Airliner flare
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: the wilderness
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airliner flare
Hi all, just wondering when landing an airliner, say a 737 or A320, do you judge the flare visually or is there another way of determining it? Thanks.
Moderator
The facile answer is "depends on how tightly one closes one's eyes"
No different in principle to a light aircraft ... approaching runway end one looks up toward the far end of the runway and judges the ground closure rate. Pitch input and throttle handling then will vary a little according to the Type, same as for a bugsmasher.
Some heavies are very unforgiving if you get it wrong ... 727-200 is a good example .. some are pussycats .... 737-300 for instance. Others are a bit strange ... CRJ amused me on the one sim ride I had ... got a good touch down by following the instructions but it seemed a tad different ....
No different in principle to a light aircraft ... approaching runway end one looks up toward the far end of the runway and judges the ground closure rate. Pitch input and throttle handling then will vary a little according to the Type, same as for a bugsmasher.
Some heavies are very unforgiving if you get it wrong ... 727-200 is a good example .. some are pussycats .... 737-300 for instance. Others are a bit strange ... CRJ amused me on the one sim ride I had ... got a good touch down by following the instructions but it seemed a tad different ....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: the wilderness
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks. I'm a bit suprised by that. In my c172 it seems that even following the guidelines of looking down the end of the runway does not necessarily mean a smooth touchdown, then again maybe its my flying!
I was under the assumption that in something like an A320 you'd have an altitude callout that would then be followed by the flare.
I was under the assumption that in something like an A320 you'd have an altitude callout that would then be followed by the flare.
Moderator
With RADALT calls, sure, you can use the audio prompt as well .. the process follows a general pattern ..
(a) keep the aircraft coming down to the aim point to avoid a long land.
(b) juggle the look up so that (a) is not compromised. A common trick is to look up as the threshold disappears under the nose.
(c) the point at which the scan takes in the distance will depend on what cues are relevant to the Type... I would imagine that higher cockpit aircraft such as the 747 would put a little more reliance on call outs than would be the case for the lower cockpits with which I am familiar
(d) reduce the sink to an acceptable level by means of the flare. This doesn't require a "greaser" .. only that the sink is acceptable.
(e) put the aircraft on the ground and do the stopping things
(f) main aim is not to float ... stopping is much better on the ground under brakes and reverse.
Many of us had trouble coming to grips with the 722 and I was no different. Then I gave all the guidance away and landed it just like a 172 and the problems all went away ... perhaps you have fallen foul of the approaching too fast problem ?
(a) keep the aircraft coming down to the aim point to avoid a long land.
(b) juggle the look up so that (a) is not compromised. A common trick is to look up as the threshold disappears under the nose.
(c) the point at which the scan takes in the distance will depend on what cues are relevant to the Type... I would imagine that higher cockpit aircraft such as the 747 would put a little more reliance on call outs than would be the case for the lower cockpits with which I am familiar
(d) reduce the sink to an acceptable level by means of the flare. This doesn't require a "greaser" .. only that the sink is acceptable.
(e) put the aircraft on the ground and do the stopping things
(f) main aim is not to float ... stopping is much better on the ground under brakes and reverse.
Many of us had trouble coming to grips with the 722 and I was no different. Then I gave all the guidance away and landed it just like a 172 and the problems all went away ... perhaps you have fallen foul of the approaching too fast problem ?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NZ
Age: 72
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JT
No different in principle to a light aircraft ... approaching runway end one looks up toward the far end of the runway and judges the ground closure rate. Pitch input and throttle handling then will vary a little according to the Type, same as for a bugsmasher.
try looking at the far end of a short steep airstrip when flying a bugsmasher. Don't work
No different in principle to a light aircraft ... approaching runway end one looks up toward the far end of the runway and judges the ground closure rate. Pitch input and throttle handling then will vary a little according to the Type, same as for a bugsmasher.
try looking at the far end of a short steep airstrip when flying a bugsmasher. Don't work
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Large wide-body jet transports normally use RADALT callouts (either automatically generated, or provided by the Flight Engineer), for proper landing operations.
The Lockheed TriStar (just for an example) is no different in this regard however, as it is fitted with DLC, the oftentimes used (with good success) "Boeing push' will result in very firm touchdowns, if tried.
The automatic approach/land feature of this aircraft, starts the flare maneuver at 50 feet RADALT precisely, with an autopilot controlled rate of rotation, for the landing maneuver.
Some pilots however, oftentimes start a bit earlier, which generally results in a rather l o n g float prior to touchdown, and resultant heavier braking required, especially on short runways.
Practice makes perfect however, so the landings with the big three-engined Lockheed can be a nicely done roll-on affair, once the technique is mastered.
The Lockheed TriStar (just for an example) is no different in this regard however, as it is fitted with DLC, the oftentimes used (with good success) "Boeing push' will result in very firm touchdowns, if tried.
The automatic approach/land feature of this aircraft, starts the flare maneuver at 50 feet RADALT precisely, with an autopilot controlled rate of rotation, for the landing maneuver.
Some pilots however, oftentimes start a bit earlier, which generally results in a rather l o n g float prior to touchdown, and resultant heavier braking required, especially on short runways.
Practice makes perfect however, so the landings with the big three-engined Lockheed can be a nicely done roll-on affair, once the technique is mastered.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The eye height of a 747 makes judging the right flare very difficult. After 17 years flying the beast, I found the best technique is start gently flaring a couple of seconds after the Rad Alt 30' call. A very minor 'Boeing push' worked for me, and the landings were usually very smooth. Very important not to get high as you enter ground effect below 400'- if you did you can't recover a good landing from that. If speed creeps much above Vref+5 (standard approach), again very difficult to recover a good landing.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The eye height of a 747 makes judging the right flare very difficult. After 17 years flying the beast, I found the best technique is start gently flaring a couple of seconds after the Rad Alt 30' call. A very minor 'Boeing push' worked for me
