MASTERING LANDINGS
By Kathleen Bangs, Director of Product Communications, Cirrus Design Corporation

When it comes to flying, take-offs are optional – but landings are inevitable.

A memorable airline captain and DC-10 pilot I used to fly with - ‘Big Jake’ - had a commanding presence and a booming voice that could frequently be heard from a jetway, crew-room, or cockpit long before you ever actually caught sight of him. His favorite phrase regarding landings, and one that still sticks with me many years later, was the one he used when being pestered by passengers, flight attendants – and even fellow pilots – about his landing plans during bad weather, air traffic delays, or mechanical difficulties. “Don’t worry,” he’d bellow, “I’ve never left one of these up here yet!”

Like all good clichés, it’s a truism that what goes up – must eventually come down - and it’s the landing phase that causes many pilots the greatest amount of problems ranging from a disastrous loss of control that ends in fatalities, to an embarrassing hard landing that bruises only the ego. All pilots want to feel in control of and proud of their landings. And any flight is more enjoyable – especially to your passengers – when it ends with a smooth touchdown rather than a sudden impact.

“One of the most common problems we’re seeing,” says Bill Stone, Director of Flight Standards & Operations, Cirrus Design Corporation, “is that the minute there’s any substantial crosswind component, some pilots are landing with half-flaps or even no-flaps.” Stone says that what some pilot may not be realizing is that the maximum demonstrated crosswind for the CIRRUS (20 KIAS for the SR22 and 21 KIAS for the SR20) was conducted using full flaps, and that it’s the intention of the manufacturer that full flaps be used for all normal (non-emergency) landings.

“There is a fallacy,” says Stone, “wrongly passed on from misinformed instructors or from other manufacturer’s airplane flight manuals that leads pilots to think that they have greater control over their plane during the landing phase with less than full flaps. The assumption is that the greater speed creates better control. In reality, that extra speed during the transition from flight to landing can actually cause a pilot to lose control. At the least it’s going to increase your landing distance, and possibly subject the gear to higher side loads”

Stone says another reason some pilots have been landing with less than full flaps is due to the lower pitch attitude view seen out of the forward windscreen. “They may have a bit of apprehension concerning crosswinds, and think that if they fly a flatter approach attitude by using reduced flaps, they’ll have better control. Again – they won’t. The steeper angle, and the lower speed afforded by full flaps, is the safest method and the recommended procedure for landing CIRRUS airplane.”

Stone is emphatic that any of the CIRRUS airplane, “can and should,” be landed using full flaps even with winds at or near the max demonstrated. When asked about landing in conditions with winds above the max demonstrated, Stone says that it’s not advised. “It’s not a defined limit of the airplane, but it is the limit of what wind was tested. If you go beyond that, it’s not illegal but we don’t advise it. In fact, in some cases, we recommend setting personal minimums which may be lower based on your experience, flight time, proficiency, and recency of experience.”

Stone adds that a steady wind is generally much easier to handle than a gusty crosswind situation and to be cognizant of the gust factor so that it doesn’t exceed either the demonstrated capability of the airplane, or the ability of the pilot.

In terms of landing procedure, CIRRUS recommends treating a crosswind landing the same as a normal landing by using the same landing speeds and full flaps. If there are gusty wind conditions, Stone says pilots should add one-half the gust factor to their approach speed. “Let’s suppose a wind of 12 knots gusting to 20. In that scenario, the pilot should calculate his landing speed by subtracting the steady state wind – in this case 12 knots – from the gust speed of 20. That leaves 8 knots of gust factor, and half of that – or 4 knots – should be added to the approach speed.

It’s important to remember that when compensating for wind gusts by padding your indicated approach speed, you do NOT take the steady-state wind into account – ONLY the gust factor. To make sure it’s clear, let’s run through another example: Suppose you’re approaching in the SR20 and the surface wind is being reported as 11 knots, gusting to 21. In that case, if you subtract the steady state wind of 11 knots from the peak gust of 21, you’re left with a 10 knot gust.

To determine your final approach speed, simply take ONE-HALF of that gust factor - which would be 5 knots - and add that to your normal published approach speed. In any event, since the max demonstrated crosswind for the SR20 is 21 knots (and 20 knots for the SR22) it’s highly unlikely that a pilot would find himself landing with anything greater than a 10-11 knot gust, which means that it would be a rare event to ever pad your approach speed by more than 5-6 knots to compensate for wind gusts.TECHNIQUE: Crab, Sideslip, or Both?

Strong crosswind landings make many pilots nervous, and even very experienced commercial airline pilots can tense up when they hear the report for the surface winds they’ll shortly be landing in. On actual airline trips, I’ve seen inexperienced captains ‘give’ a strong crosswind landing to a junior pilot not so much to build up the junior pilot’s confidence and experience, but to shield their own less-than-polished skill at wrestling a multi-ton airplane to the ground in strong gust conditions.

In flight simulators I’ve trained career air carrier pilots who loudly balked their displeasure at having to demonstrate their ability – or sometimes lack thereof - to land with winds in excess of thirty knots. So, if as a GA pilot you sometimes get a bit sweaty-palmed at the prospect of landing in crosswinds, take heart – even the best pros sit up a little straighter, and pull the belts a little tighter when the winds are howling.

The key to building confidence is through building and maintaining proficiency. That never means taking on more wind – alone - than you can handle for your skill level, but it can mean having an occasional fight with a CFI who can help you tweak your crosswind skills.

Line up on any final approach with the nose on an imaginary extended runway centerline and if the wind is coming at you as a 100% direct headwind, then you have zero drift and zero crosswind and…no excuses for anything but a perfect landing. Of course, you just can’t depend on ideal conditions. Even for a local hop, the wind speed and direction can vary considerably between takeoff and landing. What this means to pilots is that almost every landing has a wind component to it, and the majority of those will be a crosswind.

Says Stone: “You have two options landing in a crosswind – crab or sideslip.” Crab means having the airplane pointed into the wind at an angle that will maintain a constant track over the ground – it’s the same theory whether on a cross-country trip or two miles out on final approach – you simply point the airplane into the wind to the extent needed to correct for drift. Crabbing an airplane works great for crosswind landings, except that at some point – unless you’re in a big jet with truck-style landing gears that can handle severe side loads – you’re going to have to get the landing gear parallel with the runway centerline. Generally that means at some point near the ground transitioning from a crab into a sideslip – the configuration where the upwind wing is banked into the wind and opposite rudder applied to correct for drift.

An experienced flight examiner, Stone says he prefers to see applicants use the crab method down to the transition point, and then sideslip the airplane onto the runway.

“At the point of touchdown your main gear should be parallel with the centerline. One wheel might touch down first – which means one wing lower than the other - to compensate for the crosswind, while simultaneously using opposite rudder to keep the plane from drifting away from the centerline – and that’s the technique I like to see. The important thing is to maintain longitudinal alignment with the centerline.”

“Some pilots,” says Stone, “roll out because they’re uncomfortable landing with one wing low, so they kick it out at the last minute but misjudge and start to drift – thereby landing with a sideload, off the centerline, and not in full control of the airplane – obviously a scenario we’d like them to avoid.”

Another common mistake Stone says he frequently sees is what I call, ‘ground relief.’ A pilot is so happy to be on the ground, he forgets that the wings are still flying. “As soon as some pilots touch down,” says Stone, “it’s like halleluiah, and they forget to keep flying the airplane. Instead of rolling the aileron further into the wind as it decelerates and loses effectiveness, he just releases the controls after touchdown.”

Of course it’s hard to imagine that any pilot who has ever flown taildraggers would do this – those types definitely need to be managed aggressively all the way until tie-down. But because new planes like the CIRRUS are so simple to control, pilots still need to be vigilant after landing while the airplane is still developing lift and to some extent ‘fly’ their plane all the way from touchdown to tie-down.

To make a good landing, somewhere immediately before or in the flare you’ll have to transition from a crab position and into a sideslip. By its very nature, a sideslip means you’re cross-controlled: aileron banked in one direction, opposite rudder in the other. One reason you don’t want to adopt the slip configuration unnecessarily far from the touchdown zone is that it’s an uncomfortable maneuver, and the more pronounced the slip, the more discomfort your passengers will experience. The other reason to avoid side-slipping until you’re in the landing transition is because the cross-controlled configuration can be dangerous as it puts you closer to a stall by disrupting your airflow and increasing your drag and decreasing the lift – not a good position to be in near the ground.

Stone says, “Pilots sometimes don’t even recognize that they’re in a crab and never make the proper transition. In the final portion of the flare they need to not only be aligned with the centerline, but to also put in additional control input to compensate for control surface effectiveness as the speed bleeds off.”

“You technically ‘could’ land in a crab position, but why would you want to?” says Stone. “It’s painful, and it could wreck the landing gear. Light airplane landing gear components are not made to absorb strong sideways impacts, so it’s very important to learn good technique to be able to land with crosswind near the center of the runway, and with the airplane’s longitudinal axis aligned with the center line.”

Asked about the occasionally seen practice of landing on the upwind side of the centerline in a strong cross-wind, Stone says he doesn’t recommend it. “If you land on the upwind side of the centerline, there is the chance once you’ve got all wheels on the runway that the plane could weathervane (turn) into the wind. As this happens, you’re also starting to lose control effectiveness as the speed decreases and it’s a recipe for a groundloop or a complete departure from the runway.”

When a Landing is More Than Just a Landing

Good controlled landings happen on the first-third of the runway, on the centerline, at or near stall speed, and generally as the result of a stabilized approach. “One thing we’re stressing with the CIRRUS Monthly Proficiency Program is to tell pilots that if they are not stabilized by 200’ AGL, then they should immediately go-around.” says Stone. He added that,“too high, too low, too fast, too slow, excessive sink rate, and off-centerline” defines an unstabilized approach and that trying to salvage a good landing out of a bad approach is foolish at best, dangerous at worst. “If at 200’ AGL you’re not in proper set-up for landing, just go around,” says Stone, “it’s often the wisest option and one that pilots should use more often.”

Landings are often more complicated than a simple full stop and taxi to the hangar. In addition to go-arounds, there are many other landing situations to consider such as:

• Rejected or Balked Landings
• Stop-and-Go Landings
• Touch-and-Go Landings

Some might consider a rejected or balked landing to be the same as a go-around, but for this discussion we’re differentiating the go-around as a maneuver undertaken before the landing transition and/or flare phase and a rejected or balked landing as a procedure begun after the entering the flare phase, or even after contact with the ground – such as a bad bounce – has been made.

Stone says, “Our thinking on touch-and-gos is that pilots should stay away from them because they have inherent risks that can be mitigated by doing stop-and-go’s instead.” Stone points out that because the airplane is immediately developing full power on a touch-and-go, the pilot may not have time to make sure the plane is properly configured for take-off. One key point is to make sure that not only has the flap switch been repositioned from full to 50%, but to verify that the flaps have actually moved into the correct position. Another consideration is to make sure the trim has been returned to the neutral position so that you don’t get airborne and have to push against the nose-up trim that was set for landing.

“This is why,” says Stone, “the stop-and-go is generally safer than the touch-and-go. You can get the airplane properly configured, and you have a moment to calculate the amount of runway remaining to determine if you sufficient distance for the take-off roll. Another thing that can surprise pilots is how sudden the P-factor torque is during a touch-and-go. As soon as you hit full power, the left-turning tendency is noticeable and it takes a definite and immediate input to counteract the turning force. One way to counteract that would be to gradually increase the power – as opposed to a rapid increase – to reduce the immediate left-turning tendency. There is a caveat: gradually increasing power can extend the takeoff roll distance, so be vigilant of the runway remaining. On the stop-and-go, much like a normal takeoff, you have the luxury of time as the speed builds from zero.”

Regarding stop-and-go’s, Stone agrees that while they are more prudent than a touch-and-go, nothing beats a full-length runway takeoff when it comes to safety. “If pilots are going to do stop-and-go’s,” says Stone, “they should make certain that they have at least two-and-a-half (2.5) times the normal takeoff distance remaining. If they’re even the slightest bit hesitant regarding the amount of runway remaining, then get off, taxi back, and do a full length. Always exercise prudence when taking off with runway behind you – you’ve left something very valuable behind, and you could regret it.”

All pilots experience the occasional skip on a landing, or even a small controlled bounce. But regardless of how much runway is still in from of you, if you experience a big bounce – especially one that turns the airplane, upsets its attitude, or leaves you feeling as if your energy or momentum has suddenly dissipated – it’s time to get away from the ground and execute a balked or rejected landing procedure. There’s a number of bad scenarios that can occur from a large bounce, including the PIO or pilot induced oscillation that tends to occur when either attempting to touch down at too fast a speed, when landing on all three gear at the same time, or when touching down nosewheel first.

The combination of excess speed and improper airplane attitude can set off a dangerous porpoising or series of oscillations that tend to become exaggerated rather than dissipate, which means that rejecting the attempted landing is the smart thing to do. You can always come around for another approach and a more stabilized flare at the correct speed, which is a much safer option than trying to salvage a landing out of an oscillating airplane. Why? Because most pilots are ‘behind’ the airplane in these scenarios – that’s what got them into the porpoising in the first place – and the control inputs made during an oscillation tend to be ‘too much, too late.’

In other words – just as you’re hauling back on the stick, the airplane has already hit the runway and bounced again. Now airborne, you push forward, but already the airplane has lost energy and is on its way down to the ground again. Every input you make is just a bit too late to correct the oscillations, but just enough to make them worse until one of two likely endings occurs: you bounce high enough and lose enough energy to stall and thus hit the ground really hard or you hit the ground (and possibly a propeller, wingtip, or tail) so hard on the bottom of one of the oscillations that the plane lies mangled on the runway. Avoid these unhappy endings. On a bad bounce, execute the rejected landing procedure.

Just like on a touch-and-go, it’s important to expect on a rejected landing that the immediate power increase will produce a noticeable left-turning tendency from the P-factor and to remember to take this into account as you add power.

Too Much ‘Need for Speed’

“There’s a big tendency for pilots to arbitrarily pad their approach speeds. The problem is that once pilots begin randomly getting away from the manufacturer’s published speeds, it can lead to all sorts of trouble,” says Stone.

When it comes to landing speeds, Stone says that his instructor group occasionally sees the misconception that approach speed is or should be the same as landing speed, which is incorrect. Traditionally, approach speeds have been based on 1.3 Vso (one-and-one-third times the power off stall speed). The approach speeds for the CIRRUS have an even additional buffer of speed built-in, negating the pilots need to add any extra knots (unless to correct for wind gusts).

Approach speeds are exactly what the name implies: the speed you should use on final approach. It definitely does not mean that you hold or attempt to hold that approach speed until touchdown – that would be excessively fast and potentially dangerous. Once the pilot gets into the portion of the flight where the approach transitions into the landing, the speed can be allowed to dissipate, and once into the flare – the power can be reduced to idle right before touchdown. If executed correctly, an airplane will land at or just above stall speed, and it’s normal to have the stall warning ‘chirp’ as the plane is achieving touchdown.

All pilots know that they’re supposed to land on the first one-third of the runway, with the touchdown zone as their aiming point. The problem is that with excess speed, you might begin your flare in that first-third, but the ‘float’ you encounter once in ground-effect can carry you dangerously beyond the touchdown zone and well beyond that first-third boundary we instruct pilots to adhere to.

Stone observes that, “Even among the best pilots, we still see a tendency to come in way too fast. Everybody seems to want a few extra knots here and there – it makes them feel more comfortable, but it shouldn’t. In reality, it extends the landing distance, makes for a longer and more hazardous flare transition, and adds wear and tear to the landing gear and tires, because in short - you’re trying to make an airplane land that still thinks it’s flying. It’s not complicated, just fly your published speeds. In a gusty wind situation, add one-half the gust factor to your approach speed. Airspeeds and flap settings should be adhered to as per the manufacturer’s recommendations. It’s really as simple as that.”

Back to Top