The ballooned flare: correcting a symptom instead of the cause
Cessna 172P, 2,400 m sealed runway, surface wind 040/05 kt, runway 04. The student has 11.5 hours and this is the fourth circuit lesson. The pattern over the last six approaches is consistent: 15–20 ft high at the threshold, throttle closed in one movement at about 60 ft, an early flare, a balloon to 8–10 ft, then a drop-in landing. On two of those landings the student relaxed back pressure after the balloon and the nosewheel touched first. On the previous lesson, in the same wind, the same student made four acceptable landings while you called out height and airspeed. The student's own diagnosis is "I flare too early, I'll flare later next time". Asked to state the airspeed at the threshold, the student cannot. You have 40 minutes of dual and one more circuit lesson before the solo review in nine days.
1. Diagnose what the student has actually learned, and explain why the student's own correction ("flare later") is likely to make things worse rather than better.
Read the worked answer
Start from the sequence, not the landing. The approach is unstable before the flare: high at the threshold, then a single abrupt throttle closure at 60 ft. That produces a high sink rate, and the student flares to arrest it - a flare used as a sink-rate control rather than a touchdown attitude. The balloon is the excess energy from flaring at too high a speed and too high a height; the drop-in follows because the wing is no longer flying and the student then releases back pressure.
So the early flare is a symptom. The student has learned a memorised motor sequence ("close throttle, pull, wait") rather than an energy picture. Three pieces of evidence support this:
- The student cannot state a threshold airspeed, so there is no internal reference against which to judge fast or slow - only the instructor's voice.
- The successful lesson happened with continuous instructor callouts. Performance was instructor-dependent, so the learning was not consolidated; remove the prompts and the behaviour collapses.
- The correction offered targets the timing of one control input while leaving the cause (too much energy at 60 ft) untouched.
"Flare later" will produce a later but still excessive flare, or a nosewheel-first arrival, because the aircraft will still be fast and still be descending at high rate. Nosewheel-first contact risks porpoising, a prop strike and flat-spotted tyres, and after a balloon the correct response is a go-around, not a hold-off - that decision needs to be taught explicitly.
2. Set out a concrete 40-minute plan for the remaining dual, including what you will say and do, how you will fade your prompts, and what measurable criteria tell you it worked.
Read the worked answer
Ground brief, 10 minutes. Aim: the student flies a stabilised approach and lands without a prompt. Teach three things only: (1) a named threshold speed for this mass and configuration; (2) the aiming point stays fixed in the windscreen and the attitude sets the path; (3) power controls speed, attitude controls where you touch down. Draw the picture rather than listing actions.
Demonstration. Fly one approach yourself at correct speed with a running commentary, making the student call the airspeed and height at 300, 200 and 100 ft so the numbers are heard in context.
Student flying, prompts faded in stages. First approach: student flies, calls "300 - 68 kt - aiming point steady" themselves; you say nothing unless safety requires it. Second approach: student calls, you prompt only if the gate is missed. Third approach: no prompts at all. If the student is high or fast, ask "what does that tell you?" rather than issuing the fix.
Measure against stated criteria: three consecutive approaches with threshold speed within ±5 kt of target, touchdown in the first third of the runway, no balloon, no nosewheel-first contact, no instructor input. If any criterion fails, the student flies the go-around and you debrief one point only. Record the prompt count - it is the honest indicator of whether learning, rather than performance, has improved.
3. Nine days later the chief instructor asks whether the student can be sent solo. What is your answer, and what evidence and documentation would you require before changing it?
Read the worked answer
The answer now is no, and the diary date must not drive it. Nothing in the last six approaches shows the student can manage energy without an instructor; a solo in which the aircraft balloons to 10 ft and drops in is an accident waiting for a quiet morning.
I would say clearly: "Not on current evidence. Here is the evidence I need, and here is how we get it." The evidence is behavioural and repeatable: at least four consecutive circuits flown without prompts, with threshold speed on target, correct go-around decision after a balloon or a bounce, and correct handling of the crosswind that actually exists on the day. Add a short oral check on threshold speed, go-around procedure, wind limits and what to do if a landing goes wrong.
Documentation and legality before any solo: valid student pilot licence and a medical certificate valid on the date of the flight (check the expiry date, not just that a certificate exists); the pre-solo written test and its record; the instructor's solo endorsement entered in the logbook with its conditions and validity period; aircraft certificate of airworthiness, maintenance release, mass and balance, insurance; and the weather and NOTAM check. The endorsement must be given by an instructor who has flown with the student and found them competent - not inherited from another instructor's signature.
I would give the student the criteria in writing, so the standard is transparent and the next lesson has a purpose beyond repetition.