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

[Cecco]

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

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

Your opinions are welcome!

Cheers

Cecco

[Gulfstreamaviator]

Also a function of sweep

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

I always landed my C550 with flare.

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

glf

[Booglebox]

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

[con-pilot]

We landed about half way down the runway!

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

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

[G-SPOTs Lost]

If you read the AFM it tells you.

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

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

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

[what next]

Hi!

Your opinions are welcome!

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

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

Happy landings,
max

[sevenstrokeroll]

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


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

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

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

[INNflight]

leaving the glideslope on short final, diving to the threshold

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

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

[inbalance]

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

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

CJ 3-Landing.mov - YouTube

Crossing the threshold of a runway at 50 ft and fast can be seen at this picture:
http://aviation-safety.net/photodata...6dDSC_0040.JPG

Inbalance

[nopax]

The comment about the straight legged citations is so true!

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

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

[Booglebox]

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

[Gulfstreamaviator]

Back to basics

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

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

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

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

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

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

glf

[Pace]

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

Pace

[Gulfstreamaviator]

Hi Pace, we read the same book

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

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

perhaps just professional challenges.

glf

[PukinDog]

Flare to land, squat to pee.

(It had to be said)

[NuName]

C500 series

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

[Flaymy]

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

[mushroom69]

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

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

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

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

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

[Pace]

Mushroom

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

Pace

[Klimax]

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