VB Smooth Landing Kings
 

After spending the last 4 years flying QF everywhere, (approx 180 flights per year) I've just flown VB to Launy and back for Xmas for a change. Boy you guys sure know how to land. All were as smooth as a baby's behind with the last on into BN attracting applause by the pax.

Are you on some sort of smooth landing bonus or something? QF pilot's tend to throw the thing at the ground and don't miss, where VB grease it on.

I don't bring it up lightly, but as a Grade 1 Instructor, I'm impressed.

Well Done.

TBT

I have to say that its been a long time since I've seen a bad QF landing whilst waiting to line up. :ok:

bbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzz

Time Bomb Ted,

I think you will find since QF1 at BKK they have strict parameters in which to land, i think between 1000-2000 ft markers, outside that and its a recorded event.

And Dj use their head and say why do we need to land by the 2000 ft marker if you have a 3.5 km long runway and the conditions are right.

:ok:

Somehow I think you may be thrashing for a large wind up of the music box.

Awwww Jeeeez.... here we go!

bbbzbbzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbzzzzzzzz

Ibex, may I be the first to wind up your motorola.

The landing is how we are judged.

The last 10 inches are all that count to Mr and Mrs Bevan. (and Time Bomb Ted (Mrs probably enjoys the last 10 inches most)) It is relatively easy if you have a light 737 and 3000 m plus of runway.

Try landing a heavy regional jet on a runway which is 1500 m long, ungrooved, wet, 30 m wide, with a crosswind. Or a 747 on any runway.

No prizes for smooth landings there, mate!!

It really does not matter if you fly the slf (or TBT), from A to B upside down, on one engine through cyclone Tracey. They still judge you on the last 10 inches. I wish it was six:{

dlf ,

The 747 is one of the easiest aircraft to land in the world. Try the 767 - I hear its fun.

73s fit on those little runways too! usually a tad longer, but great fun!
the short/narrow one's work you a little harder and a as result of more concentration, a better landing! i find anyway. But a heavier 800...

;) Mmmmm TBT, probably explains the 'internal' investigation at VB surrounding the reasons for the unusual number of tyre problems. (Get it here first on prune!)

I can vaguely remember a study done many years ago into tyre life with Pilot vs Autoland.

As I recall, autoland extended tyre life because landings were firmer and more positive, as opposed to pilots, who attepmt to grease it on. That "greasing" it on caused greater wear on the dunlops.

Mr Boeing certainly doesn't like to buggerise around. Put the damn thing on - firmer the better.

Me? I'm luck if I can hit the runway two times in three!

Thats right...

bbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzz

Try a Beech -18


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

swh ,
Thanks for that. I had no idea. I seem to recall an investigation into the use of Reverse Thrust verses heavier brake application and the brakes won. Something to do with the make up of the pads or something.

This is no wind up IBEX , it is just that I fly alot now and the worst is the 767 for landings and the best is the 744. From a passenger perspective. 737's seem so hot and cold, and I'm not talking night verses day either. That is a whole different kettle of fish.

TBT

No no no :E surely the A330 can give the 767 a run for it's money.

SMOC

Time Bomb Ted

FYI the 744 is smooth (usually) due to the fact it has the extra wheel bogey in the body centre with rear trail which can really cushion the touchdown, whereas the 767 by design has rearward trailing (so it fits in the wheelbay) wing gear which is not so forgiving.

Flying around in Oz on long wide runways in good weather particularly in 737's, it should be very rare indeed for a heavy landing.

Into Bombay at night however, with heavy rain, 10kt tail, autobrakes 4 in a 777-300 at MLW, the heaviness of the touchdown is the last consideration as all your landing performance data is based on touching down at 1000' so every foot you float is distance you have not allowed for.

Keep it on the black stuff not on the green! (tongue firmly in cheek)

No doubt Vb's Darwin overun was a smooth touchdown too. What's really important here guys?

The Messiah, me just being The Reverend, am certainly outranked by your holyness.:ok: But I do happen to have several thousand hours on the 747. FYI, all 747 models have two body gears with eight wheels between them as against the DC-10 and 777, both of which have a single body gear on the fuselage centre line. The smooth landings on the 747 is more due to the ground effect of the huge wings rather than the body gears. Cheers, HD.

Its a funny old discussion, For the self-discerning a smooth touchdown outside paremeters just doesn't count other than, oh well at least is was smooth.

Given good weather and unhurried approaches yeah anyone can develop a technique that works for them. Does anyone remember Col Griffith's stalling the Electra on?

Understood obviously, is the need to hit the mark on speed on centreline in adverse conditions and thats what its all about.

BTW if anyone would like to develop the thread as to their thoughts on VREF + x and reducing (what height, when etc).

Ah, the old "good weather in Oz" chestnut again.
Granted there are regular low viz probs in Europe/Asia/USA but nothing a Cat3C autoland won't fix.
The WX in Oz can get more than a little nasty from time to time and the B737 goes into some pretty short (and 30 metre wide) runways at MLW as well.
It's all relative!
The windshear/turbulence/crosswind/downwind/nasties I've struck in Oz more than match most of the Wx I have experienced in the overseas arena.
And that was in a B744.
Also many of these approaches are NPA's not ILS's.
:ok:

Hot Dog

Never seen a 777 with bodygear. While the earlier DC-10's did not have it either.