Age old question of landing a 172. Should it be a full stall?

10 Answers

1. 
   

   
   

   Kris Kortokrax on May 03, 2017

   Well, let’s see.

   The Airplane Flying Handbook contains the following language:

   “The round out and touchdown are normally made with the engine idling and the airplane at minimum controllable airspeed so that the airplane touches down on the main gear at approximately stalling speed.”

   The POH for the CE-172N states:

   “Actual touchdown should be made with power-off and on the main wheels first to reduce the landing speed and subsequent need for braking the landing roll. The nose wheel is lowered to the runway gently after the speed has diminished to avoid unnecessary nose gear loads.”

   The POH for the CE-172S states:

   “Landing at slower speeds will result in shorter landing distances and minimum wear to tires and brakes. Power must be at idle as the main wheels touch the ground. The main wheels must touch the ground before the nosewheel. The nosewheel must be lowered
   to the runway carefully after the speed has diminished to avoid unnecessary nose gear loads.”

   I think it may be an issue of terminology. Your new instructor should probably describe the procedure as landing in the stalling attitude (nose up, on the mains), rather than calling it a full stall landing. As you can see, all the publications suggest the same thing. Land on the mains, with the power at idle. You don’t need to touch down like a butterfly with sore feet on a hot griddle to make a good landing. The people who attempt this are the ones sailing down the runway using way more distance to land than is necessary.

   As far as the go-around, I can perform a go-around after I’ve just touched down, if need be. There is no need in normal circumstances to carry extra speed during the touchdown. If you do, you probably need to force the plane onto the ground (not suggesting that this is the way you land).

   +4 Votes 5 Votes  1 Votes

2. 
   

   
   

   R. Anderson on May 03, 2017

   I believe that all aircraft should still be flying when touchdown occurs. While I’m familiar with your instructors’ point of view, I think that touchdown occurring at the same moment a full stall is reached (if this in fact is what he means) could be problematic under a variety of circumstances. These include crosswind and/or gusty wind conditions where effective control surface (ailerons/rudder/elevator) response is important. Also, transferring early learned landing skills to larger aircraft (e.g., King air, B737, etc.) is important and doing a full stall landing in a B757 is not an option.

   Lastly, my technique is to identify a point in the touchdown zone, fly a constant descent angle along the final approach course, carry the amount of power appropriate for your configuration (i.e., flap setting, gear position) and target speed (a few knots above your planned touchdown speed), and when you start your flare any float should be minimal and touchdown should occur while all control surfaces are still effective.

   I am not trying to second guess your well qualified and experienced instructor. I’m only offering the technique I use as an instructor.

   0 Votes 1 Votes  1 Votes

3. 
   

   
   

   R. Anderson on May 03, 2017

   Just to add a follow up note to the next to last paragraph in my response:

   As the flare begins (slightly before or simultaneously) any power, which would be a small amount at this point, should be reduced to idle just prior to touchdown.

   +1 Votes 1 Votes  0 Votes

4. 
   

   
   

   fugae fuit malleator on May 03, 2017

   Landing in a “full” stall sets you up for a dangerous situation if you have to transition to a go-around for any reason. That method is not what I recommend or what I teach. I’d ask for a detailed description of what the instructor means and go from there….

   0 Votes 1 Votes  1 Votes

5. 
   

   
   

   Kris Kortokrax on May 04, 2017

   Please describe the dangerous situation faced when touching down at approximately the stalling speed (as the FAA Airplane Flying Handbook describes).

   0 Votes 1 Votes  1 Votes

6. 
   

   
   

   fugae fuit malleator on May 04, 2017

   If everything is perfect then there isn’t any problem touching down at just above stall speed in a C172. Emphasis needs to be placed on the “just above.” Just above stall speed is still flying speed. Full stall is not flying speed in this hypothetical problem. The problem I am suggesting is that the world isn’t perfect and we need to abort a landing attempt every now and then. When we are above stall speed and still in the flying speed regime there isn’t much transition time. When we are below flying speed and in a full stall the transition time to get back to the flight envelope is longer. A longer time to gain maneuverability is the dangerous part. Think of it like having options. Slow, low, and behind on energy is not where I want to be when I see a massive hole in the landing surface that I can’t avoid except to execute a go-around. Just a bit of contingency planning that I have adopted from flying much heavier airplanes that can’t land at stall speeds. Cheers!

   -1 Votes 0 Votes  1 Votes

7. 
   

   
   

   Kris Kortokrax on May 07, 2017

   The poster asked specifically about landing a 172. Discussing how one would land a jet is no more relevant than worrying about second segment climb performance would be if we were talking about takeoffs in a 172. They are two different animals. The Airplane Flying Handbook describes landing a jet in the following manner: “Unlike light airplanes, a jet airplane should be flown onto the runway rather than “held off” the surface as speed dissipates.” This is not the way we should land a 172.

   Regarding go arounds, if one can pass the flight physical, he should be able to see the “massive hole” in the runway prior to just before touchdown. Most of my go arounds have been for traffic. Boats on a lake that I am approaching, a plane pulling out to take off ahead of my landing. Since I was paying attention to the conditions at my landing location, I was aware of the traffic well in advance of touchdown. I have never seen an elephant on the runway or a “massive hole” in a runway that I had to avoid just prior to touchdown.

   There is one other issue. As I said earlier, the term “full stall” is misleading. Apparently, we are forgetting a couple of things.

   1. Stall speed is not a fixed number. It is determined during certification at gross weight and worst CG location. At lower weights, the stalling speed is lower. Most people don’t bother to calculate the stall speed prior to departure, and if they did, it would change as fuel burns off during a trip of any consequence.

   2. Think about ground effect. We all know (or should know) that during a soft field takeoff, we can become airborne below the recommended airspeed. We may risk a stall if we attempt to climb out of ground effect without sufficient speed. However, during a go around initiated just before touchdown, we have not stalled, we open the throttle and we are still flying. Once we have accelerated in ground effect we can climb.

   +2 Votes 5 Votes  3 Votes

8. 
   

   
   

   R. Anderson on May 08, 2017

   The poster asked for thoughts as related to the question and his opinion about more options available in case of a go-around. Also, this is a discussion forum that offers the opportunity to explore elements that start from the question and expand into broader related concepts. Being sensitive because you don’t like someone’s comments is not a productive way to keep people involved.

   By the way, the aerodynamics and general techniques associated with landing a jet, C172, or BE300 are all interrelated, but certainly not the same. I don’t think anyone is arguing that in a C172, under normal circumstances (no significant x-wind or gusty conditions), the airplane should touchdown at an angle of attack near critical – just not at the exact point of a full stall (how ever you define that moment). Depending on the circumstances (short runway, wind conditions, etc.) there are many more variables that deserve discussion and analysis beyond pulling sentences from Airplane Flying Handbook and assuming there are no other points necessary to be discussed.

   Conversation is good…

   +1 Votes 2 Votes  1 Votes

9. 
   

   
   

   Kris Kortokrax on May 08, 2017

   I certainly agree that the poster asked for opinions. I quote the appropriate references to back up my opinion. An unsupported opinion is of little value.

   A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to fly a brand new Cessna 172S with the Safe Flight Scc angle of attack device. While doing stalls at altitude, as you increase the AOA, you eventually hear what they describe as a geiger counter sound that increases in in frequency as you keep increasing the AOA. You also hear the stall warning. While landing the airplane using the technique I have been using for 47 years (nose high, land on the mains at minimum speed), i heard neither the AOA alert, nor the stall warning. This is why I state that the terminology is misleading. The airplane is not touching down in a “full stall”.

   I am well aware that this is a discussion forum. I have been contributing since just after the site was created. Anyone who has read my past posts knows that I either back up what I post with references or I identify my post as merely my opinion.

   It appears that you are afflicted by the same sensitivity of which you accuse me. It seems that “Conversation is good”, unless I disagree with you, then it is not so good.

   +1 Votes 3 Votes  2 Votes

10. 
    

    
    

    R. Anderson on May 08, 2017

    Well said; I apologize for prolonging the agony of a tit-for-tat back and forth, but let me just finish by saying that in my opinion it is more productive to provide commentary and opinion on the original poster’s question/issue and less productive to dismiss another person’s comments/opinions.

    If the relevance of my reference to landing a jet is worthless, let the person asking the question make that determination. Appreciating skills that may be relevant as one begins flying other types of aircraft, and relating that to landing a C172, considering the poster’s original question/comment, seemed reasonable to me.

    +1 Votes 1 Votes  0 Votes