I've always repeated to myself "pitch for airspeed, power for altitude" but never got around to actually understand why. Brilliant explanation. Thank you!!
As a CFI since 1972, I can't disagree with anything you have said in this video. Young pilots today are very lucky to have access to YT videos. We never had that as young pilots. There is so much information available today. This is a very good instructional channel IMO. BTW, I miss those 40 degrees of flaps in the older Cessnas. We used to come down like rocks when we wanted to.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 I still agree with him. The autopilot uses power to control airspeed on a coupled approach. Back in the 1970s, the FAA used to push the old adage of using elevator for airspeed and power for altitude. Later in the 80s and 90s, the FAA changed its tune and told us to do the opposite. Now we know better. We know that "Pitch plus Power equals performance. This means that no one particular input is always primary. This is a good video. BTW, you made a statement contrary to this video but never backed it up with reasons. Why not?
@@daffidavit I responded and explained in detail under other posts. By the time I got to your post, I didn’t feel like repeating myself. Flight directors use pitch for altitude and glide path. Has nothing to do with a coupled approach. Auto throttle or auto thrust systems use power for airspeed. Airlines wont accept their pilots to believe that power controls altitude. This is why GA has such a bad accident record. So many are taught the wrong way. Maybe we need to wake up and smell the coffee why we have so many accidents in just one particular part of aviation.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 Well, if you are saying it's better for power to control airspeed, I'd agree. If we are slow, power acts faster and more efficiently, especially in slower conditions. But in theory, power plus pitch equals performance. When we add power, we also change the pitch, even if it's incrementally. It's an old argument, but I think power for speed rather than altitude is the preference. JMHO.
When on the backside of the power curve, the principal control for airspeed is pitch and the principal control for altitude is power….however, they are not mutually exclusive. Often, you will need to use one control with a touch of the other to maintain the desired glideslope. Especially in gusty winds and when wind shear is present.
This is exactly what my instructor taught me. They're connected quite intimately, especially on final or in slow flight. Maintaining, say 55 kias and 6,000' msl, in slow flight, you need to be ready to adjust either or both. Just so on final at whatever your final approach speed is.
@TheAirplaneDriver I do the same thing with the elevator and throttle whether I'm on the front side of the power curve or the backside. How could the propeller control the altitude? Please explain the forces involved?
Interesting topic.. The way I was taught to make an approach was to first set your "aiming point" on the ground, and keep it in the same spot in the window. Then once you've comfortably established yourself on that fixed point, adjust the power to correct your speed. Since I must keep my aiming point in the same spot, any power adjustment goes hand in hand with a pitch towards the aiming point. I don't look at altimeter once I'm on final approach. Maybe it's the same end result, but I've never "pitch for speed".. if I'm too fast I think "pull power", if I'm too slow I think "add power". For slow flight, I was taught "pitch for speed, power for altitude", but at higher altitudes with no ground reference, so you are just using your ASI and altimeter to make those adjustments.
I agree with you. The US Navy teaches the other way, which admittedly does work better for high performance jets flying behind the power curve on final. In my experience, in such as Cessnas, using power to control descent rate happens too slowly - it does work, but nowhere near as immediately as in a high performance fighter. Much better flight path control when using the elevator to control the vertical path. It WILL require almost immediate power change, to be sure.
This is also how I was taught to fly (set aim-point, adjust power to titrate airspeed, and adjust pitch accordingly as required). Main idea is that in larger, high-performance aircraft, this is definitely the way to go... so I'm assuming the desire here is to try to make it consistent approach for all aircraft, even though it clearly is 50/50 as to which is "better" or preferred in light GA aircraft.
I was struggling with energy management when learning to fly gliders as a teen. I had a great instructor, he helped me learn in a car on a hill. It went like this: Engine on, transmission neutral, start rolling down down the hill towards cones on flat ground below the hill. I could let off the brake to accelerate, and apply it to bleed energy. The goal was to coast to a stop between the cones. If the brakes were on at the cones, no good. Come up short of the cones, no good. We used a car, you could probably do the same with a bike, but we didn't have one. It sounds stupid, but it was effective.
Thank you for explaining this very important concept. I remember during my private pilot training that I struggled for awhile until I realized 2 things. The first is that I need to trim the airplane for the approach speed I want and use the power to control my glide path. The second was understanding the phugoid motion of the aircraft and how it could change my airspeed. So for me that would be trim for airspeed, power for altitude, and pitch control to counteract pitch change and phugoid motion that could occur from turbulence or deploying the flaps.
Thanks for providing this excellent physics/aerodynamics based explanation! I've not been able to fully grasp why "pitch to control airspeed, power to control altitude" works, now it becomes a lot clearer!
Perhaps, as an older student pilot, I have more trouble with in depth concepts like this but...I've come to realize that there is a big difference between descent and sink. On final I'm using pitch to control the angle of descent(altitude) with its resultant change in in airspeed and power to increase or decrease my sink rate(altitude). I visualize the aircraft settling towards the runway with power adjustments and pitch to maintain my desired airspeed. From my perspective this seems a simpler way to express the issue. Great in-depth video!
Thanks! Yes, once again you can use both, and some folks have mentioned that using the opposite is an advantage when you need to make tiny corrections, but I think it’s important to know the most effective way to control the airplane
Nice explanation! We all get taught pitch for airspeed and power for altitude on approach, but I never got the logic behind it as both do both. Now it makes sense.
I assumed and still think it’s best for a new pilot to pitch for airspeed because pitching for airspeed is always faster way to increase it and when in the realm of slow and low flight airspeed is far more important that altitude. Not enough altitude means you land, not enough airspeed means you stall and crash. For instance is you hear the stall horn you break the stall with pitch first not power.
This sentence made me love my CFI because she says it over and over and over and over until my brain kicks in sadly my brain kicks in for short moments like a dim lightbulb, but I keep showing up❤❤❤ thank you so much for your educational information❤❤❤
In my opinion, vertical rate is key for stabilizing airplane. However, power and pitch can do the job and weigh and conditions may decide when is better to using power or pitch.
i use pitch to control airspeed and power to control altitude. That's why before touchdown during flare the moment you cut the throttle the plane starts to descend and to decrease the rate of descent I usually pitch up.
Pitch for airspeed power for altitude was day one of learning how to land for me. Cool to better understand why, strange to learn there's any other way.
Very good discussion and break down…you also brought in an element that I find is rarely addressed…Camber. Most GA aircraft are high camber, low power. So the “ancient” advice from “Stick and Rudder” of pitch for airspeed, power for altitude applies because high Camber will have a near instant effect on altitude when power is applied…and Camber is effectively increased with flaps. But in high performance, no camber/symmetric airfoils, that’s not quite the case. In USAF Pilot training, we would have to break the GA-taught model for guys, because the power for airspeed, pitch for altitude (angle of attack) was more important based on phase of flight. Think of airliners (who mostly have near symmetric airfoils and lots of power), when on final, do you feel them making more pitch adjustments or power adjustments. Generally, it’s power. So the bottom line is, “it depends.” On what? Know your aircraft, its capabilities, and what portion of your power curve you’re on based on your aircraft and configuration…and as you very well said in the video, it’s a COMBINATION of the two inputs. What amount is required in each, depends on your aircraft capability/design, phase of flight, conditions, etc. The two sides of the argument are moot, the answer is “it depends”👊🏻
Funny I never followed a pitch / power rule. I worry it would increase the workload. Just ensured I turned final at a good altitude and set trim. Then keep the landing spot steady. Glance airspeed look up and repeat. Occasionally adjust trim, no?
Thank you so much for all your videos, I just passed my commercial checkride and your videos helped more than any others on TH-cam. Very straightforward and not a monotonous voice and I definitely appreciate the dad jokes as well lol. Anyways I appreciate all you do thank you.
my man said lets keep it simple and proceeds with equations, charts and root numbers lol . All very useful information ofcourse . a good pilot is always learning
Well it depends. For understanding fundamentals one should practice first by setting pitch for speed and power for altitude but in practical flying I switched it around. You have to pull power to reduce airspeed and to descend anyway so I pull power abeam and reapply it after slowing down to sustain the desired speed in the descent. I then aim for the runway and adjust the power to maintain the desired speed. I noticed I had a tendency to get in low and slow if I focused on pitch for speed and power for altitude. So now I aim the plane where I want it to go making sure I'm neither high nor low and adjust the power to keep the desired speed.
I agree with you. I also think the same way. But not sure why sometimes the instructor doesn't like to add/reduce power but to insists pitch up/down during landing to control airspeed.
Good thorough lesson on power and pitch. Like many principles in aviation, both ways work as you have demonstrated. Or all the way back to Stick and Rudder, airspeed is altitude and altitude is airspeed or the law of the roller coaster. What gets lost in the charts and diagrams is the underlying principle that as much airspeed as possible is our greater for safety need on takeoff and as little airspeed as practicable is our greater for safety need for landing. If we slow below 1.3 Vso on short final so as to get a sink requiring dynamic throttle to nail the glide angle and rate of descent, hold the centerline between our toes with dynamic proactive rudder (no aileron, we don't want to turn), and use apparent rate of closure with the numbers to determine how much pitch is necessary to maintain what appears to be a brisk walk (decelerate as we near the numbers), we will "arrive at the touchdown point in a three point attitude all slowed up and ready to squat." Where have I heard that before? We take off dangerously slow, at Vy, and we arrive at the desired touchdown point dangerously fast at either 1.3 Vso or Vso. Stall/fall back onto airport property on takeoff and LOC on landing or go around are the big killers today because we are too slow on takeoff and too fast on landing. All this to say get slow enough to make your throttle an effective glide angle and rate of descent control and your flippers (elevator) an effective airspeed control all the way to touchdown slowly (well below Vso) and softly on the numbers or whatever touchdown point you desire. If you have to close the throttle (now no longer a glide angle and rate of descent control at all) at round out, you are going too fast to land anywhere near the beginning of the runway. Oh, the both ways works deal: KISS. We fly little airplanes.
Let's keep it simple. 1. Set power/trim for a certain landing speed, and don't mess with the pitch anymore. (It's dangerous at low heights) 2. For the rest, only use power to control your descent. During landing phase, power only changes vertical speed while horizontal speed remains stable (to a certain degree of course) I always think of it as being a puppet on a string. Power controls the vertical motion of the string. In the end, power and pitch is a balancing act that should become intuitive1. Just like the clutch/gearbox/gaspedal in a car. You can easily practice this muscle memory in your flight simulator at home. (If you're taking real life lessons, don't mess around on your own. Always listen to your instructor)
I think that pitch for speed and power for altitude are the most efficient and fool-proof ways to control an airplane in slow flight and keep it in the air, but that control method has a little bit of lag between the input and the result. It seems that you get more precise control doing the exact opposite, which is to pitch for immediate altitude changes and to do power (and elevator trim) to manage speed changes.
I have just recently started my Comertial Pilot training and now I have gotten some more hours in and have tried this out with my CFI like yesterday. Makes complete sense your explanation on why pitch for airspeed is more efficient, however, I have tried it and both me and my CFI agreed that it is just more difficult to execute properly. I have always flown with the mentality that pitch is king, and excluding the takeoff climb (where your speed is king and you can change your pitch quite a lot in order to maintain that VX or VY) So basicaly during most of the flight everything is slaved to that pitch and we are going to work flaps and power in order to get that pitch where it needs to be... (this is the gist of it, obviously there are some other situations like when you want to lower your airspeed in leve flight where speed is going to be king and you will work your pitch and power arround it or a stall where you have to give in and cant hold the pitch and again airspeed is king) but that is my thought process in general, everything works for the pitch to be where it needs to be (most of the time) if that makes any sense... On the glide its just much more reassuring and easier to execute when you just keep that nose bang on on the aiming point all the time. First thing I do on final is to try to establish my pitch in my aiming point. If for some reason I cant and that pitch atitude I need is too steep and it makes me gain speed above my approach speed first thing I work on is the engine (just put it in idle and try again, if it still makes me go above de approach speed the second thing I work on is the flaps, lowering flaps should allow me to get an even steeper pitch down to the runway. If its too much now and I see that in order to maintain approach speed my pitch would need to be lower than my aiming point on the runway then I just pitch up back again into the aiming point but as I do this I just dont let that speed drop and give some power simultaniously. I always try to change as little of pitch atitude as possible because my perception is that even the tiniest change in pitch creates a HUGE change in airspeed and just accelerates or decelerates the plane too much and its very finicky to control, especialy in hot days where there are thermals everywhere and you are bouncing all over the place. And if you are too low on the glide slope its very easy to correct that, you just have to fly leveled and eventualy you are going to be on the correct glide slope. And then you resume pitching into your aim point and repeat the process I have described if you overshot it a bit and find yourself high.
This raises a great point. It might actually be beneficial to use less effective controls sometimes. When you’re trying to make small corrections like you do on an ILS, you might want to use a control input that doesn’t push you to the other side
Congrats on your training. Don’t rely on TH-cam videos. Most, like this one is just wrong. Pitch co trolls altitude, power controls airspeed, unless you have a fixed power setting. I assume you want to make this a career. Once you fly bigger airplanes, this is how they are flown. All automation uses power for airspeed and pitch for glide path or altitude. So set your mind to this now. I know a first Officer on the 737 who is not too happy he was taught wrong and now has to relearn. If you want to do something fun with your CFI to figure this out, do this: You fly and on,y control the yoke. Your instructor only controls the throttle. First landing, you control airspeed with the yoke and he controls glide path with the throttle. 2nd landing, you control glide path with the yoke and he controls speed with throttle. You will find that the first approach will be unstable. The second one will be easy. You aim for the runway, he adjusts power after wards.
Pitch for airspeed, power for altitude--that's literally day 1 of flight school. However, this was a really great video and I feel like I have a much better understanding of what's going on in the power curve.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 Either you never went to flight school or it has been so long that you have forgotten the basics. On approach, you are in slow flight with a high AOA, so you pitch for airspeed and use power for altitude.
@@ABQSentinel that’s not the basics at all. Not all. And I find it sad that there are people out there who believe what you say. Professional pilots won’t though. I became a CFI in 1993 and taught for 1500 hours. Since then I’ve trained hundreds of guys in different kinds of jets. Some of those, thought the same way as you and had to be retrained.
@@ABQSentinel the dangerous part in all this is that if you ended up slow on short final, your instant reaction is to lower the nose, instead of a handful of power. You don’t have an instrument rating, do you? Because you can’t really shoot an ILS approach with your philosophy. Auto pilots, flight directors use pitch for altitude. Auto throttles use power for airspeed. You wonder why that is?
Hey Josh, thank you for doing all those great and brilliantly explained videos, which are helping me a ton while doing my PPL license. Merry Christmas from Munich, Germany 🤗
Be careful not to mix units. The total drag curve is different than the power required curve. The minimum on the power required curve is not L/D max, but rather min power required (or max endurance). The minimum on the drag curve is L/D max. If you multiply the entire drag curve by velocity, you get the power required curve. The hook upward on the left is much shallower on a power required curve than it is on the drag curve.
@@FreePilotTraining take a look at 6:56. A power curve is shown, but you overlay L/D max at the min power point. That is where the units no longer agree. L/D would be at the minimum of the drag curve. Indeed, the curve is a function of total drag, but it is not drag since it was multiplied by velocity. The drag curve and power curve are very often mixed up or erroneously interchanged. The information they convey is actually very different. Note that if flying a jet you would stick with the the drag required curve. It is instructive to generate both a drag curve and power curves from basic equation to see how they relate to one another. One can then also see how power curves tend to be greatly exaggerated in illustrations.
Pitch for airspeed, trim to the pitch, power for the glide slope. Avoid changing nose aiming point, usually land a little long at first, but with practice you land right on the spot. You wear Flying Eyes( you should have them sponsor you, they do sponsor a couple of TH-camrs
I sort of incorporate both. When Im low and slow I increase power and pitch too high? decrease power and somewhat lower the nose to an airspeed not too high. But definitely use the reverse command that has helped me quite a bit.
Energy management may be easier to understand if you fly gliders first. Adding engine power to the equation later just gives you some 'free' energy available to play with when you like it or need it ✈🙂. You probably won't be puzzled by 'should I use power or pitch' in your mental picture. Have good safe flights.
I'm an aviation noob. I think a shallow on final approach with partial flaps most of the way and slightly increased power going to full flaps at moderate speeds is best. Am I right? That way, with a steady decline I can pay attention to crosswinds, potential shear winds, and just have to slip to keep the nose aligned with the runway.
Shallow approaches are great in some cases and they can help give you a smooth touchdown, but precision landings are often a little easier with a slightly steeper approach
I see that this is a safe technique for primary students But I wouldn't fly an ILS(glide path) with this technique. fast? reduce power, High? pitch down for GS. Truth is, need to do both for most corrections
Pitch for your airspeed and use power to control your altitude. There is no specific order in which you can achieve this;mean, sometimes, you will need to reduce power before you can pitch up or down for airspeed or vice versa. Example: You are too high and fast with some power. You will need to reduce power even lower then your current power setting before you can Pitch up to slow down, or else you will end up gaining altitude while trying to slow down. All in all: Pitch for air speed and power for altitude.
In commercial aircraft, flap maneuvering(minimum) speeds are the minimum speed recommended for that flap settings. Typically, you wouldn't go below that airspeed. For example, in a 737-800, the flaps up maneuvering speed for a specific weight might be 200kts, so going below 200kts with flaps up would cause the aircraft to be on the backside of the drag curve. In order to go below that speed, you need to deploy the next flap, in the case flaps 1 maneuvering speed. On final approach, the VREF is the maneuvering speed on the 737-800, so in this case would you use pitch or power to maintain VREF?
@@FreePilotTraining Even with that consideration, in climb and descent, the FMC calculates a specific target power for climb or descent then pitches for that. In an impending stall, the training manual says to pitch first because it's still the most effective way then add power slowly because the engines are below the CG, so adding power rapidly would eliminate the pitch, bringing you closer to a stall(Plus the unbelievable power takes several seconds to become effective, but pitch is more immediate)
Pitch will always control the airspeed in cruise. That is, if you trim the aircraft and don’t touch the trim, it will settle into a specific airspeed based on a specific power setting. When you want to control the aircraft for landing, best way is to create a profile. Every aircraft is different, including every N number, because some planes have been rigged, modified, or even variance in production. So when coming in for a landing, you must know how much power and what pitch to use for your initial level speed. In the case of a Cessna 172, this could be 80 kn. Now add one notch of flaps and re-adjust your pitch to maintain level flight. This may result in your airspeed settling around 75 if you do not add any power. When you are abeam, the numbers you reduce your throttle starting with about 300 RPM, and this can vary as noted before. Now set up the aircraft with pitch for about 400 ft./min. decent and adjust your power to the desired airspeed you wish to fly. I use 70 kn. When I turn base and add another notch of flaps, I adjust my pitch without touching power again for 400 feet a minute. If I have to find my airspeed to remain at 70 then I adjust it with power. When I turn final and have the runway made, and I am approximately 300 feet above the runway I add full flaps and use power for an airspeed of 1.3 times VSO. This will set me on about 55 kn while adjusting power and I hold that speed with full flaps. I adjust my decent rate with power. I crossed the threshold and have enough power to slow my decent to about 300 ft./minute. When I am ready to level off, which would be about 25 feet above the runway, I raise the nose and slowly reduce power, letting the aircraft slow. As it starts to descend our reduce even more power, and slowly raise the nose and maintain the same rotation height as of takeoff. This might be 5°. I hold it there and it will sit right down on the mains with the nose wheel still above the ground. Never bounce or never have to jump on the brakes. Remember, you will always have to adjust both pitch and power to fine-tune your aircraft due to weight, center of gravity, and crosswinds or thermals.
I agree with you. I also think the same way. But not sure why sometimes the instructor doesn't like to add/reduce power but insists on pitching up/down during landing to control airspeed.
the lowest point on the power required curve is not LD max, its the minimum sink/maximum endurance speed. LDmax is at the lowest point of the THRUST, not power, required curve. If you take a line from the origin of the graph and drae it tangent to the power required curve, you'll find LD max. its a bit faster than the min sink/max endurance speed.
One of my instructors was this grizzled old guy with over 15,000 hours (much of that as an instructor), and he strongly advocates coming in high. He said the 3 degree glidepath is great for jets and fast moving aircraft, but the little trainers we fly like a steeper descent profile. Done right, you can pull power after turning final and make a perfect landing every time.
The problem is.... It's a balance and you just have to practice to feel it out. Some people can pick it up quick... some need more practice to figure it out. I never liked the saying "Pitch for speed, and power for altitude". While I understand how that works... it's still not really the entire story. THanks or another good vid.
I think it's the exact opposite: when in cruise, pitch for altitude and power for speed; when landing, pitch for speed and power for altitude (glide path).
Langewiesche has a definite opinion in Chapter 14 of the venerable Stick and Rudder: “The power approach is one extremely practical case in which it is definitely true that the stick is the airplane’s speed control and the throttle is the up-and-down control.” He observed controlling the other way around resulting in more oscillations. This is after a discussion of the mechanics of controlling a power-off approach and how pitching up below L/Dmax actually results in a steeper descent. With pitch first you also have to contend with the temporary ballooning effect and readjusting pitch again after power changes due to the secondary effects of the thrust and prop wash.
@enqueue100 That's out of context and misleading. Of course it's possible to use the elevator to control the airspeed in good conditions. Then if the pilot reduces power, AND LOWERS THE NOSE TO MAINTAIN THE AIRSPEED (you are omitting this part from Langewiesche's discussion), the pilot accomplishes a reduction in the lift vector which decreases the altitude. It wasn't the power that reduced the altitude but the pitch. In the landing, power is also reduced but does the airplane go down. No, because the pilot is flaring with back pressure and the airplane is actually climbing from the descending line of flight it was on during the approach. Using the stick for airspeed control on approaches during gusting conditions can be very problematic. I saw someone doing that when it was gusting +/- several knots nearing the runway (pitching down when the airspeed needle lost speed/up when it gained speed). What had been a stable approach before the gusting started became dangerously unstable nearing the runway because the pilot was chasing the airspeed with the elevator. Airlines pitch to the glideslope whether the pilot is flying manually or the autopilot is flying. What's their safety record - near perfect.
@@warren5699 No intent to take Langewiesche out of context or mislead, this is why I quote all of the author, book, and chapter so that folks who want the full context are at liberty (and encouraged) to read the book, or at least the entire chapter for themselves. The exact words of the next sentence you mention: "If you want to come down more steeply, don't nose the airplane down. Cut the throttle back, and then manipulate the stick so as to keep the air speed constant." - Ch. 14, p. 259 I don't think anyone was arguing one should make an approach using power alone without ever adjusting pitch, it was between whether to use pitch or power *primarily* -- but not solely -- for airspeed control versus altitude control (indeed, the entire topic of the video). Apologies if my quote seemed to imply it was not an argument for "pitch for airspeed, power for altitude", but rather an argument for "power for altitude and let go of all the other controls", which neither I nor Langewiesche would recommend.
@@enqueue100 Thank you for your reply. The quote on page 259 is another example by Langewiesche of talking out of both sides of his mouth. He says to descend more rapidly, don't nose the airplane down but cut the throttle back and manipulate the stick so as to keep the airspeed constant. Well to keep the airspeed constant with reduced power, you have to nose the airplane down. So he's doing what he just got through saying don't do and claiming that the throttle is the up-and-down control. When power is applied it creates a force that's an extension of the longitudinal axis, like tying a string to the propeller and pulling horizontally. On an approach it would even be pulling slightly downward. If that force can control altitude, as I think many pilots have been brainwashed to believe, then there's some basic laws of physics that were never taught in high school.
If a person were trying to maintain an aim point on the runway, would adding power with flaps down and the nose pitched down increase altitude, the airspeed, or both? Can an airplane in a nose down attitude climb with power, or will that only occur with a gust? Hmmm….
Once again, that depends on the power you have available and your drag configuration, but typically adding power will only reduce sink and slightly increase airspeed
But if I'm in final and I increase the pitch, this will increase the lope. This means, I will go under the desired slope. And sometime, in this situation, if I need to increase the speed, this means I'm already under the slope. Is there something I missed?
Now, as is stated in the video, pitching for airspeed is more effective, BUT if you’re on a glide slope like an ILS, sometimes it’s advantageous to use the opposite controls because they are less effective and that means the changes are smaller. When flying instruments, small changes are easier to handle.
Suppose you are on a perfect glideslope, perfect altitude, on a short final, but a tad fast. "pitch for airspeed"? you'd raise the nose? Or would you throttle back and keep the same perfect trajectory? Honestly, i've never totally understood why people say the other is better than the other, why not say it's combination of both, pitch and power depending on the scenario, but it is important to understand what is the immediate reaction to any given input...?
You absolutely can use both. My point is that one is more effective than the other. When making small changes on an ILS, the less effective method may be better
I reach the same conclusion as you, but based on different analysis. The reason not to use pitch to control your descent rate on final approach is that, at that airspeed, it is not very effective at changing your descent rate. When you change the pitch attitude, there is a transient effect while the airspeed changes and then you reach a new steady state condition at the new airspeed. The business about trading altitude and airspeed describes the transient effect, but tells us nothing about how the new steady state condition compares to the original steady state condition. During the round-out and flare, we are managing the transient effect. But pilots trying to fly a stabilized approach need to focus on the new steady state. So, the discussion about potential energy and kinetic energy is mostly a distraction. Changes in pitch change your airspeed in the same direction in all flight regimes. Nose down always increases airspeed and nose up always decreases airspeed. However, the change in descent rate varies based on the flight regime. The new steady state may have a higher or a lower descent rate. At cruise airspeed, nose up will result in reduced descent rate (or increased climb rate). At slow airspeeds, on the other hand, nose up will result in an increased descent rate once the transient effect passes. Final approach speed is usually near the minimum drag speed where pitch changes have negligible lasting effect on descent rate. Changing power or drag, on the other hand, will change your descent rate in the same direction in all flight regimes. (As your descent angle changes, you will need to make some adjustment to pitch attitude to maintain the same angle of attack.) The alternate approach works indirectly. Pitching down when you are above the glideslope causes an increase in speed. If you then reduce power to offset that increase in speed, then you will increase your descent rate. But it is the reduction in power that had the desired effect, not the pitch change. Why do it indirectly?
Hey! I wish I could help you out! I’m actually up in Alaska now. I’ve got a friend over in Clarksville. Seth Lake is a good resource over there. VSL Aviation
@@FreePilotTraining I definitely appreciate you taking the time to reply! Unfortunately they are not offering any training at the moment. Maybe things will change after the holidays 🤞
@@philwinner1806 Agree. The Region of Reversed Command is frequently misunderstood to mean pitch and power reverse. It's actually where speed and power required reverse. The definition from the PHAK is - "The “regions of normal and reversed command” refers to the relationship between speed and the power required to maintain or change that speed in flight." The only airplanes that can literally control altitude with power are V22 Osprey's, Harrier's, and some military jets that can climb straight up. That's it.
@@lucianosantucci108 That's a fair point. I was trying to keep it short. Let me put it this way. In addition to instructing 43 years, working as a Chief Flight Instructor I think it was 24 years, flying Part 135 for 10 years including being a 135 instructor and check airman, doing many flights with FAA inspectors for 135 and 141 requirements plus my ATP ratings SE and ME, discussing the finer points of flying techniques and guidelines in the FAA Handbooks with FAA inspectors during all of those years including pitch and power, and flying in all imaginable weather, pitching to glideslope and power for airspeed has worked 100% of the time and is the recommended technique in the FAA Handbooks.
Excellent video Josh. Again, I really like how you explain things to make them easier to understand and remember. I hope all is going well for you and your family. Safe skies my friend 🇺🇸🛩️
Airline pilot and former flight instructor. The pitch for airspeed and power for altitude can work for small general aviation aircraft, but is not used in higher performance aircraft. The problem is your glide path angle is going to be all over the place especially in gusty turbulent conditions. The way to learn is trying to maintain a constant glide path during the approach to landing like a ILS. Train yourself to try to maintain a constant 3 degree approach. Use a ILS, vasi or papi as reference to teach yourself the visuals. When you perform a ILS you will get your aircraft trimmed up for your approach speed and your decent rate based on your ground speed. You could use pitch for airspeed or power for altitude in calm conditions, but it is not effective in gusty or turbulent conditions. In real world conditions if you get above your glide path or slope in a ils you lower your pitch or nose to get back on the glide slope. Small corrections in pitch backed up by the vertical speed indicator. In gusty conditions you will be on your glide slope and your airspeed will increase and decrease depending on where the gust is from the headwind or tailwind, power is used to maintain airspeed. The problem with the pitch for airspeed and power for altitude method is in gusty conditions your glide path is going to be all over the place and it could resulting in ballooning on the landing flare where sometimes you just need to fly the aircraft onto the ground. If you teach yourself to maintain a 3 degree approach angle you will fly the aircraft the same weather it is VFR or IFR.
@@AmericusMaximus All aircraft. You can get away with pitch for airspeed power for altitude in some general aviation aircraft, but eventually might start flying instruments. A good example is the ILS. If you are high on the glide slope you lower the nose to capture the glide slope. Pitch for Altitude. Yes you will have to reduce power almost instantly to counter the increase in airspeed. Power for Airspeed. Now use this technique for VFR on approach with a PAPI or VASI. Use your VSI to make corrections. The VSI will be used a lot in instrument training. If you are high on the VASI or PAPI lower the nose to increase your decent to capture the PAPI or VASI. Same technique in VFR or IFR approaches. The autopilot on ILS approaches uses the same technique. If you do not have auto thrust you will have to power for airspeed as the autopilot pitches for altitude.
@@AmericusMaximus I started in a two-seat Grumman American and finished my Private in a Cessna 152 - 100% pitch to glideslope and power for speed in both of them and everything else flown afterwards (single and multi - 48 years). The controls function the same in all aircraft. In a model like a Skyhawk, sure it's possible to trim it out and then use the power to increase and decrease pitch because the propeller slipstream will push the tail down and let it come up. In good weather it works pretty decently but if the weather is not so good, you'll quickly realize serious shortcomings. In bad weather, it's usually necessary to pitch quickly and accurately in one direction and then the other. You will not be able to do that using the throttle and a cushion of air controlling the tail. Pitching for airspeed also becomes very problematic in gusting winds - I was with a pilot who started chasing the airspeed with the elevator when it became gusty on final - his straight line of flight became a scary zigzagging line nearing the runway. In other models, this technique doesn't work even in good conditions. In a t-tail business jet, for example, the engines on the rear of the fuselage don't have any effect on the airflow of the high positioned horizontal stabilizer. An increase in power actually causes a pitching down moment because of their position and angle and how they work with the center of gravity. All autopilots will pitch to the glideslope. What all this means is that a pilot who pitches to airspeed and uses power for altitude has limited skills in basic airplanes, and will not be prepared to progress into advanced aircraft.
Assume you mean strong wind. It depends on the aircraft. I think you'll find in most GA aircraft, the POH will recommend less than full flaps in strong winds for better rudder authority. Especially in the Skyhawks with 40° of flaps, to me it feels like the rudder gets quite mushy at full flaps compared to 10/20° because those large high flaps disrupt the airflow so much from the wing back to the tail. A lot of control can be lost. In addition, less or no flaps allows the proper landing attitude to be a few knots faster, and that helps aileron and elevator authority also. This doesn't necessarily mean the landing will be longer - in strong winds with a few knots added for less flaps or gusting conditions, the ground speed may actually be lower than in good conditions and full flaps.
@@Arturo-lapaz what do you mean? Pitch controls airspeed. Trim controls pitch. Trim controls airspeed. trim is a sort of "cruise control". You set the trim for the speed you wish to hold. Power controls altitude. I have the engineering equations to prove this as well, is that what you were asking?
@@SoloRenegade Trim is usually required at the higher speed, to relieve larger yoke forces to maintain attitude or desired rate of descent. Not at low speeds , where it is important to prevent stall, especially maneuvering before landing, where it is not recommended to rely on the rudder trim to maintain coordination, to the contrary when executing a turn to final you should use 'top rudder' which means that a slight slip in the direction of the turn, which effectively prevents a spin. At low speeds to control the rate of climb power should be used, using pitch will further reduce speed, not recommendet. To be accurate the minimum drag inducated airspeed corresponds to the state where the induced drag is equal to the parasite drag, L over D is maximum . At higher speeds, the parasite drag dominates, changes in power control weakly the speed, to control altitude , pitch control is used dffectively, The rule is that any time that the indicated airspeed is higher than 4/3 the L/D IAS , pitch control is used, the best rate of climb speed is about 3/4 of the L/D IAS, depending on the propeller pitch. On jet aircraft this is not true. To be accurate the dynamic pressure qo for best L/D is weight / (span √ (π×CD×area)) Indicated AS is √(2 qo/sealevel density). note indicated, not TAS. The ratio Indicated AS to TAS is √( air density/ sl density) The airplane response depends on CAS, aproximately to IAS. at any altitude, Engine power is directly proportional to density, density is about half at 21800 feet one third at 33000 feet. ISA.
@@Arturo-lapaz "Trim is usually required at the higher speed, to relieve larger yoke forces to maintain attitude or desired rate of descent. Not at low speeds , where it is important to prevent stall, especially maneuvering before landing, where it is not recommended to rely on the rudder trim to maintain coordination, to the contrary when executing a turn to final you should use 'top rudder' which means that a slight slip in the direction of the turn, which effectively prevents a spin." Trim, and pitch, works at ALL AIRSPEEDS. stop lying and making crap up. Nice red herring on the rudder trim, that is NOT what we're talking about here. Act like you have a brain. "At low speeds to control the rate of climb power should be used, using pitch will further reduce speed, not recommendet. " god you are an idiot. As we've said over and over again, Pitch controls airspeed Power controls altitude (climb rate) Seriously......work on you reading comprehension skills. "To be accurate the minimum drag inducated airspeed corresponds to the state where the induced drag is equal to the parasite drag, L over D is maximum..........blah blah blah " This had nothing to do with what I said. Trim controls PITCH. Pitch controls AIRSPEED. We're not discussing L/D max airspeed, nor optimizing climb rates, etc. Stop with the red herring fallacies. You just keep jumping from one idea to the next, but you are not making a coherent argument, because you just keep moving on before making a valid point. Great, you can make word salad form aerodynamics principles. None of it proves Pitch controls Airspeed, and Power controls Altitude. You're not using the correct equations to prove that idea. you're just vomiting random principles together. You finished with a sentence about altitude effects on engine performance which doesn't matter here.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 100% false. if you set the pitch with trim, and let go, you'll hold speed. Now adjust throttle in and out from there without touching the pitch, you'll climb and descend while holding airspeed. Now set the power back to normal. Now, just change pitch and nothing else. Your speed will increase or decrease. Yes, you'll also climb and descend a bit, but that is because any change in pitch also requires a change in power to create a new equilibrium for level flight. But if you retrim for a new airspeed, and then adjust power until teh climb or descent goes away, you'll still hold that new airspeed. Knowing this enables ability to control speed very precisely on descent to land, for example. Read "Stick and Rudder" by Wolfgang Langewiesche, pages 152-155 for the conceptual explanation of why you are wrong. Also read, "Airplane Performance Stability and Control" by Perkins and Hage, pages 6-11 (section 1-3 Equilibrium Conditions) for the scientific, engineering, and mathematical proofs. Climb and descent is controlled by excess thrust. This is scientific fact, laws of physics. Your opinion doesn't count, only facts. You're arguing with and airplane and helicopter CFI-I, and a practicing Mechanical and Aerospace Engineer. Better come prepared for this debate.
as someone who has 8 hrs of training only, I found this video super insightful!! it’s just so hard to fight the instincts of tugging back on the yoke when it “feels” like we’re too low even if the PAPI says we’re on the correct glidepath 🤣 but more chairflying I guess! thanks so much for the great content as always
Even the FAA has finally said this is wrong. You do not pitch for airspeed. I've never understood either side of this arguement. You fly an aircraft with attitude and power together to get a desired outcome, they are not independent of each other.
now i know y people crash... they come in too fast pitch up to slow down while cutting power stall, spin at 800ft , wing over into the ground. the lack of understanding about the relation between pitch and drag takes there life.
Great explanation…on why the energy management diatribe should be tossed. The entire discussion should be based on the Lift Equation for pitching for airspeed and power for altitude. This crap about Kinetic vs. Potential Energy is not helpful. But understanding the Lift Equation and C sub L is essential to controlling the airplane.
I'm currently in Private pilot training, about to go on a checkride soon. I think I'd fail my checkride and disappoint my instructor if I used power for airpeed and pitch for altitude.😂
You HAVE to use pitch for speed and power for altitude. Otherwise, when you have an engine failure you will DIE. If you teach a student to maintain speed with power, and they lose power, they will not automatically know how to avoid stall-spin. Geddit?
How I was taught by four different instructors and 3 online ground schools… oh, and… does this video’s appearance mean the wind-turbine mafia hasn’t caught up to you yet?
parasite drag is proportional to dynamic 'pressure' what is usually called q q = ½ density × TAS². Now Parasite drag is q × Cd × wing area That means the drag increases Quadratically with Speed, never exponentially.! exponentially is proportional to e^V (e to the power V) V^2 ( V to the power two = quadratic !!!) where e = 2.71828... Learn basic mathematics ! Only because the parasite drag is proportional to the SQUARE of speed and the induced drag is inversely proportional to the SQUARE of the speed is the Indicated airspeed for minimum drag , when the induced drag equals the parasite drag. The L/D is then exactly the SQUARE ROOT of π÷4 × b² / ( CD × wing area) π = 3.1416... b = effective wing span CD = parasite drag coefficient To learn this elementary aerodynamics, simply download any of many text books on aircraft aerodynamics
We, from the small country of Bolivia, flying from the high airport of the city of La Paz, "El Alto" must be prepared to deal with high density altitudes exceeding 14000 feet, where the power is marginal to climb safely with non turbocharged engines. That requires a good knowledge of propulsion, and aerodynamics and especially the indicated airspeed where the power required is minimum, that happens at 76% of the speed of best L/D, but it is not the best power off glide speed, because of the wind significant drag of the windmilling propeller.
Besides we speak castellano with La torre La Paz, and also must learn aerodynamics in different languages, Même chose en France ou c'est necessaire de parler français avec la tour.
Stupidest argument in aviation. It’s both. One impacts the other. It’s purely energy management. If you are low and you add power you will have to pitch up or your speed will increase. Are you controlling speed with pitch or power? Are you controlling altitude with pitch or power? It’s both.
10:38, no it means it increases quadratically, not exponentially. Exponentially would be (e.g.) 2^V, not V^2. Yes, people use "exponentially" colloquially to just mean "a lot / quickly". But you're showing a formula on the screen at this same second, don't say stuff that's outright wrong, please :( It makes me sad, and it's also confusing for people who learn this.
@@FreePilotTraining I don't know, I do get the idea of science communication being made for laymen, but I hate it when people say wrong things to "simplify" That's - in my opinion - kind of insulting to listeners. "101% of my audience are idiots" -- you, in your last comment. I don't know, doesn't sit right with me, and I'm gonna politely disagree.
Videos like this, is why I believe that General Aviation has such a horrible accident rate. Any professional pilot knows that pitch controls altitude/glide path and power controls airspeed. This is also what the FAA wants instructors to teach. Some people think this is a matter of differences in opinion. It’s not. One way is correct, the other way is dangerously wrong. The newer, single engine aircraft, now a days have glass cockpits with working flight directors. These flight directors use pitch for altitude or glide path. You think that all these avionics companies got it all wrong? Be safe out there. If your instructor tells you that pitch controls airspeed, find yourself a new instructor.
Lol. You obviously didn’t watch this video. Most of this content is straight out of the airplane flying handbook which is produced by the FAA. Not only that, but the USAF taught me a lot of this. They’ve been flying aircraft for quite a while…
@@FreePilotTraining I did watch the video. The FAA has been wanting CFIs to teach pitch for altitude and power for airspeed since the mid 1980s. (I’ve seen others make these same comments as me). The USAF has different philosophies since they have different missions to fly. A lot of that stuff has to do with AOA. But even so, if you need to aim your aircraft, you use pitch. And you adjust your speed with power and drag. It’s how Boeing designs their aircraft. So does Airbus. And every manufacturer of airplanes. Are you saying they are all wrong? Come on man. Pitch is for altitude. Power is for airspeed. Unless you have a fixed power setting. It’s that simple. Every professional pilot knows this. Including ex-USAF pilots who now fly for the airlines. I can have 20 retired Airforce guys talk to you about this if you want. Don’t teach the wrong way. It’s doing a disservice to the aviation community.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 I stand by my note in the video. Those aircraft have way more power. Is it possible to control the aircraft in that manner? Yes. In some cases, it’s better to use those less effective controls so you don’t over control the aircraft. However, they are less effective
@@FreePilotTraining I don’t know where you get that from. I was a CFI for 1500 hours and taught in underpowered aircraft. It’s still the same. If a students is on glide path but a tat slow, the last 200 feet, you don’t want him/her to think: “I’m slow, I have to lower my nose”. No, you want them to add power. When you fly an ILS in a C-150 and you are on speed, but a bit below glide path, you want to pitch up. Your airspeed might drop a few knots, but once back on glide slope, you get those knots back. No power change needed. I can give you examples after examples. The FAA wants you to teach pilots to use pitch for altitude and power for airspeed. The FAA understands this is done in underpowered airplanes usually. I don’t know what to tell you. I might come off as arrogant or a know it all, but I’m tired of people saying that pitch is for airspeed. I think it’s dangerous. There is a reason why GA has such a lousy safety record. I saw another guy respond. He has been flying for 48 years. He was an instructor as well. He agrees with me. Most true professionals will agree with me.
I've always repeated to myself "pitch for airspeed, power for altitude" but never got around to actually understand why. Brilliant explanation. Thank you!!
You’re welcome! Thanks for watching!
As a CFI since 1972, I can't disagree with anything you have said in this video. Young pilots today are very lucky to have access to YT videos. We never had that as young pilots. There is so much information available today. This is a very good instructional channel IMO. BTW, I miss those 40 degrees of flaps in the older Cessnas. We used to come down like rocks when we wanted to.
Thank you! Yes, TH-cam is such a great asset! And I love the 40degrees of flaps as well
You should disagree if you are a CFI. SMH.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 I still agree with him. The autopilot uses power to control airspeed on a coupled approach. Back in the 1970s, the FAA used to push the old adage of using elevator for airspeed and power for altitude. Later in the 80s and 90s, the FAA changed its tune and told us to do the opposite. Now we know better. We know that "Pitch plus Power equals performance. This means that no one particular input is always primary. This is a good video. BTW, you made a statement contrary to this video but never backed it up with reasons. Why not?
@@daffidavit I responded and explained in detail under other posts. By the time I got to your post, I didn’t feel like repeating myself.
Flight directors use pitch for altitude and glide path. Has nothing to do with a coupled approach.
Auto throttle or auto thrust systems use power for airspeed. Airlines wont accept their pilots to believe that power controls altitude.
This is why GA has such a bad accident record. So many are taught the wrong way. Maybe we need to wake up and smell the coffee why we have so many accidents in just one particular part of aviation.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 Well, if you are saying it's better for power to control airspeed, I'd agree. If we are slow, power acts faster and more efficiently, especially in slower conditions. But in theory, power plus pitch equals performance. When we add power, we also change the pitch, even if it's incrementally. It's an old argument, but I think power for speed rather than altitude is the preference. JMHO.
When on the backside of the power curve, the principal control for airspeed is pitch and the principal control for altitude is power….however, they are not mutually exclusive. Often, you will need to use one control with a touch of the other to maintain the desired glideslope. Especially in gusty winds and when wind shear is present.
Exactly. Thanks for the comment
This is exactly what my instructor taught me. They're connected quite intimately, especially on final or in slow flight. Maintaining, say 55 kias and 6,000' msl, in slow flight, you need to be ready to adjust either or both.
Just so on final at whatever your final approach speed is.
@@joeellis5766 Sounds like you had a good instructor 👍🏻
@TheAirplaneDriver I do the same thing with the elevator and throttle whether I'm on the front side of the power curve or the backside. How could the propeller control the altitude? Please explain the forces involved?
@@warren5699 If you are slow you do not have enough energy to climb nor maintain altitude using pitch alone without stalling. You need power.
Interesting topic.. The way I was taught to make an approach was to first set your "aiming point" on the ground, and keep it in the same spot in the window. Then once you've comfortably established yourself on that fixed point, adjust the power to correct your speed. Since I must keep my aiming point in the same spot, any power adjustment goes hand in hand with a pitch towards the aiming point. I don't look at altimeter once I'm on final approach. Maybe it's the same end result, but I've never "pitch for speed".. if I'm too fast I think "pull power", if I'm too slow I think "add power".
For slow flight, I was taught "pitch for speed, power for altitude", but at higher altitudes with no ground reference, so you are just using your ASI and altimeter to make those adjustments.
That does work, using your method allows you to make smaller changes, but if you need to make a big change, you’ll need to switch up the controls
I agree with you. The US Navy teaches the other way, which admittedly does work better for high performance jets flying behind the power curve on final. In my experience, in such as Cessnas, using power to control descent rate happens too slowly - it does work, but nowhere near as immediately as in a high performance fighter. Much better flight path control when using the elevator to control the vertical path. It WILL require almost immediate power change, to be sure.
This is also how I was taught to fly (set aim-point, adjust power to titrate airspeed, and adjust pitch accordingly as required). Main idea is that in larger, high-performance aircraft, this is definitely the way to go... so I'm assuming the desire here is to try to make it consistent approach for all aircraft, even though it clearly is 50/50 as to which is "better" or preferred in light GA aircraft.
I was taught exactly the same way
@@chriscole4559this is how it’s done correctly.
I was struggling with energy management when learning to fly gliders as a teen. I had a great instructor, he helped me learn in a car on a hill.
It went like this: Engine on, transmission neutral, start rolling down down the hill towards cones on flat ground below the hill. I could let off the brake to accelerate, and apply it to bleed energy. The goal was to coast to a stop between the cones. If the brakes were on at the cones, no good. Come up short of the cones, no good. We used a car, you could probably do the same with a bike, but we didn't have one.
It sounds stupid, but it was effective.
Great way of thinking about it! Thanks!
Thank you for explaining this very important concept. I remember during my private pilot training that I struggled for awhile until I realized 2 things. The first is that I need to trim the airplane for the approach speed I want and use the power to control my glide path. The second was understanding the phugoid motion of the aircraft and how it could change my airspeed. So for me that would be trim for airspeed, power for altitude, and pitch control to counteract pitch change and phugoid motion that could occur from turbulence or deploying the flaps.
Thanks for providing this excellent physics/aerodynamics based explanation! I've not been able to fully grasp why "pitch to control airspeed, power to control altitude" works, now it becomes a lot clearer!
You’re welcome!
Perhaps, as an older student pilot, I have more trouble with in depth concepts like this but...I've come to realize that there is a big difference between descent and sink. On final I'm using pitch to control the angle of descent(altitude) with its resultant change in in airspeed and power to increase or decrease my sink rate(altitude). I visualize the aircraft settling towards the runway with power adjustments and pitch to maintain my desired airspeed. From my perspective this seems a simpler way to express the issue. Great in-depth video!
Thanks! Yes, once again you can use both, and some folks have mentioned that using the opposite is an advantage when you need to make tiny corrections, but I think it’s important to know the most effective way to control the airplane
Nice explanation! We all get taught pitch for airspeed and power for altitude on approach, but I never got the logic behind it as both do both. Now it makes sense.
Thanks!
I assumed and still think it’s best for a new pilot to pitch for airspeed because pitching for airspeed is always faster way to increase it and when in the realm of slow and low flight airspeed is far more important that altitude. Not enough altitude means you land, not enough airspeed means you stall and crash. For instance is you hear the stall horn you break the stall with pitch first not power.
This sentence made me love my CFI because she says it over and over and over and over until my brain kicks in sadly my brain kicks in for short moments like a dim lightbulb, but I keep showing up❤❤❤ thank you so much for your educational information❤❤❤
You’re welcome!
In my opinion, vertical rate is key for stabilizing airplane. However, power and pitch can do the job and weigh and conditions may decide when is better to using power or pitch.
i use pitch to control airspeed and power to control altitude. That's why before touchdown during flare the moment you cut the throttle the plane starts to descend and to decrease the rate of descent I usually pitch up.
I think these videos have helped prepare me for training. I performed a landing on my 3rd lesson without instructor intervention !!
That’s so awesome! Great job
Have not flown in several years, if I remember I would use vertical speed with pitch to control altitude, trim to airspeed along with power .
Pitch for airspeed power for altitude was day one of learning how to land for me. Cool to better understand why, strange to learn there's any other way.
Yeah, sometimes you need to use the other method
Great video man. I don’t think many pilots have as a deep an understanding as you.
Thanks! The more I dive in and understand “why”, the better I think it makes me
Very good discussion and break down…you also brought in an element that I find is rarely addressed…Camber. Most GA aircraft are high camber, low power. So the “ancient” advice from “Stick and Rudder” of pitch for airspeed, power for altitude applies because high Camber will have a near instant effect on altitude when power is applied…and Camber is effectively increased with flaps. But in high performance, no camber/symmetric airfoils, that’s not quite the case. In USAF Pilot training, we would have to break the GA-taught model for guys, because the power for airspeed, pitch for altitude (angle of attack) was more important based on phase of flight. Think of airliners (who mostly have near symmetric airfoils and lots of power), when on final, do you feel them making more pitch adjustments or power adjustments. Generally, it’s power. So the bottom line is, “it depends.” On what? Know your aircraft, its capabilities, and what portion of your power curve you’re on based on your aircraft and configuration…and as you very well said in the video, it’s a COMBINATION of the two inputs. What amount is required in each, depends on your aircraft capability/design, phase of flight, conditions, etc. The two sides of the argument are moot, the answer is “it depends”👊🏻
Excellent point! Camber is also extremely important to consider. Thank you!
Btw, also prior Herc driver, keep the four fans of freedom flying!👊🏻
@@Gibber66awesome! My favorite plane to ever fly
Funny I never followed a pitch / power rule. I worry it would increase the workload.
Just ensured I turned final at a good altitude and set trim. Then keep the landing spot steady. Glance airspeed look up and repeat. Occasionally adjust trim, no?
Thank you so much for all your videos, I just passed my commercial checkride and your videos helped more than any others on TH-cam. Very straightforward and not a monotonous voice and I definitely appreciate the dad jokes as well lol. Anyways I appreciate all you do thank you.
You’re welcome! So glad I could help! Congrats on that big accomplishment!
In a Mooney I use power to idle and flaps and speed brakes and pitch to slow down :)
my man said lets keep it simple and proceeds with equations, charts and root numbers lol . All very useful information ofcourse . a good pilot is always learning
Lol, this one is difficult to explain without all that extra stuff
Well it depends. For understanding fundamentals one should practice first by setting pitch for speed and power for altitude but in practical flying I switched it around. You have to pull power to reduce airspeed and to descend anyway so I pull power abeam and reapply it after slowing down to sustain the desired speed in the descent. I then aim for the runway and adjust the power to maintain the desired speed. I noticed I had a tendency to get in low and slow if I focused on pitch for speed and power for altitude. So now I aim the plane where I want it to go making sure I'm neither high nor low and adjust the power to keep the desired speed.
Yes.
I agree with you. I also think the same way. But not sure why sometimes the instructor doesn't like to add/reduce power but to insists pitch up/down during landing to control airspeed.
Power for altitude.. shut it off. But only when you are on glide path intersecting point to target landing spot.
I Always made my approach with pitch for speed and power for altitude.
Really like the explanation of back side of power curve
Thanks!
Good thorough lesson on power and pitch. Like many principles in aviation, both ways work as you have demonstrated. Or all the way back to Stick and Rudder, airspeed is altitude and altitude is airspeed or the law of the roller coaster. What gets lost in the charts and diagrams is the underlying principle that as much airspeed as possible is our greater for safety need on takeoff and as little airspeed as practicable is our greater for safety need for landing. If we slow below 1.3 Vso on short final so as to get a sink requiring dynamic throttle to nail the glide angle and rate of descent, hold the centerline between our toes with dynamic proactive rudder (no aileron, we don't want to turn), and use apparent rate of closure with the numbers to determine how much pitch is necessary to maintain what appears to be a brisk walk (decelerate as we near the numbers), we will "arrive at the touchdown point in a three point attitude all slowed up and ready to squat." Where have I heard that before? We take off dangerously slow, at Vy, and we arrive at the desired touchdown point dangerously fast at either 1.3 Vso or Vso. Stall/fall back onto airport property on takeoff and LOC on landing or go around are the big killers today because we are too slow on takeoff and too fast on landing.
All this to say get slow enough to make your throttle an effective glide angle and rate of descent control and your flippers (elevator) an effective airspeed control all the way to touchdown slowly (well below Vso) and softly on the numbers or whatever touchdown point you desire. If you have to close the throttle (now no longer a glide angle and rate of descent control at all) at round out, you are going too fast to land anywhere near the beginning of the runway. Oh, the both ways works deal: KISS. We fly little airplanes.
Thanks for the comment!
thanks. often is an issue for me, when landing
You’re welcome!
Let's keep it simple.
1. Set power/trim for a certain landing speed, and don't mess with the pitch anymore. (It's dangerous at low heights)
2. For the rest, only use power to control your descent.
During landing phase, power only changes vertical speed while horizontal speed remains stable (to a certain degree of course)
I always think of it as being a puppet on a string. Power controls the vertical motion of the string.
In the end, power and pitch is a balancing act that should become intuitive1. Just like the clutch/gearbox/gaspedal in a car.
You can easily practice this muscle memory in your flight simulator at home.
(If you're taking real life lessons, don't mess around on your own. Always listen to your instructor)
I think that pitch for speed and power for altitude are the most efficient and fool-proof ways to control an airplane in slow flight and keep it in the air, but that control method has a little bit of lag between the input and the result. It seems that you get more precise control doing the exact opposite, which is to pitch for immediate altitude changes and to do power (and elevator trim) to manage speed changes.
This is a great point. If you’re trying to make really small changes, then swapping controls can be a great technique
it's the only way.
I have just recently started my Comertial Pilot training and now I have gotten some more hours in and have tried this out with my CFI like yesterday. Makes complete sense your explanation on why pitch for airspeed is more efficient, however, I have tried it and both me and my CFI agreed that it is just more difficult to execute properly. I have always flown with the mentality that pitch is king, and excluding the takeoff climb (where your speed is king and you can change your pitch quite a lot in order to maintain that VX or VY) So basicaly during most of the flight everything is slaved to that pitch and we are going to work flaps and power in order to get that pitch where it needs to be... (this is the gist of it, obviously there are some other situations like when you want to lower your airspeed in leve flight where speed is going to be king and you will work your pitch and power arround it or a stall where you have to give in and cant hold the pitch and again airspeed is king) but that is my thought process in general, everything works for the pitch to be where it needs to be (most of the time) if that makes any sense... On the glide its just much more reassuring and easier to execute when you just keep that nose bang on on the aiming point all the time. First thing I do on final is to try to establish my pitch in my aiming point. If for some reason I cant and that pitch atitude I need is too steep and it makes me gain speed above my approach speed first thing I work on is the engine (just put it in idle and try again, if it still makes me go above de approach speed the second thing I work on is the flaps, lowering flaps should allow me to get an even steeper pitch down to the runway. If its too much now and I see that in order to maintain approach speed my pitch would need to be lower than my aiming point on the runway then I just pitch up back again into the aiming point but as I do this I just dont let that speed drop and give some power simultaniously. I always try to change as little of pitch atitude as possible because my perception is that even the tiniest change in pitch creates a HUGE change in airspeed and just accelerates or decelerates the plane too much and its very finicky to control, especialy in hot days where there are thermals everywhere and you are bouncing all over the place. And if you are too low on the glide slope its very easy to correct that, you just have to fly leveled and eventualy you are going to be on the correct glide slope. And then you resume pitching into your aim point and repeat the process I have described if you overshot it a bit and find yourself high.
This raises a great point. It might actually be beneficial to use less effective controls sometimes. When you’re trying to make small corrections like you do on an ILS, you might want to use a control input that doesn’t push you to the other side
Congrats on your training. Don’t rely on TH-cam videos. Most, like this one is just wrong.
Pitch co trolls altitude, power controls airspeed, unless you have a fixed power setting.
I assume you want to make this a career. Once you fly bigger airplanes, this is how they are flown. All automation uses power for airspeed and pitch for glide path or altitude. So set your mind to this now.
I know a first Officer on the 737 who is not too happy he was taught wrong and now has to relearn.
If you want to do something fun with your CFI to figure this out, do this:
You fly and on,y control the yoke. Your instructor only controls the throttle.
First landing, you control airspeed with the yoke and he controls glide path with the throttle.
2nd landing, you control glide path with the yoke and he controls speed with throttle.
You will find that the first approach will be unstable. The second one will be easy. You aim for the runway, he adjusts power after wards.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 thanks for the advice, yes I am doing all I can to turn it into a career.
Thats the way I learned it at Spartan School of Aeronautics, pitch for airspeed and power for altitude
Spartan? Lol, I went to TCC across the airport for my PPL. Too funny
Pitch for airspeed, power for altitude--that's literally day 1 of flight school. However, this was a really great video and I feel like I have a much better understanding of what's going on in the power curve.
Thanks! I felt like it was a necessary video. I have too many folks questioning the controls you use on an approach
Then you went to the wrong flight school. Pitch is for altitude. Power for airspeed. Unless you have a fixed power setting.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 Either you never went to flight school or it has been so long that you have forgotten the basics. On approach, you are in slow flight with a high AOA, so you pitch for airspeed and use power for altitude.
@@ABQSentinel that’s not the basics at all. Not all. And I find it sad that there are people out there who believe what you say. Professional pilots won’t though.
I became a CFI in 1993 and taught for 1500 hours. Since then I’ve trained hundreds of guys in different kinds of jets. Some of those, thought the same way as you and had to be retrained.
@@ABQSentinel the dangerous part in all this is that if you ended up slow on short final, your instant reaction is to lower the nose, instead of a handful of power.
You don’t have an instrument rating, do you? Because you can’t really shoot an ILS approach with your philosophy.
Auto pilots, flight directors use pitch for altitude. Auto throttles use power for airspeed. You wonder why that is?
Pitch for airspeed power for altitude
Hey Josh, thank you for doing all those great and brilliantly explained videos, which are helping me a ton while doing my PPL license. Merry Christmas from Munich, Germany 🤗
Thank you so much! Merry Christmas!
its a tough one to understand and to do on approach. and you did a great job of explaining it!
Thank you!
Be careful not to mix units.
The total drag curve is different than the power required curve. The minimum on the power required curve is not L/D max, but rather min power required (or max endurance). The minimum on the drag curve is L/D max. If you multiply the entire drag curve by velocity, you get the power required curve.
The hook upward on the left is much shallower on a power required curve than it is on the drag curve.
Not to be contrary, but the chart literally says “a function of total drag”
@@FreePilotTraining take a look at 6:56. A power curve is shown, but you overlay L/D max at the min power point. That is where the units no longer agree. L/D would be at the minimum of the drag curve.
Indeed, the curve is a function of total drag, but it is not drag since it was multiplied by velocity.
The drag curve and power curve are very often mixed up or erroneously interchanged. The information they convey is actually very different. Note that if flying a jet you would stick with the the drag required curve.
It is instructive to generate both a drag curve and power curves from basic equation to see how they relate to one another. One can then also see how power curves tend to be greatly exaggerated in illustrations.
Pitch for airspeed, trim to the pitch, power for the glide slope. Avoid changing nose aiming point, usually land a little long at first, but with practice you land right on the spot.
You wear Flying Eyes( you should have them sponsor you, they do sponsor a couple of TH-camrs
Great tips! Thanks! I’m hoping they will at some point!
Wow!
I really appreciate this video!
You’re welcome!
I sort of incorporate both. When Im low and slow I increase power and pitch too high? decrease power and somewhat lower the nose to an airspeed not too high. But definitely use the reverse command that has helped me quite a bit.
Great point! It’s important to know that you can use both
Energy management may be easier to understand if you fly gliders first. Adding engine power to the equation later just gives you some 'free' energy available to play with when you like it or need it ✈🙂. You probably won't be puzzled by 'should I use power or pitch' in your mental picture. Have good safe flights.
At some point, I’m going to fly a glider
Power alt pitch airspeed
I'm an aviation noob.
I think a shallow on final approach with partial flaps most of the way and slightly increased power going to full flaps at moderate speeds is best.
Am I right?
That way, with a steady decline I can pay attention to crosswinds, potential shear winds, and just have to slip to keep the nose aligned with the runway.
Shallow approaches are great in some cases and they can help give you a smooth touchdown, but precision landings are often a little easier with a slightly steeper approach
I see that this is a safe technique for primary students But I wouldn't fly an ILS(glide path) with this technique. fast? reduce power, High? pitch down for GS. Truth is, need to do both for most corrections
I believe that there’s an advantage in using LESS effective controls when flying an ILS. You’re trying to make smaller changes
Pitch for your airspeed and use power to control your altitude. There is no specific order in which you can achieve this;mean, sometimes, you will need to reduce power before you can pitch up or down for airspeed or vice versa. Example: You are too high and fast with some power. You will need to reduce power even lower then your current power setting before you can Pitch up to slow down, or else you will end up gaining altitude while trying to slow down. All in all: Pitch for air speed and power for altitude.
pitch for airspeed and power for altitude.... this was drilled into my head.
Awesome! You’d be surprised at how many people would disagree
In commercial aircraft, flap maneuvering(minimum) speeds are the minimum speed recommended for that flap settings. Typically, you wouldn't go below that airspeed. For example, in a 737-800, the flaps up maneuvering speed for a specific weight might be 200kts, so going below 200kts with flaps up would cause the aircraft to be on the backside of the drag curve. In order to go below that speed, you need to deploy the next flap, in the case flaps 1 maneuvering speed. On final approach, the VREF is the maneuvering speed on the 737-800, so in this case would you use pitch or power to maintain VREF?
Those airplanes are going to have an unbelievable amount of power available. Power for airspeed is what you want to use for them
@@FreePilotTraining Probably that's why they tell us never to go on the backside of the drag curve
@@FreePilotTraining Even with that consideration, in climb and descent, the FMC calculates a specific target power for climb or descent then pitches for that. In an impending stall, the training manual says to pitch first because it's still the most effective way then add power slowly because the engines are below the CG, so adding power rapidly would eliminate the pitch, bringing you closer to a stall(Plus the unbelievable power takes several seconds to become effective, but pitch is more immediate)
Pitch will always control the airspeed in cruise. That is, if you trim the aircraft and don’t touch the trim, it will settle into a specific airspeed based on a specific power setting. When you want to control the aircraft for landing, best way is to create a profile. Every aircraft is different, including every N number, because some planes have been rigged, modified, or even variance in production. So when coming in for a landing, you must know how much power and what pitch to use for your initial level speed. In the case of a Cessna 172, this could be 80 kn. Now add one notch of flaps and re-adjust your pitch to maintain level flight. This may result in your airspeed settling around 75 if you do not add any power. When you are abeam, the numbers you reduce your throttle starting with about 300 RPM, and this can vary as noted before. Now set up the aircraft with pitch for about 400 ft./min. decent and adjust your power to the desired airspeed you wish to fly. I use 70 kn. When I turn base and add another notch of flaps, I adjust my pitch without touching power again for 400 feet a minute. If I have to find my airspeed to remain at 70 then I adjust it with power. When I turn final and have the runway made, and I am approximately 300 feet above the runway I add full flaps and use power for an airspeed of 1.3 times VSO. This will set me on about 55 kn while adjusting power and I hold that speed with full flaps. I adjust my decent rate with power. I crossed the threshold and have enough power to slow my decent to about 300 ft./minute. When I am ready to level off, which would be about 25 feet above the runway, I raise the nose and slowly reduce power, letting the aircraft slow. As it starts to descend our reduce even more power, and slowly raise the nose and maintain the same rotation height as of takeoff. This might be 5°. I hold it there and it will sit right down on the mains with the nose wheel still above the ground. Never bounce or never have to jump on the brakes. Remember, you will always have to adjust both pitch and power to fine-tune your aircraft due to weight, center of gravity, and crosswinds or thermals.
Great input. Thank you
I agree with you. I also think the same way. But not sure why sometimes the instructor doesn't like to add/reduce power but insists on pitching up/down during landing to control airspeed.
Happy new year, bro! Thanks for your vídeos! I hope you have a great new year 🎊
Happy New Year!
the lowest point on the power required curve is not LD max, its the minimum sink/maximum endurance speed. LDmax is at the lowest point of the THRUST, not power, required curve. If you take a line from the origin of the graph and drae it tangent to the power required curve, you'll find LD max. its a bit faster than the min sink/max endurance speed.
That’s why I love higher approaches with no power and glide at 65 knots to landing.
That works!
One of my instructors was this grizzled old guy with over 15,000 hours (much of that as an instructor), and he strongly advocates coming in high. He said the 3 degree glidepath is great for jets and fast moving aircraft, but the little trainers we fly like a steeper descent profile. Done right, you can pull power after turning final and make a perfect landing every time.
I do too
Pitch for airspeed. Power for altitude.
Little of both
Real professional.
I never though about how the L/D curve is for flaps up. If that's the case, is the L/D max point different for full flaps?
Yes, it would be different, but I honestly don’t know what that curve or what LD max would be in that case
I'm off to the side of the runway and either too high or too low! What I do??
The problem is.... It's a balance and you just have to practice to feel it out. Some people can pick it up quick... some need more practice to figure it out. I never liked the saying "Pitch for speed, and power for altitude". While I understand how that works... it's still not really the entire story. THanks or another good vid.
Good point. Thanks!
While cruising, pitch for airspeed, power for altitude. For landing, power for airspeed, pitch for altitude. 1:09
@unduesafe How does a little six foot propeller oppose weight? The Handbooks indicate that is done with a 36 foot wing (Skyhawk).
I think it's the exact opposite: when in cruise, pitch for altitude and power for speed; when landing, pitch for speed and power for altitude (glide path).
@@igclapp When landing, short final, don't you chop the power and hold the airplane just above the runway with the elevator?
@warren5699 you don't chop power usually until you are over the runway. Or have excess altitude.
Langewiesche has a definite opinion in Chapter 14 of the venerable Stick and Rudder: “The power approach is one extremely practical case in which it is definitely true that the stick is the airplane’s speed control and the throttle is the up-and-down control.” He observed controlling the other way around resulting in more oscillations.
This is after a discussion of the mechanics of controlling a power-off approach and how pitching up below L/Dmax actually results in a steeper descent. With pitch first you also have to contend with the temporary ballooning effect and readjusting pitch again after power changes due to the secondary effects of the thrust and prop wash.
Great points. Thank you so much
@enqueue100 That's out of context and misleading. Of course it's possible to use the elevator to control the airspeed in good conditions. Then if the pilot reduces power, AND LOWERS THE NOSE TO MAINTAIN THE AIRSPEED (you are omitting this part from Langewiesche's discussion), the pilot accomplishes a reduction in the lift vector which decreases the altitude. It wasn't the power that reduced the altitude but the pitch. In the landing, power is also reduced but does the airplane go down. No, because the pilot is flaring with back pressure and the airplane is actually climbing from the descending line of flight it was on during the approach.
Using the stick for airspeed control on approaches during gusting conditions can be very problematic. I saw someone doing that when it was gusting +/- several knots nearing the runway (pitching down when the airspeed needle lost speed/up when it gained speed). What had been a stable approach before the gusting started became dangerously unstable nearing the runway because the pilot was chasing the airspeed with the elevator.
Airlines pitch to the glideslope whether the pilot is flying manually or the autopilot is flying. What's their safety record - near perfect.
@@warren5699 No intent to take Langewiesche out of context or mislead, this is why I quote all of the author, book, and chapter so that folks who want the full context are at liberty (and encouraged) to read the book, or at least the entire chapter for themselves. The exact words of the next sentence you mention:
"If you want to come down more steeply, don't nose the airplane down. Cut the throttle back, and then manipulate the stick so as to keep the air speed constant."
- Ch. 14, p. 259
I don't think anyone was arguing one should make an approach using power alone without ever adjusting pitch, it was between whether to use pitch or power *primarily* -- but not solely -- for airspeed control versus altitude control (indeed, the entire topic of the video). Apologies if my quote seemed to imply it was not an argument for "pitch for airspeed, power for altitude", but rather an argument for "power for altitude and let go of all the other controls", which neither I nor Langewiesche would recommend.
@@enqueue100 Thank you for your reply. The quote on page 259 is another example by Langewiesche of talking out of both sides of his mouth. He says to descend more rapidly, don't nose the airplane down but cut the throttle back and manipulate the stick so as to keep the airspeed constant. Well to keep the airspeed constant with reduced power, you have to nose the airplane down. So he's doing what he just got through saying don't do and claiming that the throttle is the up-and-down control. When power is applied it creates a force that's an extension of the longitudinal axis, like tying a string to the propeller and pulling horizontally. On an approach it would even be pulling slightly downward. If that force can control altitude, as I think many pilots have been brainwashed to believe, then there's some basic laws of physics that were never taught in high school.
Pitch for speed and power for altitude
If a person were trying to maintain an aim point on the runway, would adding power with flaps down and the nose pitched down increase altitude, the airspeed, or both? Can an airplane in a nose down attitude climb with power, or will that only occur with a gust? Hmmm….
Once again, that depends on the power you have available and your drag configuration, but typically adding power will only reduce sink and slightly increase airspeed
But if I'm in final and I increase the pitch, this will increase the lope. This means, I will go under the desired slope. And sometime, in this situation, if I need to increase the speed, this means I'm already under the slope. Is there something I missed?
Now, as is stated in the video, pitching for airspeed is more effective, BUT if you’re on a glide slope like an ILS, sometimes it’s advantageous to use the opposite controls because they are less effective and that means the changes are smaller. When flying instruments, small changes are easier to handle.
Suppose you are on a perfect glideslope, perfect altitude, on a short final, but a tad fast. "pitch for airspeed"? you'd raise the nose? Or would you throttle back and keep the same perfect trajectory? Honestly, i've never totally understood why people say the other is better than the other, why not say it's combination of both, pitch and power depending on the scenario, but it is important to understand what is the immediate reaction to any given input...?
You absolutely can use both. My point is that one is more effective than the other. When making small changes on an ILS, the less effective method may be better
Top Notch Video . Thanks Josh . great as always . Take care Steve from Austria ;)
Thanks Steve!
I reach the same conclusion as you, but based on different analysis. The reason not to use pitch to control your descent rate on final approach is that, at that airspeed, it is not very effective at changing your descent rate.
When you change the pitch attitude, there is a transient effect while the airspeed changes and then you reach a new steady state condition at the new airspeed. The business about trading altitude and airspeed describes the transient effect, but tells us nothing about how the new steady state condition compares to the original steady state condition. During the round-out and flare, we are managing the transient effect. But pilots trying to fly a stabilized approach need to focus on the new steady state. So, the discussion about potential energy and kinetic energy is mostly a distraction.
Changes in pitch change your airspeed in the same direction in all flight regimes. Nose down always increases airspeed and nose up always decreases airspeed. However, the change in descent rate varies based on the flight regime. The new steady state may have a higher or a lower descent rate. At cruise airspeed, nose up will result in reduced descent rate (or increased climb rate). At slow airspeeds, on the other hand, nose up will result in an increased descent rate once the transient effect passes. Final approach speed is usually near the minimum drag speed where pitch changes have negligible lasting effect on descent rate. Changing power or drag, on the other hand, will change your descent rate in the same direction in all flight regimes. (As your descent angle changes, you will need to make some adjustment to pitch attitude to maintain the same angle of attack.)
The alternate approach works indirectly. Pitching down when you are above the glideslope causes an increase in speed. If you then reduce power to offset that increase in speed, then you will increase your descent rate. But it is the reduction in power that had the desired effect, not the pitch change. Why do it indirectly?
Great video thanks!
No problem! Thanks for watching
Hey Josh! I'm base out of Russellville and was curious if you were taking new students?
Hey! I wish I could help you out! I’m actually up in Alaska now. I’ve got a friend over in Clarksville. Seth Lake is a good resource over there. VSL Aviation
@@FreePilotTraining I definitely appreciate you taking the time to reply! Unfortunately they are not offering any training at the moment. Maybe things will change after the holidays 🤞
@@AaRon479AR no problem. Hopefully they will
Since you asked - I've been flying for 48 years and have pitched to glideslope and used power for airspeed 100% of the time.
You’re not the only one. It does work
That is generally not what is taught, but makes sense.
@@philwinner1806 Agree. The Region of Reversed Command is frequently misunderstood to mean pitch and power reverse. It's actually where speed and power required reverse. The definition from the PHAK is - "The “regions of normal and reversed command” refers to the relationship between speed and the power required to maintain or change that speed in flight." The only airplanes that can literally control altitude with power are V22 Osprey's, Harrier's, and some military jets that can climb straight up. That's it.
I’ve been flying for 49 years, and learnt, experience doesn’t guarantee knowledge.
@@lucianosantucci108 That's a fair point. I was trying to keep it short. Let me put it this way. In addition to instructing 43 years, working as a Chief Flight Instructor I think it was 24 years, flying Part 135 for 10 years including being a 135 instructor and check airman, doing many flights with FAA inspectors for 135 and 141 requirements plus my ATP ratings SE and ME, discussing the finer points of flying techniques and guidelines in the FAA Handbooks with FAA inspectors during all of those years including pitch and power, and flying in all imaginable weather, pitching to glideslope and power for airspeed has worked 100% of the time and is the recommended technique in the FAA Handbooks.
This was an amazing video, thank you
You’re welcome! Thanks for watching!
Landing config, pitch for speed, power for alltitude! Please don't get behind the power curve on a landing. Read your POH for your plane.
Great input! Thanks!
Excellent video Josh. Again, I really like how you explain things to make them easier to understand and remember. I hope all is going well for you and your family. Safe skies my friend 🇺🇸🛩️
Thanks Kevin! Things are going good. Slowly but surely getting things figured out here
Airline pilot and former flight instructor. The pitch for airspeed and power for altitude can work for small general aviation aircraft, but is not used in higher performance aircraft. The problem is your glide path angle is going to be all over the place especially in gusty turbulent conditions. The way to learn is trying to maintain a constant glide path during the approach to landing like a ILS. Train yourself to try to maintain a constant 3 degree approach. Use a ILS, vasi or papi as reference to teach yourself the visuals. When you perform a ILS you will get your aircraft trimmed up for your approach speed and your decent rate based on your ground speed. You could use pitch for airspeed or power for altitude in calm conditions, but it is not effective in gusty or turbulent conditions. In real world conditions if you get above your glide path or slope in a ils you lower your pitch or nose to get back on the glide slope. Small corrections in pitch backed up by the vertical speed indicator. In gusty conditions you will be on your glide slope and your airspeed will increase and decrease depending on where the gust is from the headwind or tailwind, power is used to maintain airspeed. The problem with the pitch for airspeed and power for altitude method is in gusty conditions your glide path is going to be all over the place and it could resulting in ballooning on the landing flare where sometimes you just need to fly the aircraft onto the ground. If you teach yourself to maintain a 3 degree approach angle you will fly the aircraft the same weather it is VFR or IFR.
Gather your advice is not for small SEP GA aircraft, but rather higher performance aircraft?
@@AmericusMaximus All aircraft. You can get away with pitch for airspeed power for altitude in some general aviation aircraft, but eventually might start flying instruments. A good example is the ILS. If you are high on the glide slope you lower the nose to capture the glide slope. Pitch for Altitude. Yes you will have to reduce power almost instantly to counter the increase in airspeed. Power for Airspeed. Now use this technique for VFR on approach with a PAPI or VASI. Use your VSI to make corrections. The VSI will be used a lot in instrument training. If you are high on the VASI or PAPI lower the nose to increase your decent to capture the PAPI or VASI. Same technique in VFR or IFR approaches. The autopilot on ILS approaches uses the same technique. If you do not have auto thrust you will have to power for airspeed as the autopilot pitches for altitude.
@@AmericusMaximus I started in a two-seat Grumman American and finished my Private in a Cessna 152 - 100% pitch to glideslope and power for speed in both of them and everything else flown afterwards (single and multi - 48 years). The controls function the same in all aircraft.
In a model like a Skyhawk, sure it's possible to trim it out and then use the power to increase and decrease pitch because the propeller slipstream will push the tail down and let it come up. In good weather it works pretty decently but if the weather is not so good, you'll quickly realize serious shortcomings. In bad weather, it's usually necessary to pitch quickly and accurately in one direction and then the other. You will not be able to do that using the throttle and a cushion of air controlling the tail. Pitching for airspeed also becomes very problematic in gusting winds - I was with a pilot who started chasing the airspeed with the elevator when it became gusty on final - his straight line of flight became a scary zigzagging line nearing the runway.
In other models, this technique doesn't work even in good conditions. In a t-tail business jet, for example, the engines on the rear of the fuselage don't have any effect on the airflow of the high positioned horizontal stabilizer. An increase in power actually causes a pitching down moment because of their position and angle and how they work with the center of gravity. All autopilots will pitch to the glideslope.
What all this means is that a pilot who pitches to airspeed and uses power for altitude has limited skills in basic airplanes, and will not be prepared to progress into advanced aircraft.
@@MrWoowootila Appreciate the thoughtful advice.
@@warren5699 Thank you for the thoughtful advice.
It’s the same as slow flight pitch for speed, power for altitude
what do you use to edit your videos? specifically, how do you make it with a drawing style?
I use a program called doodle for that portion, then I use iMovie to tie it all together
I say use both….you can’t change one and not change the other
Terminology note-In math, V squared is called a power function of V and 2 to the V is an exponential function of V.
What do you think, do we need really reduce flaps position during approach when we have strong wing? Thank you
Assume you mean strong wind. It depends on the aircraft. I think you'll find in most GA aircraft, the POH will recommend less than full flaps in strong winds for better rudder authority. Especially in the Skyhawks with 40° of flaps, to me it feels like the rudder gets quite mushy at full flaps compared to 10/20° because those large high flaps disrupt the airflow so much from the wing back to the tail. A lot of control can be lost. In addition, less or no flaps allows the proper landing attitude to be a few knots faster, and that helps aileron and elevator authority also. This doesn't necessarily mean the landing will be longer - in strong winds with a few knots added for less flaps or gusting conditions, the ground speed may actually be lower than in good conditions and full flaps.
Not necessarily. I typically use as many flaps as I can handle for most of my landings
Think of trim as "cruise control" for an airplane.
😂 love it
When ever you are using trim to control airspeed, its controlling pitch not power!, explain that one!
@@Arturo-lapaz what do you mean?
Pitch controls airspeed.
Trim controls pitch.
Trim controls airspeed.
trim is a sort of "cruise control". You set the trim for the speed you wish to hold.
Power controls altitude. I have the engineering equations to prove this as well, is that what you were asking?
@@SoloRenegade Trim is usually required at the higher speed, to relieve larger yoke forces to maintain attitude or desired rate of descent. Not at low speeds , where it is important to prevent stall, especially maneuvering before landing, where it is not recommended to rely on the rudder trim to maintain coordination, to the contrary when executing a turn to final you should use 'top rudder' which means that a slight slip in the direction of the turn, which effectively prevents a spin.
At low speeds to control the rate of climb power should be used, using pitch will further reduce speed, not recommendet. To be accurate the minimum drag inducated airspeed corresponds to the state where the induced drag is equal to the parasite drag, L over D is maximum . At higher speeds, the parasite drag dominates, changes in power control weakly the speed, to control altitude , pitch control is used dffectively, The rule is that any time that the indicated airspeed is higher than 4/3 the L/D IAS , pitch control is used, the best rate of climb speed is about 3/4 of the L/D IAS, depending on the propeller pitch. On jet aircraft this is not true. To be accurate the dynamic pressure qo for best
L/D is
weight / (span √ (π×CD×area))
Indicated AS is √(2 qo/sealevel density). note indicated, not TAS.
The ratio Indicated AS to TAS
is √( air density/ sl density)
The airplane response depends on CAS, aproximately to IAS. at any altitude, Engine power is directly proportional to density, density is about half at 21800 feet one third at 33000 feet. ISA.
@@Arturo-lapaz "Trim is usually required at the higher speed, to relieve larger yoke forces to maintain attitude or desired rate of descent. Not at low speeds , where it is important to prevent stall, especially maneuvering before landing, where it is not recommended to rely on the rudder trim to maintain coordination, to the contrary when executing a turn to final you should use 'top rudder' which means that a slight slip in the direction of the turn, which effectively prevents a spin."
Trim, and pitch, works at ALL AIRSPEEDS. stop lying and making crap up.
Nice red herring on the rudder trim, that is NOT what we're talking about here. Act like you have a brain.
"At low speeds to control the rate of climb power should be used, using pitch will further reduce speed, not recommendet. "
god you are an idiot. As we've said over and over again,
Pitch controls airspeed
Power controls altitude (climb rate)
Seriously......work on you reading comprehension skills.
"To be accurate the minimum drag inducated airspeed corresponds to the state where the induced drag is equal to the parasite drag, L over D is maximum..........blah blah blah "
This had nothing to do with what I said. Trim controls PITCH. Pitch controls AIRSPEED. We're not discussing L/D max airspeed, nor optimizing climb rates, etc. Stop with the red herring fallacies.
You just keep jumping from one idea to the next, but you are not making a coherent argument, because you just keep moving on before making a valid point. Great, you can make word salad form aerodynamics principles. None of it proves Pitch controls Airspeed, and Power controls Altitude. You're not using the correct equations to prove that idea. you're just vomiting random principles together. You finished with a sentence about altitude effects on engine performance which doesn't matter here.
In France, for the PPL, we learn : pitch for altitude, power for airspeed
That’s super interesting
Nice video!
Thanks!
Pitch for speed
Power for altitude
Love it
@@FreePilotTraining thats what I would do
that's how it works. there is NO other way. And I have teh math to prove it.
@@SoloRenegadecomplete BS. Pitch controls altitude. Power controls airspeed.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 100% false.
if you set the pitch with trim, and let go, you'll hold speed. Now adjust throttle in and out from there without touching the pitch, you'll climb and descend while holding airspeed.
Now set the power back to normal. Now, just change pitch and nothing else. Your speed will increase or decrease. Yes, you'll also climb and descend a bit, but that is because any change in pitch also requires a change in power to create a new equilibrium for level flight. But if you retrim for a new airspeed, and then adjust power until teh climb or descent goes away, you'll still hold that new airspeed.
Knowing this enables ability to control speed very precisely on descent to land, for example.
Read "Stick and Rudder" by Wolfgang Langewiesche, pages 152-155 for the conceptual explanation of why you are wrong.
Also read, "Airplane Performance Stability and Control" by Perkins and Hage, pages 6-11 (section 1-3 Equilibrium Conditions) for the scientific, engineering, and mathematical proofs. Climb and descent is controlled by excess thrust. This is scientific fact, laws of physics. Your opinion doesn't count, only facts.
You're arguing with and airplane and helicopter CFI-I, and a practicing Mechanical and Aerospace Engineer. Better come prepared for this debate.
What if you’re coming in low and you can’t sacrifice altitude for speed
I talked a little bit about that at the end of the video. You can do either, but the point was that one is more effective than the other
Pitch for airspeed, power for altitude.
as someone who has 8 hrs of training only, I found this video super insightful!! it’s just so hard to fight the instincts of tugging back on the yoke when it “feels” like we’re too low even if the PAPI says we’re on the correct glidepath 🤣 but more chairflying I guess!
thanks so much for the great content as always
Thanks! Yes, the controls do feel backwards when you are very first learning
Even the FAA has finally said this is wrong. You do not pitch for airspeed. I've never understood either side of this arguement. You fly an aircraft with attitude and power together to get a desired outcome, they are not independent of each other.
You obviously haven’t read the airplane flying handbook recently
Hey Josh
What’s up
the atp intro is a W
Thanks!
wow, i didnt expect a response from anyone, i wanna say thanks for posting stuff like this, its really helpful especially for me!@@FreePilotTraining
now i know y people crash... they come in too fast pitch up to slow down while cutting power stall, spin at 800ft , wing over into the ground. the lack of understanding about the relation between pitch and drag takes there life.
Lol. Situational awareness is probably the biggest killer
Power increases control
Yes it does
First, btw i really like your vids thanks for making them
Thanks! I appreciate that!
pitch for airspeed,power for altitude
Kinetic energy for next video u took it
Pitch or power? Yes.
😂
Great explanation…on why the energy management diatribe should be tossed. The entire discussion should be based on the Lift Equation for pitching for airspeed and power for altitude. This crap about Kinetic vs. Potential Energy is not helpful. But understanding the Lift Equation and C sub L is essential to controlling the airplane.
I'm currently in Private pilot training, about to go on a checkride soon. I think I'd fail my checkride and disappoint my instructor if I used power for airpeed and pitch for altitude.😂
😂
You HAVE to use pitch for speed and power for altitude. Otherwise, when you have an engine failure you will DIE. If you teach a student to maintain speed with power, and they lose power, they will not automatically know how to avoid stall-spin. Geddit?
100% fact. Totally agree
How I was taught by four different instructors and 3 online ground schools… oh, and… does this video’s appearance mean the wind-turbine mafia hasn’t caught up to you yet?
For some reason, there’s a handful of people who would disagree! Lol. Yep, the wind turbine industry hasn’t caught on yet! 😆
parasite drag is proportional to dynamic 'pressure' what is usually called q
q = ½ density × TAS².
Now Parasite drag is
q × Cd × wing area
That means the drag increases Quadratically with Speed, never exponentially.!
exponentially is proportional to e^V (e to the power V)
V^2 ( V to the power two = quadratic !!!)
where e = 2.71828...
Learn basic mathematics !
Only because the parasite drag is proportional to the SQUARE of speed and the induced drag is inversely proportional to the SQUARE of the speed is the Indicated airspeed for minimum drag , when the induced drag equals the parasite drag.
The L/D is then exactly the SQUARE ROOT of
π÷4 × b² / ( CD × wing area)
π = 3.1416...
b = effective wing span
CD = parasite drag coefficient
To learn this elementary aerodynamics, simply download any of many text books on aircraft
aerodynamics
We, from the small country of Bolivia, flying from the high airport of the city of La Paz, "El Alto" must be prepared to deal with high density altitudes exceeding 14000 feet, where the power is marginal to climb safely with non turbocharged engines.
That requires a good knowledge of propulsion, and aerodynamics and especially the indicated airspeed where the power required is minimum, that happens at 76% of the speed of best L/D, but it is not the best power off glide speed, because of the wind significant drag of the windmilling propeller.
Besides we speak castellano with La torre La Paz, and also must learn aerodynamics in different languages,
Même chose en France ou c'est necessaire de parler français avec la tour.
Stupidest argument in aviation. It’s both. One impacts the other. It’s purely energy management. If you are low and you add power you will have to pitch up or your speed will increase. Are you controlling speed with pitch or power? Are you controlling altitude with pitch or power? It’s both.
It is both, but the point of this video is to say that one is more effective than the other in certain situations
10:38, no it means it increases quadratically, not exponentially. Exponentially would be (e.g.) 2^V, not V^2. Yes, people use "exponentially" colloquially to just mean "a lot / quickly". But you're showing a formula on the screen at this same second, don't say stuff that's outright wrong, please :(
It makes me sad, and it's also confusing for people who learn this.
If I use the word “quadratically” instead, 99% of people aren’t going to understand what I just said, and the other 2% only THINK they know 😆
@@FreePilotTraining I don't know, I do get the idea of science communication being made for laymen, but I hate it when people say wrong things to "simplify"
That's - in my opinion - kind of insulting to listeners. "101% of my audience are idiots" -- you, in your last comment.
I don't know, doesn't sit right with me, and I'm gonna politely disagree.
Videos like this, is why I believe that General Aviation has such a horrible accident rate. Any professional pilot knows that pitch controls altitude/glide path and power controls airspeed.
This is also what the FAA wants instructors to teach. Some people think this is a matter of differences in opinion. It’s not. One way is correct, the other way is dangerously wrong.
The newer, single engine aircraft, now a days have glass cockpits with working flight directors. These flight directors use pitch for altitude or glide path. You think that all these avionics companies got it all wrong?
Be safe out there. If your instructor tells you that pitch controls airspeed, find yourself a new instructor.
Lol. You obviously didn’t watch this video. Most of this content is straight out of the airplane flying handbook which is produced by the FAA. Not only that, but the USAF taught me a lot of this. They’ve been flying aircraft for quite a while…
@@FreePilotTraining I did watch the video. The FAA has been wanting CFIs to teach pitch for altitude and power for airspeed since the mid 1980s. (I’ve seen others make these same comments as me).
The USAF has different philosophies since they have different missions to fly. A lot of that stuff has to do with AOA. But even so, if you need to aim your aircraft, you use pitch. And you adjust your speed with power and drag.
It’s how Boeing designs their aircraft. So does Airbus. And every manufacturer of airplanes. Are you saying they are all wrong? Come on man.
Pitch is for altitude. Power is for airspeed. Unless you have a fixed power setting. It’s that simple. Every professional pilot knows this. Including ex-USAF pilots who now fly for the airlines. I can have 20 retired Airforce guys talk to you about this if you want.
Don’t teach the wrong way. It’s doing a disservice to the aviation community.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 I stand by my note in the video. Those aircraft have way more power. Is it possible to control the aircraft in that manner? Yes. In some cases, it’s better to use those less effective controls so you don’t over control the aircraft. However, they are less effective
@@FreePilotTraining I don’t know where you get that from. I was a CFI for 1500 hours and taught in underpowered aircraft. It’s still the same.
If a students is on glide path but a tat slow, the last 200 feet, you don’t want him/her to think: “I’m slow, I have to lower my nose”. No, you want them to add power.
When you fly an ILS in a C-150 and you are on speed, but a bit below glide path, you want to pitch up. Your airspeed might drop a few knots, but once back on glide slope, you get those knots back. No power change needed.
I can give you examples after examples.
The FAA wants you to teach pilots to use pitch for altitude and power for airspeed. The FAA understands this is done in underpowered airplanes usually.
I don’t know what to tell you. I might come off as arrogant or a know it all, but I’m tired of people saying that pitch is for airspeed. I think it’s dangerous. There is a reason why GA has such a lousy safety record.
I saw another guy respond. He has been flying for 48 years. He was an instructor as well. He agrees with me. Most true professionals will agree with me.