Please allow me to vent a little.

I have often seen the recommendation that the airbrakes should be opened
halfway on final.

This mystifies me.

If this advice is meant to suggest that final should be flown steep
enough to require some airbrakes out that seems reasonable enough.

But the glider is flying forward ( one hopes ), why should a student
pilot be told to look out to the side to check the amount of airbrakes
that are out? Besides, is it meant to ask for half-out physically or
half-out effectively? I have not seen this mentioned so I suppose the
suggestion is half-out physically. This is not likely to be an amount
that is half in effect. Whatever.

I suggest to students to look to their approach aiming point and to use
whatever airbrake amount will get them there - without the nonsense of
looking at the airbrakes. It is not necessary to look at the airbrakes
to know that some airbrake is being deployed.

I suppose this may be a matter of choice but I have a feeling it is not
very helpful to student pilots.

Thank you. I'm back.

Glad to see you back, Jim.  (Yeah, we old time Usenet users can see
return addresses.)

The air brake advice harkens back to the "Turn base at the tree" advice
that some instructors give to their students rather than "look over your
shoulder at your planned aim point and, when the angle looks right,
start your turn".  As soon as you're comfortable with the glide angle of
your aircraft (doesn't matter what type), you'll know, after a bit of
instruction, how much air brake to use.

As for me, I fly a tight, close approach with a 180 degree turn to final
and I begin with full air brakes.  FULL, you ask?  Yup. I'm in close
which gives me a lot of excess energy.  With full brakes deployed I come
down quickly and, when the glide slope looks right, I start closing the
brakes to maintain it.  Should anything go wrong, gust, thermal, etc., 
I've got plenty of energy to extend to the runway and plenty of brakes
to get down, if needed.  I see no reason to fly a long, flat glide with
minimal brakes; it leaves too much room for error.

I generally fly idle power approaches with 40 degree flaps in my Cessna,
too.  Getting that right makes me more confident that I can reach a safe
landing spot if the engine ever quits.

I think students should be taught to fly by sight, sound, and feel
rather than "At this point, do this, and at the next point, do that". 
That creates technicians, not pilots.

Dan 5J
On 11/22/23 20:04, jp wrote:
> Please allow me to vent a little.
>
> I have often seen the recommendation that the airbrakes should be
> opened halfway on final.
>
> This mystifies me.
>
> If this advice is meant to suggest that final should be flown steep
> enough to require some airbrakes out that seems reasonable enough.
>
> But the glider is flying forward ( one hopes ), why should a student
> pilot be told to look out to the side to check the amount of airbrakes
> that are out?  Besides, is it meant to ask for half-out physically or
> half-out effectively?  I have not seen this mentioned so I suppose the
> suggestion is half-out physically.  This is not likely to be an amount
> that is half in effect.  Whatever.
>
> I suggest to students to look to their approach aiming point and to
> use whatever airbrake amount will get them there - without the
> nonsense of looking at the airbrakes.  It is not necessary to look at
> the airbrakes to know that some airbrake is being deployed.
>
> I suppose this may be a matter of choice but I have a feeling it is
> not very helpful to student pilots.
>
> Thank you.  I'm back.
>
>
>

On 11/22/2023 10:04 PM, jp wrote:
> Please allow me to vent a little.
>
> I have often seen the recommendation that the airbrakes should be opened
> halfway on final.
>
> This mystifies me.
>
> If this advice is meant to suggest that final should be flown steep
> enough to require some airbrakes out that seems reasonable enough.
>
> But the glider is flying forward ( one hopes ), why should a student
> pilot be told to look out to the side to check the amount of airbrakes
> that are out?  Besides, is it meant to ask for half-out physically or
> half-out effectively?  I have not seen this mentioned so I suppose the
> suggestion is half-out physically.  This is not likely to be an amount
> that is half in effect.  Whatever.
>
> I suggest to students to look to their approach aiming point and to use
> whatever airbrake amount will get them there - without the nonsense of
> looking at the airbrakes.  It is not necessary to look at the airbrakes
> to know that some airbrake is being deployed.
>
> I suppose this may be a matter of choice but I have a feeling it is not
> very helpful to student pilots.
>
> Thank you.  I'm back.
>
>

I take the meaning of that phrase to be: plan your pattern (and adjust
it as needed based on what really happens) so that on final you will
need some, but not full airbrakes. If you need full airbrakes all the
way down final you approached too high and risked overshoot. If you
need to completely shut the airbrakes you approached too low and risked
undershoot. If you need moderate airbrakes you have learned what a
normal approach slope looks like.

On 11/23/23 5:55 PM, Moshe Braner wrote:
> On 11/22/2023 10:04 PM, jp wrote:
>> Please allow me to vent a little.
>>
>> I have often seen the recommendation that the airbrakes should be
>> opened halfway on final.
>>
>> This mystifies me.
>>
>> If this advice is meant to suggest that final should be flown steep
>> enough to require some airbrakes out that seems reasonable enough.
>>
>> But the glider is flying forward ( one hopes ), why should a student
>> pilot be told to look out to the side to check the amount of airbrakes
>> that are out?  Besides, is it meant to ask for half-out physically or
>> half-out effectively?  I have not seen this mentioned so I suppose the
>> suggestion is half-out physically.  This is not likely to be an amount
>> that is half in effect.  Whatever.
>>
>> I suggest to students to look to their approach aiming point and to
>> use whatever airbrake amount will get them there - without the
>> nonsense of looking at the airbrakes.  It is not necessary to look at
>> the airbrakes to know that some airbrake is being deployed.
>>
>> I suppose this may be a matter of choice but I have a feeling it is
>> not very helpful to student pilots.
>>
>> Thank you.  I'm back.
>>
>>
>
> I take the meaning of that phrase to be: plan your pattern (and adjust
> it as needed based on what really happens) so that on final you will
> need some, but not full airbrakes.  If you need full airbrakes all the
> way down final you approached too high and risked overshoot.  If you
> need to completely shut the airbrakes you approached too low and risked
> undershoot.  If you need moderate airbrakes you have learned what a
> normal approach slope looks like.
>
That sounds good and useful to me.

On 11/23/23 5:55 PM, Moshe Braner wrote:
> On 11/22/2023 10:04 PM, jp wrote:
>> Please allow me to vent a little.
>>
>> I have often seen the recommendation that the airbrakes should be
>> opened halfway on final.
>>
>> This mystifies me.
>>
>> If this advice is meant to suggest that final should be flown steep
>> enough to require some airbrakes out that seems reasonable enough.
>>
>> But the glider is flying forward ( one hopes ), why should a student

Another instructor went to the trouble of showing me how to use the
bolts and cutouts on the airbrake boards to tell when the boards are
"half out". I wasn't comfortable instructing a student pilot on that
technique, or the reason for it. I have a feeling there isn't a reason
for it.

On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:56:00 PM UTC-5, Moshe Braner wrote:
> On 11/22/2023 10:04 PM, jp wrote:
> > Please allow me to vent a little.
> >
> > I have often seen the recommendation that the airbrakes should be opened
> > halfway on final.
> >
> > This mystifies me.
> >
> > If this advice is meant to suggest that final should be flown steep
> > enough to require some airbrakes out that seems reasonable enough.
> >
> > But the glider is flying forward ( one hopes ), why should a student
> > pilot be told to look out to the side to check the amount of airbrakes
> > that are out? Besides, is it meant to ask for half-out physically or
> > half-out effectively? I have not seen this mentioned so I suppose the
> > suggestion is half-out physically. This is not likely to be an amount
> > that is half in effect. Whatever.
> >
> > I suggest to students to look to their approach aiming point and to use
> > whatever airbrake amount will get them there - without the nonsense of
> > looking at the airbrakes. It is not necessary to look at the airbrakes
> > to know that some airbrake is being deployed.
> >
> > I suppose this may be a matter of choice but I have a feeling it is not
> > very helpful to student pilots.
> >
> > Thank you. I'm back.
> >
> >
> I take the meaning of that phrase to be: plan your pattern (and adjust
> it as needed based on what really happens) so that on final you will
> need some, but not full airbrakes. If you need full airbrakes all the
> way down final you approached too high and risked overshoot. If you
> need to completely shut the airbrakes you approached too low and risked
> undershoot. If you need moderate airbrakes you have learned what a
> normal approach slope looks like.
Agreed. Using "be here at this height and turn" gives the basic look. After that, it's all the sight picture since a farmers field has an unknown elevation thus the altimeter is useless.
Yes, "about 1/2 dive brakes" means you can add or subtract to keep the sight. Slips and adjusting pattern size are gross fixes in most cases.

On 11/23/23 7:27 PM, Charlie M. (UH, Pi & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:56:00 PM UTC-5, Moshe Braner wrote:
>> On 11/22/2023 10:04 PM, jp wrote:
>>> Please allow me to vent a little.
>>>
>>> I have often seen the recommendation that the airbrakes should be opened
>>> halfway on final.
>>>
>>> This mystifies me.
>>>
>>> If this advice is meant to suggest that final should be flown steep
>>> enough to require some airbrakes out that seems reasonable enough.
>>>
>>> But the glider is flying forward ( one hopes ), why should a student
>>> pilot be told to look out to the side to check the amount of airbrakes
>>> that are out? Besides, is it meant to ask for half-out physically or
>>> half-out effectively? I have not seen this mentioned so I suppose the
>>> suggestion is half-out physically. This is not likely to be an amount
>>> that is half in effect. Whatever.
>>>
>>> I suggest to students to look to their approach aiming point and to use
>>> whatever airbrake amount will get them there - without the nonsense of
>>> looking at the airbrakes. It is not necessary to look at the airbrakes
>>> to know that some airbrake is being deployed.
>>>
>>> I suppose this may be a matter of choice but I have a feeling it is not
>>> very helpful to student pilots.
>>>
>>> Thank you. I'm back.
>>>
>>>
>> I take the meaning of that phrase to be: plan your pattern (and adjust
>> it as needed based on what really happens) so that on final you will
>> need some, but not full airbrakes. If you need full airbrakes all the
>> way down final you approached too high and risked overshoot. If you
>> need to completely shut the airbrakes you approached too low and risked
>> undershoot. If you need moderate airbrakes you have learned what a
>> normal approach slope looks like.
> Agreed. Using "be here at this height and turn" gives the basic look. After that, it's all the sight picture since a farmers field has an unknown elevation thus the altimeter is useless.
> Yes, "about 1/2 dive brakes" means you can add or subtract to keep the sight. Slips and adjusting pattern size are gross fixes in most cases.
I agree too. This is what I call the TLAR ability.

My unease is with the forced exaactitude of insisting on exactly half
airbrakes. I don't want a student distracted on final by the supposed
need to make sure EXACTLY half airbrakes are deployed.

Another thing I mention to students about the use of airbrakes: if at
least a little airbrake is deployed in the landing it will be available
in dealing with ballooning in the holdoff. If no airbrakes are deployed
the ballooning may result in a hard touchdown. Of course this means
that some airbrake was needed in the approach.

I have found it helpful to use the "be here at this height and turn"
advice for very early students but I discourage it pretty soon in favor
of the "look at where you want to go and acquire the abiliy to judge
you'll make it" technique. I have a feeling this can work for farmer's
fields too.

On 11/24/2023 8:44 AM, jp wrote:
> On 11/23/23 7:27 PM, Charlie M. (UH, Pi & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
>> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:56:00 PM UTC-5, Moshe Braner wrote:
>>> On 11/22/2023 10:04 PM, jp wrote:
>>>> Please allow me to vent a little.
>>>>
>>>> I have often seen the recommendation that the airbrakes should be opened
>>>> halfway on final.
>>>>
>>>> This mystifies me.
>>>>
>>>> If this advice is meant to suggest that final should be flown steep
>>>> enough to require some airbrakes out that seems reasonable enough.
>>>>
>>>> But the glider is flying forward ( one hopes ), why should a student
>>>> pilot be told to look out to the side to check the amount of airbrakes
>>>> that are out?  Besides, is it meant to ask for half-out physically or
>>>> half-out effectively?  I have not seen this mentioned so I suppose the
>>>> suggestion is half-out physically.  This is not likely to be an amount
>>>> that is half in effect.  Whatever.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest to students to look to their approach aiming point and to use
>>>> whatever airbrake amount will get them there - without the nonsense of
>>>> looking at the airbrakes.  It is not necessary to look at the airbrakes
>>>> to know that some airbrake is being deployed.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose this may be a matter of choice but I have a feeling it is not
>>>> very helpful to student pilots.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.  I'm back.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I take the meaning of that phrase to be: plan your pattern (and adjust
>>> it as needed based on what really happens) so that on final you will
>>> need some, but not full airbrakes. If you need full airbrakes all the
>>> way down final you approached too high and risked overshoot. If you
>>> need to completely shut the airbrakes you approached too low and risked
>>> undershoot. If you need moderate airbrakes you have learned what a
>>> normal approach slope looks like.
>> Agreed. Using "be here at this height and turn" gives the basic look. After
>> that, it's all the sight picture since a farmers field has an unknown
>> elevation thus the altimeter is useless.
>> Yes, "about 1/2 dive brakes" means you can add or subtract to keep the
>> sight. Slips and adjusting pattern size are gross fixes in most cases.
> I agree too.  This is what I call the TLAR ability.
>
> My unease is with the forced exaactitude of insisting on exactly half
> airbrakes.  I don't want a student distracted on final by the supposed need to
> make sure EXACTLY half airbrakes are deployed.
>
> Another thing I mention to students about the use of airbrakes:  if at least a
> little airbrake is deployed in the landing it will be available in dealing
> with ballooning in the holdoff.  If no airbrakes are deployed the ballooning
> may result in a hard touchdown.  Of course this means that some airbrake was
> needed in the approach.
>
> I have found it helpful to use the "be here at this height and turn" advice
> for very early students but I discourage it pretty soon in favor of the "look
> at where you want to go and acquire the abiliy to judge you'll make it"
> technique.  I have a feeling this can work for farmer's fields too.

Brains definitely work in different - often mysterious - ways.

Never having been an instructor nor even played one on TV, there was a time
when I suspect some at the local field may've considered me sufficiently more
experienced than they, to be a worthy target for brain-picking. Those I
considered numbers-n-distance/"cookbook-types" always made me a tad nervous
when it came to trying to answer "Will I be OK 'back there' (i.e. over
mountains miles away from the home field) at such-n-such-a-height?" type
questions. I always defaulted to "attempted-nuance" answers.

Trying to think back to how I was ab-initio taught (ca. age 23/'73), I seem to
recall my instructor using a combo of "by-pattern-location" and
"do-what's-necessary-to-keep-your-landing-pattern-looking-about-right" insofar
as spoiler use was concerned, combined with, "while trying to keep your
glide-path somewhere in the middle between zero-spoiler and full-spoiler."
That last bit seemed an "of *course*! sort of proposition once the concept was
presented to me....and it immediately seemed applicable in my mind to =>ALL<=
off-field landings (and XC) as well. (Duh?) I learned in mountainous terrain
(Alleghenies of western MD) and flew mostly in/above the central Rockies, and
the concept that "some personal judgment" was always gonna be necessary when
it came to judging height agl, whether or not in a landing pattern, just
"was." Not a big deal, once some personal cogitation and "internalization" had
taken place.

At least in the central Rockies, a good old-fashioned paper chart proved a
yugely-valued "cheat sheet" in that most valley floors could be quickly
chart-assessed for valley-floor msl-height, in the absence of pre-existing
"local-knollich." For me, the greatest "attention-focuser" (stress?) on any
off-field landout was always "working my way up/out the landing cone" from
suitable field surface, to approach(es)-assessment, to deciding when
(altimeter-reading/"TLAR-height") to commit to the landing. Winds were never a
mental issue thanks to "continuous awareness" (paranoia?) practiced throughout
every flight. Big fan here of a full rectangular pattern, too, "for all the
obvious reasons" whether at the home-'drome or off-field...

YMMV.

Bob W.

On Friday, November 24, 2023 at 12:36:19 PM UTC-5, BobW wrote:
> On 11/24/2023 8:44 AM, jp wrote:
> > On 11/23/23 7:27 PM, Charlie M. (UH, Pi & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> >> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 8:56:00 PM UTC-5, Moshe Braner wrote:
> >>> On 11/22/2023 10:04 PM, jp wrote:
> >>>> Please allow me to vent a little.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have often seen the recommendation that the airbrakes should be opened
> >>>> halfway on final.
> >>>>
> >>>> This mystifies me.
> >>>>
> >>>> If this advice is meant to suggest that final should be flown steep
> >>>> enough to require some airbrakes out that seems reasonable enough.
> >>>>
> >>>> But the glider is flying forward ( one hopes ), why should a student
> >>>> pilot be told to look out to the side to check the amount of airbrakes
> >>>> that are out? Besides, is it meant to ask for half-out physically or
> >>>> half-out effectively? I have not seen this mentioned so I suppose the
> >>>> suggestion is half-out physically. This is not likely to be an amount
> >>>> that is half in effect. Whatever.
> >>>>
> >>>> I suggest to students to look to their approach aiming point and to use
> >>>> whatever airbrake amount will get them there - without the nonsense of
> >>>> looking at the airbrakes. It is not necessary to look at the airbrakes
> >>>> to know that some airbrake is being deployed.
> >>>>
> >>>> I suppose this may be a matter of choice but I have a feeling it is not
> >>>> very helpful to student pilots.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you. I'm back.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I take the meaning of that phrase to be: plan your pattern (and adjust
> >>> it as needed based on what really happens) so that on final you will
> >>> need some, but not full airbrakes. If you need full airbrakes all the
> >>> way down final you approached too high and risked overshoot. If you
> >>> need to completely shut the airbrakes you approached too low and risked
> >>> undershoot. If you need moderate airbrakes you have learned what a
> >>> normal approach slope looks like.
> >> Agreed. Using "be here at this height and turn" gives the basic look. After
> >> that, it's all the sight picture since a farmers field has an unknown
> >> elevation thus the altimeter is useless.
> >> Yes, "about 1/2 dive brakes" means you can add or subtract to keep the
> >> sight. Slips and adjusting pattern size are gross fixes in most cases.
> > I agree too. This is what I call the TLAR ability.
> >
> > My unease is with the forced exaactitude of insisting on exactly half
> > airbrakes. I don't want a student distracted on final by the supposed need to
> > make sure EXACTLY half airbrakes are deployed.
> >
> > Another thing I mention to students about the use of airbrakes: if at least a
> > little airbrake is deployed in the landing it will be available in dealing
> > with ballooning in the holdoff. If no airbrakes are deployed the ballooning
> > may result in a hard touchdown. Of course this means that some airbrake was
> > needed in the approach.
> >
> > I have found it helpful to use the "be here at this height and turn" advice
> > for very early students but I discourage it pretty soon in favor of the "look
> > at where you want to go and acquire the abiliy to judge you'll make it"
> > technique. I have a feeling this can work for farmer's fields too.
> Brains definitely work in different - often mysterious - ways.
>
> Never having been an instructor nor even played one on TV, there was a time
> when I suspect some at the local field may've considered me sufficiently more
> experienced than they, to be a worthy target for brain-picking. Those I
> considered numbers-n-distance/"cookbook-types" always made me a tad nervous
> when it came to trying to answer "Will I be OK 'back there' (i.e. over
> mountains miles away from the home field) at such-n-such-a-height?" type
> questions. I always defaulted to "attempted-nuance" answers.
>
> Trying to think back to how I was ab-initio taught (ca. age 23/'73), I seem to
> recall my instructor using a combo of "by-pattern-location" and
> "do-what's-necessary-to-keep-your-landing-pattern-looking-about-right" insofar
> as spoiler use was concerned, combined with, "while trying to keep your
> glide-path somewhere in the middle between zero-spoiler and full-spoiler."
> That last bit seemed an "of *course*! sort of proposition once the concept was
> presented to me....and it immediately seemed applicable in my mind to =>ALL<=
> off-field landings (and XC) as well. (Duh?) I learned in mountainous terrain
> (Alleghenies of western MD) and flew mostly in/above the central Rockies, and
> the concept that "some personal judgment" was always gonna be necessary when
> it came to judging height agl, whether or not in a landing pattern, just
> "was." Not a big deal, once some personal cogitation and "internalization" had
> taken place.
>
> At least in the central Rockies, a good old-fashioned paper chart proved a
> yugely-valued "cheat sheet" in that most valley floors could be quickly
> chart-assessed for valley-floor msl-height, in the absence of pre-existing
> "local-knollich." For me, the greatest "attention-focuser" (stress?) on any
> off-field landout was always "working my way up/out the landing cone" from
> suitable field surface, to approach(es)-assessment, to deciding when
> (altimeter-reading/"TLAR-height") to commit to the landing. Winds were never a
> mental issue thanks to "continuous awareness" (paranoia?) practiced throughout
> every flight. Big fan here of a full rectangular pattern, too, "for all the
> obvious reasons" whether at the home-'drome or off-field...
>
> YMMV.
>
> Bob W.
The half-travel thing is not something for a student to stare at the wing and judge except the first time, on the ground! Look there's about half travel, see the position of the handle? Done.

On 11/22/2023 10:04 PM, jp wrote:
> Please allow me to vent a little.
>
> I have often seen the recommendation that the airbrakes should be opened
> halfway on final.
>
> This mystifies me.
>
> If this advice is meant to suggest that final should be flown steep
> enough to require some airbrakes out that seems reasonable enough.
>
> But the glider is flying forward ( one hopes ), why should a student
> pilot be told to look out to the side to check the amount of airbrakes
> that are out?  Besides, is it meant to ask for half-out physically or
> half-out effectively?  I have not seen this mentioned so I suppose the
> suggestion is half-out physically.  This is not likely to be an amount
> that is half in effect.  Whatever.
>
> I suggest to students to look to their approach aiming point and to use
> whatever airbrake amount will get them there - without the nonsense of
> looking at the airbrakes.  It is not necessary to look at the airbrakes
> to know that some airbrake is being deployed.
>
> I suppose this may be a matter of choice but I have a feeling it is not
> very helpful to student pilots.
>
> Thank you.  I'm back.

Two answers to your question...

1) Half-out is a simplified "halfway between shallowest and steepest
approach". Gives you the maximum flexibility to adjust when encountering
sink or a thermal coming off the field. Or so I was taught in previous
century...

2) For pylon motor-gliders, fly pattern configuration and airspeed with
the engine out and not running. Note the sink rate "PM", and put the
motor away. Now, with the glider still in landing configuration, pull
spoilers until you get this sink rate. Put a mark at the spoiler
position that gives you sink "PM". Fly all patterns with AT LEAST that
much spoiler. Now when the engine fails and you can't retract it, this
will all look quite normal. Or so I was taught (by one of the
manufacturers ;-)...

Hope that's helpful!
See ya, Dave