Hi Ashling:
First, let me say that I’m trying diligently to keep this on a professional, hopefully respectful, level. I took your comment, “I-suggest-you-read-the-Boeing-FTCM,” as an indication of your opinion that I’ve certainly not done so. I hope it would make a difference if I told you that I have. The bottom line here is I’d like to stay out of the mud and am going to side-step your suggestion that I’m making up my own techniques. My intent is NOT to insult you, sir … at all. I appreciate your comment about my description being more complicated than you typically hear. As for its being “overly complicated,” I would take exception to that characterization. Please see my detailed response to Pilot Pete above. If my “attitude” comes across to you as being arrogant and condescending, I apologize. Again, that is not my intent.
You say that your “snag” with a “level flight attitude” is that it will not only be different, the difference will be that it will be a greater attitude than described in the Boeing FCTM. I don’t agree with your assessment. And to demonstrate that, I would ask, if it is at all possible, the next time you have an opportunity to be in a simulator, that, after you’ve finished all of the requirements, and if you have time available, you fly a normal final approach, flare the airplane (simulator), as you would normally, to land, but do not land. Instead, add the power necessary to fly down the runway at the height above the runway and at the airspeed you achieved at the end of the flare. As you fly down the runway, do not climb, do not descend, do not accelerate, and do not decelerate (the definition of straight and level, unaccelerated flight). Note the airspeed you have. Note the attitude you have. The reason I’m suggesting not to accelerate or decelerate is to avoid necessarily changing the pitch attitude accordingly.
Do the same thing a second time. Flare as you would to land. Achieve the same level flight attitude as you had the previous run down the runway, but this time instead of adding power to fly down the runway, pull the throttles to idle in the manner that best suits your particular situation (i.e., some begin retarding the throttles over the threshold; some begin retarding at flare initiation, some begin retarding when the flare attitude is reached; some snatch to idle as the mains touch), such that the throttles are at flight idle at (or just slightly prior to or just slightly after) main gear touch down. Do not adjust the pitch and do not accept a change in pitch – maintain it to touchdown. I’d be interested in your comments.
It is my expectation that, if you were to do as I have suggested, you would see that I am not advocating doing anything differently than what is described in the Boeing FCTM; despite your opinion to the contrary.
Please understand, I do not attempt to negate whatever a qualified instructor teaches – and if anyone got that impression, let me correct that right now. Each instructor has a right and a responsibility when it comes to his or her own students.
I am more than a little concerned that pilots are repeatedly being provided a quick, easy-to-understand series of mechanical inputs that will yield a result that will be acceptable in most cases. Without throwing darts at ANY airplane manufacturer, we all know that all of any manufacturer’s customers are not necessarily candidates for the “ace of the base” award. For some, such mechanical instructions are an acceptable way of achieving acceptable performance. Some of these pilots will, over time, become curious or seek better ways of performing the task – not dramatically different ways, but different – perhaps only in a manner of understanding what is happening. It is my opinion that when a pilot learns mechanically, he or she will fly mechanically – including those situations that the mechanical method isn’t exactly what is necessary. Does that happen frequently? Certainly not. In today’s environment, there will be quite a few pilots who will go an entire career without seeing anything out of the ordinary. And in those few times when an “ordinary abnormality” DOES stick its head into the mix, (e.g., dark, stormy night; ILS approach at minimums; variable head, cross, and tail winds; wet and short runway) a combination of airplane and systems reliability, other-pilot-in-the-cockpit experience, and a kind wink from the good fortune fairy, maybe nothing untoward will occur. Maybe. Sometimes, it sneaks up and bites some long-time veterans.
My goal is to provide an understanding of not only “how” but “why” regarding the way the airplane performs and handles. Again, my opinion only, if we teach pilots to understand the various “whys” involved in flying, we will have provided each pilot with the best opportunity to be able to deal competently with those rare, but potentially disastrous circumstances where the specific “mechanical” approach will not work.