A Question for you "Heavy Drivers"
Nunc est bibendum
Ah, I see we have a Jacobsen devotee. Assuming you are on profile, on speed and on thrust that works pretty well. Of course, I'm not that good every landing!
Had a mate of mine who flew with Dave for a few days. He reckoned that Dave's landings were no better (both in firmness and touch down point) than everyone else and there was always a 'reason' such as gusts, thrust, speed, etc. Of course, what he is saying is that in the PERFECT world it all works but in the REAL world....
Had a mate of mine who flew with Dave for a few days. He reckoned that Dave's landings were no better (both in firmness and touch down point) than everyone else and there was always a 'reason' such as gusts, thrust, speed, etc. Of course, what he is saying is that in the PERFECT world it all works but in the REAL world....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gidday Keg, Ah yes, the oft discussed Jacobsoon technique.. Seems to work fairly well. As you would know, there is little that surpasses that sublime sensation of flaring.. holding off... holding off.. and the first indication of touchdown is the speed brake lever moving aft!(usually requires a wet runway) A fine precursor to a cold beverage at the hotel at the end of a long day, hey what!? Just for some additional "trivia" in this vein, some may be unaware that the pilot's eye position is actually a calibrated and flight manual defined position in space. Many types(such as 74 classic, F28 and DC9, I do believe) have a set of markings in the cockpit which defines at what level the seat sould be positioned to have your eyes at the correct height and distance from the glaresheild. The B747-312s that AN operated had a cluster of 3 balls mounted on the center bar of the wind screen (just under the standby magnetic compass). The concept was/is the the pilot adjusts the seat position so as 2 of the balls line up. Without your eyes in this position, the Jacobson technique doesn't quite work.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: sydney
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all these tricky ways!
If you ram the nose wheel into the ground hard enough the plane flares for you, no skill required!
Mind you turn the wipers on first to help clear the bitumen from the windscreen for the taxi to the gate.
have fun:P
If you ram the nose wheel into the ground hard enough the plane flares for you, no skill required!
Mind you turn the wipers on first to help clear the bitumen from the windscreen for the taxi to the gate.
have fun:P
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: brisbane
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AZTRUCKER
Dont i feel like the idiot, dont know about the landing in BNE but the one in PPP was mine, it was hard and i do apologise however there was about 20kts blustering xwind and the approach was flown visually from overhead. The carrier you were flying with are much more concerned with an acurate touch on the markers than with a smooth touch down. As for the delay yeah a gen was up the duff and if we didnt divert to CNS we wouldnt have ben able to apply the M.E.L on the ground at PPP. As for hard landings from what I remember it would have been lucky to be a 6-7 out of 10 with 10 being mask deployment and a write up.
what s--ts me is that the FO did roll it on in CNS and it was off 34, so no ILS and it was also visually flown. Still the FO was an ex Ansett boy out of SYD so one rwy would not have bothered him.
i though the low level jolly from CNS to PPP was good value though, sort of like the old days with a 206. hee hee hee
Dont i feel like the idiot, dont know about the landing in BNE but the one in PPP was mine, it was hard and i do apologise however there was about 20kts blustering xwind and the approach was flown visually from overhead. The carrier you were flying with are much more concerned with an acurate touch on the markers than with a smooth touch down. As for the delay yeah a gen was up the duff and if we didnt divert to CNS we wouldnt have ben able to apply the M.E.L on the ground at PPP. As for hard landings from what I remember it would have been lucky to be a 6-7 out of 10 with 10 being mask deployment and a write up.
what s--ts me is that the FO did roll it on in CNS and it was off 34, so no ILS and it was also visually flown. Still the FO was an ex Ansett boy out of SYD so one rwy would not have bothered him.
i though the low level jolly from CNS to PPP was good value though, sort of like the old days with a 206. hee hee hee
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tightcannon,
Hey mate no need to feel like an idiot. You are right it was a hot and very blustery day and i could see that we were getting tossed around on short final. It was at that stage when i turned around to my Girl freind and told her to "hang on this is going to hurt" because i could also feel the aircraft sinking rapidly at that stage. i'd also like to say that the way you explained the generator problem was also very informative and professional. And yeah the low level ljolly over the reef was excellent.
On the return flight home and this time flying with your opposition, The same cannot be said. The landing at Sydney was worse and some of the PAX's actually screamed as we "Hit" the ground. When we were taxing back the cabin crew got on the mic and had informed us that we had arrived and to remain seated as they usually do. It was at that point the pax's all started to laugh and clap. I'm sure the pilots werent to proud of themselves when they heard everybody laughing. 
AZ
Hey mate no need to feel like an idiot. You are right it was a hot and very blustery day and i could see that we were getting tossed around on short final. It was at that stage when i turned around to my Girl freind and told her to "hang on this is going to hurt" because i could also feel the aircraft sinking rapidly at that stage. i'd also like to say that the way you explained the generator problem was also very informative and professional. And yeah the low level ljolly over the reef was excellent.
On the return flight home and this time flying with your opposition, The same cannot be said. The landing at Sydney was worse and some of the PAX's actually screamed as we "Hit" the ground. When we were taxing back the cabin crew got on the mic and had informed us that we had arrived and to remain seated as they usually do. It was at that point the pax's all started to laugh and clap. I'm sure the pilots werent to proud of themselves when they heard everybody laughing.
AZ
Perhaps this is the real reason why special doors have been fitted to the cockpit..........so when the pilot "buries it at the 500' marker" the passengers don't go up and snot him 
Willie
Willie
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PH 298/7.4DME
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rather than start a new thread...
Another one for the heavy drivers:
Can a B744 or similar physically lose an engine (as in, detach from the pylon) if an engine fire becomes inextinguishable? Have never noticed any actuators for executing this on the overhead panel or anywhere else, but I seem to remember having read somewhere that this was possible.
520.
Can a B744 or similar physically lose an engine (as in, detach from the pylon) if an engine fire becomes inextinguishable? Have never noticed any actuators for executing this on the overhead panel or anywhere else, but I seem to remember having read somewhere that this was possible.
520.
Nope.
Though in Hollywood I believe it's acceptable to fly towards the nearest tall building (complete with the required crew of one white guy, one female, and one black guy) and knock the engine on the top of the building so it falls off.
Probably onto a Porsche, of course.
But seriously, no - They have two large things called 'fuse pins' that hold them on, and whilst they're designed to let the engine wobble around a fair bit, I don't think too many have come off at all in the last thirty years.
The only thing we can do is to pull the fire handle on the upper panel, which shuts off the fuel valves both at the engine fuel control unit and the pylon valve up near the top of the pylon itself. It also de-energises the generator field, stops the oil flow to the hydraulic pump, and closes the pneumatic valve.
After that, the engine is just a lump of dead metal.
Though in Hollywood I believe it's acceptable to fly towards the nearest tall building (complete with the required crew of one white guy, one female, and one black guy) and knock the engine on the top of the building so it falls off.
Probably onto a Porsche, of course.
But seriously, no - They have two large things called 'fuse pins' that hold them on, and whilst they're designed to let the engine wobble around a fair bit, I don't think too many have come off at all in the last thirty years.
The only thing we can do is to pull the fire handle on the upper panel, which shuts off the fuel valves both at the engine fuel control unit and the pylon valve up near the top of the pylon itself. It also de-energises the generator field, stops the oil flow to the hydraulic pump, and closes the pneumatic valve.
After that, the engine is just a lump of dead metal.
Ah yes, I remember that one now.
That problem would have been hard to handle, but it was controllable. You can lose any two hydraulic systems in the 747 and it'll still fly around just fine.
The problem they brought upon themselves was that they ran the trailing-edge flaps out with the electrical back-up system first instead of running the leading-edge flaps first.
By doing that, the pneumatic system was NFG on one side, so only half the leading eges came out, and it rolled on it's back.
If they'd extended the LE's first, they would have had a very good chance.
It's drummed into you now in the sim very clearly - LE'S FIRST, BEFORE THE TE'S.
That problem would have been hard to handle, but it was controllable. You can lose any two hydraulic systems in the 747 and it'll still fly around just fine.
The problem they brought upon themselves was that they ran the trailing-edge flaps out with the electrical back-up system first instead of running the leading-edge flaps first.
By doing that, the pneumatic system was NFG on one side, so only half the leading eges came out, and it rolled on it's back.
If they'd extended the LE's first, they would have had a very good chance.
It's drummed into you now in the sim very clearly - LE'S FIRST, BEFORE THE TE'S.
I've done it in the sim a few times, and the controls are a bit heavier & sluggish, and of course there's a few extra checklists and other restrictions such as a lesser crosswind limit, but it flies quite well enough to make a pretty normal landing.
For sure it'd be harder with an engine or two missing on one side though.
For sure it'd be harder with an engine or two missing on one side though.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The loss of a pod on a wide-body is a VERY big deal, esp. at high speed. The reason for this is because the flutter characteristics of the wing require the presence of a mass balance to act as a dampener for torsional flutter. (Note how the pods on a 747 bob up and down in turbulence and you will see what I mean). This engineering innovation came about during the development of the B-47 stratigic bomber. The pods are not designed to be jettisioned in event of a problem. I have heard this urban myth before. It is bogus.
