The Wheel Landing

The airplane is allowed to touch down earlier in the process in a lower pitch attitude, so that the main gear touch while the tail remains off the runway (AFH ch 14).

Contrast the three-point landing, where the airplane is held off until the attitude matches the gear geometry and all three wheels touch together.

Because in some wind conditions, the need to retain control authority makes it desirable to make contact with the runway at a higher airspeed than the speed associated with the three-point attitude (AFH ch 14).

Higher touchdown speed means more airflow over the control surfaces, which means more authority to fight drift and weathervaning while you're transitioning to a ground vehicle.

The two ingredients are a soft touchdown and a slight relaxation of back elevator just after the wheels touch.

Both exist for the same reason: if the tail is off the ground, it tends to drop and put the airplane airborne (AFH ch 14). Easing off the back pressure is what prevents the AOA increase that would fly you off the runway again — note that it's a relaxation, not a forward push. Pushing forward is the input that starts a PIO.

Permit the tail to drop on its own accord until it too makes ground contact. At that point, bring the elevator to the full aft position and allow deceleration to proceed as in a three-point landing (AFH ch 14).

You don't force the tail down and you don't hold it up indefinitely — you let it come down on its own schedule, then pin it.

The tail is forced down by its own weight, resulting in a sudden increase in lift (AFH ch 14).

Now you're back in the air in a nose-high attitude at wheel-landing speed — which is exactly the setup for the pilot-induced oscillation that follows.

Because if you push forward in an attempt to make contact with the surface again, a potentially dangerous pilot-induced oscillation may develop (AFH ch 14).

Each push arrives out of phase with the airplane's own pitch cycle, so the oscillation grows instead of damping — and the arrivals get progressively harder.

The two correct responses are initiating a go-around, or converting to a three-point landing if conditions permit (AFH ch 14).

Note the conditional attached only to the second option. If conditions don't clearly permit the conversion, the go-around is the answer.

No — the AFH is explicit that the only difference between three-point and wheel landings is the timing of the touchdown (early vs. later); approach angle and airspeed are identical between the two techniques (AFH ch 14).

This is the card most pilots get wrong. You fly the same approach; you just stop the descent at a different pitch attitude.

Because the initial touchdown speed is higher than for a three-point landing, making the flight controls more effective.

There's a second reason too: in some airplanes, rudder effectiveness can be reduced by the blocking effect of the fuselage and flaps with the tail low and on the ground (AFH ch 14). Keeping the tail up keeps the rudder in clean air.

The upwind main wheel touches down alone, in a side-slip or wing-low attitude (AFH ch 14). Contrast the three-point landing, where that upwind main touches in concert with the tailwheel.

No — deceleration should be allowed to proceed as in a three-point landing (AFH ch 14). The same rollout discipline applies:

• Elevator held back as far and as firmly as possible until the airplane stops
• Alert for directional control difficulties immediately upon and after touchdown
• In a crosswind, aileron increasing toward the wind as you slow (AFH ch 14)

Not necessarily — some manufacturers recommend against wheel landings in their airplane, and that carries regulatory weight for your endorsement: wheel-landing training is required "unless the manufacturer has recommended against such landings" (61.31(i)(1)(ii)).

Check the POH/AFM for your specific airplane. Covered in full under the endorsement section.

1. Fly the same approach angle and airspeed you'd fly for a three-point landing.
2. Arrest the descent in a flatter pitch attitude with the tail still off the runway, and make a soft touchdown on the mains.
3. Slightly relax back elevator just after the wheels touch — this is what keeps the tail from dropping and flying you off again.
4. Let the tail drop on its own accord until it contacts the runway.
5. Elevator to full aft, then decelerate exactly as in a three-point landing (AFH ch 14).

• Cause: touchdown at too high a rate of descent.
• First effect: the tail is forced down by its own weight.
• Second effect: that tail-drop increases AOA, producing a sudden increase in lift — you're airborne again, nose-high.
• The trap: the pilot pushes forward to make contact again, and because that input is out of phase with the airplane's pitch cycle, a potentially dangerous pilot-induced oscillation may develop (AFH ch 14).

The exit is to stop trying to place the airplane on the runway at all: go around, or convert to a three-point landing if conditions permit (AFH ch 14).

They're the same mechanism at different stages: because the CG is aft of the main wheels, a mains-first touchdown with the tail up makes the tail drop, AOA increase, and the airplane become airborne again (AFH ch 14).

Three-point: the mains-first touchdown is an error — the fix is to re-flare and hold off to the three-point attitude.

Wheel landing: the mains-first touchdown is the plan, and the fix is built into the technique itself — a soft touchdown plus a slight relaxation of back elevator. Flown too firmly, it degrades into the same problem, needing the same answer as a large skip: a go-around.

Higher initial touchdown speed makes the flight controls more effective at the moment you most need aileron and rudder authority to hold alignment and kill drift. Second, rudder effectiveness can be reduced by the blocking effect of the fuselage and flaps with the tail low and on the ground in some airplanes — holding the tail up keeps the rudder working in undisturbed air (AFH ch 14).

Both are authority arguments. In a crosswind, the risk you're managing is a swerve, and a swerve is easier to prevent than to stop.