"Forward on that yoke, boy!"

[Flyingthru]

Hello All:

Regarding landing roll technique. I'm a low timer when it comes to jet time, but I have been instructed by Flight Safety and veteran jet drivers that when it comes to the CE525 Series - That's the Citation CJ, CJ1, 2's & 3's for you bug iron guys - one should apply forward pressure on the yoke during the landing roll. I have a few guess' as to why - ensure directional control and keep from unexpectedly lifting off again - but this is still one of those things that pilot sometimes do but we just aren't sure why.

I ask because I was recently flying with another pilot and we were attempting to make a taxi way when he (right after touch down) applied brakes and full back yoke - I felt the nose gear lighten (didn't leave the ground but still) this didn't sit well with me. Now I know that in the piston poppers I came from (twin Cessnas) this is considered proper technique. Anyone care to chime in on why for certain we're taught to apply forward pressure? Do all jet drivers employ this technique?

Thanks All,

Flyingthru

[SNS3Guppy]

Your explaination isn't clear, but you appear to be referring to exiting the runway when your cockpit partner applied brakes and aft column pressure (as opposed to simply making a turn when taxiing).

Applying full aft yoke isn't really "accepted" or proper technique in a light twin, but it's common. It's appropriate in a conventional gear airplane (tailwheel)...but doesn't have much value in a nosewheel multi engine airplane (especially at taxi speeds).

For a turbojet airplane, holding the nose off during landing or applying aerodynamic braking is generally far less effective and of negligible value than the use of brakes and reverse thrust. Additionally larger airplanes tend to have significantly more effective brakes, often using multiple wheel assemblies, multiple disc assemblies, and more pistons in the brakes than a light reciprocating powered twin.

Applying aft yoke in a turbojet airplane doesn't do much at all at low speeds. At higher speeds, it may reduce nosewheel effectiveness.

Particularly for swept wing airplanes (still applicable to the citation with it's straight wing, but less so), getting the nose down on landing kills lift, enabling better ground control, reducing susceptability to crosswinds, and increasing brake effectiveness and nosewheel control during landings or takeoff. Holding the nose off, then, isn't of much value unless the aircraft has a very long runway, weak brakes, and no reverse. Using aerodynamic braking by holding the nose off is the least desireable method of control, and the least effective. If done during takeoff, it's detrimental.

Early rotation or applying back pressure during the takeoff roll can substantially increase the takeoff distance, delaying acceleration, and reducing nosewheel authority.

When slowing to clear the runway, applying back pressure is moving a fairly small elevator back there...and has little leverage or effect in doing anything to the airplane to slow it down. If one is aiming for the high speed exit, one is better off using reverse a little longer, maintaining brake pressure, and pushing forward or using neutral controls to increase or maintain nosewheel effectiveness.

When you see someone in a Citation pulling back and stomping on the brakes as they exit the runway, you're seeing someone who has brought some useless or bad habits with them from their earlier flying, and doesn't understand the principles behind what they're doing. That said, as in all things, old habits die hard.

[411A]

Now I know that in the piston poppers I came from (twin Cessnas) this is considered proper technique.

Not in 400-series twin Cessna aircraft, it ain't.

And, yes, with a jet (and I've flown smaller business types as well) slightly forward column is desired.
Well, at least in the JetStar and Jet Commander it is.....:}
Big iron?
Absolutely.
The business of keeping the nosewheel off for as long as possible, is complete absolute nonsense, in large jets, smaller ones, too.

[Flyingthru]

Hi Guys - thanks for the feedback. I should have been more clear - all three wheels down (yes we only have three wheels) brakes applied nose loaded up with deceleration and then a hefty yank on the yoke full back pressure - the nose gear at that time got light and I'd question directional control and the technique - as you guys have - thank you.

Appreciate your time and replies. More are welcomed!

Safe Flying All!

[G-SPOTs Lost]

In most citations with TR's you will find in the AFM that it reccomends a push due to the pitch up action of the buckets deploying.

CJ's and 525A/B dont have reversers, some have attenuators so its probably a throwback from a previous jet, max TR deploy speed in most 500 citations with them fitted is around 125knts, at these speeds you will definetely need to push, if the speed is back and say inside of say 60knts ish then the other chap might have been pulling back to mitigate the nose dive from heavy braking to make the exit, probably just thinking about pax comfort.

If you deploy at high speed and then pull you will probably scrape the thail!!!

Incidentally there is a great video of a 500 deploying one side in flight at 150knts somewhere - bit of a wild ride!!

[Basil]

If you want to see some rubbish about what to do with the elevator after landing, have a look at this. (http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/204897-pulling-stop-runway-overruns.html)

[Loose rivets]

First and foremost, I am time-expired, and my thinking is no doubt from aviation history, but I do get...concerned, when I hear of pilots not really knowing what will happen if they go outside the envelope of normal operations. Not the envelope, but just the standard ops envelope.


A lot of these points wouldn't be raised if pilots were allowed to get a real feel for the aircraft.


I was lucky. I spent a very happy period testing and training for unusual operations. I basically wrote my own rules. During this time I was able to play with the aircraft to my heart's content, and often came to the conclusion that some of the tried and tested ways needed to be challenged. They were often rather costly in terms of use of brakes and reverse, and in later years, I have been appalled at the tire wear -- often wearing out tires in half the time I would have expected and being presented with aircraft with something like distorted little grommets on the nose-wheels to start my time away from base.

The problem was that I was now in the era of SOPs, and free thinking was banned.

Once One has 500 hours PIC on a type, I think it's reasonable to try different techniques to get a better overall feel for the aircraft, one that you may be on for many, many years. My boss on the 1-11 let me try all sorts of tricks to effect less noise and wear and tear on approach and landing. It would be unthinkable now. But who would have the better chance in extraordinary conditions?

For a turbojet airplane, holding the nose off during landing or applying aerodynamic braking is generally far less effective and of negligible value than the use of brakes and reverse thrust.

Well, for one thing, holding off is free. Unless you screw up of course.

When you have been a year or so on type, you should be able to feel the crush on the front suspension. Trying the range of the elevators to see what effect they have seems utterly essential to me. I'd just want to know. I eventually want that aircraft to be part of my mind, not just a machine that I apply someone's rules to the operation of. You have to either get a feel for it on nice days on big quiet airports, or find out the hard way on the proverbial dark and stormy night.

The landing issue has a lot to do with a real appreciation of the amount of concrete ahead of you. Not just a figure balanced against weight, wind and speed, but a real feel for just what it means if something radical happens. Your knowledge of the aircraft is all you've got going for you at times like that.


So often, strict rules are applied on a runway that One could land, take off again and land once more on. Why not use such generous runway length for getting a feel for the airplane? Obviously not at LHR, but with any luck, the average pilot finds themselves at a quiet regional from time to time.

I've even asked the guy in the tower to monitor the space under the ventral VHF arial. He was delighted to help, and fed the information to me on a pre-planned scale. I proved to an incredulous F/O that I could turn off on the mid intersection without the use of any brakes at all. The night before, a boorish crew-member had told me what he thought about all this, then filled the aircraft with rubber smoke from a vicious attempt to make the same turn off. No, I couldn't get him to release the brakes. :ugh:

I guess what I'm saying is a micro version of Davis' impassioned plea at the end of his later editions. He just wanted pilots to know their aircraft, and the only way is to try different techniques.

[SNS3Guppy]

Why not use such generous runway length for getting a feel for the airplane?


I'll be generous and give you some lattitude, and reply as though you're really serious. Not that your reply deserves it.

We don't screw with the runway because we're using it to stop. Not to play. In the case of my present equipment, we're going to use most of the pavement to get stopped, and I'm not in the habit of sacrificing any of it for science, for "getting a feel" or for entertainment.

Well, for one thing, holding off is free. Unless you screw up of course.


"Holding off" is not free, and is detrimental to the rollout. If you mean holding the airplane off the ground, landing roll is lengthened substantially. If you mean holding the nose off the ground, there's little practical value when reverse and braking is available. In a light airplane, when no reverse and minimal braking is available, it's a different matter...however, there's still little aerodynamic value, particularly at lower speeds. Keeping the nosewheel off doesn't do much good. (and yes, I've had plenty of chances to compare the differences too...in the cockpit and in the shop as I perform the maintenance and see the differences). The shorter rolls come by getting weight on the wheels, getting the nose down to dump lift, and getting the airplane stopped with brakes and reverse.

Even in a conventional gear airplane such as an Air Tractor AT-802, I tend to hold the tail until it starts to settle a little, then raise the flaps while setting the tail down, and go into reverse while applying brakes (and as it's a tailwheeel airplane...back pressure...but back pressure also because it's used to lock the tailwheel in many such airplanes. The braking effects of holding the tail off do little to slow the airplane. Getting the tail on the ground is important for ground control. Same for nosewheels.

Once One has 500 hours PIC on a type, I think it's reasonable to try different techniques to get a better overall feel for the aircraft, one that you may be on for many, many years.


Setting aside the fact that hours mean nothing (and does being PIC make any difference in the least to the "feel" one develops?)...most turbojet airplanes are numbers airplanes. Not "feel" airplanes. We don't feel them into the air when they're ready to fly. We don't feel for a refusal speed or for performance. We know the numbers and we use them. For good reason. The horizontal stabilizer on the airplane I'm flying right now is bigger than the wing on a 737, and during rotation it encounters ground effect; the nose comes up easily on rotation but wants to stop as the tail encounters ground effect. Stopping by feel results in a substantially longer takeoff roll...distance we just don't have. We fly it off by the numbers. On landing, we land the mains and fly the nose down but don't hold it off. That's asking for a tail strike, especially as the autospoilers deploy after touchdown. The same can be true on many light business jets; there's nothing to be gained holding the nose off. There's much more to be gained by getting the nosewheel on the ground and going to brakes, spoilers, and reverse.

Moreover, holding aft elevator during the rollout as the airplane is preparing to exit the runway (per the topic of the thread) accomplishes nothing. Any aerodynamic drag this might produce is negligible and isn't going to slow the airplane or improve control.

I eventually want that aircraft to be part of my mind, not just a machine that I apply someone's rules to the operation of.


Good for you. When you're running out of pavement and coming up on obstacles at the end, be sure to stop it with your mind.

[Loose rivets]

That's funny. The last quip that is.

It might be that I spent too many years with companies that were on the verge of bankruptcy. So much of the time was spent trying to limit aircraft wear. I did also say words to the effect that in today's world such practices would be unacceptable.

Anyway, starting with the fact that you have gone to an aircraft that really is out of the remit of this particular thread. As for the merits of ‘washing off' the energy by holding off, well, that would certainly require a surplus of concrete, but when engineers ask you if you've had a tire change down the route, because your tires look like new after a week, then I felt convinced at the time that we were doing something right.

As I implied, one mistake is a career-buster if you go out on a limb.

I'm sure that on an aircraft as big as the one you describe, landings are almost by definition, performance critical. Clearly, I'm not extrapolating to high-end large wide-body kit. The original post was not about aircraft in that bracket.

The thread really was about some simplistic handling principals, and the ability to practice the handling to the limits of the envelope are what Davis, and indeed I, were trying to get across. The frustrating...indeed stifling rules about what and shouldn't be considered valid practices. I concede entirely, that crew have to adhere to manufactures research and flight test findings when dealing with the flying hotels of today. I've said many times on these forums, that it is unrealistic to throw hundreds of millions of dollars worth of kit around just to give the crew handling practice, yet, there will be times when many pilots of any types, find that all of the numbers are meaningless.

Sadly, when thirty years after reading my copy of Davis one of my crew showed me the late edition -- with this plea to the industry in general -- I knew that it was financially a non starter. Who was going to pay? Not the cash-strapped airlines, that's for sure. What I was, and have always, suggested, is that crews use every opportunity to really get to know the kit they are flying.

Some of the strangest things that have happened to me have been in perfectly clear conditions, although I'm sure the wind was causal in one of the most dramatic. On a perfectly normal take-off in a 100 seat T tail aircraft, we had reached c 150 feet, when the aircraft shook, was thrown sideways 100 yards or so, showed 280 kts on one ASI and zero on the other. For a moment, we were sitting in a lump of metal. No numbers, no rules, no checklists in the world would give us any instruction on this one. Another notch of flap and aiming at a dark gap in the hangar type buildings was instinctive. I've no idea why, other than I had been lucky enough to be able to practice extremely steep descents and approaches on this type, I had nothing left but a bit of barn storming.

There are countless other tails of incidents that aircrew face every year and are, more often than not, handled with the skills needed. However, I've occasionally found myself beside – in either seat – someone who's skills end at that paragraph in the book. There was nothing left for them to call on.

I spent months as a training F/O while I was in my late twenties. Flattering at first, but soon some of the new captains were so bad that I could scarcely keep up with things going wrong. Nobody would listen. I could either try to keep up...or give up. I've had people unexplainedly drop the nose (while I was looking at the overhead) only to see fields filling the windshields. Slippery modern jet at g-limits with 90 pax in the back.

Fighting to take control in the Innsbruck Valley in a 4 engine turbo prop. Our man had taken the Westerly route and turned west. He would not be convinced. We were on top of stratus with peaks sticking up out of them; the stuff of bad dreams. The walls of the valley were too high to get over. We'd been warned, time and time again, that turning west would be fatal. Now I found myself twisting the arms of my skipper and flying with the sides of the valley sliding under us like a runway. I'd had the very good fortune to have been trained by a fleet manager that made us do things that would be unthinkable today. The confidence he gave us was priceless.

There have been more than a few stories like that from the ‘good old days'. As I've said on the fun thread, many of the incidents were hilarious, but many were deadly, deadly serious.

[SNS3Guppy]

Who's "Davis?"

[HS125]

CE-500:

1. There is no published maximum speed limitation for Thrust Reverse deployment in ANY CE-500 series aircraft. By 60KIAS the reversers should be at Idle Deploy to prevent re-ingestion of the exhaust gasses and debris picked up by the efflux.....

2. In a 500 you get a slight nose up pitch on reverser deployment after landing hence advice to push forward

CE-525

When using ground flap, if all 3 wheels aren't on the ground, then you risk striking the flap trailing edges on the runway with ground flap selected, hence advice to push forward.

[A37575]

I thought ground spoilers which extend on touch down obviated the need to play with the control column during the landing roll. Certainly in Vampire single seat fighters the technique after touch down was to keep steady back pressure on the stick in order to place more weight and therefore tyre surface area on the runway so the braking action was more efficient.

The opposite was true on the take off roll where back pressure to raise the nosewheel just clear of the ground, if over-done, could lead to significant increase in drag. Accidents to two Comet airliners and to several Vampires were partly due to the then taught techique of early raising of the nosewheel. This technique was published in the respective manufacturers manuals. Perhaps this was a precaution against the nosewheel being affected by slush? Yet this myth still applies where students learning to fly nose-wheel elementary trainers (Cessnas and Warriors for example) are almost universally taught to "take the weight of the nosewheel" as soon as the elevators become effective which is less than 15 knots in a Cessna 172. This misinformation has been handed down through several decades by a succession of flying instructors who clearly have not read the manufacturer's recommendations.

[parabellum]

D.P. Davis wrote the book, 'Handling the Big Jets', considered by many to be something of a Bible. First published April 1967 and featuring the B747.

See here: AbeBooks: Search Results - D.P. Davis and Handling the Big Jets (http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=D.P.+Davis&sts=t&tn=Handling+the+Big+Jets&x=59&y=16)

[SNS3Guppy]

I'm familiar with that book; it's on my shelf, too. However, loose rivets tells me that large widebodied airplanes aren't relevant and therefore don't have a part of this discussion...and then invokes the author of a book entitled "Handling the Big Jets." Somewhat non-sequitor, one might say. I thought perhaps he might mean someone else.

Apparently examples using a variety of corporate jets, piston twins and light airplanes weren't relevant either...but the name Davis is non the less invoked as though it were diety.

Experimentation won't change the fact that pulling back on the elevator at sub-reverser speeds, such as when exiting the runway, will do nothing, have no significant effect, and doesn't help slow the airplane or control it. Nor will it alter the fact that getting the nose down, lowering the angle of attack and killing lift on landing, and thus transferring the airplane weight to wheels in order to avail one's self of nosewheel steering and reverse thrust and brakes...is far superior and important than trying to hold the nosewheel off the ground as though the airpalne were a Cessna 172.

[Wing Root]

From the book "Handling the Big Jets"

It is already clear that the information as written is equally applicable to the little jet and it is probable that it will also apply to the even bigger jet......I decided to retain the original title if only because I had become accustomed to its sound!

[G-SPOTs Lost]

HS125

C550 s/n 800 and on Pilot Training Manual 13-9 i.e. BRAVO

Use of thrust reversers is prohibited at speeds greater than 115 KIAS. Nose down column pressure is required with thrust reversers deployed at speeds greater then 60 KIAS

Seems we were both wrong..... distinctly remember getting bollocked on a checkride (after a flapless approach and returning overweight) for going for it with the T/R's classic gotcha. I've checked the TYPE data sheet on the FAA website as definitive and it dates back to the old legacy 500.

We get a bravo in regularly I'll check the AFM and revert!

PS nothing in my Ultra PTM so it might be a JT15/PW535 thing

Rgds

[Loose rivets]

I can see how hard it must be to be a politician.

applied brakes and full back yoke - I felt the nose gear lighten It seems that it had some effect, what use it would have been is another question.

I don't think I said or implied what the action of low speed pulling back on the runway, would actually achieve, but said that I would like any competent pilot to be able to ‘feel the crush' on the front end. Just one of those ‘fly by the seat of your pants' things. Feedback from the machine.

Of course big jets are relevant to performance discussions...it's just that the original post very specifically was not in that arena.

Just as an aside, I think Davis' first edition, was based on the 727, relevant to me at the time as I was transiting from the 1-11 to the three hole-er. But I have to say I'm not sure. I suppose it could have been the Trident. But the Hi-tail rear engine aircraft were all I was concerned with at that stage of my life. Anyway, it was his comments at the end of a later edition that were germane.

If anyone could provide a quick copy of that bit, it would say a lot about what I was trying to get across.

I feel sure that you would never be permitted to put short field landing techniques to the test. But what if...and checklists are full of What Ifs...what if you have a major hold fire in the cruise for example. All your options are used up, and you have to get on the ground. The only airfield available is way too short. If I were sitting in the back, I be comforted to know that the PF was going to set the aircraft up for touchdown sitting further back into the drag curve than normal. The one thing we had to do with the old timers was STOP them doing this. On the numbers, every time. But what it did show me, was just what could be achieved by a landing that looked like the shuttle touch down.

It uses up colossal amounts of energy. You start all your calculations on deceleration from a different datum. EDIT to say, of course I have no idea how this would affect your very sizable aircraft with advanced algorithms feeding the braking system. The basic aerodynamics are sound, but how they might negate advanced systems is another issue.

Another aside. They used to like to let the speed build up after an engine failure too, and it wasn't until we found the leaves in the undercarriage doors, were from a tree on the centre-line FOUR MILES AWAY, that some of the old codgers were convinced.

However, all of this is wishful thinking. For example, with X-wind landings, Later 737s have cowlings so near the ground that nothing but standard techniques are acceptable, while we could elect to have less flap (to keep it out of the way) and a boot full of top rudder. Some of the smoothest landings were done like that in lashing rain -- and on...or was it well past?...crosswind limits. Landing run? Counter to all logic, the crossed up airplane just devoured energy before the brakes had been touched. Earlier turn offs and less brake wear...always. But you're just not allowed to do this anymore.

Just one last thing. Someone did hit a the tail on the ground some time ago...they had had no experience of short landings in jet transport aircraft. Now they were landing on a very short field every day. The aircraft was a write off, and the airline was finished. If only they could have had the training I'm talking about. Demonstrating landings from + 10 to -10, and see the incredible difference that that 20 kts makes. Also, perhaps most important of all, seeing just how high the nose has to be before the tail hits, even on a firm landing.

Flying with the ignitors on and the stick shake going and your man saying this is what you'd have to do to hit the tail. Demonstrations like that for me, were burned into my memory for life. They were beyond price.

[doubleu-anker]

"Wheelbarrowing" is for the builders.:}

I do not believe in slamming the nose wheel to ground, or landing on 3 wheels at once, on a nosewheel a/c. I try to "fly" the nose wheel on before I loose too much rudder and elevator control, e.g. before say, 100 kts in a heavy jet. Lets face it, above that speed the aircraft is controlled directionally, effectively by the rudder. While the nose is off the ground you DO benefit from aerodynamic braking, while wheel braking. Of that there is not doubt. On some types if you get the nose too high, on the landing roll, the elevators can become "blanketed" and elevator control can become lost.

I have used this technique on heavy jets to light a/c., in max demonstrated xwinds. On a slippery runway, the nose wheel is not much good for directional control.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Loose rivets]

I was going to bow out...bit of a dinosaur now...but the above is very relevant.

So many time I've tried to stop - often quite experienced captains - grabbing at the tiller the second the nose is down. It's an aircraft for heaven's sake. Why try to control it with one or two squitty wheels when still way above the speed where one loses flight control authority?

[parabellum]

The Boeing way, 737,747,757 and 767 is to put the nose wheel down immediately after the main gear touches, without 'banging it on'. Boeing say that the deceleration achieved through holding the nose wheel off for aerodynamic purposes is not as great as the declaration obtained by having all three wheels on the runway and using brakes and reversers, they have even done tests to prove it and will show you the films/numbers if you happen to be in Seattle. On a gusty day, if you still have the nose wheel off the runway as you are approaching the end of rudder and elevator controllability, then you may well be asking for trouble.

[SNS3Guppy]

Trying to drag the airplane in at an excessive pitch angle / AoA is asking for trouble. It's one thin to drag a Cessna into a sort field behind the power curve, but large airplanes are not feel airplanes...whether that be "feeling" nosegear extention or "feeling" dragging it in behind the power curve.

That line of thinking really is irrelevant with respect to the Citation pilot holding aft yoke at sub-reverser speeds.

As for making a short field landing, which is somewhat far afield from the topic at hand, one isn't going to shorten the landing distance by "holding off" or keeping the nosewheel flying. Getting the nosewheel on the ground and using maximum braking and reverse, and spoilers are going to shorten the distance. Why you want to introduce short field techniques and short runways to support the idea of flying the nosewheel and experimenting with the airplane are somewhat beyond me...just as you discarded large airplanes and at the same time invoked Mr. Davis' book.

Rather than repeatedly attempting to cloud the issue with irrelevant, incorrect concepts, why not stick to the topic at hand. There's nothing to be gained in a transport category airplane by holding the stick back while slowing to sub-reverser speeds, or by holding the nose off, while landing, or from aerodynamic drag from a raised elevator. Even if one is moving fast enough to hold the nosewheel off, the benefit from such aerodynamic braking is negligible, whereas the lowering the nose decreases AoA, decreases lift, puts weight on the wheels and makes wheel braking and steering effective. End result; there's nothing to be gained by aerodynamic braking unless one has substantial runway and no other choice.

I've flown LR35's without reversers from locations where I could let it roll and save a little brake, while still having runway remaining. However, once the nosewheel was on the ground, applying back elevator wouldn't have helped, and the real slowing power was in the brakes, not in the yoke...and I wouldn't have considered for one moment attempting to stop the airplane from going off the end "with my mind."

[Loose rivets]

Well, that was funny...once.


If you look very carefully at my admittedly out of date opinions, you will find that I have not argued for charging down the runway holding the nose off.

I have argued several points.

Basically that it's a shame that pilots can not have more practice at edge of the envelope situations, on real aircraft. That and that alone is where I introduce Davis' latter-day plea.

Huge savings in brakes and tires can be achieved by small changes in final pitch attitude. It has nothing to do with which technique gives the best deceleration per se. I clearly state that modern systems might be adversely affected by not towing the manufacturer's line. I'm sure they do stop the aircraft to the optimum. That is very specifically not the most economical under many runway conditions. Just that. Nothing else.




Dragging in at an excessive angle would indeed be asking for trouble, what I'm saying is, some aircraft...and loud and clear this time, not your huge modern machines, but say 20 to 150 seat bracket, quite simply can be flown with a little of the old technique that 'real' airplanes used to respond so well to.

Since my argument is that it's a shame that crew can't practice these techniques, then I'm not really surprised that such flying is not common place.

The discussion has become somewhat circular, so let me end by just saying that I would not advocate busting SOPs or entering into experimentation without a clear authority and reason to do so.

I'm not alone in being sad that some of the old ways have gone...but gone they have, unless aviation suddenly starts to make vast profits that will enable Davis' dream of advanced handling practice on real aircraft.

At the end of the day, I'm arguing for an ideal state that allows modern pilots to really be able to master their machines, not only in extreme circumstances, but have that gentle edge that I used to see in perhaps one in five candidates. You just had the feeling that if they operated the aircraft throughout its life, it would last twice as long!

Maybe I am foolish in thinking such standards can be taught. I have a niggling feeling that these folk were born with that touch.

[doubleu-anker]

Loose rivets

Good posts.

I was informed a few years ago by the chief pilot of a large carrier, that "flying skills and finesse" were not the priority in skills required to operate a large modern aircraft. Seeing videos of at least two crosswind landing incidences, involving medium weight aircraft belonging to "flag carriers", his comments could be called into question.

Not an "ace" myself I hasten to add, nor am I a robot on the other hand but I too had a "free hand to explore" a little of aircraft envelopes in my line of work. We had no company SOP's. Having said that, you are very correct in your advice in sticking to published company or manufacturers SOP's of course. Just like to add, that aircraft manufacturers SOP's are published with litigation in mind. "Cover thy a***e" comes to mind!

A point of possible interest, the DA series of aircraft, was the only series of aircraft i operated, where the reverse thrust could not be activated until the nose wheel was in contact with the ground. This I believe was to avoid the possibility of not getting the nose wheel on the ground when required, with TR engaged.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

Guppy - got to be said you seem to be coming over a bit holier than thou!

Loose rivets is admitting wholeheartedly that his opinions are maybe out of date with todays sanitis(z)ed SOP regimented flying but he has a valid points. If it was all by the book then technically there would be no need for reduced limits or higher minima for less experienced crew. Obviously this is not the case so it goes some way to proving the theory that finding out how the aircraft behaves is important knowledge to have on the days that you dont need to know for when you do need to know.......

You trying to tell me that you havn't tried that bit harder to grease it on when light on a 12000ft runway...... by the tones of your posts you haven't !!

I have this image in my mind of you telling another oldtimer Ernest K Gann he was doing it all wrong!!!

Just to add the hi viz vest comment of crew should comply with their own companies SOP's at all times blah blah blah etc etc etc

[parabellum]

There's nothing to be gained in a transport category airplane by holding the stick back while slowing to sub-reverser speeds, or by holding the nose off, while landing.

Just about says it? Aerodynamic breaking may have been relevant in the days of the Comet, with it's barn door flaps etc., and the original V bombers but not in the case of the high speed wing of the majority of Boeings.

Obviously applying reverse when the nose wheel is still off the runway in a rear engined plane is a complete NO NO.

[Centaurus]

And talking about best methods of retardation on the landing run reminds me of the RAF flight safety magazine "Air Clues" describing an accident incident where a Vampire pilot ran out of brake pressure and looked like going off the end at speed. In his report he described whipping open his sliding canopy in an attempt to create more drag.

In reply, the editor of Air Clues one Wing Commander Spry (a wonderfully evocative name) commended the pilot on his theory but then nailed the pilot by saying that more drag than an open canopy could be gained by simply knotting the corners of the pilot's scarf and then holding it out in the breeze like a braking parachute...

[doubleu-anker]

parabellum

"There's nothing to be gained in a transport category airplane by holding the stick back while slowing to sub-reverser speeds, or by holding the nose off, while landing."

Beg to differ old chap.

In Eastern Europe, especially before the iron curtain was scrapped, the runways, were made of good old concrete blocks. These blocks were very often poorly matched together making the surface quiet rough. In the middle of winter, ice would gather on the protruding edges and make the surfaces of these runways very rough indeed. So are you going to tell me if you were operating into such places you would "forward on that yoke" and putting great weight on the nose wheels at high speed? If you tried that technique at speed on landing, or t/o for that matter, damage would be done to the aircraft and the crew quiet possibly hurt, as some of those runways were that rough.

"Obviously applying reverse when the nose wheel is still off the runway in a rear engined plane is a complete NO NO. "

Really?

With care and within elevator authority, there is no problem.

I am aware the reverse thrust is not factored in performance calculations. However you will, if you fly for long enough and far enough, come across situations e.g. slippery icy runways, reported or not, where reverse thrust is the only thing that is going to decelerate the aircraft, initially at least. IMHO the only way to operate reverse thrust in those conditions, is to have the engines "spooled up". That can only be effectively carried out in time, by touching down with power I.E., engines spooled up and engaging reverse thrust immediately the air brakes are deployed and the nose wheel off the ground. You will "burn up" a surprising amount of concrete, if you wait until the nose wheel is on the ground, then attempt to engage reverse thrust when the engines are at idle.

[HS125]

@Gspots

HS125

C550 s/n 800 and on Pilot Training Manual 13-9 i.e. BRAVO

Quote:
Use of thrust reversers is prohibited at speeds greater than 115 KIAS. Nose down column pressure is required with thrust reversers deployed at speeds greater then 60 KIAS


Humble pie in microwave! Maybe I'll chase it down with a side order of my hat :}

@Flyingthru
thanks its always nice to be appreciated!

[411A]

In Eastern Europe, especially before the iron curtain was scrapped, the runways, were made of good old concrete blocks. These blocks were very often poorly matched together making the surface quiet rough.

This reminds me of Cairo, some years ago, when the Russians had greater influance there.
5R/23L was especially rough with this type of construction, altho winter ice was (fortunately) not a problem.
Now, all nicely paved over, this is now long forgotten, but at the time, provided a very rough ride.

[SNS3Guppy]

No, wait! Don't tell us...the L-1011 would have handled it like a champ...like no other airplane could or would. Right?

[doubleu-anker]

HS125.

Thanks for pointing that out. I have not flown the Cessna Bravo but as I am 20 stone, so I reckon I would stop that nose lifting.:}

I believe my posts have been relevant to aircraft I have flown. I apologize for being so sweeping.

[balsa model]

- Given no thrust reversers available,
- Given slippery runway, i.e. braking action not limited by available brake pressure but but available vertical force on the wheels,
- Given that the elevator application were not so large that you would end up lifting the front wheel,
Then:
Wouldn't you get more braking by applying some back stick?
The force vectory diagram says so.
bm.
Scotty! Divert all power to the force shields!

[G-SPOTs Lost]

doubleu-anker

I have flown the Bravo and am also similarly under tall and confirm that the nose still lifts......

:{:{:{:{:{:{:{:{

[SNS3Guppy]

- Given no thrust reversers available,
- Given slippery runway, i.e. braking action not limited by available brake pressure but but available vertical force on the wheels,
- Given that the elevator application were not so large that you would end up lifting the front wheel,
Then:
Wouldn't you get more braking by applying some back stick?
The force vectory diagram says so.
bm.


The same question is asked over and over again in different forms, but the answer remains the same.

By lowering the nosewheel to the runway, the reduction of angle of attack dumps lift, putting weight on the wheels. If you have a slippery surface, then reducing weight on wheels (by holding the nosewheel off, or maintaining an angle of attack which generates some degree of lift) only serves to reduce control and any available braking effect. The aerodynamic braking effect is negligible.

The size of the horizontal stab means that it's effect in slowing the airplane is largely inconsequential, particularly with respect to sub-reverser speeds...such as preparin to exit the runway.

For those who advocate holding the hosewheel clear of the runway, any development of assymetrical thrust or reverse compromises directional control authority at a time when rudder authority is rapidly decreasing. Putting the nosewheel on the runway enhances control.

Would you get more braking by applying back stick? Not enough to make a difference, and not enough to measure or see in real time.

[BelArgUSA]

The original (1st edition) Handling the Big Jets from D.P. Davies was published with the 707 as the subject airplane, and numerous notes about the Trident aircraft. The third and last edition included additional chapters on the subject of the 747 classic models.
xxx
Use of reversers on the 727 had the inconvenience of "blanking" the tail surfaces, particularly the rudder surfaces if aerodynamic directional control was required. The nose had a very slight tendency of "coming up" when full reverse was used before putting the nose wheel on the ground, to compensate.
xxx
The "US Air Force" technique of keeping the nose high after landing to slow the airplane is due to the fact that air force planes do not have reversers. All they have, are wheel brakes, spoilers, drag chutes and using aerodynamic braking is just additional drag for them.
xxx
Of course you kids do not remember the Caravelle which had NO reversers up to the model SE210-6N. These gentlemen always used "aerodynamic braking" to assist their brakes and spoilers. Yes, they had drag chute as well, but to deploy one required efforts to retrieve it after its use.
xxx
I say with a smile, that I got my nose chewed by many captains and/or instructor pilots in my young days because I almost always use aerodynamic braking, and keeping the nose high to somewhat low speed... The guys always told me "one day, you will hit the tail"... Well, 35 years later, with some 1000 landings with aerodynamic braking, even includes the stretched DC8s... I have yet to hit that tail... My last landing in a 747 will be next month, for retirement, and I will make a last one...!
xxx
My flying is quite poor, but my landings are smoother/softer than most of yours.
Airline passengers know nothing about what a good landing is. But they love MY landings.
:D
Happy contrails

[411A]

...the L-1011 would have handled it like a champ...like no other airplane could or would.

IF you had flown one extensively, you would know the answer.
Otherwise, you are just guessing...as perhaps with some of your other rather loooong posts.:rolleyes:

[parabellum]

Re badly constructed runways in Eastern Europe my experience is limited, you may have a point there but holding the nose off as a general practice is poor flying, especially in a Boeing as it is totally contrary to the AFM.

Re selecting reverse in a rear engined aircraft when the nose is still off the ground is a definite NO NO. Try it next time and don't be suprised that applying the reverse vector in such a position will swiftly sit your aircraft on it's arse, your CP will not be pleased.

[Tmbstory]

In Far Eastern Russia, during six years of Corporate Jet operations, the locals used to take bets on when the undercarriage of the "Western Jets" would collapse through the use of their concrete slab runways.

The problem was the filling material between the slabs used to deteriorate and/or come out due to the thermal expansion and contraction caused by temperature changes over the year.(approximately minus 35C to plus 35C).

The runways were rough, however the "Western Jets" stood up to them well and the money was kept for the drinks!

The Russian aircraft were very strong in the undercarriage department.


Tmb