M20R Accident Analysis

[gdwinc]

@Yetti your "mid-slow" of 140 knots is generally faster than my normal IAS given the altitudes I typically fly (12,000 - 14,000+) out of my home base of Salt Lake City.

I do get what you're saying about flying slowly feeling different - I had an hour of flying 90 knots indicated going round and round the lake on the Fisk transition waiting to get into Oshkosh this year.  It definitely felt wrong to be cruising at such a slow speed, but I got used to it after a few minutes.  I also agree with Don about doing slow flight regularly.  Every time I do a proficiency flight I practice slow flight and stalls. Going out and doing slow flight, stalls and power off 180s really improves my flying and makes me feel more confident flying my Ovation.

[donkaye, MCFI]

25 minutes ago, gdwinc said:

I do get what you're saying about flying slowly feeling different 

I don't.  I recognize that flying slowly means different control pressures, but I just smoothly use whatever control "Pressures" are required without thinking about any difference in "feel".  Nor does that matter.  Just do what it takes using whatever control "Pressures" are necessary, not using abrupt jerky movements I see so many people exhibit in the beginning of my training with them.

[Jeff Uphoff]

2 minutes ago, donkaye, MCFI said:

I don't.  I recognize that flying slowly means different control pressures, but I just smoothly use whatever control "Pressures" are required without thinking about any difference in "feel".  Nor does that matter.  Just do what it takes using whatever control "Pressures" are necessary, not using abrupt jerky movements I see so many people exhibit in the beginning of my training with them.

Sounds like when I was a 200-hour PPL and just starting into tailwheels--my CFI described my rudder usage as "like someone who's had too much coffee."

--Up.

[Yetti]

On 11/7/2025 at 4:54 PM, donkaye, MCFI said:

I don't.  I recognize that flying slowly means different control pressures, but I just smoothly use whatever control "Pressures" are required without thinking about any difference in "feel".  Nor does that matter.  Just do what it takes using whatever control "Pressures" are necessary, not using abrupt jerky movements I see so many people exhibit in the beginning of my training with them.

It does matter for those of us who fly seat of the pants.    One thing I have noticed from the two Instructors who I fly with that they are a second faster than I am to notice the plane is a 1/4 of a ball in a skid.   My dad used to get mad at my brother and I for being able to feel the sail boat and what it was doing.   We grew up racing small sailboats like sunfish and lazers, he took up racing later in life.   The two instructors are a second faster applying control inputs on the plane than I am.  Feeling the skid or slip and applying control inputs is way faster than seeing the ball, processing the ball in your brain and then applying control inputs.   

What you are suggesting is that your experience is flying by the seat of the pants with smooth inputs on the controls.    The jerky people are reacting to instruments or sight pictures or some other input that their brain has processed. They are reacting to correcting something that is behind them.

The best way it was described to me was riding a motorcycle.    A person is at a level of mastery when they downshift coming to a light out of automation vs. remembering to downshift.

For me with the instructor I got a "you have learned the vernier throttle"  during taxiing last week.   He had flown with me a month before.      Basically I had learned and did not need to process how many turns in and out to make the power to do what the plane needed to do and was able to pull the power out before having to jump on the brakes to control the overpower.    And I was doing it without thinking about it.  

[hazek]

On 11/7/2025 at 5:31 PM, Yetti said:

Taking a stab at why the landing issues with the long bodies.

I went from PA28s and 172s with 180TT to my Bravo. I took one flight to get signed off demonstrating 3t&gs and 2 landings. The instructor, an airline captain, couldn't believe it and was very apprehensive to sign me off but could not find a reason not to. I'm now at +60h on my plane, exclusively VFR.

I'm not special. In fact, I struggled to learn to land getting my PPL. But this struggle has caused me to analyse how to land incisively. Doing so I stumbled upon a technique that IMHO should be mandated how every CFI is supposed to teach landing. It's called the Jacobson flare. It does NOT rely on feel or experience but rather on geometry and math and an easily identifiable relationship between an aim point and a flare cut off point. It relies on power for speed and pitch for aiming mindset, flying by the numbers exactly. And IT JUST WORKS.

There is no issue with landing long bodies. NONE. I'm proof of that.

There are however issues with landing, period. People rely on feel and practice treating it as an artform, hence the bad results. We owe it ourselves to do better. The Jacobson flare is how we can do better. Look it up on youtube, the guy who put it together is an Australian captain, retired, and he put online a short demonstration for light GA and a 1h presentation about it. He also sells an app that has the technique explained in more detail with the calculator for various aircraft types but you don't need that. For us light GA he released a free PDF that has all the necessary and vital information. Find it on his website.

This is the best way I have found to solve the problem of bad unsafe landings.

 

[Yetti]

36 minutes ago, hazek said:

I went from PA28s and 172s with 180TT to my Bravo. I took one flight to get signed off demonstrating 3t&gs and 2 landings. The instructor, an airline captain, couldn't believe it and was very apprehensive to sign me off but could not find a reason not to. I'm now at +60h on my plane, exclusively VFR.

I'm not special. In fact, I struggled to learn to land getting my PPL. But this struggle has caused me to analyse how to land incisively. Doing so I stumbled upon a technique that IMHO should be mandated how every CFI is supposed to teach landing. It's called the Jacobson flare. It does NOT rely on feel or experience but rather on geometry and math and an easily identifiable relationship between an aim point and a flare cut off point. It relies on power for speed and pitch for aiming mindset, flying by the numbers exactly. And IT JUST WORKS.

There is no issue with landing long bodies. NONE. I'm proof of that.

There are however issues with landing, period. People rely on feel and practice treating it as an artform, hence the bad results. We owe it ourselves to do better. The Jacobson flare is how we can do better. Look it up on youtube, the guy who put it together is an Australian captain, retired, and he put online a short demonstration for light GA and a 1h presentation about it. He also sells an app that has the technique explained in more detail with the calculator for various aircraft types but you don't need that. For us light GA he released a free PDF that has all the necessary and vital information. Find it on his website.

This is the best way I have found to solve the problem of bad unsafe landings.

 

There is no suggestion to treat landing as an art form.   I like to say flying is easy landing is hard.   There are times when a pilot needs to pull skills out of his pilot bag of tricks when near the ground. In training there was the time I was landing with an instructor with thunderstorms nearby.    I was just past a flare and a random wind gust pushed us 150 feet off  to the side of a narrow runway. I had applied power, leveled out before the instructor had time to reach the yoke.  Probably used some mtn bike skills there.   Have you tried the Jacobson method in 15 Gusting to 21 with a direct crosswind where you need to do a 1 wheel landing?   What were the results?

[Jackk]

Think most of it is a good brief, thinking ahead and keeping your hands in the game with being recent 

 I regularly go from a fast swept wing jet to a plane that cruises 90mph, and back, same same 

 Just be thinking conditions and what’s going to happen next, what’s unique about this landing, what are the different risks and how are you going to mitigate them etc  Some stuff is always the same like looking to the end of the runway and not too close in, not getting tunnel vision (especially when it comes to bank angle), flying the plane all the way to the hangar

 

Good book on contact (low level) flying

https://people.danlj.org/~danlj/Aviation/TurnBack/Jim-Dulin-Safe-Maneuvering/Contact-Flying-Revised_Jim-Dulin.pdf

Edited November 9, 2025 by Jackk

[Schllc]

5 hours ago, Yetti said:

It does matter for those of us who fly seat of the pants.    One thing I have noticed from the two Instructors who I fly with that they are a second faster than I am to notice the plane is a 1/4 of a ball in a skid.   My dad used to get mad at my brother and I for being able to feel the sail boat and what it was doing.   We grew up racing small sailboats like sunfish and lazers, he took up racing later in life.   The two instructors are a second faster applying control inputs on the plane than I am.  Feeling the skid or slip and applying control inputs is way faster than seeing the ball, processing the ball in your brain and then applying control inputs.   

What you are suggesting is that your experience is flying by the seat of the pants with smooth inputs on the controls.    The jerky people are reacting to instruments or sight pictures or some other input that their brain has processed. They are reacting to correcting something that is behind them.

The best way it was described to me was riding a motorcycle.    A person is at a level of mastery when they downshift coming to a light out of automation vs. remembering to downshift.

For me with the instructor I got a "you have learned the vernier throttle"  during taxiing last week.   He had flown with me a month before.      Basically I had learned and did not need to process how many turns in and out to make the power to do what the plane needed to do and was able to pull the power out before having to jump on the brakes to control the overpower.    And I was doing it without thinking about it.  

“Feel” is incredibly important, this is not to suggest that knowing the numbers and technique is not important. It actually absolutely critical to developing feel. 
My home drome is a class delta, and “the pattern”, is something I get to fly about one in ten landings.   The rest of the time I am being squeezed into all sorts of different scenarios. If wind or weather is a factor for me, I request the approach. Otherwise it must be seat of the pants. Well, I guess I could fly around until the controller is willing to let me fly the pattern by the book, but that’s a whole other conversation. 
Bottom line is you must learn, comprehend and practice proper technique and numbers in order to develop the correct feel. If you live by one or the other exclusively, it will either end poorly or never be enjoyable. 
I always learn something new from these discussions, regardless if I see it a different way. For this, I am grateful. 

[Yetti]

I think most good landings are all in the set up.    The F model I could fly 2/3 of the wing to the runway on Downwind.   The S model is a full wing on downwind and fly a little bit further before turning base.   It's a slippery plane she is. 

[Jeff Uphoff]

31 minutes ago, Schllc said:

“Feel” is incredibly important, this is not to suggest that knowing the numbers and technique is not important. It acruelly absolutely critical to developing feel. 
My home drome is a class delta, and “the pattern”, is something I get to fly about one in ten landings.   The rest of the time I am being squeezed into all sorts of different scenarios. If wind or weather is a factor for me, I request the approach. Otherwise it must be seat of the pants. Well, I guess I could fly around until the controller willing to let me fly the pattern by the book, but that’s a whole other conversation. 
Bottom line is you must learn, comprehend and practice proper technique and numbers in order to develop the correct feel. If you live by one or the other exclusively, it will either end poorly or never be enjoyable. 
I always learn something new from these discussions, regardless if I see it a different way. For this, I am grateful. 

This. I'm based out of a class C that's completely surrounded by a bowl of mountains, some of them immediately off one of the runway thresholds. Nearly everything aside from an instrument approach is improvisation, and even the IAPs are pretty wild. Honestly, though, I like it--it all serves to keep me thinking.

--Up.

[hazek]

On 8/13/2025 at 7:27 PM, donkaye, MCFI said:

From experience for best results the pattern on the long body planes should be flown: 90 kts gear and approach flaps on downwind, turn base while reducing power to a nominal 15" (12" on the Acclaims) and adding full flaps while trimming for hands off and no greater than a 3° nose down attitude (this automatically slows the plane to 80 kts).

This keeps me thinking about this thread. Would you be so kind to elaborate what specifically in your experience has prompted you to adopt this technique? Why fly level with gear and flaps app? Why not reduce power to slow down and then only add gear and flaps app when commencing the final descent for landing on downwind?

[donkaye, MCFI]

4 hours ago, hazek said:

This keeps me thinking about this thread. Would you be so kind to elaborate what specifically in your experience has prompted you to adopt this technique? Why fly level with gear and flaps app? Why not reduce power to slow down and then only add gear and flaps app when commencing the final descent for landing on downwind?

When doing pattern work with full stop landings:

1. Take off with approach flaps.  Apply about 5 pounds of back pressure on the yoke.  (Bob Krommer's "The Mooney Pull".  The plane will fly off the ground when it's ready to fly.  

2. In the crosswind and 100 feet below pattern altitude put the gear down.  This applies the "brakes" to keep the plane from accelerating once at pattern altitude.

3. Reduce power to maintain 90 knots on downwind (Gear and Approach Flaps).  By putting the gear down first before power reduction saves having to do an additional power change to maintain speed had the power been reduce first.  90 knots is a comfortable speed to maintain an appropriate distance from the runway on downwind.  Without putting the gear down first a very low power setting would be required to maintain a speed below flap speed below 110 knots.  Also, using this speed keeps the airplane from getting ahead of the pilot and provides for easy transition to base leg.

4. At 3° from the aim point reduce power to about 12" nominally, turn base while trimming up and adding full flaps simultaneously.  By setting the nose of the airplane at 3° down the addition of the flaps will automatically cause the plane to slow to 80 knots thereby simplifying pilot workload.

5. Turn final early enough to keep the bank angle at standard rate and adjust power to main 75 knots nominally at mid-weight.  Control speed with elevator and altitude with power.  This is antithetical to the Jacobson Flare method.  Behind the power curve it is safer to do so because pitch provides an immediate response, while power provides a delayed response.

While I appreciate Jacobson's attempt to mechanically fly the airplane to a landing, even though some may use it successfully, there is a reason it has not caught on in the 40 years he has been advocating for it.  Even using his method there is still an art to his last 4 seconds to flare at the proper rate to touch down  with the proper amount of energy remaining.  The rate of simultaneous power reduction and flare is basically the same as taught conventionally.

The bottom line to "Why not reduce power to slow down and then only add gear and flaps app when commencing the final descent for landing on downwind?" is to maintain a consistent and simplistic approach to landing without letting the airplane "get ahead" of the pilot.

[hazek]

57 minutes ago, donkaye, MCFI said:

When doing pattern work with full stop landings:

Follow up question: Since you specify this is for pattern work with full stop landings, how is it different in a VFR circuit approach and landing or IFR approach and landing?

And just to confirm you were referencing a Bravo, correct?

[donkaye, MCFI]

5 hours ago, hazek said:

Follow up question: Since you specify this is for pattern work with full stop landings, how is it different in a VFR circuit approach and landing or IFR approach and landing?

And just to confirm you were referencing a Bravo, correct?

Unless I am misunderstanding the question, a VFR Circuit approach and landing is the same as doing a pattern here in the US.  Regarding an IFR approach, things are a little different with the variety of situations, and the complexity of that is better discussed with your flight instructor.

Referenced to the Ovation, Bravo, and Acclaim.

[Jackk]

I did a deep dive on this for local crashes, all model planes, the big take away I had going over the NTSBs was if you’re on speed, on path, fully configured (ie stable) at a reasonable distance from touchdown, and KNOW HOW TO USE THE RUDDER, it cuts down on most of those NTSBs

[Jackk]

6 hours ago, donkaye, MCFI said:

When doing pattern work with full stop landings:

1. Take off with approach flaps.  Apply about 5 pounds of back pressure on the yoke.  (Bob Krommer's "The Mooney Pull".  The plane will fly off the ground when it's ready to fly.  

2. In the crosswind and 100 feet below pattern altitude put the gear down.  This applies the "brakes" to keep the plane from accelerating once at pattern altitude.

3. Reduce power to maintain 90 knots on downwind (Gear and Approach Flaps).  By putting the gear down first before power reduction saves having to do an additional power change to maintain speed had the power been reduce first.  90 knots is a comfortable speed to maintain an appropriate distance from the runway on downwind.  Without putting the gear down first a very low power setting would be required to maintain a speed below flap speed below 110 knots.  Also, using this speed keeps the airplane from getting ahead of the pilot and provides for easy transition to base leg.

4. At 3° from the aim point reduce power to about 12" nominally, turn base while trimming up and adding full flaps simultaneously.  By setting the nose of the airplane at 3° down the addition of the flaps will automatically cause the plane to slow to 80 knots thereby simplifying pilot workload.

5. Turn final early enough to keep the bank angle at standard rate and adjust power to main 75 knots nominally at mid-weight.  Control speed with elevator and altitude with power.  This is antithetical to the Jacobson Flare method.  Behind the power curve it is safer to do so because pitch provides an immediate response, while power provides a delayed response.

While I appreciate Jacobson's attempt to mechanically fly the airplane to a landing, even though some may use it successfully, there is a reason it has not caught on in the 40 years he has been advocating for it.  Even using his method there is still an art to his last 4 seconds to flare at the proper rate to touch down  with the proper amount of energy remaining.  The rate of simultaneous power reduction and flare is basically the same as taught conventionally.

The bottom line to "Why not reduce power to slow down and then only add gear and flaps app when commencing the final descent for landing on downwind?" is to maintain a consistent and simplistic approach to landing without letting the airplane "get ahead" of the pilot.

 Flying a ton of different aircraft, it’s all the same for me, PA24, TBM, jets, for pattern work 

 

 positive rate gear up 

 

 abeam numbers gear down

 

stay within flaps and gear speed on downwind 

 

Checklist and stabilized alts/times based on the plane 

 rest is just technique

Edited November 15, 2025 by Jackk

[donkaye, MCFI]

26 minutes ago, Jackk said:

 Flying a ton of different aircraft, it’s all the same for me, PA24, TBM, jets, for pattern work 

 

 positive rate gear up 

 

 abeam numbers gear down

 

stay within flaps and gear speed on downwind 

 

Checklist and stabilized alts/times based on the plane 

 rest is just technique

A pilot with many thousands of hours can adapt as they see fit.  Believe it or not, though, many airline pilots I've transitioned into their new to them Mooney, had much to learn when it came to proficiently flying a Mooney.

[hazek]

12 hours ago, donkaye, MCFI said:

Unless I am misunderstanding the question

You specified your procedure is for when you do “pattern work with full stop landings”. Maybe I misunderstood what that means. To me “pattern work” means you are performing t&gs and staying in the traffic pattern. Since you classified your procedure for just this situation, I was wondering what your procedure is during non pattern work approach and full stop landing. Are you then saying it’s the same?

And please remember my original question which is me wondering why did you adopt this procedure of extending landing gear first before reducing power. Since you gave me the answer “to prevent the plane getting ahead of the pilot in pattern work” I now wonder if you do the same when not doing pattern work and what your reason is then?

I hope I’m making sense. Essentially, why do you drop gear first in level flight still instead of reducing power to slow down?

[Yetti]

2. and 3. can be combined to "reduce throttle to 12 Inches."     This will keep the plane from speeding up Then. put gear down at threshold on downwind  followed by flaps.       This keeps everything the same as normal coming back to the airport flying.

Training and flying should develop flows and muscle memory.

[Jackk]

20 hours ago, donkaye, MCFI said:

When doing pattern work with full stop landings:

1. Take off with approach flaps.  Apply about 5 pounds of back pressure on the yoke.  (Bob Krommer's "The Mooney Pull".  The plane will fly off the ground when it's ready to fly.  

2. In the crosswind and 100 feet below pattern altitude put the gear down.  This applies the "brakes" to keep the plane from accelerating once at pattern altitude.

3. Reduce power to maintain 90 knots on downwind (Gear and Approach Flaps).  By putting the gear down first before power reduction saves having to do an additional power change to maintain speed had the power been reduce first.  90 knots is a comfortable speed to maintain an appropriate distance from the runway on downwind.  Without putting the gear down first a very low power setting would be required to maintain a speed below flap speed below 110 knots.  Also, using this speed keeps the airplane from getting ahead of the pilot and provides for easy transition to base leg.

4. At 3° from the aim point reduce power to about 12" nominally, turn base while trimming up and adding full flaps simultaneously.  By setting the nose of the airplane at 3° down the addition of the flaps will automatically cause the plane to slow to 80 knots thereby simplifying pilot workload.

5. Turn final early enough to keep the bank angle at standard rate and adjust power to main 75 knots nominally at mid-weight.  Control speed with elevator and altitude with power.  This is antithetical to the Jacobson Flare method.  Behind the power curve it is safer to do so because pitch provides an immediate response, while power provides a delayed response.

While I appreciate Jacobson's attempt to mechanically fly the airplane to a landing, even though some may use it successfully, there is a reason it has not caught on in the 40 years he has been advocating for it.  Even using his method there is still an art to his last 4 seconds to flare at the proper rate to touch down  with the proper amount of energy remaining.  The rate of simultaneous power reduction and flare is basically the same as taught conventionally.

The bottom line to "Why not reduce power to slow down and then only add gear and flaps app when commencing the final descent for landing on downwind?" is to maintain a consistent and simplistic approach to landing without letting the airplane "get ahead" of the pilot.

 How does this work for a power off 180?

 

 Ideally if you’re doing pattern work all landings should be a precision power off 180

 

I’d also say if a downwind of 100-150kts gets the plane away from the pilot, the pilot needs more instruction before they fly that plane 

 

 

“Train as you fight, fight as you train”

Edited November 15, 2025 by Jackk

[donkaye, MCFI]

10 hours ago, Jackk said:

 1. How does this work for a power off 180?

 

 2. Ideally if you’re doing pattern work all landings should be a precision power off 180

 

3. I’d also say if a downwind of 100-150kts gets the plane away from the pilot, the pilot needs more instruction before they fly that plane 

 

 

“Train as you fight, fight as you train”

1.  Not well.  A different procedure is taught for the power off 180° for the Commercial.  2.  Not if a student is training with me.  3.  Agree if you're flying a jet.  That's the speed I used to fly downwind in the Citation 525.  No way for the average Mooney pilot.

The procedure I discussed above is the best training procedure I have found to efficiently transition a pilot who hasn't flown a Mooney.  Most of our brains are pretty smart at adapting over a period of time.  After a significant number of hours in a particular type of airplane, a pilot can use his own experience to modify his flying.  However, until that time, a good solid repetitive procedure will keep people safe.

For example, I have over 11,000 hours flying Mooneys.  I actually had a Controller at San Jose surprise me a couple of weeks ago by coming on frequency after I landed with a congratulations.  He said they clocked me at 186 knots entering the downwind and were surprised I was able to slow the plane for landing.  I know my plane's performance and know the rate at which I can comfortably slow it down.  The absolute best complement I ever got, though, was a few years ago.  I was out practicing touch and goes early in the morning at San Jose.  Although a Class C airport, they are pretty cooperative when traffic is light.  I was minding my own business doing my normal practicing on the left runway with all different types of approaches including a very short approach involving a turn onto final and touchdown right after the rollout.  I had no idea that anyone was watching.  As I was on downwind on the next circuit, a Southwest Airlines pilot who apparently had been awaiting his takeoff clearance for some time was cleared for takeoff on the right runway.  As he powered up, he came on frequency and said, "Thanks for the show".  I didn't say anything, but he made my day.

[Jackk]

1 hour ago, donkaye, MCFI said:

1.  Not well.  A different procedure is taught for the power off 180° for the Commercial.  2.  Not if a student is training with me.  3.  Agree if you're flying a jet.  That's the speed I used to fly downwind in the Citation 525.  No way for the average Mooney pilot.

The procedure I discussed above is the best training procedure I have found to efficiently transition a pilot who hasn't flown a Mooney.  Most of our brains are pretty smart at adapting over a period of time.  After a significant number of hours in a particular type of airplane, a pilot can use his own experience to modify his flying.  However, until that time, a good solid repetitive procedure will keep people safe.

For example, I have over 11,000 hours flying Mooneys.  I actually had a Controller at San Jose surprise me a couple of weeks ago by coming on frequency after I landed with a congratulations.  He said they clocked me at 186 knots entering the downwind and were surprised I was able to slow the plane for landing.  I know my plane's performance and know the rate at which I can comfortably slow it down.  The absolute best complement I ever got, though, was a few years ago.  I was out practicing touch and goes early in the morning at San Jose.  Although a Class C airport, they are pretty cooperative when traffic is light.  I was minding my own business doing my normal practicing on the left runway with all different types of approaches including a very short approach involving a turn onto final and touchdown right after the rollout.  I had no idea that anyone was watching.  As I was on downwind on the next circuit, a Southwest Airlines pilot who apparently had been awaiting his takeoff clearance for some time was cleared for takeoff on the right runway.  As he powered up, he came on frequency and said, "Thanks for the show".  I didn't say anything, but he made my day.

 If you’re doing pattern work and not doing power off precision power off 180s, IMO you’re just burning gas for the sake of it, yeah it’s some proficiency, but really low value

 I LOVE pattern work, I do a good bit in my planes, especially the small one, because  I love it, keeping the turn in from crosswind to final, going power off abeam and landing -0/+20’ makes my soul happy 

 

 Dragging it in for most piston singles, this only has a value for STOL ops, and walking it in is a very different thing I’d wager you ain’t doing,  compare the average Mooney demographic to the stall spin not being able to do a coordinated turn or energy mgmt..

 

 Dragging it in on the prop and just landing in the “touch down zone”, that’s no bueno 

 

Do you do falling leaf stalls?

 

 Having to drag gear in the pattern to not let a mooney get ahead of a pilot, that’s a sub sat standard IMO

For me I’d want a applicant to be able to hit the downwind at normal cruise speed, burn the energy, cross the fence at ref

 

 but overall sounds like you’re on more or less the right path

Edited November 16, 2025 by Jackk

[hazek]

5 hours ago, donkaye, MCFI said:

The procedure I discussed above is the best training procedure I have found to efficiently transition a pilot who hasn't flown a Mooney.

I don’t understand, you said it was for pattern work. Now you say it’s for transition training pattern work?

Also, what is your criteria for a good landing?

[hazek]

4 hours ago, Jackk said:

If you’re doing pattern work and not doing power off precision power off 180s, IMO you’re just burning gas for the sake of it, yeah it’s some proficiency, but really low value

At some point you get to fly aircraft where this is never practiced anymore. In my Bravo I would never go power off and I wouldn’t use it for this kind of training. If I had to train this I would rent a 172 or something. You ever seen a TBM practice this? PC12? What about a Baron?

[donkaye, MCFI]

1 hour ago, hazek said:

I don’t understand, you said it was for pattern work. Now you say it’s for transition training pattern work?

Also, what is your criteria for a good landing?

It's for both.  The smart a** answer to the 2nd question is "You know it when you see it".  The CFI answer is: A stabilized approach on final, on speed, on slope with the aim point remaining stationary, and with the flare started at a point such that with a constant increase in back pressure on the yoke the rate of descent goes to zero at touchdown with the main wheels rolling on with not even a squeak and enough energy remaining to control the lowering of the nose wheel after touchdown of the mains.