Landing
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other hand there are chaps who fly valuable, living and breathing cargo worldwide in straight lines (possibly Great Circles...wasn't paying attention).
Don't think you can square a great circle though!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: East Sussex
Age: 86
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
33 years flying for HM - aim for the numbers or a prudent distance beyond. Become an airline jok, land at the designated touchdown point. Horses for courses. Both techniques demand skill to accomplish accurately and give personal satisfaction in so doing. I suspect that the difference arose because most mil operations end up with visual circuits or, maybe, unimproved strips whereas civies almost always come in via an ILS. Also, dare I say it? military pilots are better trained or, at least, more current in stick and rudder skills so it is prudent to allow civil operators a greater margin of error. I shall now repair to my personal air raid shelter.
Assuming that you fly a normal approach and observe the minimum 50ft TCH from the lowest dangly bit of your jet, your impact point (in Courtney's case) would be (50/tanGS), where GS is the glideslope angle.
Since only QFIs understand trigonometry, (QWIs only understand triggernometry - not relevant here), I will work it out for you. For a bone-crunching no-flare 2.5° approach it would be 1145 ft from the threshold and for a 3° approach it would be 954 ft.
Airline poofs will try to avoid injury claims, hence flare their landings rather more than Courtney ever did, so will touchdown slightly further down the RW. Or rather a lot further in some of the cases in lj101's reference....and in the case of a certain BAe 146 at Islay on 29 Jun 1994, very considerably further...
But then one was 30 kt hot with a 12 kt tailwind behind one.....
Since only QFIs understand trigonometry, (QWIs only understand triggernometry - not relevant here), I will work it out for you. For a bone-crunching no-flare 2.5° approach it would be 1145 ft from the threshold and for a 3° approach it would be 954 ft.
Airline poofs will try to avoid injury claims, hence flare their landings rather more than Courtney ever did, so will touchdown slightly further down the RW. Or rather a lot further in some of the cases in lj101's reference....and in the case of a certain BAe 146 at Islay on 29 Jun 1994, very considerably further...
But then one was 30 kt hot with a 12 kt tailwind behind one.....
Last edited by BEagle; 1st Oct 2012 at 14:14.
Oh my God! Peace has broken out here! Hurrah!!!
Pontifex, you say the nicest things.
BEagle, 'Triggernometry'! Love it. Sums, not so much fun. But it all begs the next question, if I flew a 3° ILS approach, I could still adjust my touchdown point in the bit between DH and the runway to land on the numbers. So just as I had stopped fishing for the afternoon, I now need to ask why can't everyone?
Answer requires diagrams and big formulas.
Pontifex, you say the nicest things.
BEagle, 'Triggernometry'! Love it. Sums, not so much fun. But it all begs the next question, if I flew a 3° ILS approach, I could still adjust my touchdown point in the bit between DH and the runway to land on the numbers. So just as I had stopped fishing for the afternoon, I now need to ask why can't everyone?
Answer requires diagrams and big formulas.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spilled G & T
Courtney,
I bet you would have caused me to spill my G&T, the one stashed on the starboard side, to the left of the canopy rail and to the right of the upper instrument panel (where you stashed the maps and data cards), you now where that lovely lever which matched the yellow one on the port side; those handles which were great to hang on to if you braked to hard on landing.
I bet you would have caused me to spill my G&T, the one stashed on the starboard side, to the left of the canopy rail and to the right of the upper instrument panel (where you stashed the maps and data cards), you now where that lovely lever which matched the yellow one on the port side; those handles which were great to hang on to if you braked to hard on landing.
Last edited by hval; 1st Oct 2012 at 15:38.
Spill a G&T. That's alcohol abuse, old chap! Anyway, didn't the cateres always put the drinkies in those handy little bottles? I don't recall ever spilling one. I do remember that beer at altitude was a bad idea; foam everywhere.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the Fence
Age: 71
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
4 Posts
This is the way to arrive at an airport. No problem stopping - lots of flair and panache but no flare!!
Welcome to Facebook - Log In, Sign Up or Learn More
Welcome to Facebook - Log In, Sign Up or Learn More
But it all begs the next question, if I flew a 3° ILS approach, I could still adjust my touchdown point in the bit between DH and the runway to land on the numbers.
As did someone (not me) in an FGR2 with 12th stage selected... Close throttles, lose the blow, high RoD, upper chevron, handful of smash....too late and the resulting crunch short of the threshold earned him a no tea/no biscuits chat with BarSteward Bill and a one-way ticket to METS.....
I could still adjust my touchdown point in the bit between DH and the runway to land on the numbers. So just as I had stopped fishing for the afternoon, I now need to ask why can't everyone?
Basically most of the airlines insist on being one being fully configured , "in the slot" vertically, with approach power set at 1000 feet at the latest ....and also insist that's how you should aim to stay, with only minor corrections allowed, right down to the flare.......
A dirty dive for the runway at 200 feet is yet another trigger for a no tea, no biscuits interview....
I tell you, we only do this job for the glamour,
we certainly don't do for the fun of pulling the wings off the jet..........
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I know the real reason for the civvy landing position.
If you let the autopilot fly the ILS and then bang it out at DH, the aircraft will continue without pilot intervention pretty much to the funny marks on civvy runways.
It avoids having to actually fly the aircraft!
Far better to modify with a little duck-under in the later stages to finesse a piano key finish.
If you let the autopilot fly the ILS and then bang it out at DH, the aircraft will continue without pilot intervention pretty much to the funny marks on civvy runways.
It avoids having to actually fly the aircraft!
Far better to modify with a little duck-under in the later stages to finesse a piano key finish.
Beags has made a good point. However being one who understands trigonometry, I see many pilots who think the touch down point is the aiming point. they then flare near the touchdown point and land even further down the runway and stand on the brakes!
From the document that lj101 posted at the top of this page, one of the factors cited for running off the end of the runway is
Damn it. What started as a wind-up is now becoming real!
landing too fast, too far down the runway, or conducting an extended flare
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two Solutions
First solution could be to replace that big Airbus with five hundred two seat fighter aircraft and associated pilot; why not the F4? Just don't let Courtney Mill fly you, he spills drinks.
Second solution would be to extend all runways by a few kilometres.
Oh yes, I forgot. Passengers would have to travel light.
Second solution would be to extend all runways by a few kilometres.
Oh yes, I forgot. Passengers would have to travel light.
Last edited by hval; 1st Oct 2012 at 17:00. Reason: Travel Light
Passengers would have to travel light
And don't tell me it's about fuel because I can prove it's not!
It's not fuel.
Actually, with Ryan Air it's definitately not about fuel. It's about hiding costs and making their basic fare look cheap in the hope that passengers don't realise that it would be cheaper to go with BA than to pay for all their extras.
I know it's not about fuel.
Actually, with Ryan Air it's definitately not about fuel. It's about hiding costs and making their basic fare look cheap in the hope that passengers don't realise that it would be cheaper to go with BA than to pay for all their extras.
I know it's not about fuel.
I could still adjust my touchdown point in the bit between DH and the runway to land on the numbers. So just as I had stopped fishing for the afternoon, I now need to ask why can't everyone?
Military pilots, civilian pilots and Bankok bar girls are paid to do what the employer wants them do to using there skill and experience. They are not there to do what they want to do. Any of the three professions would get the heave-ho if they start doing their own thing and ignoring the paymaster.
Military pilots do it on the piano, civil on the touchdown; bar girls can do it anywhere.
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 1st Oct 2012 at 18:15.