handle only one control at a time, concentrating on only
one facet of directional control. Or, the instructor might control the throttle, allowing the
student to control the rudder, ailerons, and elevator. Another example, related to assuring
that pilots are ready to learn to land before concentrated landing practice, is to use
99
scenario based training during the first hours of airwork. The tasks assigned should be the
bits and pieces of the traffic pattern that will be flown during landing practice. Each of
the 37 shoulds could thus be amplified by providing instructors and pilots with a
complete discussion of the topic.
As mentioned above, the impetus for this study was the researcher‟s experience in
soloing about 75 cadets at CAP Flight Academies since 1969. These activities lasted nine
dayx. Considerable pressure was felt by all involved to solo as many cadets as possible in
the allotted time. Of necessity, efficient practices were developed that allowed almost all
cadets to safely solo in the time available, usually with 10 to 15 hours of dual instruction
and with relatively few practice landings. That experience was the genesis of the idea that
a list of shoulds could be prepared that would define an efficient landing instruction
process. The lessons learned from that experience have been collected in an illustrated 27
page training guide, prepared by the Flight Academy staff that embodies and amplifies
many of the shoulds of this study. It is worthy of wider distribution and would be of
significant value to beginning flight instructors and their students.
Research
Continuing Education
Publications will do little to inform the flight instructing community if the
publications are not read. Research is needed to determine how flight instructors keep up
with developments in the field. Perhaps many are not motivated to learn more about
teaching students to learn most effectively, or better ways of teaching specific tasks such
as landings. Since many pilots are teaching only because it is a rite of passage to a higher
100
paying job, they might not be motivated to improve. Canada has higher levels of flight
instructor certification that require additional experience and training for advancement.
Evaluation
This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of flight instruction. It would be
of interest to know if teaching all the shoulds resulted in a more efficient process and if
pilots taught that way had fewer incidents and accidents than pilots taught differently.
Such research might be accomplished at a large flight training institution. Other factors,
outside the instructional process, such as lesson frequency, affect the efficiency of flight
training. Large flight training organizations might be able to control for those factors.
Outcomes such as safety records of pilot trained in different ways, instruction times
required to solo or to achieve a certificate might be used as measures of the process. If
such evaluations were possible, it would be interesting to compare the Canadian system
of flight instructor certification with the Unites States system.
Data Collection
The limitations of the interview process could be overcome by video recording as
mentioned in the Methods section of chapter three. A large flight training organization
could instrument some or all of its training airplanes, eliminating the need for equipment
portability, and would probably have enough activity to accumulate an adequate amount
of data for comparison with the results of this study.
In 2003 the researcher sat in the rear seat of four-place airplanes while 14
different instructors taught pre-solo students to fly. Notes were taken and it was found
that a wealth of data related to the research questions of this study could be accumulated.
101
It was sensed, in 2003, that the student and instructor became oblivious to the
researcher‟s presence since the researcher remained silent and only watched, listened, and
took notes. Bales, in Mouly (1978), reported that people get used to the presence of the
observer and that serious distortion does not occur. However, the airplane would handle a
bit differently with the added weight of the observer. Rear seat observation is often used
for various purposes when four-place airplanes are used for training. Large flight training
organizations might find this method useful for comparing their training practices with
the shoulds of this study.
Population
This study sampled active flight instructors. It did not attempt to stratify the data
by the amount of instructing activity. It would be of interest to compare the teaching of
more active flight instructors with that of less active flight instructors. The differentiating
criterion might be the hours of dual instruction given per year. It would also be of interest
to determine how much student instruction is provided by the large flight schools in
Minnesota and how much is provided elsewhere. Instructors from both groups could be
sampled as was done for this study.
Other Piloting Tasks
In a sense, this study involved finding best practices for teaching pilots to land
and determining to what extent those practices were being taught. Other tasks such as
navigation, collision avoidance, reacting to emergencies, maximum performance
maneuvers, and radio procedures might benefit from an approach similar to the one used
102
for this study. That is, developing and validating a model and gathering data regarding
instructing practices.
It is possible that some grounded theory (“... deriving constructs and laws from
the immediate data that one has collected rather than from prior research and theory”
[Gall et al, 2003, p. 8]). could emerge from studies of this nature. Swanson and Holden
(1997) stated that “HRD scholars should be respectful of the fact that theory often has to
catch up to sound practice in that practitioners can be ahead of researchers” (p. 12). This
might be true of flight instruction. In the researcher‟s experience, some flight instruction
techniques are passed by word-of-mouth during seminars and during hangar flying,
(informal conversations whenever flight instructors meet). For example, the very useful
technique of teaching students to use a grease spot on the windshield as a pitch attitude
reference is widely used but the researcher has not found reference to this in the
literature. Teaching the use of a windshield spot is an example of an approach to flight
instructing that provides pilots with as many detailed cues as is possible, rather than
allowing pilots to learn by trial and error, while practicing the same mistakes repeatedly.
Visual Cues.
According to the FAA (1999) 75% of learning occurs through sight. This theory
might be supported by hypothesizing that pilots learn best when taught visual cues
specific to piloting tasks, rather than learning by repeated practice alone. The 37 shoulds
of this study encompass many visual cues such as the stationary spot, looking down the
runway, visualizing the extended centerline, windsock, and others. Examples of other
visual cues include a windshield spot for pitch reference, section lines and sun position
103
for navigation, the use of the wingtips as pitch and roll references, pitch attitude in
relation to airspeed, smoke and waves to indicate wind direction, and many others.
Researching, collecting, and publishing the visual cues found useful to the process of
flight instruction would be of benefit to the flight instructing community.
Journal
The field of flight instruction research would benefit from the existence of a peer
reviewed journal. Currently, pertinent research articles are few in number, are scattered
among journals for other fields, and are difficult to find. Given the number of aerospace
education departments at major universities there would probably be enough papers
submitted to support at least a quarterly publication schedule. The existence of a journal
might also act to stimulate more research in this field.
104
References
Aeronautical Information Manual (2005). In FAR/AIM 2005, (pp.471-970). Newcastle,
WA: Aviation Supplies and Academics.
AOPA (2004, July). FAA certificated pilots by state and certificate type. Retrieved
February 8, 2006, from http://www.aopa.org/special/newsroom/stats/
pilots_state.html
AOPA Air Safety Foundation (2002). Ups and downs of takeoffs and landings.
(Operations and Proficiency No. 6). Fredrick, MD: Author.
AOPA Air Safety Foundation (2003). 2003 Nall Report. Accident trends and factors
for 2002. [Electronic version]. Frederick, MD: Author..
AOPA Air Safety Foundation (2004). Flight instruction safety: An in-depth look at
instructional accidents (SS01-07/04). Fredrick, MD: Author.
AOPA Air Safety Foundation (2005). 2005 Nall Report. Accident trends and factors
for 2004. [Electronic version]. Frederick, MD: Author
AOPA Air Safety Foundation (2006). 2006 Nall Report. Accident trends and factors
for 2005. [Electronic version]. Frederick, MD: Author.
AOPA Air Safety Foundation (2004).Collision avoidance: Strategies and tactics.
(Operations and Proficiency No. 4). Fredrick, MD: Author.
Beall, A.C. & Loomis, J.M. (1997). Optic flow and visual analysis of the base to final
turn. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 7(3), 201-223.
105
Benbasset, D. & Abramson, C. (2002). Landing flare accident reports and pilot
perception analysis. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 12(2), 137152.
Benkert, J. (n.d.). Hangar talk: The Joe Benkert forum (archive) –Flight instructing.
Retrieved April 24, 2005, from http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi?
pass*72251463!mtd*40!ref*www.landings.com/_landing
Best, J. (1977). Research in education (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Borg, W. R. & Gall, M. D. (1971). Educational research: An introduction. New York:
Mckay.
Collins, L. (2005). Takeoffs & landings (Rev. Ed.). Newcastle, WA: Aviation Supplies &
Academics.
Collins, M. (2003, March). Touching base.Flight Training, 2003.
Collins, R. (1984, February). Crosswinds. Flying, 1984, 38-41.
Collins, R. (1993). Touchdown. AOPA Pilot, March, 1993. Reprint retrieved August 10,
2005, from http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/1993/
touchdown9303.htms?pf, 1-4
Collins, R. (2006, March). What really counts? Flying, 2006, 31-37.
Collins, R. (2007, January). Unfriendly passing in the sky. Flying, 2007, 35-39.
Creative Research Systems (n.d.). Statistical Significance. Retrieved February 28, 2007
from http//www.surveysystem.com/signif.htm
Cuccinello, B. (n.d.). Secret to good landings. Retrieved August 10, 2005, from http://
flighttraining.aopa.org/cfi_tools/publications/inst_reports2.cfm?article=4877
106
Davisson, B. (1996, January). On a landing approach, knowing where you‟re going is
half of getting there, Flight Training, 1996, 29-30.
Davisson, B. (2006,June). Measuring up. Compare your progress against your objectives,
not against other students. Flight Training, 2006, 22.
Davisson, B. (2007,February). Quadrillaterlism. The traffic pattern affliction. Flight
Training, 2007, 48.
DePoy, E. & Gitlin L. N. (2005). Introduction to research. Understanding and applying
multiple strategies. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby.
Dorion, W,D. (2005, May). Crosswind contention. Flight Training, 2005, 10.
Federal Aviation Administration (1977). Aviation instructor’s handbook. (Publication
No. FAA AC 60-14 ). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Federal Aviation Administration (1980). Flight training handbook. (Publication No. AC
61 - 21A). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Federal Aviation Administration (Producer). (1995). On landings. [Motion picture, three
tapes] (available only on loan from an FAA Flight Standards District Office
[FSDO]).
Federal Aviation Administration (1999). Aviation instructor’s handbook. (Publication
No. FAA-H-8083-9). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Federal Aviation Administration (2002). Private pilot practical test standards for
airplane single-engine land and sea. (Publication No. FAA-S-8081-14AS).
Washington DC: Flight Standards Service.
107
Federal Aviation Administration (2004). Airplane flying handbook. (Publication No.
FAA-H-8083-3A). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Federal Aviation Administration (2005). General Aviation Common Safety Challenges
2005. Retrieved September 21. 2005, from http://www.faasafety.gov/
SPANS/events/2005-Sep/19_General_Aviation_Safety_Challenges_
2005_Rev_D.pdf
Federal Air Regulations (2005). In FAR AIM 2005. (pp.1-470). Newcastle, WA:
Aviation Supplies and Academics.
Galanis, G., Jennings, A. & Beckett, P. (2001). Runway width effects in the visual
approach to landing. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 11(3),
281-301.
Gall, M.D., Gall,J.P., & Borg, W.R. (2003). Educational research. An introduction (7th
ed.). Boston: Allyn-Bacon.
Good, C. V. (1959). Introduction to educational research. New York: Appleton-centuryCrofts.
Henley, I. (1991). The development and evaluation of flight instructors: A descriptive
survey. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1(4), 319-334.
Jeppesen Sanderson Company (Producer). (1993). CFI renewal program: Volume 3 –
Issue 2, Teaching the Stabilized Approach [Motion picture]. (Available from
Jeppesen Sanderson, 55 Inverness Drive, East Englewood, CO, 80012-5498).
Kepner, C. H. & Trego, B. B. (1965). The rational manager. New York: McGraw - Hill.
108
Kershner, W. K. (2002). The flight instructor’s manual. Ames, IA: Iowa State University
Press.
King Schools (Producer). (n.d.). Takeoffs and landings made easy [Motion picture].
(Available from King Schools, 3840 Calle Fortunada, San Diego, CA, 93123).
Knowles, M. S., Holton E.F. III, & Swanson, R.A. (1998). The adult learner (5th ed.).
Houston, TX: Gulf.
Landings.com (2006). Airmen data base search result. Retrieved September 25, 2006,
from http//:ww8.landings.com/cgibin/nphsearch_namd?pass=86280116&
1=&2=&5=&6=mn...
Laboda,A (1997, June). Touchdown. A seven-point plan for scoring better landings.
Flying, 1997, 21-22.
Landsberg, B. (2001, July). Botched bounce. Flight Training, 2001, 67-68.
Landsberg, B. (2001,August).Amazing airmanship. AOPA Pilot, 79-80.
Landsberg, B. (2005, March). Not-so happy landings. AOPA Pilot, 48.
Langewiesche, W. (1944). Stick and rudder. New York: McGraw - Hill.
Leong, F. T & Austin, J. T. (Eds.). (2006).The psychology research handbook (2nd ed,).
Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.
McSwain, W.T. (2006). Instructional tools. Mentor, 7-11.
Machado, R. (2005, October). To go or not to go? Flight Training, 54-55.
Machado, R. (2006, November). The eternal question. Flight Training, 50-51.
109
Marsh, A.K. (1996, August). Defeating the crosswind. AOPA Pilot, 1996. Retrieved
August 10, 2005, from http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/1996/
crosswind9608.html?PF
Mouly, G.J. (1978). Educational research. The art and science of investigation. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon
Namowitz, D. (2005, January). The flapless landing is routine (but don‟t drag it out).
Flight Training, 24-27.
Namowitz, D. (2006, December). Tips for top-notch touchdowns. Flight Training, 38-42.
Pardo, J. (2004, April). Downhill from here. Follow the VASI. Flight Training, 2004, 3438.
Parker, C.L. (1997, October). The last half mile. Flight Training, 1997, 44-45.
Parker, C.L. (2005,May).When it clicks, you can land the airplane. Flight Training, 2005,
38-40.
Parker, C.L. (2006, April). Crab it or slip it but don‟t avoid it! Four steps to better
crosswind landings. Flight Training, 2006, 28-32.
Random.org (2006). Random sequence of 2364 numbers. Retrieved September 29, 2006,
from http://www.random.org/cgi-bin/randomseq?min=1&max=2364
Ring, J. (1992, December). A flare for landing. Flight Training, 1992, 56-57.
Rossier, R.N. (1997, September). Lousy landings. Flight Training, 1997, 51-53.
Royeen, C. B. (1989). Clinical research handbook. An analysis for the service
professions. Thorofare, NJ: Slack.
Sachs, R. (2007, January). Intended missions. Mentor, 2007, 2.
110
Sporty‟s (Producer). (1990). What you should know private pilot video series, volume 2,
tape 2, What you should know before practicing landings [Motion picture].
(Available from Sporty‟s Pilot Shop, Clermont County Airport, Batavia, OH,
45103).
Swanson, R. A. & Holden, E. F., III (1997). Handbook of human resource development
research: Linking research and practice. Williston, VT: Berrett – Koehler.
Turner, T. P. (2002,October). The rewards and the risks. Flight Training, 2002, 67-69.
Van de Ven, A.H. (2006, October). Engaged Schholorship: Creating Knowledge for
Science and Practice. Paper presented at a research symposium for the
department of Work and Human Resources Education of the University of
Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN.
Wright, C. (2006, May). Rite of passage: The touchy subject of touch and goes. Flight
Training, 2006, 71-74.
111
APPENDIX A
List of Shoulds
Flight Instructors should:
Stabilized approach
1. be certain that pilots are able to fly all parts of the traffic pattern, except the
flare and landing, before beginning serious landing practice.
2. teach pilots to stabilize the approach soon after turning onto the final approach
course, or by an altitude about 400 feet, or at about a half mile from the end of
the runway; depending on the traffic pattern flown.
3. teach pre-solo pilots to use full flaps.
4. teach pilots to apply the final flap setting as part of the stabilized approach.
5. teach pilots to make power-on approaches.
6. teach pilots to approach at an airspeed of 1.3 Vso.
7. teach pilots to add half the wind gust velocity to the final approach speed.
8. determine when additional airwork outside the traffic pattern is needed to
improve basic flying skills.
9. teach pilots to use trim throughout the approach to minimize control pressure.
Centerline alignment
10. teach pilots how to recognize and how to maintain alignment with the
runway centerline.
11. teach pilots to use the windsock or other wind direction indicators to
determine wind conditions.
112
12. teach pilots to recognize wind drift.
13. teach pilots to compensate for wind drift.
14. teach pilots to make low passes over the runway to practice centerline
alignment at slow-flight speeds prior to their first attempts at landing.
Establishing flare point.
15. teach pilots a technique for establishing the desired flare point.
16. teach pilots to use visual approach slope indicators, if they are present.
17. establish a safe landing distance limit beyond which a go-around should be
performed.
Level off
18. teach pilots to look down the runway when nearing the level off point.
19. teach pilots to remove any remaining power after beginning the level off
process.
20. teach pilots to continue to maintain runway alignment during level off.
21. teach pilots to continue to compensate for wind drift during level off.
Touchdown
22. teach pilots to raise the nose to a specific touchdown attitude following the
level off.
23. teach pilots to use increasing back pressure to maintain the nose in the
touchdown attitude until touchdown.
24 teach pilots to touch down at the slowest possible speed.
113
25. teach pilots the importance of landing on the main wheels with the nose wheel
raised.
26. teach pilots not to lower the nose during the touchdown process.
27. teach pilots to land near a desired touchdown point.
Rollout
28. teach pilots to continue to maintain alignment with the runway centerline
during rollout.
29. teach pilots to continue to compensate for wind drift during rollout.
30. teach pilots to avoid braking until the airplane has slowed from the touchdown
speed and the nosewheel has contacted the runway.
Other Factors
31. give pilots instruction in looking for traffic, including traffic on the runway.
32. give pilots instruction in going around.
33. cease pattern work when progress is not being made and should leave the
pattern to work on airwork, ground reference maneuvers, or whatever is the
root cause of the difficulty.
34. provide breaks to avoid fatigue.
35. teach pilots to go around rather than attempting to salvage a bad landing.
36. teach students to divide their attention between inside and outside references.
37. be cognizant of the psychological and physiological factors involved and
should be able to deal with them as required.
114
APPENDIX B
Weighting Letter Sent to Experts
Dear
:
It has been suggested that in evaluating what flight instructors are teaching, that
the 37 enclosed should statements may not be of equal importance. Would you please
mark the should statements, next to the statement number, with a number between one
and five. Five being among the most important statements of the list and one being
among the least important statements.
It is tempting to consider all statements as being worthy of a five. But even among
37 statements, all being important, there must be at least one that is the least important
and at least one that is the most important.
Would you please mark your recommendation next to the number of the statement
and return the list to me in the enclosed envelope?
Thanks,
115
APPENDIX C
Experts‟ Weighting of the 37 Shoulds
Experts‟ Weights
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Flight instructors should:
be certain that pilots are able to fly all parts of the
traffic pattern, except the flare and landing, before
beginning serious landing practice.
teach pilots to stabilize the approach soon after
turning onto the final approach course, or by an
altitude of 400 feet, or at about a half-mile from the
end of the runway, depending on the traffic pattern
flown.
teach pre-solo pilots to use full flaps.
teach pilots to apply the final flap setting as part of
the stabilized approach.
teach pilots to make power-on approaches.
teach pilots to approach at an airspeed of 1.3Vso.
teach pilots to add half the wind gust velocity to the
final approach speed.
determine when additional airwork outside the
traffic pattern is needed to improve basic flying
skills.
teach pilots to use trim throughout the approach to
minimize control pressure.
teach pilots how to recognize and how to maintain
alignment with the runway centerline.
teach pilots to use the windsock or other wind
direction indicators to determine wind conditions.
teach pilots to recognize wind drift.
teach pilots to compensate for wind drift.
teach pilots to make low passes over the runway to
practice centerline alignment at slow-flight speeds
prior to their first attempts at landing.
teach pilots a technique for establishing the desired
flare point.
teach pilots to use visual approach slope indicators,
if they are present.
establish a safe landing distance limit beyond which
a go-around should be performed
teach pilots to look down the runway when nearing
116
1
Expert Number
2
3
4 5
AV.
3
4
3
5
4
3.8
5
5
4
5
3
4.4
5
5
1
3
2
4
5
5
4
3
3.4
4.0
4
5
5
3
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
3
4
3
3.6
4.4
4.2
5
5
3
5
4
4.4
5
4
4
5
4
4.4
5
5
5
5
4
4.8
5
5
4
5
2
4.2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
4
4.6
4.8
5
3
1
4
4
3.4
5
5
3
5
4
3.4
3
1
4
4
3
3.0
5
5
5
5
4
4.8
5
3
3
5
3
3.8
the level-off point.
19 teach pilots remove any remaining power after
beginning the level-off process..
20 teach pilots to continue to maintain runway
alignment after level-off.
21 teach pilots to continue to compensate for wind
drift during level-off.
22 teach pilots to raise the nose to a specific
touchdown attitude following the level-off.
23 teach pilots to use increasing back pressure to
maintain the nose in the touchdown attitude until
touchdown.
24 teach pilots to touch down at the slowest possible
speed.
25 teach pilots the importance of landing on the main
wheels with the nosewheel raised.
26 teach pilots not to lower the nose during the
touchdown process.
27 teach pilots to land near a desired touchdown point.
28 teach pilots to continue to maintain alignment with
the runway centerline during rollout.
29 teach pilots to compensate for wind drift during
rollout.
30 teach pilots to avoid braking until the airplane has
slowed from the touchdown speed and the
nosewheel has contacted the runway.
31 give pilots instruction in looking for traffic,
including traffic on the runway.
32 give pilots instruction in going around.
33 cease pattern work when progress is not being made
and should leave the pattern to work on airwork,
ground reference maneuvers, or whatever is the root
cause of the difficulty.
34 provide breaks to avoid fatigue.
35 teach pilots to go around, rather than attempting to
salvage a bad landing.
36 teach students to divide their attention between
inside and outside visual references.
37 be cognizant of the physiological and psychological
factors involved and should be able to deal with
them as required.
117
3
2
4
5
3
3.4
5
5
5
5
4
4.8
5
5
5
5
4
4.8
1
5
2
5
4
3.4
3
5
5
5
4
4.4
5
4
4
4
3
4.0
5
4
5
5
4
4.6
5
4
3
5
3
4.0
5
5
3
5
4
5
4
5
3
4
3.8
4.8
5
5
5
5
4
4.8
4
4
3
5
3
3.8
5
5
5
5
3
4.6
5
-
3
5
3
4.0
5
2
5
5
4
4.2
5
5
3
5
3
5
5
5
3
3
3.8
4.6
5
5
4
5
3
4.4
5
3
4
5
4
4.2
APPENDIX D
Interview Questions
After introductions, the data gathering part of the interview will begin with two
broad, open-ended questions:
1. Please describe how you teach a pilot to land once you have determined that the
pilot is ready.
2. Describe, in as much detail as you can, what you teach the pilot to do, and how
you teach it, from the time the airplane is turned onto the final approach course until the
airplane turns off the runway or is airborne after a touch and go.
Probe
Phase
A. How do you determine when to begin concentrated
Should
Stab. App.
1
Stab. App.
9
Stab. App.
2,3,4,
landing practice?
B. How do you teach pilots to react to pitch control
pressure?
C. What do you teach pilots to do immediately after turning
onto the final approach course?
5,6
D. How do you determine what final approach speed to
Stab. App.
6
Stab. App.
7
Cent. Align.
11,12,
teach?
E. How do you teach pilots to react to the wind on the final
approach?
13
118
Probe
Phase
F. What criteria do you establish for pilots regarding the
Should
Cent. Align.
10
Est. Flare Pt.
17
Cent . Align.
14
Cent. Align.
11
Est.. Flare Pt.
16
Est. Flare Pt.
15
Touchdown
27
J. How do you teach pilots to know when to level off?
Level Off
18
K. How do you teach pilots to use their vision during the
Est. Flare Pt.
15
Level Off
18
Touchdown
22
Stab. App.
5
Level Off
19
Level Off
19,20,
position of the airplane with regard to the runway, both
vertically and latterly?
G. Do you have pilots practice anything in particular to
sharpen their abilities to fly an accurate final approach
path when close to the ground?
H. What visual aids to landing do you teach pilots to use?
I. How do you teach pilots to land where they want to?
final approach and landing?
L. How do you teach pilots to handle power in all phases of
the approach and landing?
M. What do you teach pilots to do after leveling off?
21
Touchdown
22,23,
24,25,
119
26
Probe
N. How do you teach pilots to react to the wind during the
flare, landing, and rollout?
O. How do you teach pilots to slow the airplane down
Phase
Should
Level Off
20, 21
Rollout
28,29
Rollout
30
Stab. App.
8
Other Factors
33
Rollout
28,29,
during full-stop landings?
P. What do you do if a pilot seems to have reached a
plateau and does not improve with more instruction?
Q. What do you teach pilots to do during the first few
seconds after touchdown?
30
R. What do you teach pilots to do after the first few seconds
Rollout
of ground roll during full stop landings.
28,29,
30
S. Are there any physiological or psychological factors that
Other Factors
you consider during concentrated landing practice?
T. What hazards have you encountered and how do you
teach pilots to react to them.
33, 34,
37,36
Other Factors
31, 32,
35
120
APPENDIX E
Pilot Study Interviews Analysis
Analysis of the Transcripts
A = Reviewer 1
B = Reviewer 2
C = Researcher
Y = Yes
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Flight instructors should:
1A
be certain that pilots are able to fly all parts of
the traffic pattern, except the flare and landing,
Y
before beginning serious landing practice.
teach pilots to stabilize the approach soon after
turning onto the final approach course, or by
an altitude of 400 feet, or at about a half-mile
Y
from the end of the runway, depending on the
traffic pattern flown.
teach pre-solo pilots to use full flaps.
Y
teach pilots to apply the final flap setting as
Y
part of the stabilized approach.
teach pilots to make power-on approaches.
Y
teach pilots to approach at an airspeed of
1.3Vso.
teach pilots to add half the wind gust velocity
to the final approach speed.
determine when additional airwork outside the
traffic pattern is needed to improve basic
flying skills.
teach pilots to use trim throughout the
Y
approach to minimize control pressure.
teach pilots how to recognize and how to
Y
maintain alignment with the runway centerline.
teach pilots to use the windsock or other wind
direction indicators to determine wind
Y
conditions.
teach pilots to recognize wind drift.
Y
teach pilots to compensate for wind drift.
Y
teach pilots to make low passes over the
runway to practice centerline alignment at
slow-flight speeds prior to their first attempts
at landing.
121
1B
1C
2A
2B
2C
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
teach pilots a technique for establishing the
desired flare point.
teach pilots to use visual approach slope
indicators, if they are present.
establish a safe landing distance limit beyond
which a go-around should be performed
teach pilots to look down the runway when
nearing the level-off point.
teach pilots remove any remaining power after
beginning the level-off process..
teach pilots to continue to maintain runway
alignment after level-off.
teach pilots to continue to compensate for
wind drift during level-off.
teach pilots to raise the nose to a specific
touchdown attitude following the level-off.
teach pilots to use increasing back pressure to
maintain the nose in the touchdown attitude
until touchdown.
teach pilots to touch down at the slowest
possible speed.
teach pilots the importance of landing on the
main wheels with the nosewheel raised.
teach pilots not to lower the nose during the
touchdown process.
teach pilots to land near a desired touchdown
point.
teach pilots to continue to maintain alignment
with the runway centerline during rollout.
teach pilots to compensate for wind drift
during rollout.
teach pilots to avoid braking until the airplane
has slowed from the touchdown speed and the
nosewheel has contacted the runway.
give pilots instruction in looking for traffic,
including traffic on the runway.
give pilots instruction in going around.
cease pattern work when progress is not being
made and should leave the pattern to work on
airwork, ground reference maneuvers, or
whatever is the root cause of the difficulty.
provide breaks to avoid fatigue.
teach pilots to go around, rather than
attempting to salvage a bad landing.
122
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
36
37
teach students to divide their attention between
inside and outside visual references.
be cognizant of the physiological and
psychological factors involved and should be
able to deal with them as required.
Total
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
25
26
21
23
18
15
Reviewer A and the Researcher Agreement
Reviewer A and the researcher agreed on 29 of 37 items for interview 1. (29/37) x 100 =
78% agreement.
Reviewer A found 25 of 37 shoulds for interview 1 compared to the researcher‟s 21
(21/25) x 100 = 84% agreement.
Reviewer A and the researcher agreed on 27 of 37 items for interview 2. (27/37) x 100 =
73% Agreement.
Reviewer A found 23 of 37 shoulds for interview 2 compared to the researcher‟s 15.
(15/23) x 100 = 65% agreement.
Reviewer B and the Researcher Agreement
Reviewer B and the researcher agreed on 28 of 37 items for interview 1. (28/37) x 100 =
76% agreement.
Reviewer B found 26 of 37 shoulds for interview 1 compared to the researcher‟s 21.
(21/26) x 100 = 80% agreement.
Reviewer B and the researcher agreed on 24 of 37 items for interview 2. (24/37) x 100 =
65%.
Reviewer B found 18 of 37 shoulds for interview 2 compared to the researcher‟s 15.
(15/18) x 100 = 83% agreement.
123
Number of Shoulds Found
Reviewer A
Interview 1
25
Interview 2
23
Reviewer B
26
18
Researcher
21
15
Percent Agreement on Number of Shoulds Found
Interview 1
Interview 2
Researcher and Reviewer A
84
65
Researcher and Reviewer B
80
83
Average agreement = 78 percent
Percent Agreement on Individual Shoulds
Interview 1
Interview 2
Researcher and Reviewer A
78
73
Researcher and Reviewer B
76
65
Average agreement = 73 percent
Ratio of the Number of Shoulds Taught to the Total Number of Shoulds
This statistic is summarized below:
Interview 1
Reviewer A
25/37 = .68
Reviewer B
26/37 = .70
Researcher
21/37 = .57
Interview 2
23/37 = .62
18/37 = .47
15/37 = .41
124
The researcher‟s statistic was 84 percent of reviewer A‟s and 81 percent of reviewer B‟s
for interview one. The researcher‟s statistic was 66 percent of reviewer A‟s and 87
percent of reviewer B‟s for interview two. The average agreement was 79.5 percent. This
met the 70 percent test for inter-rater reliability and suggested that the interview method
was adequately reliable.
Interviewee one was an experienced flight instructor. The transcript of the
interview included 5 ½ pages. Interviewee two was an inexperienced flight instructor.
The transcript of that interview included only 3 ½ pages. Therefore, it might have been
more difficult to accurately assess the teaching of the inexperienced flight instructor.
Also, the researcher, noting the relative brevity of the interview, might have extended the
interview to obtain more data. This was considered during the interviews of the 32
participants in the study.
125
Appendix F
First Letter to Sample
Dear Fellow Flight Instructor:
My name is Emanuel (Manny) Block. I began instructing in 1967 and have
accumulated 6800 hours of total time and 3800 hours of instructing since then. I need
your help in researching a very important topic of interest to all of us. I am conducting a
research study on how we CFIs in Minnesota teach pilots to land. The results could help
new instructors learn the ropes without a long period of trial and error.
Landing accident and incident records point to inadequate skills as a large part of
the problem. Can we do better? I think so. You can help by sharing your knowledge with
me so that I can put our best practices together in a form that will be of use to the flying
community. Would you agree to meet with me for about 45 minutes at a time and place
of your choosing? The interview will be confidential. Please return the enclosed postcard
whether or not you decide to participate in the study. I also need your flying and
instructing time to help establish statistics for the study. Please return the enclosed postcard as soon as you can.
Thanks,
Emanuel Block
70 Orme Ct. St. Paul, MN 55116
651-699-7932
mannyblock@aol.com
126
APPENDIX G
Return Postcard
Telephone(s) ______________________ _______________________
E-mail address _____________________________________________
Total Flight Time _______hrs. Total Flight Instructing Time _______hrs.
I have taught landings during the past year. Yes ___.
No ___
I have given 10 or more hours of dual instruction during the past
year. Yes ___.
No ___.
I am willing to be interviewed. Yes ___.
No ___.
Best time to call me _________________________________________
127
Appendix H
Second Letter to Sample
Dear Fellow Flight Instructor:
I recently sent you a letter and return postcard asking you to participate in
research focused on teaching pilots to land. Your name was selected as part of a small
random sample of the 2300 flight instructors in Minnesota. Your participation is very
important to this research project. Even if you are no longer active as flight instructor, or
do not want to be interviewed, I still need your completed postcard.
This research is a crucial part of my doctoral program at the University of
Minnesota and the project is potentially of great importance to the teaching of a critical
pilot skill. Therefore, it is important that I receive a high rate of return for the postcards to
assure that data can be analyzed accurately. Your identity will NOT be connected to
ANY information collected!
Even if you do not want to be interviewed for this project, I still need you to
complete and return the enclosed card within the next 10 days. If you have very recently
mailed the original card, please ignore this letter.
Thanks,
Emanuel Block
70 Orme Ct. St. Paul, MN 55116
651-699-7932
mannyblock@aol.com
128
APPENDIX I
Spread Sheet
Sequence:
Random sequence number
PerScore: (Score/37) x 100
Score:
Number of shoulds
PerWeight: (Weighted/153.8) x 100
Weighted:
Sum of weighted shoulds
TT: Total flight hours
DG:
Hours of dual given
129