Landing
Originally Posted by herod
Thank goodness you never carried passengers, who care about their safety more than the pilot's ego.
Turning off early also helps, I find.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney,
Maybe you meant: Anyone who doesn't stick it on the numbers is probably incapable of sticking it on the numbers.
Which might explain the response as well!
Being of the maritime persuasion I prefer to fly at landing alpha towards the planet's core and react with a certain amount of surprise and chattering teeth when the runway gets in the way. Sticking it through the numbers, if you will!
Maybe you meant: Anyone who doesn't stick it on the numbers is probably incapable of sticking it on the numbers.
Which might explain the response as well!
Being of the maritime persuasion I prefer to fly at landing alpha towards the planet's core and react with a certain amount of surprise and chattering teeth when the runway gets in the way. Sticking it through the numbers, if you will!
Well it's worth a try. And, yes, I hadn't realised that they land so far in because they just misjudged it. But let's try some more, just for fun.
Landing on the numbers: Good discipline, no wasted stopping distance, keeps QFIs happy.
Landing halfway down the runway: spreads the wear if everyone doesn't touch down in the same place, probably means they built the runway longer than it needed to be.
Can't think of much else.
Landing on the numbers: Good discipline, no wasted stopping distance, keeps QFIs happy.
Landing halfway down the runway: spreads the wear if everyone doesn't touch down in the same place, probably means they built the runway longer than it needed to be.
Can't think of much else.
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 29th Sep 2012 at 15:38.
Proves my point, really. If he'd banged it on the numbers like he's supposed too, that wouldn't have happened. Also supports my other point about passenger perception; what would the passengers think if the pilot can't get it on the ground first time every time?
We just flew to a secret base in the Southern Sinai with Thomson and the Co (presumably ex-Navy) banged the 737 right on the numbers, no finess, no safety issues, no appologies. We all walked away from it. Perfect.
We just flew to a secret base in the Southern Sinai with Thomson and the Co (presumably ex-Navy) banged the 737 right on the numbers, no finess, no safety issues, no appologies. We all walked away from it. Perfect.
Courtney, Ponteous et al,
We are really only talking about money - not one's ability to land an aeroplane. In Big Airways, ducking below the G/S on a 747 triggers a SESMA report and the landing pilot would normally receive a caution.
Do it twice and you would expect a sim session to correct your errant ways . Do it again and you might not be allowed to continue so bang goes your income and to a large extent a large part of your planned pension as well, if you have got quite as far as swapping over seats right to left.
It was often quite nice to land on a none ILS runway (Santiago de Chile as an example while the main runway was being resurfaced) and it was a visual procedure with piano keys and numbers painted on a parallel taxiway - but no fixed distance markers. Even then, it would be a brave man to put the main landing gear right on the numbers.
We are really only talking about money - not one's ability to land an aeroplane. In Big Airways, ducking below the G/S on a 747 triggers a SESMA report and the landing pilot would normally receive a caution.
Do it twice and you would expect a sim session to correct your errant ways . Do it again and you might not be allowed to continue so bang goes your income and to a large extent a large part of your planned pension as well, if you have got quite as far as swapping over seats right to left.
It was often quite nice to land on a none ILS runway (Santiago de Chile as an example while the main runway was being resurfaced) and it was a visual procedure with piano keys and numbers painted on a parallel taxiway - but no fixed distance markers. Even then, it would be a brave man to put the main landing gear right on the numbers.
Last edited by 5aday; 30th Sep 2012 at 11:10.
I would. It's just a matter of judgement, after all. They must know where the main gear is relative to the flight deck. And if they don't they can simply reprogramme their auto-land to stick the wheels in the right place.
Far too many excuses here for poor pilot skills.
Far too many excuses here for poor pilot skills.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
simply reprogramme their auto-land to stick the wheels in the right place
Courtney,
Did Big Airways turn you down?
It certainly seems so.
What part of my previous post was hard to understand?
Working on the -400s was all about money. Fact.
With three super daughters in uber super boarding schools , the money on the -400 was a prerequisite. It was a plan we embarked on and a plan we saw through.
It was all about one landing a month and when it was my turn please don't let me be the one to screw it up.
Anyway, if I wanted to land on the numbers I'd get a puddle jumper out for half an hour.
Did Big Airways turn you down?
It certainly seems so.
What part of my previous post was hard to understand?
Working on the -400s was all about money. Fact.
With three super daughters in uber super boarding schools , the money on the -400 was a prerequisite. It was a plan we embarked on and a plan we saw through.
It was all about one landing a month and when it was my turn please don't let me be the one to screw it up.
Anyway, if I wanted to land on the numbers I'd get a puddle jumper out for half an hour.
Last edited by 5aday; 30th Sep 2012 at 12:29.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
One reason for military pilots to train for landing on the numbers is the potential need to land on short runways. While a 7,500 foot runway might be the norm enemy action could reduce the landing run available to a bare minimum, a situation where a civilian aircraft would simply not go.
There's no way the Thomson pilot banged the 737 on the numbers. Not SOP (standard operating procedures) therefore not allowed. Sorry.
Sounds like denial to me. Just because the crew of TOM6XX had the skill to do it properly and others don't, doesn't mean you can have a go at them. Sour grapes, I think.
I do understand the money argument a bit, though. So are we saying that the airlines don't trust their pilots not to land in the undershoot? Still, I suppose landing can be pretty difficult so maybe we shouldn't expect everyone to do it.
Going back to the Boris Day movie mentioned earlier, it was a good job she was aiming for the beginning of the runway or her little bounce would have taken her right off the end.
Sounds like denial to me. Just because the crew of TOM6XX had the skill to do it properly and others don't, doesn't mean you can have a go at them. Sour grapes, I think.
I do understand the money argument a bit, though. So are we saying that the airlines don't trust their pilots not to land in the undershoot? Still, I suppose landing can be pretty difficult so maybe we shouldn't expect everyone to do it.
Going back to the Boris Day movie mentioned earlier, it was a good job she was aiming for the beginning of the runway or her little bounce would have taken her right off the end.
Hey Courtney, For some reason this debate is reminding me of that old drinking song that starts with some comments about a Bombardier....but for the life of me I can't imagine why?
Maybe catch up with you at the secret pub in a few weeks (if I can stay out of the undershoot long enough).....
Maybe catch up with you at the secret pub in a few weeks (if I can stay out of the undershoot long enough).....
Angling skills - hardly. Inept more like 
Try a 737-200R (Maersk Air Denmark) into Varga. If you don't know where that is - it's in the Faroe Islands.
Don't prattle on about undershooting.
I think you are a bit out of date there. If your companys insurers uncover the fact you are disobeying SOPs by landing short, ie on the numbers, and you manage to screw it up, the next big occurence in your life is it's now your leaving party and its doubtful you'll be invited.
Courtenay - you sound a bit like a gung ho cowboy.
Try a 737-200R (Maersk Air Denmark) into Varga. If you don't know where that is - it's in the Faroe Islands.
Don't prattle on about undershooting.
I think you are a bit out of date there. If your companys insurers uncover the fact you are disobeying SOPs by landing short, ie on the numbers, and you manage to screw it up, the next big occurence in your life is it's now your leaving party and its doubtful you'll be invited.
Courtenay - you sound a bit like a gung ho cowboy.
Last edited by 5aday; 30th Sep 2012 at 14:09.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Courtenay - you sound a bit like a gung ho cowboy."
Courtney
Those US exchange postings certainly get you a reputation, don't they !
Better put that Stetson and the rope away now
.
"Courtney
Those US exchange postings certainly get you a reputation, don't they !
Better put that Stetson and the rope away now
.
Cowboy? No, just staunch in my views that professional pilots should be properly skilled. I'm reminded that a C130 was once landed on the aicraft carrier USS Forrestal. That wouldn't have worked if he'd been aiming for a mysteriously long landing zone. Mind you, I'm told they had to get a fighter pilot to do it.
Haven't finished fishing yet.
Better put that Stetson and the rope away now
Last edited by Courtney Mil; 30th Sep 2012 at 15:18.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Let's get back to the OP's question, which was why do military jets land on the numbers and commercial airliners land some distance in. I think we've covered that, and this thread is just becoming silly.