Smooth as Silk Landings

[Earl of Rochester]

Airline jocks, can I draw your attention to the above vid depicting a US Airways A330 coming into Manchester airport.

I suppose this is how every passenger would like to arrive at their destination (weather notwithstanding). In the rotary world its the same - we try to put the aircraft down as smoothly as possible.

My question is - in fair weather (low or no wind) some pilots still manage to slam the aircraft onto the runway and many more (eagre to catch the first taxiway) love blasting the reversers and slamming on the brakes. However, I am wondering, just how hard is it to execute a landing such as the one in the vid? Can an experienced jock pull this off every time in low or no wind conditions?

Aside from happier passengers, one assumes that silk-smooth landings are easier on the landing gear and related components.

[RVF750]

It's an A330 thing...looks so graceful, every time.

I always TRy but the Dash is a fickle beast and can humiliate the very best of pilots. Daily...

[Earl of Rochester]

Are you saying that the 330 manages to communicate an impression of grace even when you slam it onto the deck or that the 330 somehow lands better than other aircraft or both?

The near absence of tyre smoke in the video leads one to believe that the landing is indeed a triumph of human skill.

[EatMyShorts!]

It is a combination of skill and luck! I can land my Falcon perfectly a few times and then I make 5 bad landings in a row. Sometimes you just don't get it done.

[Clandestino]

the Dash is a fickle beast and can humiliate the very best of pilots. Daily...

Not me. Not that I don't have my fair share of pseudo-carrier landings with her, I'm just not humiliated by firm arrival anymore. I stopped caring somewhere near 300-hrs-on-type mark.

and many more (eagre to catch the first taxiway) love blasting the reversers and slamming on the brakes.

I prefer smooth landing, nice and gentle deceleration and vacating about 2000m beyond threshold. However, guy 4 miles behind me going for the same runway is good reason to slam the brakes even on 4000m runway. We don't go for maximum braking for the fun of it.

[jriv]

• several hundred tons
• moving 250 kph
• with tyres 30' below and 100' behind you

right, why can't every landing be perfect?

[Vik_atpl]

[parabellum]

Maybe Airbus do things differently? A smooth touch down but he/she held the nose off way too long for my liking. As soon as the main gear touches I was taught to fly the nose straight onto the runway and get maximum weight on the wheels ASAP. Aerodynamic breaking effect in the modern wing is non existent, OK on delta wing and aircraft like the Comet, possibly the VC10. For those of you taught by Airbus, what do they teach?

[captplaystation]

Sure Airbus say the same as Boeing I.E without delay fly the nosewheel onto the runway, do not hold off excessively.
Both of these vids the nose was held off excessively, & on the 330, looked like it dropped with little aerodynamic control, as speed had by then decayed sufficiently to cause loss of elevator effectiveness.
This has resulted over the years in 1 or 2 Banana shaped fuselages (think 757's were subsceptible to this) & can be very hairy if a crosswind is present.
The background track was a bit worrying on the A340 vid, barking dogs/galloping horses? & some rather worrying heavy breathing. Was this filmed by an aerosexual (as accused by Mike O'Leary) perchance ?

[onetrack]

One has to admit that almost perfect weather conditions, and substantial available runway length, must have a large influence on the above smooth landings. I'm inclined to assess those touchdowns above as "tentative", and not necessarily "textbook".

I'm not a jet jockey, and never have been .. but I must admit a grudging admiration for those blokes with the skill at the pointy end, who, (as jriv succinctly outlines) manage to get 250 tonnes of bucking metal and composites to transfer from a position of being supported only by air, to one of being supported by unforgiving terra firma, in a reasonably smooth act of transition .. all the while trying to accurately judge from a substantial height above the runway, and well in front of the main undercarriage.

Add in some sharp, invisible wind gusts, and I'm not surprised that many landings are less than textbook. Speaking as SLF, I feel pretty comfortable when a heavy lands with a moderate thump.
I then know that there's a firm hand at the controls, and understand that butterfly-weight landings are more the stuff of dreams than reality.

[stilton]

Smooth all right but why no reverse ?


Even reverse idle not selected, if all in the name of being smooth, not so good.

[Langkasuka]

Aah, smooth as silk landings...well when I never bothered to try, I did get one or two through sheer luck. When I tried to do good ones, they almost always ended up as mini crunchers.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

not perfect but very interesting

1) the mains touched down with slight oleo compression, and no bounce, but then so they should...
2) The high deck angle did give aerodynamic breaking.
3) With that high deck angle, and no nose wheel on ground, almost certainly no wheel breaking
4) Assume he was very light, assuming a normal inbound and not a training, or div flight.
5) I can not say if TR's were in fact used, but only at idle, small screen, no audio. But in general not effective at the lower speed range, brakes are best, spoilers worked as advertised.
6) the landing run was very short.
7) the landing distance available is long.
8) I have not landed in Manch recently, but suspect that he could have made the 1st left to the south side, where I was based.
9) if that nose had fallen, then more than tea and biscuits would be in order.....
10) The comment that all good landings are silky smooth is false, my idea of a good landing is when I don't to have to decide if the WOW system is operational.

I currently fly G450/G550, and if you use same technique for holding nose off, you will bang the old mother down. best not to wait for the entire lift and thus elevator control to go.

glf

[Exascot]

OK on delta wing and aircraft like the Comet, possibly the VC10.

In perfect conditions I could put the VC10 down without the passengers knowing we had landed. With a long runway we only used idle reverse on Royal and Ministerial flights and very gentle braking. There were often people standing up on landing adjusting sword belts, putting their jackets on to hide the shooters etc. I was once in big sh1t when a member of the press reported that the aircraft landed so smoothly that his colleagues sleeping on tables didn't even wake up. I asked the AOC if he, as the captain, would have also woken up the principle passengers in their beds to put on their seat belts. No answer.

Did a real greaser into Moscow on one occasion. The Foreign Secretary got out of bed and went onto the flight deck to congratulate me by which time the relief captain had taken over. The Bd took the compliment but at least had the grace to come down to the crew transport to pass on the compliment. And, if you are on this forum M you know who you are.

Now the A300 and Skyvans that was a completely different matter

[john_tullamarine]

Only had two absolute greasers - nothing to do with skill, both a case of fluking the flare onto the seal.

One on the Electra, the other on the 722. Neither at all pleasant as there is no indication of touchdown. I kid you not it was VERY uncomfortable on the 722 - I was sure we were on the ground, the IAS was unwinding .. and I knew that, if I were wrong, then everyone was soon going to know all about it.

However, I accepted the compliments from the cabin with appropriate and condescending grace .. as one does. The Electra was a freighter so the cans couldn't care less.

[Exascot]

I was sure we were on the ground, the IAS was unwinding .. and I knew that, if I were wrong, then everyone was soon going to know all about it.

That reminds me of a time when I was the first officer - a very senior Royal on board. The captain thought he had greased it on and turned to me with a huge grin on his face - then we hit the ground

[Wodrick]

I might have this wrong but, more years ago than I care to remember, I seem to recall that our Comet crews had a real problem transferring to the 727 when they were being taught to make "positive ground contact".

[con-pilot]

727 when they were being taught to make "positive ground contact

With the 727 it was very easy to make firm "positive ground contact" landings, trust me on this.

The smoothest landings in the 727 was when you were heavy in my experience, although after enough experience it was much easier to "grease" it on no matter the weight.

When I first started flying the 727 my smooth landings as compared to controlled crashes were about 1-5. After a couple thousand of hours in the 727 that was reversed.

As john_tullamarine posted, you can make landing so smooth that the passengers really don't know we've actually landed, those types of landings were seldom I'll admit. Except on wet runways, when you really don't want a real smooth landing.

[galaxy flyer]

In KBOSFO at EAstern, we had only one master of the 727, John MacKiel. I saw him land the Boeing at ATL, after a month on hols, the coffee cup on the FEstand didn't move. Did it everytime on a 4-day sequence. Amazing! Guys could do decent ones most of the time, but not consistently. He had flown it, in all three seats, for about 20 years straight.

[dany4kin]

As Kalium mentioned, smooth touchdown seems to take more out of the tyres:

Triple 7 landing at 1200fps in hi def. Not my video unfortunately...

‪B777 1200fps slowmotion landing EX-F1 version 2‬‏ - YouTube

But that A340 landing is still a thing of beauty :-)