A319 landings vs 737 landings

[*Zwitter*]

Usually I'm on 737s quite often, but I took two A319 flights last week with Easyjet, and both times it landed like it was coming aboard an aircraft carrier!

Anyone know why the 737 chaps seem to throttle back, flare it gently and touch down smoothly, while the A319ers fly it on to the runway, seemingly under power?

I admit it is based on only two trips, but i have been on dozens of 737s and you only seem to get an occasional smack down?

The 319s make some nasty noises too - not keen on them at all so far...

Cheers Zwit

[Hand Solo]

Perceptions are strange things. Its the 737 that hits the runway with power on and the 319 that'll have the throttles closed at 30 feet. Don't know why you had a firm landing on a 319, mine are all greasers!;)

[MarkD]

ex 737 pilot getting used to the 319 perhaps?

[surely not]

Last month I had the pleasure of 3 flights on a Airbus a/c (320 x 1, 319 x 2) and 1 on the 737, and I thought the Airbus a far nicer a/c. None of these were on easyJet.

The overhead bins are larger, a massive plus for me, and the pressurisation systems didn't cause my ears a problem which they did on the 737. The flights into FRA and MUC were in strong winds and yet the 319/320 felt pretty solid and not at all skittish.
It was my first trip on a 319 and I was more than happy with it, the landing in calm conditions on the 737 was firmer than the landings on the 319/320

[PAXboy]

As far as the noises go, I think it's just a case of getting used to them. Each a/c makes different noises and the same type may make different noises dependent upon which make of 'donkeys ' are attached.

For landings? There is never a way to tell!

--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

[radeng]

Who was it said that any landing you walk away from was a good landing, and any where the 'plane can be flown again was an excellent one?

[Final 3 Greens]

Airline pilots aim to arrive in the touchdown zone (a section marked on the runway) at a rate of descent within parameters set for the aircraft.

A firm touchdown is perfectly acceptable, a gentle landing a bonus.

Where you sit in the cabin will affect your perception, if you are right over the main landing gear, it will feel different to sitting at the front or in the back.

Also, if the runway is wet, the pilot may choose to touch down more firmly, to reduce the risk of aquaplaning.

Then you may experience an autolanding, which will be computer controlled, so will feel different again.

In consequence, every landing is a unique event ;)

[reverserunlocked]

I find Airbus landings more gentle as a rule. I flew on a GF A330 into Abu Dhabi recently and the touchdown was barely more than a soft bump.

By contrast, the EZY 737's I travel on to Bristol make very 'definite' arrvivals followed by the inevitable 'face in seat back tray' thrust reversal. BRS's runway is pretty short though to be fair.

The worst consistently seem to be KLM's Fokker 70/100's. I arrived in Cardiff on one which floated, waggled, floated, floated, waggled, WHOOMPH, followed by braking that sent something flying in the galley, judging by the crashing noises we could hear. Doh.

[Momo]

All a question of the shock absorbers in the landing gear. The Canadair jets don't seem to have any, and land hard, for example. All large jets can be landed softly.

Momo

[West Coast]

"Canadair jets don't seem to have any, and land hard"

The -200 has trailing link suspension. Makes for very nice landings, better then the guppy. At least by my ham fisted approaches.

[TightSlot]

My understanding is that there are any number of technical, human and even ATC factors that can influence a landing and decceleration. I wasn't aware that aircraft type significantly affected the process, beyond the basic fact that large wing aircraft apparently "benefit" from ground effect.

I've posted a request in another forum for input from flight crew who will be able to offer more competent and specific explanation, so let's see what comes up...

;)

[LowNSlow]

I've always found the reverse, 737s making relatively "firm" arrivals compared to the A319/320. Still don't like the Waaaaannngg noise that the Airbus engines make on take off.

Smoothest landing ever was a Tu-134 at Budapest. Given that they are VERY "stiff legged" and shook your teeth out landing on Atyrau's (short and bumpy) runway, the smooth landings at Budapest were a pleasant surprise.

[BAe 146-100]

I too find B737 landings more firm than A319/320 landings. I had too perfect landings on BA in February on the 319. I guess it depends mostly on the weather conditions.

I generally enjoy a bit of a thud on touchdown though, lets you know that you have landed! :)

Nice topic by the way! ;)

Regards
BAe 146

[Phoenix_X]

As a pilot having flown many landings on both the 737 and the 320, I can guarantee you that there's no technical or type specific reason for the difference in touchdown force.

Mind that a firm touchdown is how the aircraft manufacturer wants the landing to be! So when a pilot is new on an aircraft, this will be how he/she's been trained to land.

Now, when the weather is nice, and the runway is long, a pilot may choose to try and make a smooth touchdown. It requires some practise and feel.

So the reason for a firm or smooth landing may be:

Firm:
A) Bad weather (wet, foggy, windy, etc)
B) Requiring short stopping distance (short runway, or maybe an aircraft close behind that wants to land as well!)
C) Simply landing the way the manufacturer recommends!
D) Any other operational reason to want to have the aircraft on the ground and slowing down instead of kissing the runway and smoothing it to a stop (which are many!)

Smooth:
A) None of the above reasons not to do it
B) Enough experience on type to be able to do so
C) An inresistable urge to impress passengers or cabin crew :)
D) Luck :E

As you can see, the reasons for a firm landing are more 'professional' than the reasons for a smooth landing. Don't critisise a pilot for a firm landing!

Now, with companies that introduce new types or have a lot of crew rotation, you can see from the above statements that there's a greater chance of a firm landing. It's not got to do with the aircraft type, it's got to do with the type of operation.

Just my two cents, now shoot me down :).

[FlightDetent]

Nice summary, honestly. Yet I think you may have missed the "bad luck" under firms... :E

Cheers, FD.

[Phoenix_X]

I hoped no-one would notice :ouch: :E

[Pax-man]

I've never noticed any difference in actual landings, but I've always thought that the smaller Airbuses seem to get thrown around a bit more on final approach. Maybe they're just a bit lighter?

The 737 seems more stable to me, whereas the buses seem to catch the wind a bit more. I can think of at least three Airbus approaches this year when we shook it all about!:bored:

Best landing I ever experienced was on a TU-134 in Sofia - if you'd shut your eyes you'd never have known we were down. Flying into Shetland next week on a Saab - now that WILL be thrown around a bit!!!:E

[Evening Star]

PAXboy has it right:

For landings? There is never a way to tell!

Accepting what Phoenix_X says, will still add my 'alfpennyworth from experience. Problem is what we perceive down the back so depends on what we expect. For example, my perception now of Fokker 100's is that they float. However, I will also say that is only my perception after a very rough ride into NCL last February where even as we came over the perimeter fence it felt like we were inspecting the ground from both sides, then just before touchdown everything went smooth and we seemed to float. Clearly, although nothing to do with the aircraft, just the wind conditions that day, this is now how I expect the Fokker 100 to respond.

Also, while some of my smoothest landings have been in the TU134, I also recall my first ever flight in one where we hammered into the runway and everything on the luggage rack (no bins!) came raining down.

As for 737 verses A319/320, can only think of some hard 737 landings. However, in each case that was in bad weather with potentially slippery runway conditions, where even as pax I feel much happier with a nice firm 'positive' arrival.

LowNSlow, funny you should mention it, but I have also noticed the Waaaaannngg noise, noticed from inside the aircraft and also from living under the sometimes flight path out of NCL. However, I find it rather soothing. Takes all sorts I suppose.

[FLYING-FODDER]

I have not flown on an airbus yet but in jersey some of us have nicknamed the 737 the boing as invariably the landing is a firm one if not a bouncy one. One highly regular operator appears to be worse than the others. Such that it's less of a landing as more of an arrival that would wake the dead (Frequently blamed on Senior F/O).