A Question for you "Heavy Drivers"

[AZTRUCKER]

I've just come back home from a holiday up on the whitsundays. On the way up from Sydney you have to stop off at Brisbane and catch the connecting aircraft to proserpine. Which actually took us to Cairns because of a faulty Generator. I assumed they didnt want to land at Proserpine because the aircraft would be grounded and no faciltiys at proserpine to get it repaired.

Anyways the question which I'm trying to ask is... When doing a landing off a visual approach compared to a landing off an ILS I noticed the actual touch down was a big difference. When we landed at Brizzy we came in off a pretty short right base and i noticed that when we touched down the wing tips almost hit the tarmac aswell and the same when we finally arrived at proserpine. However when we went into cairns the landing off the ILS was superb. Is this because of the Autopilot flying the plane on the correct glide path all the way down to 250ft and setting the plane up correctly or is it just coincidence that every time we conducted a visual approach i.e Pilot actually flying the plane all the way down he simple cocked it up??

And do you guys have to report hard landings, and what constitutes a hard landing??

Thanks

[Tagneah]

Ive done some crackers at the end of an ILS. On the other hand some good-uns off a circuit!

We have an indication on the screens that is more or less a pseudo-ILS (except that it is only good for vertical position)that the aircraft generates from the threshold back to your current position. Providing the waypoint selected is in front of you (ie you don't set up a 5 mile final and turn inside that point) it's a good indication on how you're going on the turn for a visual approach till you're on the VASI's/PAPI's.

As for what constitutes a hard landing............ well you don't want to see the pax dodging the oxy masks on their way out!! :}

hope this helped

Tag

[Keg]

What was the cross wind like?

Sometimes that can make a difference to both the quality of touch down and the angle of bank (depending on how well the pilot is doing on that day!).

Personally, my landings have little to do with what approach I've flown and more to do with how hard I'm working at the time. Sure, sometimes the visual approach into BNE on 19 with a screaming tailwind on base was kind of interesting and other times it was a doddle. Whether on a visual or ILS, I'll still disconnect by 1000' and often a LOT earlier. SYD on a VMC day for 34L from Melbourne I disconnect downwind to enjoy myself. Other days I may leave it hooked up until 1000'. Depends on the day, time of day, work load, tiredness level, weather, etc, etc.

[I'm gone!]

Jeez Keg, you must not be doing enough hours in the month, having a go from 1000 feet!:oh:

I normally leave the ****** in as long as possable!

Cheers,
I'm gone!

[Keg]

IG, currently QF F/Os don't get a choice! The A/P MUST be disconnected by 1000' when on an ILS approach. On a NPA, it can be left in until below minima. Ironic then that I can fly a LOC/DME approach on 34L in Syd to the minima of 500' on A/P but can't leave the thing coupled up to the G/S until the same alitude.

Those rules are due to change in late January, early Feb but they've been the rules for at least the last nine years! :eek:

[woftam]

Yeah Keg,what mental giant thought THAT one up!
:hmm:

[Sheep Guts]

Ineresting way of doing it Keg. But theres nothing wrong with Clicking the disconect when at the minima is there? Or am I missing something in Big Jets, that we in Tiny Turbines do naturally? So whats the procedure for a CAT3 approach then the same? I know there aint any Oz but what about international ops?

Sheep

[18-Wheeler]

In nearly six years of flying a 747, I've done only four visual approaches.
Three on my very first three landings - the base check - and the last in 2000 at Khartoumb in The Sudan. THe runway there has no ILS & no VASI, PAPI, etc.

We normally fly the ILS right down to 200' then go visual for the last little bit. Even on a totally clear day.

I'll normally hand-fly the plane up to about 10,000' or so, sometimes less in bad weather so we can both sit back & monitor what's going on. On approach in bad weather I'll leave the autopilot in right down to the minima, again for the reason of monitoring what's going on. On a good day I'll normally intercept the ILS hand-flying and often a few thousand feet before that.
There's no difference in the landing from either.

[404 Titan]

Sheep Guts
So whats the procedure for a CAT3 approach then the same?
For our operation and I would imagine for others, Cat 3A & 3B are auto land procedures, especially with some 3B's as there isn’t a decision height and RVR only needs to be 75 meters for the touchdown and midpoint zones of the runway.:ugh:

[Bevan666]

A hard landing is one that will pop the hubcaps of a 737. Apparently a big red one did that in sydney a few weeks ago. Boeing said it couldnt be done...

Bevan..

[Keg]

Some of the older timers than me reckon there was an interesting history to it coming about.

Apparently, there was some concern years ago (and I don't know when) about F/Os skills degrading because too many were leaving the A/P in until minima. So, the then FOPAM was changed to say something like 'F/Os should' or F/Os are encouraged or words that left it a bit ambiguous. After a few amendments over e period of years, it got changed to 'F/Os shall'. It's a bit like that monkey analogy where eventually, no one knows why they are doing it, they just know that they are! I'll try and find that one. It's a classic!

[18-Wheeler]

Keg - Like the rhetorical question some of the older Captains used to ask the younger FO's ->
"Have you done a leg recently?"

Yes: "Then you're current and don't need to do one today."
No: "Then you're not current, so I'll do this leg."

:D

[AZTRUCKER]

Thanks for all of your input its been great.

Just one more question. How do you guys know when to began your flare?

From the main wheels to where your seated there would be at least 40ft in height difference i'm guessing and even more in a 747 ...due to the high nose attitude . Is it just a matter of getting use to it or do you have instruments to help you with this??

AZ

[ftrplt]

wait until the Captain flinches

[404 Titan]

Wait for the RADALT to scream at me "40ft" and the plane calls me a “retard”.:ugh: ;)

[Keg]

AZ, I dunno either but I can tell you that it's just before the precise moment you realise you've flared to late and are about to bury the thing on the 500' markers. :} :p :E

[18-Wheeler]

Just one more question. How do you guys know when to began your flare?

From the main wheels to where your seated there would be at least 40ft in height difference i'm guessing and even more in a 747 ...due to the high nose attitude . Is it just a matter of getting use to it or do you have instruments to help you with this??

Actually, it's more than that in a 747. You typically start to flare just under 30's on the radar altimeter when heavy and as low as 20' when light. (280 tonnes Vs say 190 tonnes)
The cockpit eye line is about 35' above the wheels with the struts extended, maybe a little more, and the nose is pitched up about 2.5deg when you start the flare.
So your eye line is nearly 60' above the ground, and it really does take some getting use to!
I still rely perhaps too much on the radar altimeter, and am making an effort to ignore it and flare purely on visual cues. It's no as easy as a little plane, such as a 737/A-320, etc, as you're much higher up.

[Continental-520]

...Ah...Right. So if an A320/B737 is a little plane, what does that make a C210? :{

520.

[18-Wheeler]

A speedbump? :D

[Tinstaafl]

Ha ha ha! I have a mental image of 18-wheeler with a puzzled look turning to look at his FO, saying "What was that?" :p

[Towering Q]

Conti-520, don't despair, the same principle applies to the C210...use your radar altimeter less and visual cues more.:ok:

[Ralph the Bong]

For B747, start flare when the first centerline marking after the piano keys dissappears under the glaresheild, for B767, when the begining of the first C/L marking before the 300m markers does the same. Always works, never fails.

[Keg]

Ah, I see we have a Jacobsen devotee. Assuming you are on profile, on speed and on thrust that works pretty well. Of course, I'm not that good every landing!

Had a mate of mine who flew with Dave for a few days. He reckoned that Dave's landings were no better (both in firmness and touch down point) than everyone else and there was always a 'reason' such as gusts, thrust, speed, etc. Of course, what he is saying is that in the PERFECT world it all works but in the REAL world.... :} :E :8

[M.85]

18wheeler:E :ok:

[Ralph the Bong]

Gidday Keg, Ah yes, the oft discussed Jacobsoon technique.. Seems to work fairly well. As you would know, there is little that surpasses that sublime sensation of flaring.. holding off... holding off.. and the first indication of touchdown is the speed brake lever moving aft!(usually requires a wet runway) A fine precursor to a cold beverage at the hotel at the end of a long day, hey what!? Just for some additional "trivia" in this vein, some may be unaware that the pilot's eye position is actually a calibrated and flight manual defined position in space. Many types(such as 74 classic, F28 and DC9, I do believe) have a set of markings in the cockpit which defines at what level the seat sould be positioned to have your eyes at the correct height and distance from the glaresheild. The B747-312s that AN operated had a cluster of 3 balls mounted on the center bar of the wind screen (just under the standby magnetic compass). The concept was/is the the pilot adjusts the seat position so as 2 of the balls line up. Without your eyes in this position, the Jacobson technique doesn't quite work.

[duke of duchess]

all these tricky ways!
If you ram the nose wheel into the ground hard enough the plane flares for you, no skill required!

Mind you turn the wipers on first to help clear the bitumen from the windscreen for the taxi to the gate.

have fun:P:8

[tightcannon]

AZTRUCKER

Dont i feel like the idiot, dont know about the landing in BNE but the one in PPP was mine, it was hard and i do apologise however there was about 20kts blustering xwind and the approach was flown visually from overhead. The carrier you were flying with are much more concerned with an acurate touch on the markers than with a smooth touch down. As for the delay yeah a gen was up the duff and if we didnt divert to CNS we wouldnt have ben able to apply the M.E.L on the ground at PPP. As for hard landings from what I remember it would have been lucky to be a 6-7 out of 10 with 10 being mask deployment and a write up.
what s--ts me is that the FO did roll it on in CNS and it was off 34, so no ILS and it was also visually flown. Still the FO was an ex Ansett boy out of SYD so one rwy would not have bothered him.
i though the low level jolly from CNS to PPP was good value though, sort of like the old days with a 206. hee hee hee

[AZTRUCKER]

Tightcannon,

Hey mate no need to feel like an idiot. You are right it was a hot and very blustery day and i could see that we were getting tossed around on short final. It was at that stage when i turned around to my Girl freind and told her to "hang on this is going to hurt" because i could also feel the aircraft sinking rapidly at that stage. i'd also like to say that the way you explained the generator problem was also very informative and professional. And yeah the low level ljolly over the reef was excellent.

On the return flight home and this time flying with your opposition, The same cannot be said. The landing at Sydney was worse and some of the PAX's actually screamed as we "Hit" the ground. When we were taxing back the cabin crew got on the mic and had informed us that we had arrived and to remain seated as they usually do. It was at that point the pax's all started to laugh and clap. I'm sure the pilots werent to proud of themselves when they heard everybody laughing.:E :ok:

AZ

[tinpis]

:}

Oopss... thought it said "Heavy Drinkers"

[Willie Nelson]

Perhaps this is the real reason why special doors have been fitted to the cockpit..........so when the pilot "buries it at the 500' marker" the passengers don't go up and snot him :ouch: :}

Willie

[Continental-520]

Another one for the heavy drivers:

Can a B744 or similar physically lose an engine (as in, detach from the pylon) if an engine fire becomes inextinguishable? Have never noticed any actuators for executing this on the overhead panel or anywhere else, but I seem to remember having read somewhere that this was possible.


520.

[18-Wheeler]

Nope.
Though in Hollywood I believe it's acceptable to fly towards the nearest tall building (complete with the required crew of one white guy, one female, and one black guy) and knock the engine on the top of the building so it falls off.
Probably onto a Porsche, of course.

But seriously, no - They have two large things called 'fuse pins' that hold them on, and whilst they're designed to let the engine wobble around a fair bit, I don't think too many have come off at all in the last thirty years.
The only thing we can do is to pull the fire handle on the upper panel, which shuts off the fuel valves both at the engine fuel control unit and the pylon valve up near the top of the pylon itself. It also de-energises the generator field, stops the oil flow to the hydraulic pump, and closes the pneumatic valve.
After that, the engine is just a lump of dead metal.

[18-Wheeler]

Ah yes, I remember that one now.
That problem would have been hard to handle, but it was controllable. You can lose any two hydraulic systems in the 747 and it'll still fly around just fine.
The problem they brought upon themselves was that they ran the trailing-edge flaps out with the electrical back-up system first instead of running the leading-edge flaps first.
By doing that, the pneumatic system was NFG on one side, so only half the leading eges came out, and it rolled on it's back.
If they'd extended the LE's first, they would have had a very good chance.
It's drummed into you now in the sim very clearly - LE'S FIRST, BEFORE THE TE'S.

[18-Wheeler]

I've done it in the sim a few times, and the controls are a bit heavier & sluggish, and of course there's a few extra checklists and other restrictions such as a lesser crosswind limit, but it flies quite well enough to make a pretty normal landing.
For sure it'd be harder with an engine or two missing on one side though.

[Ralph the Bong]

The loss of a pod on a wide-body is a VERY big deal, esp. at high speed. The reason for this is because the flutter characteristics of the wing require the presence of a mass balance to act as a dampener for torsional flutter. (Note how the pods on a 747 bob up and down in turbulence and you will see what I mean). This engineering innovation came about during the development of the B-47 stratigic bomber. The pods are not designed to be jettisioned in event of a problem. I have heard this urban myth before. It is bogus.