Pitch, Power, and the Wrong Question

“Which controls airspeed during a descent or approach — pitch or power?”

If someone springs this question on you with the satisfied expression of a prosecutor introducing Exhibit A, your first answer should be “It depends.”

Not because you’re dodging the question. Because the question is incomplete — and possibly because your interrogator is more interested in upgrading his standing at the airport coffee shop than in improving anyone’s understanding.

I’ve heard this debate since I began flying lessons at the tender age of 14. It has impressive staying power for an argument that often ends with two pilots saying essentially the same thing while insisting the other is an idiot.

Asking whether pitch or power controls airspeed is like asking for the correct route from Central Park to Wall Street. Are you driving, walking, or taking the subway? What’s the traffic like? Before declaring one answer correct, perhaps we should establish the circumstances.

“It depends” isn’t the end of your answer. It’s the beginning of a better question.

Depends on what?

First, what are you trying to change, and what are you trying to hold constant?

Do you want to descend faster without accelerating? Slow down without altering your flight path? Correct a low approach while maintaining airspeed? Or glide with an engine that has elected to become an expensive hood ornament?

Different problems require different corrections.

Chapter 4 of the FAA’s Airplane Flying Handbook explains the relationship between altitude, airspeed, and the coordinated use of the throttle and elevator. They call it energy management because they want to sound cool. I call it managing airspeed and altitude because that’s what students know, and the terms I want them to use. Lowering the nose trades altitude for airspeed. Raising it trades airspeed for altitude. Power helps determine whether you can sustain the desired combination of speed and flight path. The controls work together.

The airplane has not chosen a side in your argument.

Many CFIs, including me, teach beginning students to think of pitch as controlling airspeed and power as controlling the descent on final approach. This is a teaching tool, not a religious affiliation.

That gives a busy student a manageable starting point. It is a framework, not a law requiring the elevator and throttle to remain in their assigned cubicles.

The FAA’s approach guidance recognizes that adjustments to both pitch and power might be necessary to maintain the desired descent rate and airspeed.

The instructional failure isn’t in teaching a simplified model. It’s neglecting to explain that the model is simplified. Teach: “Start by thinking about it this way,” not: “This is how the universe works, and dissenters should surrender their certificates.”

Suppose you’re in a steady, powered descent and want to increase the descent rate without changing airspeed or configuration.

The usual solution is to reduce power and adjust pitch as needed to maintain airspeed while establishing a steeper descent. Simply lowering the nose can increase airspeed rather than achieve the intended descent.

But don’t replace one absolute with another. “Both controls may need adjustment” does not mean “You must visibly move both controls every time.” Respond to the airplane’s performance. The objective isn’t to prove that both hands participated.

And if you’re already at idle, pulling harder on the throttle won’t help. During a power-off approach (or any climb or descent with fixed power), pitch controls the desired airspeed. At the same time, changes in drag — such as an appropriate forward slip — can help adjust the approach path, subject to the airplane’s limitations and procedures.

That tends to complicate the coffee shop sermon.

Teach the correction, not the rule.

A better instructional question is:

“What needs correcting — and what needs to remain unchanged?”

On speed but below the desired approach path? Correct the path while maintaining airspeed. On the desired path but too fast? Correct the speed without deviating from the path. Both require attention to the interaction between pitch and power rather than blind adherence to assigned control duties.

Have the student identify the error, make a correction, and observe what else changes. We’re teaching pilots to manage an airplane, not to memorize rules that don’t always apply.

When your fellow aviator follows your “It depends” with “On what?” try this:

“On what I’m changing, what I’m holding constant, the airplane’s configuration, and whether power is available. Give me the conditions, and we can discuss the correction.”

As CFIs, we should teach the simple model, explain its limitations, and help students recognize the airplane’s actual response.

The important point is coordinating the controls to achieve the desired result not who wins the argument.

References: Airplane Flying Handbook, Chapter 4 and Chapter 9.