Instructor Report: Spot on

A century of trial-and-error improvements to our teaching methodology has borne fruit. However, those new methods have rarely been written down as procedures, or shared widely. Rather, they’re the domain of CFIs here and there who implement their own methods and generally spread the news of their success no farther than a handful of friends who happen to be at the same airport at the same time.

For the past half-century or more, a typical private pilot training program starts with the four fundamentals: climbs, descents, straight-and-level flight, and turns. That’s enough to fill a student’s head with new information and challenge his or her hand/eye coordination. Each successive lesson builds on that foundation, adding new tasks, new insights, and new challenges. After logging something in the neighborhood of six to seven hours of flight time, the oft-intimidating task of landing the airplane is added to the new student’s list of worries. It generally goes like this:

The student flies the rectangular pattern he was introduced to in the practice area. When abeam the runway numbers on the downwind leg, he sets the airplane up for landing. Carburetor heat comes on. The throttle comes back to some predetermined number of rpms. The first notch of flaps is thrown out into the breeze, and the airplane is trimmed for hands off flight. On the base leg the student puts in a second notch of flaps. On final he tracks the runway’s centerline, adds additional flaps if needed, and waits.

That wait can seem interminable. The surface of the planet grows closer. The student works the controls to maintain airspeed. The ground zooms up faster and faster. Then, at the proper moment—seemingly just a few feet above the runway—the student pitches up to avoid certain disaster.

The next five or six seconds is critical. The student waits. In theory the student controls the airplane as it descends. Maintaining flying airspeed is of primary interest, even with the power pulled to idle. Coming in a close second is a profound desire not to plunk into the pavement nose first.

In reality, the student is likely to fixate on the airspeed indicator, freeze on the controls, or overcontrol in a vain attempt to salvage a landing that increasingly appears to be nearly impossible. He waits for impact.

Very little learning is taking place in that scenario. And if you remember your first attempts at landing an airplane, that chain of events will be familiar to you.

Dave Weber of Bryan, Texas, has been instructing for more than three decades. Equally at home in a Pitts S–2C, a wide-open Breezy homebuilt aircraft, or a Cessna 150, Weber has been perfecting his instructional techniques for decades—and he believes he’s come up with a method for teaching primary students to land that is head and shoulders above the hang-on-and-hope method we’ve been using.

“It started for me with the problem student,” Weber said. “One day the light just went on.”

Yes, Weber is talking about a method of instruction that has been widely used when working with students who are having difficulty getting their landings to work out consistently. The basics are well known, but to the best of his knowledge, no specific procedure has ever been written up on it.

This is Weber’s method:

Fly the pattern normally. Abeam the numbers, pull on the carb heat, close the throttle, add that first notch of flaps, and trim the airplane.

“I’ve always taught the no-power landing,” Weber said. He keeps the student tight on base, which makes the final leg shorter in both time and distance. “Everything is the same as a typical landing.”

It’s at the flare that Weber really modifies the traditional method. “As you get on short final you have them bring the power back up to 1,700 to 1,800 rpm. The student does that. The airplane has enough energy to do slow flight down the runway.”

The student already knows slow flight from time in the practice area. But now he can see the effects of his control inputs in fine detail. As the runway grows short, Weber calls for a go-around and the student complies. Up, up, and away for another trip around the pattern.

“The first few passes are kind of interesting for the student, because they can see it,” he said.

While in slow flight over the runway, the effect of even small pitch changes become evident in a heartbeat. Falling off the centerline in a crosswind becomes apparent, as are the control inputs to correct for the drift.

“You get to watch the student improve their skillset in the air. It’s not as scary as being out of airspeed and fixin’ to fall,” Weber said, chuckling.

After three lessons incorporating as many as 30 go-arounds, Weber introduces the actual landing by simply having the student reduce power. The airplane settles to the ground naturally. The student maintains control and confidence throughout the task.

And while the improved confidence and competence of his students represent worthwhile outcomes, there’s a secondary benefit to the technique that gets Weber every bit as excited as the first. “Most students have four or five go-arounds out of 100 landings,” Weber claims. “It’s almost like go-arounds are accidental in our current method of instructing.”

Weber’s students have at least 30 go-arounds before their wheels touch the runway. But the technique can benefit pilots with years of experience, too.

“It’s good for everybody,” Weber said. Bad landings can have real consequences. “They’ll bounce a landing and they’ll still try to make a landing. They’ll bounce a second time and then they wreck.”

That scenario is as common as it is preventable. Weber’s procedure is taking a big swing at being that preventive solution.