Airmanship
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: south of where i come from
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rockhound- i think if you re-read my post you will find that i was not slagging the pilot off, but just stating the actual FACTS of the landing. I did also say that i have never had any problems with this airline.
Not being a pilot myself, I don't question why a pilot does or doesn't make a certain RET in the type of conditions of yesterday morning and believe me i don't rush aircraft anywhere in crap weather.! Go-arounds happen.
AFH
Not being a pilot myself, I don't question why a pilot does or doesn't make a certain RET in the type of conditions of yesterday morning and believe me i don't rush aircraft anywhere in crap weather.! Go-arounds happen.
AFH
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: home
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now, now, J, landing long in the rain with following traffic is either a deliberate act (bad airmanship) or poor flying skill (bad airmanship).
No non-normal I can think of that dictates landing halfway down the runway.
The word "unstabilised" comes to mind.
Truth is, some people were never meant to be pilots.
Fireflyknob wanted a definition of airmanship. Ronny, as I recall, defined it as:
"The safe and efficient handling of the aircraft both in the air and on the ground."
There's a start.
No non-normal I can think of that dictates landing halfway down the runway.
The word "unstabilised" comes to mind.
Truth is, some people were never meant to be pilots.
Fireflyknob wanted a definition of airmanship. Ronny, as I recall, defined it as:
"The safe and efficient handling of the aircraft both in the air and on the ground."
There's a start.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poor airmanship or not, the Commander of the aircraft on the runway decides what is...and is not, proper, when deciding to exit.
Not the tower controller.
Not so called spotters.
No one but the guy (or gal) in charge.
Period.
I often wonder why 'others' think that this is not good enough.
Not the tower controller.
Not so called spotters.
No one but the guy (or gal) in charge.
Period.
I often wonder why 'others' think that this is not good enough.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Close to Wales
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scrubbed
Now, now, J, landing long in the rain with following traffic is either a deliberate act (bad airmanship) or poor flying skill (bad airmanship).
B****cks
Most of the time when you land you have following traffic. Landing on the piano keys may look great in topgun but will not win any prizes in big jet flying. Most long haul crews landing after a long days work with time zone changes and minimum rest are more than likely knackered when they land. Gust of wind or turbulence or heaven forbid misjudgement, as we are afterall human, equals landing in the undershoot. That is poor airmanship! Turning off at 60kts on one wheel in the wet equals poor airmanship. Missing a turn but staying off the grass and causing the following traffic to go around is a fact of life! Just because some one lands long shouldn't mean they are condemned to being poor airmen for the rest of their lives. I do not work for Qatar but I do get annoyed as this is just the sort of clap trap that ends up as a 2 page spread in the Sun with peoples 'near death experiences'. Fatigue in flying is far more prevelant than the one in a zillion case of alcohol & flying. Qatar mate lands long...........big deal. His next landing will probably be perfect.
Now, now, J, landing long in the rain with following traffic is either a deliberate act (bad airmanship) or poor flying skill (bad airmanship).
B****cks
Most of the time when you land you have following traffic. Landing on the piano keys may look great in topgun but will not win any prizes in big jet flying. Most long haul crews landing after a long days work with time zone changes and minimum rest are more than likely knackered when they land. Gust of wind or turbulence or heaven forbid misjudgement, as we are afterall human, equals landing in the undershoot. That is poor airmanship! Turning off at 60kts on one wheel in the wet equals poor airmanship. Missing a turn but staying off the grass and causing the following traffic to go around is a fact of life! Just because some one lands long shouldn't mean they are condemned to being poor airmen for the rest of their lives. I do not work for Qatar but I do get annoyed as this is just the sort of clap trap that ends up as a 2 page spread in the Sun with peoples 'near death experiences'. Fatigue in flying is far more prevelant than the one in a zillion case of alcohol & flying. Qatar mate lands long...........big deal. His next landing will probably be perfect.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
is either a deliberate act
To insinuate (and in fact level a generalisation at a WHOLE airline) a lack of airmanship based on a situation like this just smells of a soiled nappy.
(One notes you haven't started childishly changing people's usernames that disagree with you here.........yet)
Everyone here will have to forgive Scrubbed. Deep down, he just wants to be loved.
The difficulty about this thread is that it is based on one observers account, and everyone is taking their own slant on that account. I like many others were not witness to the event so cannot comment on it. Although the go-around is inconvenient, and I can only imagine the language on the A330 flight deck, the worrying thing to me on this thread is the lax attitude towards landing long. Yes it does happen, (I am not innocent!), but for the majority to claim that it not a problem is troubling. On another thread the question is asked whether there has been an accident attributed to pilot inebriation. Apart from drugs I believe the answer is no or probably negligible. However when you talk about landing long there have been many accidents including fatalities. The more high-profile include the Southwest at Burbank, the Qantas (probably spelt wrong) at Bangkok. We are classed as "professional" pilots and should not makes excuses for our failings, if it looks wrong, go around!
Last edited by Right Way Up; 20th Apr 2005 at 02:06.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually Fireflybob has hit the nail on the head......
But then again, this is a rumour network, isn't it 
How do you define "long" - surely you need some hard facts before making any judgements?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: home
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I did, J........
As for a definition of "long"...
I'm not sure if it is an official term but, as previously mentioned, a "long landing" is generally held to be when you shift your aim-point or carry power through the flare to touch down beyond the touchdown-zone.
Normally this is requested for reasons of, for EXAMPLE, reducing taxi-time because the desired exit is at the other end of a very long runway. I have only heard of pistons and turbo-props making such a request and only ever in cavok, dry weather.
As for this incident, I suspect (since as J pointed out we weren't there) that it was not a "LONG" landing but a landing which probably was intended to take place in the touchdown zone, as usual for jets (especially on wet runway and with high traffic density) but which went wrong... ie lengthy float due high threshold speed or incorect aimpoint. ie unstabilised approach.
There, was that so hard???
No, we're not all perfect. I've done it myself and there's a simple answer which is generally referred to as a "go-around". AIRMANSHIP also demands this be solution be carried out.
Either you do it or, as we saw here, the guy behind might have to.
The facts, to a large extent, speak for themselves.
As for a definition of "long"...
I'm not sure if it is an official term but, as previously mentioned, a "long landing" is generally held to be when you shift your aim-point or carry power through the flare to touch down beyond the touchdown-zone.
Normally this is requested for reasons of, for EXAMPLE, reducing taxi-time because the desired exit is at the other end of a very long runway. I have only heard of pistons and turbo-props making such a request and only ever in cavok, dry weather.
As for this incident, I suspect (since as J pointed out we weren't there) that it was not a "LONG" landing but a landing which probably was intended to take place in the touchdown zone, as usual for jets (especially on wet runway and with high traffic density) but which went wrong... ie lengthy float due high threshold speed or incorect aimpoint. ie unstabilised approach.
There, was that so hard???
No, we're not all perfect. I've done it myself and there's a simple answer which is generally referred to as a "go-around". AIRMANSHIP also demands this be solution be carried out.
Either you do it or, as we saw here, the guy behind might have to.
The facts, to a large extent, speak for themselves.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landing long in the wet? The Airbus should have gone around once they passed the TDZ and realised they were too high. I understand the frustration you have Roy. After a long flight you're tired and dont want to deal with the extra work load of a go around. But get over it. It happens and thats life. Maybe the ATC spaced you out too close? Maybe the pilot was new to the type? You could make up a million reasons.
Airmanship requires judgment, situation awareness, which in turn relies on knowledge, and all of these are dependant on self discipline.
Who recalls (knowledge) that the ICAO definition of ‘medium’ braking action (code 4 or 3) represents a mu of about 0.4 to 0.3, where a dry runway would have a mu in excess of 0.75 ? The ICAO ‘good’ braking action code 5, is relative to a wet runway, i.e braking is good for wet conditions, which already require a factored distance beyond the dry landing distance.
Also, one of the assumptions made in landing performance is that although in ‘medium / good’ conditions (mu 0.4) and more braking is available than will be used in an average airline type deceleration, if a maximum energy stop were attempted (wet), some distance in excess of certified stopping distance would be expected.
In ‘medium / fair’ conditions (mu 0.3) the assumptions are that sufficient braking force is available for a well-flown approach and landing, however, excess speed or long touchdown would result in an extremely low safety factor depending on runway length and crosswind component. Careful planning and good judgment are required.
Most crew’s will have difficulty in gaining an understanding of the actual runway state (situation awareness) based on a single source of information, particularly from other aircraft. Even same type aircraft may have differing characteristics, brake / tire wear, etc, and amount of braking / reverse used. One man’s reported judgment is another’s failure.
Finally, discipline requires safety based actions. By all means consider the following traffic, but he/she will not thank you for your overrun causing his/her aircraft to divert. Discipline also requires resistance to peer pressure, not aided by some of the attitudes shown in this topic. This pressure also applies to a go around; there is nothing wrong in going around from the threshold if a long landing is inevitable, it is not a failure of the individual which should be blamed, but more a refection on the circumstances that the person found themselves in. Who are we to judge another pilot’s action when we can all make mistakes in similar circumstances?
Airmanship during approach and landing requires getting your aircraft down on the runway at the right place, correct speed, and stopping it by use of a level of braking consistent with maximizing safety. Equally, good airmanship is flying a timely go around.
Who recalls (knowledge) that the ICAO definition of ‘medium’ braking action (code 4 or 3) represents a mu of about 0.4 to 0.3, where a dry runway would have a mu in excess of 0.75 ? The ICAO ‘good’ braking action code 5, is relative to a wet runway, i.e braking is good for wet conditions, which already require a factored distance beyond the dry landing distance.
Also, one of the assumptions made in landing performance is that although in ‘medium / good’ conditions (mu 0.4) and more braking is available than will be used in an average airline type deceleration, if a maximum energy stop were attempted (wet), some distance in excess of certified stopping distance would be expected.
In ‘medium / fair’ conditions (mu 0.3) the assumptions are that sufficient braking force is available for a well-flown approach and landing, however, excess speed or long touchdown would result in an extremely low safety factor depending on runway length and crosswind component. Careful planning and good judgment are required.
Most crew’s will have difficulty in gaining an understanding of the actual runway state (situation awareness) based on a single source of information, particularly from other aircraft. Even same type aircraft may have differing characteristics, brake / tire wear, etc, and amount of braking / reverse used. One man’s reported judgment is another’s failure.
Finally, discipline requires safety based actions. By all means consider the following traffic, but he/she will not thank you for your overrun causing his/her aircraft to divert. Discipline also requires resistance to peer pressure, not aided by some of the attitudes shown in this topic. This pressure also applies to a go around; there is nothing wrong in going around from the threshold if a long landing is inevitable, it is not a failure of the individual which should be blamed, but more a refection on the circumstances that the person found themselves in. Who are we to judge another pilot’s action when we can all make mistakes in similar circumstances?
Airmanship during approach and landing requires getting your aircraft down on the runway at the right place, correct speed, and stopping it by use of a level of braking consistent with maximizing safety. Equally, good airmanship is flying a timely go around.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, we're not all perfect. I've done it myself
(noun)
When someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time:
eg: There's one rule for her and another rule for everyone else and it's sheer hypocrisy.