They both look like very good landings to me. Not sure which difference you are thinking of – seems your approaches were similar, same flap setting, similar flare. Perhaps you carried a bit more power in one of them…
Five spottable differences: three config- related, two technique-related. The latter have an impact on the touchdown point.
I linke the second landing better, hard to tell but looks a bit lower and shorter. But why flare so far into the uphill section? Is it not possible with the grass area in front to put it down on the threshold in the flat part?
Short is answer is that is what I was taught by the instructor.
Longer one is that the flat area is only 35m long before it curves up by 11%. This is twice the up curve of Courchevel and 100m shorter “flat” part.
35m go by in under a second at 80kts landing speed. A 1000fpm impact with the tarmac awaits you on the other side if you do not nail it on the flat. The urge to rotate the aircraft to parallel the runway is thus inevitable.
The alternative is of course to cut the power to force the touchdown on spot, but bearing the above in mind, that is a feat worthy of aircraft carrier pilots. I am happy to do that when further flat awaits me beyond the spot landing competition grill. Steel vs rubbery balls come to mind. Instructor advise is to never cut the power for touchdown or else energy depletion is too sudden.
Peyragudes Air Club paint the spot landing marks on the uphill for their annual event…and they usually fly much lighter and slower aircraft.
Yes touchdown point is lower and better centered on the last one.
Pitch response and yoke forces are not easy on the 210…on the last landing there is a shallower flare second step and a later third step ( just before touchdown). A weird three-step flare overall, just aiming to land smooth but not long.
Also there is a port yaw tendency upon final flare. I’d think gyroscopic forces would yaw the nose right upon pre-touchdown pitch up, but it is the opposite. Previous landings were left of centerline due to that. A deliberate right bank on the last one aims to shift the touchdown point back to the centerline. Too much yoke-fiddling for my liking but I guess the pilot doesn’t know better. Should try a slight rudder push.
Why the left yaw tendency? Incipient spin entry at powered stall/ increased P-factor at high AOA?
There’s still the price for the three config differences…
Antonio wrote:
Instructor advise is to never cut the power for touchdown or else energy depletion is too sudden.
I think that depends on the type of aircraft. At Courchevel they teach the same for light planes but for the heavy ones cutting the power helps. That PA46 which did float nearly all the way uphill at Courchevel in 2019 did so under power.
It seems that your first landing is done with a bit more power and height, probably a first of a serie with more caution relatives to touch down and agressive flare, knowing that speed will bleed out with the steep landing part.
The second shows a bit more accuracy to touch early , lower on the threshold and earlier down in the steeper part, shorter time in the air on stall horn, an overall better attempt and smoother at the end. I agree that this very short flat part is attracting to land but is too short for an easy landing flare and especially with faster plane. I understand the speed will never be a problem :D. It’s like a very long displaced threshold that attracts your plane although you know you should land here.
Sebastian_G wrote:
for the heavy ones cutting the power helps
I guess it is not only a matter of weight. On a PT6 it will take a couple of seconds for your HP shaft to spool down after you cut the power, hence taking a similar time to deprive the propeller of torque, whereas on a Conti/Lyco it will be almost instantaneous.
The accident you are referring to at Courchevel had a few more cheeseholes lined up. One of the points I am trying to make in these posts is that a good altiport landing is very much technique-driven.
That pilot was new to Courchevel (and she had trained on a very different type). She was new to the type. She used the wrong flap setting and the wrong speeds, all compounded. Had she throttled back earlier yes, they would likely have been better off.
On our 210, on landing at Peyresourde, you must have observed the airspeed waning down very quickly from 75 to 55 knots into a clear incipient stall in a couple of seconds only mitigated by ground effect despite not throttling back. I am also mindful that throttling back at those low airspeeds will invariably bring the nose down: this is no Bonanza. How to avoid propeller and tarmac getting too close to one another in that situation is something I cannot envision: I like the feeling of control on pitch I have with propblast on the stabilizer.
Just as you did, I personally took the time (the best part of two years) to find an instructor who was rated for the site as well as comfortable in a 210, so I could train with him on the 210, rather than with the regular local instructor on a Jodel or PA18, whose landing technique bear little resemblance to a 210. I don’t doubt that what you are saying will work for us at Courchevel with its longer flat, I am just not brave or motivated enough to try it at LFIP…why would I (honest question)?
greg_mp wrote:
lower on the threshold and earlier down in the steeper part, shorter time in the air on stall horn, an overall better attempt and smoother at the end
THanks for giving it some thought. Yes I agree. For me, however the big difference is the deliberate attempt to compensate for the left yaw that happens just before touchdown so at least it happens close to the centerline. I just do not understand the mechanism that makes that happen.
The three config differences I meant are not related to this though:
I am not familiar with the 210 and the aircraft I have flown to mountain fields only had 3 stages of flap 0, 1st stage (or take off flap) and full flap.
Am I right in thinking the 0 flap position as opposed to the 10 degree flap setting brought you in flatter and lower (which would be normal on the Jodel) but that also required keeping power (or more power ) on into the round out (which again would be normal for the Jodel especially with a steep upslope).
Is the yaw you experienced the propwash from the extra power carried longer?
I find this type of approach more controllable for all landings, but how do you persuade your brain to accept the flatter approach when there is a cliff face looming? :)
I usually bottle it and go for at least 1 stage flap and a little bit of extra clearance over the cliff face plus a little bit of extra speed over the cliff if the headwind is very strong
