AirRabbit, the snag I have with your "level flight attitude" is that you define it as the level flight attitude at the airspeed at the end of the flare. This will be a different, and higher, attitude to the one directed by Boeing and written in their FCTM. Sure if you raise the nose the full 3 degrees from the approach attitude and speed you will briefly approach a level flight attitude but with what you suggest the level flight attitude will have to be higher as the speed will have reduced in the flare and as the aircraft will be slower the attitude will have to be higher than it would be at approach speed and therefore incorrect. You ahve not answered that inconsistancy as yet.
Your right about the tailstrike attitude but its more like 12 degrees min on a 700 but only 9 degrees or so on an 800. If you let the speed drop to ref -5 at 55 tonnes you will have just over 3 degrees of clearance and at vref -10 just 1.5 degrees so not as much as you might think. If you talk about straight and level attitudes some muppet might decide to develop the flare on an already high attitude, especially if he starts to sink suddenly, and there you go. I'm going nowhere remotely near it ta very much.
I do realise you are not suggesting maintaining level and of course as speed reduces the aircraft will descend if you do not select a higher attitude and this will be compounded if you reduce power. However your initial attitude as you have previously defined it is too high and that is the rub technicaly for me.
The above said I have to agree with PP, all this chat about level flight attitudes in relation to the flare is over complicated. Boeings explanation is very simple. It also has the benefit of being repeatable for any combination of weight, speed and flap setting including one engine inop. Selecting a level flight attitude does not have that advantage as by definition it will change with all of the above so you'll just find yourself asking which attiude now rather than doing what Boeing say and raising the nose a set amount each time.
Reading this thread is a real insight into why so many of the people who sit beside me cannot land the aircraft in the right place at the right speed. Far too many suggest raising the nose early. This can have but one result, a long landing. It may also lead to the need to increase power compounding the problem. If the aircraft is light you may even unintentionaly level off too high and then you really do have a problem unless you go-around.
You need to practise the right technique so that on a dark wet windy night on a short runway with a problem you can get the job done. If you don't practise it then when you need them the skills won't be there.
On an instructional and standardisation point it is v important for instructors to train their students in the correct published techniques. I have had to fail or mark students lower than I otherwise would due to incorrect technique which in some cases lead to major errors. When asked why they did it that way the reply was along the lines of "well thats what I was taught" or "I didn't realise it said that" I would suggest that the arrogant and condescending attitude comes from those who make up their own techniques.
Last edited by Ashling; 30th Aug 2007 at 14:27.