Click Here to Return to

This is a very complicated post geared toward CFI's in regards into methods of teaching airspeed and altitude control.

The problem-
I am a CFII that has found a flaw in my teaching that I am trying find how to ratify. The issue is that I am teaching methods that are contrary to the FAA and to DPE recomdations. However, I find my method is more effective and safer in training operations. The issue is that for a majority of operations I teach power for altitude and pitch for airspeed.

The ILS-
This is where it all started...I have been taught and have practiced to pitch for my desired airspeed and power for the glideslope. It has worked great for me and all of instructors have found it to be a great method. On my CFII checkride I mentioned this method. The DPE was a fly the book pilot. He would only endorse FAA approved methods. He said I was wrong and that I would have to show him why on the ground. I quickly pulled the FAA Instrument Flying Handbook out and showed that I had read, highlighted, and understood the FAA wants Pitch for Glidslope and Power for Airspeed. He passed me but after with discussing it with other fellow CFI's about the DPE and method I found it to be a mixed issue and let it go. After having passed a couple IFR students with another DPE(the previous one retired) he mentioned that my method for the ILS was flawed in that it doesn't work with faster airplanes and that it was ok to teach it but it was not preferred. I have Turboprop time and found my method has worked with planes that have approach speeds of 120kts or higher.

MCA/Slow Flight-
The same DPE who mentioned my ILS method was ok but not preferred had a Phase Check with one of my students. On the Phase Check when my student preformed slow flight he explained the method I had taught him which was to power to hold altitude and pitch for airspeed. The DPE said it was fine but that he had a hard time with it and that my method might be ok with higher aptitude pilots such as myself but the inverse method of pitch for altitdude and power for airspeed was easier and preferred. I tried to use this method but found that students had a harder time with it. In fact on several occasions the student stalled the airplane. The student would reduce power, extend flaps, would begin losing altitude, try to pitch to hold but stall the airplane before realizing they would need to power to hold airspeed.

Approach to Landing-
I use a combination of pitch for aim and power for airspeed and pitch for airspeed, power for glide. I use whatever method gets to the student better. For short field or mountain flying pitch for the aim point and power for airspeed works but that is because the aptitude of the pilots are usually higher. I like to teach new students to power for Alt and pitch for AS because it protects from stalling. A student slow and low will try to pull up for alt and may stall before adding power to hold airspeed. I like both methods in this phase of flight but find that teaching both is not good for a student pilot but I can't commit to one.

What to do?-
The purpose of this post is to find how to approach teaching power and pitch in these phases of flight. I seem to be a pilot that has been taught Power for Alt and Pitch for AS but understands the FAA wants the inverse and I understands that pitch and power control both AS and ALT. What do I teach? Case by Case? One Method? The DPE is very understanding, a real life pilot that is not by the book but by what works and that is safe. I find better results with how I have been teaching but don't like to teach methods not approved by a DPE or FAA. I would like input from other CFI's. Other Pilot input is OK but a CFI will better understand and give better input. Jason, I very interested in your input.

_________________
Blake Kelly
Commercial Pilot
CFII/MEI

im abit of a newbie myself but heres what i think. for my initial training i was taught pitch for airspeed and power for glideslope, but at another flying school im at now it is taught the other way around. im not saying ones right or ones wrong, but i think it is abit of common sense with things such as pitch for height, like as you were saying the student nearly stalled it because he/she was trying to hold or gain the height because they were to low, power should of been added. i havnt been flying to long only with 85 or something odd hour, but i try and fly the approach as accurately as possible and i tend to find myself doing abit of a combination, what do the more experienced pilots think of this?

Blake Kelly,

Changes in pitch have the most immediate effect on flight conditions. This, I believe, is where some of the FAA's reasoning comes from.

On the ILS the most important thing is that you stay on or slightly above the glide-slope. If you go below the glide-slope you are no longer assured obstacle clearance. This is one reason the FAA recommends the pitch for glide-slope, power for airspeed method. If you ever find yourself below the glide-slope changes in pitch will most quickly get you back on the glide-slope. Using power will generate the desired effect but not as quickly.

When landing the approach should be set up well enough that you can use pitch for AS and power for altitude. If the approach is not working out, switching to the pitch for the aiming point and power for AS method will only increase the risk of stalls. When the approach is not working out the most common instinct is to focus on altitude and aiming point not airspeed. Using pitch to correct the aiming point puts you at risk of stalling, in this type of situation.

On short final both controls should be used to stabilize and finnish the approach. Only small calculated adjustments should be made at this point. If the pilot has made a good approach there should be little reason to make huge changes in airspeed and altitude. If they are much to high, low, fast, or slow they should go around. There is no reason to force the plane down.

I have always been taught that slow flight is used to simulate slow air speeds that will be encountered in the pattern environment. When approaching to land the plane will be close to stall speed and precise control of airspeed and altitude is necessary. It has been a while since I practiced slow flight but it would make sense that the same control method used for landing should be applied here as well.

I am not a CFI and therefor don't know what the best thing to teach in terms of the FAA is but I do know what makes logical sense.
I hope this helps.

-Alex Unger
alex@akutech.com

We beat this one up pretty good a few months ago.

http://thefinerpoints.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=85

_________________
Inst: "So how far out so we make our initial call-up?"
Student: "10 miles"
Inst: "OK, let's make that call"
Student: "Airport Traffic, Cessna 172, 3 miles east..."

i was trained by a captain of a citation with 25,000 hrs of flight experience. to say the least he is very respected in aviation.

he taught me that it's pitch for airspeed and power for altitude. i learned in a c152 and it was the same concept when i checked out in a c172.

the formula seems to work very well for myself.