The method the air force likes fits their culture of telling people what to do. The method chosen by the navy fits the culture of telling people what they cannot do. The air force teaches rote learning for flying the plane while the navy teaches understanding of arrodynamics for flying the plane.Air force aircraft like the F-16, F-15, even C-17 land exactly like "navy" planes. The pilots fly alpha on the backside of the curve just as the navy does. The luxury of a 10000 foot runway does allow them to cheat from procedure with an approach flown at the fast end of the bracket for a little extra speed so there is something left for a roundout flare and greaser. You'll see both navy and air force do that when landing on a long runway. Although if you youtube the F-16 crash at this last year's oshkosh, you'll see the result of this kind of cheating for a crowd gone wrong.Pitch and power teaching methods has its place in instrument flying. After a student already has an understanding of aerodynamics. Begin with pitch for speed so that they understand the true effects of their controls. Then introduce pitch and power for flying by numbers so that they can fly a nice, steady, precise plane within the 11% of the flight envelope that they spend 99% of the time in. To skip the pitch for speed in instruction is to leave a gap in knowledge that they may pay for should that 1% of time catch up to them.

Edited February 2, 201214 yr by KevinAu

But...................if I'm going to do a high performance vertical climb in a Pitt's for example (which I have).................I'm not going to be using thottle (if I have any left) and wait for the nose to rise. The same for push overs on the top, etc. The throttle will be used in conjunction with the elevator............for the results I expect to obtain. I won't be thinking throttle for climb & pitch for airspeed...........as it would seem a bit silly. It's the difference between flying aircraft with a lot more performance than typical spam can Cessna 172's. I don't like them much.

You seem to want to take an extremely forced narrow view of what I've said. I don't know how many more times I can say this but pitch for speed is an explanation of aerodynamics not a rote how to method.

Edited February 2, 201214 yr by KevinAu

You seem to want to take an extremely forced narrow view of what I've said. I don't know how many more times I can say this but pitch for speed is an explanation of aerodynamics not a rote how to method.

Kevin, this is the same fella that stormed in and instead of saying anything worth reading (a lot of mine aren't worth reading for what it's worth), sarcastically mocked how long your post were. I'd leave it alone.

Edited February 2, 201214 yr by ZachLW

When I go to work today I am going to pitch straight up to the sky and over torque my engines and climb like Mr. Adamson does in his Pitts because that is a normal flight maneuver.

What I have always been told is that the reason naval aviators fly they approaches using AOA for speed is because THEY LAND ON BOATS (ie as slow as possible, close to 2nd regime, see my first post). It's no surprise that they drill this into their future pilot's heads since initial training.At least your post seems to recognize the fact that, as you say : "Pitch and Power has its place..." even if you add that "... but it's not when you are presolo and learning the basics of flight." I think we need more input on this....Bruno

Interesting perspective Bruno.We've all "dragged her into the strip in a hanging on the prop manner" in training but part of the difficulty in this thread seems to be that folks are focusing on their favorite phase of flight without regard for the other phases.Nevertheless the laws of aerodynamics still prevail.....

I don't know how many more times I can say this but pitch for speed is an explanation of aerodynamics not a rote how to method.

Well said Kevin.

part of the difficulty in this thread seems to be that folks are focusing on their favorite phase of flight without regard for the other phases.

Hi Ron,I agree. I am answering to the OP who related to his experience in the landing pattern.Like the majority of posters in this thread, I learned "pitch for speed" but I also wanted to mention what I have learned from the airline pilots in my club. Apparently, I am not the only one with similar experience (see L Adamson's contribution).Bruno

To butt in here and just give some of my experience as a professional airline pilot with 23 years, and over 18,000 hours flying experience. While my experience is focused more in highly automated, jet powered aircraft, as the saying goes, all aircraft, no matter how advanced, can be flown just like any aircraft. It has been stated before in this thread, but typically [and BTW, this is my personal way of doing things, and in no way reflects upon the methods of all pilots at EIN], in a climb, it is pitch for speed, and thrust for altitude for the majority of the time, with sometimes a hybrid method being used. During the cruise, it is trust for speed, and pitch for altitude, end of. During the descent, it's again, similar to the climb in that it's power for altitude, and pitch for speed. However, should the case arise that I end up below my profile and slow, I'm not going to descend even faster to bring the speed back up, it's got to be bringing the power up. Then we get to the approach phase, where the way I do it is, and will remain, pitch for altitude and thrust for speed. Now, that's me and my way. However, what I would say to any pilot out there is that, while practicing the opposite method to the one you're used to can be beneficial, if you ever feel uncomfortable, stick with what you know, and don't be getting distracted by trying to do it the way others say you should, because in the end of the day, it's you're life on the line, and if you let yourself get distracted by things such as this age old question, then you'll miss out on the more important and much more critical aspects of flying and operating an aircraft.Feel free to post back questions, but there's my way of doing things.Capt. Rónán O Cadhain.

To butt in here and just give some of my experience as a professional airline pilot with 23 years, and over 18,000 hours flying experience. While my experience is focused more in highly automated, jet powered aircraft, as the saying goes, all aircraft, no matter how advanced, can be flown just like any aircraft. It has been stated before in this thread, but typically [and BTW, this is my personal way of doing things, and in no way reflects upon the methods of all pilots at EIN], in a climb, it is pitch for speed, and thrust for altitude for the majority of the time, with sometimes a hybrid method being used. During the cruise, it is trust for speed, and pitch for altitude, end of. During the descent, it's again, similar to the climb in that it's power for altitude, and pitch for speed. However, should the case arise that I end up below my profile and slow, I'm not going to descend even faster to bring the speed back up, it's got to be bringing the power up. Then we get to the approach phase, where the way I do it is, and will remain, pitch for altitude and thrust for speed. Now, that's me and my way. However, what I would say to any pilot out there is that, while practicing the opposite method to the one you're used to can be beneficial, if you ever feel uncomfortable, stick with what you know, and don't be getting distracted by trying to do it the way others say you should, because in the end of the day, it's you're life on the line, and if you let yourself get distracted by things such as this age old question, then you'll miss out on the more important and much more critical aspects of flying and operating an aircraft.Feel free to post back questions, but there's my way of doing things.Capt. Rónán O Cadhain.

Well said Cap'n :(

Well said Cap'n :(

Indeed. Thanks for taking the time, Rónán.Bruno