Bang it on???
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seeing as I started this thread I am going to thread drift a bit and point out that one must always be aware of the different flight characteristics that different aircraft have.
I was thinking of how different the DC3 and the Super 3 ( C117 ) handled in a cross wind, the C117 was a lot more limited in the cross wind you could safely land in due to lack of rudder effectiveness compared to the original design.
I was thinking of how different the DC3 and the Super 3 ( C117 ) handled in a cross wind, the C117 was a lot more limited in the cross wind you could safely land in due to lack of rudder effectiveness compared to the original design.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all very well quoting theory from Kermode, but reality is that full back stick is one of the definitions of a stall useable for certification purposes.
From CS23.201 (EASA but similar wording in every jurisdiction):
I have flown many light aircraft where a full back stick touchdown is desirable, and that makes it stalled as far as the discussion is concerned. On the other hand, to try it in a transport category aircraft will have a variety of outcomes, from no tea/no biscuits meeting with the chief pilot, via being shown the door with a large boot, to a mass of burning wreckage. None terribly desirable...
In all types, though, the landing attitude is vital. If this is taught properly, which it rarely is, then it is perfectly possibly to achieve high marks for "technical merit" by putting the aircraft on the ground in the right place at the right speed with no bouncing or risk of aquaplaning, while still getting reasonable marks for "artistic impression" by not shaking out fillings and opening overhead bins. Floating along the runway looking for a greaser is a sign of second rate flying in my book, even on types where it is not downright dangerous.
From CS23.201 (EASA but similar wording in every jurisdiction):
(b) The wings level stall characteristics must
be demonstrated in flight as follows. Starting
from a speed at least 18.5 km/h (10 knots) above
the stall speed, the elevator control must be pulled
back so that the rate of speed reduction will not
exceed 1.9 km/h (one knot) per second until a stall
is produced, as shown by either –
(1) An uncontrollable downward
pitching motion of the aeroplane; or
(2) A downward pitching motion of the
aeroplane which results from the activation of a
device (e.g. stick pusher); or
(3) The control reaching the stop.
be demonstrated in flight as follows. Starting
from a speed at least 18.5 km/h (10 knots) above
the stall speed, the elevator control must be pulled
back so that the rate of speed reduction will not
exceed 1.9 km/h (one knot) per second until a stall
is produced, as shown by either –
(1) An uncontrollable downward
pitching motion of the aeroplane; or
(2) A downward pitching motion of the
aeroplane which results from the activation of a
device (e.g. stick pusher); or
(3) The control reaching the stop.
In all types, though, the landing attitude is vital. If this is taught properly, which it rarely is, then it is perfectly possibly to achieve high marks for "technical merit" by putting the aircraft on the ground in the right place at the right speed with no bouncing or risk of aquaplaning, while still getting reasonable marks for "artistic impression" by not shaking out fillings and opening overhead bins. Floating along the runway looking for a greaser is a sign of second rate flying in my book, even on types where it is not downright dangerous.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I don't like having the stall warning blaring as I touch down. It tends to scare the punters in the back a little bit.
I've also found it easier to grease it on at a slightly higher speed as its easier to control the VS. I'm not talking 20-30kts higher, but just above the stall warning.
This technique is working well for me in the mountains of Papua on the 400m strips before you start citing dangers of floating and runway overruns.
I've also found it easier to grease it on at a slightly higher speed as its easier to control the VS. I'm not talking 20-30kts higher, but just above the stall warning.
This technique is working well for me in the mountains of Papua on the 400m strips before you start citing dangers of floating and runway overruns.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, Colonel have you ever tried landing a Twin Otter on a short ice strip and roll the throttle handles into reverse just as the thing is about to touch the ice and just prior to the stall?
For sure you want the thing to be going down the strip in a straight line before the props turn everything white in the snow storm the props make.
I need to share these exciting stories before senility sets in completely...actually the deeper into senility I go the easier it is to relate to a lot of the aviation community.
For sure you want the thing to be going down the strip in a straight line before the props turn everything white in the snow storm the props make.
I need to share these exciting stories before senility sets in completely...actually the deeper into senility I go the easier it is to relate to a lot of the aviation community.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join the club Colonel!
Welcome to the penal colony where those having offended the sensibilities of the Politically Correct, well left of centre, enviro-kook moderator(s) reside.
"Foggy"
Welcome to the penal colony where those having offended the sensibilities of the Politically Correct, well left of centre, enviro-kook moderator(s) reside.
"Foggy"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeh it sure is difficult trying to figure out how to be P.C. on that forum.
Some years ago I got a nasty P.M. from a mod accusing me of being racist and threatening to give me a time out for some comment I had made about a Indian reservation ( First Nations )
I told him to go ahead and give me a time out and in fact he could shove the whole thing where the sun don't shine.
The weird thing is I qualify for a Indian status card, just won't have one because I can make my own way in life.
Some years ago I got a nasty P.M. from a mod accusing me of being racist and threatening to give me a time out for some comment I had made about a Indian reservation ( First Nations )
I told him to go ahead and give me a time out and in fact he could shove the whole thing where the sun don't shine.
The weird thing is I qualify for a Indian status card, just won't have one because I can make my own way in life.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back to the original theme, I was training an amphibian pilot glassy water landing technique in Norway last week. We had a good long runway to ourselves for a dozen circuits, so I made use of it. Two amber lights of AoA indicator and the power required for a 100 FPM descent rate, and we "arrived". It was a "bang it on", no attempt to flare more than the approach attitude (though ground effect helped a tiny bit). The key was to assure that nose up control was applied at the bang, or the bang from the nosewheels hitting was about as bad!
Later in the training, I was asked to take the 182 amphib into a 300 by 10 metre mountain pass runway. After I had walked the runway, and flown a practice overshoot, I landed it in there. I did not fish for a greaser on that one, I got it on, and stopped with no fooling around.
I was watching Porter land Dash 8's at YTZ yesterday. I have not "walked a mile in their shoes" so I guess the fact that they bang them on, is operationally desirable for the somewhat tight runway.
So I guess that there are a few times we have to surrender finesse, and just get it on the ground safely.....
Later in the training, I was asked to take the 182 amphib into a 300 by 10 metre mountain pass runway. After I had walked the runway, and flown a practice overshoot, I landed it in there. I did not fish for a greaser on that one, I got it on, and stopped with no fooling around.
I was watching Porter land Dash 8's at YTZ yesterday. I have not "walked a mile in their shoes" so I guess the fact that they bang them on, is operationally desirable for the somewhat tight runway.
So I guess that there are a few times we have to surrender finesse, and just get it on the ground safely.....
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps some people are using a term such as "Bang it on" for what should be called "making sure that positive contact is made at a desired touchdown point instead of trying for as smooth a landing as possible resulting in too long a landing for the runway being used".
Frequently when there is a comfortable landing distance, many pilots will try for as smooth a landing as possible. But when the landing distance is more critical or contamination is an issue, a positive spot landing is desired. Perhaps techniques will vary from aircraft to aircraft and pilot to pilot but I on occasion try for a bit less of a flare when this is desired and if still floating, a check forward of the control column seems to help as well.
Perhaps this will lead to a more noticeable touchdown which some might have decided to call "Banging it on".
Frequently when there is a comfortable landing distance, many pilots will try for as smooth a landing as possible. But when the landing distance is more critical or contamination is an issue, a positive spot landing is desired. Perhaps techniques will vary from aircraft to aircraft and pilot to pilot but I on occasion try for a bit less of a flare when this is desired and if still floating, a check forward of the control column seems to help as well.
Perhaps this will lead to a more noticeable touchdown which some might have decided to call "Banging it on".
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Colonel,
You asked which commercial jets are touching down landing in excess of 140Kts.
Many are much less than that...however the B737-800 at its max landing weight of 66360Kgs has a Vref of 149KTS and a minimum approach speed of 154KTS without wind or gust corrections.
Ea306
You asked which commercial jets are touching down landing in excess of 140Kts.
Many are much less than that...however the B737-800 at its max landing weight of 66360Kgs has a Vref of 149KTS and a minimum approach speed of 154KTS without wind or gust corrections.
Ea306
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Colonel,
You asked which commercial jets are touching down landing in excess of 140Kts.
Many are much less than that...however the B737-800 at its max landing weight of 66360Kgs has a Vref of 149KTS and a minimum approach speed of 154KTS without wind or gust corrections.
Ea306
You asked which commercial jets are touching down landing in excess of 140Kts.
Many are much less than that...however the B737-800 at its max landing weight of 66360Kgs has a Vref of 149KTS and a minimum approach speed of 154KTS without wind or gust corrections.
Ea306
Just a sim thing but we did 175 knots approach speed at Vref 30+20 yesterday(different type) due to loss of two hydraulic systems.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes JammedStab,
Steady wind (5kts min) is to be bled off in the flair. You are correct.
However the gust correction stays to touch down if you are needing to add some.
So a wheel touch down speed in the example I mentioned would be 149Kts if there was no gust correction required.
Steady wind (5kts min) is to be bled off in the flair. You are correct.
However the gust correction stays to touch down if you are needing to add some.
So a wheel touch down speed in the example I mentioned would be 149Kts if there was no gust correction required.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(b) The wings level stall characteristics must
be demonstrated in flight as follows. Starting
from a speed at least 18.5 km/h (10 knots) above
the stall speed, the elevator control must be pulled
back so that the rate of speed reduction will not
exceed 1.9 km/h (one knot) per second until a stall
is produced, as shown by either –
(1) An uncontrollable downward
pitching motion of the aeroplane; or
(2) A downward pitching motion of the
aeroplane which results from the activation of a
device (e.g. stick pusher); or
(3) The control reaching the stop.
be demonstrated in flight as follows. Starting
from a speed at least 18.5 km/h (10 knots) above
the stall speed, the elevator control must be pulled
back so that the rate of speed reduction will not
exceed 1.9 km/h (one knot) per second until a stall
is produced, as shown by either –
(1) An uncontrollable downward
pitching motion of the aeroplane; or
(2) A downward pitching motion of the
aeroplane which results from the activation of a
device (e.g. stick pusher); or
(3) The control reaching the stop.
(I love talking theory of flight, so take this as an upbeat conversation from my end!)
What I read into this is that with the controls reaching the stop, the aircraft must still be slowed down to the point of a stall.
So, with the controls held to the stop and the aircraft does not stall, then one of the two other conditions must be met.
Therefore, the controls reaching the stop would only be applicable to a percentage of aircraft types and could not be considered a blanket statement.
As the condition of the stall is that the aircraft exceeds CLmax (for any aircraft type) this really is the only blanket statement you can use, thus Mr. Kermode is still shown to be correct for all aircraft types.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bang it on
the FAA defines a stall a bit differently, and more practically.
My old WW 2 instructor defined it even more practically....if you dont take some action we will hit the ground..
Semantics is a religion, and I am not anti-semantic.
Now to the original topic of discussion. I just came off the most interesting course. Our instructor ( not a 22 yr. old ponificator). Described our landing procedue hand flying, as....at 50 feet...pitch nose up to xxx and smoothly reduce power to idle.
When someone had the audacity to ask how they could look out the window to do a visual and fixate on a pitch angle they were jumped on from a great height.
I did not dare ask what one would do if they were crabbing for a crosswind and looking only at their attitude.
The new mantra apparently is to listen to that nifty little voice giving you altitude above ground, and then robotically try and replicate the computer and auto pilot.
On the other hand, in lighter aircraft we can still feel them down by actually looking outside for visual cues..
Btw...all my landings are planned as greasers... And as all of them are bang it ons, it makes it so much easier to pretend I am doing by the book.
My old WW 2 instructor defined it even more practically....if you dont take some action we will hit the ground..
Semantics is a religion, and I am not anti-semantic.
Now to the original topic of discussion. I just came off the most interesting course. Our instructor ( not a 22 yr. old ponificator). Described our landing procedue hand flying, as....at 50 feet...pitch nose up to xxx and smoothly reduce power to idle.
When someone had the audacity to ask how they could look out the window to do a visual and fixate on a pitch angle they were jumped on from a great height.
I did not dare ask what one would do if they were crabbing for a crosswind and looking only at their attitude.
The new mantra apparently is to listen to that nifty little voice giving you altitude above ground, and then robotically try and replicate the computer and auto pilot.
On the other hand, in lighter aircraft we can still feel them down by actually looking outside for visual cues..
Btw...all my landings are planned as greasers... And as all of them are bang it ons, it makes it so much easier to pretend I am doing by the book.
Last edited by treykule; 27th Oct 2014 at 03:28. Reason: Spelling and gramma
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The new mantra apparently is to listen to that nifty little voice giving you altitude above ground, and then robotically try and replicate the computer and auto pilot.
On the other hand, in lighter aircraft we can still feel them down by actually looking outside for visual cues."
You do with bigger aircraft too as you know very well. The radalt calls serve as an awareness that you are approaching the flare and give another indication of rate of descent. As you get close to the runway it is easier to judge height and sink rate, and landings are carried out by sight picture just like every other airplane.
I think you know that instructor was an anomaly rather than the "new mantra". But then I just noticed you're in China, so maybe over there it really is the way it's taught.
On the other hand, in lighter aircraft we can still feel them down by actually looking outside for visual cues."
You do with bigger aircraft too as you know very well. The radalt calls serve as an awareness that you are approaching the flare and give another indication of rate of descent. As you get close to the runway it is easier to judge height and sink rate, and landings are carried out by sight picture just like every other airplane.
I think you know that instructor was an anomaly rather than the "new mantra". But then I just noticed you're in China, so maybe over there it really is the way it's taught.
Last edited by engfireleft; 27th Oct 2014 at 15:08.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Shanghai, China
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bang it on
You are correct about my location.
But the course was In the US.
I am not sure about your conclusion with regard to the instructor.
Maybe. I know it got the attention of many of us, and was discussed.
I am a poor student. Tried it. Did not like it, and chose from that point to ignore it.seemed to work out OK for me.
In any event, I see where Cat is coming from. The new pilots today seem to be taught to fly heavies in light aircraft. and fly entirely by formula.
I suppose I should not have chosen an example as that causes the thread to drift.
But the course was In the US.
I am not sure about your conclusion with regard to the instructor.
Maybe. I know it got the attention of many of us, and was discussed.
I am a poor student. Tried it. Did not like it, and chose from that point to ignore it.seemed to work out OK for me.
In any event, I see where Cat is coming from. The new pilots today seem to be taught to fly heavies in light aircraft. and fly entirely by formula.
I suppose I should not have chosen an example as that causes the thread to drift.
