Landing

[mysterywhiteboy83]

Hi folks, I am not a pilot in any capacity but an avid aviation lover (and Aero engineering student) and I was wondering. From my hours of geeking it out on YouTube watching videos of all sorts of aircraft I noticed something. On landing, commercial jets seem to aim for a point some distance down the runway but he military jets seem to always land pretty much on the numbers. Any particular reason for this or is it just a trivial observation?

Thanks for your time.

[Herod]

Well, I'll start the answers, although it's been a while. A commercial jet is operating to Performance Category A, which sets out all sorts of figures to achieve the safe flight. On approach the aircraft is assumed to cross the runway threshold at 50' at Vref (approach reference speed), with the speed reducing at a rate of 1kt/sec, and aiming for a touchdown within the touchdown zone markers (the big white markers some way beyond the threshold). This allows adequate margins for both stopping and going around. Military jets don't operate to the same regulations; I'm sure someone will come on soon and explain their side of things. I'm equally sure someone will correct my explanation, but it's a starting point.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Land on the numbers, Bloggs!

Duncs:ok:

[OafOrfUxAche]

On top of Herod's points, mil jets generally fly visually judged approaches, for which the piano keys/numbers form the most obvious aiming point, whereas commercial aircraft will more often fly a radar or internal aids approach, which will bring them down between/next to the PAPIs/VASIs rather than on the threshold.

And commercial flights rarely go around, whereas a mil jet doing a touch-and-go will want to get on the ground soonest to leave the maximum amount of runway for the subsequent take-off.

And mil jets are more manoeuvrable than airliners, so there's a better chance of correcting an approach to the threshold if it becomes apparent that the aircraft is going to undershoot (no guarantee though, as the fence along the A15 at Waddington will confirm...).

[GreenKnight121]

In addition, virtually all Civ-jets have thrust reversers on their engines, which allow the engines to help slow the aircraft down faster, and thus can stop in pretty short order. They simply don't need as much runway to stop that way.

The only tactical military jet I know of with a thrust reverser is/was the Saab Viggen... thus they need more runway in which to slow their faster-landing-speed jet via their wheel brakes.

Mil-jet transports do have thrust reversers... and so tend to land like airliners.

[diginagain]

Civilian airfields are built to maximise revenue, hence the huge shopping mall with attached aircraft-parking facilities, along with a consideration for safe operations; i.e. it doesn't do to frighten the punters, or they'll go elsewhere for their cheap booze and crap tan.

Military airfields are built down to a 'cost', usually at tax-payers expense, and therefore less is available to be spent on concrete and Tarmac.

However, I should like to point-out that I always preferred to stop, and subsequently land, as opposed to land, and then try to stop.

[BEagle]

The instrument touch down zone is 1500ft from the threshold, which allows for safe threshold crossing heights for large jets - which will also fly visual conversions to the same reference.

The point-and-power technique for light aircraft requires a nominated touchdown point and also some flex to allow for loss of power - so a typical RAF primary trainer flies about a 4.4° approach rather than a 3° approach (yes they do, do the mathematical calculations if you don't believe me!).

The higher approach speed and flatter approach paths of most fast jet aircraft require the sky gods, masters of their craft, to land as close to the runway threshold as is acceptably safe.

[Beancountercymru]

Try a Tornado, rather natty installation I always thought...

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The mighty Tornado also has thrust reversers!

Some civvy pilots aren't good enough to put it on the numbers without f-ing up. The policies have to fit the worst guy qualified.

It's a trade off. Do you hit the numbers or the piano keys? If you land a bit long on most landings, it won't matter much. If you land a bit short it will almost always matter.
Certain aircraft types like harriers, or bush pilots doing strip landings will always try and hit as close as they can the end of the runway. Many other mil types may need to land close to the edge in case of wartime bomb damage, and day one of the war is no time to start learning.

[Sir George Cayley]

What if the numbers are in the piano keys?

SGC

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Then there must have been a very good party at the airfield the night before....

[mysterywhiteboy83]

Guys, thanks for all of the info, I appreciate all of your time. Just 2 weeks into my Aero Engineering course and already had one lecture on the Typhoon and another on the Tornado (and agree, it does have reverse thrusters) so absolutely loving it.

Thanks again!

[Peter Carter]

I'm sure someone (oh alright, me then) will mention landing an F6 Hunter on a wet Chivenor runway in calm wind. Brick one was preferred, with the power already slipping to idle; then parking brake on (probably not QFI endorsed) and let the Maxarets do the work.
Also Gibraltar - esp in 240/25.

[otrex]

Civilian aircraft are not supposed to land on the threshold (piano keys/numbers or whatever). They are supposed to cross it at 50ft, end off.

One reason military jets land accurately on the "spot" is that they don't care much about finesse (a 2g landing felt by one person is not the same as felt by 300 passengers!). There is also more limiting landing performance as alluded before, so they trade finesse for accuracy.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Are you saying my landings lacked finesse?


OK, fair cop, everybody else did.

[Lucerne]

I generally use the grass next to the paved runway either just beyond the PAPIs or right at the beginning of the gable markers. This allows a shorter (relative) ground roll in order to reload and get back into the air with the shortest turn around. Horses for courses.

[stilton]

Try landing on the numbers in a heavy jet and you can expect to leave most of your landing gear a good distance behind you.


In civilian flying you are required to stay on the glideslope and /or Vasi until touchdown.


What you do in a Tornado is irrelevant :E

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Whilst a Nimrod might not have been a 'heavy' jet, there was certainly no need to touch down 1500' from the start of the runway; particularly when carrying out a visual approach. Landing performance allows for the ac to cross the threshold at 50', at VATmax with an average pilot etc and have stopped before the end of the tarmac and, if conducting an instrument approach, changes to the approach path in the final stages would be ill advised; however, if you are looking out the window (and remember where the wheels actually are) you can land an aircraft where you want - preferably not in the undershoot. Landing 1500' in does not imply a smooth landing; neither does landing on the numbers imply 2'g'. I've landed smoothly on the threshold - once, I think - and thumped it in beyond the instrument touchdown point plenty of times - it was sometimes required to wake up the AEO!

Duncs:ok:

[Corrona]

Slight deviation from the original question, but why are Ryanair landings the roughest you'll ever encounter? (of course there are exceptions)

[NutherA2]

Landing performance allows for the ac to cross the threshold at 50', at VmaxDunc,

If memory serves me right, late finals would be an odd stage of flight to be maintaining Vmax, or is my elderly memory getting confused regarding the various V-definitions?

[Miles Magister]

Otrex mentioned that civilian aircraft must cross the threshold at 50'. Whilst this is wise it is not regulation.

EU OPs 1.410 states:
Operating procedures —Threshold crossing height
An operator must establish operational procedures designed to ensure that an aeroplane being used to conduct precision
approaches crosses the threshold by a safe margin, with the aeroplane in the landing configuration and attitude.

For EU OPs performance B aircraft EU OPs also states that this does not apply for VFR operations.

The 50' crossing height comes from most certification data, however I have flown some where the landing performance was certified to 40', 45' or 55' threshold crossing height. The sensible approach is to stick to your aircraft AFM certified data and your company OPs Manual procedures.

I recently touched down on the piano keys in a small aircraft VFR and the examiner next to me was decidely uncomfortable! It was the whole debrief as he wanted me to land half way down the runway. We shall agree to disagree.

I believe that one of the biggest causes of overruns, heavy braking etc is because pilots come over the threshold too high and too fast. Approach speed of Vref +10 is for the approach. You should come over the thrhshold at Vref at the correct height. there is a good recent FAA circular on overrunns and how much extra runway is required when you are high and fast.

MM

[orgASMic]

he wanted me to land half way down the runway.

"Nothing so useless as the runway behind you." as they say.

I was taught 'point and power' approaches to the numbers and PFLs to use an aiming point a third of the way down (Bulldog and Tucano).

[wiggy]

Try landing on the numbers in a heavy jet and you can expect to leave most of your landing gear a good distance behind you.

:ok: Just about sums it up perfectly....

For the OP

FWIW many/most of the civilian operators routinely down load information off the flight data recorders and run the all the data through some fancy scanning program that looks for, shall I say "interesting numbers and events..:eek: ". So in many airlines if you "duck" under the glideslope to land on the numbers, or "float" trying to get a greaser or avoid a long roll out you can expect a one sided phone call from the office or, if you make a habit of it, an interview without the tea and biscuits and perhaps some extra time in the simulator..............that's best avoided by landing in the Touchdown Zone.

[Schiller]

Military aircraft=thin wings (usually) and higher landing speeds=smaller brakes=longer landing run

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

NutherA2,

Thanks!

Duncs:ok:

[Courtney Mil]

Anyone that doesn't land on the piano keys, or at least the numbers, is a girl. This is all about pilots making excuses for not being able to judge where their main wheels are relative to the cockpit/flight deck.

I agree with orgASMic. Three most useless things to a pilot:

The runway behind you
Yesterday's weather forecast
The fuel you've already burnt.

[LateArmLive]

Wasn't the fourth "height above you"?

[NutherA2]

Wasn't the fourth "height above you"?

....and the fifth - "Ten seconds ago"?

[Courtney Mil]

No, no, no! Number four is 'The expenses you already gambled on red.'

[Above The Clouds]

No No No No - Number four is you only have too much fuel when you are on fire !!!!

[Herod]

Anyone that doesn't land on the piano keys, or at least the numbers, is a girl.

I see from your profile you were a fast jet jock. Thank goodness you never carried passengers, who care about their safety more than the pilot's ego.

[ShyTorque]

I often land with the parking brakes on.

[wiggy]

I suspect Courtney is engaging in robust banter Herod, he certainly used to :ok:

At the end of the day it's different jobs, different SOPS.. Military Instructors used to teach aim for the numbers, but as you well know aiming to do that, and succeeding in civvy street, especially on a heavy, is career limiting.

[Tankertrashnav]

Re lack of reverse thrust on military aircraft - a lot of types had one of these instead:

http://www.wingweb.co.uk/wingweb/img/Handley_page_victor_arp_1961.jpg

The chute was streamed as a matter of course on Victors, and indeed there were fairly stringent conditions before you landed without streaming: headwind component, dry runway, minimum landing run etc. They were a bugger to repack, so away from base where the crew would have to pack and re-install the chute themselves there was a temptation not to stream. Could all go wrong though, like when my captain burnt out the brakes on 16 wheels after an injudicious decision not to stream on a landaway!

[oxenos]

That wasn't at St. Mawgan by any chance?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

I often land with the parking brakes on.


I often land on the out-of-use runway, or even the taxi-way.

Sometimes I start to take off with chocks around the wheels.

[sevenstrokeroll]

Piano keys...oh so funny. I have a feeling you guys dont' even know where that form of marking came from.

but if you ever get curious, try to see the last 10 minutes of a film called: "Julie" with Doris Day. You might get a clue.

[Tankertrashnav]

That wasn't at St. Mawgan by any chance?


No, Leuchars. Captain was a flight commander at the time - didn't affect his career as he subsequently got a couple of promotions.

[5aday]

The fixed distance marker is usually associated with the ILS glidepath transmitter and is about 300m from the beginning of the runway. It assumes a screen height of 50 feet across the beginning of the runway
excepting the case of displaced thresholds where it can be used at about the 300m mark from the start of LDA. (if you don't have Perf A - thats Landing Distance Available)
At the old Kai Tak rw13 it could sometimes be an interview without coffee
by the HKCAA if you ignored the displaced threshold but it could be argued it was better to be interviewed than seeing if your 747 floats at the other end..

[BEagle]

Anyone that doesn't land on the piano keys, or at least the numbers, is a girl.

At a certain UAS, some Casanova once had his wicked way one night with one of the girl students, the location for their romantic session being the runway threshold.

He later remarked that it was "The only time she ever got it on the numbers"...:E

[Courtney Mil]

Thank goodness you never carried passengers, who care about their safety more than the pilot's ego.

I guess you're right. But I always thought aviation safety was way overstated. Don't you think it's better to have a landing that looks good than totally safe and according to some random company rules? Especially true for airlines where it must be important to impress the passengers so that they want to fly with you again.

Turning off early also helps, I find.

[Whoosh1999]

And how long will it take someone to bite on that one Courtney? :}

[orca]

Courtney,

Maybe you meant: Anyone who doesn't stick it on the numbers is probably incapable of sticking it on the numbers.

Which might explain the response as well!;)

Being of the maritime persuasion I prefer to fly at landing alpha towards the planet's core and react with a certain amount of surprise and chattering teeth when the runway gets in the way. Sticking it through the numbers, if you will!

[Courtney Mil]

Well it's worth a try. And, yes, I hadn't realised that they land so far in because they just misjudged it. But let's try some more, just for fun.

Landing on the numbers: Good discipline, no wasted stopping distance, keeps QFIs happy.

Landing halfway down the runway: spreads the wear if everyone doesn't touch down in the same place, probably means they built the runway longer than it needed to be.

Can't think of much else.

[Courtney Mil]

Proves my point, really. If he'd banged it on the numbers like he's supposed too, that wouldn't have happened. Also supports my other point about passenger perception; what would the passengers think if the pilot can't get it on the ground first time every time?

We just flew to a secret base in the Southern Sinai with Thomson and the Co (presumably ex-Navy) banged the 737 right on the numbers, no finess, no safety issues, no appologies. We all walked away from it. Perfect.

[5aday]

Courtney, Ponteous et al,
We are really only talking about money - not one's ability to land an aeroplane. In Big Airways, ducking below the G/S on a 747 triggers a SESMA report and the landing pilot would normally receive a caution.
Do it twice and you would expect a sim session to correct your errant ways . Do it again and you might not be allowed to continue so bang goes your income and to a large extent a large part of your planned pension as well, if you have got quite as far as swapping over seats right to left.
It was often quite nice to land on a none ILS runway (Santiago de Chile as an example while the main runway was being resurfaced) and it was a visual procedure with piano keys and numbers painted on a parallel taxiway - but no fixed distance markers. Even then, it would be a brave man to put the main landing gear right on the numbers.

[Courtney Mil]

I would. It's just a matter of judgement, after all. They must know where the main gear is relative to the flight deck. And if they don't they can simply reprogramme their auto-land to stick the wheels in the right place.

Far too many excuses here for poor pilot skills.

[Pontius Navigator]

simply reprogramme their auto-land to stick the wheels in the right place So you need a programmer not a stick monkey? :}

[5aday]

Courtney,
Did Big Airways turn you down?
It certainly seems so.
What part of my previous post was hard to understand?
Working on the -400s was all about money. Fact.
With three super daughters in uber super boarding schools , the money on the -400 was a prerequisite. It was a plan we embarked on and a plan we saw through.
It was all about one landing a month and when it was my turn please don't let me be the one to screw it up.
Anyway, if I wanted to land on the numbers I'd get a puddle jumper out for half an hour.

[londonmet]

Courtney Mil,

There's no way the Thomson pilot banged the 737 on the numbers. Not SOP (standard operating procedures) therefore not allowed. Sorry.

[Pontius Navigator]

One reason for military pilots to train for landing on the numbers is the potential need to land on short runways. While a 7,500 foot runway might be the norm enemy action could reduce the landing run available to a bare minimum, a situation where a civilian aircraft would simply not go.

[t7a]

Courtney, your angling skills are impressive but you really ought to leave the lad alone now!!

[Courtney Mil]

There's no way the Thomson pilot banged the 737 on the numbers. Not SOP (standard operating procedures) therefore not allowed. Sorry.

Sounds like denial to me. Just because the crew of TOM6XX had the skill to do it properly and others don't, doesn't mean you can have a go at them. Sour grapes, I think.

I do understand the money argument a bit, though. So are we saying that the airlines don't trust their pilots not to land in the undershoot? Still, I suppose landing can be pretty difficult so maybe we shouldn't expect everyone to do it.

Going back to the Boris Day movie mentioned earlier, it was a good job she was aiming for the beginning of the runway or her little bounce would have taken her right off the end.

[wiggy]

Hey Courtney, For some reason this debate is reminding me of that old drinking song that starts with some comments about a Bombardier....but for the life of me I can't imagine why?

Maybe catch up with you at the secret pub in a few weeks (if I can stay out of the undershoot long enough).....

[5aday]

Angling skills - hardly. Inept more like :{
Try a 737-200R (Maersk Air Denmark) into Varga. If you don't know where that is - it's in the Faroe Islands.
Don't prattle on about undershooting. :sad:
I think you are a bit out of date there. If your companys insurers uncover the fact you are disobeying SOPs by landing short, ie on the numbers, and you manage to screw it up, the next big occurence in your life is it's now your leaving party and its doubtful you'll be invited.
Courtenay - you sound a bit like a gung ho cowboy.:ugh:

[500N]

"Courtenay - you sound a bit like a gung ho cowboy.:ugh:"


Courtney

Those US exchange postings certainly get you a reputation, don't they !

Better put that Stetson and the rope away now :O

.

[Courtney Mil]

Cowboy? No, just staunch in my views that professional pilots should be properly skilled. I'm reminded that a C130 was once landed on the aicraft carrier USS Forrestal. That wouldn't have worked if he'd been aiming for a mysteriously long landing zone. Mind you, I'm told they had to get a fighter pilot to do it.

USS Forrestal C-130 Hercules Carrier Landing Trials - YouTube

Better put that Stetson and the rope away now

Haven't finished fishing yet.

[5aday]

Totally irrelevant. :bored:

[orca]

Any less relevant than civvy heavy banter in the military forum?

I say banter but might mean tripe!

[Herod]

Let's get back to the OP's question, which was why do military jets land on the numbers and commercial airliners land some distance in. I think we've covered that, and this thread is just becoming silly.

[Courtney Mil]

Not irrelevant at all. It just shows that large aircraft can be landed accurately in the right hands rather than accepting a touch down anywhere in a large football pitch. No one here has cared to explain why this should be, just some old guff about SOPs and insurers.

[sapco2]

Totally agree with 5aday, repeatedly ducking below the glide path in a civilian air transport aircraft is a sure way of getting yourself dismissed.

[5aday]

Orca,
If you can add anything relevant, have a go.
If not then .......

[Tourist]

5aday and sapco2

It is hardly surprising you failed OASC if you can't get your wheels somewhere near the beginning of the runway. Those marks on the runway are merely an aiming point for ab-initios who lack confidence in their technique, not where a proficient pilot should be landing.

As skill develops I imagine that the airlines, just like the military expect the developing pilot to move his aiming point nearer the threshold for a more stylish arrival.
Passengers admire panache, and it certainly must help an airlines bottom line to have happy passengers.

It is a concern to me that experienced airline pilots can't land consistently without wasting runway.:ugh:

[Courtney Mil]

Yeah, quite. But it's not "SOP" apparently.

[sapco2]

Whether you're flying a military machine or if you've moved on to fly civil airliners just operate the aircraft in accordance with your SOP's. Don't get an inflated opinion of yourself - exercise good CRM and enjoy the job would be my humble advice!

[airborne_artist]

Four pages on whether the numbers are for landing on? Fly rotary - they might be ugly, but this is one topic that won't ever be discussed in a rotary crewroom.;)

[Courtney Mil]

Oh, don't get me started on CRM. Over-stuffed psychobabble all of it. In any aircraft, someone's in charge and the rest just do as they're told!

[Courtney Mil]

AA. Spot on, Mate. You guys just land exactly where you need to. Who needs runways, eh?

[Tourist]

What is this constant harking on about "SOPs" as if they in some way a substitute for basic flying skills?

Sure, they have their place for the green trainee, but do you seriously expect an experienced and competent poler to use "SOPs" rather than his own hard developed techniques.:=

No wonder pay and conditions in the airline world are dropping so fast if the pilots lack even the self respect to maintain basic standards of arrival panache.

[Courtney Mil]

Perhaps, Tourist, it's all the bollaux CRM chatter going on on the flight deck that distracts the handling pilot.

Are you guys really still doing CRM or are you just paying lip service to it like the RAF did? Aviation by committee, isn't it? I never yet had a problem with 'cross-cockpit gradeint or lack of airborne fluffiness.

[sapco2]

You'll learn guys.... But hopefully not the hard way!

[Tourist]

Sapco2

I'm trying to think of a nice way to put this.

As a civvy pilot, and considering the company you are in on this forum, it is pretty arrogant to come on here and tell us how to fly.

[sapco2]

Excuse me tourist but I thought this was about why commercial pilots don't land on the numbers... I wouldnt dream of dictating an alternative landing policy for the RAF but nor should you when it comes to Civilian SOPs. if you had a single ounce of common sense you would know the reasons why and in any case the reasons have been adequately explained by others yet are still treating this as some sort of contest. That's a very dangerous game to play IMHO!

[Lord Spandex Masher]

As skill develops I imagine that the airlines, just like the military expect the developing pilot to move his aiming point nearer the threshold for a more stylish arrival.

Passengers admire panache, and it certainly must help an airlines bottom line to have happy passengers.

It is a concern to me that experienced airline pilots can't land consistently without wasting runway.:ugh:

Sadly not the case Tourist. FDM will nick you if you're consistently long, short, high, low, fast, slow etc.

It's not not hard to land smoothly and consistently on the numbers, at the 1000' mark or halfway down the tarmac but I must do it the way my employer wants me to otherwise - no more job.

It's not SOP to not land on the numbers but it is a legal requirement that I operate my aircraft within legislation and performance schedules.

Courtney, CRM is most definitely NOT aviation by committee nor is it airborne fluffiness. It is common sense, communication and information gathering which allows the commander to make an effective decision. It's not always required. It is however, a sad indictment that it needs to be taught to some people.

[Dominator2]

As one who served on 55 Sqn one got to seeing pilots from every different military aviation background. Landing is just like many other disciplines in aviation. Some have the abiliity to put an aircraft where they want, and some don't. There is no doubt that landing a Hunter on a 6000ft runway without a chute required a certain skill. Many of our fighter ac have had pathetic brakes and so the pilots have had to land in the right place, consistantly.

"We fight as we train", so teach pilots properly from the outset.

By the way Courtney, you will burn in hell for some of those outrageous comments about CRM and cockpit gradient

[Tourist]

"the reasons have been adequately explained by others "


?!?!?:ooh:

Where?

Yes a 747 is a big plane, but the wheels are only about 110ft behind the pilot.

You want to waste a quarter of the runway for 110ft!?!

[sapco2]

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[BEagle]

Courtney, you little bugger, weren't you once an IRE? In which case you should know the answer to the question posed on this thread, as you should have been able to teach it to others.

Top tip - remember where the 'PAR touchdown' point was, even in an F-4..... Also, note the vertical difference between pilot eye height and the lowest part of the aeroplane when compared between a Captain Speaking people tube and a fast-jet - and the associated minimum Threshold Crossing Height. Then convert it to a 2.5° or 3° glidesope.....

Some self-opinionated tw@t of a baby Sqn Ldr once tried to land a VC10 on the numbers at Akrotiri and ended up touching down short, almost destroying the approach end barrier in the process. He hoped that everyone would keep quiet about it - but the word got to the ears of the OCU who subsequently debriefed him somewhat positively.

[5aday]

Tourist -

what a load of self opinionated garbage.

[Tourist]

Whilst you are devoid of opinions......?:hmm:

[Easy Street]

Found this pic of Courtney on t'web; he's been a busy boy on this and the Harrier thread :)

http://www.anglersmail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/LeighGardner.jpg

[500N]

Easy Street.

You beat me to it ;)

I can't remember the name of them but they look like those
fish that are really easy to catch.

[haltonapp]

I'm very grateful that I never had to fly with someone like Courtney Mil or anyone else who knows so little about flying large aeroplanes! Attempting to put a jumbo on the numbers would probably mean you leave your tyres on the approach lights, what a plonker!

[orca]

I think it's just a 'crypto' thing chaps.

If you have the fighter crypto in you see every day as a reason to go upside down, you smell the burning fuel and your pulse picks up - not because you're about to fly, but because it's now only a matter of time before someone calls 'Fight's On!'. You like seeing steady numbers in your HUD, but only because you are about to roll in and you have parameters nailed. You would rather turn in for one last merge and 'make up some fuel' on the bingo profile than be the one to cry 'terminate - fuel'. You know that the wind's getting up - but the rule says you fly until it exceeds 40...so you strap on a fighter and join the tumbling mirth. You see every trip through initials as a chance to max perform on the break. And the numbers are there to be hit, just like the centreline.

Why? Because no-one but no-one knows what we do...so we act the part around the aerodrome or at the boat, where the non-initiates can see us. Because it's how we do business. And if we don't do it perfectly, the next guy will - and that means he's won and you've lost. And we don't lose.

On the other hand there are chaps who fly valuable, living and breathing cargo worldwide in straight lines (possibly Great Circles...wasn't paying attention). We are connected only because our day (and night) jobs involve defeating gravity. I have never been part of that community and probably never will. However, because I don't understand them I occasionally chuck the odd spear, and in return they assert that I could never work in their line of business/ company. They're right.

They see me as cavalier. I see them as pitiably dull. But the truth is that we're no more alike than a jet skier and the master of the QE2, joined merely by the medium in which we play.

So to answer the question. They land long because of simple geometry and a safety margin. We land on the numbers because someone told us it was important once, we believed them then and still do.

[Courtney Mil]

Wow, Orca. That was so well put. Hats off to you, fella. I love it.

Now back to the fight.

I'm very grateful that I never had to fly with someone like Courtney Mil or anyone else who knows so little about flying large aeroplanes! Attempting to put a jumbo on the numbers would probably mean you leave your tyres on the approach lights, what a plonker!

You keep missig my point. I'm talking about putting your main wheels on the numbers, not in the approach light. (They're frangible anyway, so who cares it you smack the odd one).

I'm saying, put the main wheels on the numbers, not in the lights or the undershoot. What on earth is wrong with that?

P.S. Don't be too hard about not flying with me. It might have been OK. As long as you didn't insist on anyCRM stuff.

[BBK]

Orca

Your last paragraph summed it exactly. Well done for that. Here's a question for you. On a dark and dirty night going into a tricky airport who would you rather have as your captain? A gung ho pilot who lets his pride get the better of him or an ultra cautious plodder who wimps out and diverts to somewhere safe.

Maybe another way of looking at it is this: the military pilot is paid to take risks whereas the civilian ones are paid not to! I should add that in a previous life I had the pleasure of a couple of trips in RAF fast jets. Impressive stuff to be sure and hats off to those of you who did that for a job. However, I am rather puzzled at the fact that some of you genuinely appear to lack an understanding why the two disciplines are different.

Not Courtney, he's just a member of the PPRUNE angling association;)

BBK

[500N]

"Not Courtney, he's just a member of the PPRUNE angling associationhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif"


I gather a push is on for him to be Chairman based on his
superb performances this season:O
.

[orca]

BBK,

Quite the opposite old chap. I obviously didn't make the point clearly enough but I consider the two to be totally different and only tenuously connected.

Thus it isn't even a valid question to ask who I'd rather have flying...because those of Courtney's (and my) ilk have no place in the cockpit you describe. Of course I would want the professional whose mindset and skills suit the situation.

This is such a simple debate. We like landing on the numbers and in our world feel that if you could, you would. You don't and don't see why you would.

[MightyGem]

Tourist -

what a load of self opinionated garbage.

Aahhh banter. Civvies just don't get it, do they? :E

[500N]

This has to be one of the funniest threads out;)

It's got men on high horses, fisherman, hooks, bait, catch and release,
re bait, re catch ......... :O



Courtney
Someone can obviously do it in a 747

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3085/2758012005_e868bf7b07.jpg

Included to show the other famous photo from the series.
http://nicktumminello.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/0385938.jpg

[Tourist]

Mighty Gem.

No, they don't!

I think it is all obfuscation on their part.

There is no shame in owning up to being unable to land consistently on the correct spot, and then making a concerted attempt to improve, but to hide behind all this "SOPs" blaa is frankly fooling nobody.

"No, I could land on the piano keys if I was allowed, but the SOPs don't let me":yuk:

I only hope they are honest to themselves.

[Courtney Mil]

I think the photos from 500N show that the aircraft can do it and so can some pilots. Or is it just Dutch pilots? Maybe they have different SOPs.

[sapco2]

Looks very impressive Courtney Mill but this is how its supposed to be done... http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/7997/airg.png
It's still a spot landing but in a much safer place - miss the spot then "Go around"... simples!

[Courtney Mil]

There we go! I can't believe you guys didn't just say that you actually MEAN to touchdown there. So it's not just lack of skill, it's deliberate. Why didn't you just say so?

Now, about CRM. If it's not aviation by committee, what is it? How many people does it take to set the correct altimeter setting and to make sure you don't go below the cleared altitude?

[c52]

Should it be any more difficult to fly through Tower Bridge in a small aircraft than to land on the piano keys & centreline? I think it should be easier as you don't have to worry about your speed or exact rate of descent. (I'm no kind of pilot, as you can surely tell).

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Sapco, the circled touchdown target in your pic is actually the aiming point. The touchdown zone starts 150m from the displaced threshold so you're quite within your rights to land there.

Maybe that'll satisfy the gung ho military lot.

Courtney, seeing as we have three altimeters and my arm isn't long enough to reach 'his', it takes two! Although that isn't CRM - but I suspect you already knew that. :D

[sapco2]

Glad we cleared that one up. Your take on CRM reminds me of my old chief pilots definition of CRM, it made me laugh though...
C = Cockpit
R = Resource - the co-pilot
M = Manager - the skipper

[RetiredF4]

On the numbers we do.
Anytime i sit in the SLF compartment and watch a lot of tarmac pass before the wheels hit the ground (yeah "hit" it is most times), one of those
pictures (http://www.google.de/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=871&q=runway+overrun&oq=runway+overrun&gs_l=img.12..0j0i24l4j0i5i24l5.1356.5661.0.8528.14.10.0.4.4. 0.152.1408.0j10.10.0...0.0...1ac.1.e4mDnfvgIq0) cross my mind.

Whats wrong with aiming on the keys and putting it down before them when landing is assured? SOP´s cant be that stupid, can they?

franzl

[wiggy]

Perhaps it's time to provide this thread one of these:

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy-The Point of View Gun - YouTube

[lj101]

Some stats


http://flightsafety.org/files/RERR/ATSB%20Report.pdf

[Tankertrashnav]

On the other hand there are chaps who fly valuable, living and breathing cargo worldwide in straight lines (possibly Great Circles...wasn't paying attention).


I rather think a great circle is a straight line ;)

Don't think you can square a great circle though!

[pontifex]

33 years flying for HM - aim for the numbers or a prudent distance beyond. Become an airline jok, land at the designated touchdown point. Horses for courses. Both techniques demand skill to accomplish accurately and give personal satisfaction in so doing. I suspect that the difference arose because most mil operations end up with visual circuits or, maybe, unimproved strips whereas civies almost always come in via an ILS. Also, dare I say it? military pilots are better trained or, at least, more current in stick and rudder skills so it is prudent to allow civil operators a greater margin of error. I shall now repair to my personal air raid shelter.

[BEagle]

Assuming that you fly a normal approach and observe the minimum 50ft TCH from the lowest dangly bit of your jet, your impact point (in Courtney's case) would be (50/tanGS), where GS is the glideslope angle.

Since only QFIs understand trigonometry, (QWIs only understand triggernometry - not relevant here), I will work it out for you. For a bone-crunching no-flare 2.5° approach it would be 1145 ft from the threshold and for a 3° approach it would be 954 ft.

Airline poofs will try to avoid injury claims, hence flare their landings rather more than Courtney ever did, so will touchdown slightly further down the RW. Or rather a lot further in some of the cases in lj101's reference....and in the case of a certain BAe 146 at Islay on 29 Jun 1994, very considerably further...:ooh: But then one was 30 kt hot with a 12 kt tailwind behind one.....:\

[Courtney Mil]

Oh my God! Peace has broken out here! Hurrah!!!

Pontifex, you say the nicest things.

BEagle, 'Triggernometry'! Love it. Sums, not so much fun. But it all begs the next question, if I flew a 3° ILS approach, I could still adjust my touchdown point in the bit between DH and the runway to land on the numbers. So just as I had stopped fishing for the afternoon, I now need to ask why can't everyone?

Answer requires diagrams and big formulas. :E

[hval]

Courtney,

I bet you would have caused me to spill my G&T, the one stashed on the starboard side, to the left of the canopy rail and to the right of the upper instrument panel (where you stashed the maps and data cards), you now where that lovely lever which matched the yellow one on the port side; those handles which were great to hang on to if you braked to hard on landing. :}

[Courtney Mil]

Spill a G&T. That's alcohol abuse, old chap! Anyway, didn't the cateres always put the drinkies in those handy little bottles? I don't recall ever spilling one. I do remember that beer at altitude was a bad idea; foam everywhere.

[Dominator2]

This is the way to arrive at an airport. No problem stopping - lots of flair and panache but no flare!!
Welcome to Facebook - Log In, Sign Up or Learn More (http://www.facebook.com/groups/389719607763196/#!/photo.php?fbid=3296987282317&set=o.389719607763196&type=1&theater)

[BEagle]

But it all begs the next question, if I flew a 3° ILS approach, I could still adjust my touchdown point in the bit between DH and the runway to land on the numbers.

At DH you would have a horizontal distance of 3816ft from the 3° touchdown point 954 ft into the RW, or in other words you would be 2862ft out from the threshold. The centre of the numbers is 320ft in from the threshold, so you would need to increase your descent angle by some 20% to achieve an inv tan 200/3182 descent angle of 3.6°, crossing the threshold at only 20 ft.....:uhoh:

As did someone (not me) in an FGR2 with 12th stage selected... Close throttles, lose the blow, high RoD, upper chevron, handful of smash....too late and the resulting crunch short of the threshold earned him a no tea/no biscuits chat with BarSteward Bill and a one-way ticket to METS.....:uhoh:

[Courtney Mil]

Oh yes, BEags. Never close the throttles in anything with BLC before the finely judged, gentle arrival. Good reminder, I'm in the sim later this month.

[wiggy]

I could still adjust my touchdown point in the bit between DH and the runway to land on the numbers. So just as I had stopped fishing for the afternoon, I now need to ask why can't everyone?

Oh flip, now were on to justifying stabilised approaches.:eek:

Basically most of the airlines insist on being one being fully configured , "in the slot" vertically, with approach power set at 1000 feet at the latest ....and also insist that's how you should aim to stay, with only minor corrections allowed, right down to the flare.......

A dirty dive for the runway at 200 feet is yet another trigger for a no tea, no biscuits interview....

I tell you, we only do this job for the glamour, :oh: we certainly don't do for the fun of pulling the wings off the jet..........

[Tourist]

I think I know the real reason for the civvy landing position.

If you let the autopilot fly the ILS and then bang it out at DH, the aircraft will continue without pilot intervention pretty much to the funny marks on civvy runways.

It avoids having to actually fly the aircraft!

Far better to modify with a little duck-under in the later stages to finesse a piano key finish.

[Miles Magister]

Beags has made a good point. However being one who understands trigonometry, I see many pilots who think the touch down point is the aiming point. they then flare near the touchdown point and land even further down the runway and stand on the brakes!

[Courtney Mil]

From the document that lj101 posted at the top of this page, one of the factors cited for running off the end of the runway is

landing too fast, too far down the runway, or conducting an extended flare

Damn it. What started as a wind-up is now becoming real!:sad:

[hval]

First solution could be to replace that big Airbus with five hundred two seat fighter aircraft and associated pilot; why not the F4? Just don't let Courtney Mill fly you, he spills drinks.

Second solution would be to extend all runways by a few kilometres.

Oh yes, I forgot. Passengers would have to travel light.

[Courtney Mil]

Passengers would have to travel light

Ah ha! So that's why I'm only allowed 3kg of baggage and only 100ml of 'medicine' on board. If the pilots were better, I could take more luggage!

And don't tell me it's about fuel because I can prove it's not!

[hval]

It is about fuel if you fly with Ryan Air :E

Mods, this is a joke.

[Courtney Mil]

It's not fuel.

Actually, with Ryan Air it's definitately not about fuel. It's about hiding costs and making their basic fare look cheap in the hope that passengers don't realise that it would be cheaper to go with BA than to pay for all their extras.

I know it's not about fuel.

[Fareastdriver]

I could still adjust my touchdown point in the bit between DH and the runway to land on the numbers. So just as I had stopped fishing for the afternoon, I now need to ask why can't everyone?


Because they do what they are paid to do.

Military pilots, civilian pilots and Bankok bar girls are paid to do what the employer wants them do to using there skill and experience. They are not there to do what they want to do. Any of the three professions would get the heave-ho if they start doing their own thing and ignoring the paymaster.

Military pilots do it on the piano, civil on the touchdown; bar girls can do it anywhere.

[Courtney Mil]

Terribly unfair. Most Thai bar girls are very nice young ladies. And I've never done it on a piano.

[Fareastdriver]

That's because they are paid to be very nice young ladies; if they're not very nice young ladies they don't get paid.

[BEagle]

Most Thai bar girls are very nice young ladies.

Until closer inspection reveals that not all is quite as you might think, eh Courtney...:E

Please don't tell me that you demean yourself by flying on Mikey-the-Pikey's horrible excuse for an airline? Surely you have some standards?

[Courtney Mil]

I wouldn't fly on either of the two airlines that shall not be mentioned if they were the last airlines on earth. Mustn't mention their names here. Neither EasyJet nor Ryan Air shall be mentioned. Oh, no. Never.

[Courtney Mil]

Until closer inspection reveals that not all is quite as you might think, eh Courtney

Hey, that never happened. And even if it did, anyone can make a mistake, OK? And she swore she would never tell, so you're just fishing now.

[BEagle]

She, Courtney, 'she'.....:eek:???

This is priceless - thanks to this thread, the stupid PPRuNe advert-suggester is coming up with 'Me ruvv you big time' LBFM dating sites.....

[Tankertrashnav]

I suspect that the difference arose because most mil operations end up with visual circuits


Which sometimes used to go on

and on

and on

and on

with the guys down the back praying to hear the words "land & stream".

One of the hazards of flying with the squadron QFI ;)

[BEagle]

Which sometimes used to go on

and on

and on

and on



But which were infinitely less tedious than hours doing night astro bore-ex legs....:confused: Particularly when the lower deck directional consultants had dreamed up some esoteric 2-sextant 7-shot sandwich fixing nonsense. We co-piglets soon learned which ones to cock up with a spoof "Three, two, one...now - one minute to astro!" call....:E

Long live Uncle Garmin!

[Courtney Mil]

Yeah. Early days on the F4 some pilots, not me of course, would occassionally get a hard time from a nav about flying slightly through the centreline or being 'ON Plus 15' downwind or some such fatal error whilst flyiing a circuit. But try to practice a bit to make the circuits better and woah! Chants of "Bar's open", "Bar's closing", "I'm not paid overtime", etc. Just can't win sometimes.

Anyway, thankfully CRM hadn't been invented then so it wasn't a problem.

Having said that, I wonder what the reaction would be when the Airliner Captain announces,

"We're due to arrive at London Heathrow 15 minutes ahead of schedule, the weather is fine and temperature this evening is a pleasant 13 degrees. As we're here early, the First Officer is going to fly a couple of circuits before we finally land. He's new, so please don't be alarmed if you notice the odd deviation from the company SOPs. We thank you for flying Yorkshire Airlines and wish you every success in future lives."

[BEagle]

As we're here early, the First Officer is going to fly a couple of circuits before we finally land....

Back in the 1950s, the late John 'Farmer' Steele, an A1 trapper, happy Hunter mate and good family friend was on his way back from Paris to Blackbushe at a somewhat sedate pace in a Viking, having been to watch the rugby international. Peering out of the window as they coasted in over southern England, he was rather surprised to note that one engine was in the process of being shut down....

Making his way to the flight deck, he enquired as to what was going on. "Nothing wrong with the kite, old boy; haven't done a single engined approach for ages, so thought I might as well take the opportunity", replied some magnificently bewhiskered ex-Bomber Command captain, with an impressive chestful of medal ribbons.

"Hmm", muttered JS and returned to his seat. "Stewardess, another horse's neck please - and make it a large one if you would!"....

[pontifex]

TTN

You DID fly with me then!

[Fareastdriver]

On the old Valiant the minimum fuel for arrival was 10,000 lbs. One was supposed to use up half of it bashing the circuit until about 4,000 lbs remained.
However, landing with fuel in the underwings was prohibited so to this end they were ventilated by jettioning the dregs just before the descent. Sometimes the dregs were quite spectacular; leaving a trail of fuel for several miles. Some co-pilots, I plead the Fifth Amendment, were known to store as much fuel as possible in the underwings, especially on a Friday. just to make sure.

We used to have a lot of happy bunnies in the back.

[Pontius Navigator]

FED, on the Vulcan there were two sets of fuel guages. One 'managed' by the copilot and the others monitored by all the rear crew.

Oddly the ones in the back always under read the ones in the front by 2,000lbs when fuel remaining reduced to 10k.

On one sortie, late at night as there was a general view of one up all up, our guest AEO asked 'final landing' at which point our skipper announced 'into visuals'.

Arriving at Ops in the crew bus the AEO asked why he had gone in to visuals as he didn't need the stats (smart AEO had checked pre-flight). 'Because I felt like it,' replied the skipper.

Whop, as the skipper received one on his nose 'why dun yu du that?'

'Because I felt like it.'

[Herod]

We thank you for flying Yorkshire Airlines Wouldn't be seen dead doing circuits at Heathrow. After a bit of "training" at Yeadon the FO would have been able to land anywhere. Besides, early into LHR would mean early out, and back for a pint of Tetleys before the bar closed. ;)

[Tankertrashnav]

TTN

You DID fly with me then!


Never flew with a safer pair of hands :ok:

(although I do blame my piles on said circuit bashing ;))

[Neptunus Rex]

Courtney Mil
Ah ha! So that's why I'm only allowed 3kg of baggage and only 100ml of 'medicine' on board.The trick is to buy some 100 ml plastic bottles and label them: "mouthwash; deodorant; after-shave; shampoo; conditioner." Pack them in the 'approved' size plastic see-through bag for easy inspection by those helpful folks in security.

You can fill each one with your favourite single malt, thus having half a litre of Islay's finest within easy reach to savour and enjoy at any point on your journey.

[Ron Cake]

TTN

Bored with vis circiuts, eh? As I recall, not all Nav Rads stuck around for them.

On Vulcans and, I think, on Victors we somtimes landed and taxiied round to pick up a replacement pilot who needed a few circuits for a night check or some other 'tick in the box' The departing pilot would be closely followed by the Nav Rad, who, deciding it was not for him, would slope off to the Mess leaving the four man crew to get on with it.

Strange, I never recall a Plotter taking the chance to opt out of extra circuits.

[BEagle]

On 35 sqn, we had a Nav Plotter who would undo his straps, pack up his astrolabe, quadrant staff and lodestone immediately after landing, then unplug from the intercom. As soon as we were on chocks and the door was opened, he'd be out like a flash....and off to the line hut for a smoke.

So one night we hatched a plot. We planned to land, taxy to some far part of the north side of the aerodrome and pretend to park...then leave him to his own devices in the dark whilst we taxyed round to Foxtrot. The players were duly briefed, but unfortunately the jet went tits-up on crew-in, so we never did get the chance to abandon 'Animal' (for 'twas he) in the dark...:*

We certainly did have a Nav Radar who didn't take much interest in circuit flying. After one roller on RW23, the Captain elected for an internal aids approach..... "Co to conference", called the AEO. "The bugger's sleeping!", he told me. I told the Captain off-intercom, who had a quiet word with Binbrook on the other box as we set off downwind.....

As the North Sea came into view, the Captain quietly asked "Are you going to turn us in soon, Radar?". Then repeated it rather louder - and the AEO reached over and tapped him on the arm with the Plotter's nav rule. "Huh? Eh? What did you say, Captain". "I asked you when you were going to turn us in on this internal aids approach....there seems to be some large built up area ahead - I think it's Grimsby!".

As indeed it was. Sleeping Beauty suddenly realised that we were about 18 miles downwind at 2000 ft. It took him a while to live that one down!

[Courtney Mil]

BEags,

Write a book. But this time you can miss out the QFI equations. :cool:

Beagle's Flies Unplugged or something.

[mysterywhiteboy83]

So in summary to my original question..... You are/were all just doing what you were told? Haha.

I have enjoyed the thread though, decent banter. Hopefully one day i will be able to join in from the Engineering perspective and tell you all that you will all fly/land within the parameters which I set and so I'm the daddy ;)

[Courtney Mil]

Just engineer the runway to have the piano keys and numbers 1000 feet in. Then everyone will be happy! :cool:

[MightyGem]

This is priceless - thanks to this thread, the stupid PPRuNe advert-suggester is coming up with 'Me ruvv you big time' LBFM dating sites.....
Get an ad-blocker then. Simples.

[Courtney Mil]

And I've started getting emails from a 'lady' in Bangkok!

[Fareastdriver]

Strange, I never recall a Plotter taking the chance to opt out of extra circuits.

Bomber Command circuits were so big that he knew he would be needed to get the aircraft back onto finals.

[BEagle]

And I've started getting emails from a 'lady' in Bangkok!

S(H)emails? :suspect:

"Ahh Courtneeee! Me so horneeee!! Me ruvv you rong time!!" :ooh:

[Courtney Mil]

It's so hard to tell, BEags.

[hval]

Courtlee,

Ficky ficky, five dollar, Sing.

[hval]

Or, as I once got in a hotel in Brunei: -

Day 1 - You won girl? -

No thank you

Day 2 - You won girl?

No thank you

Day 3 - You Wont girl?

NO!

Day 4 - You Won boy?

???&^£$@@@

[Tankertrashnav]

Well, did you? ;)

[hval]

Well, did you? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

That would be telling. I wasn't the one who ended up in a hotel room with a ladyboy after having been snogging with them for half an hour. That person came down stairs fairly rapidly once realisation dawned upon him.

[500N]

Should have done the old "Crocodile Dundee" test :O

(Squirrel grip placed on a tranny in the Bar scene in the movie
for those that haven't seen it !)

.

[BSweeper]

Taken from
Operational Landing Distance

by Thomas Bos (Dutch - ALPA)

Threshold Crossing Height and Touchdown Dispersion
As discussed previously manufacturer data is normally based on a threshold crossing height of 50 ft and a touchdown point that may not be achievable in line operations. The actual crossing height over the threshold will depend on a lot of factors such as the positioning of the aiming point, the accuracy of the guidance used (precision versus non-precision), the glidepath angle, PAPI / ILS alignment, calibration reference for visual slope indications, aircraft type and last but not least piloting accuracy and missed approach criteria.

For a 3 degree glidepath the effect of a higher threshold crossing height is best illustrated by the following figure:

https://www.vnv-dalpa.nl/files/img/landing.gif

Another complicating factor is the actual position of the aiming point. ICAO Annex 14 contains the requirements for the runway markings:
https://www.vnv-dalpa.nl/files/img/markings.gif

For runways longer than 2400 meters the touchdown zone has a total length of 900 meters and the aiming point markings are located 400 meters beyond the threshold. This means that when touching down at the aiming point the landing distance is increased by 95 meters as compared to a 1000 ft (305 m) reference. When a touchdown would occur at the end of the touchdown zone the landing distance would increase by 595 meters. Runways with a length between 1500 m and 2400 m should have a touchdown zone with a length of 600 m and aiming point markers 300 meters beyond the threshold.
An important thing to consider here is the fact that ICAO Annex 14 prescribes the minimum distance from the threshold and an IFALPA survey indicates that in reality things may be quite different. As an example it was found that for Charles de Gaulle airport all aiming point distances exceed 400 m and the aiming points for runways 27L and 27R actually exceed 500 m.
FAA research has confirmed that actual air distances may exceed the current assumptions used in the manufacturer advisory landing distance tables for dry and wet runways*. The FAA research shows the effect of pilot motivation and glideslope/runway intercept on the actual air distance achieved in service. The figures below present this air distance for two airports: Washington National (6869 ft / 2094 m runway) and London Heathrow (12743 ft / 3884 m runway) with glideslope/runway intercept points of 1000 ft / 305 m and 1157 ft / 353 m respectively. When the data is reviewed it appears that when the runway is shorter and has approach guidance that results in a shorter aiming point the flight crew will put the airplane on the runway sooner (in less distance).




Just to get this thread back to the subject of an ATPL wind up (ladyboys in Bangkok, really now), I found the above which clearly shows that civil pilots are "required" to hit a TD point way along the runway compared to that of punchy Courtney and his ilk. Its not their fault at all.

I also guess a military pilot gets more manual landings in a single sortie than an ATPL gets in a year. In which case, I wouldn't want them to try to hit the numbers when I'm a few feet behind them.

And I say all this having practical experience of hitting the undershoot :eek: at Yeovilton in an F4 by 20ft (and I got just as much blame as the pilot).

[sapco2]

There were certainly some gaping knowledge gaps (the likes of Tourist for example) which raised a few eyebrows amongst us, thankfully though there were some true experts (the likes of Beagle) who were able to restore one's faith in the Royal Air Force training system!

[hval]

Do you guys keep your eyes open when landing? I actually close mine and kind of hope to hit the numbers.

[Herod]

My standard brief included "wake me prior to touchdown, but only if it's my landing". ;)

[Fareastdriver]

"You fly the first leg; I'll fly the second; unless I doze off, in which case you're flying the second leg as well,"