Ryanair Landings
I cannot comment on your keyboard (good luck ! may I suggest the spell check function in the top right hand corner) but I don't think the comment "any landing you can walk away from is a good landing" would upset a nervous passenger, but I may be wrong. It is to be taken in jest.
Getting back to the topic, as someone wrote " A good landing is one that is on speed and on the touchdown markers". I sometimes find that if I am landing after an aircraft has just departed in front, you can get an increase in sink rate over the last twenty feet and application of thrust with another degree pitch up is one method to reduce this rate of descent. Now you want to try to get a smooth landing in J31....impossible.
Getting back to the topic, as someone wrote " A good landing is one that is on speed and on the touchdown markers". I sometimes find that if I am landing after an aircraft has just departed in front, you can get an increase in sink rate over the last twenty feet and application of thrust with another degree pitch up is one method to reduce this rate of descent. Now you want to try to get a smooth landing in J31....impossible.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually FINAL 3 GREENS
slinging dirt about spelling would, IMHO appear to be pot-kettle-black
on the theme of rubbish, talking about landing your Cessna at 55kts is not really relevant to the original poster and his question about JET operations at Vth circa 135-140 kts, with a tad more inertia and little more to think about.
So thanks for your input to the thread but don't really see the relevance.
To the original poster your pilot might simply have been having a bad day
Some interesting comments though about differing companies SOP's regarding thrust reverse vs brakes etc.... Bottom line is all aviators love a greaser not always appropriate if the runway is wet, x-wind, poor vis, or dare I say it you pork it in the vinegar strokes
Happy landings!
slinging dirt about spelling would, IMHO appear to be pot-kettle-black
on the theme of rubbish, talking about landing your Cessna at 55kts is not really relevant to the original poster and his question about JET operations at Vth circa 135-140 kts, with a tad more inertia and little more to think about.
So thanks for your input to the thread but don't really see the relevance.
To the original poster your pilot might simply have been having a bad day
Some interesting comments though about differing companies SOP's regarding thrust reverse vs brakes etc.... Bottom line is all aviators love a greaser not always appropriate if the runway is wet, x-wind, poor vis, or dare I say it you pork it in the vinegar strokesHappy landings!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dirty Sanchez
In the absence of a line pilot at the time, I was trying to be helpful.
However, you are obviously such a sky god that you cannot see why generically explaining a simplified version of landing might help an apprehensive SLF.
Keep on taking the meds mate.
In the absence of a line pilot at the time, I was trying to be helpful.
However, you are obviously such a sky god that you cannot see why generically explaining a simplified version of landing might help an apprehensive SLF.
Keep on taking the meds mate.
Mmmmm PPruuune!
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The prime task is to get the aircraft onto the runway at the correct point and at the correct speed but as mentioned there are a multitude of variables. In calm conditions the aircraft should be fully configured bt 1000ft or about 3 miles before touchdown and the thrust should remain pretty constant all the way down to landing. In wind conitions below 10kts it is normal to add 5 kts to the calculated reference speed as a pad. If however the wind is stonger or gusty it is possible to have an extra 20 kts as a safety pad. This means that although the thrust may be up and down on the approach it would be unlikely to increase just prior to touchdown as that extra "pad" needs to be lost before touchdown. This often gives a little freedom to finesse the landing (but sometimes not 
) Another problem is if the pilot has let the speed drop too much just prior to landing - Due to aerodynamic characteristics of drag if airspeed drops below the reference speed it requires a much larger increase in thrust than normal and if the pilot has not been quick enough he will probably produce a shocker. Boeing recommends a firm touchdown especially when wet to avoid aquapaning.
Equally reverse thrust is subject to many variables. Most commercial aircraft have autobrake systems which give different levels of retardation. The retardation is normally constant so less reverse = more brake wear. This has to be balanced with the cost of increased engine wear & power cycling plus ingestion of runway bits etc so some airlines discourage use of anything more than idle reverse. As also mentioned runway conditions and turn off postion are big factors. At Stansted 05 vacating at the end I don't use brake at all and only idle reverse but on 23 when busy it may well be autobrake 3 plus full reverse to make the first turnoff - If i am planning such I will generally try to pre warn the pax as it can be quite uncomfortable down the back.
Hope this helps
) Another problem is if the pilot has let the speed drop too much just prior to landing - Due to aerodynamic characteristics of drag if airspeed drops below the reference speed it requires a much larger increase in thrust than normal and if the pilot has not been quick enough he will probably produce a shocker. Boeing recommends a firm touchdown especially when wet to avoid aquapaning.Equally reverse thrust is subject to many variables. Most commercial aircraft have autobrake systems which give different levels of retardation. The retardation is normally constant so less reverse = more brake wear. This has to be balanced with the cost of increased engine wear & power cycling plus ingestion of runway bits etc so some airlines discourage use of anything more than idle reverse. As also mentioned runway conditions and turn off postion are big factors. At Stansted 05 vacating at the end I don't use brake at all and only idle reverse but on 23 when busy it may well be autobrake 3 plus full reverse to make the first turnoff - If i am planning such I will generally try to pre warn the pax as it can be quite uncomfortable down the back.
Hope this helps
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: St Albans
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all the helpful replies. The next time I'm flying I can bore the passenger next to me with what's going on when we're about to land. 
It doesn't help when I've had two bad experiences with landing. A couple of years ago with Ezy when the landing gear had apparently failed. It hadn't but the flight electronics seemed to think differently. Also the worst experience was a number of years ago with Peach (don't know if anyone remembers them) coming back from Turkey. Foggy conditions and just about to land when the pilot went to full boost to bank around. He later admitted he'd missed the runway. Whether he was joking I'm not sure, but you can guees I didn't find it too funny. But I suppose as RCNessbit so eloquently put it, I did walk away.
It doesn't help when I've had two bad experiences with landing. A couple of years ago with Ezy when the landing gear had apparently failed. It hadn't but the flight electronics seemed to think differently. Also the worst experience was a number of years ago with Peach (don't know if anyone remembers them) coming back from Turkey. Foggy conditions and just about to land when the pilot went to full boost to bank around. He later admitted he'd missed the runway. Whether he was joking I'm not sure, but you can guees I didn't find it too funny. But I suppose as RCNessbit so eloquently put it, I did walk away.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Joe
In fog or mist, it is not unusual to experience a MISSED APPROACH.
All this means is that the runway is not in sight by a certain height (varies from aircraft type to type) and that the crew have to climb up an have another go.
It is a normal procedure and is very safe, but sounds noisy expecially if you aren-t expecting it in the back.
You may also hear of GO AROUNDS where an airliner has to fly back up, perhaps because the aircraft that had landed in front did not vacate the runway quite quickly enough for the following one to touchdown.
Again, quite normal.
We had one at London City last year and it was great, a free low level tour of East London as the 146 flew a circuit of the airfield to land succesfully off the second attempt.
In fog or mist, it is not unusual to experience a MISSED APPROACH.
All this means is that the runway is not in sight by a certain height (varies from aircraft type to type) and that the crew have to climb up an have another go.
It is a normal procedure and is very safe, but sounds noisy expecially if you aren-t expecting it in the back.
You may also hear of GO AROUNDS where an airliner has to fly back up, perhaps because the aircraft that had landed in front did not vacate the runway quite quickly enough for the following one to touchdown.
Again, quite normal.
We had one at London City last year and it was great, a free low level tour of East London as the 146 flew a circuit of the airfield to land succesfully off the second attempt.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: here there and everywhere
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I work on the BA's 737 fleet and I can assure you that no 2 approaches are the same.
I do not think that FR pilots are doing that "on purpose" just to scare you guys. It's part of the approach/landing process, the way you position yourself, the wind you encounter when you're on finals etc etc.
Now on occasions I have had some passengers point that to me too, however my thoughts are that they perceive the increase in thrust as an increase in speed. Thrust and speed are two different things, you may need an increase in thrust to increase the speed but not necessarily this is true all of the time.
To say it in the easiest and most simplistic way that I can Increase in thrust is needed at times-especially when the nose "goes up" in certain phases of the flights- to maintain the appropriate speed for that phase.
A long roll on the runway after landing doesn't mean that FR "want to achieve a speedy turnaround" - on the contrary (and depending on the airfield) the slower you land the easier it can be to take the first turn, making your way to the terminal as soon as possible and leaving the runway free for the next plane.
A bit of reverse thrust -even if only at idle - is ALWAYS used, even when you do not hear it. Full reverse is a blessing when you land on short runways and is also good to alleviate those poor brakes that have to do a great job over four/six times a day!!
I really believe that FR pilots are doing their job the way they should and there's no cause for concern. I know that some of the noises on the 737 can be quite loud.....they might scare you at times but believe me, they are a relief for me! It's very reassuring to hear the same noise obver and over again, it's a way of the plane to say to us "I am doing great"!!
FBW
PS:Can I suggest something to all of you who do not like turbulence......on bigger planes I find that the best seats are just before the wing, but on the 737 I find that the best seats are those at the very front. The turbulence you'd experience there is more of a "soft" one, as if you were on a boat. It's less stroppy but might be bad for your stomach if you usually get seasick.
The further back you sit the "harder" it feels.
We CC often notice this ourselves. Sometimes when you work at the front you think you can get a cart out and start the service while at the same time at the back there's the urge to take our seats!!
FR pilots are as competent as any other pilots operating within EU airspace - they have to be!
However the aircraft does appear to have it's own unique characteristics. As someone who is both relatively knowledgeable on the subject and who has flown a lot I do find this aircraft to be prone to firm landings. Approaches seem to be unstable and flown relatively fast and it seems to strain to come to a halt after landing.
The only time I had anything resembling a greaser was at Prestwick; but we used all of the touchdown zone (and more!) to get on the ground! Not a major problem there but a different story at Luton or Ciampino where there is no room for error.
However the aircraft does appear to have it's own unique characteristics. As someone who is both relatively knowledgeable on the subject and who has flown a lot I do find this aircraft to be prone to firm landings. Approaches seem to be unstable and flown relatively fast and it seems to strain to come to a halt after landing.
The only time I had anything resembling a greaser was at Prestwick; but we used all of the touchdown zone (and more!) to get on the ground! Not a major problem there but a different story at Luton or Ciampino where there is no room for error.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Age: 51
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flybhx, I am but a lowly PPL so I can't tell you about the handling, but I can tell you how they improve fuel economy, if that's of interest... The air pressure on the upper side of the wing is lower than that on the underside. This causes air to spill around the wingtips to the upper surface, generating spiralling wing-tip vortices. This leads to extra drag, and more fuel has to be burnt to overcome this drag. Winglets reduce this air spill around the wing tips. Hope that helps!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bangkok, Thailand
Age: 64
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never experienced anything flying as SLF with FR that would indicate their pilots are anything less than competant. Nor do they land or taxi the planes any faster than anyone else. They do, however, fly into some pretty small and restricted airports, which can lead to some more bumpy experiences. I flew with them to both Ciampino and Haugesund last month and the landings were both a bit abrupt.
If you want to experience how pilots land and taxi faster than usual with 737s, then head of the good ol' USA and fly with South West! Great fun - ground effect landing and 60mph taxi!
If you want to experience how pilots land and taxi faster than usual with 737s, then head of the good ol' USA and fly with South West! Great fun - ground effect landing and 60mph taxi!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Boeing builds a wing, or his contractors do, which is designed to be efficient at high-ish Mach no's.
It must be, otherwise it wouldn't be economical to fly the thing.
Bring it close to thr ground,and therrfore slow, it is outside its design parameters; so it needs high lift devices. Slats, LE flaps,TE flaps; ergo, it is not at its design efficiency.
Bolt on a pair of underslung engines and the thrust couples and you have a delicate balance.
So it lands firmly; gravity always wins.
It must be, otherwise it wouldn't be economical to fly the thing.
Bring it close to thr ground,and therrfore slow, it is outside its design parameters; so it needs high lift devices. Slats, LE flaps,TE flaps; ergo, it is not at its design efficiency.
Bolt on a pair of underslung engines and the thrust couples and you have a delicate balance.
So it lands firmly; gravity always wins.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: here there and everywhere
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am used to it now, doesn't bother me at all but when I was scared of flying years ago I used to pay more to fly with other airlines as I hated their ultra-fast taxing, especially at FCO when they always try to cheat and cut other operators off!!! (always helped by the complacent ATC of course....)
If you want to see a rough 737-800 landing (not Ryanair btw) check out this clip:
http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircra...ideo-7172.html
The aircraft is absolutely planted onto the runway at LBA, so much so that people scream in the cabin, and only just comes to a stop by the end!
Hard to imagine that 747s used to land on the same runway in the 1980s!
http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircra...ideo-7172.html
The aircraft is absolutely planted onto the runway at LBA, so much so that people scream in the cabin, and only just comes to a stop by the end!
Hard to imagine that 747s used to land on the same runway in the 1980s!
