The Importance of a good Landing

[polax52]

In Europe I was always told during training that the landing was not important and gave no bearing or indication of how I rated as a Pilot, a firm Landing was a "Boeing Landing" and was perfectly safe, "any Landing you could walk away from was a good landing", "if you can use the aircraft again even better".


After a spate of landing accidents, has the view of the importance of a good smooth landing changed (other than its importance to ones ego). Having worked in the US, China and the middle east; my view has changed, generally in these parts of the world the landing is considered to be an accurate indication of the ability of a Pilot to handle an aircraft well. Whilst everybody makes the occasional "firm landing" i.e. 1.5g+. In the past I've worked with pilots who never make anything other than firm landings. These days the automatics are engaged from 1000' up to 1000' down, the only handling required is the landing, we must be able to do that well. It can not be good for passenger confidence or the long term health of the aircraft to experience 1.5g landings repetitively. In addition to that we can see from the latest list of accidents that it bears directly to safety.

[hikoushi]

All that matters is greasing it on. Doesn't matter if the grease happens 3500 feet down the runway and you have to slam on the brakes and make Grandma Jones in seat 16C impale the back of Jack Spratt in 15C's head with her dentures in the deceleration. GREASE, as in VASELINE on that runway is ALL that matters.

And why is it that everyone cares so much about grease-on landings but not takeoffs? How about a good old-fashioned grease-OFF? You can see everything you need to know about a new (to you) FO or captain's flying skills from how they handle a simple 10-15 knot crosswind component takeoff.

[AerocatS2A]

In Europe I was always told during training that the landing was not important and gave no bearing or indication of how I rated as a Pilot, a firm Landing was a "Boeing Landing" and was perfectly safe, "any Landing you could walk away from was a good landing", "if you can use the aircraft again even better".

I think that is taking things too far.

I would say that a good landing is very important. However a smooth landing is not necessarily a good landing. A good landing in a transport jet is one that is on speed, on centreline, in the touchdown zone, and within the g limits for a normal landing. A smooth landing that has floated past the touchdown zone is a bad landing. I suspect what your European instructors were telling you is that you shouldn't focus on a smooth landing, a smooth landing is not important and has no bearing on how you rate as a pilot. Consistently landing on speed, on centreline, and on target IS worth striving for though, and IS important.


After a spate of landing accidents, has the view of the importance of a good smooth landing changed (other than its importance to ones ego). Having worked in the US, China and the middle east; my view has changed, generally in these parts of the world the landing is considered to be an accurate indication of the ability of a Pilot to handle an aircraft well. Whilst everybody makes the occasional "firm landing" i.e. 1.5g+. In the past I've worked with pilots who never make anything other than firm landings. These days the automatics are engaged from 1000' up to 1000' down, the only handling required is the landing, we must be able to do that well. It can not be good for passenger confidence or the long term health of the aircraft to experience 1.5g landings repetitively. In addition to that we can see from the latest list of accidents that it bears directly to safety.

Confusing good landings with smooth landings again. Some aircraft don't touchdown very nicely no mater how gently you put it down (half a degree off heading in a Dash 8 and a shudder goes through the aircraft) others are very easy to land nicely. I would much rather fly with someone whose landings were consistently firm but on target rather than someone who floated halfway down the runway to a greaser every time.

[RAT 5]

Indeed, you learn a great deal about someone's attitude to flying during the final stages of a manual approach & landing. There are those who forget the flare, touchdown & roll out are a pilot controlled flying manoeuvre. I've seen quite acceptable approaches flown to a reasonable flare and then "you have control" as captain gravity took over and the a/c met the rising ground in an arrival. This is more common on a calm clear day. Somehow the brain switches off. On the bumpy days the brain stays active and the pilot keeps piloting. Why not on every landing? It is necessary. Aerocat has the priority points correct. Have the correct crash spot in focus and don't let it move and hit it with a controlled bump/kiss/thump - what you will. Don't forget braking and steering technique is also important. Smooth landings on the spot followed by nose flattening braking and wet dog shaking steering will not leave the lasting imprecation you wanted. Smooth control throughout, all the way to the gate. Even then there are those who stamp on the brakes in the last 1m. Good news if the pax have stood up too early.

[Capn Bloggs]

Stick-and-Rudder skills decreasing...bad landings increasing. :ok:

[vilas]

It is true that an approach flown at correct speed and glide path and good directional control during flare and landing resulting in touch down in the touch down zone qualifies as good percentage landing. Any one can do a greaser by floating beyond the touch down parameters but it only gets negative marks. However it is perfectly possible to do consistently smooth landings within touch down parameters but that requires seat of the pant feel and I am not sure it can be acquired. You will see some people routinely do it yet with some others it is a matter of chance. Those who fall in the later category can be extremely good pilots otherwise.

[scotbill]

Landings are a bit like golf shots. You repeat what you did yeterday for the perfect greaser; today it doesn't work.

Al sorts of factors vary from day to day - visual cues from approach terrain and runway itself - the CoG of the aircraft - the weather.
(It's relatively easy to get into a groove at base training on one runway and no passengers).

Found on the 757 that our perception of the landing could vary markedly from that of passengers or cabin crew - depending on where they were seated. In particular I suspect that passengers equate noise of the gear making contact with "hard" whether there was noticeable g or not.

[vapilot2004]

The ability to achieve consistent greased landings depends on the aeroplane - or so I've been told by more experienced (in type) brethren. I am but a mere 2-typer at this point in my career and can manage the more than occasional grease it on the ground arrival with the machines I have been fortunately tasked to operate. Otherwise, get it down regularly and safely within the zone and you're all right. :ok:

[Centaurus]

The Vickers Viscount was a kind aircraft to pilots. I cannot explain the technical issues but even a late flare and what should have been a firm landing often turned out to be a greaser.

I know of one airline that has a Boeing 737 Classic simulator where it is impossible to do a hard landing. ALL landings are soft when it was clear the landing should have been a real bummer. The technicians fiddled the computer to do soft touch downs in order to minimise maintenance on the instruments which can suffer from heavy impact touch downs.

[Good Business Sense]

On the L1011 Tristar there were five techniques for a smooth landing ..... unfortunately, no one knew what they were !:D

[Fursty Ferret]

Don't be afraid to cut the power a bit earlier than your colleagues either. It seems to be a rising trend at my airline to go for a greaser by leaving the power on until about six inches above the ground with a late or minimal flare.

It's wrong for so many reasons:

1. It's not SOP.
2. It might give a greaser most of the time but when it's half-way down the runway that doesn't count.
3. You get a constant stream of "RETARD, RETARD, RETARD, RETARD..." which should be a clue that it's the wrong way to go about landing.
4. It scares the living daylights out of the other guy who thinks you've forgotten to flare.
5. It's not actually that consistent and regularly leads to a wallopy thump of a three point landing when you don't have as much ground effect as you thought you did.

Pretend the runway is 1500m long and wet, and concentrate on consistently touching down in the same place, on the centreline, with the drift removed and the pitch attitude sensible. Airbus want a positive touchdown and provided you don't actually bury it into the ground, who cares?

Passengers remember heavy braking far more than firm touchdowns.

[Good Business Sense]

On speed, 1,500 feet, in the middle !!!

In my airline days if you didn't do that on a check they'd have a real close look at you. It is so important ..... if you did regular hard landings then they'd also have a look at you.

You do need to practice firm landings - not a joke - all we ever seem to do is go for the greaser but in bad weather, wet runways, crosswinds etc it really is a bad thing to do - I used to deliberately practice a firm, not hard, landing - one in every four ...... you need to positively change your technique in the aforementioned conditions ever so slightly to avoid the automatic greaser mode

[Matts28]

How often are manual landings done? Having talked to a Airbus pilot (and seeing videos online), it seems like most of them land with auto throttle on. On the flip, most Boeing pilots that I have seen use manual throttle all the way down. All in or all out with autopilot as it was explained to me.

[cosmo kramer]

I agree with the original poster. The inability to make a decent landing is a sign of lack of piloting skills.

This is the magenta line trend all over... Flying the ILS/FDs down to the runway and getting surprised when looking up.

The problem is that people are not looking where they are supposed to:
OUT THE "edit: BLO@DY" WINDOW!


The key to a good landing is looking out the window, and early on that is.... I'd say from 500 feet at least (conditions permitting), concentrate on airspeed indicator and aim point - forget the rest. But people are afraid to trust their vision (FODA ghost) so they resort to flying the instruments. Starting to look out the window at 100-50 feet is an inevitable "edit: fecal" landing.

Second problem:
Don't be afraid to cut the power a bit earlier than your colleagues either. It seems to be a rising trend at my airline to go for a greaser by leaving the power on until about six inches above the ground with a late or minimal flare.
So true, and usually it will be an even "edit: more fecal" landing, because the aircraft won't stop to fly. So it will be like 30,20,10, 6, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, *smack* - at the end of the touchdown zone of course.

Cut the power as recommended in the respective FCTM, for at 737 (and probably an Scarebus 32x too), it's 30 feet, not's 6 feet!!!

This is a pet peeve of mine and I wrote about it 10 times here already. A quote from one of my posts in another thread:
The opposers to reducing the thrust at 30 feet, have a fear that aircraft will drop out of the sky like a stone if thrust is at idle. It will not. My guess is that this idea comes from the feeling of the pitch down when thrust is reduced.

A typical bad flare begins with the a slight break at 50 feet, followed by another one at 30, thrust reduction at 10 feet, a touch down zone drifting hasty by below and a drop from 4 feet to avoid entering the FOQA statistics for long landings.

A good flare is thrust to idle at 30-20 feet, keeping the nose from dropping, almost simultaneously lift the nose the notch that the FCTM describes as 2-3 degs at 20 feet and another notch at 10 to 5 feet. Result a nice smooth touchdown in the beginning of the touchdown zone.

[Right Way Up]

It is telling that there are quite a few overrun accidents filmed from the cabin where the passengers clap the landing.

Greasy touchdowns are a bonus but not imperative. However there is no reason why any decent pilot cannot put the aircraft in the right place at the right speed on the majority of approaches with an agreeable landing.

[Capn Bloggs]

All in or all out with autopilot as it was explained to me.
No, fly it like it is supposed to be flown. We fly ours with the AT in, as we did on another type, as the book says (or allows). I haven't flown the 737 but apparently the pitch-power coupling gets ugly with AT in when hand-flying. That doesn't necessarily apply to other types. On my type, hand-flying with the AT engaged is terrific.

[aterpster]

I am so happy to have been long retired from the business of flying air carrier airplanes.

When the weather was good we could "grease them on," so to speak, within the company prescribed touchdown zone.

When the weather dictated otherwise, we still knew how to make a decent landing within that zone.

[vapilot2004]

No, fly it like it is supposed to be flown. We fly ours with the AT in, as we did on another type, as the book says (or allows). I haven't flown the 737 but apparently the pitch-power coupling gets ugly with AT in when hand-flying. That doesn't necessarily apply to other types. On my type, hand-flying with the AT engaged is terrific.

The 737 A/T is indeed problematic without George. I used to think the best use of the A/T on approach is to deselect the speed mode, with your Vref+ in the window, leaving the A/T in the ARM mode. This was a cheap insurance policy, or so I thought. Eventually I learned this configuration was non-standard and led to unwanted bumps in thrust levels when you got close to the MCP speed set.

On the L1011 Tristar there were five techniques for a smooth landing ..... unfortunately, no one knew what they were !

If only 411A were with us - I'm betting he knew at least a few.

[ANCPER]

I don't know where this 737 AT/AP story comes from, but I flew the classic with an Australian operator for 3 1/2 yrs and comp policy (not Boeing I know) allowed retaining it in without the AP and no problem. Must admit it was for the first couple of sims doing the endorsement (first jet), but after fine, and shouldn't be an issue for any jet experienced pilot (maybe an exemption for AB only types!).

[Fursty Ferret]

How often are manual landings done? Having talked to a Airbus pilot (and seeing videos online), it seems like most of them land with auto throttle on.

Not allowed to fly without autothrust at my airline (major European carrier), so a "true" manual landing is never. No restrictions on a raw data or visual approach though.

[Jwscud]

I used to hunt smooth touchdowns until I buggered up a landing with a very old and bold Captain in the LHS who gave me a bit of a pep talk in the cruise on the next leg. His point was if you can't validate your performance calculations by hitting the slot at the threshold and planting the mains on the aiming point there's no point. The TDZ is pretty bloody long and you can be a fair way past your aiming point and still in the TDZ.

These days I score my landings based on speed control and touchdown point. Adjustment of -1 for a cruncher and +1 for a smooth touchdown. How smooth your touchdown is can all depend on which main gear sinks first - on the 737 if you touch the left first you only get the flight spoilers and the aircraft sinks nicely. If you touch the right, you get all the boards and it drops like a sack of potatoes.

[Qwerti]

The fact that we are all professional pilots, and we are engaged in an online thread of what is a "good landing" scares the sh*t out of me. I'd like to believe that we all know what a safe landing is, fullstop.

There's this colleague of mine, loves to grease it and then steps on the brakes so we won't end up in the mud. On stand he goes out in the galley greeting every single pax.. On the other hand, after a positive landing, the cockpit door stays closed.

Why do some pilots need to be acknowledged? Desperately looking for reassurance, approval, passenger's applause, a tap on their shoulder.. :uhoh:

[john_tullamarine]

On the L1011 Tristar there were five techniques for a smooth landing ..... unfortunately, no one knew what they were !

Love it ... can anyone use it or do you claim rights ? Echo the comment re 411A.


One consideration not apparently raised in earlier posts .. putting to one side the floater attempt to get a greaser which we all agree is poor practice.

On those very rare occasions where the ordinary folk amongst us accidentally get a perfect touchdown the result can be very unnerving. I can recall only two such events (one each on B727-200 and L188).

The L188, being the pussycat it is, was fine.

For the -200 example, though, and we all feared ending the flare more than a few inches above the runway, the touchdown (nothing much to do with my efforts although, naturally enough, I claimed the credit at the time) produced no shudder, no sound and I really didn't know whether we were on the ground .. or still in no-man's land.

Eventually, after what seemed an eternity .. but was probably a couple of seconds, the ASI and the boards told the story.

Nonetheless, it was probably the most unsettling feeling I have ever experienced in an aeroplane.

Lest anyone think it typical of my skills, the other few thousand landings brought my average back down to where it justly resided ...

[Capn Bloggs]

Jho2wDQ7D4M

[aterpster]

Bloggs:

Spot on!!

[aterpster]

John T:


Love it ... can anyone use it or do you claim rights ? Echo the comment re 411A.

I will claim that very nice landings can be made in an L1011 but not as consistently as nice as a 727 (nor a 707).

[vilas]

Repeatedly doing those special landings require the ability to very accurately judge the height of the airplane in last few feet before the touch down and feeling the increasing heaviness of elevator as the speed starts decreasing. Like any sportsman or a performer a pilot also keeps developing the judgment but finally best landings start to happen when you get into what sportsmen or artists call "in the zone". All planning and calculations are done but dissolve in the subconscious and the execution is marked by absence of thought. B747 was a very good airplane for the pleasure of landing. You could feel the aircraft entering the ground effect cushion. A small flare and controlled thrust reduction and the touch down was noticed only by the reluctant speed brake moving gently back and forth as full weight of the aircraft was not yet on wheels. This is difficult to achieve in Airbus FBW as it lacks tactile feed back so it is purely visual landing as other senses do not come in play.

[Dan Winterland]

On the L1011 Tristar there were five techniques for a smooth landing ..... unfortunately, no one knew what they were !

Turning off the silly DLC system would be a start.

[Skornogr4phy]

I laughed out loud Bloggs.

[FullWings]

Not much more to add that hasn’t been said already about getting it in the right place at the right speed.

On the large types I’ve flown, touching down with a small but definite rate of descent often led to a better perceived landing than skimming the deck. If the oleos had fully compressed by the time the spoilers deployed, you didn’t get that thump as the lift dumped and you effectively fell the rest of the oleo travel. Also, you were more likely to actually land as opposed to do a low flypast through the TDZ...

[Rick777]

A really good pilot can usually make the plane do what he wants. As in land on centerline, on speed, and in the touchdown zone. With plenty of stopping ability grease it on. At 6700 feet field elevation, a 6000 ft runway, and in a snow storm you had better be able to plant it firmly.

[de facto]

Depends how hard your planting is:p
What Vila wrote concerning the feel of the elevator is quite important hence the need to avoid entering the flare with a thrust higher than necessary..too often seen as a technique to achieve a smooth landing...all it will achieve when the day comes is a large bounce.
Yes landing softly is in the passenger view important as it is a way if not only the only way to judge the skills of the pilot in front.
However i never intervene if my colleague is seen to come in harder than usual (as long as all is in limits) as experience of mistakes is a key learning fact...and i wont let a passenger feel go before that.
First officer is the time and place to learn by mistake.
So let them learn and when the day they get on the left,hopefully they will do the same.

[stilton]

Look at the end of the runway, barring a last minute high sink rate and after observing the correct response to the flare, take the power off and touch down at idle thrust.


Elementary stuff you would think but I see pilots leaving power on all the time in an attempt to 'grease it on'


They don't realize they are just 'powering it into the ground' and using up a lot of runway in the process.

[error_401]

In the end it comes down to practice.

Changed type a couple months ago and still in the phase of alignment of my lower back to the regular touchdowns.

AVRO RJ after some 2'000 landings the touchdowns were within narrow margins on the touchdown marker, not firm, not soft but then this is a real pilots aircraft as far as landing is concerned.

E190 still getting used to the longer aircraft and different attitude but my landings are in general on speed and on touchdown zone on the normal firmness one would expect. Power off is important and needs experience as with all "mastering" of skills and has been said in the other posts on this thread.

This is my personal goal:
Develop the ability to get "consistent" landings in the touchdown zone on "normal" speeds not being hard nor soft with different landing masses.
Then advance to be able to land it with overspeeds up to 5 kts above VApp which is the SOP limits. (Normal and ice-speeds.)

I fly short and narrow runways as well as steep approaches and there the landing becomes important. Be on speed on centerline and on touchdown marker as often as possible on "ANY" landing to develop the eye - the skill - the seat of your pants feel and you will have a high probability to put it exactly where you want all the time.

[Centaurus]

First officer is the time and place to learn by mistake.

Not at the expense of the passengers and cabin staff who can be badly frightened in any severe landing impact due pilot misjudgement. The time to learn is in the multi-million dollar full flight simulator under the tutelage of a competent simulator instructor who has the enthusiasm and flying ability to actually demonstrate what he wants - not just shout from the back.

Landing mistakes by the first officer - especially during line training - should not happen if he has had proper training in the simulator especially on crosswind landings. Pilots should not progress to line training until his approach and landings are consistently sound in the simulator. If that cost the company extra time and money, then that's a company problem.

Too many simulator sessions are a head-long rush to tick all the boxes. The result being rarely do we see first officers (and some incompetent captains, too) given sufficient simulator practice until these pilots are confident and confident in handling crosswinds, for example. I once observed a type rating candidate on an A320 simulator conducting an all-flaps up approach and landing on a 11,000 ft runway. He was far too high and fast over the fence - floated for 15 seconds or more and touched down well off the centreline with 3000 ft left to go. He over-ran the runway on to the grass.

Clearly he should have gone around earlier but he didn't. The simulator instructor looked at his watch and saw the session time was up. He ticked the box as all flaps up landing successfully completed, without insisting on further remedial training. The same first officer had similar problems with other parts of his type rating training and was simply out of his depth. But his boxes were ticked and that man has been let loose on line.

[FullWings]

The time to learn is in the multi-million dollar full flight simulator under the tutelage of a competent simulator instructor
I sort of agree but having flown in five different level-D 777 sims in the last couple of years, I’ve come to the conclusion that they are good for technique, yes, but to really build confidence there’s still nothing like the real thing. Unless your particular sim hits the sweet spot.

There were significant differences between all five: in one every touchdown felt like you’d collapsed the gear and in another whatever you did produced a greaser.

It’s sounds OK to tell people that everything they did was right but if the last thing they remember was a bang and a crunch, it doesn’t do much for confidence, whatever the instructor might say.

A really good instructor can talk their way though flying a demo with the other guy watching and feeling. I rarely see trainers do this and although sim time is precious and should be used by the trainee, every once in a while having something demonstrated by someone in the other seat can be highly educational.

[vapilot2004]

Too many simulator sessions are a head-long rush to tick all the boxes....

I once observed a type rating candidate on an A320 simulator conducting an all-flaps up approach and landing on a 11,000 ft runway. He was far too high and fast over the fence - floated for 15 seconds or more and touched down well off the centreline with 3000 ft left to go. He over-ran the runway on to the grass.

Clearly he should have gone around earlier but he didn't. The simulator instructor looked at his watch and saw the session time was up. He ticked the box as all flaps up landing successfully completed, without insisting on further remedial training. The same first officer had similar problems with other parts of his type rating training and was simply out of his depth. But his boxes were ticked and that man has been let loose on line.

Good G-d, I'm speechless Centaurus! :eek:

[cosmo kramer]

The time to learn is in the multi-million dollar full flight simulator under the tutelage of a competent simulator instructor


Of all the 737 simulators I flew, none of them were anyway like the real aircraft. Like for anything else, the sim is a good procedure trainer. And the same for landing, to get a feel for the timing of the event (callouts, when to reduce thrust, when to make flare inputs)..

But there is a risk!

For comparison, I recently I flew with a fresh F/O. His rotation was very brisk (enough to get me startled and holding my thumbs on the control wheel to prevent him from over rotating). By himself, he paused the rotation at 10 degs. Later on, we talked about his rotation and I asked him where he was looking during rotation. His answer was on the PFD, because that was what he had been taught during the type rating in the sim.

That is the problem with the sim for anything that is relies on vision - it's 2D. So to compensate you have to do things a bit different in the sim. Like keeping an eye on the PFD during rotation and flare. These are techniques that are NOT desireable to bring over to the actual aircraft.

So, I agree with your post to a certain extend. The COMPETENT simulator instructor should emphasize the pitfalls of the sim. But since the instructor can't see exactly what the student is doing or where he is looking, it might go unnoticed and the topic not brought up.

As in the case of the guy with the rotation, I am pretty sure that no one intentionally taught him this technique. Probably, rather it was mentioned to him to keep an eye on the RA and pitch during rotation as an aid in the sim. And unnoticed he brought that to the aircraft.

[Exascot]

I have yet to operate a simulator which has flown like the real thing.

I have flown just about every type of aircraft, by this I mean types not models, ie single piston, single jet up to heavy, wide body and four jet. I am convinced that it depends on the type. For example; BN2T, VC10 - grease them on. C206, A300 - usually a controlled crash :{

[vilas]

Exascot
A300B4 had marked lack of ground effect and that made it challenging to do a greaser. That doesn't mean it could not be done only it required more skill to do that.

[Exascot]

OK Vilas, I probably needed a little more experience :rolleyes:

[flyingchanges]

And the only sound was the rapid clicking of the wow solenoid as the machine decided if it was on the ground or not...

[john_tullamarine]

Of all the 737 simulators I flew, none of them were anyway like the real aircraft.

Have seen some dreadful boxes and some good. My initial 737 endorsement used -300/-400 sims at Qantas .. first flight in anger and I couldn't tell the difference .. other than it was much more fun and the visuals were just so much better.

Probably just a reflection on my abilities, I guess.

Surely, the need is for the sim only to be reasonably good so that the transition to the real thing is relatively painless. (Thinks back to the earlier 727 sims which were pretty dreadful).

[piratepete]

Many OPINIONS here.The fact is that a LANDING is not a simple manuouvre, it has so many factors affecting it.WIND, AIRPLANE WEIGHT, RUNWAY LENGTH, SURFACE CONDITIONS, VISIBILITY to name a few.One issue that I have have noticed in my 20000 hours is most pilots lack of the ACTUAL RUNWAY CONTOUR or CROSS-SECTION profile.To be truly in synch with your runway you should have this information as well.Phuket runway 27 is a classic example.You must " ADJUST" that last little bit of YOKE movement to allow for these things.Anyone who says landings are easy things are just talking rubbish.It takes years and tears to truly refine this extremely important piloting skill.

[Uplinker]

It would be very helpful if the RADALT kept calling out height every second and in steps of 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 feet so that one could very accurately assess the rate of closure of the tyres to the runway. Perhaps some do? The Airbus RADALTs I fly call at 10 feet and then one other height, say 7 or 4 then it shuts up. My eyes are outside the cockpit at that moment, but if the RADALT kept talking, I would know what our rate of closure was, or if I was doing a very low flypast!

A greaser in exchange for half the runway length is clearly wrong, but a bit of finesse producing a gentle landing is a good thing, and an experienced pilot should be able to do this when it is appropriate. The way some folk crash it on, without even de-crabbing sometimes makes me wince and feel for the aircraft structure.

My best ever landing was in a 146 (so I had a head start!) and it was one of those days when everything was perfect and all I heard were the wheels starting to go round. There was no vertical movement at all. I wrote it in my logbook then and there as being my best ever landing, because I knew I would never better it, although I have come close in an A330.

[RAT 5]

It would be very helpful if the RADALT kept calling out height every second and in steps of 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 feet so that one could very accurately assess the rate of closure of the tyres to the runway.

It's very good that you flew a B146; I assume that it did not have Rad Alt call outs. Thus you learnt to use Mk.1 eyeball as was the case before B757/767 and later types. That's the way it should always be as the system may be broken. I once flew B767 with the rad alt call outs u/s. I, as humble bag carrying F/O, forgot to make the callouts and the captain 'arrived'. My ears were ringing for a few moments as irritation vented. Personally, I believe it is another event where too much reliance has been put on yet another techno-toy.

[kungfu panda]

The Chinese F/O's make those rad alt calls below 10' and as you say it is very helpful because it lets you know that you are still descending and not floating, it also gives you a higher degree of accuracy that allows you to land smoothly.

[TyroPicard]

cosmo kramer...
Where do you look on rotation when the RVR is 150m?

[cosmo kramer]

cosmo kramer...
Where do you look on rotation when the RVR is 150m?
TyroPicard, special circumstances require special techniques.

E.g. a CAT3 approach requires an autoland. That doesn't mean that we have to do autolands on every approach.

Likewise, for a low visibility takeoff a special rotation technique is required and, by the way, captains only takeoff.

For taking off in normal visibility conditions (aka not low visibility), which is what the first officer in question should have been trained for, a conventional rotation should be made = looking out the window! :ok:

[chksix]

Time for the ultimate landing by the Legend himself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvT0-KfnZxU

[galaxy flyer]

Funny about needing RAD ALT calls BELOW 10' :ugh:

When checking out in the C-5, the IP covered up the RAD ALT--"you need to be able to land without it". :ok:

I fly with a "child of the magenta line", basic skills are lacking. Simple 10 knot crosswind landing was all :mad:. Couldn't keep the wings level without letting go off the throttles, so speed varied. Touched after a short float with crab still on, so a bit of a twist there.

[flyingchanges]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lowrM-780tg

or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoK_dbLDfA0

[hikoushi]

I tell you what. I make GREAT landings almost every time in the A330......

...with the first set of main gear. The next set is pretty much witchcraft, and usually of the evil variety.

[RAT 5]

Likewise, for a low visibility takeoff a special rotation technique is required

Please enlighten us.

[Meikleour]

Cosmo Kramer: During the takeoff rotation phase once sight of the runway is obscured by the coming of the cockpit can you explain why it is better to stare at the blank sky and not bother to check the progression of the rotation attitude with a view to ensuring that a tail scrape attitude is not achieved until after lift off? This is a particular concern on 4 eng./ long bodied aircraft which do not "leap" off the ground like most twins.

[TyroPicard]

cosmo..
My rotation teaching...
Start visually to establish the correct rate, scan horizon and PFD, monitoring IAS, and transfer full attention to the PFD before you lose outside horizon reference. For me that means before 10 degrees pitch.
Works in all weathers, and avoids that hesitation at 8-10 degrees.

[hikoushi]

You may prefer the American method. Steer it straight down the runway and hold 'er on the deck an extra 10 knots or so past VR (you know all CAT III runways are 15000 feet long and you know it's okay so don't give me any bunk about the performance numbers only being valid at the calculated speeds, flex takeoff power and balanced field lengths or any other high-brow gibberish). Then give it a SLOW rotation for about 3 seconds and hold the nose JUST before where you lose sight of the horizon. Then, count "one-potato-TWO" and HONK back on the wheel / stick like you mean it. Which you will, because some of the faint glow you will see where the runway lights should be, will be yellow about now. T.L.A.R. That Looks About Right and HEAVE HO we are off and flying.

Now, you should have a touch of vertigo now as you are still staring out the window into the formless grey void. It's a visual maneuver until airborne so stay visual until airborne, right? All the way or nothing at all brother. So now STARE INTENTLY at the PFD, and try to resolve the 25 degree nose-up attitude you see (since you are still pulling the stick back in the Hammer Grip of Death) and push 'er on over to get back to a normal 15 degree pitch. After a few phugoid porpoises, hit the autopilot on and be done with it.

Now you see why we waited for some extra speed before the "grease-off".

Isn't that how you do it every time in really crummy weather?

For the landings, I think a better technique is to do nothing until the 20 foot call, then chop the power, flare a touch, close your eyes and pray. Works about as good as any other technique.

[Uplinker]

Funny about needing RAD ALT calls BELOW 10'

When checking out in the C-5, the IP covered up the RAD ALT--"you need to be able to land without it".


Read it again my friend, I didn't say I needed it, I said it would be helpful.

At the risk of sounding big headed, I usualy achieve a gentle landing within the touch down zone. Sometimes I smack it in, sometimes I float it, but usually it goes OK, and that is without the RADALT callouts below 10' (Obviously, having made that bold claim, my next few landings will be awful, so I apologise to the passengers and the airframes in advance !!)

Fly a couple of years at EGBB in a Dash 8 Q400 and you will learn a great deal about how to do turbulent crosswind landings :ok:

[RAT 5]

For the landings, I think a better technique is to do nothing until the 20 foot call, then chop the power, flare a touch, close your eyes and pray. Works about as good as any other technique.

When asked by a cadet about the height to flare, the standard reply was "point the thing at the crash pint and keep it there. When the captain has a sharp intake of breath and lifts himself out of his seat slightly, then flare - but not too much otherwise the wings trend to get a large dimple the top surface. Works about as good as...........

Regarding RAD ALT call outs below 50'; ask the LOT B767 pilot who greased it on with no undercarriage. I suspect his RAD ALT call outs based on gear height would have been confusing, if there were any at all, which I doubt.

[cosmo kramer]

It's funny that I get all this resistance towards looking out. If you don't think I am correct. Perhaps you would take this advice from Airbus instead:

A320 FCTM
Takeoff:
Rotation is conventional. The PF must perform the rotation mainly head-up, using outside visual reference until airborne, or at least until visual cues are lost, depending on visibility conditions. The PF must then (*after airborne*) monitor the pitch attitude on the PFD.
This is the advice of the most computerised aircraft manufacturer. Boeing doesn't write it as explicit. Note Airbus' use of the word conventional. It keep me wondering that people resist doing a rotation visually. Hence, why I brought it up in this landing thread, because it's an unfortunate trend that people doesn't trust their vision anymore, because they are afraid it's less accurate than instruments. Hence, they make poor landings, because they use a wrong technique (looking inside instead of outside)...

As long as visual reference is available, your eyes are the most finely tuned instruments in the cockpit! :ok:


It was already discussed intensively in the following thread (I repost one of my replies):

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/223852-danger-rapid-rotations-2.html

I have in other recent threads been advocated strongly that people look out the window when completing the final part of the approach. By that I mean stop looking at the instruments (except for airspeed) and maintain lateral and vertical path by looking at the touchdown point at below 300 feet latest (weather dependent of course).

Apparently, the need to look out the window needs to be emphasized when it comes to takeoff as well.

When PM calls V1, I have a confirming look myself and thereafter only look out the window until established in the climb, completing the takeoff by going back to the instruments and adjusting pitch to maintain V2+20.

By looking out you have a complete feel for how the aircraft is reacting to the rotation and adjustment is then much easier. Plus it makes spotting drift and maintaining centerline much easier as well (from lining up behind departing aircrafts apparently a discipline that few care about in these days). The feel for the right rate is much easier to spot in a real 3 dimensional world, than on a 2D instrument.

To look out the window you have to be seated properly at the designed eye reference position. All too many are seated completely wrong, too low and too leaned back (but I guess they think this increases the coolness factor :rolleyes: ).

You don't loose outside reference until long after airborne if you are seated correctly.

Cosmo Kramer: During the takeoff rotation phase once sight of the runway is obscured by the coming of the cockpit can you explain why it is better to stare at the blank sky and not bother to check the progression of the rotation attitude with a view to ensuring that a tail scrape attitude is not achieved until after lift off? This is a particular concern on 4 eng./ long bodied aircraft which do not "leap" off the ground like most twins.
You don't need to see the runway itself, you need to have outside reference. Do you think looking at the runway (long ahead of the aircraft), will help you know how close your tail is?

It's like with flare, you don't need to look at where you want to touchdown (you look at the end of the runway).

For rotation, all you need is a combination of lateral reference and peripheral vision. Peripheral vision does wonders in judging a rate. If you keep the correct rate, your don't have to worry about tail strike, because you performance calculations take care of that for you:

When a smooth continuous rotation is initiated at VR, tail clearance margin is assured because computed takeoff speeds depicted in the PI chapter of the FCOM, airport analysis, or FMC, are developed to provide adequate tail clearance.

Otherwise, see my replies to Dani in the mentioned thread.


RAT5:
Likewise, for a low visibility takeoff a special rotation technique is required

Please enlighten us.
It needs experience, hence commanders takeoff only. The experience that you have done countless rotations previously, and that you know exactly how the rotation is supposed to feel. That combined with an early transition to instruments, which is then less likely to be screwed up because of said experience. Watching the PFD at from 0 feet is not what I would recommend. The aircraft is still on the runway and you wan't to keep a good look at those center line lights for as long as possible. Once those center line lights are lost, you obviously switch to the PFD - when that happens (which it won't until well into the rotation) you should already have a smooth rate established, that you can safely continue to pull.


Not to derail the subject, perhaps it is better to continue rotation technique in that thread? Since most of the questions have already been asked and answered there.

[Meikleour]

Cosmo Kramer: In quoting the Airbus FTM I think you are making my point for me! Quote: mainly heads up ........ until visual reference is lost. When taking off at night from ( especially ) coastal airfields I think everyone would have trouble detecting the actual aircraft attitude accurately. You seem to assume that all types "leap off the ground" in the same manner as the A320.
All pilots should be aware of their current type's tail scrape attitude oleos compressed. Sadly tailscapes do occur from time to time and only come as a surprise to those crews who do not have this knowledge. To cite the B747 and A340 - both types exhibit a marked slowing of the rotation rate around 10 NU due to the tailplane being affected by its proximity to the runway during the rotation. This tends to lead to a slowing down of the rotation then a subsequent climb out at too fast a speed.
For the avoidance of doubt - I am not saying that the entire rotation be done with reference to the PFD but rather more useful information is given to the pilot regarding rate and achieved attitude by looking at the PFD once nothing visible is to be seen over the coming. In other words, as others have pointed out - no special techniques are required for night/fog departures.

[RAT 5]

For the avoidance of doubt - I am not saying that the entire rotation be done with reference to the PFD but rather more useful information is given to the pilot regarding rate and achieved attitude by looking at the PFD once nothing visible is to be seen over the coming.

I can't remember back to B757/767 days, but on current B738 F5 non LVO takeoffs: absolutely, the keeping of the centreline until airborne is visual; has to be. The initial rotation is visual. This is the best way to keep wings level under all circumstances and assess the correct rate. The a/c will pause at 10 degrees NU, and the nose cuts the horizon at the same time. The a/c becomes airborne as the elevator deflection is increased slightly. This is when the PFD becomes primary as you need to stop the rotation at 15 degrees. Thus, the a/c becomes airborne as the outside visual clues disappear. This is even more important with an engine failure before VR. Now the a/c will become airborne at the same point but you must stop the rotation at only 12-12.5 degrees. Thus, as you increase the elevator deflection to maintain the same rate you have only another 2 degrees to go. The PFD becomes very important. I've seen guys in the sim who tried to look over the nose after 10 degrees and they bounced again as they subconsciously pushed. If understood correctly, taught and practiced correctly, it is a doddle in any visibility, cross wind, engine failure scenario. Even more important if the engine fails in low vis/night just as gear is selected up. KISS.

[cosmo kramer]

When taking off at night from ( especially ) coastal airfields I think everyone would have trouble detecting the actual aircraft attitude accurately.
Meikleour,
I take of regularly from dark costal airports (Red sea airports). A completely (until established in 15 deg climb) visual rotation is not a problem at all. Remember that we are still close to the ground and ambient light from the airport is always sufficient to make the rotation. And to that dots of light here and there, reflections etc etc. You will even still see the lit runway ahead of you until well into the rotation (12 degs at least). Even when the nose starts to block your view ahead, add to that you still have peripheral vision that see "around" the nose.
Obviously, it can be more difficult to know when 15 degs has been achieved, in which case, you phase in the PFD slightly earlier, to stop the rotation.

For the avoidance of doubt - I am not saying that the entire rotation be done with reference to the PFD but rather more useful information is given to the pilot regarding rate and achieved attitude by looking at the PFD once nothing visible is to be seen over the coming.
...So I guess we are saying the same then?

To reiterate, some are of the impression that you have to switch to the PFD from the moment you start the rotation. This is wrong!

You seem to assume that all types "leap off the ground" in the same manner as the A320.
What you need to detect during the rotation is the RATE. No matter if the plane if the plane leaps off or not. 3D vision is superior to a 2D instrument for detecting accelerations, rates etc. And I have never flown an A320, I just provided the information from Airbus.

RAT 5:
The a/c will pause at 10 degrees NU, and the nose cuts the horizon at the same time.
RAT5,
The aircraft will only pause if you let it! By looking outside, it's easy to detect a change in the rate (again 3D vision catches a change immediately). So it's just a matter of adjusting your pull. Rotation should NOT be paused at 10 degs. This is a wrong technique. Boeing says to make a smooth continuous rotation.

The a/c becomes airborne as the elevator deflection is increased slightly. This is when the PFD becomes primary as you need to stop the rotation at 15 degrees. Thus, the a/c becomes airborne as the outside visual clues disappear.
Liftoff attitude for a 737-800 is 8.5 degs at flaps 1, 8 degs at flaps 5. So liftoff doesn't happen at 10 degs.

Also, the nose doesn't obscure the horizon at 10 degs pitch. On a day with full derate, long runway and improved climb (11-12 degs pitch), you can comfortably fly the aircraft with visual reference to the horizon - provided you are seated correctly.

Crude demonstration. It works in real life too.

http://s24.postimg.org/51eptwusl/Screen_Shot_2015_05_19_at_15_34_50.png

I am not advocating to fly with reference to the horizon, merely saying that it can be done, and that the nose doesn't obscure the horizon to prevent a visual rotation. Also, as mentioned in the reply to Meikleour, your peripheral vision allows you to look "around" the nose.

What should be done at the end of the rotation, is to check speed and speed trend as the first, there after switch to the PFD and make fine adjustments to stop the speed from trending in either direction.

[cosmo kramer]

Wanted to comment on this one too:
RAT5
...but on current B738 F5 non LVO takeoffs: absolutely, the keeping of the centreline until airborne is visual; has to be. The initial rotation is visual. This is the best way to keep wings level under all circumstances and assess the correct rate.
So it seems we are starting to agree too. Visual until airborne. :ok: I like to complete the rotation fully visually and that works for me. If someone want to transition a couple of degrees earlier I won't argue about that.

Of course that goes for any flap setting. My company uses flaps 1 on most takeoffs (I know a lot of airlines banned flaps 1).

Maintaining center line AFTER airborne is something that seems to be largely ignored (as can be seen from lining up behind departing traffic in crosswind). Protected area for obstacle clearance seems to be disregarded. :hmm:

Doing the rotation visually (and completing it visually), helps in that respect too. And the crossed controls that at being applied during the rotation (rudder to keep the center line and aileron to keep wings level), can more easily be coordinated phased out so that the aircraft comes out in crab angle according to crosswind exactly maintaining the center line.

[Meikleour]

Cosmo: I think we may be arguing type specifics. A heavy A340-300 will not unstick at 10 NU , with the correct eye position forward view is lost and finally a tail scrape will occur at 14 NU with the oleos compressed! I am suggesting to you that not all rotations are done at the ideal constant correct rate. Tailscapes do happen from time to time so. ....... how do you protect yourself from this with possible gusty conditions or the over enthusiastic F/O who gives it a " hefty heave ho" around the 10 NU mark? Next time you get a chance watch a B747-400 take-off. The rear fuselage often gets to within 1metre of the runway even on correctly flown, ideal takeoffs.

[TyroPicard]

No resistance to looking out.. to start the rotation. Airbus say once airborne you must look at the PFD... A320 gets airborne at 8-10 degrees of pitch .. that is when you need to be head down, for accurate pitch and speed control.

[cosmo kramer]

how do you protect yourself from this with possible gusty conditions or the over enthusiastic F/O who gives it a " hefty heave ho" around the 10 NU mark?
If I am PF I look outside. Looking outside and feeling how the aircraft responds to the environment, makes adjustments quite easy - including adjustments for gusts.

If I am pilot monitoring, I look at the PFD, because I can't feel the control wheel of my F/O, and don't know how hard he/she pulls. I have my hands on my knees, with my thumbs ready to push against the control wheel, should they be over eager. With 33 cm tail clearance, it's occasionally necessary - especially with those that are doing the rotation heads down.

Next time you get a chance watch a B747-400 take-off. The rear fuselage often gets to within 1metre of the runway even on correctly flown, ideal takeoffs.
The minimum tail clearance for a 737-800 at flaps 1 and normal rotation is only 33 cm by the way :} - that's why many airlines have a ban on flaps 1 takeoffs.

that is when you need to be head down, for accurate pitch and speed control.
TyroPicard, you don't need to control pitch or speed during rotation, you need to control your rotation rate. It's done much easier by looking outside at at 3D environment, than on a flat 2D instrument. Once established in climb (rotation completed), you need to adjust the pitch to control speed.

[FullWings]

I agree about rotation rate being the most important. “Speed control” is driven largely by that rate: too slow and you’ll be fast, too rapid and you’ll be slower than you want by the end of the manoeuvre. During rotation, the speed will increase from Vr to V2 and on to whatever is normal for your type. Playing around with the rate while chasing airspeed is not generally a manufacturer recommended technique; a constant rate rotation to an initial pitch attitude is.

[piratepete]

The reason why so many rotations in large transport jets pause around the 8-10 degrees nose up attitude has absolutely NOTHING to do with the elevator being in close contact with the ground.That (according to Mr Boeing- I asked him), is just rubbish.When the WHEELS ARE ON THE GROUND the weight vector (remember from your PPL days?) goes through the wheels.Once the wheels leave the ground (757/767 8 degrees roughly) the weight vector of the whole airplane MOVES FORWARD TO THE CENTER OF PRESSURE ON THE WING.This causes a slight NOSE DOWN effect, stopping or slowing the rotation unless THE PILOT AVOIDS THIS BY INCREASING THE back pressure slightly to KEEP THE ROTATION RATE CONSTANT............ Pete

[TyroPicard]

cosmo
If you read my last post again you will see I recommend looking at the PFD passing 8-10 degrees pitch, not to start the rotation. I did it that way for 30 years and it is the most accurate way of ensuring obstacle clearance, which is arguably the most important aspect of a take-off.
If the RVR is on minimums, it looks the same (almost).
And if an engine fails you are totally in the loop re speed trend. What's not to like?

[TyroPicard]

piratepete
I thought the weight vector acted through the a/c CG.... if it acts through the CofP does that not make the a/c neutrally stable and difficult to fly?
On the runway the a/c rotates about the wheels, which reduces the horizontal stabiliser downforce during rotation.. once airborne it rotates about the CG, restoring normality.

[Meikleour]

TyroPicard: I agree with both your posts. What you say is, in my experience, industry standard. In typical PPRUNE fashion we will always have posters who " know the true way"!!
Cosmo has yet to explain just how he knows how close he can get to a tail scrape on takeoff using his peripheral vision. Despite quoting Airbus FTM then saying he has never flown one, he goes on to assume that cockpit cutoff angles are the same on all types as on his current type ( 738? )

[cosmo kramer]

TyroPicard: I agree with both your posts. What you say is, in my experience, industry standard. In typical PPRuNe fashion we will always have posters who " know the true way"!!
Running out of arguments and becoming personal in indeed the "typical PPRuNe fashion". God forbid you would learn anything.

Cosmo has yet to explain just how he knows how close he can get to a tail scrape on takeoff using his peripheral vision.
33 cm. I provided the figure a few posts ago. We do flaps 1 takeoffs at MTOM regularly due to long tankering sectors. It easy to judge a rate by looking outside.
Just like flare, you judge the closure rate with the ground visually. Try doing that PFD only next time you are in the sim.

Despite quoting Airbus FTM then saying he has never flown one
I quoted airbus because they write explicitly that rotation is a visual and conventional manoeuvre.
Boeing doesn't write it explicitly, probably because it's a conventional aircraft and they didn't see the need to do so.
I mentioned the reason for the airbus quote in a previous post too.

he goes on to assume that cockpit cutoff angles are the same on all types as on his current type ( 738? )
That was a reply to RAT5, who is also on 738 (as far as I can tell).
I doubt though, that the variance will be that great with other aircraft types (need to be able to see way over the nose during CAT3 approaches and flares). As mentioned as well, you can see "around the nose" with you peripheral vision.

[Meikleour]

Cosmo: I think we are in agreement that correct rotation rate is required. Where we disagree is the method by which this is monitored versus tail scrape protection. Your posting history suggests that you have advocated your method for some time. Equally other posters have continued to disagree with you - few seem to endorse you.
Airbus say, depending on where you look, "rotate at ABOUT 3 degrees/sec. " or
"rotate at between 2.5 to 3.5 degrees/sec". Now, on the twins I have flown (B737 , A320 & A330) the unstick occurs quite dynamically. Not so the quads. (B707, B747-2/300 & A340-300/600) The typical twin thrust/weight ratio of 1/3 is more like 1/4 on the quad. This makes the possibility of a tailscrape on the quad much more of a risk. In my own airline we had a tailscrape with a new captain on the A340 where 14 NU was achieved prior to unstick - however he escaped censure because the FDR showed that his rotation rate was " within the normal accepted parameters" !! Quote from Airbus. So yes, rotation rate is not an absolutely precise science. So, why not use all the available information to safeguard the rotation phase?
You seem to have a reluctance to acknowledge that others' experiences may not match your own. If your preferred method suited all types and all operations I am sure it would have been "industry standard" by now.

[stilton]

Cosmo is completely correct.


Rotation, just like the flare is a VISUAL maneuver and that's been recommended for every Boeing and Douglas aircraft I have flown.


If you're doing it by looking at the PFD you are doing it WRONG and are more likely to have a tailscrape

[Meikleour]

Stilton: If you are new to this thread, I have never advocated rotating on the ADI. The discussion is about the phase when useful visual reference is lost.

[cosmo kramer]

Useful visual reference is not lost at 8-10 degs pitch.

We can continue this discussion forever. But I think at the end of the day we are all pretty much in agreement.

I did a ferry flight last night as PF. With the usual back pressure the rotation felt quite slow, so I glanced at the RA to check when I could increase the rate to 4-5 degs per second, to catch up. Thereafter I switched back to visual and completed the rotation. I am saying this, because I agree that in some cases, useful information can be picked up from the PFD. Like height, which eyes are bad at judging (that's why we should look at the far end of the runway during the flare, as the eyes can't accurately judge the height, but excellently judge the closure rate).

BUT, during a normal rotation it shouldn't be necessary. This is just like the discussion about thrust reduction during flare. During a normal flare, the thrust should be reduced as per respective FCTM (30 feet for a 737 e.g.). However, in special circumstances it might be prudent to reduce later or even add thrust.

That's why we are in the cockpit and it's not just runned by computer. Improvise, adapt, overcome.

To get back on topic:

The problem, and in my opinion the core problem, and where the relevance of the discussion about rotation fits in with landing is this:

Too many are SOP/magenta line driven to the extreme and are incapable of improvising and adapting when necessary. They stare at their instruments to keep everything within the limits of the FODA ghost. In turn, they forget to do what they are supposed to do: Aviate!

[RAT 5]

Too many are SOP/magenta line driven to the extreme and are incapable of improvising and adapting when necessary. They stare at their instruments to keep everything within the limits of the FODA ghost. In turn, they forget to do what they are supposed to do: Aviate!

Aaah. Violent agreement at last. Wonderful.

[TyroPicard]

This is what the current airbus FCTM says on the subject of rotation..
Rotation is conventional. During the takeoff roll and the rotation, the pilot flying scans rapidly the outside references and the PFD. Until airborne, or at least until visual cues are lost, this scanning depends on visibility conditions (the better the visibility, the higher the priority given to outside references). Once airborne, the PF must then controls the pitch attitude on the PFD using FD bars in SRS mode which is then valid.
And an old Boeing 737NG FCT .. these a/c lift off at between 8-10 degrees as well...
After liftoff use the flight director as the primary pitch reference cross checking indicated airspeed and other flight instruments.

I am quite clear in my own mind that the PFD is the pitch reference to be used after lift-off... i.e. after 8-10 pitch, or earlier if necessary due to weather conditions.
Any questions?

[cosmo kramer]

So Airbus changed the wording slightly.

You are missing 3 things though:

1) "Scan rapidly", doesn't mean to fly ONLY with reference to the PFD after the aircraft unsticks. As you advocate doing from 8-10 deg pitch.

2) Airbus tells you to give the highest priority to outside, when visual conditions permit (most takeoffs, depending if your homebase is in a swamp or not). Not switching to watch your PFD?

3) I think your definition of airborne is wrong. The aircraft is airborne at the end of the maneuver (rotation) and not in the middle, when the wheels unstick.

Your Boeing quote proves point 3. As Boeing says not to follow the FD during rotation, but only to use it AFTER, when airborne.

For optimum takeoff and initial climb performance, initiate a smooth continuous rotation at VR toward 15° of pitch attitude. ... After liftoff, use the attitude indicator as the primary pitch reference. The flight director, in conjunction with indicated airspeed and other flight instruments is used to maintain the proper vertical flight path.

Note: The flight director pitch command is not used for rotation.

Takeoff Risk Factors
Any one of the following takeoff risk factors may precede a tail strike:
...
Improper Use of the Flight Director
The flight director provides accurate pitch guidance only after the airplane is airborne. With the proper rotation rate, the airplane reaches 35 feet with the desired pitch attitude of about 15°. However, an aggressive rotation into the pitch bar at takeoff is not appropriate and can cause a tail strike.

So no, I don't have any questions. I think your quotes just reinforced my points. ;)

[Goldenrivett]

Crikey! It's like listening to old codgers arguing about how to hold a golf club.
TyroPicard has quoted the FCTMs, anything else is merely your own way of how you "hold the club".

[cosmo kramer]

Interpret the FCTMs (be that Boeing or Airbus), however you want. None of them say to use exclusively the PFD from the moment you pass through 8 degs pitch.
On the contrary...

I'll end with this one:

2LTsvOHq3xc

[Fursty Ferret]

The Chinese F/O's make those rad alt calls below 10' and as you say it is very helpful because it lets you know that you are still descending and not floating, it also gives you a higher degree of accuracy that allows you to land smoothly.

If you're relying on rad alt call-outs below 20 feet, you're doing it wrong. :ugh:

[de facto]

SOP to call RAD ALT below 20 ft?Rubbish.
Again,people trying to reinvent the wheel...
If you finished the flare maneuver (pitch up) and your thrust is at idle(without delaying and chopping at 10FT as so many do)then its not time to read this damn RAD Alt but to release the elevator force and let it settle down.
The only useful countdown would be time of flare maneuver..after 3 secs,,let it be.
Chinese fos and in general aim for a smooth touchdown and QAR are a daily reminder for them that the technique to fly it down like the Autoland would is not only not appropriate nor safe.

If passengers really care for smooth landings,then it should always be Captain's landings and their future captains with little hands on will be waiting for them during this dark stormy night...
Being a First officer is the time to make mistakes and learn from them...Captains should only intervene if safety is at risk and not ones pride.

[Centaurus]

Being a First officer is the time to make mistakes


China Hainan Airlines operating A330's would agree with you but for a different reason. Their F/O's have caused frequent damage to the aircraft with heavy landings and tail strikes on take off, that the authorities were forced into taking drastic measures. This disproves your assertion that being a first officer is the time to make mistakes. Tell that to naïve fare paying passengers...

F/O's in that airline are now not permitted to conduct take off and landings until five years on type. While that means the captains get all the take off and landings, at least the passengers can breath a sigh of relief. It is also an indictment of the poor training undergone by new pilots to type. It is a good bet that the accent during type rating training is predominately on full use of the automatics with very little time spent on manual raw data handling in the circuit and crosswinds. Better utilisation of valuable simulator time is one solution.

Other SE Asian airlines pushing low hour cadets into the right seat of jet transport jets have similar restrictions in experience level when allowing take off and landings by first officers. For example 800 hours on type on line before being permitted to take off and land.

[de facto]

Quite sure that an impending hard landing and /or tail strike should have the captain intervene before it happens,now,maybe as you mentioned,it is probably time they teach the basics correctly in the simulator in the first place rather than teaching them how to reproduce an autopilot landing.
I am all but aware about these restrictions,flying most of the sectors is quite enjoyable however I believe detrimental to the airline safety in the long run.
The CAAC is a quite active one,sometimes making good decisions, sometimes questionable ones such as those take off restrictions.

[proxus]

It can be done, even in a 757.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfCiKYWvxfQ

[de facto]

Of course it can be done, it is not the discussion here..:}
OP, 1.5 G is well within the norms..and a soft landing could show 1.5 if landing full flaps,heavy,and ever slightly underthrust....

[AirRabbit]

Stilton: If you are new to this thread, I have never advocated rotating on the ADI. The discussion is about the phase when useful visual reference is lost.

Hi Folks … sorry for joining the discussion this late, but I’ve been reading the previous posts, and unless I’ve dramatically misunderstood something, I was going on the understanding that the discussion involved “landing” the airplane … and, as a result, I’m a bit in the dark about understanding the point during landing that “useful visual reference is lost.” As I’ve understood the landing task, the only time a landing should be attempted without appropriate visual references would be when the airplane is “auto-land equipped” and the crew is appropriately qualified for that task. Am I missing something here?

[Amadis of Gaul]

Nah, Rabbit, you haven't missed anything. This discussion is just so advanced that you and I can't grasp it.

[AirRabbit]

Thanks, Amadis ... and it wouldn’t be the first time that folks got lost in the trees trying to find the forrest

[framer]

With two 737 over runs this week I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the importance of a good landing is........high.
I am not a training Captain, but as a line Captain the two biggest mistakes I see are
1/ not choosing a visual aiming point and sticking to it during the last 300ft.
2/ spending too much time scanning instruments below 100ft and not enough time looking out the window.
Ps, anyone know how much runway a 737-800 uses in a perfect flare that is in excess of following the three degree slope ?

[AirRabbit]

I guess I’m having a hard time understanding any circumstances that would allow a pilot to graduate from any initial training with any airline, anywhere, pass the initial proficiency check, and still not know how to land the airplane. However, it is becoming apparent to me that this does occur … and my incredulity stems from the fact that I’m continually hearing that the responsibility for having such an untrained and ill-prepared pilot is the fault of that untrained pilot!
What kind of regulatory approval exists for those airlines?
To what kind of acceptance process is the training program subjected?
Who does the final approval of the training program content?
Who trained the instructors?
What is expected from the instructors and evaluators?
What the heck are the instructors doing?
Who oversees the training process?
What evaluator would accept such “proficiency” demonstration?
And those kinds of questions can go on and on and on …. But perhaps the very last straw would be (at least in my world) … why would the other pilot in the cockpit with such an ill-prepared and/or error-prone pilot, continue to agree to subject themselves (not to mention the remainder of the crew and passengers!) to the continued incompetency of a pilot who apparently has no clue about how to land the airplane – every time, all the time, each time, both professionally and safely?

[Fursty Ferret]

I've been flying the A320 for seven years and still can't land it. Does that help your query?

[AirRabbit]

Hello Mr. Ferret - thanks for the reply. But before I get too far into an exchange, I probably need to ask you straight out ... are you saying that after 7 years you cannot land your A320 airplane at all; you don't make landings that are consistent; every once in a while you wind up really "planting" the airplane on the runway; or the majority of your landings are not the mythical, 'we-didn't-know-we-were-on-the-ground' kind of "greased-on" landings? I ask because the answer(s) to these kinds of questions tend to reveal the actual source of your comment. And before you ask ... No, I'm NOT "pulling your chain," or attempting to belittle or insult you. I hope you provide an honest and direct answer. I'm looking forward to your response.

[Amadis of Gaul]

I'm curious to hear about his difficulties as well. I've been on the 320 for only 14 months now, but have only had one "bad" landing, and that was only my second landing on the type during IOE.

[RAT 5]

There are Ok landings; bad landings and really bad landings in an A320. One crew had only 1 'really' bad landing, in Eire. Smooth touchdown, wrong airport. I suspect there was more than an "oops" in the flight deck.

[darkroomsource]

Ps, anyone know how much runway a 737-800 uses in a perfect flare that is in excess of following the three degree slope ?
At what speed?

(I'm tempted to ask "An African swallow or a European swallow?")

[framer]

144 knots ground speed. African.

[Exascot]

Patent US3899147 - Trailing-wheel undercarriage train - Google Patents (http://www.google.com/patents/US3899147)

Look folks I never pretended to know how these flying machines work but I could always plant a jet with the aforementioned system better than one without. Comments on a postcard please.

[darkroomsource]

144 knots ground speed. African.
wind?
ie. are we ABOVE or BELOW the recommended IAS for this approach?
Because, no matter the glide slope, if we're above the recommended speed, we will float. The faster we're going, the longer we'll float.
If the glide slope is too high but the IAS is right, we won't float (we might bounce if it's too too high, and if it's way way too high then we'll splat), and if the glide slope is too low, but the IAS is right, we won't float either.

But if we're configured correctly, then we "should" fly the glide slope at the same speed as any where else (depending on wind of course), so we should be at the correct IAS.

[Jwscud]

Exascot is on the money. Trailing links are a gift to ham-fisted monkeys like me. It makes it bloody difficult to really plant it.

[AirRabbit]

Sorry folks, but it continues to sound like there is a group who prefer to leave the landing up to the airplane …

The last time I checked it was the pilot flying who was to fly-the-airplane and not the other way around. If the airspeed is, or is going to be, wrong – the pilot flying should make the appropriate correction. If the airplane is, or is going to be, either too high or too low – the pilot flying should make the appropriate correction. If the airplane is, or is going to be, either above or below the glide slope – the pilot flying should make the appropriate correction. I’d go on, but I would just be repeating myself.

If you are the pilot flying the airplane and you don’t know exactly where you want the airplane to be and know how to get it there, and keep it there – no matter where you are, at all times between engine start and engine shut down – you were not trained completely or you were not trained correctly. We all make mistakes – heaven knows, I’ve made my share. But when a mistake is made, it should be immediately recognized and the appropriate correction should be applied.

So, what is the appropriate correction? That depends on the condition of the airplane at that moment and what the condition of the airplane should be at that moment – AND that extends to and includes what the airplane condition should be in the NEXT moment. And, for the uninitiated, airplane “condition” is attitude, altitude, airspeed, configuration, and direction … with full awareness of flight control position (including any control pressures being held in any of the 3 axes), as well as throttle position, and trim (in all 3 axes). So, to correct an error, the pilot flying would have to know and understand the current airplane condition AND know and understand what kind of correction(s) will have to be made (via the application of the controls available to the pilot) to adjust the airplane condition to achieve one that is desired – given the location and the circumstances at that moment.

Also, it’s my opinion (for whatever it’s worth) that “floating” is a description of what the airplane is doing, all by itself, with the pilot along for the ride.

[con-pilot]

Exascot is on the money. Trailing links are a gift to ham-fisted monkeys like me. It makes it bloody difficult to really plant it.

I can tell you never flew a 727. :p

[hikoushi]

The best type of gear for making really great hammer-on landings, the kind that could actually strike crude oil if there is a vein under the runway TDZ, is that on the DHC-8 Classic.

It is a 12-foot-long metal stick with a pair of wheels attached to the end, jammed up into the wing.

No matter WHAT you do, if there is even a gnat's you-know-what of residual crab at touchdown, those sticks will send a shudder through the entire airframe that creates a nice S-wave. This culminates with the cockpit door making a lovely "THWACKACKACKACK!!!" sound, like the "cracker" on a bullwhip.

[Jwscud]

I was reliably informed the previous occupation of the individual who designed the Q400 gear was at a manufacturer of shopping trollies!

Hello Mr. Ferret - thanks for the reply. But before I get too far into an exchange, I probably need to ask you straight out ... are you saying that after 7 years you cannot land your A320 airplane at all; you don't make landings that are consistent; every once in a while you wind up really "planting" the airplane on the runway; or the majority of your landings are not the mythical, 'we-didn't-know-we-were-on-the-ground' kind of "greased-on" landings? I ask because the answer(s) to these kinds of questions tend to reveal the actual source of your comment. And before you ask ... No, I'm NOT "pulling your chain," or attempting to belittle or insult you. I hope you provide an honest and direct answer. I'm looking forward to your response.

AirRabbit I am not Mr. Ferret, but perhaps I can offer my view. Ithink perhaps sometimes you forget what it was like to be inexperienced. When I was released to Line training after base training in my first jet type, I could land the aircraft safely within my limitations (there were company imposed crosswind limits until a certain number of hours on type.) That is to say, I could land the aircraft safely in the touchdown zone, on centreline and speed. What I could not do until I had more experience and still cannot always do to my satisfaction is control the smoothness of the touchdown or touch down at the precise point I have nominated.

When I might say I floated, what that means is that I have either arrived in the slot with too much energy, or arrested the descent rate too aggressively or too early, and the aircraft is still flying when I want it to be on the ground. From that point, on a short runway one has to be aggressive to put the aircraft on the ground to ensure stopping performance which tends to result in an arrival, or on a longer runway you can smoothly correct your error resulting in a smoother touchdown but a longer landing roll. Floating by definition is an error in the first place, and one is not necessarily so much a passenger as trying to correct the initial error.

I think our innate perfectionism leads us to be a bit more self-deprecating about our landing than is perhaps warranted. Also, certainly in the case of the 737, the continued buggering about with the aircraft fuselage length, wing section and characteristics has left an aircraft that requires very precise handling and control, whereas the bizjets one might step up from are comparatively easy to land and do not provide much preparation for the move to larger aircraft.

[AirRabbit]

Hi Jwscud;

First, let me thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions … and, second, I think that if you have not already found for yourself, you most certainly will find, that remembering when you were “inexperienced” is something that isn’t easily forgotten! And, the better one remembers, the greater the opportunity to be an even better instructor.

Also, in “rank-order” of the questions I had posed for Mr. Ferret, your comments would place you right below the last question, at the “top end” of that list (…the majority of your landings are not the mythical, 'we-didn't-know-we-were-on-the-ground' kind of "greased-on" landings…) – and you apparently reached that level when you had finished your initial training and were “released” to line flying. A pilot who is able to, as you described yourself as being able to “…land the aircraft safely within … limitations (there were company imposed crosswind limits until a certain number of hours on type). That is to say, I could land the aircraft safely in the touchdown zone, on centerline, and speed.”

Not to overwork the thought, but landing the airplane safely, in the touchdown zone, on centerline and on speed, is a very complete definition of a “proficient landing.” “Greasing” the landing whenever and where ever you desire comes with a bit more practice – but the practice I’m describing is not "landing practice." The practice I'm describing is the practice of recognizing the condition of the airplane, and making adjustments to the controls available to you to adjust that condition … AND knowing when the environmental conditions are such that seeking to perform such a “greased-on landing” doesn’t compromise the pilot's maintaining complete control at all times.

A good, professional landing is NOT a “grease job.” A good, professional landing comprises all of the aspects you were capable of performing very early in your career, simply adding that the actual touchdown should not be hard, but should be firm (and there IS a difference) where “firm” gets the tires through any contaminates to the runway surface (water, ice, snow, etc. to allow the tire/wheel assemblies to start turning), and doing so ON the centerline, tracking to stay on that centerline, from such an airplane attitude (called the 'level flight attitude') that the nose can be lowered to the runway surface in a very short time - but not “dropping" it, and then activating the wheel brakes quickly (mostly to assure they are working correctly), ensuring that the speed brakes have deployed and that the thrust reversers are deployed when selected – from there you can determine the amount of reverse thrust desired. All of that should be regularly accomplished in the first 3000 feet of the runway, or the first 1/3 of the runway, whichever is SHORTER.

If you want to know some “crutches” that I’ve used to teach pilots how to practice and what to practice so that all of the above is able to be accomplished on each landing, just let me know. I’ve posted those practice scenarios on this forum previously. And, NO, these practice scenarios are not ‘mine’ but the way I was taught and the way I’ve taught for my entire instructing career. I use them simply because they work – on all airplanes – light civilian, military fighter, military transport, and, a whole litany of civilian passenger jets … and, although I’ve not landed an A380 or a B-52, I would suspect these practice tasks would work there too.

[cosmo kramer]

So. many. words.

In short, the problem most are having (who can't make consistently smooth landings) is knowing where to look: Out the window.

[hikoushi]

Indeed look out the window. Watch your aiming point, and keep it stationary in the windshield. The old "non-moving point" technique of aiming a visual final approach. Subconsciously you will also be maintaining your pitch relationship with the horizon as well, and scanning airspeed and vertical rate. This will keep you squared into the glide path. PAPI and electronic GS etc will back you up.

As we cross the airport fence and get towards ground effect (say 100 ish feet or so for a widebody), your scan goes entirely outside. No point micromanaging the speed and rate at this point, if it gets wonky at this point you'll feel it in your arse before it shows up on the gauges anyway. It's time to focus entirely outside.

Entirely personal technique, but I keep the aiming point until I first start to think about flaring (maybe 50 - 70 feet or so). I then transition focus to about 2/3rds down the runway and let my eyes soft-focus just a little to bring in more visual field. When my eyes start to "feel" the sinking motion, the flare begins. When deep in the flare and "settling in", I let my eyes go out closer to the horizon for the last fine tune.

Then, when the airplane calls out "3,3,3,3" and I realize it's a floater, I just close both eyes and wait. At impact, open them and look out again, roll the nose over a couple degrees, crack reverse and pull back again to keep the weight of the airplane "on the wing" until the second bogie snaps down, honk in a fistfull of reverse and keep the backpressure coming. Aim to run out of elevator right as the nose touches the ground. Should be around 80 knots ish.

Makes landing a 330 feel just like my PPL-era attempts at Cessna 172 soft-field landings (questionable and mixed). The French designed a nice-feeling airplane (well during the last 8 seconds of the flight at least). Gets you stopped nice and short, too.

I swear the trick is to close your eyes and pray at the 5-foot call.

[Fursty Ferret]

Hello Mr. Ferret - thanks for the reply. But before I get too far into an exchange, I probably need to ask you straight out ... are you saying that after 7 years you cannot land your A320 airplane at all; you don't make landings that are consistent; every once in a while you wind up really "planting" the airplane on the runway; or the majority of your landings are not the mythical, 'we-didn't-know-we-were-on-the-ground' kind of "greased-on" landings? I ask because the answer(s) to these kinds of questions tend to reveal the actual source of your comment. And before you ask ... No, I'm NOT "pulling your chain," or attempting to belittle or insult you. I hope you provide an honest and direct answer. I'm looking forward to your response.

Most of my landings are a gentle plop into the touchdown zone, occasionally a greaser, and sometimes the WHUMP onto the markers. And sometimes I have no idea why that happened, 'cos it can be onto any runway, with any slope, and any wind.

[cosmo kramer]

Indeed look out the window. Watch your aiming point, and keep it stationary in the windshield. The old "non-moving point" technique of aiming a visual final approach. Subconsciously you will also be maintaining your pitch relationship with the horizon as well, and scanning airspeed and vertical rate. This will keep you squared into the glide path. PAPI and electronic GS etc will back you up.

I was in full agreement until the last sentence. I think the last sentence is where many (beginners especially) go wrong. Because they try to get everything to "fit". And below DA/DH or even several 100 feet prior, they won't match up (not co-located, PAPI calibrated for different eye height etc). Hence, with each scan, a new (inappropriate) correction is made:

"Glide fits?", "Crap now we have 3 red!" - *correction*, "ups now 1/2 a dot above the glide" *correcting again*.

^ A lot of unnecessary instability introduced into the path in the very last few feet, and focus on the instruments, at a time where the pilot should only concentrate on the aim point and speed.

Usually it lead to a "panic pull", when being surprised at seeing the runway come rushing towards the pilot who is now more inside, than outside - manifesting as a small break in 100-50 feet. Now a long landing at the end of the touchdown zone is inevitable... or passing the threshold in 75-100 feet, the pilot now becomes aware and delays the flare. To avoid a smack, leaves the throttles in until 10 feet -> airplane keeps flying and floats to the end of the touchdown zone.

It's so easy to see what is going on when you are aware of it. And usually, the after landing question "where did you look?", confirms exactly the above scenario.

Hence, my mantra "aim point, airspeed - aim point, airspeed" ONLY - from the last 300 feet LATEST or better 500+, phasing out the electronics aids slowly, the higher you switch reference to the aim point (visual conditions permitting of course). If the glide and PAPIs don't fit OK doing this technique, the chance is the approach was messed up before switching reference anyway.

Hence, in short: forget about the PAPI and glide as you are approaching the runway. They are there to lead you to the visual segment, not to lead you into the flare.

[AirRabbit]

Most of my landings are a gentle plop into the touchdown zone, occasionally a greaser, and sometimes the WHUMP onto the markers. And sometimes I have no idea why that happened, 'cos it can be onto any runway, with any slope, and any wind.

Well … it seems that “most” of your landings are more than satisfactory … sometimes surprisingly so … and sometimes you’re jarred back into reality.
My recommendation would be that you:
FIRST, pay significantly closer attention to how you are handling the controls during short final … and if that doesn’t give you a meaningful clue as to what you’re doing or not doing from one landing to the next;
SECOND, grab a knowledgeable instructor and have him/her take you into the simulator to examine your technique during approach/landings with all the variables you mentioned. If that instructor knows anything he/she should be able to point out to you what inconsistencies you may be bouncing between (no pun intended); or … if you're interested, I can forward to you a copy of some of the recommendations I've made for how a lot of folks really learn and/or polish their landing technique - and I can certainly do that publically or privately - as you prefer.
LASTLY, and only because “a WHUMP onto the markers,” is not a long way from “a WHUMP into the ground short of the runway,” if the first and/or second recommendations don’t work, I hear that the Post Office is hiring.

[framer]

LASTLY, and only because “a WHUMP onto the markers,” is not a long way from “a WHUMP into the ground short of the runway
I think you'll find it is a long way from landing short of the runway as he was most likely talking about the 1000ft markers.......I may be wrong but I don't think he gets it in the zone most of the time and then cocks it up by 1000ft! The way I read it all of his landings are within the landing zone but he gets the occasional whump ..... Who hasn't?

[AirRabbit]

Hi framer …

Hmmm … I was reading “marker” as the runway end, threshold marking stripes - primarily due to the fact that he specifically described most of his landings as being "in the touchdown zone" with some additional landings being "greasers" and others being a "WHUMP into the markers," both of which I read as being outside of the touchdown zone. If the correct interpretation was intended to be the “fixed distance” markings, normally placed 1000 feet from the threshold and considered the beginning of the touchdown zone, of course, you are correct. However, normally any “WHUMP” touchdowns - where ever they occur - occur when the pilot isn’t paying very close attention to what is happening. Not necessarily a big deal – as you say – who hasn’t “been there – done that?” However, I go back to the original comment, from someone who lands in the TD zone all of the time – even with the occasional, unexpected “WHUMP” (apparently, also in the touchdown zone) – why say …
“I've been flying the A320 for seven years and still can't land it. Does that help your query?”
...and if it is appropriate, even with my lack of understanding for that statement, I extend my apologies to Mr. Ferret.

[Amadis of Gaul]

Y'all are still going at it?

[framer]

Hi AirRabbit,
No doubt the Ferret will come back and tell us if he or she meant the 1000ft markers or the threshold markers. I will be very very surprised if he meant the threshold markers because of the different way I interpreted his writings.
Also, a whump onto the 1000ft markers makes sense as that will be his aiming point and indicative of mis judging the flare/ energy state as happens to us all sometimes.
His original statement of
“I've been flying the A320 for seven years and still can't land it. Does that help your query?”

Sounds like a tongue in cheek way of saying " it isn't that easy to land an airliner, as long as it's safe who cares" that's my interpretation anyway.

I think that there is a bit of a pattern with pilots who get wound up about landing their aircraft. My hypothesis is that they were fine and dandy pilots on their last type and then made the jump to jets. During their TQ it became apparent to them that the swept wing jet is perhaps less forgiving than their fat wing turbo prop with regard to decaying airspeed. They may have had an experience in the simulator where five or six knots slipped away on them during the last hundred feet and they didn't feel it in their bum and suffered the almighty arrival that surely follows as they try to arrest the sink with elevator instead of thrust ( it would have worked in their fat wing turbo prop). Nobody takes the time to explain to them that in the real aircraft you can in fact feel changes through the seat of your pants even if it is a bit more subtle than in other types. Being dedicated and motivated pilots they vow and declare to be right on top of that airspeed and never again let the earth rise up to smight them. To achieve their new goal they scan inside at the ASI at 80ft, at 50ft, and maybe even at 30 ft. Each time they do this it ruins the picture they are building of the outside world and they have to start again at 30ft, as a result their judgement of the flare suffers. Then they progress to line training in the real aircraft and it is not long before they plant the aircraft hard. What to do what to do......? Being dedicated and motivated pilots they decide to create a wee break in the rate of descent prior to the actual flare as a safeguard against another heavy landing, some even give a burst of thrust at ten feet. They have now, all by themselves come up with a way of avoiding a hard landing due to airspeed decay, and also avoiding a hard landing because they have not got enough time to build a nice picture of the rate of descent. The result is what many of us have seen, slightly anxious pilots who land long and inconsistently and don't like runways less than 2500m long.
That is my hypothesis.
The fix is to go back to basics, maintain an aiming point visually, control airspeed by the seat of the pants below 100ft, shift focus down the runway at 30 ft. Fly the plane.
I am not a training Captain so am more than happy to have that theory destroyed by those more experienced than myself. Personally I think people who have trouble are trying to avoid a hard landing by using their instrumentation while they are low to the ground. Outside is best.

[Fursty Ferret]

Uh, yep, 1000 foot markers...

[hikoushi]

I was in full agreement until the last sentence. I think the last sentence is where many (beginners especially) go wrong. Because they try to get everything to "fit". And below DA/DH or even several 100 feet prior, they won't match up (not co-located, PAPI calibrated for different eye height etc). Hence, with each scan, a new (inappropriate) correction is made:

"Glide fits?", "Crap now we have 3 red!" - *correction*, "ups now 1/2 a dot above the glide" *correcting again*.

^ A lot of unnecessary instability introduced into the path in the very last few feet, and focus on the instruments, at a time where the pilot should only concentrate on the aim point and speed.

Usually it lead to a "panic pull", when being surprised at seeing the runway come rushing towards the pilot who is now more inside, than outside - manifesting as a small break in 100-50 feet. Now a long landing at the end of the touchdown zone is inevitable... or passing the threshold in 75-100 feet, the pilot now becomes aware and delays the flare. To avoid a smack, leaves the throttles in until 10 feet -> airplane keeps flying and floats to the end of the touchdown zone.

It's so easy to see what is going on when you are aware of it. And usually, the after landing question "where did you look?", confirms exactly the above scenario.

Hence, my mantra "aim point, airspeed - aim point, airspeed" ONLY - from the last 300 feet LATEST or better 500+, phasing out the electronics aids slowly, the higher you switch reference to the aim point (visual conditions permitting of course). If the glide and PAPIs don't fit OK doing this technique, the chance is the approach was messed up before switching reference anyway.

Hence, in short: forget about the PAPI and glide as you are approaching the runway. They are there to lead you to the visual segment, not to lead you into the flare.

To make sure we are clear here, the match up comment is talking about the early part of the approach. If you actually read the whole post you will note that I actually said the exact same thing you just did.

Also, you can always read the damn approach plate and see if the glideslope and PAPI are out if whack from each other.