Thrust on during flare...Q for AIRBUS test pilots...
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
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.
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
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by 737Jock; 26th Mar 2014 at 10:32.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: upthere
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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" ?!!!!???
When he hears 'Retard" 3 times, I suspect its his wife calling while he is on the sim.
He cannot comprehend simple concepts and principles of flight.
"You belted and hit the nail on the head" ?!!!!???
When he hears 'Retard" 3 times, I suspect its his wife calling while he is on the sim.
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.
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.
Last edited by nitpicker330; 26th Mar 2014 at 09:17.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: upthere
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ???
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by 737Jock; 26th Mar 2014 at 13:57.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by misd-agin; 26th Mar 2014 at 14:26. Reason: added 'Nitpicker'
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.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
misd-agin-----looks like you missed the point of the whole exercise yet AGAIN.
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 )
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.
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
)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.
Last edited by nitpicker330; 26th Mar 2014 at 23:24.
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
With a few exceptions, this thread is an embarrassment!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Is one solution really wrong and the other really right?
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?
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.