Thrust on during flare...Q for AIRBUS test pilots...
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: upthere
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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……?
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……?
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.
Do you have a big watch?
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.
Do you have a big watch?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The flying techniques used in both are the same as taught by Boeing and Airbus.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by nitpicker330; 25th Mar 2014 at 13:41.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: upthere
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The guy still insists that he pitches for path in a 777 and a 747.
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……...
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……...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Originally Posted by 737 Jock
You can fly the aircraft in a fixed pitch attitude and use thrust to arrest the rate of descent until touchdown.
Originally Posted by Noodle
Flare needs depend on a thousand different factors.
But you apparently want to make a big point about the following 3 options which happen to be exactly the same:
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 25th Mar 2014 at 14:20.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: in the shadows
Age: 48
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason you pitch up is to bleed off excess speed during flare.
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?
And end this stupid discussion if power is speed or path and pitch is speed or path.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 47
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: upthere
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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...
On the B707, I wouldn't dream of closing the thrust levers before the flare was nearly completed, unless the speed was high...