Bang it on???

[Mach Jump]

...holding the landing attitude...

BPF: Great to see someone other than me uses that phrase!



Forgive my lack of local knowlege, but what is 'The Other Place?


MJ

[+TSRA]

Forgive my lack of local knowlege, but what is 'The Other Place?

AVCANADA

Abandon hope all ye who enter here.

They're pretty much the same hourly rate, one without the wildly pontificating 22 year old instructor though, making it the better deal.

They are, however, both 22 years old...at least, that's what her ID said. haha

holding the landing attitude

60% of the time, it works every time.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Avcanada gets more posts in a day then this forum gets in a month, I wonder why that is...........

Anyway I drop in here every once in a while and it never ends well so I guess I am a slow learner.

I think I will just stick to the occasional post in the Private Aviation forum and leave the Canada forum to you guys.

Enjoy

[PBY]

Chuck was the only guy I met in my flying carrier who could properly teach landings. Before you stone me on this forum, realize, that I am not saying that he is the only guy who can teach landings properly. I only said he is the only guy I met in my 10000 hrs of flying who could do it. Thanks to him I can relieve the suffering of many post-traumatic-airline-training-department-disorders.
Airline instructor, unless he she has a previous instructing background, is just trained to recognise somebody's mistakes, but is not equipped with the tools
How to fix them. Airline instructor was not even trained to give instrument rating or a licence. Just renew it.airline instructor can only give a type rating to pilots, who are supposed to know how to fly. And now we get the co pilots with 150 hrs total (60 hrs actual flight time). Coming in. They don't even have a license to take their mother up in a Cessna on a nice Sunday afternoon. And these guys are the future instructor pool. So that is the reason we have all these "arrivals". Of course everybody makes mistakes sometime and that is normal. But to many airline guys the last 50 feet of flight is a mystery even more compounded by the educationally non-equipped training departments. So they know only firm landing as opposed to long greaser. Not too many seem to know you can still land nicely right at the touch down zone.
Who is gonna cast the first stone?

[Apache702]

This thread should be called, " Noobs with lack of skills and knowledge"
even with a book " Landings for Dummies" there is no hope in this low skill and low IQ environment. There will always be idiots flying around. It s a system fault. It s just too easy to become pilot with some $. You can learn what to do but if you don't have the skill to do it then why don't you just quit this job and help aviation become safer.

[pigboat]

In my exalted opinion, any landing where the overhead bins stay closed is a greaser.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

During my rather long career flying stuff some of my most enjoyable times were doing PBY type ratings and I never had an airline pilot who was not a pleasure to fly with.

They all quickly realized that it was really fun to actually fly an airplane again and once they rid their brains of SOP's to rely on and re-learned the simple basics of airplane handling they all turned out to be really good hands and feet pilots,

They could then go back to their big aluminum zoom tubes with all the magic buttons and had no trouble readjusting to operating their machines....because they had the confidence of knowing they had re-learned how to fly, not just operate an airplane.

[pattern_is_full]

Welcome to the 21st century where stopping distance and preventing over-runs is more important than making the SLF think you're an ace 'cause you can grease it on.

Unfortunately, thus far in the 21st century, runway overruns seem have become more common (or at least a higher percentage of incidents/accidents). Seems like we've seen one every couple of weeks. Some worse than others.

SWA/Midway. AA Kingston. AA Jackson Hole. AIE Mangalore. TACA Tegucigalpa. TAM São Paulo. Misc. in Russia, Asia, Africa....

It's getting to be a bad habit.....

A smooth touchdown is a nice feeling. But I'll stick with the idea that "a small bang at the start of the landing roll is preferable to a BIG bang at the end of the landing roll."

[lilflyboy262...2]

Saw a 737 overrun a 2500m runway today. Amazes me really.

[+TSRA]

Who is gonna cast the first stone?

I won't cast any stones PBY because, for the most part, I agree...although a instructor at a 705 operator myself, I'm lucky to have that instructing background. A small minority of the airline instructors I've come across sit back, monitor for SOP creep and pull up the pre-programmed syllabus from the box. The sim does its thing, the crew do their thing, the instructor makes comments, and the world is a happy place. But the airline industry created them. We can't fault them, we have to fault the system. Some guys are great pilots, but so-so instructors. Some great instructors are so-so pilots, and some great pilots are great instructors. It takes all types.

However, I've noticed in the last little while a big push by many of the instructors and course developers to get "back to basics." I've had many memos come down the line updating our syllabus to include a lot more "fly the airplane" work. Of course, simulator time is so precious and the amount of items that Transport wants to see out of an 8 or 10 session initial type rating does not give too much time for landing attitude training, but this is where a beefed up Line Indoctrination or even an extra sim session focusing on "technique" wouldn't go amiss.

Unless anyone has any ideas for me to send up the chain on how to include such training in an 8 session initial!?! http://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

Of course, I'm just thinking aloud here. Its a busy place up in that brain of mine and not all of it prim and proper.

[9 lives]

I'm not casting any stones, I agree! I bounce the odd landing, but I never accept that doing this carelessly is acceptable. Fly it like you own it, and want it to last!

In my opinion, the only reason to bang a civil plane onto the surface would be it something unexpected occurred in the last seconds of the flare, and getting it down suddenly was the best thing. Otherwise, I think it's just laziness. A couple of more seconds actually flying the plane in the flare, and a good landing would probably have been the outcome.

But then... a good flare is a stall, and I hear that today's new pilots are afraid to stall (perhaps because their instructors were!). Yes, I generalize somewhat, but pilots, fly your plane like it's an extension of you. Fly it so the people who see you flying it say to themselves: "wow, I want that pilot flying my plane!". Fly it so your peers here are proud of the care you take with it - pride in your workmanship!

[sleeper]

You never stall a jet on landing! It is not a light general aviation aircraft.
Yes a smooth touchdown is targeted for, however never use another couple of seconds to achieve that. With 140 to 160 kts landingspeed, you run out of runway very quickly.

Also a lot of jets are vulnerable to a tailstrike with extended flares.

[9 lives]

You never stall a light GA aircraft on landing

I can't agree with this as an absolute statement. It is true that in most cases, the desirable stall warning at touchdown is just that, a warning, so correct, the aircraft was not truly stalled.

But, there are circumstances when the controls are being held full nose up at touchdown, and the aircraft settles on, sometimes with power. In those cases, it is likely that the aircraft is practically stalled at touchdown. Some floatplane or soft field landings would be like this.

Obviously, a stall to the point of a pitch down at the time of touch down will not work out at all well. Happily, before a plane pitches down, it will be settling as it approaches a stall, and settling in a nose high attitude is very nice, for what is termed a "full stall" landing.

Yes a smooth touchdown is targeted for, however never use another couple of seconds to achieve that. With 140 to 160 kts landingspeed, you run out of runway very quickly.

I think there are about zero private GA aircraft with a landing speed of 140 to 160 kts! That well exceeds the Vne of both of my planes! With a light GA aircraft, whose landing speed would be in the range of 45 to 65 kts, spending those few extra seconds to achieve a gentle landing will not increase the runway used - as you're slowing down in the air anyway! All slowing in the air costs zero, where any slowing done on the ground costs in tires and brakes, and some landing gear wear and tear.

Please do use those few extra seconds to slow in the air, touch down more slowly, and gently! Not all landing areas are nice smooth pavement!

[9 lives]

when the controls are being held full nose up at touchdown, and the aircraft settles on ... it is likely that the aircraft is practically stalled at touchdown.

Nope.

With respect: Could be.....

Sec. 23.201

Wings level stall.
....... a stall is produced, as shown by either:

My bold.

The aircraft descends (touches down) because it slows down, and lift decreases - see the lift equation, which tells us that lift is a function of velocity squared. Small changes in airspeed result in large changes in lift.

Yes, I generally agree, but it is not the only way. Allowing the notion of a "full stall" landing, which is possible in many aircraft types, supports the understanding objective for new pilots.

you will find that the wing of a light aircraft is not stalled even when the tail hits the ground. How are you going to arrange for a higher AOA at touchdown, than a tailstrike allows?

I have tailstruck my taildragger in a fully stalled landing (though I seek to avoid doing this). I have never tailstruck a floatplane, no matter how hard I held the controls against the nose up stop!

But, in the interest of objectivity, yes, if you fly a STOL equipped tricycle Cessna at very high AoA, close to a hard surface, it is possible that the tail tiedown ring will strike the ground first, and doing this is bad.

I'm not suggesting that fully stalled landings are common, but they can be executed more often than they are, and this objective (without striking the tail) is generally good.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Nope. The aircraft descends (touches down) because it slows down, and lift decreases - see the lift equation, which tells us that lift is a function of velocity squared. Small changes in airspeed result in large changes in lift.

If you do the geometric measurement, you will find that the wing of a light aircraft is not stalled even when the tail hits the ground. How are you going to arrange for a higher AOA at touchdown, than a tailstrike allows?

Really?????

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Here's an experiment for you. On final, power off, nose up, and stall the aircraft. Keep the control column fully back. Walk it down with the rudder - called the "falling leaf". Your VSI will indicate around -2000 fpm. Continue it until touchdown on the runway. Call the TSB, because you will have wrecked your aircraft - and probably broken your spine - with a real full-stall landing.

You can do this in any airplane?

[9 lives]

On final, power off, nose up, and stall the aircraft. Keep the control column fully back. Walk it down with the rudder - called the "falling leaf". Your VSI will indicate around -2000 fpm

If I pull the controls fully back on final, and I'm a foot off the runway, my VSI won't indicate anything, as I will have landed before it has a chance. No wreck involved - that would be a new experience for me, which I skillfully prevent!

If I have approached the stall in stable deceleration, and the controls are fully back, the plane is defined as being stalled. If I land it that way, it was a full stall landing. I have not cited CLmax as a stall criteria.

But yes, impressionable pilots, do not take 51's advice, and approach the runway at 2000 FPM down, fully stalled - It won't work out at all well, and he'll be asking for a video! It is obviously VERY important to 51, that pilots are reminded that a stall warning and a stall are not the same thing, and it's true!

If you have achieved a stall warning at touchdown, and your landing was "nice", you did very well. Pat yourself on the back, and do it again!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Why does almost every discussion about flying turn into arguing over semantics?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Semantics or fundamental knowledge of aerodynamics?

No one is correct at all times and in this case I used the wrong word.

Then again maybe my fundamental knowledge of aerodynamics is lacking and I should be careful I don't hurt myself the next time I go flying.

[+TSRA]

Why does almost every discussion about flying turn into arguing over semantics?

I think its because we're all masochists Chuck...otherwise, we wouldn't be pilots.

If I have approached the stall in stable deceleration, and the controls are fully back, the plane is defined as being stalled. If I land it that way, it was a full stall landing. I have not cited CLmax as a stall criteria.

Unfortunately Step Turn, you have to. Even with the controls held fully aft the aircraft may not yet have exceeded CLmax. It may, as it pitches in response to the input, but until you exceed that critical angle you are not stalled. Simply holding the controls in a specific position is not the definition of a stall...if I may from one of my favourite books on the subject, Mechanics of Flight by AC Kermode (Kermode, Pearson Education Limited, 10th Edition, 1996)

...when a certain angle is reached any further increase will result in a loss of lift. This angle is called the stalling angle of the aerofoil, and, rather curiously, perhaps, we find that the shape of the aerofoil makes little difference to the angle at which this stalling takes place, although it may affect considerably the amount of lift obtained from the aerofoil at that angle.

It's the "we find that the shape of the aerofoil" that we are concerned with here. By holding the controls, you are simply changing the shape of the aerofoil. But, as Mr. Kermode notes, this does not change the stalling angle. Therefore, just by holding the controls in their full aft position does not mean you are stalled.

Also...I don't like teaching the whole "hear the horn." I never did as an instructor and I cringe at it now (although I admit, they do end in pretty good landings in GA aircraft...not so much in the Transport Category world though). Putting that idea into a new students head at such impressionable stages of development could become a problem were that student to go out and try the same thing with a decent crosswind. A bit of aileron and suddenly they've wing dropped it onto the runway all because they remember their instructor saying "all good landings begin with a stall horn."