Boeing 737 - Question about firm landing

[frnikolai]

Hi,

I flew back from Stansted to Madrid around a week ago, and something has been annoying me since I touched down in Madrid

The plane felt as if it was coming too fast, and moving about a bit. And as far as I can tell, it was very good weather!

Then the wheels seemed to smash into the ground and the plane felt like it came in hard?

It was a Boeing 737-800, and I have flown on this a lot, and never has it ever landed like this.

A loud bang, the overhead lockers rattleing, and a hard feeling.

This was so scary, as I though landing wheels would collapse, snap, and break.

I would be very interested to know why do sometimes planes do this, is it a pilots mistake?

It was with Ryanair, and from a search, it seems this is often. Although this is my first bad landing with them, I still fly with them.

I am NOT saying Ryanair are bad or criticising any pilot. I can't fly a plane, so I trust my life with pilots.

I would be extremely grateful for someone to explain exactly what went wrong, or what happened. And how much the landing wheels can take before they will snap and break.

Thank you.

Nikolai.

P.S

I am not suggesting Ryanair are a bad airline or saying the pilot was very bad.

[montag]

The trouble is that only someone on the flight, or a maintenance engineer called to inspect the aircraft afterwards could tell you whether that landing was normal, firm or heavy. Certainly if the landing was too heavy the aircraft will have gone nowhere afterwards without a maintenance inspection. Firm landings are common and can occur for a number of reasons. Heavy landings are quite rare.

The landing gear will take a great deal of abuse before there is any danger. You're far more at risk is any misstowed hand luggage decides to fly around.

Did the aircraft burst any tyres?

[forget]

Ignore this guy, he's a wind-up. Another of his posts from the 23rd January :hmm:


Thank you, BOU-PAX. As you seem to fly from there a lot, how are the landings and take-offs? From a review I read they seem to be semi-crashes. I heard they had to hit the ground really hard to be in room to stop...

Thanks.
Nikolai

[dwshimoda]

The plane felt as if it was coming too fast, and moving about a bit. And as far as I can tell, it was very good weather!

OK - I'll bite!

So Nikolai, you are familiar with the concept of Vref30 +5 and gust factor? (Apologies if this isn't entirely correct for the B738, but I assume it's at least similar to the B752) You can gauge, from a sideways on seat with limited visibility, if the aircraft is coming in too fast? Presumably you could also work out the landing weight of the aircraft as well?

And a blue sky means there is no wind / windshear / gusts?

You know nothing. You may have experienced a firm landing - sometimes this is because of a pilot :mad: up, sometimes it is absolutely not their fault.

Please feel free to respond with your meteorological and pilot qualifications that allow you to post such :mad:.

DW.

[G SXTY]

Oh dear God, here we go again . . .

http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/336582-ryanair-pilots-what-wrong-landings.html

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[JEM60]

Give me a firm landing rather than a long, long extended float down the runway any day. I want to be touched down at the beginning of the runway, not the end!!! Aircraft are much stronger in the undercarriage department than passengers think, and getting the aircraft on the ground is more desireable than a float, because it gets the anti-lift devices, reverse thrust etc. going nice and early. Judge landings from the Flight Deck, not from the passenger cabin!!

[montag]

You know nothing.

This is probably entirely true, but also entirely the wrong answer to give to a possibly nervous passenger who was concerned about their safety. Unless you subscribe to the 'shut up, sit down and be grateful' school of customer service.

It's unlikely the landing was unsafe. If frnikolai had an opportunity to speak to one of the cabin crew before disembarking, maybe they could have given some reassurance. With short turn around times there might not be the opportunity though.

[keltic]

Was it hard indeed, or you simply thought it was?

I have flown dozens of times with Ryanair, and I have never had any weird landing. Some are better than other but nothing particurly scary. Madrid is particularly notorious for the turbulences in landing in hot days.

[Rainboe]

You cannot judge speed from the passenger cabin! Period! So make no accusations there, please!

I always explain, and you can find it in the other thread, but the 737 has a very firm main undercarriage with little give. It is very hard to put it down softly. Every arrival is a thump. I don't know why it is like that, Boeing will know. I have flown it for 10 years. You can land the 747 and the 757 so soft nobody can feel it, but every arrival in the 737 is like there is no suspension at all. So a firm arrival feels like a bad landing. It's not- don't worry about it- they do it every day.

[WHBM]

the 737 has a very firm main undercarriage with little give. It is very hard to put it down softly. Every arrival is a thump. I don't know why it is like that
Possibly a feature of the single-axle 737 undercarriage whereas the 747/757 have twin-axle bogies and a necessarily more complex suspension. The Tupolev Tu154 has a triple-axle bogie and is even more so, every landing I have ever had on it has always been a greaser. In fact, Russian pax who have been familiar with the 154 for years comment adversely on the landing thumps of the 737s now coming into general use in Russia. We here know it's not an issue, but it's still a thump.

[angels]

You walked away from it. Ergo it was a good landing.

[montag]

The plane has flown again? It must have been a great landing!

[Rainboe]

Possibly a feature of the single-axle 737 undercarriage
Yes, I agree, but I notice the A320 series don't arrive with such a thump. I would have thought it was important to design in a softer undercarriage, and not just for softy passenger reasons. It must stress the fuselage thumping in 40-50,000 landings over an airframe lifetime. You can see the effects in the fuselage aft of the wing- wrinkling developing. Then you get more of the 'Indonesian' type landings where the fuselage collapses altogether either side of the wing- something I don't think an A320 series has experienced at all, but several 737s are photographed in that state!

[lastgasp]

Montag

Re: Cabin crew giving re-assurance - I recall a really bad landing (I won't mention the airline) when we were clearly too hot over the threshold and I was convinced we would have to go around again. But no, we were plonked down with a huge bang that caused screams from pax and then decelerated with a force I have never encountered before or since.

PA announcement from the senior stew " Ladies and gentlemen, you cannot have failed to notice that we have just landed at Stansted"

[G SXTY]

we were clearly too hot over the threshold

Please understand that you cannot - repeat CANNOT - judge the speed of an aircraft by looking out of the window. I can't and I fly them for a living.

That's what the airspeed indicator is for.

[Final 3 Greens]

G SXTY

Please understand that you cannot - repeat CANNOT - judge the speed of an aircraft by looking out of the window. I can't and I fly them for a living.

Agreed.

What about perceiving RoD though?

I was a pax on an A320 into Frankfurt last year and we ended pretty high on final (in fact the gear went down whilst on base), with what felt like a very uncomfortable deck angle (i.e. with the nose pitched down) and the houses getting bigger at a noticeable rate for a minute or two, before a more usual attitude was established.

I'm not suggesting that the aircraft was being flown in any way outside it's operating limits, just nearer to the edge than usual.

Although I have never particularly noticed a difference in perceived groundspeed on the same type of aircraft, I did percieve a substantial difference in the RoD on this flight - it felt approximately like an approach into LCY or a glide landing in a light single.

[Dit]

What about perceiving RoD though? ........ I did percieve a substantial difference in the RoD on this flight - it felt approximately like an approach into LCY or a glide landing in a light single.

Have you thought that the feeling of a high RoD (probably caused by a perception of a nose down body angle) may have been an illusion?

Due the cost of fuel we plan to do an idle descent, now if you get a short cut this can mean the only way to get back onto the vertical profile is to use the speedbrake and increase the speed. In doing this the a/c can pitch down a little aggresively. It may well be that when the pitch angle was brough back towards level it was at a much slower rate (which would be hard to detect in the cabin without a horizon to judge it from) thus your body didn't detect it. Thus the illusion of a high RoD.

[Final 3 Greens]

Have you thought that the feeling of a high RoD (probably caused by a perception of a nose down body angle) may have been an illusion?


It wasn't an illusion, there were plenty of ground features to relate to and I am an experienced visual pilot (several hundred hours) as well as having paxed on hundreds of airline flights, so I know what is normal and what a steeper descent looks like.

It may well be that when the pitch angle was brough back towards level it was at a much slower rate (which would be hard to detect in the cabin without a horizon to judge it from) thus your body didn't detect it. Thus the illusion of a high RoD.

No, this was at low level and the aircraft was pitched up smoothly, but firmly after the initial high descent - they did use the speedbrake from rolling out onto final to the point where the aircraft was pitched to the usual angle prior to landing.

[TightSlot]

I've amended the title of this thread to try and move some of the combustible materiel away from the heat source.

frnikolai - Your question is covered in the forum FAQ - did you read it?

[dwshimoda]

This is probably entirely true, but also entirely the wrong answer to give to a possibly nervous passenger who was concerned about their safety. Unless you subscribe to the 'shut up, sit down and be grateful' school of customer service.

Then he / she should phrase the posting appropriately. I don't subscrive to the "shut up, sit down and be grateful" school of customer service at all. I do however try and give my pax the smoothest possible ride - but sometimes the landing is way firmer than I would like - sometimes it's me just not catching it right, sometimes it's one of any other number of factors.

I would never, never, go and post on on a different forum a similar statement. Imagine on the Professional Doctors Rumour Network (if it exists!) me posting "Tonsillectomy - very badly stitched afterwards" I wouldn't be so presumptious nor crass - I would ask if what I experienced was normal, and if so why that might be. They are the professionals, not me, so I would alue their input / judgement to help me learn.

And Rainboe is spot on - I defy anyone to judge speed from the passenger cabin - I can't even do it from the FD which is why it is part of my scan almost every second during approach / landing.

DW.

[frnikolai]

Firstly, I am not the poster from that, appearing thread. I have flown on a flight on a Boeing 737-800, and I will now leave Ryanair out. I was only asking, why when I have flown this flight before, did it feel (and appear) that the plane was coming in too fast. I am not stupid so I know I can't tell the speed of the plane without the device that measures speed.

Secondly, I know landings are expected to be felt, I know that a heavy aircraft at 100+ mph landing is going to be felt. I never said I wanted a pillow soft landing, I wanted a safe landing.

Thirdly, excuse me? But who the hell are you to tell me I know nothing, and start throwing some funny language around - if you really are, and I mean IF a good pilot (you seem like the worst) then you might actually TRY and get the plane down softly. Also, you wouldn't appear so rude.

I asked:

1. Why did the plane touch down harder than usual, and this was hard as there was a loud noise. Was it due to a bit more speed? Was it the pilots decision? Just a simple mistake?
2. How much force the gear can take before it snaps and breaks. After 50,000+ landings, one hard one might just snap it off? It will break if landed too fast?

Now, if they are too difficult to answer - get the hell out of the way.

I know the landings are not going to be feather soft, even on a 747-400 I have felt the landing. Sometimes they are feather soft, but sometimes they are hard. Mostly in the middle, just a slight feeling that the wheels are down.

I would be very grateful for someone to answer those above questions. Without the rude and arrogant part.

Thank you very much.

Nikolai Alexsandr Cezhco

P.S

No more Ryanair in this post, I am talking about the Boeing 737-800

[dwshimoda]

That "funny language" is an essential part of how we calculate the speed that we fly various configurations of the approach at - including the final speed for touch down.

I'll be more than happy for you never to fly on one of my flights. I'm the first to admit when I've made a firmer than normal landing (aside from the fact the CC wont let you forget it for a while! But also, they are sometimes when you just have to put the aircraft down. No doubt you prefer a looong floated greaser of a landing - let me tell you - that way serious trouble can lie.

why when I have flown this flight before, did it feel (and appear) that the plane was coming in too fast. I am not stupid so I know I can't tell the speed of the plane without the device that measures speed.


Your basing it being too fast on what exactly? You had the latest wind speeds and landing weight did you? Were these factors exactly the same as last time you did that exact same flight, to that exact same runway?

I reiterate - it is you who is rude coming on here and accusing a professional pilot (and an entire company in your original sweeping statement) of bad landings.

They do happen, and most of us will admit it, be we don't need it alleged by people with no knowledgeable basis.

What is it you do for a living? Perhaps I could make some sweeping, and possibly grossly incorrect, statements about how you are performing?

Don't fly the B738, so can't answer your "technical" question about what the gear can and can't take. But bear in mind it is replaced after a set amount fo years / cycles, and each landing is very different. Having been involved in some "thumpers" (No - not all mine) and seeing what is recorded on the g recorder, you would be amazed at what they can take before they need a check.

:(

[forget]

Firstly, I am not the poster from that, appearing thread.

Yes you are! Why on earth are you denying it? :ugh: You really are stretching this forum to the limit. B*gger off.

(Ohmigod, I'm responding to Nickolai. All is lost!)

What are the chances of a displaced Pole, which Nickolai claims to be, writing 100+ mph

Quite.

[frnikolai]

How dare you, I am basing what I am appearing to be true as a passenger. I did not say Ryanair are a bad airline, nor did I suggest they do that on purpose. In fact, I fly with Ryanair a lot.

I will be delighted that I am not on a flight with you flying it.

I prefer a landing, which is not going to cause panic, not a loud bang or lockers and trays rattling. And most times, that's the landing I get. Firm to the bite, aldente! But nothing scary or causing panic.

If you did a rubbish landing, I would not be the only one who would say you're a bad pilot. And I probably would not be the first, others would jump before me.

What is it I do for a living? I work for IBM - based in Portsmouth. As a Russian to Polish/Spanish/English translating, and working on advertisements for the Russian and Spanish market. Vice-versa on the other languages translating. Go ahead and try and make a comment, make it in Russian/Spanish/Polish.

But I will say thank you, as you have slightly answered my last question. That the gear can take a lot before it needs checking, what would make interesting discussion would be what is a lot!

I can see this will get closed, but I think I should answer anyway.

Nikolai

[frnikolai]

First of all, learn how to spell.

Nickolai - Nikolai

Pole - Pol

Secondly, how dare you? Who the hell are you to tell me to b*gger off? I am leaving as this God damn forum is full of arrogant English pilots - who can't land a plane.

For Christ sake.

[forget]

Help me out Nickolai. I'm stuck, and trying to describe your postings here.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/polish.jpg

[dwshimoda]

I can see this will get closed, but I think I should answer anyway.



So before it does, did you read Tight Slot's advice? Tight Slot was trying to lighten the load on you, but you've obviously ignored it. Go back to the post, then go to the Forum FAQ's, and read:

"WHY WAS MY LANDING 'HARD' AND SHOULD IT HAVE BEEN? - See HERE & HERE"

Once you've done that, maybe you will be wiser.

What is it I do for a living? I work for IBM - based in Portsmouth. As a Russian to Polish/Spanish/English translating, and working on advertisements for the Russian and Spanish market. Vice-versa on the other languages translating. Go ahead and try and make a comment, make it in Russian/Spanish/Polish.


Sorry - I know my limitations, so will not get into a pissing contest about linguistic skills. (Impressive as your are, and as rubbish as mine are, I know nothing about languages hence don't pass judgment on others skills - unlike you about piloting skills)

If you did a rubbish landing, I would not be the only one who would say you're a bad pilot.

A single rubbish landing does not make you a bad pilot - never make mistakes youself? Thought not. Also, in your line of work you are not at the beck and call of the weather, and what is, to some extent, an imprecise science (the very last foot of touchdown!) Repetitive bad landings may be a cause for concern though and would certainly involve tea & biccies with the Chief Pilot.

[frnikolai]

Please forgive me, I can not seem to find that FAQ. I can't find that post either.

I will apologize to you, dwshimoda. After all, YOU fly the plane. I am just the passanger. I owe respect to you for getting the plane down, safely. For that, I owe my respect - and I offer my deepest apologies. I am sorry if I offended you in anyway.

Nikolai

P.S

I will not offer anything to the idiot, who tried to find a word for bollocks in Polish.

I can certainly think of words to describe you in Polish/Russian/Spanish for you...

[dwshimoda]

...the hyperlink is here:

http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/318080-forum-faq-welcome-passengers-slf-forum.html

And it's post #19 on page 1 of this thread, made by Tight Slot - Moderator.

You don't need to apologise to me - I wasn't flying your aircraft! You have to understand that every pilot always strives for a great landing - they just don't always happen. If it was an exact science, it would be easy! Although I suspect people like Rainboe rarely do thumpers, thanks to their considerable experience.

What I will say is that if you are ever unsure of a landing, or anything on a flight - ask the crew! We are always happy to have people on the Flight Deck (on the ground - obviously) and, speaking for myself, if I've planted it down, I'll explain to you why it was necessary, or if it was my cock up - apologise to you.

[frnikolai]

Thank you - all is well end's well. I do need to apologise as I was rude, and I always stand up when I am wrong.

Nikolai

[BelArgUSA]

Hello - "Hard Landing Victims"
xxx
Just a retired pilot here, in his rocking chair since November.
Quite a few years as pilot with airlines, and many "hours" with airplanes.
Flew B-707, B-727, B-747, DC-8 - even the little Learjets too.
And I was a pilot instructor/examiner in all these types.
xxx
No need to say, I had "hard landings" - a few.
Because did not handle plane well, or there was bad wind conditions.
Or maybe my co-pilot made a mistake, or lacked experience on type.
Even it was a new pilot I was doing training with.
The easiest plane I flew was the 747, for these last 19 years.
So a big airplane is easier than a small one... Yes. It so happens.
I NEVER had a hard landing in a 747 - NEVER.
The most difficult was the Learjet - Very unstable little thing.
So yes, hard landings happen sometimes.
xxx
What happens in a hard landing...?
What is the first evidence of a hard landing...(in all airplanes)...?
Oxygen masks falling in cabin, when the plane hits the runway.
Maybe a few, like a dozen, maybe all of them in the passenger cabin.
In our pilot jargon, we call that "the RUBBER JUNGLE" in the cabin.
This applies to ALL airplanes I flew, from small jet to Jumbos.
xxx
If I had a bad landing, I knew it, if F/A says "some O2 masks did fall...!"
So, accuse pilots of a hard landing, ask yourself "did the masks fall...?"
That is your first clue. I remember a landing in a 707. Almost all fell down.
Our engineer inspected the plane. No damage. Quite a job to stow all masks.
xxx
So, if and when you come to Pprune saying hard landing...
How about the masks in the cabin...? Did they fall...? Some...? All of them...?
If none did fall, it was a firm landing, YES. Not a hard landing.
Did I make my point...?
xxx
Thank you.
:*
Happy contrails

[Final 3 Greens]

I've seen the rubber jungle (or rather 3/4 sets near me) after what I perceived as a normal touchdown (between the wing and the front of a 763) and I've felt quite a 'bang' without one, causing my head to hit the bulkhead behind the seat (last row in a 764.)

One's location in the cabin makes a difference to the perception of a landing.

To some of the professionals posting here, you really need to calm down a bit.

It's quite normal in many walks of life for lay people to irritate the :mad: out of professionals.

My job involves quite a lot of public speaking and I get feedback from the audience most times - if I got as excited as some of you guys, I'd have died from stress years ago.

1 - they don't understand the job and make incorrect deductions as a result

2 - they ultimately provide the money that pays the professionals

3 - they don't understand why something smooth may be bad or something raggedy may be good, as they lack the situational judgment and contextual knowledge that professionals posses

In my line of work, we call our customers 'clients;' Managing clients involves a lot of smiling and suppression of irritation :ugh:

But god bless them, they paid for my property, my car, my kids education etc...

[frnikolai]

Thank you - I think you have hit it.

There were no oxygen masks falling or anything falling for that matter. All that was there was loud noise, lockers rattling, and screams.

Interesting that even that landing is still well okay for the landing gear. Boeing must really test the gear!

I guess some are bad and some are good. Like how I park the car! Although landing is more difficult than parking a car.

Thank you.

Nikolai

[Globaliser]

... IF a good pilot (you seem like the worst) then you might actually TRY and get the plane down softly.You've probably already read it, but this is not true. There are circumstances in which it is better and safer to achieve a firm landing than a soft landing.

[BelArgUSA]

Do you know that is really exists...?
But some techniques are not exactly known as "flying by the book".
I learned them from old "geezers" (I am one now) 35-40 years ago.
And this with a very respective airline of the "first world".
xxx
And if you research my posts, I often have arguments with qualified pilots.
Pilots of even "more respected airlines" of a more superior first world nation.
I immediately get accused of deviating from standard operating practices.
Well, you see, near 50% of my flying is, I should say was as instructor.
And as training manager in my latest airline, nobody would dare criticize.
Only under Pprune anonimity, do some claim their superior airmanship.
xxx
Quite a few pilots are ex-military. Air Force or Navy...
The two land with completely different techniques and braking concepts.
When finally in the real world, these pilots take time to change habits.
xxx
An airplane quasi impossible to land smoothly, was the good old DC-8.
Touch down was almost always a crash. Ask United and Delta old timers.
So, one day, an experienced DC8 pilot told me to use "their" technique.
Was "not to arm" the "speed brakes". Not what "the book" recommends.
But United and Delta did this to get applauded by unsuspecting passengers.
To passengers, a gentle and smooth touchdown is a "great captain".
Unknown to you, he might be the worst moron of all pilots.
xxx
With "speed brakes armed", the spoilers over the wing deploy suddenly.
Actually makes the wing stall a fraction of second before landing. BANG !!!
No speed brakes armed, they will not deploy. Pilot can glide smoothly down.
Of course, you wasted 2000+ feet of runway doing so.
Especially with wet and slippery runways.
You will applaud the "kiss landing" until you end in the mud beyond the end.
Your shoes will be dirty after you exit down the emergency slides.
xxx
I demonstrate that technique, on very long dry runways. Even in the 747.
Nose up, aerodynamic braking Air Force style. Not even touching brakes.
Need to tell the passengers to get up, they would not know we landed.
On short wet runways, be aware I am a frustrated Navy FA-18 jockey.
My "hook catches the first wire" and your nose is in the back of seat in front.
Navy calls that an "arrival"... (and Marines, I did not know they can fly)...
xxx
To pilots of the "world's favourite airline" style, my answer is this -
My former airline has not had an accident nor casualty since... 1971.
How about that for a third world airline, with a fleet of some 40 planes...?
Some of their procedures are the ones I recommended.
I know they miss me there in the training. Especially my classroom jokes.
xxx
:8
Happy contrails

[gav_20022002]

Just a curiosity question here but i remember hearing that some airline SOP's state the aircraft must be touched down by the 1500" markers or a go around is required? and is this is the case then the pilot increasing the sink rate to achieve this?

i have had a couple of pearler landings in the B738 with the rubber jungle dropdown, window shades coming down at a great rate of speed but i do have a understanding of vref+ speeds and understand that a great deal of the time its not the pilots fault but after getting off the plane and looking at the threshold seeing hot raods, hills, stuff that can cause mechanical turbulence and then think that yeah they did do a good job as i know and im sure that everyone else does, NO ppilot wants to do a hard landing cause it really does create to much paper work!!

just my thoughts...

[angels]

You should never judge a landing by screams from the pax either.

I would guess 20-25 percent of my landings (as pax) at Kai Tak were accompanied by yells from Kai Tak first timers who thought they about to appear in someones living room! :}

[Rainboe]

Quite simply, every pilot every so often does a hard landing, a real thumper he will feel upset about. It happens to the best of us. I happen to go through periods of not being able to land really smooth and soft. For a few weeks, every landing is firm or scruffy and (to me) unsatisfactory, then suddenly it passes, and I go through a long period where it comes smooth and natural. I don't know why, but it doesn't do any harm, and that is how everybody occasionally (or frequently) lands. It does no harm to the aeroplane. A really hard landing will drop the oxygen masks. A too-hard landing will ground the aeroplane until inspectins have taken place. I would say nikolai's landing was hard, but surprisingly to him, probably well within the design parameters of the 737. I doubt the aeroplane was grounded!

Get it clear everybody, you CANNOT judge speed or rate of descent from the cabin. In a lifetime of flying, I can't- neither can you. If you have a beef about a landing, complain if you like. But it is a waste of time. If it's REALLY too bad, you will be standing outside looking at bent and broken metal!

[Final 3 Greens]

Of course, you wasted 2000+ feet of runway doing so.

Hope you're doing well onthe beaches, BelArg :-)

One of the few times I have been frightened on a commercial flight was when the F100 floooooooooated for what seemed like an eternity, before touching down with barely a chirp.

Fortunately, the runway was 10,000 feet long, we made the last exit - I could see as we vacated.

It may all have been planned, but it scared me.

[G SXTY]

I'll choose my words carefully.

Like many of my colleagues, I am happy to have visitors to the flightdeck and welcome questions or constructive suggestions from passengers. Without them I wouldn't have a job for very long. Likewise, I'm happy to spend time on this forum enlightening pax and enthusiasts about what goes on behind the flightdeck door.

What irritates me, however, is when a passenger or enthusiast (or a PPL who should know better) presumes to know more than I do, and persists in arguing a point when they clearly do not have the knowledge or experience to back-up their assertions. And it really winds me up when a layman implies or alleges that a professional flightcrew performed poorly, without any facts to back up their opinions. Why some people do this, I do not know. Maybe they're trolling, maybe they just like to argue; frankly I don't really care. Regardless, when someone comes out with a line like:

if you really are, and I mean IF a good pilot (you seem like the worst) then you might actually TRY and get the plane down softly.

or

If you did a rubbish landing, I would not be the only one who would say you're a bad pilot.

then my patience wears thin pretty quickly.

For those who haven't got it yet, landing a large commercial aircraft can be more of a black art than an exact science. There are many, many variables involved, most of which the passengers will be completely unaware of. Some types are very forgiving, e.g. the 747 or BAe146 series, others, such as the 737NG or my own type (Q400) are difficult to land consistently smoothly. I have done landings where the wheels kissed the tarmac, I have done one or two where I seriously wondered if I'd bent something (I hadn't). None of them were unsafe.

The aim of the exercise is not to achieve an ego-satisfying, crowd-pleasing greaser. It is to achieve a stable approach, followed by a touchdown on the runway centreline, in the touchdown zone, at the correct speed and rate of descent. This may result in a smooth touchdown, it may not. On my type you might as well roll a dice.

As passenger or observer, there are simply so many factors involved of which you have no knowledge or experience that passing comment on the landing is pretty-much guaranteed to wind-up professional pilots. I invite anyone to look at the view on final to runway 27 at Jersey (which is short and ends with a cliff) and encourage me to aim for a greaser . . .

[Final 3 Greens]

Rainboe

Get it clear everybody, you CANNOT judge speed or rate of descent from the cabin.

I think you may have misinterpreted my posting about RoD or I wasn't clear enough.

My point is that I cannot judge groundspeed at all, I get no sense of an approach being faster or slower, even though there must be quite a difference in aircraft types, weight, wind etc. All approaches to landing tend to be perceived as being the same by my senses.

I can't judge RoD either, in terms of 000 of feet per minute, but nearer to the ground (say 5-6,000 feet or less, with a clear horizon) due to the deck angle and the rate the scenery is growing, I find that I get a sense of normal (again, probably varies quite a lot in actuality) or unusual, e.g. LCY feels (or should I say more correctly looks) very different to LHR.

PPL training/VMC flying is nowhere near the standard of professional training or flying, but it does require the development of a certain amount of ability to recognise a visual picture and in particular reasonably small differences in pitch angles.

I'm not really interested in arguing the point, but more in exploring what (to me at least) is an interesting paradox, probably partly explained by retinal depth cues and disparity, whereas there is no motion parallax as the pax can't see through the front window, so reducing the ability tof the brain to make inferences from the relative motion of objects, e.g. the threshold, or buildings.

Again, to be clear, motion parallax would not help to gauge airspeed, but it might provide a coarse sense of 'faster' or 'slower' is one was used to the environment.

(Of course one needs to remember that we are all unique, so my perceptions may be different to other peoples and perceptions are not reality.)

[starbuck123]

Quote

"Like many of my colleagues, I am happy to have visitors to the flightdeck and welcome questions or constructive suggestions from passengers. Without them I wouldn't have a job for very long. Likewise, I'm happy to spend time on this forum enlightening pax and enthusiasts about what goes on behind the flightdeck door"

I would like to add to this and say thanks to pilots and crew for taking time to do this. Some of you may have seem some posts of mine with questions about "what happens if" and "strange Noises" but i have to say im not as nervous about flying as much i was and thats all becuase my questions were answered on this Forum! So Cheers! :D

Maybe more people should use this forum to ask sensible questions then there wouldnt be as many nervous passengers maybe?

Next 747 flight in March to San Fran hopefully! Looking forward to it!

As for hard landings on 737 aircraft, I was Flying with BMI Baby few weeks ago to Prague and thought the Landings were fine! Infact thought they were lighter and softer than the 747 which is the aircraft i spend most of my time on!

Thanks again!

[frnikolai]

First of all, I would like to offer my deepest thanks and gratitude to all of you who have responded to my original question.

I am very grateful and fortunate to have multiple professional pilots take the time and answer my questions.

Secondly, I now think I have the answer to my question:

1. The landing I experienced, was firmer than usual - but still within the normal operating requirements. Albeit, slightly unpleasant.
2. Landings which float down a runway are both unsafe and not recommended for an arrival.
3. Touching down in the right spot of the runway - is paramount.
4. Ryanair are very good airline, and I have had very good experiences with them, they have brought me, my siblings, and family and friends - all around Europe safely.

I know that the next time I am on a landing plane - I am safe, regardless of the touchdown.

I know that landings won't be completely silent nor feather soft.

However, some landings are soft, but safe! I know I have experienced these.

Once again, thank you for answering my questions and I would like to apologize to anyone I have offended.



I would be very grateful perhaps, if the discussion can be moved onto the landing gear itself?

I just have these questions:

1. How are they tested?
2. What can they take?
3. How long they last for and how often parts need changing?

Once again, thank you for you're continued help.

Best Regards,
Nikolai

[clareprop]

If you Google "Landing Gear Testing", I promise that you will be able to spend hours and hours reading all about the subject. From military, through commercial to light aircraft. Every detail....promise..

[frnikolai]

Thank you very much.

[angels]

Re testing - my dad was an erk in the RAF in Asia in WW2.

The erks did their jobs very carefully as the pilots always insisted that they come up with them on the first test flight after repairs. In that way, if anything went wrong, at least the erks copped it as well.

Rather nifty move by the Nigels I've always thought!

[G SXTY]

Years ago I saw a video of Boeing testing the 747, specifically its no flare landing capability. From the far end of the runway a camera filmed a 747 arriving at some truly scary descent rate - God knows how many feet per minute. On 'touchdown' (more like impact) the wings flexed, the engines shook on their pylons, and the aircraft looked like it had enough inertia to dig a big hole in the runway. But the gear held together. Mr. Boeing certainly builds 'em tough.

One of our engineers told me recently that what they regarded as a hard landing would to me feel like a crash. I believed him.

[frnikolai]

Interesting! But wouldn't landing with such force, lets say in an emergency or just a hard landing - send the landing gear back inside the plane? And this could cause structural damage? Is this possible?

Can the forces damage the fuselage? Or is this not possible?

Once again, thank you very much for you're time.

Nikolai.

P.S

After watching some Youtube videos of other airlines landing the Boeing 737-800 NG with winglets - the firm part is normal! I would put this in the FAQ guide. Perhaps a few links of what is generally normal?

[G SXTY]

Nothing is indestructible, and ultimately any component will fail, given enough force. Generally, the landing gear is designed to fail before the wings or fuselage, so that structural integrity is preserved as far as possible during a forced or crash landing. (Witness the BA777 at Heathrow - a severely damaged aircraft, but still in one piece).

If, by "send the landing gear back inside the plane", you mean "will it retract?" the answer is no. The gear is locked down both mechanically and hydraulically, and a hard landing would not cause it to retract.

[frnikolai]

Thank you - how much force is required to cause the gear to collapse?

Thanks,

Nikolai

[TightSlot]

how much force is required to cause the gear to collapse?

A lot - I think this thread has now run its' course, and the new questions are exhausting.