Proper jet landing technique

[Dariuszw]

Which is the correct jet landing technique...Is it:

Vref at 50ft over threshold, power to idle, let the speed bleed in flare

or

Vref +10 to Vref at 50ft over threshold, power reduced, land but never below Vref.

Is there some officially prescribed procedure to which someone can point me to ?

My quest is based on reading an article recently about a/c brakes and how often pilots wear out tires and brakes by practicing wrong landing technique. For example brakes on Cessna Citation CE560 should last for 750 landings and actual average is only half of that. So author of this article recommends one of the above mentioned techniques. Yet, reducing speed below Vref during flare is considered a Cardinal Sin by others. What say you....?

[de facto]

Darius....
Follow your FCTM! If you have one...

[nitpicker330]

The A330 manual says that if you fly an Approach at Vapp ( VRef ) then cross the threshold at 50', Flare at 40' ( 2 to 3 deg nose up ) and then smoothly close the Thrust Levers you will lose around 5 kts during the flare manoeuvre. All quite ok.

It goes on to say:-


FACTORS AFFECTING LANDING DISTANCE

The field length requirements are contained in the Landing Performance section of FCOM 2. The landing distance margin is reduced if the correct landing technique is not used. Factors that affect stopping distance include:

• Height and speed over the threshold

• Glideslope angle

• Landing flare technique

• Delay in lowering the nose onto the runway

• Improper use of available deceleration devices

• Runway conditions (discussed in adverse weather)

Height of the aircraft over the runway threshold has a significant effect on total landing distance. For example, on a 3° glide path, passing over the runway threshold at 100 ft rather than 50 ft could increase the total landing distance by approximately 300 m/950 ft. This is due to the length of runway used before the aircraft touches down.

A 5 kt speed increment on VAPP will result in a 5% increase to the distance extracted from the 'Landing Distance with Autobrake' table in the QRH.

A prolonged period of level flight above the runway prior to touchdown must be avoided as it uses a significant amount of the runway length available. Land the aircraft as near to the normal touchdown point as possible. Deceleration on the runway is approximately three times greater than in the air.

The minimum stopping distance is achieved by applying maximum manual antiskid braking with maximum reverse thrust selected and ground spoilers fully deployed.

[Intruder]

Varies with the airplane type.

[nitpicker330]

I deliberatly quoted the A330 but in my experience the Boeing's I flew for 20 years have the same principles. :ok:

Now as for light Jets? Mmmm

[Green Guard]

Yet, reducing speed below Vref during flare is considered a Cardinal Sin by others
10 kts below Vref may be sin if you do it above HAT= 1 MLG strut length, or at any flare HAT while you level off.

On flare Vref = 1.3 or more Vstall, while on Take Off V2 = 1.2 or more Vstall, and yet most of time you should rotate and reach V2 in the air....

PS
The best landing "technique" is exactly opposite to ANY normal Take off :)

[beachbumflyer]

Just push the autoland botton

[Jonty]

It varies with aircraft type. And even engine type on the same aircraft.

[Mikehotel152]

I suspect you won't get a clear answer from many people on jet landing technique on Pprune, hence the references to the FCTM and wooly 'it depends' responses. Reason: as soon as anybody posts their technique someone with vastly more experience or perceived skill will tell them they're wrong. :p

[Denti]

Don't think that is the main reason, although there is quite a bit of truth in there. We have discussed type specific landing techniques in the past, so it does happen. But as many have said it is type specific. The landing technique for an A380 won't help on a mustang and vice versa.

[PappyJ]

I suspect you won't get a clear answer from many people on jet landing technique on PPRuNe, hence the references to the FCTM and wooly 'it depends' responses. Reason: as soon as anybody posts their technique someone with vastly more experience or perceived skill will tell them they're wrong.


:ok: :ok: :ok:

Yep, 30 years of landing Big Jets and I haven't done it right yet. I Haven't broke one, bent one or deviated much from the runway centre line after a few thousand landings, but still I have no idea what I'm doing :roll eyes:


BTW…read the Cross-wind section from your PPL manual and do it pretty much the same way. Then - don't let the secret out - but that's what the FCOM says too.

[framer]

Assuming no gusts, forget about Vref for a start.
1/Do everything in your power to nail Vapp and the glideslope down to 20ft.
2/ Forget about speeds and fly the machine onto the runway while reducing the pwer to idle.
3/Go to the bar.(or in your case, ask your mum when dinner will be ready).

[nitpicker330]

Wow Framer what are you flying with that technique? An FA/18 onto a Carrier???

The FCOM I quoted above is quite specific on the "correct technique" straight from Airbus and the same for the 777. It's not Rocket science or the Space shuttle so be like Nike and "just do it" .:ok:

[Flingwing47]

Try this:
Fly Vapp plus additives down to the runway,when the touchdown target disappears under the nose flare enough to reduce sink to almost zero. After 20k+ found it works for me on any jet, CE500 to 747:)

[Denti]

@nitpicker what you quoted above was mainly factors affecting landing distance, which is not really a landing technique. The few points paraphrased above that by you might work for a somewhat heavy jet, but not for a light one. Starting a flare at 40ft is extremely early on smaller jets and way too early on light jets.

Besides, i read framer reply pretty much the same as your wise advise to "just do it", plus an added advise based on the known personality of SSG.

[nitpicker330]

Yes I did mention it was for the A330 and similar Boeing Jets, also I did say I don't know about light Jets. I personally Flare around 20' in the 330 and did so in the 777 as well after I had more experience on each type.

[FLEXPWR]

16 years flying, pistons, turboprops, medium jets (A320), I don't remember ONCE looking at my speed past the threshold.
I try to fly at Vapp/Vref stable until I hear 30/40 feet, thrust idle, flare and let it sit in the TDZ.

[Dani]

The remark about brakes not holding long enough is very clear to me. Most pilots I've ever seen on different types flew with too much speed reserve, too much head/crosswind correction and keeping power/thrust for too long. This increases landing distance by a great margin. The inproper technique doesn't end there, since a big group of pilots doesn't have a concept about proper braking technique and use of reversers.

Other than that, I agree that it's type specific. The only common values are:

at 50ft starts your landing
you have to be over the threshold.
you should have Vref (or Vapp or whatever your manufactor calls it)
flare: reducing vertical speed and reducing power/thrust should go hand in hand (there might be exceptions with very strong winds, glide angles or runway slopes)
Latest at the ground you should be at idle

Since we are also talking about Airbusses, I see too many pilots keeping the thrust for too long, leading to an increase of thrust during the flare and increasing the landing distance, using too much braking/reversers.

Dani

[framer]

Wow Framer what are you flying with that technique? An FA/18 onto a Carrier???

Ha ha you'd think so from the landing I did the other night :}

My thinking is this,on the smaller jets (737,A320) , if you are at the right height, and the right speed at 20ft, and you start a normal flare from there, it is pretty hard not to land betwen 1200ft and 1700ft in, and that will keep most people happy and safe.

I agree that
too many pilots keeping the thrust for too long, and I think that is often a subconscious protection against repeating a hard landing experience.

16 years flying, pistons, turboprops, medium jets (A320), I don't remember ONCE looking at my speed past the threshold.

I too forget about monitoring speed close to the ground (below 50ft) and judge performance with my eyes and my bum. I assume that all pilots do that, do some of you sneak a glance at IAS below 50ft? I would be interested to know.

[framer]

Another thing that came to mind,
If your Vref is 140kts and there is a 20kt headwind component, and you carry 10kts , you end up with a Vapp of 150kts.
In this situation, you are targetting 150kts as you fly down final, if you see 153, 154kts it is natural to think öh well thats only 3 or 4 kts above my target, no big deal¨, but I think that it is worth remembering that you are 13 or 14kts above Vref, thats a fair bit of energy that you have to lose prior to taxiing off the runway. It would be preferable (in my mind) to be 3 or 4kts off you target speed the other way, ie be 146kts, 147kts. In that situation you are still carrying a buffer for the wind on Vref but you haven't added energy that has to be dealt with at some stage.
I'm not suggesting that you don't fix these speed excursions, just that it is better to be below your Vapp driving back up to it than above it trying to lose energy if you have an additive that is more than 5kts.
This is just my mindset and I would welcome constructive criticism of it.
Cheers, Framer

[737Jock]

Just follow the flight director;):E

[gorter]

Another thing that came to mind,
If your Vref is 140kts and there is a 20kt headwind component, and you carry 10kts , you end up with a Vapp of 150kts.
In this situation, you are targetting 150kts as you fly down final, if you see 153, 154kts it is natural to think öh well thats only 3 or 4 kts above my target, no big deal¨, but I think that it is worth remembering that you are 13 or 14kts above Vref, thats a fair bit of energy that you have to lose prior to taxiing off the runway. It would be preferable (in my mind) to be 3 or 4kts off you target speed the other way, ie be 146kts, 147kts. In that situation you are still carrying a buffer for the wind on Vref but you haven't added energy that has to be dealt with at some stage.
I'm not suggesting that you don't fix these speed excursions, just that it is better to be below your Vapp driving back up to it than above it trying to lose energy if you have an additive that is more than 5kts.
This is just my mindset and I would welcome constructive criticism of it.
Cheers, Framer

Just a thought. Surely energy to dissipate before turnoff is a function of groundspeed and not airspeed. Say you have no wind and a vref of 140 then my a/c we fly 145 ias and have a g/s of 145.

If on the other hand we have a 20kt headwind we fly 150 kts (vref + 10) but have a g/s of 130 kts to dissipate surely even flying 3/4 kts fast we still have less energy to dissipate than on a wind calm day. I'm not advocating anything but flying what your FCOM states and I may be wrong in my thought process, but still food for thought.

[framer]

Nah fair call and I agree with that.
You may have just brought attention to a flaw in the way I think about it. I was thinking about it in terms of total energy but it may be that the reason I prefer a few knots below target speed than a few knots above it is because of airflow over the wing in the flare resulting in a longer flare. I definately feel that being on the low side driving up to the Vapp results in better control of the touchdown point and a more apropriate energy in the flare.
With all this said, on every approach I aim to be exactly on the Vapp and not below it.

[bubbers44]

You can go around a lot easier if you are a little fast better than if you are a little slow, think about it

[framer]

Yeah true but the aircraft I'm on that isn't an issue (737). I am not saying that I routinely fly around below Vapp though, I always aim to be on it, but I am less forgiving of being fast because it seems to me to result in a deeper touchdown than desired whereas being a couple of knots slow (but still at least 5kts above Vref) doesn't seem to have any negative influence.
None of us are capable of flying exactly Vapp all the way to the flare, my preference is to be below it and driving back up to it by adding thrust rather than above it and slipping back towards it by removing thrust.
I guess one way of describing it is that if I am above Vapp I fix it more positively than if I am below it.

[bubbers44]

Good pilots don't have to look at their airspeed because they can feel the airplane during the final flare. The throttle is always there if you have a wind shear so you can fix it.

I don't think any competent pilot would be looking at his airspeed in a flare. I never have in 23,000 hrs. You can see and feel the shear if it happens and fix it.

I have never had a problem fixing a shear problem but have never flown an automatic airplane either.

[misd-agin]

framer - you don't mind being a bit slow, but never less then Vref +5?

What speed do you use for Vapp? We use Vref +5 as a standard/minimum. Less than that is slow and has to be corrected.

[framer]

We use Vref +5 as a standard/minimum. Less than that is slow and has to be corrected.

Us too, thats why I put (but still at least 5kts above Vref
. I would fix that quick smart :)

[latetonite]

First read your FCTM. Then fly with your instructor until you get it right. I think some things in flying come with experience, not by reading posts. Many people seem to think you can get your ATPL, trying to bypass years of experience by asking questions on this forum. I am (was) rated on 10 types, not counting all the small ones, and I can still not just tell you how to land an taking into account all the different parameters. However I have no problem making landings in say any aircraft after a few practices.

[RetiredF4]

I too forget about monitoring speed close to the ground (below 50ft) and judge performance with my eyes and my bum. I assume that all pilots do that, do some of you sneak a glance at IAS below 50ft? I would be interested to know.

That´s the TLAR method:D ?

franzl

[misd-agin]

Quick peek at the airspeed down low? At 50' you've got 2-3 seconds before it really gets busy so you've got enough time to look if you'd like.

I peek at the RA' during the flare, especially on the 737 HUD. Not everytime but often enough. Takes maybe a second? Actually relaxing your focus/scan/shifting what you're looking at prevents tunnel vision IMO and improves your total visual acuity. Time to from 100' to 10' is about 7 seconds, 10' to touchdown is about 5 seconds, so it's not THAT rushed.

IMO looking TOO hard(staring), is wrong. You see it with inexperienced pilots, just like you do with inexperienced drivers. Relax, see more by focusing less(hard to explain, more peripheal at less straight ahead acuity), and events happen slightly slower.

It's not uncommon to miss last second lateral drift or miss the de-crabbing right(centering effect) after touchdown. Both drift and crab reduce the 'quality' of the touchdown. It can be obvious to the PNF or a jumpseater while the PF misses it.

[PEI_3721]

framer / gorter, re energy/speed #21 –
Whilst the energy discussion is physically / mathematically correct, it may not be relevant when considering a fixed landing distance.
Where a decision to land is made on a particular length runway as adjusted for wind, any increase in flight speed over that used in the calculation will affect the distance required / safety margin; – the distance required to dissipate the increased energy vs that planned. And this involves V*V.

From a certification aspect the operational landing distance is often based on a fixed flare time and speed loss from Vref, e.g. 7 sec and -7kts; actual certification distances may differ from this.
Vref is usually the basis for the approach speed, e.g. Vref+5, but this speed should be considered as a target not a minimum. If the approach speed is considered a minimum, accepting speed variations above the target, then the net approach speed will be higher and thus this increment should be considered in the landing distance required (~300ft/10kts).
Many operators add speed and buffers for an approach and landing, but few actually consider the distance / safety effects, nor adjust the landing distance required.

As for landing technique; IIRC it involves matching height-rate against height for the time / speed loss as above, with a target residual height-rate at touchdown.

[DaFly]

Darius, in case you are still following this thread:

with a light a/c like a C560, a few kts over Vref won't make the brakes only last half their lifetime, unless you always land with max. tailwind component.

Your POH or AOM will give you an idea about the preferred landing technique for your aircraft.

Depending on the type of brakes, your guys might be using the brakes not enough. On the ERJ145 (carbon brakes) the preferred procedure is to apply very positive braking after touchdown, in order to get heat into the brakes. The brake wear is largely due to the number of brake applications. According to Embraer, ERJs equipped with thrust reverse wear down the brakes faster than those without. This is due to the crews not getting enough heat into the brakes. We have some Captains on our fleet, that have previously flown B735 or A340 (as F/O) and have tried to teach our F/Os the wrong braking technique. Now we have to hammer the Embraer way into their heads again.

[aerobat77]

i think such threads are a classic at pprune :ok: of course, nothing other is expected- many self named +20000hour gents quickly jump in at such threads and report their massive experience.

reading e.g such impressive posts

16 years flying, pistons, turboprops, medium jets (A320), I don't remember ONCE looking at my speed past the threshold.
I try to fly at Vapp/Vref stable until I hear 30/40 feet, thrust idle, flare and let it sit in the TDZ.

truly saves the day.

coming at vref over the threshold with a turboprop and retarding power to idle at 40 ft is a sure way to crash and burn .

the most fun at tech log is reading the 100% of +20000hours ATPL dreamers . :O

best regards !

[misd-agin]

aerobat - 20,000+ hrs. ;)

Autothrottles reduce at 22'. As a new guy I let them. It made all the CKA and FO's VERY nervous, especially when you start the flare following the HUD guidance. Light twin (737).

30-40' in a jet? Nope. In a turboprop? :ooh:

C-130 YMC-130H Lockheed Hercules flight test accident crash - YouTube

Actually some turboprops you could go to idle much higher. Twin Otter landing flaps up, with enough energy, was a pretty high altitude power reduction.

[piratepete]

Ive been an IP for a very long time.Ive taught 250 hour FOs during base training to land a large jet and a lot of others too.Starting in the SIM.This is a controlled environment and does not represent the real world, but its very useful to teach the MECHANICS of jet landings.
Then moving to the real machine, a briefing is conducted reading from the makers FCTM.This standard technique is again useful for mild weather conditions.If the student just follows it like a robot, he will achieve a SAFE arrival.HOWEVER.Every landing is always going to be slightly different.Different load, different runway slope, in short ,many variations that require slightly different flare technique.When im demonstrating a landing to a less experienced pilot, I tell them at the end of approach briefing how I intend to make "adjustments" to the standard landing method to accomodate the actual runway or weather conditions on the day.In other words, there is no such thing as a STANDARD LANDING TECHNIQUE.It must deviate slightly from STD each and every time.......thats just the way it is.Pete.

[sevenstrokeroll]

I admit to just skimming the responses, but in NONE of them did I see the KEYWORD TRIM.

Trim for your Vref plus 5 knots and be in trim in the vicinity of the middle marker or 200 feet height above touchdown. Be on speed, be able to release your hand to prove plane is in trim, but of course Don't remove hand, unexpected shear could ruin your day.

IF you are flying a plane with underwing engines, remember when you pull off power, the nose may come down a bit. Tail mounted engines have less of a problem with this. But as you cut your power maintain your pitch by back pressure and the back pressure will clue you into your SPEED...the harder you pull the slower you are getting...in this way you don't have to look at the airspeed indicator.

Now, some will tell you to pull the throttles back smartly at BLANK feet...some planes even tell you how smart you are (RETARD) but it is all judgement...wind, even how much roughness is on the leading edge of your wing (old plane...ice...whatever)> I like to think about this part of landing in the same way as someone judges the automobile stopping at a stop sign...there is a feel to the deceleration rate.

And touchdown at Vref minus five was quite acceptable at our airline.

One thing I really think is useful is determining the slope of the runway...are you always landing downhill? that will kill your brakes a bit more! Are you landing long? ARe you landing on short runways. Are you using brakes too much?

Well...anyhoo, the whole thing about judging speed with the feel of the stick in trim may help you a bit.

Also...remember, even a commercial pilot (certificate) requires landing within 200 feet of your spot...so make sure every landing is a spot landing...and don't hesitate to take the last turnoff...as long as you are going to make it for sure.

Our airline was always using alot of brakes landing on runway23 at KCLT...it is downhill and the guys made a huge effort to not go to the end....longer taxi. But boy the brakes were smoking!

If you are flying a light jet, be sure you have calculated Vref carefully...also, be sure you airspeed indicator is accurate.

I have to point out one more thing. The wind gradient changes during touchdown and you might be landing with a kiss of tailwind. A calm wind might actually be a tiny tailwind by the time you touchdown.

Ok...good luck, and read the following books for a better understanding of landing.

1. Stick and Rudder...see the "stall down landing" for the best way to land anything...

2. Fly the Wing...great book, great advice

3. Handling the big jets...great book great advice.

[Intruder]

30-40' in a jet? Nope.
Yep! Just about right for the 744!

[aerobat77]

30-40' in a jet? Nope. In a turboprop? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/icon25.gif


a turboprop will brake like a rock , especially with props forward , when you retard to idle. a jet floats much more in.

like said , try to reduce to idle being at vref and 40ft in lets say a cheyenne and you will fall out of the sky.

best regards

[Lightning Mate]

Sorry for being an imposter, but I can't resist.

Flare? Wossa flare please.....

http://i636.photobucket.com/albums/uu82/Lightning_29/noflare.jpg

[PEI_3721]

Flare? Wossa flare please.....
With this class of aircraft, it’s when the ground senses an imminent arrival and gracefully gives way.
Of course arriving too quickly can catch the ground unawares; in mild instances it results in a gentle skip, but beware of cold, wet, dark nights with high crosswind, when the ground is very sluggish.

[haughtney1]

B777 50.....40....30...20 HEAVE! :}

[misd-agin]

Cheyenne? II, III. Took delivery of the 7th(?) III produced Oct. 27, 1980.(logbook #1 out of 6). ;)

744 power reduction at 30-40'? :ok: Perfect example that what's normal for one a/c is completely wrong for another airplane.

If you went to idle at 30-40' in a Cheyenne or a Navajo there's a high probability that they'll have to get a crane to get the plane off the runway.

[aerobat77]

If you went to idle at 30-40' in a Cheyenne or a Navajo there's a high probability that they'll have to get a crane to get the plane off the runway.

thats fully correct and because of that i quoted this post previously with a laugh :

16 years flying, pistons, turboprops, medium jets (A320), I don't remember ONCE looking at my speed past the threshold.
I try to fly at Vapp/Vref stable until I hear 30/40 feet, thrust idle, flare and let it sit in the TDZ.

missed again : you have experience on a ( real ) cheyenne III?

[Dani]

a turboprop will brake like a rock , especially with props forward , when you retard to idle. a jet floats much more in.

This is true for most turboprops but not for all. I flew some where it was perfectly fine to go to idle before touchdown. It all depends on the design. Every aircraft is different.

[misd-agin]

Cheyenne III time? Yes. PM sent.

[aerobat77]

Cheyenne III time? Yes. PM sent.

dank dir, i replied to you !

This is true for most turboprops but not for all. I flew some where it was perfectly fine to go to idle before touchdown. It all depends on the design. Every aircraft is different.

well, you can go to idle before touchdown, but very close to the ground . since i of course cannot speak for every turboprop i can assure you that in the ones i have experience- cheyenne I , III and cessna 441 its a very bad idea to follow the instruction that was given and laughfully quoted by me : keep vref and than retard to idle in 40 ft height.

best regards