One of my faves. The F-18 is one tough sonofabitch

This was my first thought as well. That's a critical part of day 1 training on landings. It's usually easily diagnosed when the student starts bubbling up and down over the runway. They'll also sit up higher and hold their head back, looking down their noses at the very edge of the cowling. Same as a new driver trying to hold their lane on the highway. You don't do that by staring at the paint stripe next to you. Look down the highway as far as you can and use your peripheral vision to maintain alignment (or in this case, flare.)

Landing is easy. Anyone can do it once. Once. The key is making sure that you survive the controlled crash. Good luck. It is a challenge to smoothly flare and not bounce.

Try having an airforce pilot land on a carrier

No crosswind. No flare. Just put the thing on the thing.

Easy Peasy.

If I was able to figure it out, you can too.

Everybody worries about their landings when they’re learning. Eventually you won’t give a fuck. They’ll be adequate.

One possible factor is the experience level of the instructors.  I just saw where the number of flight schools is increasing by about 4.5% per year.  That's a lot of young instructors that are just building time for their own future careers.  It adds to the risk aversion you mentioned, which I was a victim of, myself, 20 years ago.  I got mine through Sporty's, which was right down the road.  I was my instructor's first student to get a certificate.  My first lesson, I took him for a ride.  He never touched the controls.  He still wouldn't sign me off to solo until long after I was ready.

That makes me wonder about something...  Back then, they had a high turnover of instructors.  A significant number of them would go from instructing to flying checks for banks, which was a great stepping stone.  I assume that job no longer exists.  Is there anything like that still out there for those starting on a flying career?  Just curious, because my wife's niece wants to be a commercial pilot.

I'm sure that's true of some pilots.

Several of you are proving it in this thread. Several people here are trying to have an argument about an airfoil stall over the stall (loss of lift) of an aircraft for the purpose of landing with zero explanation of lift, COP (center of pressure) etc. Most aircraft do not undergo an airfoil stall in the landing phase, but everyone calls it that because the loss of lift is what actually makes you stop flying.

I'm just a back country pilot that has exclusively flown tail draggers, primarily off airport into small and tight spaces with high DA's. I've installed AOA or "lift reserve" instruments,  cuffs, fences, double slotted flaps, leading edge slots etc.

Teaching T-6s, the IP sits behind the student. You can’t see straight ahead. The first couple months of UPT is the “contact” phase. Stalls, spins, basic aerobatics, and of course tons and tons of time in the pattern.  Plenty of “demo-do” landing from the back seat. Leaning over to the side, trying to see around your student’s head. After the contact phase is instruments, where we would then put the student in the back seat under the hood. And it was always so funny to me when we would transition to the instrument phase and I got to sit it in the front again…. Motherfucker why did it take you 2 months to learn to land the airplane. You’re sitting in the front seat and can actually see in front of you!

A stall is a specific thing, not just a loss of lift.  We know what a stall is.

Don’t be afraid of the stall horn. Start your flare and let it bleed off some speed. As you slow, keep adding back pressure, enough to keep increasing pitch attitude but not enough to cause you to gain any altitude.

What inputs are the "lift reserve" instrument collecting data from?

What you describe is exactly where and how I am having issues. Will work on doing that this week. thanks

I think you'll find that your progressive lenses have been a significant handicap.

Don't know why he hasn't suggested looking down the runway until now. He is an older gentleman that trains for a side income with about 6 students currently.  Know I am close on it just having problems with the last bit of finesse needed to land acceptably. Problem with changing CFI is the limited availability of schools here. One is astronomically expensive at near $450 an hour with only time builders as instructors. There is one other that may be a possibility. If I don't get this figured out in the next few lessons will talk to them.

 Thanks for the advice.

Will know that answer in 2 days. Hope it is something that simple. Will get back with the results. thanks again

OK, this is really bad advice. Progressive lenses are excellent for flying, and were a serious eye opener (pun intended) for me once I finally got them and started flying with them. No bifocals can come close for flying needs. FWIW I am a full time pilot and use these full time and will never use anything else. The idea that you don't have a sense of peripheral is just false, but there reasons why a set of progressive's may not work as well as intended.

First is that there are several grades of progressive. The higher the grade, the wider the corrected field of view and cost. You absolutely, without question need to top tier grad, with the widest field of view. Anyone who did not get that level does not know how good they can be. I am flying and landing jets all the time, and I would not trade these for any other solution, especially bifocals.

Second, is that they have to be perfectly set up for your eyes. This means that the person fitting your frames has to be perfect in setting the pupil position, and if that is off even a little in either eye then your glasses will simple not perform properly. This is KEY. You have to go to the highest quality place you can to get the best setup progressives. Do not go to LensCrafters and expect success. You have to go with top quality here.

Third, the frames are very important to the success of the progressives. You can't run a really small frame (top to bottom) and expect good results. You don't need giant hollywood actress size frames, but you can't do your stylin' Matrix Morpheus ones either. Pick reasonable size frames. The more room the lens has, the better the image quality it will have, and there is a minimum height requirement. My first pair was made to the minimum height, and they sucked compared to my second pair with slightly taller lenses. Lesson learned.

If you get your new progressives and they don't feel and see great right off the bat have them redone properly. This is all kind of a pain, but I guarantee you won't find a better flying solution. I have been flying with them for about 5 years now, as well as driving and motorcycling with them, and there is nothing better.

Seems simple. Do whatever the person teaching you to fly tells you to do.

You're one out of four in this thread, so I wouldn't call it "really bad advice".

There are plenty of USAF fighter pilots who have gone on exchange tours flying carrier-based aircraft.

There’s nothing superhuman about landing on a carrier; it is a skill that is taught, learned, and practiced just like any other.

Then I would counter you three did not get good enough quality progressives. This isn’t even in question in any other area that needs it like driving etc. Maybe call it uniformed rather than bad, but outside of pilots this is not an issue at all.

The loss of visual acuity at the peripherals of progressive lenses is a well known issue.

It has nothing to do with the quality of the lenses, it is part and parcel with how the lenses are shaped.

A simple Google will explain this.

Attached File

We have a couple of our flight school 172s that have weak horns. On the opposite end, one of the planes has a horn that is so loud you can hear it across the hangar when we test it.

No shit, I even mentioned the field of view. You need to realize this is just not a factor when flying. What you perceive when landing is perfectly adequate if you have decent progressives, ie the highest grade field of view. If you say your progressives are hampering your ability to see well enough to make good consistent landings, then your glasses are not good enough or were not set up precisely enough for your eyes. It is not due to the nature of progressive lenses themselves. A good pair will explain this.

Correct, because landing an airplane isn't the same as driving a car.  

OP is try to find solutions to a problem.  Whether or not OP can find progressive lenses that work for him is something he can work on.  Suggesting that he may be able to find better glasses is helpful.  Calling other people's advise that he try other glasses "really bad advise" is not helpful.

You are correct, it’s more important to cars and bikes. ;)

How many more hours do I need to have this realization about flying?

Back in the Jurassic Southwest Boeing 737-200's landed "firmly", every time.  Engine start and flap extension sounds were magnificent on the 732!

No more hours, just better glasses.;)

i do it all the time on Microsoft Flight simulator. Easy

$450 a hour

I thought $220 was expensive

I really don't see the problem it is Land-O-Matic

this, and yes i tihink focusing on the horizon kinda like others said will help... its kinda by feel, which is different than cars, obviously, which is what makes it hard.  but ya, fly the numbers, and bring it down and let airplane come out of sky when its ready,  same wiht takeoff.  point nose up a bit, when its ready it will go, that is if you have enough runway

I use progressives never had a problem.

Wish i could give OP advice but I don’t really think about it much at some point you just start feeling it. Keep at it and don’t overthink it.

Right? Is OP starting out on Jets or something?

Too funny! I used to own a 172G with land o matic! It sure was smooth.

I never felt like I was very good at landing. For some reason I never ever could feel ground effect. Drove me nuts!

I did 617 landings from when I started my training in January 07 and finished my Instrument and Commercial ratings until my last flight in September 09. However I never did damage an airplane even in spite of a couple of scary landings in heavy winds. I probably expected way too much for my skill level and was always trying to get better with all aspects of my flying.

I sure hope to get back to it someday.

What stopped you?

That’s what I figured.  
Well, you’re making no sense to the experienced 30k+ hour professionals, so I have to assume your post is also nonsensical to the newbies.  

Please try to use standard words and definitions.   That’s how we communicate.   We cannot read your thoughts.  

Try not to confuse a newbie who is sincerely trying to learn.   Thx.

Nice Ad.  
What year is that?
$8700.     How much were airline pilots making back then (take home) ?

I think Inflation has been much greater than advertised.

Something of an extreme way to do it, but I sort of forced it until I got a feel for ground effect.

My instructor referred to it as my approach over a 500 ft obstacle, after I showed it to him.  Set myself up too high on final in the C-150, then went to full flaps, throttle to idle, and pointed the nose at the grass off the end of the runway.  "Flared" a little high over the grass, then slowly bled off the excess airspeed as the plane floated in ground effect to the end of the runway, across the numbers, and down the runway for a bit until it touched down.  I eventually got to the point that I could get fairly close to the landing spot I had picked out.

Definitely not something to do on a day when you are dealing with a crosswind or gusty winds, and I doubt that it would work as well without the C-150's amount of flap travel for the extra drag.

Something similar could probably be done (and done more sensibly) at a runway with more length than your plane needs, by just setting the approach up at a higher than normal speed, then go to idle and do sort of a mild flare when you are getting close.  With the excess speed, it should be easier to notice when you hit ground effect, and then you just have to manage the rate that you bleed off the airspeed to get the plane down through ground effect to the runway.

Come to think of it, my instructor did that to me before I started playing around with my approach over a 500 ft obstacle.  We were in one of the usual practice areas and happened to be a little closer to another airport in the area, than to the airport we were flying out of, and my instructor said he was going to show me what a multi-engine approach looked like.  He set us up on an extremely long final for the other airport, with flaps up and full power.  After a while, he asked me if I had the runway in sight, and a few seconds later I spotted the airport and replied.  He told me to do a straight in approach (we were already close to being lined up with the runway).  I started to pull the power back (was going to start slowing down, then flaps...), but he pushed the throttle back in and told me to leave it there until he told me to reduce power.  After we got to the point that I was thinking there was absolutely no way we were going to avoid a go around, he told me I could start slowing down.

Somehow, I got the plane slowed down and on the runway (which was shorter than the runway I was used to) with enough space left to stop.  Taxied back to the ramp and parked near the FBO.  As soon as I had the engine shut down, he hopped out and started walking toward the FBO, leaving me to go through the rest of the checklist on my own.  When I got into the FBO, I didn't see him, but after a couple minutes of me looking around for him, he came out of the restroom and said something about having had too much coffee before we took off.

I find this tangent of the discussion very interesting.  I've been wearing progressives for the last 7 years or so.  I don't have any issues flying, or landing with the progressives.  Granted, the nuances of landing the 737 are just a little different than landing a light aircraft, I'm still looking in the same places down the runway, and it's never been an issue.

Windy.....so you're landing at eburg or walla walla?

Evidently my instructor must've thought highly of my landings, because I soloed in 6-7 hours and earned my PPSEL at 35.1 hours. But when I think about now I marvel at my CFI trusted me enough to send me up solo in such a short time.

I had closer calls while a PP than I did as a student. Got blown right off the runway in a C172 due to a very powerful crosswind blowing steady. And the other time was a high speed landing caused me to allow the nose gear to slap down on the runway and I proceeded to porpoise down half the runway. I did a lot of things correctly. But those two events weren"t my proudest moments.

It probably depends on the kind of flying you do.

Now I’m worried about the weather, keeping the speed up to stay away from the 737 bearing down on me, not getting lost taxiing at a new airport, etc. Landing is usually the last thing on my mind, unless there is a healthy crosswind.

It’s funny how visual clues can screw you up.  

I only fly RC air planes but when I changed from flying 1.2 meter wingspan airplanes to planes almost 2 meters I kept flying my final approach to the right of centerline because I was unconsciously making the bigger plane look like the smaller ones because that looked like what I was used to as normal from my perspective.

Yea I know, toy airplanes and all.

I'm sure everyone's brain uses different visual clues, and of course, not all lenses are the same.  I knew right away when I tried them that they took away something that I relied upon.  It's a known issue that even my eye doctor is aware of.  Last time I was there, he offered a prescription for progressives, and when I told him why I didn't want them, he said, "Oh yes, not good for pilots".  

I'm sure anyone could get used to them, just like getting used to landing in the dark.  Brains are remarkably adaptive.  I know a pilot that only has one eye, and does just fine.  But for someone who's starting and and having trouble judging his landings, it's a good place to start.

Yeah, that's too much anxiety for me.  I fly to have fun.  

Cool view, cool airplane...nice landing.

My favorite type of flying is a wood-and-fabric taildragger with no electrical system on a summer day and never getting higher than 300-ish feet.

(video taken by a passenger on one of my flights around Memphis:)