Flaring a light jet on landing like piston-aircraft???

[Cecco]

Hi, I´ve observed some C525 pilots landing technique: it´s, regardless of the runway´s lenght, leaving the glideslope on short final, diving to the threshold (unless at night) and flaring the aircraft like a piston aircraft with the nose high up and the speed trend vector going WAY down before touching down.

Now, those folks who land like that come from the piston-engine squad and those I know are really experienced too both in terms of TT and jet time.
Yet this technique seems somehow wrong since they seem to have carried forward the landing technique of a piston aircraft. I doubt that anybody would land a medium or large-sized jet like that. I, for instance, used to fly on a C525 with a commander, who used to fly A320/A330, and he taught me the "proper" jet landing technique; i.e, nose up just a little, a slight flare and touchdown. Is there a right or wrong for a (light) jet´s landing technique???

Your opinions are welcome!

Cheers

Cecco

[Gulfstreamaviator]

Apart from prop wash v jet eflux, a Cessna Citation 1 is no different from a Cessna 414 on landing.

I always landed my C550 with flare.

I still land my Glf, with finesse....and a little flare...

glf

[Booglebox]

I've been lucky enough to land a C525 about 3 times so am hardly qualified to judge... but I think that the "large" jet minimal flare approach is superior. Smoother ride for the pax and safer too as you can start braking right away. The aircraft nearly does it by itself anyway.
I've flown in the back of C525s where the pilot used the C172-esque "hold it off until nearly at maximum elevator deflection" approach and I think it's definitely worse. We landed about half way down the runway!

[con-pilot]

We landed about half way down the runway!


No landing technique is correct if the the result is landing half down the runway.

In my experience the wing design has a lot more to do with landing techniques, as a straight wing, Citation, Westwind, etc. versus swept wing aircraft.

[G-SPOTs Lost]

If you read the AFM it tells you.

Close the throttles at 50ft on most straight wing citations. That's if you want to make the numbers, I've seen touch down speeds of sub 80 knots on a 680 without so much as a chirp from the shaker.

There's obviously operational reasons not to do that such as xwind, shear, but assuming there's none of those reasons present it invariably gives you a very safe touch down on the mains with the nose safely in the air.

For those wishing to carry extra energy closer to the ground then expect not to make the numbers but isn't that what's factoring for ;)

[what next]

Hi!

Your opinions are welcome!

If you ever fly one of the older Citations with the straight landing gear (not the newer trailing link ones) you will soon discover the benefits of a long, long flare ;)

But that's one of the nice things about Citations: You can land them airliner-style or Cessna 172 style. Returning to our home base on a calm evening with no passengers on board (I think the unusual nose-up attitude might scare them a little) I really enjoy flaaaaaring it on. Keep the nosewheel up after landing until running out of elevator (just like they did in the Space Suttle), no speed-brakes, no reversers, not even brakes are required. On a very good day you can take the high speed exit on two wheels with the nosewheel still in the air... like what we called "high speed taxi" in the C152 when we were still young and unafraid of tailstrikes.

Happy landings,
max

[sevenstrokeroll]

again, it all goes back to the book: Stick and Rudder


my favorite landing is the stall down spot landing. slowing down just outside the airport boundry (fence). read about it in the above book

all landings could be jet style...and work just fine

Please don't automatically assume a piston twin landing style is as you describe it...you can land them just like a jet...speeds the thing

[INNflight]

leaving the glideslope on short final, diving to the threshold

Imho any landing - piston or jet - is not done properly if it involves "a dive towards the threshold / ground". I understand how one can come in a tad low if the LDA is critical and one would rather put it down than flare, but the glidepath should still be more or less the same than during the approach.

I was - and still am - taught to "fly aiming point" down the runway and NOT dive. Ever.

[inbalance]

Whats wrong with using the full runway length for landing?
I have to go below glide slope to touch down at the beginning.

You can´t do that in a bigger aircraft, because you are sitting several feet above your landing gear, but in a CJ not a problem at all.

CJ 3-Landing.mov - YouTube


Crossing the threshold of a runway at 50 ft and fast can be seen at this picture:
http://aviation-safety.net/photodata/_4b040d961e16dDSC_0040.JPG

Inbalance

[nopax]

The comment about the straight legged citations is so true!

Either way is fine, so long as accuracy isn't sacrificed for a nice touchdown. Neither should involve a "dive", but if the aircraft needs to be landed on the numbers, then a deviation below glide-slope should be briefed and executed.

I have seen a number of pilots using the electric elevator trim to flare the aircraft, something I am dead against. The trim should stop being used during the approach at (VYSE/VXSE/VAPP) +5kts, in case of a go around/balked landing - true of jets, turboprops or pistons...fly the wing not the engine!

[Booglebox]

The alternative to descending below the approach path just before landing for a smoother flare, is to set idle thrust slightly earlier... results in lower speed and less float on touchdown.
But then you have to be more careful to flare quickly and precisely. :E

[Gulfstreamaviator]

The idea is to be in full control of the aircraft in all phases of flight.

A flare....a check.... both work.... a slight dip below the glide slope when VFR works.

The important point is SPEED control, and using the available runway length in a professional way.

I also used to love landing the C1 and 2, on the mains and try to turn off the runway just after nose wheel touch down.

In the Hawker 700, full aerodynamic braking and just touch the brakes.
But I was BAD I did use the trim wheel. I was severly chastised by Mr CAA one day, he was correct, what about the Missed Approach trim.

The G450 and G550 Gulfstream are slightly different on flare / check and nose attitude, but still always try to make a gentle touchdown.
My ex Co Captain was fantastic at this, every time was so smooth, but he did use all of the 10,000 ft runway.

glf

[Pace]

It really depends on runway length. We all like to do the proverbial "Chairmans landing"!
The fact that you are battling windshear, a strong crosswind and bang it down means little to the PAX in the back they are impressed with the "I didnt feel it touch" scenario.
Normally I just fly the 550 on but if runway length is good I will hold off just for admiring adulation of the PAX in the back :E

Pace

[Gulfstreamaviator]

but as we both know, the G550 will float and float and float...till it gets bored.

i usually make the best landings on the bumpy windy days, rather than the zero wind easy peasy days.

perhaps just professional challenges.

glf

[PukinDog]

Flare to land, squat to pee.

(It had to be said)

[NuName]

I used to operate into short strips, spoilers out at 1000', stabilised approach, = very little float with moderate flare. Short and soft landing.

[Flaymy]

Not all piston twins! Flying a twin piston with trailing-link gear it is perfectly comfortable to land it without a distinct flare. The C404 loves this, especially if runway length is limiting.

[mushroom69]

Followed the link, wondering what it would lead to and what a surprise! Yes, fast and high on a short runway.....

I was taught to plan a go-round and land if everything looks good. Keeps you from having the "I MUST land" mindset.

Landing 604 at Firenze, I carefully briefed that the runway is on the short side, but has a long displaced threshhold. Therefore, after passing the train line and the airport fence, I will descend below the GS and land on the numbers. I did exactly what I said and there was no question regarding the briefing from the other pilot.

But there was a reaction! As soon as I increased the descent angle, and reduced power, he reacted to the TREND indicator and freaked out! So if you are not following the 50 feet over the threshhold and going below, ask TWICE if your colleague understands the briefing.

This clown still tells people that it was so dangerous....while the other crews I have shown this to, appreciated the technique. (Learned on "just enough" runways in northern Canada and practised by the Canadian Air Force Challenger pilots. ...avoiding the pictured Falcon scenario!) Does not sit well with airline-trained constant angle to touch-down pilots...:{

[Pace]

Mushroom

I would agree with your technique on very short runways! Coming in low with lots of power (As long as your not taking everything out below you :E Works well in making sure you touch down on the button ;)
But you will have every alarm going off so switch them off :E
I always used that technique onto v short runways in piston twins! That had extra benefits too from the props in increased airflow over the wings elevators and rudder. You knew your engines were working and chopping power was an instant flatter approach touchdown.

Pace

[Klimax]

Just fly the aeroplane like the POH says. Im not better than the test pilots and that includes my technique. The book has the technique used to obtain the numbers.

[Doodlebug]

Gents,

Your technique is your technique. Horses for courses and all that. This is no criticism, just an honest question: what do you perceive as the benefit of going below the glideslope on short final?

[Doodlebug]

I see. But why would you want to touch down at the very edge of the tarmac on a runway serviced by an ILS, in a light, i.e. Cessna Citation-type jet? Are there many ILS-equipped runways out there that are so short that you cannot safely land a smallish Citation on them off of a stabilised approach, utilising the GS all the way to touchdown?

[inbalance]

Yes, there are many short runways with an ILS.
CJ´s are used to land on just this kind of airports every day.

The airport shown in my video above (EDLN) has a LDA 1200m/3937 ft (threshold) and
landing beyond glide slope of 978 m/3208 ft. Thats 222 Meters difference. Add a wet runway and you know what I am talking about.
The falcon in my link above overrolled the runwayend by only 15 Meters.

There is an old saying in germany: "Landebahn, Säge und Schwanz, benutzt man ganz."
Translation: runway, hacksaw and cock, you always use the full length.

Inbalance

[maxphlyer]

:D :D: :D

Gruß aus Doha an die Niers!

Cheers, Max

[Doodlebug]

Interesting, thank you. I wish you well with your approaches.

'Jeder Mann ist seines Glückes Schmied, doch nicht jeder hat ein schmuckes Glied(runway?)'' :}

[galaxy flyer]

Just a thought, but if the landing distance required is so close to the LDA that violation of landing certification procedure is required, perhaps landing elsewhere is in order?

GF

[NuName]

Interesting, if one were on the ILS and becme visual at 1,000' would you continue on the GS or become a competant pilot and aim to land on or close to the numbers? Biggin has a clear final approach and is downhill, seems a good idea to me to land as early down the runway as possible, LBG has a convenient taxiway half way down the runway, makes easy access with an early touchdown. Each to their own but I prefer the numbers on a good day to much further down. One of the useless things in aviation is the "runway behind you" especially in the event of a brake failure which I have had.

[Doodlebug]

Nuname, I am fascinated by your suggestion that to remain on the G/S once visual as opposed to diving down to the runway is a sign of incompetence. The last Global Express that attempted what you term competence tore its gear off, as you can easily verify via google.

[galaxy flyer]

Certification standard is to cross the threshold, on glide path, at 50', flare distance of about 1400-1600' and touchdown. Lots of experience, not much good, shows that following that procedure is better than destabilizing the vertical, readjusting the "aim point" and trying to touchdown at the numbers. Again, if the computed LDA is that short, divert. The Falcon 900 incident cited above is a great argument for diverting, not flying a destabilized approach and overrunning.

GF

BTW, I don't see any need to claim that abandoning proven flight techniques is the mark of a "competent" pilot. I have about 5,000 hours of various BizJet experience, including Citations, plus an equal amount if heavy jet.

[NuName]

I am equally fascinated by your remarks, do you guys only go to airports with ILS? In my world I have to go to all sorts of places with varying degrees of ground based equipment. I would never suggest that "diving down the runway" is a mark of competance but the ILS is there as guidance for reduced visual conditions and if you are in good conditions from 1,000' why would you not take advantage of the full runway length? Using remarks like diving, destabilsing and readjusting the aim point just cloud over the issue. To try and paint the picture of a cowboy approach to make your point is not a true account of what happens in reality. To aim for the numbers is no more trying than a circling approach, a lot easier in fact, I guess you do those? As for the Global incident, I am very familiar, there was more to it than trying to hit the numbers.

[Doodlebug]

Hello again, NuName.

We do operate into all sorts of strips not serviced by an ILS. We also operate into Biggin from time to time. The last time was at night, circling, in a GLEX. We did not attempt to land 'on the numbers' but performed a completely normal approach, landing and rollout. Which worked perfectly well.

We are expected to be stabilized on approach by 1000'. If we were to adjust our rate of descent at that point that would lead to changes in speed, hence thrust, etc. In other words, we would be destabilizing the approach and if we did not initiate a go-around at that point I would be expecting a call after the FDM had divulged our experimentation to the safety-people. This is my answer to your question, what you do is entirely up to you, of course.

If you choose to leave your constant glide-angle on your way down in order to touch down at a point closer to the numbers as opposed to the normal touchdown point, you must surely agree that you clearly ARE increasing your rate of descent, destabilizing and readjusting the aim-point. Readjusting the aim-point was the stated object of the exercise, was it not? That was the answer I was given a few posts up when I asked why people would want to do this. I received my answer, great. If you wish to fly your ship like that and your company/owner/insurer permits you to, who am I to object, fill your boots. Techniques differ. I was not trying to insinuate anything and certainly at no point did I even mention the word 'cowboy'. I was merely being curious.

Happy landings, always.

[NuName]

I would not argue with you as I have the same opinion as you when it comes to folks making their own decisions on how to acheive the best reults. I would say however that, unless the A/P is doing the job to maintain the G/S, it requires constant adjustments all the way down and to modify this from at or above 1,000' requires very little change. I would also add that I only employ this technique in conditions that allow it and also with the agreement of the other pilot. Lets at least agree that the line and the numbers do signify the begining of the runway that can be safely used to land and I have never been criticised for landing early down the runway. I will continue to use this method as I believe there are many advantages including safety and brake wear.

All the best for you too.

[sevenstrokeroll]

even our regulations are quite specific for turbine airplanes...stay on the glideslope (or above) UNTIL REQUIRED FOR LANDING.

I AM A HUGE BELIEVERin staying on the GS ...except maybe at KMDW

[aerobat77]

[QUOTE][Not all piston twins! Flying a twin piston with trailing-link gear it is perfectly comfortable to land it without a distinct flare. The C404 loves this, especially if runway length is limiting. /QUOTE]

what app speed do you use in a 404 ?

[Flaymy]

Must confess I can't remember for certain. At max weight VREF was 91 kts I recall, as it is just approach cat B. I think We used 100 kts for the final approach.

[aerobat77]

yes the app speeds are a tricky thing to land a 404 in real, a stunning demonstration how cessna with this airplane sqeezed categories on paper without any use in reality. some speeds were revised later.

beyond this a very nice aicraft !:ok: ( and a funny thread !)