Thrust on during flare...Q for AIRBUS test pilots...

[luvmuhud]

Any Airbus test pilots out there?

I've noticed quite a few pilots in my company who, when flying a manual thrust approach, will leave thrust on during the flare after noticing sink or turbulence approaching the flare…sometimes resulting in either floating, or a firm landing.

Is there ANY reason to leave thrust on during the flare? Can you confirm that correct technique is to use thrust to compensate (aggressively if required) for a sudden sink approaching the flare, but not to maintain thrust on during the entire flare maneuver? This results in 3 or 4 "RETARD" calls.

[nitpicker330]

You'll feel it in your bum and see it out the window, if you feel that you need thrust in the flare then do it.

Remember that in a Jet Pitch controls Sink rate and thrust controls Speed.

So, if the A/C is sinking too much at say 100' you will need to pull back to arrest the sink and THEN add thrust to stop the speed decay. If it's big enough you will need to keep the thrust on all the way to touchdown and then close the thrust.

One problem, not adding thrust will require the pitch attitude to be higher than normal to arrest the sink thus a tail strike is possible in extreme situations. Watch out. Sometimes in extreme undershoot shears it could require a lot of thrust to arrest the sink, in that case I'd strongly suggest a missed approach be conducted even if you touch down.

In a A/THR approach the A/THR will obviously add the thrust for you, all be it a little slowly for some!! ( another story )

On a normal stabilized landing in the A330 you'll need to close the thrust levers as you commence the flare otherwise it won't land!!

[misd-agin]

Glad we final have the answer to the whole thrust vs pitch discussion.

Question - on the descent today I increased the thrust. Speed remain constant but our rate of descent was reduced. Should we have written the jet up?

[BOAC]

Don't think he has heard of CFS...................:)

[gums]

See the Habsheim discussion about thrust and AoA and speed for controlling flight path.

[luvmuhud]

CFS…Country Fire Service or Central Flying School??:} (I've been to one of them)

String through the ears…one hand goes forward, one hand goes back…right!!??!

I'm not referring to making adjustments to flight path for sink…I'm referring to maintaining thrust on during the flare. There seems to be a tendency to avoid seeing VLS at all costs. (Which incidentally, is maybe why many will choose manual thrust when landing in turbulence…Airbus auto thrust is designed to maintain speed from -5 to +10kts, but if some guys see VLS, they seem to think the jet is about to fall out of the sky!).

The A330 flies like a glider compared to other jets I've flown, so I don't see any reason to deviate from the tried and true technique of closing the thrust levers as the flare is commenced, unless compensating for very late sink (string through the ears). If correct landing technique is used (look to the far end of the runway at the commencement of the flare), any unusual sink can be picked up (unless you are in Hong Kong and can't see the other end of the runway!) and compensated for with slightly higher flare attitude and a slight delay in closing the thrust levers.


Again…any LONG COURSE TEST PILOTS who can confirm if there is a reason to keep thrust on during flare in an A330?

[737Jock]

There is not one single recipe for every situation. Your question needs some serious rethinking.

For a trainee pilot: do what the FCTM tells you to do, and finetune it as you get more experienced.
For experienced pilots: fly the aircraft

Most of jets have the main landing gear well behind the center of gravity, thus the landing gear is behind the pivoting point. So you can easily drive the landing gear onto the runway when pitching up close to the ground.

Even with autothrust you will need to vary the height at which you put the thrust levers to idle.

Oh Yeah and Vapp with manual thrust = Vls according to airbus in zero wind.

[DutchOne]

The A330 flies like a glider compared to other jets I've flown, so I don't see any reason to deviate from the tried and true technique of closing the thrust levers as the flare is commenced

Hot and/or high ops with a gusty head wind. Just to have enough energy to have THREE smooth touch downs. If not, then you might want to watch your nose.

[nitpicker330]

misd again--- very appropriate user name my friend.

Yes you increased thrust on descent? Mmmmm and the relevance is?

[nitpicker330]

Well I'll tell you AGAIN..

Yes normally on a stabilized landing you will need to close the thrust at the beginning of the flare, that's normal and sometimes the speed may decay to VLS before touchdown.....ok I think we are agreed on that.

There are times during a late low level undershoot sinking shear you may need to leave the thrust on until touchdown to prevent speed decay, especially below VLS.......ok

That's the ONLY time I leave thrust on late in the flare......ok

It's not rocket science.....

[Capn Bloggs]

Remember that in a Jet Pitch controls Sink rate and thrust controls Speed.

So, if the A/C is sinking too much at say 100' you will need to pull back to arrest the sink and THEN add thrust to stop the speed decay. If it's big enough you will need to keep the thrust on all the way to touchdown and then close the thrust.
Got a job for you. Take over our jet induction course and teach them properly! :D

"Always remember and forever take heed: left hand for glidepath and right hand for speed!" (Reverse for first officers).

[nitpicker330]

Hey he asked, don't have a cheap shot at me for trying to answer him by using pretty basic stuff.

One wonders why he had to ask but if I take him at face value it was apparently about why do some guys get upset if the speed falls in the flare and insist on delaying idle thrust......

My answer was correct and inferred basic handling abilities and seat of the pants instinct.......

[Capn Bloggs]

don't have a cheap shot at me for trying to answer him by using pretty basic stuff.
Not having a shot, I'm agreeing with you 100%. :ok:

[nitpicker330]

Fair enough.....all good

[de facto]

There are times during a late low level undershoot sinking shear you may need to leave the thrust on until touchdown to prevent speed decay, especially below VLS.......ok
I thought proper thrust at proper place was part of a stabilised approach..
Sink sink thrust thrust bounce bounce go around.:E

[nitpicker330]

Yes that's where the "aviate" part comes in, you decide how bad it is........before it gets to bounce bounce go around...:ok:

[NoodleAir]

Quote
"Remember that in a Jet Pitch controls Sink rate and thrust controls Speed."

Maybe I've been through all the wrong trainings, instructors, career, everything…

But last time I checked, IN JET AIRCRAFT, pitch controls speed, then we control flightpath with thrust.
I dont recall any Boeing manuals (or Airbus for the sake of this thread) teaching it differently. Our military background friends with AoA experience will certainly confirm the same.

This can be a VERY long discussion of course (Pitch or power etc etc) but regarding your specific question relative to flare, your experience will prove that in order to arrest descent, you add thrust. The reason you pitch up is to bleed off excess speed during flare.

If you are coming down fast (on VS rates that is) and you pitch up without adding thrust, you'll probably have an unpleasant experience.

Anyway, thats the way I've seen it happening, medium and heavy jets for 20 years +, but as always, I just might have been lucky, doing it the wrong way all this time and getting away with it.

Personal advice, keeping some thrust in, or adding a short burst during flare if needed, decreases the required pitch and you touch down smoother (because of the angle of the landing gear compression strut in relation to the horizontal).

There even used to be a term called "the Boeing flare" in the older days (before Airbus), where the pilot would pitch the nose over momentarily during flare in order to "grease it". Different wings too, I know.

Nowadays of course, pilots care too much about flying the numbers, making a big fuss for keeping 1 knot over Vref+5. I still keep Vref+10 min and fly a manual approach almost always, so flare is hardly ever an issue.
Nobody got hurt for carrying 5 extra knots, remind yourself to remain a pilot and refuse to become an accountant.

I know there will be comments but at my age, I can take them. Fire on…..

[Capt Claret]

But last time I checked, IN JET AIRCRAFT, pitch controls speed,

So next time I want to takeoff I should line up and lower the nose to accelerate down the runway? :}

It's no different for prop driven aeroplanes, either. :8

[de facto]

Is Pitch+Thrust=Performance ok for everyone?:p

[NoodleAir]

Are you "flying" when you are accelerating down the runway mate?

Tell us about your experience without any childish comments. Unless you are only an armchair pilot.

I admire your sense of humor…….. you must be a very popular guy:}

[Lord Spandex Masher]

If you are coming down fast (on VS rates that is) and you pitch up without adding thrust, you'll probably have an unpleasant experience.

Generally, if you do one without the other then you could end up having a bad day. They both go hand in hand and they can both do the others job.

For the OP - if you need it, use it.

[de facto]

I still keep Vref+10 min and fly a manual approach almost always, so flare is hardly ever an issue.

It shouldnt even starting from Vref with a standard technique.
You keep +10 kts for your mum?to keep a safety buffer on your flying skills,to keep your FO "speed low" at bay or because you enjoy floating?:E
Tongue in cheek mate:p

[Capn Bloggs]

This can be a VERY long discussion of course (Pitch or power etc etc) but regarding your specific question relative to flare, your experience will prove that in order to arrest descent, you add thrust. The reason you pitch up is to bleed off excess speed during flare.

Armchair pilot eh? The reason you pitch up during landing is so you don't hit the ground too hard!! Watch a few Youtube videos and note the nose coming up a bit just before touchdown... that's not the power making that happen. :hmm:

[NoodleAir]

defacto, you should try it before commenting in such a manner.

You never "float" when you fly the aircraft all the way down. You float when you carry excess speed and then try to bleed off before touchdown.

If you keep the speed where you want it in order to keep your pitch angle at your desired number, then thrust controls your rate of descent. You always touch right where you want to, and always smoother than when you keep Vref.

Are you saying that the aircraft cannot land and it will float because you're doing 150 instead of 140? Its the AoA that makes you float. Flaring for speed is also the reason for almost all tail strikes.

Don't try playing it smart mate, keep your tongue in your cheek.
Try giving us your explanation of how this works instead. The way you would have taught this guy that asked the original question.

Lord Spandex, I agree. Both go hand in hand.

Bloggs, so if you would add thrust and keep your pitch you hit hard? I don't watch youtube to learn how to fly son. It is the power that makes it happen. Pitch is only for speed. You can keep the same pitch, same speed, and climb out before touchdown. Its all in the trust levers.

[nitpicker330]

Well I don't know who taught you to fly Jets mate but I was taught 30 years ago that Thrust controls the speed ( just like the Autothrust does on a coupled approach, the Autothrust is in SPEED mode isn't it??????) and Pitch controls the sink ( ie keeps the G/S )Naturally they go hand in hand as one effects the other and yes you could reverse the two if you feel that way BUT that's not the way Boeing and Airbus designed the machine to be flown.

Copy from the A330 FCTM:---

USE OF A/THR
The pilot should use the A/THR for approaches as it provides accurate speed control. The pilot will keep the hand on the thrust levers so as to be prepared to react if needed.

Who teaches these guys anyway????????????:mad:

[NoodleAir]

So you pitch for path and use thrust for your speed, right?

And you say that you've been flying jets for 30 years……:}
Maybe props, if not only sims.

I know its the oldest argument in the book but still, you have to be a bit more careful with you comments.

Regarding the A/T modes, what tems Boeing is using is totally irrelevant to the basic principles of flying we are discussing here.

I would suggest you buy a classic book, like Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, and try studying again what controls what in large jet aircraft.

Go on, keep it coming.

[nitpicker330]

Whatever you say buddy boy.:bored:

I've managed to cope for quite a while now thanks after learning my trade from highly experienced training Captains trained by Boeing. I appreciate your concern though!!

The basics we all use are as I've said above, feel free to do otherwise if it makes you happy.:{

I Haven't fired up XPlane for a while now, might see if it still works although the DVD drive is playing up a bit.

I only have 384 hours on F50's if that helps ya? The rest of my experience is on Boeing and Bus...

Oh and that FCTM quote was from AIRBUS not Boeing.....and the modes I quoted were Airbus as well. If you flew either of these you would know the difference.

[Capn Bloggs]

You float when you carry excess speed and then try to bleed off before touchdown.
but then...
Are you saying that the aircraft cannot land and it will float because you're doing 150 instead of 140? Its the AoA that makes you float.
No, it's the (excess) speed that makes you float if you used the "normal" landing attitude: you flared/pulled to the normal landing AoA. Going fast? Flare Less. Going slow? Flare more. If you have to do a massive flare, jam on power as well to stop the speed reducing below your normal landing speed. Go Around if looking shaky.

Bloggs, so if you would add thrust and keep your pitch you hit hard?
Seen it time and again. Aircraft falls into a hole, FO jams on power to save it, bang. Spoolup time too slow, didn't pull the stick back a bit. Then what happens (if we don't touch down) is we end up fast as the thrust kicks in and landing long. The secondary effect of controls will always ensure that eventually the downward thrust vector will change the flight path if you give it enough time.

I don't watch youtube to learn how to fly son.
Perhaps you should, old man. I can't believe you actually think that the nose coming up before touchdown (the flare manoeuvre) is caused by a power increase. I'll second Nitpicker's question; who's training you?

[NoodleAir]

I can read all right.

384 hours. Very precise. Probably recent too and most probably not any on Boeing or Airbus.
"You all use"? Who are you all? Being part of many that do it the wrong way doesn't mean it makes it right sonny.

Read this book I told you and then re-read your "authority" comments on jet control. It will keep you laughing for hours……

Bloggs, I never said that the nose comes up because of power. Try to read the comment thoroughly. I said it doesn't even need to come up. I like the comments on the age. Shows your attitude. I am sure it will help you a lot in the future.

Its a pity you were trained the wrong landing technique. But its never too late to learn the correct one. Thats what makes you a good pilot, always learning.

[nitpicker330]

I'm shaking my head Bloggsy?????? I'm at a loss for words to describe what he says mainly because I don't understand it....:eek:

Please tell me he doesn't command anything serious?

Yes 384 on the F50's in Australia before being upgraded to the 733 way back in 1988. Problem with me knowing that?? I'm not that old my memory is going!!

Think I bought a copy of Aerodynamics for a Naval aviators back in 1982 when I did my ATPL subjects? Heavy reading.

Handling the Big Jets is another good read, perhaps you have read it? Perhaps you SHOULD read it.

[vilas]

NoodleAir
There is not doubt that you flare to reduce ROD (change flight path). You do not add thrust, now depending on your ROD in last 100 feet you may flare early and also hold on to thrust till you are sure that the ROD is reduced sufficiently and then bring thrust to idle. If this is not good enough then you should go around. That is as far as landing is concerned.

[Capn Bloggs]

From a 2009 737 NG FCTM:

When the threshold passes under the airplane nose and out of sight, shift the visual sighting point to the far end of the runway. Shifting the visual sighting point assists in controlling the pitch attitude during the flare. Maintaining a constant airspeed and descent rate assists in determining the flare point. Initiate the flare when the main gear is approximately 20 feet above the runway by increasing pitch attitude approximately 2° - 3°. This slows the rate of descent.

After the flare is initiated, smoothly retard the thrust levers to idle, and make small pitch attitude adjustments to maintain the desired descent rate to the runway. Ideally, main gear touchdown should occur simultaneously with thrust levers reaching idle. A smooth thrust reduction to idle also assists in controlling the natural nose-down pitch change associated with thrust reduction. Hold sufficient back pressure on the control column tokeep the pitch attitude constant.

[NoodleAir]

You can fly the book.

I can fly the plane.

Read the book I told you, most of the Boeing test and certification pilots have used it for their whole career.
Then we can talk on the techniques and what is exactly you disagree with in my comments.

[nitpicker330]

Blah blah blah, he said, she said etc etc..

My Dick is bigger than yours etc etc ( I do suspect you have a big watch )

Your technique is WRONG.

unless of course we don't understand what it is you are trying to say??

Perhaps explain to the world exactly how you control the approach and what you do to flare the a/c? Point out to me the error in my ways......

[Capn Bloggs]

Noodle, you've lost it.

You said:
but regarding your specific question relative to flare, your experience will prove that in order to arrest descent, you add thrust.
and then you said:
I never said that the nose comes up because of power. Try to read the comment thoroughly. I said it doesn't even need to come up.
How then do you explain that every reasonable landing has the nose pitching up a couple of degrees? If this power increase of yours to arrest descent is not the reason, then what causes it??

You would be well advised to do some flying with Vilas. You need some staightening out on a few fundamentals... :ok:

I like the comments on the age. Shows your attitude.
You started it. I very much doubt I'm young enough to be your son...

[NoodleAir]

I am saying -not trying to say- that when you say that you control your path in a jet by pointing your nose up or down, then you are not entitled to comment on this thread.
Not in any helpful way at least.

You are lacking elementary knowledge and obviously, experience.

It is a free forum, you can say whatever you want and jump into discussions way too deep for you, but it is evident that you have no idea how things are in reality.

[nitpicker330]

I guess I won't have to go flying in my 233 tonne A330 on Sunday then.....

Yay, sleep in...:ok:

You still haven't explained your technique for flight path management, speed control and flare to us yet......

Care to try?

Oh an I've read enough of Capn Bloggs posts oven the last years to know he's the real deal, suggest you read some of my previous posts.

[NoodleAir]

Read my posts.

You pitch for your desired airspeed and adjust thrust for desired path.

Simple as that.

Flare needs depend on a thousand different factors. Too complicated for you when you can't even grasp the basics.

Typical Magenda kid. Poor passengers…..

[nitpicker330]

English isn't your first language is it??:D

The word is Magenta...:=

The saying is "sons and daughters of the Magenta line" do you even know what the magenta line is young fella?

I've managed not to bend anything since I started flying in 1979, only 14 more years to retirement!!

When you can match that then come and talk to me....:mad:

[Capn Bloggs]

Whoop Whoop! Windup alert! Whoop Whoop! Noodle Alert! :)

[nitpicker330]

Well I hope he is tongue in cheek Bloggs but I suspect he's serious......

[NoodleAir]

Well, we all knew how this discussion always ends, didn't we….

You are correct, it is Magenta. I am sure you will forgive my spelling mistake.

But it is flying principles we are discussing here, not your personal achievements.

So, pitch for path in your….. A330 it was……?

[nitpicker330]

Yep in the 330 and the 777 I flew and the 744 and the 737 and the F50.

It was different in the Helo I flew, but then again I only did 1 hour in it.....:} great fun, you should try it young fella.:suspect:

Do you have a big watch?

[737Jock]

Seems to be some confusion between Boeing And Airbus guys.

A Boeing is speedstable, thus pitch controls speed. Add thrust nose comes up, decrease thrust nose comes down, as the aircraft is trimmed for speed.

An Airbus, files very different in normal law. Add thrust, pitch stays the same thus speed increases. Decrease thrust, pitch stays the same and speed reduces.

Anyway thrust + pitch = performance in all aircraft.
You can fly the aircraft in a fixed pitch attitude and use thrust to arrest the rate of descent until touchdown.

[nitpicker330]

737 Jock---It's not as simple as that. On the 777 it does trim for speed BUT the FBW compensates for configuration AND power changes.... So in effect on approach it won't pitch up if you increase thrust. The 737 and 744 would pitch up. Either way Boeing instructors teach Thrust for speed and Pitch for path control.

What you are describing is secondary effect.

Yes power + attitude equals performance. Thus would be true no matter which way you do it.


The Airbus FBW logic goes one step further in normal law and maintains a G. Great In theory but it does move in practice!!

The flying techniques used in both are the same as taught by Boeing and Airbus.

[737Jock]

I never needed to add power.

Blatant lie!

Sorry but that's the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard. There is no such thing as NEVER and ALWAYS in aviation.

[737Jock]

The flying techniques used in both are the same as taught by Boeing and Airbus.

The flying techniques are just that techniques. Thrust and pitch are linked, cause what we want to fly is performance.
It doesn't matter one bit what you change first. It's just an easy way to teach students and give them some good concepts to quickly deal with matters. But it is as easy as I said.

But I bet your ass that when you feel a kick in your back due to a gust you immediately reduce thrust, which in a Boeing will automatically lower the nose due to it being trimmed for speed. You know this you have this experience, a student might actually lower the nose (increasing speed) and then reduce thrust to reduce speed. No experienced pilot would do this.
In an airbus you will immediately take thrust off and lower the nose with the sidestick to maintain speed.

Can't believe professional pilots are discussing this.

[nitpicker330]

If I get a sudden positive shear causing the a/c to ballon high I will immediatly lower the nose to keep the path AND reduce thrust to check the speed. All within acceptable limits depending on the altitude above the runway. ( We don't want to go shoving the nose forward at low levels!!! )

This has happened in all the types I've flown including the A330, you might think it won't change the pitch but it does.

I agree though, you do both at the same time to achieve the performance result. But you must get the basics correct in your head first.

I'll say it again, the 777 isn't only trimmed for speed, the FBW compensates for configuration AND thrust changes. Nice piece of kit and to my mind way way better than the A330.

[NoodleAir]

The guy still insists that he pitches for path in a 777 and a 747.

Ok :ok:

By the way, we are discussing handling the aircraft yourself, not on AP that compensates blah blah blah through FBW or whatever.

Try manual flight and see if your theory works. Don't forget to pitch for your path now……...

[nitpicker330]

Ok noodle guy I give up.

I'm going to leave now, you can play with other guys in here.

Happy trails and fly safe ( as they say )

[737Jock]

Can you just grasp the simple fact that pitch + power is performance?
Or that Power + Pitch = performance

It doesn't matter which one gets changed first.

Outside factors influence what performance is needed to fly the desired path and speed. You have 2 tools to achieve this pitch and power, and they consistently interact with each other no matter what aircraft you fly or which fancy computer Boeing or Airbus came up with this time.

I never said pitch doesn't change.

But you apparently want to make a big point about the following 3 options which happen to be exactly the same:
1. Pitch down then reduce thrust = less performance
2. Reduce thrust then pitch down = less performance
3. Pitch down and reduce thrust simultaneously = less performance

Except that example 2 in a Boeing the thrust reduction will cause an automatic lowering of the nose (it is trimmed for speed, less thrust causes speed reduction thus nose lowers to increase speed and vertical speed increases (no gusts)). So less pilot input needed.
The only thing that we fix in our aircraft is the speed we fly at. And that dictates our pitch and thrust changes.

Whereas in an Airbus it doesn't matter one bit which sequence you chose.

[Capn Bloggs]

You can fly the aircraft in a fixed pitch attitude and use thrust to arrest the rate of descent until touchdown.
Hmm. Well, you can, but... How's the speed going to reduce from Vapp to Vref for the touchdown if you're increasing power to arrest the descent? Not what the 737 FCTM says.

Flare needs depend on a thousand different factors.
No, only two: sink rate and speed reduction. That's all. You still haven't actually told us how you land, Noodles. You just keep pointing the stick and at the flare point jam on some power? Or do you pull the stick back to reduce the speed and put the power up to reduce the descent rate? What do you do when it says "Retard"?

But you apparently want to make a big point about the following 3 options which happen to be exactly the same:
Picker's and my point is you use the primary effects of controls to control the aeroplane. That's all. If you're low on slope, pull the stick back to get back on it pronto. If necessary, adjust the thrust to maintain or regain the speed. Just like the AP and autothrottle does on an ILS. If you're on the glidselope and slow, you don't push the nose down...do you?? Don't use the secondary effects of controls to control the aeroplane.

[737Jock]

It's just to illustrate the point that pitch + power = performance. And end this stupid discussion if power is speed or path and pitch is speed or path. They both are speed and path, as they determine the performance together.
Nor would I like to fly an approach with a fixed pitch setting, to many power changes.

And anyway I bet you have no idea what your actual speed is during the flare, you just know it's reducing and approximately ok as you were at Vapp when you started your flare.

That's why we add factors on top of the in factored landing distance which is based on Vref.

[anotheruser]

The reason you pitch up is to bleed off excess speed during flare.So how much speed do you actually lose during flare? Is it significant? If you wouldn't flare, what would most likely be the result? A runway overrun?

Maybe next time you land on a long runway, so a few knots more doesn't matter, why not try to land without flaring to see what happens? If flaring is only for speed reduction, it shouldn't matter?

[Capn Bloggs]

And end this stupid discussion if power is speed or path and pitch is speed or path.
Actually, I don't think it is a stupid discussion. You and I can fly satisfactorily using our own techniques (dunno about Noodles) but throw a newby in the seat and tell them to use thrust to control the slope and the stick to control the speed and they'd be in all sorts of bother. I certainly don't tell my FOs to do that. If they try, I growl at them. I've seen to many near-splats with the nose still down and the thrust up all because we fell into a bit of a hole. Pull the friggin' stick back a bit, Bloggs!

[CL300]

http://www.americanflyers.net/aviationlibrary/instrument_flying_handbook/images/Chapters%201%20to%207_img_44.jpg

http://www.americanflyers.net/aviationlibrary/instrument_flying_handbook/images/Chapters%201%20to%207_img_43.jpg

Large Airplanes

Pilots of larger airplanes with higher stall speeds may find the speed they maintain on the instrument approach is near

1.3 VSO, putting them near point C (in figure 2-7) the entire time the airplane is on the final approach segment. In this case, precise speed control is necessary throughout the approach. It may be necessary to overpower or underpower in relation to the target power setting in order to quickly correct for airspeed deviations.

For example, a pilot is on an instrument approach at 1.3 VSO, a speed near L/DMAX, and knows that a certain power setting will maintain that speed. The airplane slows several knots below the desired speed because of a slight reduction in the power setting. The pilot increases the power slightly, and the airplane begins to accelerate, but at a slow rate. Because the airplane is still in the “flat part” of the drag curve, this slight increase in power will not cause a rapid return to the desired speed. The pilot may need to increase the power higher than normally needed to maintain the new speed, allow the airplane to accelerate, then reduce the power to the setting that will maintain the desired speed.

One of the more difficult tasks that a pilot must routinely execute occurs during the brief transition between the final approach and first contact with the landing surface. This transition is known as the landing flare. The flare process requires that the pilot adjust the aircraft attitude and power settings from those maintained during final approach to values which are appropriate for landing. To be successful, these adjustments must occur at a height above the landing surface that will vary based on the size, weight and performance criteria of the aircraft and the prevailing environmental conditions. In many aircraft, pilots are required to make all height assessments based solely on external visual clues. A radio altimeter, when fitted, will provide an accurate height above the runway and can aid the pilot in determining the appropriate point at which to initiate the flare.
If executed correctly, the flare will result in the aircraft achieving the appropriate landing attitude with power at or near idle, a reduced rate of descent and a decaying airspeed, all at a height varying from several inches to several feet above the landing surface (dependant upon aircraft type). If not executed correctly, the flare could result in a hard landing, the collapse of the landing gear, a tailstrike or in a runway overrun or excursion.
Flare technique, and the amount of time prior to touchdown that the aircraft is maintained in the landing attitude to allow the speed to decay, varies from aircraft to aircraft. At one end of the spectrum are landings on an aircraft carrier in which the aircraft maintains the approach attitude and rate of descent until touchdown. For all intents, there is no flare and the landing gear design must be robust enough to ensure that no damage occurs because of the high rate of descent. At the other extreme are many light, general aviation, aircraft in which proper landing technique requires that the aircraft be held off the runway in the landing attitude until the speed decays almost to the point of aerodynamic stall. The majority of aircraft fall in between these extremes with touchdown occurring after the flare, power reduction and a brief hold off, at a speed well above Vs. Note that for these aircraft, intentionally holding the aircraft off of the runway for a protracted period in an attempt to achieve a smooth touchdown will result in a significant increase in landing distance and could lead to a tailstrike.
Once the main landing gear is in contact with the runway, de-rotation should occur without delay and before decaying airspeed results in the loss of elevator authority. In all cases, appropriate roll out and deceleration procedures should be initiated immediately following the touchdown as dictated by the calculated stopping distance and the available runway.


Enjoy willy fighting...:ok: :)

[MrSnuggles]

Just to throw it in there:

B747, Japan, 1985-ish. Phugoid motions ended in worst single air crash ever.

DC10, Sioux City, 1989-ish. Phugoid motions ended in not-too-bad-landing.

A3x0, Baghdad, 2002-ish. Phugoid motions but pilots managed to land it.

What goes first in phugoid motions?

Why do you get a phugoid motion?

How were the successful landings managed?

Why was it possible to get successful landings?

Depending on the answers, you would know which pilot to trust with such a scenario.

[NoodleAir]

Bloggs, it is evident that you are not an experienced jet pilot. Spare us the stories of "your FOs"….

You rely too much on quotes from the FCTM and you exhibit a typical weak personality trait, trying to be a part of a team or a bigger group of people with the same opinion ( "Picker and I" "all of us" etc).

Why is it so important for you to be at Vref during touchdown? What do these speeds mean to you? Do you comprehend the real meaning behind these reference numbers?
Can your aircraft touch down without floating at Vref +30 or +40?

I repeat, you are using a wrong technique, it doesn't mean it doesn't work, just means that you are not actually "flying" the plane all the way to touchdown.
Flaring the way you describe it, translates into touching down whenever the aircraft feels like it, not where you want it. Read my posts more carefully to see the details, try it next time, and you will see that there is no floating, no hard landing, and most of all exact spot landing.

Its not for everyone. Boeing in the manuals, describes a simplistic technique that assures the company does not get in any legal trouble from possible misinterpretations.
Manuals are written with a team of lawyers over the pilots' shoulders.
Boeing instructors, technical pilots, test pilots and other experienced pilots will instruct you more complex details, only able to be shown while at the controls of the actual aircraft.

Read the fundamentals as described in Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators. You might learn a few things besides arguing for the sake of argument.

[Chris Scott]

FWIW, on the A320, provided the speed was on (or above) the target IAS, and the VS and profile were good, I routinely closed the throttle levers between 50 ft and 30 ft. (IIRC, it's done at 50 ft for landing-performance certification.)

On the B707, I wouldn't dream of closing the thrust levers before the flare was nearly completed, unless the speed was high...

[de facto]

Post #40 got it right.
Finger is out and not in cheek.:E

[737Jock]

Actually, I don't think it is a stupid discussion. You and I can fly satisfactorily using our own techniques (dunno about Noodles) but throw a newby in the seat and tell them to use thrust to control the slope and the stick to control the speed and they'd be in all sorts of bother. I certainly don't tell my FOs to do that. If they try, I growl at them. I've seen to many near-splats with the nose still down and the thrust up all because we fell into a bit of a hole. Pull the friggin' stick back a bit, Bloggs!

Offcourse not, cause pitch for path and thrust for speed is much easier to explain. And for a newby much easier to execute. I'm certainly not advocating to change the way we teach flying.

If you would make us two fly the exact same approach in the exact same conditions I doubt you would see any difference in the way it is flown.

From my observations newbee pilots often use a lot more and bigger input on the controls (stick/yoke and thrust levers), more experienced pilots who are used to manual flight make smaller and less input. I believe this is because of better anticipation who the inputs affect each other.

The simple fact though is that pitch and thrust directly affect each other (and not only through underslung engines). SO it really doesn't matter if you say pitch controls speed/path and thrust controls path/speed.
Both statements are true! And as such you are ALL wrong.

Offcourse this is all valid if your approach speed is fixed... This thinking exercise can be even more fun if you allow speed variations. Offcourse this would not be very practical with regard to landing distance calculations.

BTW if you make students do fake approaches and get them to fly level and add power as required you will miraculously find the flare pitch attitude. we are not bleeding off speed at all, we are reducing the rate of descent to zero and if you can fly level while the wheels touch the ground its called a greaser. And because we don't add power we lose speed which helps with reducing the landing distance.

[worldrover]

I am not sure why you are pointing fingers at Noodle.

There is no doubt that flying a jet -manually- one should use his pitch to control airspeed WHILE controlling the thrust to maintain the path he aims for.

They are interconnected as performance factors, so they go hand in hand as said already BUT, you do not control speed with thrust, and you also do not control path by pulling or pushing the yoke. Not in a Boeing. I don't know about Airbus so cannot comment, but I assume even Airbus without computer intervention follows the same laws sod physics.

Do correct me if I am wrong.

Keep the thread free of personal conflicts, lets try to present professional opinions without criticism. You all fly your aircraft, no need to play peacock here.
That said, I have noticed that members who easily jump into a discussion with the wrong answer (excess speed and always happy to point fingers at someone) find it very difficult to admit their mistake and keep being a part of the conversation in a more helpful way.
Sure nobody flies a heavy Boeing like a piston prop. Come on…..

[737Jock]

You're wrong! Its not that black and white. Either statement is correct.

I really don't see how this even matters. These statements are just a very simplified manner of teaching someone how to fly. The tricks of the jobs are learned through experience, and change per aircraft type, they can't be taught that easily.

[nitpicker330]

737jock---I think we agreed earlier that power + Atitude = Performance and that one will obviously effect the other.

Have you flown only the 737? Because I've flown both and can tell you that the 777 with its FBW will also maintain approx the same attitude if you change the thrust unlike non FBW Boeing's.

However be that as it may, Boeing and Airbus tech Pilots teach Pitch to control the profile and Thrust to control the speed followed by Pitch to Flare.

Both myself and Bloggs quoted the training manuals which are quite clear on the subject of pitch control during the flare and speed management on the approach.

Boeing and Airbus teach that during a manual approach they suggest the use of auto thrust ( or auto throttle ) to control the speed. This is the way it's done end if story full stop.

No amount of bull**** spewing from the crack pot Noodle will change that.

So what happens on an approach if you are on slope but 15 kts slow? 1/ you add thrust 2/ you maintain pitch attitude
That's what the manufacturer says to do and I don't see the point to do otherwise. Is noodle suggesting in that case he's going to push forward to regain the speed then increase thrust?does he think that's a good idea at low level? Because I don't think it is and neither do the manufacturers. Does he ever fly approaches manually with auto thrust? So why change techniques with or without auto thrust?

Don't get me started about his flare technique.......wow

Crazy people trying to re invent the damn wheel!!

[NoodleAir]

nitpicker or Bloggs (I guess it is your alter ego…) Boeing suggests manual flight with Auto Throttle? :suspect:

Even if it did, is this what we are discussing here?

Do you know how a wheel looks like buddy? Who is trying to reinvent what here?

There is no way you are flying anything heavier than a kite.

[nitpicker330]

Please tell me which Airline you "fly" for so I can avoid them.

You are a class one moron.

Now f off

[NoodleAir]

It is more than evident who is the moron.

By the way, misd-agin replied in avery nice way to your initial post.
Gave you a clue to help you understand how absurd is your theory.

You decided to reply in your typical way….. Most probably because you could not understand his comment. Standard reaction of a distressed ape.

You have 5 days till Sunday to learn how to fly your sim A330:}

[nitpicker330]

Congratulations Second officer Noodle you've made my ignore list

[737Jock]

I have flown 737 and A320. Not 777 unfortunately, but in terms of discussion I think its better to leave the fancy computer bits out of it anyway.
But as you may remember from small aircraft during training, if you trim the aircraft for a speed in level flight and you add power, eventually you will end up climbing as the pitch attitude increases to maintain speed. This is obviously slower and likely less pronounced then the pitch up effect from underslung engines.

When someone is 15 kts slow I call go-around. No point trying to save that mess.:ok: But for the sake of the discussion I'll oblige.

Offcourse you need to add power and a lot of it as well since your on the back side of the powercurve. As the speed increases the pitch attitude reduces in order to maintain the path.
But what if you are so slow that you at a stall, you will lower the pitch attitude to reduce the aoa and thus increase airspeed. Only when that is under control you will slowly add power. Thats the new stall procedure according to the same manufacturers.

This example however has very little to do with a normal stabilized approach in windy or thermal conditions. And none of the manufacturers would advise us to get in a Vapp-15 situation.

The actual performance of the aircraft= pitch + power + external conditions (up/downdraft, gusts, tail/headwind etc)
The required performance is usually a 3 degree glidepath at Vapp.

As the external conditions vary you can only adjust pitch and power to match the actual performance of the aircraft to the required performance. As Vapp is fixed, pitch and power are linked. And it doesn't really matter which one is changed first.

[nitpicker330]

My 15 kts example may have been a touch excessive but certainly at around say 2000' you could get 7 to 10 kts below desired speed. Then it's the same, add thrust FIRST and not push forward first. The whole idea is that a Jet being swept wing is quite slippery and will accelerate nicely as a result of thrust application without needed to push the nose down. Simply pushing the nose down to regain the speed will result in a deviation below path and take a lot longer to accelerate. Thrust is a much more direct way of maintaining speed without flight path deviations.

Anyway my 2 bobs worth.

[737Jock]

As said offcourse you add thrust, but thats only because you haven't been paying attention for a considerable amount of time during which you haven't been meeting the performance requirement for the last few seconds due to lack of thrust.

At 2000 feet i'm doing 160kts usually not anywhere near being low on my approach speed.

i'm talking about stabilized approaches as taught in the FCTM, not rescueing massive ****ups in this area.

[Mr Optimistic]

Bet the OP wished he never asked...:sad:

[nitpicker330]

Yes exactly at 2000' we will be gear down Flap 3 just about to select Flap full and be around 160 kts somewhere depending on ATC speed control requirements. A speed incursion below maneuver speed for that configuration isn't a hugh problem at that point as long as you correct immediately WITH THRUST.

Once again it was only an example I quoted above. Speed fluctuations as you know are caused by a myriad of things and not always the result of in-attention on the crews behalf!!

It's not unusual during gusty conditions to see + - 10 to 15kts during approach and this doesn't automatically require a go around if you are correcting ok.

In those conditions you will have bugged up anyway so being 10 kts below VRef ( VAPP ) isn't a problem as you are still way above VLS.

Airbus recommend ( as do Boeing ) use of Autothrust in managed mode for all manual approaches. Me? If it's gusty I actually prefer manual thrust in the 330 but on the 777 I always left it in. ( for reasons of ergonomics and design )

[nitpicker330]

Besides. ATC often require 160kts to 4 DME on approach.
How does Noodle propose to slow down to a VREF of 135kts??
He says you use pitch for speed. So at 4 DME he raises the nose first does he? That would have the result of causing the aircraft to balloon high above the GS. Then he would have to quickly reduce thrust to get back down destabilizing his approach considerably. This is untidy and wrong practice. On Jets you don't want the nose to be pitching up or down on approach if you can help it, thrust is much more effective in facilitating speed changes whilst keeping a relative stable pitch attitude and thus flight path angle.

Handling the Big Jets 101.

[FullWings]

I think this discussion is becoming heated because we are talking about a specific situation, i.e. within seconds of the flight path intersecting with the ground.

In such a situation, we are relying much more on the short term effects of control inputs rather than the eventual steady state you would get in unaccelerated flight. This is a dynamic situation.

If you wish to reduce the rate of descent before touching down (a usual requirement), you need to apply a significant force for a period of time to the mass of the airframe such as to reduce the component of its velocity normal to the plane of the runway. How to do this in a jet aircraft...?

1) Add more thrust. As common airliners in a normal approach attitude have a thrust vector almost tangential to the surface, most of the applied force will go towards accelerating the airframe in the direction of flight. On an aircraft with underslung engines, a secondary effect will be a pitch-up moment but this will be mostly countered by the FBW on aircraft like the 777 and modern Airbuses. We are left with the other secondary effect of thrust, which is to increase the groundspeed over time (and hopefully the airspeed with it). The increase in lift generated from a few knots of extra airspeed (a few %) is not enough to significantly reduce the RoD during the time available before touchdown.

2) Increase the angle of attack. On a typical airfoil, the coefficient of lift could go up by c.25% for a c.3deg increase in AoA. This would result in a significant normal acceleration, reducing the RoD markedly over a short space of time.

On a non-FBW, low engined jet, applying thrust has the secondary effect of raising the nose, if not countered by the elevator. At this point the pilot has ceased to control the pitch through normal means and is relying on that secondary effect to provide an appropriate AoA to reduce the RoD. It is a technique but not one that I would recommend due to the extra delay in the feedback loop and the possibility of adding significant unwanted speed just before touchdown.

On the 777, adding more thrust just drives you faster towards where you were going before. Manual go-arounds often catch out people the first time when converting from conventional types as you have to deliberately pitch the aircraft positively into a go-around attitude after pressing TO/GA. Eventually, the 777 will pitch up of its own accord as the built in speed stability kicks in but it is a rather lengthy process and involves significant height loss before climbing.

I suppose the difference in the two methods near the ground is that by using pitch for RoD and power for airspeed, you are directly controlling all the important variables: the flightpath (touchdown point) and speed (runway used to stop). By relying on secondary effects, you may have to accept a significant deviation in one in order to make the other what you want.

[Capn Bloggs]

BTW if you make students do fake approaches and get them to fly level and add power as required you will miraculously find the flare pitch attitude. we are not bleeding off speed at all, we are reducing the rate of descent to zero and if you can fly level while the wheels touch the ground its called a greaser. And because we don't add power we lose speed which helps with reducing the landing distance.
This is becoming more irrational by the post. Fake approaches, flying level, adding power to find the pitch attitude? And then...we don't add power, we lose speed? I thought you said you use power to control PITCH? The reason you lose speed in the flare is because you pull the stick back to arrest the rate of descent.

When someone is 15 kts slow I call go-around. No point trying to save that mess. But for the sake of the discussion I'll oblige.

Offcourse you need to add power and a lot of it as well since your on the back side of the powercurve. As the speed increases the pitch attitude reduces in order to maintain the path.
So now we are using power to control (recover) the speed. Good. And how does the pitch attitude "reduce in order to maintain the path"? As the speed increases the pitch attitude will increase.

737Jock, We're not talking about Ref-15, nor stalling on the ILS, nor 160KIAS reducing at 2000ft, nor backside of the powercurve. Simple question: you get slow, say Vapp-5 or 10, you are on the glideslope. Please tell me you are not going to lower the nose to retrieve the speed. Please just put the power up! Whatever subsequently happens to the pitch, just use the stick to stay on the GS.

nitpicker or Bloggs (I guess it is your alter ego…) Boeing suggests manual flight with Auto Throttle?
Shock! Horror! Yes! Try it sometime; it works well. Not being a 737 driver, I understand though that it's not recommended in the 737 because of the amount of pitch-power coupling.

If you can't cope with the concept of manual flying with AT you probably shouldn't be in the cockpit.

I think happening here (and now that worldrover is here espousing the same heresy as Noodle and 737 jock) is that the pitch-power couple of the 737 is so powerful that you can, if low on slope, increase power and the nose will come up (just like a C150; trick flying). But if you get slow or fast whilst on-slope, I'll bet you don't lower the nose or pull the nose up (otherwise you'll obviously go off-slope). You adjust the power to get the speed back!

That is what picker and I are on about. Stick for slope/attitude control, power for speed control, just like the autopilot does it on an ILS.

Bet the OP wished he never asked...
Oh I don't know. It's been interesting reading how pilots fly aeroplanes. I see now the potential for overruns what with people advocating/using power to control the rate of descent at touchdown...

Fullwings: very well put. 737Jock and Noodle, I suggest you read Fullwing's post carefully. He has hit the nail on the head (after me and Nitpicker belted it first! ;))

[Capt Claret]

Noodle, Noodle, Noodle. Boy, did I open a can of worms back on page 1, or what?

Back when I learned to fly, circa 1983, I was taught pitch for speed on approach and power for RoD.

Then when I returned to the flying establishment as an instructor, mentored by a couple of excellent ex RAAF pilots, one the Chief Pilot, one the CFI, I had to teach their way, which was power for speed in all regimes of flight, and pitch for flight path. I didn't like it because it wasn't what I had been taught but as I didn't have any say in the policy I had to come to terms with it.

Coming to terms with this obvious heresy took only a very short time. It really made so much sense. I no longer had to think differently on approach as opposed to level flight, or climbing. In all phases of flight, and ground ops, if I want to go faster, I use more power, with a commensurate adjustment of pitch attitude to maintain the desired flight path.

BTW, your petulant smearing of Bloggs is so far wide of the mark, it reflects quite poorly on your own credibility. I can't comment on Nitpicker because I don't know him, whereas I've worked with Bloggs for close to 20 years, and even enjoyed his line training on my first jet. :=

[luvmuhud]

Wow…thanks for the GF1 brief on landing technique guys…I think I've got that covered!

My question, for the third time now, was to Airbus long course test pilots (NTPS, ETPS etc) and was asked to confirm my suspicion that hearing "RETARD" called 3 or 4 times during the flare is a symptom of incorrect technique.

I'm sure if we are all intelligent enough to register for a PPRUNE account, we are all aware that P + A = Perf, and that you adjust both P and A to correct MOMENTARY sink during the flare!

Anyway, assuming the odd useful comment will continue to be clouded by vitriol, I'll leave you guys to it!

[Capn Bloggs]

My question, for the third time now...
Now Nitpicker isn't a test pilot AFAIK, but both his answers to your two previous posts clearly explain the scenario where keeping the thrust on during the flare would be appropriate.

What don't you understand about his answers?

[luvmuhud]

Right…this is DEFINITELY my last post…I promise!

No, he has explained that in the event of sink during very late finals, or during the initial part of the flare, that we control this with power (delayed thrust reduction) and attitude (slightly higher flare attitude). Ab-initio technique which is unquestionable.

If you hear RETARD 3-4 times during the flare, I suspect you have gone WAY beyond the requirement of avoiding a firm touchdown due sink, and are now confusing the aircraft and the rest of the crew! To quote Happy Gilmore's putting analogy…the aircraft wants to be on the ground…send it home…all you have to do is send it home. i.e…CLOSE THE FRICKIN' THRUST LEVERS!!!

(A mitigating factor for this seemingly less than ideal technique, is that my outfit is obsessed with touchdown zone…there is an impression on check rides that you must touchdown from 1000-2000' or face death…despite crossing the threshold at 50' and using correct technique but then prevailing wind conditions 'flying' you slightly outside this area)

[nitpicker330]

Can't say I've ever heard Retard called 3 times.......I've heard "five" called twice!!

You must have been floating down the runway in the flare? I can't imagine you'd already touched down and forgot to close the thrust?

Our mob used to be anal about the touchdown zone too but have decided that idea was the cause of more than one firm/hard landing so they became a little more practical.

The F/O landing a week or two ago gave a rather large early flare resulting in a float and higher pitch attitude on touchdown, the speed went back to about VLS -2. I didn't say anything to him at the time as it would have been an unnecessary distraction at a critical time, we weren't going to stall. His landing was actually very smooth and didn't give the usual A330 bogey thump!! Maybe he does this all the time:ok:

Anyway like I said if you've got a sink in excess of what you want then leave the thrust on until you touchdown otherwise close the thrust as usual.

[737Jock]

Blogs first of all thank you for being so civilized and discussing issues in a normal way instead of ridiculizing people which would only be a sign of intellectual weakness. :SARCASM OFF:
I don't expect you to understand. But there are several ways to skin a cat. Some students have trouble learning how to flare and finding the right pitch attitude.
We are not talking about Boeing's here old chap, but little cessna's. But even so the following is true for a Boeing as well.

A flare is nothing other then arresting the descent rate to zero except its close to the ground. Which happens to be the same when you go from a descent into level flight.
So unsurprisingly the pitch attitude for a flare at a certain configuration is the same as the pitch attitude for level flight in the same configuration.
You want some students to be able to see that picture of the flaring pitch attitude a bit longer so they have more time to understand.
So if you make them fly level at low level they have much more time to store that picture they see out of the window and replicate it in the flare.

But thanks again for showing your complete lack of actual understanding of what you are doing.
When you next read a book on POF try to actually understand what is happening instead reproducing it blindly.

FYI I never said that thrust for speed doesn't work, I said that either statement is correct. Think gliders!

And btw any speedtrimmed aircraft can be flown only with thrust on an approach. If you are low on speed on the approach you clearly didn't trim your aircraft very well.
An aircraft that is trimmed for speed will aerodynamicly lower it's nose to regain it's trimmed speed, thereby increasing it's rate of descent and dipping below the path. Adding power will reduce vertical speed.
And that is POF regarding trimming an aircraft for speed. And yes I have flown light aircraft solely with trim and power to a successful landing.

A speedtrimmed aircraft with lack of energy won't stall, it will hit the ground. The only reason it will stall is because we are trading it's forward energy to maintain the path.
I'd rather be at 200 feet and on speed then at 300 feet and stalling.

Good luck btw with being 7 kts slow. It's still unacceptable to me.

[NoodleAir]

737jock, don't even bother, they are the same person and he does not fly jets.

He cannot comprehend simple concepts and principles of flight.

"You belted and hit the nail on the head" ?!!!!??? :ugh:

When he hears 'Retard" 3 times, I suspect its his wife calling while he is on the sim.

[737Jock]

RETARD is a reminder to close the thrust in manual flight, in autoland it's an instruction.

[nitpicker330]

I don't know why I'm doing this but......

I can assure you that I'm not the same person as Bloggsy, if you'd bother to research you'd see that Bloggsy and I have chatted before on various threads, we've not always seen eye to eye on all matters but I do respect his experience and position.

Yes I am a real A330 Captain based in Australia for a major HK Airline. I hope you have the brains to workout which one. You know the one with the impeccable safety record and worldwide network that employs cockpit crew from all over the world, yes that one.

Once again if you'd bother doing some research it would show that I have a knowledge of the A330 777 and Airline operations that a Flight Sim jockey would not have. Short of posting real photos of my mug sitting in the Jet or my ID card you'll just have to take my word for it I guess.

Now, I'd really appreciate it if you would stop casting aspersions over my qualifications thankyou very much young man.

Oh and yes I do have XPlane on my iMac with the A320 setup, works quite well most of the time but I haven't used it for 6 months as the DVD drive is playing up.
As fun as it is it's not really useful for PC RT practice though. You do know what a PC RT is don't you pal?

As you don't seem to have the approach stable I'm going to have to press the Sidestick priority button now, I HAVE CONTROL.

Land, no blue.

Goodnight.

[NoodleAir]

Fair enough…

I do not care to do "research" on your previous conversations with Bloggsy or whoever else.
It was mostly Bloggsy that used the "we" repeatedly and raised some eyebrows because he could not explain anything but elected to cover himself behind the "collective knowledge" and your common opinions.

In any case, I stated my view very clearly in my first post, then you replied with the attitude you did, unfortunately with a wrong theory.

I did not say it does not work either way. I only said that the laws of physics and all the fundamentals of flight are opposite to your theory. Now, I have this concept in my mind when I actually do it, you have yours, and it obviously works as well.

Merely trying to highlight the need for proper instruction theory when you need to explain your experience to someone that is asking "how do we do this".

Needless to say that I would have guessed who you might be flying for, judging from your "authority" in the matter and your rigid point of view.
Keep in mind that there are many pilots out there doing the same job without the need to be so uptight.

I stand by my initial request. Open this book you purchased back in '82 or something, and tell me what it says on the PRINCIPLE of what is controlling what.
Forget about the way Cathay is doing it, or how it works when you do it upside down backwards. Its all possible in many ways.
Just give me an honest answer ON THE PRINCIPLE. And then judge my initial post and your negative ones.

You have controls, now let me sleep.

[InSoMnIaC]

Think of it this way. The control column acts as a potential(altitude) to kinetic (spd) energy converter. Pushing down increases kinetic energy and reduces potential energy and visa versa.

Thrust introduces more or less energy into that equation. All thing being equal increasing thrust, Firstly pushes the aircraft forward thereby increasing spd over the wing which in turn increases lift which changes the flight path of the aircraft(reduced ROD)
if the total energy (potential+kinetic) of the aircraft is correct but out of balance (low and fast or high and slow) then there is no need to adjust thrust . Simply use the flight controls to re distribute that energy.

if you rely on thrust to change flight path (to arrest ROD in flare) it will work however it will take slighty longer to achieve as you are relying on the secondary effect of adding thrust (similar to flying around and using the rudder to bank)

[Capn Bloggs]

Insomniac, I like that description of the situation. :ok:

[737Jock]

It won't take longer. That is simply incorrect.

You are all so fond of examples, so if you climb or descent do you first change thrust and then you raise or lower the nose to maintain speed. (in a trimmed aircraft this would happen aerodynamically anyway).
The power excess or deficit is what makes you climb or descent.

Say we have an aircraft at 2000ft, fully configured and stable and trimmed Vapp, there are no external disturbances (wind, up/downdraft) and no weight changes.
This aircraft has a certain energy (performance) that is required to fly a 3 degree path. this energy does not have to change until landing as there are no disturbances, so no changes in pitch or power are needed.
If we then add external factors to this equation the situation changes: say we emcounter a downdraft. The required energy to maintain the desired path increases.
The actual energy of the aircraft (performance) is determined by pitch + power/ thrust. Due to the increased requirement of energy to maintain the path we are faced with an energy deficit.
I have 3 options:
1. increase pitch trading speed for for height, this will result in speed loss which reduces the energy state thus you need to add energy with thrust.
2. increase thrust, this directly increases the energy state balancing it with the energy requirement
3. increase pitch trading speed for height and increase thrust directly adding energy to the airframe

So thrust simply gives us a tool to increase/decrease the energy of the aircraft. whereas pitch only allows us to convert 1 type of energy into another. As with all energy conversions energy is lost (heat/drag/etc) so in the end you will still end up with a deficit that needs to be compensated for.
Both thrust and pitch control the path.

Adding thrust always adds energy, it doesn't always increase speed.

Thrust for speed is just a tool to allow people to easily manage the energy. But that is only because we use speed as a measure. whereas energy is more then just speed, its also mass, height etc....
In a balloon you could dump mass to counter for a downdraft.

[vilas]

InsoMniAc
Adding power without changing flight path will not work in Airbus FBW as Flare mode is pitching the aircraft down from 30 FT . You will end up hitting the ground harder. On other aircraft there is no defined thrust parameter which will give you consistent flare for you. So you are taking a chance too much will cause ballooning too little hard landing. As far as flare and touchdown is concerned it is flare with elevator and close thrust. You don't add thrust. None of the certification trials have been done with additional thrust. We are talking about a technique that gives you consistent results and not what is possible. It is not impossible to do a good landing from an unstable approach but we don't do it.

[misd-agin]

Nitpicker - "Remember that in a Jet Pitch controls Sink rate and thrust controls Speed."




Two examples -


I do a loop. In afterburner and my thrust to weight is less than 1:1.


450 kts, full afterburner, and I pull back on the stick. What happens to speed? Remember the quote is "thrust controls speed".


Aviation Week and Space Technology's latest issue has several articles about stalling airliners. And they talk about the wrong reactions the majority of pilots have. Thrust is the not the primary recovery tool.


Wait a minute, I thought thrust controlled speed? If that's true wouldn't thrust be the first response?


The reality is in normal line ops the difference between thrust vs pitch controlling airspeed, if you're close to normal speed/sink, is tiny. It's when people get to the edge of the envelope that it becomes obvious which is the ultimate controller.

[Capn Bloggs]

Vilas, I think insomniac was using the power-up-to-flare only as a general example of the secondary effect of controls, not as an actual technique that should be used.

[737Jock]

vilas the discussion is hard enough without adding airbus particularities. Airbus's fancy computers dont change the physics of flight.

[vilas]

Misdagain
What Nitpicker is saying is about flare and landing. Also your reference to stall recovery is not correct because stall is an angle of attack phenomenon which needs to be reduced and that can only be done by using elevators adding thrust aggravates recovery because of the thrust vector.

[Chris Scott]

Guys,

With a few exceptions, this thread is an embarrassment!

BTW, vilas is perfectly justified to mention flare mode, because the OP's title specifies Airbus, whose a/c have been mainly FBW for over a quarter of a century.

[nitpicker330]

misd-agin-----looks like you missed the point of the whole exercise yet AGAIN.:D

Do you think I'm stupid pal? Really?

Of course in flight Pitch controls the IAS ( as can thrust if required. ) I'm fully aware that during a "flight level change"( Boeing ) or Open Descent ( Airbus ) the elevator controls the pitch ( hence IAS ) while the thrust is at idle.
I'm also aware that during climb with THR REF VNAV SPD ( Boeing ) THRCLB CLB A/THR ( Airbus ) pitch also controls the IAS.

Then there are modes where the THR is controlling the IAS such as SPD VS ( Boeing ) SPEED VS ( Airbus ) there are horses for courses my friend.

If you are hand flying at 10,000' with manual thrust and you wish to increase IAS from say 220 to 250 YOU DONT PUSH THE NOSE DOWN DO YOU? YES THATS RIGHT YOU INCREASE THUST THEN AS A CONSEQUENCE PUSH FORWARD ( if req depending on a/c type ) TO MAINTAIN ALT.

We are taking about the approach phase mate and the touchdown part, NOT about doing loops in an F18.....( fun I'm sure :ok: )

For goodness sake get a grip.

Just like your stupid comment on page 1 you just don't get it.


With regards to the Stall recovery, a quick read of your QRH will reveal the current Approach to stall recovery technique. Obviously number 1 is to reduce the AOA via your primary flight control surface called the ELEVATOR......Thrust is secondary....wow Rocket Science pal hey!!

I'LL NOW PUT IT INTO CAPITALS FOR YOU SO YOU UNDERSTAND......

ON APPROACH IN BOEING AND AIRBUS JET AIRCRAFT THE PILOT CONTROLS IAS USING THRUST AND THE SINK RATE USING PITCH.

This has been the case since the advent of Jet transport Aircraft. The fact that you and Noodle say otherwise reflects on a very poor basic understanding of handling a jet Aircraft, a lack of training, sheer ignorance, stupidity or all of the above.

No matter how many times Noodle insults me and says I shouldn't command anything bigger than a Kite DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACTS.:D

[Capn Bloggs]

With a few exceptions, this thread is an embarrassment!

Oooh, I love it when someone tantalises me! What camp are you in, Chris? The loonies who use power to stay on the glideslope or the normal ones who get low on the GS and use the stick to put the aircraft back on it, then worry about the speed (in a lot of cases, with nothing needing to be done to it [the power] anyway). :)

[misd-agin]

So your on speed, stabilized sink rate, and you're two dots high. Do you push over for the glideslope and then throttle back OR do you reduce power slightly and settle to the glideslope?


Is one solution really wrong and the other really right?

[Capn Bloggs]

So your on speed, stabilized sink rate, and you're two dots high. Do you push over for the glideslope and then throttle back OR do you reduce power slightly and settle to the glideslope?
No question: put the aircraft back on the glideslope with the stick. In all probability, the speed will not increase at all because of the relative amount of drag, certainly not enough to worry about. And if it did, the speed would soon settle back to where it was before when you were back stabilised on the GS.

If you did this is a C150, yes, you would see a increase in speed and yes, you probably would have to throttle back a bit and yes, you could descend back to the GS by pulling off the power. But we're not in a C150. The 737 by virtue of it's pitch/power coupling may also let you get away with using the throttles to fly the GS, but that's trick-flying and I contend that it's not the speed-stability effect, it's only because of the underslung engines.

[737Jock]

Increasing Thrust adds energy to the aircraft, this energy can be converted into speed or a change in vertical speed or simply maintaining the status quo.

[RAM777]

Well i keep slight power only when its very windy or in summers due to the updrafts.If my speed is approaching the VLs i reduce the power a little late.This has helped me in making smooth landings..Other then that i dont think so its a good idea to land with power because that eats up lot of runway..

[InSoMnIaC]

Vilas - I wasn't advocating using thrust to control RoD. Quite the opposite actually. Please re-read my post. My point was although controlling RoD by thrust is possible (just like controlling bank with yaw is possible) it is not preferred.

[nitpicker330]

Yes Ram777 that's how it should be done. You decide, depending on situation, the exact time to close the thrust, sometimes you may have to leave a bit on until touchdown.


Q---2 dots high? Ans:- Ease forward on the elevator to reduce the pitch attitude by say 1 to 2 deg? That increased your ROD ( obviously ) then perhaps you "may" have to reduce thrust a little, say 5% N1 to keep the IAS nailed. Then when back on slope ease up 1 to 2 deg and apply 5% more N1 to maintain the slope. All Jet Pilots are trained in what pitch attitude and thrust setting to aim for in approach, initially on conversion you fly these NUMBERS. Later on you "just do it"

Haven't you guys see the unreliable Airspeed checklist which contains a table showing you PITCH ATTITUDE and THRUST settings ??

Any of you flown the A330 using the BUSS? ( yes Noodle do you know what the BUSS is? )

Airbus strongly recommend and teach that during an approach flown by the BACKUP SPEED SCALE ( BUSS ) that to maintain in the green you fly a fixed pitch and then adjust THRUST to keep it IN THE GREEN. Why? Because that's the easiest way to remain "stable" AND keep the process as normal as is possible.

This is "their training" using Thrust to control speed just as you do ON A NORMAL LANDING.


P.s. I would have loved to read what 411A would have said about his beloved L1011. That beast used DLC and in theory your Pitch attitude remained constant, still they used Thrust for Speed though!!

[737Jock]

If you did this is a C150, yes, you would see a increase in speed and yes, you probably would have to throttle back a bit and yes, you could descend back to the GS by pulling off the power. But we're not in a C150. The 737 by virtue of it's pitch/power coupling may also let you get away with using the throttles to fly the GS, but that's trick-flying and I contend that it's not the speed-stability effect, it's only because of the underslung engines.

Well then you just disqualified yourself for lack of aerodynamic understanding. It's the basic principle of trimming the aircraft for speed. It's how aircraft have managed to land without any elevator control.
Why do you think the stabilizer can be trimmed?

Never heard such a bunch of crap in my life from someone who is supposed to be a line trainer. Then again I recognize the type.

In a 737 or any other speedstable aircraft you can reduce thrust and the nose lowers simultaneously if it's too slow for you can push on the yoke and help it. This will increase your rate of descent while maintaining airspeed. As you approach the glideslope you simply add thrust which also raises the nose to reduce the rate of descent. You should not need to retrim the aircraft as it is still trimmed the same way as when you started the excercise.

In a airbus (manual thrust) (an airbus in normal law is not speedstable although the airframe design is) you will reduce thrust and simultaneously push on the sidestick as you know you would lose speed otherwise. (Hey maybe that's the same as saying: I push on the stick and the airspeed increase so I need to reduce thrust)

Pitch and thrust /thrust and pitch go hand in hand. The starting point doesn't even matter in fact a reasonably experienced pilot who doesn't consistently use the a/p and a/t does it simultaneously.
But apparently someone decided that stupid pilots need a more simple method as they don't understand the link between pitch and power?
So someone came up with thrust is speed. Which basicly means you are always reacting after the fact with thrust due to a speed change that happened because of a pitch change. Instead of being proactive and anticipating the effects of your inputs.

One of the reasons to reduce thrust in the flare is because you enter the groundeffect. Another is that runway lenght is limited and you want to slow down as soon as you can.

I find it very interesting though that someone keeps power on to compensate for updrafts that by definition increase the energy of the aircraft. And that someone else then says that this is the way to do it??? I reduce thrust when I encounter updrafts (and I add or maintain when I sink).
But maybe as the aircraft starts to balloon due to the updraft you then just point the nose at the runway for a nice nosewheel landing in order to manage your path? Or you just float and call it a smooth landing?

No wonder statistics show more long landings in summer if this is how you manage energy.

[NoodleAir]

I told you earlier, it is obvious he does not fly a jet.

Thats the reason I suspected both of them being the same person, they support each other's views and have a history of doing so.

Post pairs 92-97 and 99-100 are the finest example of it.

Misd-agin gives some clues in a tricky manner that they (the same person or both?) don't understand, exactly like he did in his first post, and then they come back with some laughable examples that have nothing to do with reality (post 97, the example being about LEVEL FLIGHT!!!!!). AND he stated "like your stupid comments on page 1, you just don't get it". !!!!! :ugh:

We are talking about someone who does not understand the balancing force of steady level flight………

Regarding Bloggs, don't bother at all, he needs to complete his PPL first.

Nitpicker may have been too long on an Airbus (he insists on quoting Airbus FCTM parts etc), but he still hash' answered on what his old book (the one he bought in '82) says about PRINCIPLES of Flight.

Responding to his post #97, on approach (in a Boeing) you control speed with pitch NOT with thrust. Thrust controls your path.
I do not expect you to agree or accept anything.

Over and out

[737Jock]

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/00-80T-80.pdf

I have taken the liberty to find your manual Noodle. And I would like to quote from page 360. Noodle's statement is in bold.

The proper coordination of the controls is an absolute necessity during the approach. In this sense, due respect must be given to the primary control of airspeed and rate of descent for the conditions of the steady approach. This the proper angle of attack will produce the desired approach airspeed; too low an angle of attack will incur an excess speed while an excessive angle of attack will produce a deficiency of speed and may cause stall or control problems. Once the proper airspeed and angle of attack are attained the primary control of rate of descent during the steady approach will be the power setting.

and this is the answer from the manual regarding the question posted earlier about being high on glideslope

For example, if it is realized that the airplane is above the desired glide path, a more nose-down attitude without a decrease in power will result in a gain of airspeed. On the other hand, if it is realized that the airplane is below the desired glide path, a more nose-up attitude without an increase in power will simply allow the airplane to fly more slowly and - in the region of reversed command- eventually produce a greater rate of descent.

[Trackdiamond]

Guys..this is one of those long historic banters of course..lemme join in!
(Pitch +/- power)trim 〓performance..is widely understood.

The argument of what controls vertical speed and what controls forward speed depends on which flight phas we plan to be in..or happen to find ourselves in.

Straight and level..Power controls speed. Pitch controls Altitude(Vert speed)

Climb....Power controls Vert Speed. Pitch controls forward Spee:sad:d.

Descent...Power(or lack there of) controls Vert speed...Pitch controls forward speed.

Approach Power controls forward speed pitch controls Vert speed(glide path)..however...if excess deviation occurs on glide..use power reduction(if above sope) or power increase(if below slope) appraching half FSD.When at or beyond half scale dev..consider Go Around.

Missed Approach; Pitch first and Power to TOGA setting.Arrest sink and inject further climbing energy.

Flare: Pitch...to arrest sink from that required to maintain Glideslope..and gently retard from the recommended power reduction Radio height..eg 20-10ft depending on weightyn wind etc...and that should give you if gentle with pitch demand rate and your distant vision should assist in gauging your bum sink rate...shoud settle you on terra forma with a subtle 200-300 fpm close to or just past the touch down zone.

If you have passed the touch down zone markers and haven't gotten ypur greaser..you will probably raise hell if you continue.Abort landing and Go Around..eat your Ego out!

[737Jock]

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/media/PHAK%20-%20Chapter%2004.pdf

If, during the landing phase of flight, the aircraft is brought into ground effect with a constant AOA, the aircraft experiences an increase in CL and a reduction in the thrust required, and a “floating” effect may occur. Because of the reduced drag and power-off deceleration in ground effect, any excess speed at the point of flare may incur a considerable “float” distance. As the aircraft nears the point of touchdown, ground effect is most realized at altitudes less than the wingspan. During the final phases of the approach as the aircraft nears the ground, a reduced power setting is necessary or the reduced thrust required would allow the aircraft to climb above the desired glidepath (GP).

[Trackdiamond]

Guys..this is one of those long historic banters of course..lemme join in!
(Pitch +/- power)trim 〓performance..is widely understood.

The argument of what controls vertical speed and what controls forward speed depends on which flight phas we plan to be in..or happen to find ourselves in.

Straight and level..Power controls speed. Pitch controls Altitude(Vert speed)

Climb....Power controls Vert Speed. Pitch controls forward Speed.

Descent...Power(or lack there of) controls Vert speed...Pitch controls forward speed.

Approach Power controls forward speed pitch controls Vert speed(glide path)..however...if excess deviation occurs on glide..use power reduction(if above sope) or power increase(if below slope) appraching half FSD.When at or beyond half scale dev..consider Go Around.

Missed Approach; Pitch first and Power to TOGA setting.Arrest sink and inject further climbing energy.

Flare: Pitch...to arrest sink from that required to maintain Glideslope..and gently retard from the recommended power reduction Radio height..eg 20-10ft depending on weightyn wind etc...and that should give you if gentle with pitch demand rate and your distant vision should assist in gauging your bum sink rate...shoud settle you on terra forma with a subtle 200-300 fpm close to or just past the touch down zone.

If you have passed the touch down zone markers and haven't gotten ypur greaser..you will probably raise hell if you continue.Abort landing and Go Around..eat your Ego out!

[nitpicker330]

Noodle, what type do you fly exactly? Are you an FO? SO? Or heaven help us CN?

What's you experience?? Sounds to me like you must be a US Navy Top Gun test Pilot guru that knows the books inside and out by the holier than thou attitude you display.

Trackdiamond knows what he's talking about. I suppose I'm him too?:D

I'm only telling you the way I was taught to fly Jets 15,000 Jet hours ago in 1988. Since then I've managed more than a few approach and landings including ones in Typhoons at Kai Tak on the famous IGS ( you've heard of Kai Tak haven't you? )

Go on, I've waved my willy out.......how bigs yours? Put you experience levels on the table so we can all judge..:oh:

You too 737Jock....:ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

Thank you, Track Diamond.

Aerodynamics For Naval Aviators is just that. Modern airliners do not operate near the region of reversed command!

Jock, let me get this straight...
In a 737 or any other speedstable aircraft you can reduce thrust and the nose lowers simultaneously if it's too slow for you can push on the yoke and help it. This will increase your rate of descent while maintaining airspeed. As you approach the glideslope you simply add thrust which also raises the nose to reduce the rate of descent. You should not need to retrim the aircraft as it is still trimmed the same way as when you started the excercise.
Could you confirm that if you get fast whilst on the glideslope (for whatever reason-maybe a windshift), you will first pull the nose up to get back on speed and that this is what you would teach a newbe?

[737Jock]

Bloggs, aerodynamically speaking If I get fast on an approach a speedstable aircraft will reduce its vertical speed aerodynamically. Remember speedstable, I explained that a few times but maybe you check this link:http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/pilot_handbook/media/PHAK%20-%20Chapter%2004.pdf . To increase the rate of descent I reduce thrust.
oh BTW even if you would not notice the decreasing vertical speed, you still approach the runway at a faster rate. so your path over the ground gets more shallow.

Sure thing nitpicker, flight instructing for about 500 hours, 737 about 2500 hrs, A320 about 3500 hours. A320 Command about 1500 hrs. I clocked up my hours quite a bit faster nitpicker.

[FullWings]

In a 737 or any other speedstable aircraft you can reduce thrust and the nose lowers simultaneously if it's too slow for you can push on the yoke and help it. This will increase your rate of descent while maintaining airspeed. As you approach the glideslope you simply add thrust which also raises the nose to reduce the rate of descent. You should not need to retrim the aircraft as it is still trimmed the same way as when you started the excercise.
This is true up to a point but you are relying on secondary effects rather than directly controlling pitch. That technique doesn't work so well on the 1-11/DC-9/CRJ, etc. or FBW aircraft that modify/remove the pitch/power couple.

In free flight, such as a climb or descent, allowing the aircraft to reach equilibrium by using pitch/power against trim works well. If you are constrained to a path, e.g. close to landing or needing to maintain a given altitude, controlling pitch directly through the elevator leads to a more stable profile and less of an excursion from the desired path.

[Capn Bloggs]

737Jock, I say again:

Could you confirm that if you get fast whilst on the glideslope (for whatever reason-maybe a windshift), you will first pull the nose up to get back on speed and that this is what you would teach a newbe?

A Yes/Yes, No/Yes, Yes/No or No/No will be fine thanks.

[737Jock]

I'm not going to answer a question that is more complex then you clearly understand with a yes or no answer.

I'm not talking to a newbie, I'm talking to an experienced pilot who should know his aerodynamics. I'm not joining you in your black and white world of ignorance.

As I said before, a speedstable aircraft will raise its nose aerodynamically after an increase in speed thus reducing its vertical speed. This happens in a phugoid movement that will find a new equilibrium at its original trimmed speed and reduced vertical speed. Reducing the thrust will increase the vertical speed.

You may remember the feeling of the aircraft ballooning when you hit an updraft. the speed itself might not even increase, did you ever consider that the speed increases because you stick to the path by pushing the nose down.

An experienced pilot controls thrust and pitch simultaneously! Simply because they interact with each other all the time.

[Trackdiamond]

I posted earlier specifically for the Airbus FBW case but mods dropped it..wonder why? Here I am re posting the same.

With AT engaged 20ft Retard call is advisory(not command) to start retarding PL to idle.
The retard audio advisory repeats all the way to 5 ..and after repeated calls at 5 ft...it silences. That can be taken as an alarming silence(especialy when you have crossed the 3000ft..even on an average long runway.

Question is..is it SOP to disengage the Auto Thrust?

If on mnual Thrust and "keeping power ON"..what % Thrust are we looking at?Same as Approach thrust or reduced Aproach thrust?
(To cushion your perhaps alarming sink rate??)
In any case if you are FORCED to keep power ON something is not right and unless you have the luxury of a very long runway..beer do a Balked Landing and Go Around.

[737Jock]

Straight and level..Power controls speed. Pitch controls Altitude(Vert speed)

Yet as the speed increases the pitch is lowered, so they interact!

Climb....Power controls Vert Speed. Pitch controls forward Speed.

You could also argue that Power controls forward speed. if you reduce thrust while maintaining pitch the speed reduces. Then if you lower the pitch it controls the vertical speed as well as forward speed. Pitch and power interact!

Descent...Power(or lack there of) controls Vert speed...Pitch controls forward speed.

See above

Approach Power controls forward speed pitch controls Vert speed(glide path)..however...if excess deviation occurs on glide..use power reduction(if above sope) or power increase(if below slope) appraching half FSD.When at or beyond half scale dev..consider Go Around.

Increasing power adds energy to the airplane, the pitch determines if this is converted into speed/vertical speed/both. If power response is fast enough nothing might happen as the energy added counterbalances the upset that required the extra energy.
Likewise with decreasing power.

[Capn Bloggs]

I'm not going to answer a question that is more complex then you clearly understand with a yes or no answer.
Rubbish. You won't answer because it'll prove your method doesn't work well. The answer is simple, so simple even a newbie can understand without all that scientific energy stuff.

You get fast, you pull the power back until you get on speed, then put the power up. You get high on slope, you put the nose down to get back on slope. If the speed changes (if only a smallish pitch correction, the speed probably won't change enough to worry about) you fix it with the throttles, just like the autopilot/autothrottles do it. Handfly an ILS and watch the throttles work.

Answer? Yes/Yes.

Simple!

You may have a few or many seconds to sit on the approach (off slope and/or off speed) waiting for the secondary effects of controls to fly your aeroplane but I don't. Pitch for glideslope and throttles for speed. Simple!

[nitpicker330]

Exactly, seems to me that any other way is too damn complicated.

KISS method.

Noodle or 737Jock haven't answered my question regarding:--
1/ Unreliable Airspeed checklist in the QRH containing Pitch and Thrust tables for Approach.

2/ Flying the BUSS on the Airbus is taught BY Airbus to hold a constant Pitch and Adjust Thrust to stay "in the green" ( correct AOA and therefore IAS for the Config )

[nitpicker330]

Still rummaging through the newly issued revised A330 FCTM and found these:--

( my bolding )

USE OF A/THR The pilot should use the A/THR for approaches as it provides accurate speed control The pilot will keep the hand on the thrust levers so as to be prepared to react if needed.

TRAJECTORY STABILIZATION The first prerequisite for safe final approach and landing is to stabilize the aircraft on the final approach flight path laterally and longitudinally, in landing configuration, at VAPP speed, i.e: • Only small corrections are necessary to rectify minor deviations from stabilized conditions • The thrust is stabilized, usually above idle, to maintain the target approach speed along the desired final approach path


FINAL APPROACH Roll out of the turn on the extended runway centreline and maintain VAPP. Thrust should be stable by 1 000 ft. Use the speed trend arrow to anticipate thrust changes and the FPV to monitor approach path deviations. Use available G/S and/or PAPIs as well as the visual picture to assist in maintaining a stable approach. A continuous visual/instrument scan is required to fly a successful approach. An effective scan will assist in highlighting small errors, allowing small, early corrections to be made. A 3 ° slope will normally be flown with a ROD of approximately 700 ft/min; a higher ROD is an indication that the aircraft is about to descend below the ideal approach path. A small correction of approx 1 ° of pitch will change the ROD by approximately 100 ft/min. Azimuth errors will require bank angle changes both to stop the drift and then to recover to the centreline. Avoid using bank angles greater than 10 ° for small corrections.

[nitpicker330]

That to me once again clearly indicates that Airbus want you to use A/THR to control IAS and that Pitch changes will cause changes in ROD and thus slope.
All clear indications of how they want you to FLY THEIR AIRCRAFT.

Boeing is the same.

By the way......how do you guys fly a raw data manual thrust approach using the Bird?

Surely if you were nicely on slope and 3 deg path and you want to change speed from 160 to 140 you'd keep the pitch around the same to keep the bird sitting on 3 deg whilst at the same time reducing thrust to let the damn Aircraft slow down????

Surely that's the way you'd do it???

You wouldn't go pitching up first to slow down would you???? Because let's say you did pitch up first, that will immediately put you above the GS, then you'll have to reduce thrust to increase the ROD.....messy messy messy as you wallow around the slope!!

What you in effect do is what we've said all along, thrust comes back first then you adjust pitch a small amount to keep the GS.

EXACTLY WHAT THE DAMN AUTO PILOT AUTO THRUST COMBO DO DURING COUPLED APPROACHES.....

[nitpicker330]

I gotta get a hobby outside Aviation. :cool:

However another question for them:--

What do you do when hand flying an approach using the F/D and A/THR??

I'll tell ya----

The FD pitch bar commands you to push forward or pull back to regain or maintain the GS doesn't it? ( yes it's in GS Mode ) Meanwhile the A/THR is nicely controlling the IAS ( yes it's in Speed mode.)

Hint for you-----in this case Pitch is controlling ROD and THRUST controlling the IAS..

Amazing technique isn't it.....:ok:


Now with regards to Flare----

I've been reading my copy of the Airbus instructor support notes for the A330

Here's the bit about how to FLARE the Aircraft correctly and funnily enough it DOESN'T mention adding thrust to get a secondary effect!!


Flare itself

- When reaching 100 ft RA, the pitch law is modified to be a full authority direct law with THS stopped: indeed, the normal pitch law which provides trajectory stability is not the best adapted for the flare maneuver. Additionally, pitch rate and g load feedbacks soften the A/C response to abrupt stick inputs; at 50 ft a static stability augmentation term is introduced, function of ground speed. Consequently as the speed reduces, the pilot will have to move the stick rearwards to maintain a constant path. The Flare technique is thus very conventional. Feedbacks and static stability augmentation are removed on ground. The roll is a roll rate law till the A/C is on ground. - Start the Flare at around 30 ft; it is a progressive aft action on the stick. A continuous aft pressure has to be applied as usual.


- At 20 ft a call out « RETARD » reminds the pilot to retard thrust lever. It is a reminder, not an order. Indeed with ATHR ON, SPEED mode is effective except if autoland (AP ON with LAND/FLARE). Therefore if you are late to retard the thrust levers in a MANUAL landing, the ATHR will add thrust during the Flare to keep the A/C on target speed. - In order to assess the Flare and the A/C position versus the ground, look out well ahead of the A/C.

[de facto]

...and the effort trophey goes to Nitpicker:ok:

[Trackdiamond]

Mate! Your nitpick was spot on..except you left out one thing unpicked!...lateral corrections to maintain Track required....use of the handy TRACK DIAMOND!

Also has there anything been updated on Airbus FCTM regarding why the "retard" call silences after a coulke of reminders at 5ft? I guess the jockey is getting carried away looking for a greaser and floating away with power not retarded..confusing the computer sensor..why doesn't it scream "RETARD! Or GO AROUND!"??:mad:

[nitpicker330]

I'll have to look again about the Retard call.

With regards to Lateral control we could assume from their way of thinking that they use Rudder to control it. :}

[nitpicker330]

There is nothing new in the FCTM regarding the Retard call that I can see?

At 20 ft, the "RETARD" auto call-out reminds the pilot to retard thrust levers. It is a reminder rather than an order. When best adapted, the pilot will rapidly retard all thrust levers depending on the conditions, the pilot will retard earlier or later. However, the pilot must ensure that all thrust levers are at IDLE detent at the latest at touchdown, to ensure ground spoilers extension at touchdown.

There is the usual warnings section that details the RETARD call will happen if one Engine is in Reverse but the other thrust lever is not at Idle, RETARD will continue until you fix the condition.



However I did find yet another Reference to controlling IAS on approach using thrust.....

Yet more proof Noodle and 737Jock are way off base and need re-training:--

SUPP PROCEDURES POWER PLANT---


USE OF AUTOTHRUST IN APPROACH The pilot should use autothrust for approaches. On final approach, it usually gives more accurate speed control, although in turbulent conditions the actual airspeed may vary from the target speed, by as much as 5 kt. Although the changeover between auto and manual thrust is easy to make with a little practice, the pilot should, when using autothrust for the final approach, keep it engaged until he retards the thrust levers to idle for touchdown. If the pilot is going to make the landing using manual thrust, he should disconnect the A/THR by the time he has reached 1 000 ft on the final approach. If he makes a shallow flare, with A/THR engaged, it will increase thrust to maintain the approach speed until he pulls the thrust levers back to idle. Therefore, he should avoid making a shallow flare, or should retard the thrust levers as soon as it is no longer necessary to carry thrust, and if necessary before he receives the “retard” reminder. Although use of the autothrust is recommended for the entire approach, this does not absolve the pilot from his responsibility to monitor its performance, and to disconnect it if it fails to maintain speed at the selected value. Such monitoring should include checking on whether or not the managed speed, calculated by the FMGEC, is reasonable.

[737Jock]

First of all nitpicker I never said that speed for thrust is an incorrect statement. But the simple fact is that thrust for vertical speed neither is incorrect.

You can point as long as you want at the FCTM for thrust is speed definitions, and I can show you as many Principles of flight manuals that state that thrust controls vertical speed.
Both statements are correct, they are just simple descriptions of a more complex interaction.

You can continue your pissing competition with Noodle about which manual you would rather believe. As far as i'm concerned you are both wrong as much as you are both right.

Keep making up examples that fit your own argument. I can also counter that by saying you would not lower the nose close to the ground to recover the path if you get an updraft above the runway, nor would you raise the nose dramatically to stop a sink close to the ground. You either reduce or increase thrust, or change the rate at which you are changing the thrust (slower/faster). So at different stages we use different methods, doesn't mean that other methods don't work or that they are incorrect. or that an explanation from a different viewpoint is wrong.

Thrust is simply energy balancing. Thrust adds or decreases the energy of the aircraft. The pitch control determines if this energy change is converted into a speed change or a vertical speed change or both. Thrust and pitch continuously interact.
External factors can also add or decrease the energy of the aircraft, if we don't balance this external energy change by an equal opposite change in thrust energy. Then the pitch will either cause a speed change or a vertical speed change.

second of all I already said that airbus is not speedstable so you will always need to change pitch after thrust changes, or change thrust after pitch changes. Remember what speed stability is?
An airbus maintains its path, not its speed. Try some direct law flying!

[InSoMnIaC]

737Jock I think the problem lies in those 500hr flight instruction that you were talking about. Problly done in pistons.

What you are saying can be applied to a light prop driven aircraft which responds quickly to power changes and doesn't have very much momentum to overcome. However when we talk about heavy jets we have to consider the slow response time of the engines and the even slower effect that those engines have on the aircraft (as u have all that momentum to overcome).

This is why we use pitch. We do not use adding energy for refining and perfecting the flight path on the approach as it will take way to long for the aircraft to respond. We rather just convert some speed into altitude or visa versa and then worry about the speed (which has a built in margin anyway) by adding or reducing thrust.

All things being equal L= ROD=AoAxIAS. The easiest way to affect lift is by changing AoA (due to inertia and slower response of aircraft to change speed)

The easiest way to change AoA is by using that big arse elevator to change the relative airflow of those big arse wings.

Bloggs question is valid. Let me put it another way. If you are on short final and u get a speed reduction do you push the nose down first or add thrust and maintain the flight path with pitch. Its pretty straight forward. Dont try to complicate it.

by the way if your method works better airbus/boeing etc would have programmed the autopilot to chase speed on approach and the active ATHR mode would be GS (sounds silly to me)

[737Jock]

1/ Unreliable Airspeed checklist in the QRH containing Pitch and Thrust tables for Approach.

2/ Flying the BUSS on the Airbus is taught BY Airbus to hold a constant Pitch and Adjust Thrust to stay "in the green" ( correct AOA and therefore IAS for the Config )

So lets start with BUSS, BUSS tells us (or at least you do) to maintain pitch and use thrust to stay in the green.
So what happens when I'm descending and I maintain pitch at say 5 degrees nose-up and I add thrust:
1. vertical speed changes
2. airspeed changes
3. vertical speed and airspeed both change


Lets now look at the unreliable airspeed checklist. This checklist says that a decreasing pitch attitude indicates the aircraft is too fast, and that an increasing pitch attitude indicates the aircraft is slow.

Funny that BUSS tells us to maintain pitch attitude and keep in the green with thrust, whereas in an aircraft without BUSS we use the change in pitch attitude to determine if we are on speed or not.

[737Jock]

Insomniac, There is no problem.

I'm not saying that thrust for speed is incorrect, it works. But its still a simplified version of what actually happens.

Thrust is energy that can be added or removed from the airframe by pushing the thrust levers foward or aft. We use it to balance the forces on the aircraft.
If the aircraft is flying a stable path, vertical speed and airspeed do not change.
If in this stable flightpath I then add thrust (add energy) either the airspeed or the vertical speed will change until a new equilibrium (a new stable flightpath) is found. The pitch determines if the airspeed changes or if the vertical speed changes. Obviously this new equilibrium (flightpath) is not what we desire, its either too fast or too shallow.

There are also external factors that can increase or decrease the energy of the aircraft. An updraft will add energy to the airframe, if we don't do anything the pitch attitude will either convert this extra energy into airspeed (too fast) or into vertical speed (too shallow). This is obviously undesired so we need to restore our original stable flightpath. We can only do this by reducing the energy of the aircraft, by the same amount that was added by the updraft. Therefore we reduce thrust.

So when I encounter an updraft, I reduce thrust as I know I will need to decrease the energy of the aircraft to maintain the stable path.
If I encounter a downdraft I add thrust as I know I will need to invrease the energy of the aircraft to maintain the stable path.

Any examples where I'm still slowing down or speeding up are not stable flightpaths. Therefore I can utilise the energy in a different way.

[InSoMnIaC]

Correct however u are not considering that the larger the aircraft the longer it takes for this equilibrium to take effect. That is why we simply say stuff waiting for this equilobrium. We are more worried about out flight path at this stage so we maintain the flight path and then slowly recover the speed excursion with thrust

[737Jock]

I'm not saying anything about how long it takes. You can simply feel up and downdrafts by the seat of your pants. Therefore you can immediately add or reduce thrust as required, that there still might be a little speed excursion is hardly the point.
There is no reason to feel the updraft, push on the nose and then wait until you see a speed excursion before you reduce thrust. Nor is there a reason to feel the updraft, allow the vertical speed to reduce and then decrease thrust to increase the vertical speed.

In the flare the groundeffect reduces the energy required to maintain the flightpath, plus we want to alter the flightpath by reducing vertical speed. So in the flare we exchange airspeed for a reduced vertical speed and we reduce thrust because we need less energy due to the groundeffect.
Any additional external upsets in the flare require a change in energy/ a change in the rate of energy change, so we either reduce thrust slower or faster. And in extreme cases might even need to add power.

A computer can't anticipate, it can only react after the fact. Humans can anticipate.

Pitch controls both vertical speed and airspeed, thrust controls energy. However energy is not easy to quantify. Therefore energy can be linked to airspeed, but it can also be linked to vertical speed. Both airspeed and vertical speed are an indication of the energy of the aircraft.
Therefore both statements, thrust is speed and thrust is vertical speed are true.
The path is a combination of airspeed and vertical speed, so the statement that thrust is path is also true. In the end Pitch + Power = Performance.

I always said that we manipulate pitch and thrust simultaneously. And on top of that thrust often also has a direct effect on potch because its not delivered in the centerline.

[nitpicker330]

Thrust this, secondary effect that, pull this push that etc etc etc

You are making it way to complicated, sounds wonderful in THEORY if you are studying aerodynamics in the classroom!!

Mate at the end of the day you fly your jet the way you want to......me? I'm going to keep it simple and follow the manufactures recommendations as to how to fly THEIR Aircraft.

For one simple reason------LITIGATION, if something un desired should happen I will have less chance of being screwed over in the subsequent court of enquiry...
Sounds silly but at the end of the day it's our jobs on the line each and every time we strap in to the Jet.

Remember big brother is watching everything you do, they will know what inputs you made to the controls every step of the way.....

Anyway sounds to me like we probably do the same things although you don't realize it!!

[nitpicker330]

Back to the BUSS.

Below FL250 on descent you switch off all ADR's
Idle descent pitch will be around zero to stay in the green.
All Config changes are recommended to be done in level flight wings level.
We all know or should know approx pitch attitudes to hold level while configuring,,,,,,yes around 5 up give or take.

Setup 5 up and stay in the Green as you configure. Try to hold a fairly constant Pitch and take flaps as the green moves up the screen to keep it in the middle.....

Config 3 attained, hold pitch and add thrust hold it in the green until GS intercept ( hopefully you achieved Flap 3 as you intercepted the GS so you don't need to fly level too far ) then pitch down a little to keep on the GS and at the same time reduce Thrust to around 49% to stay in the green zone. The base figures should be pitch 4.9 thrust 49% N1. Vary the pitch to maintain the GS and thrust to keep in the green.

Down the slope, keep Pitch stable to hold the GS and adjust Thrust to stay in the Green

Land, kiss ground and complete tons of paperwork.

Simple

Works well that way, if you try to vary the pitch up and down AND change the thrust it gets complicated way fast!!

Still, you need to know approx Pitch attitudes to set to kick things off.


With regards to your comments regarding Non BUSS Aircraft, I believe you misunderstand the intent

QRH says--

FLYING TECHNIQUE TO STABILIZE SPEED: Adjust pitch in order to fly the required flight path. When target pitch is reached, flying intended flight path, adjust thrust to target. If the aircraft pitch tends to increase, aircraft is slow, then increase thrust; If the aircraft pitch tends to decrease, aircraft is fast

You set a Target Pitch and then see what happens, if the Pitch moves then ADJUST THRUST because it's either too much or too little to achieve the CORRECT IAS.

Therefore same as the BUSS, Pitch is the base line and your primary target, Thrust is then used to adjust to stabilized flight path ( and therefore IAS ) for what you are trying to do.

Indeed on Approach Flap 3 it's exactly the same, setup the required Pitch of 4.9 deg adjusting as required to keep the GS and set 49% N1 which should get the speed correct ( comparing IRS/GPS GS and tower winds to approximate the IAS ) remembering that you have a good margin in Flap 3 between VLS and VFE Flap 3 limit to stay inside. ( about 40 kt split )

[Steve the Pirate]

This has been a fun thread! What I want to know is, if I'm meant to adjust power to follow a glideslope, why do the manufactures insist on calling it a flight director pitch bar and not speed bar :)

As far as hearing RETARD 3 or 4 times during the flare goes (common on an A/THR approach) it's possibly due to the pilot not understanding that there's a heck of a lot of thrust lever movement required before he gets to the actual thrust value - he thinks as soon as he moves the levers from the CL detent he's reducing the thrust which, unless he had climb thrust on during the flare (unlikely), he's not. As for manual thrust approaches, it could be a number of reasons but whatever the reason he will be compromising landing performance.

I'm with nitpicker and Bloggs on this one. Power/thrust for glideslope works well in small aircraft with near-instantaneous thrust response and little inertia whereas it's not such a practical method of maintaining a glideslope on a heavy jet.

[Capn Bloggs]

I can also counter that by saying you would not lower the nose close to the ground to recover the path if you get an updraft above the runway, nor would you raise the nose dramatically to stop a sink close to the ground. You either reduce or increase thrust, or change the rate at which you are changing the thrust (slower/faster).
If you get an updraft "above the runway" (I assume you have started to flare - by easing back the stick back with power coming off) you don't just pull the power back and wait! You'll either land very long or very slow/hard. You decide either to lower the nose again if you have runway space and height (add power if getting slow before touchdown) or go around.

If you get a bad sink close to the ground you would most certainly raise the nose (depending on type/tail clearance, of course); put the power up as well if it's a significant pitch change. By the time these donks spin up to meaningful thrust you'd have hit the deck hard if all you did was maintain the pitch attitude you had before the sink hit you. Obviously, the lower it hits, the less options you have, but we're moving away from the main argument which is what you use to control what during a somewhat normal approach.

Whether deliberate or not, you are continually mixing up the scenarios:

So lets start with BUSS, BUSS tells us (or at least you do) to maintain pitch and use thrust to stay in the green.
So what happens when I'm descending and I maintain pitch at say 5 degrees nose-up and I add thrust:
We're not talking (never have been) about general descents where pitch is used to control the speed (fixed power ie idle) and obviously if you add a bit of power, the rate of descent will reduce (secondary effect of controls); we're talking in this thread about being stabilised coming down final and flare with a known vertical path that you must stay on.

A computer can't anticipate, it can only react after the fact. Humans can anticipate.

So how does autoland work then?

[737Jock]

autoland doesn't anticipate bloggs.

The answer to what happens is what I wrote. You can try to twist and turn what I said in all kinds of directions, but I never said that thrust for speed doesn't work. I said its an incomplete simplification, and that also goes for thrust is vertical speed. Yet for some reason you don't want to accept its a simplification.
That you and nitpicker find the more complex version (which is also incomplete) too complicated to understand is not my problem.

Be my guest and fly your aircraft like an autopilot that only acts reactive.

[Capn Bloggs]

737jock, let me ask the question another way. Give us an example of how a human could anticipate whereas the AP on an autoland can't.

I do actually understand every bit of your theories but I choose to ignore them, and criticise them, because not only do they fly in the face of basic aerodynamics for normal jets (not naval fighters) during the landing phase, they don't work satisfactorily unless you're trick-flying your 737 with it's pitch/power couple.

Further, your arcane points on energy really are for the theorists and would do nothing to help a newbie. You did say yourself "thrust controls energy. However energy is not easy to quantify. Therefore energy can be linked to airspeed, but it can also be linked to vertical speed."

[737Jock]

Back to the BUSS.

Below FL250 on descent you switch off all ADR's
Idle descent pitch will be around zero to stay in the green.
All Config changes are recommended to be done in level flight wings level.
We all know or should know approx pitch attitudes to hold level while configuring,,,,,,yes around 5 up give or take.

Setup 5 up and stay in the Green as you configure. Try to hold a fairly constant Pitch and take flaps as the green moves up the screen to keep it in the middle.....

Config 3 attained, hold pitch and add thrust hold it in the green until GS intercept ( hopefully you achieved Flap 3 as you intercepted the GS so you don't need to fly level too far ) then reduce Thrust to around 49% to stay on the GS.

Down the slope, keep Pitch stable and adjust Thrust to stay in the Green

Land, kiss ground and complete tons of paperwork.

Simple

Works well that way, if you try to vary the pitch up and down AND change the thrust it gets complicated way fast!!

Still, you need to know approx Pitch attitudes to set to kick things off.


With regards to your comments regarding Non BUSS Aircraft, I believe you misunderstand the intent


thanks for the lecture? don't know where this came from, but I can assure you I don't misunderstand the intent.

Let me quote from the QRH:

If the aircraft pitch tends to increase, aircraft is slow, then increase thrust;
If the aircraft pitch tends to decrease, aircraft is fast, then decrease thrust.

So according to you in BUSS we maintain the pitch constant and stay in the green with thrust.
Whereas on aircraft without BUSS, we judge the change in pitch to determine if we are slow or fast.

You see the bar that replaces the speedscale is in fact not a speedbar. Its an AOA bar.
FCTM: The BUSS is displayed on both PFDs. It is based on Angle Of Attack (AOA) information, and enables to easily and safely fly the aircraft without any valid airspeed indication. The BUSS enables to fly the aircraft in the entire flight domain while observing the design limits.


You said earlier that you keep the path with pitch, so in BUSS you clearly fly differently as you keep the pitch fixed. And you even explain that varying the pitch would make it too messy.

Now I ask you again, if we use your method to fly in BUSS by maintaining a fixed pitch and staying in the green (AOA) with thrust, what are you changing? Speed, vertical speed or both?

-----

You constantly keep talking about changing configuration, slowing down on the glideslope etc. You realise that you are reducing the energy of the aircraft right?
I hope you also realise that slowing down does not fall under the definition of a stable flight.

For a flight to be stable it means that all forces are balanced. You slow down because the combined force vectors acting rearward, are bigger then the combined force vectors acting forward. Only when they are equal your speed will remain the same.
Just because you are going down 3 degrees does not make the flight stable.

[737Jock]

No you don't understand Bloggs. That much is very clear simply from the word trick-flying. Its not trick flying, its aerodynamics.
It becomes even more clear when you differentiate aerodynamics by size. Physics don't change by size.

you can try all you want to put me and noodle in the same camp, but what I said was that both camps are right. The truth of what happens is more complicated. But as a teacher you should always know a bit more the. the student right? what if he doesn't understand your thrust is speed way of flying. You give up or try a different approach?

I'm sorry but I'm not gonna dumb down the truth because all the information you can grasp should be understandable for a newbie.

That you don't like to hear that other people are right besides you is a problem you need to discuss with your own ego.

I'll discuss further with nitpicker if you don't mind.

[CL300]

Give us an example of how a human could anticipate whereas the AP on an autoland can't.

Autopilot cannot see the rain, cannot see the clouds, cannot see **** actually, it is programmed to a hopefully successful chain of events triggered by threshold or triggers for that matter. 20ft RA, or Nosewheel proximity switch making contact...or whatever...This is why auto land has so many limitations in Xwind, Tailwind, you name it... The computer has to react, it waits to be disturbed, then corrects, the main difference is that is does it in microvolts and microamps, DIRECTLY to the airplane flight controls ( oversimplification here). where humans ( pilots that is), will 'read' the air and compensate BEFORE the event; this is why you cannot BUY experience.

The autopilot, and the airplane itself in FBW things, are flying MUCH better than human, as long as the situation does not go TOO DYNAMIC.. Look at the ATHR, or AT..aren't they that slow ??!! They are great to maintain the mach over the NAT, but cope poorly in gusty, shifting winds don't they ?

One day will come, where the quantum computers with a lot of fuzzy logic and 100000's of flights loaded will be able to mimic the 20k landings pilot, we are nowhere near this. ( proof being that drones are hand flown when dynamic kicks in)

As far as the original question for this thread is concerned, the answer was given extensively for the Airbus side; and this very sensitive part of flying (flare)with FBW airplanes is addressed differently depending on the manufacturers ; from the "stop trim" at 50 ft, to the derotation after Touchdown, ones would have to master a dozen of logics in order to be able to write a thorough answer.

Long live and prosper..

[737Jock]

thanks CL300, I would also add that todays computers in avionics cannot feel.

[737Jock]

Mate at the end of the day you fly your jet the way you want to......me? I'm going to keep it simple and follow the manufactures recommendations as to how to fly THEIR Aircraft.

For one simple reason------LITIGATION, if something un desired should happen I will have less chance of being screwed over in the subsequent court of enquiry...
Sounds silly but at the end of the day it's our jobs on the line each and every time we strap in to the Jet.

Remember big brother is watching everything you do, they will know what inputs you made to the controls every step of the way.....

Would love to see a litigator disprove a few hundred years of physics sience....

lmao

Anyway sounds to me like we probably do the same things although you don't realize it!!

I would rather say that you don't realize what you are actually doing and therefore sticking to your simplified versions that change with every phase of flight.
Whereas my explanation that thrust is energy and that the pitch controls what is done with this energy is valid in every flightphase.

[nitpicker330]

Mate you are so far off the range with all the theory complicating it.

For gods sake it's simple

THRUST CONTROLS THE SPEED

PITCH CONTROLS THE PATH

In nearly all modes except Climb and Open descent where the ONLY WAY is for the Elevator to directly control the Pitch as the thrust is fixed.

Yes PITCH AND THRUST effect each other AND WORK HAND IN HAND, no arguments there, however in swept wing Airline transport category Jets there can be no other way. It's been this way since the advent of the Airline Jet.

Please don't complicate it anymore than that with your science books professor classroom theory.....it's not Rocket science.

I've been successfully flying these things for 25 years all over the world in rain hail typhoon snow storm safely and correctly according to the check and training departments of 3 highly safe World standard Airlines that follow Manufactures guidelines WITHOUT problems ever.

If me or my 3 Airlines were doing it wrong it would have been picked up and corrected before this.

You my friend have the bull by the horns.

[737Jock]

So what you are saying is that you can't grasp aerodynamics and physics beyond a simplified method that changes in every flight regime.
And your right it's not rocket science, it's physics and aerodynamics.

BTW you forgot to answer my question regarding BUSS twice now!

So once more what happens if you keep the pitch constant (as you advocate for flying in BUSS) and keep the AOA in the green with thrust?
Speed changes, vertical speed changes or both change?

And just to put icing on the cake, what happens to the flightpath?

[nitpicker330]

I mean you haven't explained how you handfly an ILS using the A/THR.......

The recommended way to do it by both Airbus and Boeing....

You follow the PITCH BAR on the Flight Director which gives you guidance to follow the Glide Slope while the Auto Thrust closely keeps the Speed nailed.

This YOU CANNOT DENY is what happens.

What makes you think that you then do it ass about when you do manual thrust and suddenly using Pitch for speed and Thrust for sink rate.....

Come on do tell.

[737Jock]

PITCH CONTOLS THE PATH

Since a flightpath is speed over the ground (which is related to airspeed and you have ground speed mini) vs vertical speed you are actually saying:

Pitch controls speed and vertical speed.

Which is what I said.

[737Jock]

I don't normally handfly an ILS with A/T. Did you know this is an SOP in Lufthansa btw?

But as I can't control the thrust I have no other option then to fly like a reactive autopilot, with the thrust chasing my pitch variations.
In an A319 this can become a bit of a ballsache as the trim to compensate for the underslung engines is too slow.

I never said that this doesn't work. But you can also fly it the way noodle described and the way it's written in that naval aviator handbook. In the end it's all a simplified description of what actually happens.
Because pitch controls both speed and vertical speed, and thrust balances the forces that act on the aircraft through energy.

[nitpicker330]

Sorry

About the BUSS.

Yes you will need to adjust pitch up and down 1 or 2 deg to maintain the GS but at the same time remaining in the Green band which is reasonably wide. Just like a normal approach.

So if you are a little high---push forward only 1 or 2 degrees to increase the ROD ( unfortunately you don't have a VSI so be careful ) ease back the thrust a little to stop speed increasing ( to keep in the green )

YES YOUR FLIGHT PATH GETS STEEPER

Once on GS pitch back up 1 or 2 deg and return the thrust to the baseline N1 of 49%.

Now maintain the Pitch to keep the path fairly constant and on the GS with small adjustments as required.
Maintain thrust fairly constant to keep inside the green as required.

The only difference to a normal approach is that you can't directly see the IAS
You can still vary Pitch to keep on a Glide Slope
You can still vary thrust to keep in the nice wide green band.

So in effect normal handling technique.

[737Jock]

So you don't fix the pitch attitude when you fly in BUSS. Thanks for clarifying your error.

[Capn Bloggs]

Since a flightpath is speed over the ground (which is related to airspeed and you have ground speed mini) vs vertical speed
This is getting more bizarre as time goes on... :eek:

So you don't fix the pitch attitude when you fly in BUSS. Thanks for clarifying your error.
No, because you're changing it to get back on the GS! I don't fly the buss but (even) I can grasp what is going on with it.

[nitpicker330]

Ok so why do you think the manufacturers decided that PITCH controls ROD and THRUST controls speed?

Surely they could have done it your way if wanted to and it was better??

They could have made the Aircraft Pitch up and down to maintain speed ( just like Open Descent ) and made the Thrust increase or decrease to keep the GS...

BUT THEY DIDN'T

By the way, Airbus and Boeing BOTH recommend use of the Auto Thrust ( Auto Throttle ) during manual flight.

[737Jock]

Blogs if you don't have forward speed and you don't have vertical speed while up at 2000ft in the air you are hovering! That's not a path.

If you don't have forward speed but you descent at 700ft/min, you are dropping. The angle of your path is then 90 degrees.

If you fly at 130kts and you have no vertical speed you are flying straight and level. The angle of your path is 0 degrees.

So In order to fly a 3 degree path you need to go forward or backward (speed) and you need to descent or climb (vertical speed)

Mate study some physics!

[NoodleAir]

Hopeless…..

Completely hopeless.

Jock, I admire your patience mate!

[nitpicker330]

I've updated my BUSS answer!!

Yes of course with the BUSS you vary the Pitch to maintain the GS as normal and use the Thrust to hold the green, I was trying to highlight that to stay in the green band you adjust thrust whilst keeping pitch steady. Naturally you will need to vary pitch up and down a bit to maintain the GS as well.

BUT the important bit is that it uses the same technique as a normal approach.

Sorry for the confusion.

Without the BUSS You setup the Pitch ( then adjust to stay on the GS ) and Thrust and basically hope the IAS is ok with a fairly wide margin of error on your side....

[nitpicker330]

Ahhh the great guru of all things Aviation comes back into play......

Noodle....

Anything intelligent to add?

I cannot do anymore than I have to point out the way Airbus wants it done.
I've quoted heaven a verse from their own FCTM and A330 Instructors manual..

What you don't believe THEM either?

Would you like me to ring up their chief test Pilot in Toulouse.:D

[Trackdiamond]

...that was the original thread question I think?

Hold if necessary but be prepared for a Balked Landing Go Around as to REQUIRE more power than you normally need during flare with its consequential possible dangers on the landing run available..means you are outside the envelope of "stabiized approach". Nothing is stable (strictly speaking) about flying the ILS I agree with 737jock..if stable the plane would automatically realign with ILS upon any displa.cement..like Autocoupled approach! More appropriate if we talk about a Energy state stability rather than flight state stability. On the flare if you require to hold the power..it means your energy state is unstable..and the alarming impending sink rate is your cue.

Keep the AT on Approach mode...then you don't have to worry about this debate!

[nitpicker330]

Already answered that page 7 back using FCTM notes....on reply #127

Maybe 737Jock and Noodle should read the SUPP PROC Power Plant and the FCTM section manual quotes again and really read them this time.:D

Ahh stuff it I'll post it again for them.....

SUPP PROC POWER PLANT--


USE OF AUTOTHRUST IN APPROACH The pilot should use autothrust for approaches. On final approach, it usually gives more accurate speed control, although in turbulent conditions the actual airspeed may vary from the target speed, by as much as 5 kt. Although the changeover between auto and manual thrust is easy to make with a little practice, the pilot should, when using autothrust for the final approach, keep it engaged until he retards the thrust levers to idle for touchdown. If the pilot is going to make the landing using manual thrust, he should disconnect the A/THR by the time he has reached 1 000 ft on the final approach. If he makes a shallow flare, with A/THR engaged, it will increase thrust to maintain the approach speed until he pulls the thrust levers back to idle. Therefore, he should avoid making a shallow flare, or should retard the thrust levers as soon as it is no longer necessary to carry thrust, and if necessary before he receives the “retard” reminder. Although use of the autothrust is recommended for the entire approach, this does not absolve the pilot from his responsibility to monitor its performance, and to disconnect it if it fails to maintain speed at the selected value. Such monitoring should include checking on whether or not the managed speed, calculated by the FMGEC, is reasonable.

And the A330 FCTM quotes---


USE OF A/THR The pilot should use the A/THR for approaches as it provides accurate speed control The pilot will keep the hand on the thrust levers so as to be prepared to react if needed.

TRAJECTORY STABILIZATION The first prerequisite for safe final approach and landing is to stabilize the aircraft on the final approach flight path laterally and longitudinally, in landing configuration, at VAPP speed, i.e: • Only small corrections are necessary to rectify minor deviations from stabilized conditions • The thrust is stabilized, usually above idle, to maintain the target approach speed along the desired final approach path


FINAL APPROACH Roll out of the turn on the extended runway centreline and maintain VAPP. Thrust should be stable by 1 000 ft. Use the speed trend arrow to anticipate thrust changes and the FPV to monitor approach path deviations. Use available G/S and/or PAPIs as well as the visual picture to assist in maintaining a stable approach. A continuous visual/instrument scan is required to fly a successful approach. An effective scan will assist in highlighting small errors, allowing small, early corrections to be made. A 3 ° slope will normally be flown with a ROD of approximately 700 ft/min; a higher ROD is an indication that the aircraft is about to descend below the ideal approach path. A small correction of approx 1 ° of pitch will change the ROD by approximately 100 ft/min. Azimuth errors will require bank angle changes both to stop the drift and then to recover to the centreline. Avoid using bank angles greater than 10 ° for small corrections.

[nitpicker330]

Surely the last paragraph advising the a higher ROD than 700 fpm will result in going below GS and a 1 deg pitch correction causes 100 fpm change IS ALL YOU NEED TO SEE HOW THEY WANT YOU TO CORRECT IT....

I mean do they have to hand feed you too????

[BizJetJock]

An amazing level of blinkerdness being displayed by some here.

I don't think anyone is disputing that both thrust and pitch affect both speed and flight path. The question is which produces the finer control and is more appropriate. The answer to that, like so many things in aviation, is - it depends.
It depends on:
a) the characteristics of the aircraft you are flying
b) the critical task you are trying to achieve.
I'm afraid, NoodleAir, that your unswerving reliance on "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" as the bible for all things is somewhat misplaced. It was written in the 60's for - surprise, surprise - Naval Aviators. They were flying machines that were, by today's standards:
-Small
-Light
-Low wing loading
-possessing a "sharp" drag curve, i.e. drag increases quickly as you slow below Vmd
-often had flap blowing systems that make lift directly related to engine power setting.
-And their critical task was landing-on to a carrier; a visual approach flown at considerably closer to the stall speed than would be used for a civil aircraft.
With the exception of the last these characteristics are similar to a light propeller aircraft of today, and I would be the first to say that the best system to use in those is pitch for speed, power for flight path.
However, we are discussing modern transport jets. These are relatively:
-Large
-Heavy
-High wing loading
-with a very flat drag curve
-No direct relationship between lift and engine power/thrust setting.
-Whose critical task is a precision instrument approach to low or no visual minima.
For these 40 years of line experience from all manufacturers has shown that the best technique for line service (on approach) is pitch for flight path and thrust for speed. Which is why it is recommended in the manuals, taught at all the schools and used by the automatic systems.
Your reference to test pilots is unfortunately a red herring, because many techniques are used in test flying to enable repeatability and measurability against requirements that are different from line flying techniques. In this specific case, if you are trying to measure landing distance, speed control is more critical than the actual touchdown point which will be recorded by the cameras, so the more precise control is used.

[nitpicker330]

What that man said:ok:

[737Jock]

Surely the last paragraph advising the a higher ROD than 700 fpm will result in going below GS and a 1 deg pitch correction causes 100 fpm change IS ALL YOU NEED TO SEE HOW THEY WANT YOU TO CORRECT IT....

I mean do they have to hand feed you too????

No but clearly they have to hand feed it to you.

What I'm saying is that you manage the aircraft energy with the thrust. And that is applicable in all phases of flight. You don't have to invent a new rule of thumb for every different phase of flight.
If the energy state (the forces that act on the aircraft) is not in equilibrium you will see either speed or vertical speed changes. Which in effect are pitch changes.

but when your buddy Bloggs starts to contest that a flightpath is the resultant of vertical and horizontal movement then something is seriously wrong with basic understanding of physics. and in that case those type of people meed to be handfed information!

The difference is that when I feel an updraft, seat of the pants and all. I immediately reduce thrust in order to balance the energy and at the same time I adjust the pitch required.
You lower the nose and then wait for the speed change that WILL follow, only then you reduce the thrust thinking that you are controlling the speed, whereas you are simply reducing the energy the aircraft has in order to reach your desired stable flightpath. Its the same thing.

See speed doesn't change on its own, it changes due to an energy change, this change is absorbed into vertical speed or speed depending on the pitch.

[nitpicker330]

What are we inventing exactly??
Apart from CLB or OPEN DESC what modes aren't THRUST for SPEED?

When I feel an updraft I immediately ease forward on the pitch to maintain the GS then and only then do I adjust the thrust to maintain the speed. The thrust may not even need to be adjusted for minor changes....

When I feel a sink I immediately ease back on the pitch to correct the ROD, most times considering the inertia of the heavy Jet I still won't need to increase the thrust BUT I'm ready to just in case.

You cannot effectively use pitch to vary the IAS at it takes too long to effect an outcome and you'd need to adjust the thrust anyway. Not to mention they don't want you push forward at low level!!

There in lies the crux of the whole matter, THRUST CONTROLS THE SPEED MUCH MORE EFFECTIVELY IN JET A/C.

[Capn Bloggs]

The difference is that when I feel an updraft, seat of the pants and all. I immediately reduce thrust in order to balance the energy and at the same time I adjust the pitch required.
Gee, I thought the last 6 pages has been about using power to control the glidepath and elevator/pitch to control the speed. Now you are actually pitching (down in your example) AT THE SAME TIME as pulling the power off. Glad to see you're coming around...
:D

Energy? May the energy force be with you, 737jock. :)

[737Jock]

well bloggs I refer you to my first post on the matter post 47

The flying techniques are just that techniques. Thrust and pitch are linked, cause what we want to fly is performance.
It doesn't matter one bit what you change first. It's just an easy way to teach students and give them some good concepts to quickly deal with matters. But it is as easy as I said.

But I bet your ass that when you feel a kick in your back due to a gust you immediately reduce thrust, which in a Boeing will automatically lower the nose due to it being trimmed for speed. You know this you have this experience, a student might actually lower the nose (increasing speed) and then reduce thrust to reduce speed. No experienced pilot would do this.
In an airbus you will immediately take thrust off and lower the nose with the sidestick to maintain speed.

clearly if you could read... You would see that I actually said the pitch will change.
Cause the pitch controls the speed and the vertical speed, which controls the path. But you don't even understand what a flightpath is.
So instead of thinking that I'm coming around how about you study a bit. Cause nothing what I said is contradictory.
The statement that thrust controls speed is as correct or incorrect as the statement that thrust controls vertical speed. It only does so because we are unable to detect energy requirement changes fast enough.

You have a lot of studying to do Bloggs, physics, aerodynamics, but more importantly reading.

I would start with learning how to read and actually understand. Its probably why you are having so much trouble with physics and aerodynamics.

[Capn Bloggs]

Cause the pitch controls the speed and the vertical speed, which controls the path.
I thought...power controlled...which one again? I need more energy. My brain's hurting! :}

[737Jock]

Weak arguments and trying to ridiculize your opponent. Typical for people who lack intellect. What's next call me a nerd and show some muscle?

[misd-agin]

Bizjet - in general I'd agree with you but you but I doubted the accuracy of your comment about the wing loading of 1960 fighters vs. modern airliners. Turns out you were correct. Learned something new today.

Fighter from that era were in the 70-80 lbs/sqft range. Modern airliners are in the 120-140 lbs/sqft range. The only 'F' series a/c that approach 120-130 lbs/sqft is the F-111.

Nicely done.

Comparison of Aircraft Wing Loadings - Military and General Aviation - CombatACE (http://combatace.com/topic/55928-comparison-of-aircraft-wing-loadings/)

[misd-agin]

Capn Bloggs - you need more energy? What's your potential vs kinetic energy state? What's your energy state vs. your desired flight path? Is your thrust in a fixed position or is it variable(ie not at full power).

Like I said, I'm glad we finally solved this issue.

[Capn Bloggs]

Weak arguments and trying to ridiculize your opponent. Typical for people who lack intellect.

You have a lot of studying to do Bloggs, physics, aerodynamics, but more importantly reading.

I would start with learning how to read and actually understand. Its probably why you are having so much trouble with physics and aerodynamics.

No but clearly they have to hand feed it to you.

Mate study some physics!

and so on... :D :D :D

[737Jock]

All those statements are based on your posts. Or in reply to nitpickers post who also has the tendency to ridiculize. You (Bloggs) misread and misinterpret.
You demonstrate a lack of knowledge in physics and aerodynamics. And when confronted with verifiable information you ignore it instead of trying to understand it.

It's not ridiculizing to point out simple facts.

But keep working on those emoticons. Another sad example of not being able to have a proper debate.

[grrowler]

WTF is going on with this thread??
:eek:

[nitpicker330]

John Tullamarine

Time to lock this thread buddy, waste of time now.

These Physics professors and Aerodynamic class room experts can fly their chalk board the way they wish and there can be no doubt their theories are correct with regards to momentum path vectors inertia etc etc.

Me? I'm sticking to the way Airbus want me to. Keeping it simple easy to use and safe for real world operations. KISS method.

LOCK IT IN EDDIE. ( John knows what I mean )

[bubbers44]

Nitpicker330, I think most of us had this behind us by our private pilots license.

I agree, this thread needs to be closed.

[hikoushi]

The airplane does not care what you think controls what. The reality is: the throttle controls ENGINE POWER (Thrust) and the yoke / stick controls PITCH (or indirectly, AOA). The combination produces performance. You choose which controls which as a TECHNIQUE based on what you are trying to get the airplane to do. Obviously by the endlessness of these arguments, they both work. Regarding jets, if you observe how modern auto flight systems work (A330 and B717) you will see 2 main ways they are programmed to handle speed. First is "speed-on-pitch", where power is fixed at a set value by the autothrust / auto throttle (climb, TOGA, flight idle) and pitch is varied to maintain selected speeds. Second is "speed on thrust", where flight path (vertical rate or angle, a glideslope, VNAV path, or level flight) is maintained by pitch and the power is varied by the autothrust to maintain speed.

Notice that in "speed on thrust" mode both adjustments always occur; if you are in (Airbus speak) ALT CRZ and hit a mountain wave updraft, the autopilot will pitch down slightly to hold altitude, and reduce thrust to hold something close to cruise mach. This is, strictly speaking, a technique. It makes the most sense to think in this manner so the designers programmed the airplane to think this way. It could be argued that the airplane pitches up to maintain speed, and concurrently reduces power to prevent a climb. Some people fly this way (or at least that is what they choose to think, rather than visualizing the "speed on thrust" scenario). Imaging you were hand flying a 172 in a similar, smooth wave updraft and wanted to hold altitude and speed (good luck). You would probably follow an intuitive technique similar to one the Airbus uses to fly itself. However, you COULD choose to think differently and be a strict "elevator controls speed" guy, jockeying the throttle back to reduce excess thrust and therefore counter the updraft, while gingerly pitching up in opposition to the thrust reduction to get the speed back. For light planes that do not have much excess power, this is a good way to think; it will help you make the right move when you suddenly find yourself closer to a stall than you thought you were. Come to think of it in light of AF447 it has a place in jet flying, too. The point is in the end it doesn't matter how you think about it, you will intuitively move both at the same time, as needed to get the job done. Yoke = elevator / pitch, throttle = engine power / thrust. Speed is part of the resulting performance.

This argument is ages-old as we all know. Bob Buck in his many books advocated the "elevator for airspeed" theory (and with his varied experience I would listen to him); Jim Webb in "Fly The Wing" (the American equivalent to "Handling the Big Jets") advocates the opposite. I would listen to him, too. And really, don't we tend to use both? On the glideslope a momentary above-path deviation can be quickly countered by a little pitch down; we pull back the power to keep the speed from building. But if we keep trending high over the long term, a very slight reduction in approach power setting is probably what is going to do the trick. We then subtly adjust pitch with power to hold our speed. It's all just in how we think about it. So we use the most appropriate technique for our airplane, situation, maneuver, and in some cases just personal preference. In the Boeings and Airbii (particularly the latter, as the fly by wire system decides your technique for you a great deal of the time) with the autothrust on, we fly whatever technique we have the system programmed for. And if we disengage the autoflight, autothrottles, and flight directors (talking 717 here) we fly just as in any other plane.

Recall that in a STABLE idle power descent, we can switch between VS and OPN DES / Idle Clamp all day long and the flight path, attitude, and power setting will not change if nothing disturbs the airplane's "groove".

Everybody here needs to take a deep breath, drink a beer, and focus less on how we THINK about flying and just go out and enjoy DOING it. Myself included. Ready 3-2-1... pf-FSSSS! That is a Peroni opening. I believe I will let the airplane do all the thinking this weekend and just enjoy the flying part.

[st martin]

I have followed this thread for many days now and have enjoyed every part of it. I del I have to be a part of it before it goes inactive.

One of the easiest examples to understand what controls path, is while we maintain steady descend and we realize we are going below path.
At this point, further pitch up without thrust addition might produce a greater rate of descent and cause the airplane to sink more below the desired glide path.

This makes clear that path is controlled by thrust.

I see that old jocks have withdrawn their interest in the thread, and the ones seemingly "celebrating" their win are the ones that (to me) are advocating the wrong way of teaching things.
i have no Airbus experience, but I have a lot of jet experience. Light, heavy, military, supersonic, all kinds of.

The physics behind the flight and handling of jets will always be the same. Engineers come up with new solutions to make dumber pilots feel better, but the physics will always be the same.

An the truth is that pitch controls the airspeed. i will have to agree and support the minority in this thread. It is difficult to do so, but it is not unusual that the minority is right, and that most people do it the wrong way.
Engineers will come up with their best way to make them feel like the best pilots, but the credit must go the engineers.

Some replies about "region of reverse command" etc, are utter bollocks if I may say. The person that posted this is entirely clueless of what he is referring to. I would say that 50% of the replies are irrelevant and -simply- wrong.

The simple truth is that modern aircraft can fly any way you want them to, forgiving many mistakes. BUT, a good aviator is the one that does not rely on a good engineer (only), and knows the principles of flight and how to control his machine without any automation.

Some posts use all the terminology they can fit in a sentence. Just to cover their lack of knowledge and understanding of the basics. Remember, in science, it is the simplest theories that take the longest to really understand.
Physics is one of them and principles of flight is the best example.

I am old school too, and I will have to say that the old books have served me well along with many others, unlike the sim games and the youtube videos.

So I will encourage the new ones in this trade to study these old textbooks and listen to the minority in this thread. Keep it simple, it will never change. Maybe a brilliant engineer will make it seem like it changed, but it will be the computer correcting and anticipating your incorrect input instead.

The Naval Aviator's book is a brilliant one to read and refer to throughout one's career. It is too scientific for most, but it is very explanatory and covers all aspects of flight. Pity that most people think it is obsolete nowadays.
You should try reading it.

Fly safe and learn as you go.

[InSoMnIaC]

St martin: I would like to see how you manage to stay on the glideslope in an approach with fluctuating speed (say +/- 5 or 10kts). You will be all over the place if you chase the speed with pitch mate. The larger the aircraft the more obvious this becomes.

The simple fact is thrust overcomes drag which causes an acceleration and therefore a speed change. It is because of this speed change that the RoD eventually changes.

[CL300]

Some replies about "region of reverse command" etc, are utter bollocks if I may say

Well this is where the airframe is on a swept wing aircraft on landing...On older jets this was a very sensitive area and besides the "fighters", no one would get there. Todays technology ( Airbus, Boeing, and the first of all Dassault) managed to make these aircraft flyable by the "average" pilot in this phase of flight. The flare is (was) the last part of the flying devoted to pilot authority; not quite nowadays. Once the aircraft is passing the 50ft mark RA it triggers the flare sequence ( except at LCY with the 318 where it does so at 80ft); from there on you can dream about controlling the things, but the plane will land and flare by itself ( if you were at the proper speed, in the bracket that is). You can take the stick all the way forward, 6 seconds after main wheel contact , the derotation sequence engages, the engine idling sequence changes from landing idle to reverse idle, and if the reverses are not selected within 6 seconds of NW touchdown, they go on ground idle. The laws are changing constantly during this phase of flight..

Get on a sim of a falcon 10, select full flaps on a 3° ils, let the speed decay to below 1.2 Vs, and tell us what is controlling your speed/ ROD.... Then step on a F7X sim and do the same... Alternatively, choose a 727 and a A320 if you do not like 'small' planes... then do it on a 172 with jet.. aka Citation 500..
Start the exercise at 200 ft, and let's post which configuration made it to the runway....:cool:

[st martin]

My dear friend, your comment is quite childish.

Why chase the speed?
+/- 5-10 while on glideslope with unstable weather conditions, you should keep the thrust unchanged and it will come back to where it is supposed to right after the gust.
The larger the aircraft. the more the inertia it carries.

You never chase the speed in a large airliner.

I suggest you read my post again, as you are replying to something irrelevant.
Realizing a trend to go below path while steady on the speed, you should add some thrust to bring her up to path again.

Thrust can overcome drag and cause acceleration of the mass, I agree. But you choose the vector. Your airspeed does not necessarily change if you start climbing. Right?

[hikoushi]

:ugh:

Pff-FSSSSSSSS!!!!*

That's an Anchor Steam Lager now, San Francisco's greatest gift to the aviation community. Come on boys, cut the semantic nonsense and start drinking and relaxing. It's a damn airplane, not a moon launch. We're all right and we're all wrong, depending on who you ask. Don't get so worked up about it.

Pfff-FSSSSSSSSS!!*

This Bud's for you!:8

[nitpicker330]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha

So funny I laughed my a** off.

2 hours ago I landed in HK on 07L with tower reported surface wind about 180/18 gusting 20, Mechanical turbulence off Lantau, Windshear forecast AND reported.

Quite a sporting approach, ended up with about -8 ( back to VLS ) to +15 FROM about 100' down to 50'. Kept under control and guess what:--

I used THRUST to manage the IAS. Only after giving it a big boot full for a few seconds did the IAS return to VAPP at 80'.

I'd like to have seen you control that with Pitch only!!!!!!!

Yes a Jet has a lot of inertia but I can tell you that 100' ain't the place to hope the speed comes back by itself, so those saying it will stabilize all by itself don't know what they are talking about.
God you'd be dead after hitting the sea wall whilst waiting for IAS to return using only Pitch...

Yes for small changes you could control IAS with Pitch if you felt so inclined but not today boys and girls...

[737Jock]

So why did your speed change in the first place nitpicker?

[InSoMnIaC]

I give up. Thrust for Glide path, Rudder for Roll, and Ailerons for Yaw

[nitpicker330]

Well gee whizz Jock why do you think?????

Maybe the Wind velocity and direction changing around after interference from the hills and the Heaco Hangar might be a reason. They call it mechanical turbulence my friend, they even talk about it in the Jepps for HK 07L if you'd like to look.

What's your point? Are you going to mention energy levels, path management and inertia again?

[737Jock]

Quite a sporting approach, ended up with about -8 ( back to VLS ) to +15 at about 100' down to 50'. Kept under control and guess what:--

I used THRUST to manage the IAS. Only after giving it a big boot full for a few seconds did the IAS return to VAPP at 80'.

Quite a few contradictions there I would say. Maybe you want to review the values?

I thought you were at +15 from 100' to 50', why did you increase thrust?

[737Jock]

No I'm waiting for your explanation why the speed changed. So the wind changed, And you encountered up And downdrafts.

What happened aerodynamically that made your speed change?

[nitpicker330]

For gods sake give it up with the aerodynamic mumbo jumbo.

I flew the dam Plane Maverick and at 100' I ain't got time to think about all the aerodynamic reasons for the flight path fluctuations.

When the IAS is heading south at around 100' with a rather long trend vector I'm not sitting on my hands hoping "inertia" will save my ass. Neither would you.

And yes the first post I made describing the events were correct, speed loss corrected by me followed later by a speed gain. ( which was not caused by me leaving the thrust on too long )

Ok I edited the post to include the word FROM to highlight the area from around 100' to 50'

[737Jock]

The values are corrrect?

So Lets assume your Vapp = VLS because you are flying manual thrust approach.

You landed on runway 07 with 180/18 maximum 20. (What value is needed to report a gust in the towerwind?) Means you had a 7 kts tailwind.
What was the wind on the approach?

The way I understand your post the way its written:
You ended up with VLS -8 somewhere above 100ft. The speed then increased to VLS+15 from 100 to 50 ft.
You added thrust at 80ft?

Did you mean that:
At 100ft you lost 8kts of airspeed resulting in VLS -8
Then at 80 ft you added a boot full of thrust resulting in the speed increasing passing VLS to VLS + 15?
After which you reduced thrust to settle at VLS?

[nitpicker330]

No mate. Tower reported wind was from memory 180 18 gusting to about 23?
Nearly all crosswind and only up to 5kts tailwind, no report of shear from the 748 ahead.

VLS was 134, VAPP 142 as per company policy for gusty conditions and experience on type. I Used managed speed with manual thrust as also recommended by Airbus in gusty conditions.

At around 100' or so the speed dropped quickly to around VLS, so it dropped by about 10 kts from what we had. I corrected quickly and the speed settled back to about VAPP.

Then about 50' the speed shot up to about VAPP +15 or so just as we entered the flare.

We landed safely used full reverse and vacated A9.

Ok?

Isn't that what I said the first time?

[737Jock]

Well nitpicker you landed on runway 07L. which is approximately 070 degrees.

Means wind is coming at you at 110 degrees, thus a tailwind component.

At 180/18 that is 7kts tailwind and 17 kts crosswind, at 180/23 its 8kts tail and 22 kts cross.
So yes its mostly cross, but if your tailwind limit is 10kts like on the minibus you were very close to it.

Remember at only 30 degrees off the side you already have half the wind component.

And no its not what you said first time. Which is why I asked clarification. Won't hold that against you though, I imagine you are tired after a long flight.

[Capn Bloggs]

We're all right and we're all wrong, depending on who you ask.
I hand-flew an ILS yesterday (with the ATS engaged :eek:); the conditions weren't nice; bouncing around all over the place. I can tell you one thing; I like nitpicker wasn't waiting for the thrust to fix the glideslope: I poled the aeroplane so it stayed put on the glideslope and ATS just controlled the speed for me (as I would have done had it been disengaged).

For the life of me, I cannot understand how 737jock and his mates can think they're best off picking up slope excursions with power.

At this point, further pitch up without thrust addition might produce a greater rate of descent and cause the airplane to sink more below the desired glide path.

This makes clear that path is controlled by thrust.
No it doesn't, it shows that the pilot involved was either stupid or taught by a twit. If you are below slope and going lower at constant speed, of course it's going to slow down/go down if you pitch up to get back without adding power! Attitude + POWER = performance... But fix the slope first and then the speed (if indeed anything needs to be done about the speed at all).

Won't hold that against you though, I imagine you are tired after a long flight.
Aww shicks, that's nice. Picker, lift yer game, lad! Long flight or not, the power-for-slope lawyers won't stand for anything less than the whole truth the first time...

[737Jock]

Hey Bloggs is back what a coincidence....:E

Bloggs what I actually said is that both explanations are incorrect or correct, whatever you want to call it.
The problem is actually that you don't want to accept that thrust for speed is only a simplification.
And that you refuse to believe that thrust for path is a similar simplification that holds just as much merit.

Thrust manages energy, and the pitch manages airspeed and vertical speed.

[Capn Bloggs]

Hey Bloggs is back what a coincidence....
Yes, mate, I just got back from flying. I got a bit high on final. I said "no you don't", stuffed the nose down, got back on slope and didn't even touch the power (well, ATS didn't move). If I had pulled the power back (override ATS) I would have been there for too long waiting for the machine to first slow down then second drop down onto the slope. I have better things to do.

When was the last time you touched an aeroplane?

[737Jock]

8 times in the last 4 days buddy on the minibus, all without autothrust.

Nobody was contesting how the autothrust system is designed. Flying with autothrust is not manual flying. Just saying....

[nitpicker330]

Magnetic runway direction for 07L in VHHH is 073
Magnetic tower wind was 180 18 G 23

Giving a xwind component of up to 22 kts and a tailwaind component of up to 5.3 kts ( oh and Max Tailwind for the A330 is 15kts )

I think your pencil is too thick.:D

Me? I used 2 different Apps to check it in the hotel!!

Yes I am a bit tired.

Friend that landed behind me in a 777 did an Autoland!! Slack bugga, I couldn't have even if I wanted to in the blunder bus!!

[737Jock]

I used an app as well (airports). I used 070 as I don't know the exact magnetic course.

But if you want to be exact:

5.26 at 18 kts And up to 6.72 at 23 kts

180-73= 107-90 = 17

Sin 17 x 18 (or 23)= 5.26 And 6.72

Good that its 15kts Max tailwind! Wish my boss had paid the money to change some letters in the FCOM of the minibus. Would prevent some of the nasty circlings we sometimes encounter.

[nitpicker330]

Either way tailwind component was not my primary concern today!!

Sin this, tan that.......I either use the graph in the QRH which is crap or I use an App designed to make my life a lot easier on the spot.

[737Jock]

Don't do tan. Use cos for the xwind.

I'm glad to see you appreciate the science that goed on behind all these things.

[nitpicker330]

I do appreciate the theory I learned 25 years ago but at the end of the day I'm just another dumb Pilot that flies the Aircraft the way I'm told to. I don't have the luxury of questioning science while I operate my Airlines 100 million dollar Jet. It's their train set and I'll do it the way I'm told. The Airline in turn does it the way Airbus tell them to do it to minimize litigation against themselves.

It's all about butt saving at the end of the day.!!

Like I said KISS method works for me

[737Jock]

Hmmm for me its all about doing a job I enjoy.

If I had to save my butt everyday I come to work, I would do something different.

I think about these things outside the flightdeck, I believe that improving my understanding makes me a better pilot inside the flightdeck especially when confronted with non-normal circumstances that haven't been catered for by the litigation experts.

Obtaining a deeper understanding doesn't make you a danger to safety!

But if you like to see yourself as a dumb pilot, go ahead. I find that description wholly unsatisfactory.

[nitpicker330]

This is like arguing with a woman!!:eek:

As scintillating as this banter is I'm going to chill out now and watch some crap TV.
Time to chill out.

[Meikleour]

Nitpicker330: I'm with you! 23 years operating out of Kai Tak and Chep Lap Kok tells me that 737Jock just doesn't have a clue! Crosswind components to one place of decimal "............ Oh dear, oh dear!!! Give up.

[CL300]

The thread is about the flare no ? not whatever one does at 1000ft AGL ?

What is happening on your big machines 50ft and below? ( if it is different from what is happening between 200 and 50 ?

[737Jock]

You might want to check who started with the decimal winds meikleour! I called it 7.

Nitpicker's (quite appropriate name in this case) answer:
Giving a xwind component of up to 22 kts and a tailwaind component of up to 5.3 kts ( oh and Max Tailwind for the A330 is 15kts )

I think your pencil is too thick.

Me? I used 2 different Apps to check it in the hotel!!

Why is it so hard to read?

[737Jock]

CL300 its not different if you realise that thrust manages energy directly and pitch manages airspeed and vertical speed directly.

But apparently that is heresy! Despite it being valid in all phases of flight.

The discussion issue results from both airspeed and vertical speed being a form of energy. And thus they can both be "managed" with thrust depending on the pitch change or lack thereof.
And offcourse there is an element of mass inertia, that initially keeps the aircraft on its path despite disturbances.

With regard to the airbus, you need to keep in mind that even though you might not move the sidestick in manual flight, this does not imply that various control surfaces are not moving either.

With regard to the flare. The requirement for energy reduces as the aircraft enters the groundeffect (wingspan determines when groundeffect starts), so we have to reduce thrust.
Speed is traded for a reduced vertical speed (to prevent structural damage).
If you suddenly encounter a disturbance in the flare say a downdraft the aircraft lacks energy. And either the speed decays faster (higher pitch needed to control v/s) or rate-of-descent increases in order to make up for this loss of energy, which is not very desirable so close to the ground. You can counter this by retarding the thrust slower, stop retarding the thrust or in severe cases adding thrust (might need to think of a go-around).
In case of an updraft you may need to retard thrust faster or close it completely straight away. After that there is not much to do except making sure you touchdown in the touchdown zone or go-around, so likely you will pitch up a bit less/hold the pitch in order to keep the aircraft descending.
Obviously there will be pitch changes, or changes in the rate of pitch change as well.

If you try to manage the energy solely with pitch, in severe cases you might make a nosewheel landing, a tailstrike or land with to much vertical speed (hard landing).

Excess energy makes it easier to "finetune" the vertical speed, so often leaving thrust on makes it's easier to make a greaser, but obviously it increases the landing distance as well. Therefore it's not desired.

[nitpicker330]

1/ I'll say it one last time, We all know that Pitch can control airspeed in all phases of flight and indeed in some modes it does. Airbus and Boeing ( these silly people that MADE the Aircraft ) train that during approach phase down to the Flare phase they want you to use THRUST to control the Airpseed BECAUSE it's the quickest and SAFEST most efficient way to do it. You don't have time at 1000' or 500' to adjust Pitch primarily to control speed excursions especially ones +/- 10 to 15 kts during turbulent conditions. Please let us put this to bed once and for all.


2/ The Flare is a PITCH manoeuvre. If you Balloon high you'll need to relax or adjust the elevator to change the trajectory of the Aircraft back down toward the runway. That doesn't mean shoving forward so much you drive the nose wheel into the runway first. You still need to have some Piloting skill and fly the Aircraft!!
If you under flare or flare too late then in this case either increase pitch a little ( can't too much or you will drive the main gear harder into the runway ) OR indeed increase Thrust for second to try and arrest the sink rate before contact. It's probably a bit too late.

So, we all agree PITCH and THRUST are always used in conjunction to control the path of the Aircraft, movement of one will most likely need adjustment of the other. It comes down to the phase of flight as to which one does it best.

This is not rocket science, has been done this way since the advent of the commercial Jet back in the 1950's. Airbus and Boeing clearly write in their manuals how they want you fly the Aircraft they designed.

You can get wound up in science aerodynamics and wonderful theories about path management, energy state, thrust vectors and the like until you turn blue in the face but it doesn't change the facts of what's best and when.



Quoting again from the Airbus FCTM regarding the FLARE:---

Avoid under flaring. • The rate of descent must be controlled prior to the initiation of the flare (i.e. nominal 3 ° slope and rate not increasing) • Start the flare with positive (or "prompt") backpressure on the sidestick and holding as necessary • Avoid significant forward stick movement once Flare initiated (releasing backpressure is acceptable) At 20 ft, the "RETARD" auto call-out reminds the pilot to retard thrust levers. It is a reminder rather than an order. When best adapted, the pilot will rapidly retard all thrust levers : depending on the conditions, the pilot will retard earlier or later. However, the pilot must ensure that all thrust levers are at IDLE detent at the latest at touchdown, to ensure ground spoilers extension at touchdown. In order to assess the rate of descent in the flare, and the aircraft position relative to the ground, look well ahead of the aircraft. The typical pitch increment in the flare is approximately 2.3 ° (2.6 ° for A340-500/600 aircraft), which leads to -1 ° flight path angle associated with a 10 kt speed decay in the manoeuvre. Do not allow the aircraft to float or do not attempt to extend the flare by increasing pitch attitude in an attempt to achieve a perfectly smooth touchdown. A prolonged float will increase both the landing distance and the risk of tail strike.

[737Jock]

1. The speed excursion you speak about is excess energy. You reduce thrust to manage that excess energy.
The speed excursion itself is caused by a combination of pitch and mass inertia. But you should realise that the vertical speed also has to increase as the speed increases to maintain that 3 degree path. After all if you would fly twice as fast down the glide your ROD would need to be twice as fast as well.
ie. if I normally fly to the runway in 4 minutes at 700 ft/min I would need to descent at 1400ft/min if I fly the same distance over the ground in 2 minutes. This is also true on a smaller scale.

So clearly then thrust manages both speed and vertical speed.

I like to think the thrust manages the total energy and the pitch manages the path (which is both speed and vertical speed).
The increase in speed and vertical speed is just a symptom of excess energy.

Oh and offcourse as soon as you are at minimum or maximum power (running out of additional energy so to speak) , pitch still controls the path (airspeed and vertical speed).

2. The flare is a pitch AND energy management maneuvre.
The ground effect tends to add energy to the aircraft, which without thrust reduction would lead to either an increase in speed or t0o much reduced vertical speed. Which we don't want for landing distance reasons.

Again I'm not contradicting anything that is said in the FCTM. It just explains what is happening.

[nitpicker330]

The sudden speed excursions I'm talking about on approach are caused by windshear or turbulance changing the state of the Aircraft. The quickest easiest safest way to control them is via Thrust.

Good, I'm off for breakfast!!

[737Jock]

What do you think the windshear or turbulence does to the energy state of the aircraft? Exactly it increases or decreases the energystate!

Is this really a discussion point?

Air that moves has energy. When air moves an object it transfers this energy to the object! Think windmills that convert wind into electricity. The wind loses some of its energy when it moves the blades which happen to be aerofoils.

If you hit a downdraft you need more energy to counter it. If you hit an updraft you need to reduce energy to counter it.

Therefore it's no surprise that the thrust manages excess/lack of energy most efficiently. That's exactly what I have been saying. If you encounter an updraft reduce thrust immediately. If you encounter positive windshear reduce thrust immediately.
There is no need to wait for a huge speed excursion that it the result of your efforts to maintain on a 3 degree path and mass inertia.


Have a look at your vertical speed when you next encounter gusty winds and turbulence.

BTW under flaring or flaring too late is a pilot error it's not an energy management problem. It has very little to do with external disturbances that I described that need to be managed with energy.

[nitpicker330]

Still at breakfast watching the fun and games at HKIA in the heavy rain Ts 30 kt Northerly......glad I'm down here!!

[Double Back]

Very interesting discussion here. Nice to read about things I used to do (retired now after 30 Yrs of flying mostly Boeing heavy jets with an airline) without ever realising many things posted here.
Indeed, after finishing flying SE props, where, at least 40 years ago it was common to fly with pitch for speed I had to get used to the other system when converting to jets. For most pilots, as it did for me, it takes a few hours to get used to.

My explanation for the way to fly a heavy jet in the approach is: about the last thing You want to F&*$ U# is Your descent angle/glide slope. Even to the cost of overspeed if it happens.
For example at 200' You run into a positive windshear which tries to flatten out the descent and increase the IAS. Now I can cope with overspeed, but at that height correcting a completely destabilised approach angle is just alarming in a heavy jet. So what You do is to pitch down first and fight to stick to the G/S. Of course the second reaction is reduce some power, but that is limited, because who wants to idle a heavy jet at 200'?
When passing the threshold You decide if the overspeed is acceptable to continue landing or press the GA button.

One thing was stated in earlier posts was that You could never push during a flare. Anyway the B747 could easily cope with short pulsed pushed elevator inputs if needed to stop a prolonged flare. Slightly increasing the descent but the movement raised the main gears a bit and the overall effect was a smooth landing.

I still fly SE nowadays and would never allow a student to do that on a C172 however....

[Microburst2002]

The moment at which to retard the thrust levers depends on several factors, specially your sink rate. The more the sink rate, the later you retard.

However, if you hear RETARD RETARD 3 or 4 times as the first post says, then the sink rate did not justify the delay in retarding at all.

You delay retarding when you hear the RA callouts very quick fiftfortythertwentten… Oops, flare some more and don't retard just jet (watch your pitch) then accept a somewhat harder landing and retard before touch down.

Floating and floating with thrust still on with RETARD RETARD repeatedly, I have seen many times. It is annoying indeed, and you eat up runway meters very quick. A BAD "technique" probably resulting from a previous traumatising hard landing.

[Natstrackalpha]

guys, I got lost in the melee`

Remember the good old days when you wuz littul and you used to float in the basic trainer and it sometimes sank like a brick :mad:t house suddenly - well remember when you were taught to apply a little power just to cushion the sink and remember when it, the aeroplane, landed beautiful like, on the runway and all the old geezers who had a million hours flying said "that was a proper text book landing that was"?


Remember that? - well, forgetting for a moment this is a rather more high-tech baby than the one first basic trainer you started off in, namely this the A320 Airbus -


At the end of the day, although I am Magenta-ised because it feels cool to be called a child of the magenta, or child of anything for that matter being predominantly a :mad: dinosaur


Is not, at the end of all discussion, the A320, an aeroplane and therefore does it not fly as such? This being the case, I put to you learned men and girlies of pprune, should not the said aircraft be therefore flown like an aircraft - which it indeed is and therefore would it not respond, I ask you, respond, to the inputs of the pilot at this juncture in his/her life i.e., during the Landing.


therefore - if it works in the basic trainer by "putting on a little power if it sinks a bit after a slight balloon" or forget the :mad: balloon - just look at the sink, caused by whatever.


Are we not merely cushioning to a perfect touchdown by adding a little power then? Hmmm? (if you have got the runway for it)


and look at the comment on failing to do so with increasing alpha and ever grazing tail.


No one said apply enough power to go floating down the runway and into the Long Term car park at the end.


Versus


Having retarded - would adding a little bit of power be nigh on impossible - why? Well, the spool up time for a start (or maybe that amount of thrust would just about do it) If not you`re going to hit the runway anyway.


Secondly - will not applying power combined with (now approaching VLS na, na, na na na) cause a TOGA - . . .


just thought a bit of power might be nice - you don`t need a lot.


While we are here - what was the previous discussion many moons ago about - if you are on the ILS in Autoland and you applied TOGA you would continue the descent - in TOGA, this seeming rather an alarming result - I just wondered if anyone could clarify as it would take ages to have to walk to the terminal from the runway.


BTW nit-picker - I agree with everything you wrote - its flying.


Microburst2002 - you are right too. Nitpicker is after the sink and you are before it - but you would both say the same thing.


One is preventing which is ideal but you both prevent for a living and the other is using tactics - fly-ing to grease the baby onto the tarmac - which is not always what the say should be done with an A320 but rather firmer, without holding off with ever increasing angle.


I love the A320 and cannot imagine ever landing it other than perfectly - simply because it is an ace babe at landing - so was the L1011-1 if you got it right if you tried to land it like today`s A320 you would bury the mains into the tarmac. See the difference - keep it off V let it on - on that sea-shell, I notice most of the A330 pilots grease it on, like some tantric experience - a different story to the A320, firmer.


nitpicker - love your idea of a good brekky whilst waiting for the thunderstorm, and you are getting paid for it too - kewel!

[SKS777FLYER]

Retired now but I do remember my technique for flaring just prior to touchdown.
Let's see I used the same basic technique in every civil jet I ever flew beginning in Lears and Citations in 1978, to B727, DC10, MD11, S80, B757, B767 and last, the B777.

The military jets I never flared, T2C TA4J A4M F4 and RF4......

Anywho, I tried to arrive at around 50 feet, stabilized on speed and over a runway threshold. At 30 to 20 feet I would flare slightly and ALMOST NEVER retarded the throttles until touchdown. Worked nearly every time for a very smooth touchdown. The jets were all trimmed up, on speed , pulling the power off would tend to cause the nose to drop, especially on the wing mounted engine jets. Leaving the power on, just started a push-me / pull you yoke fest.:)
Often, the power was still on at touchdown, thus requiring close monitoring of auto speed brakes when equipped and auto brakes.

Worked well on generally level runways. Had to pull power sooner on downhill runways. For steep uphill runways, say San Jose, Costa Rica or La Paz, Bolivia if
I or a co-pilot pulled power during flare, I was very demanding in allowing NO
FLOATING along an uphill runway with flight idle or close to it.

Again, I generally found it so much easier to leave the power alone and just flare slightly.
Offered that "flare system"as a possible technique to think about to pilots I taught as a line 757/767 CKA during 14 of my airline years.

[InSoMnIaC]

Natstrackalpha that must be some good weed.

SKS777FLYER the aim of the game nowadays is to land in the touchdown zone. smooth landing are secondary. using thrust to achieve a smooth touchdown is bad technique and could seriously mess things up. bounched landings/ floating halfway down the rwy/overruns all come to mind

[SKS777FLYER]

I wrote that I only flared slightly, meaning the sink rate usually slowed slightly.
I sure wish I had your knowledge back in the day at short fields like Tegucigalpa, where the touchdown zone ended 750 ft from the threshold or Jackson Hole, or maybe La Guardia during the winter landing a DC10.
Never knew a thing about touchdown zones..... When did that come into play (sarcasm)

[Natstrackalpha]

Oi ! Listen up - you spent half your posts telling Jet Pilots of Big Jets that as opposed to using elevator for speed (like in little aeroplanes) and thrust for RoD - in the big jets you use Elevator for RoD and thrust for speed. No way? Boy is that true? - wow, must go and tell the air-line pilots about that - they will really want to know that.


So, some of the pilots come in to explain how instinctively all that . . .drill can be pre-empted due to the feel of the aircraft viz a vis the motion (which you can feel by the seat of your pants and see by your most beautiful radial scan).


Duh?


So - if you were less into what you accused me of - then you would not be talking baby talk on a professional pilots forum, consisting of jet pilots that fly jets every single :mad: day - you num nut.:rolleyes:


So Mr ---ola, how pray, would you arrest a nasty sink in the A320 - ooooh, I dunno lets say an unprecedented windshear - a reverse in the wind speed - at 50 feet and falling like the clappers. What would you do - there are perhaps many options - I would choose only one of them, if I were you - and after having done so - what would be the result of your actions? What would be the result, despite your actions?


You should sleep more.


Touchdown zones - now there`s a thang! Must phone up ICAO and tell `em about that - they could use it in their next manual. (hmmm, touch down zones - might catch on . . . touchdown zones, yep - certainly got a nice ring to it . . . . )

[nitpicker330]

Still here lurking in the background reading the posts but I've long ago given up bothering to add anything.......:ok:

[Ozlander1]

Still here lurking in the background reading the posts but I've long ago given up bothering to add anything.......:ok:
They be like my wife, no matter what I say, It's wrong. :ugh:

[VH-Cheer Up]

Threads like this make me nervous about the whole industry.

Thrust. Attitude. Use both, or either, judiciously and you should arrive at the same time as the aircraft does.

[stilton]

Unless you really are landing on a carrier or have to cope with a last minute, unexpected sink rate you are always better off landing with thrust at idle.



If you have managed your approach correctly this technique allows more precise touchdowns, far less floating, immediate operation of spoilers, automatic braking and reverse and of course far less energy that has to be removed by these devices.



'Power on if necessary yes' but it is bad technique to use on every landing and contrary to some pilots opinions will not result in a softer touchdown unless you really had to counter that last minute sink.



Leaving power on effectively drives the aircraft into the ground more forcefully (just like those carrier landings) but I see more than a few people believe in the 'never take power off' approach. Honestly I think some of them are scared to take it off.



And these are the people I see balloon and float then make harder touchdowns (if they don't have to go around) far more than those who fly the Aircraft as Boeing and Airbus recommend.



Autolands are done with idle thrust, worth thinking about.