Southwest KLGA gear collapse.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: South East England
Age: 70
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
are there any examples where it rises?
I'm sure someone will be along soon to confirm/deny that!
flarepilot
You may not be far off with the tunnel vision idea.
The captain may have been focusing on their approach speeds and considering a floating possibility on a reasonably short runway.
But, from what I remember on this thread, the approach speeds did not seem overly high, especially for WN.
However, booth pilots had a lot of time in the 737, and would know the stopping capabilities of the plane.
The NTSB should have some really good data on this one.
Regards.
The captain may have been focusing on their approach speeds and considering a floating possibility on a reasonably short runway.
But, from what I remember on this thread, the approach speeds did not seem overly high, especially for WN.
However, booth pilots had a lot of time in the 737, and would know the stopping capabilities of the plane.
The NTSB should have some really good data on this one.
Regards.
I agree with you old boeing driver...it isn't the cause
it is very odd that the NTSB would even mention the reduction in power...we normally reduce power as part of landing ( I know you know this OLD BOEING DRIVER).
and for lord spandex masher...I will revise my statement to only include the B737.
the runway is 7000' long followed by a dip into the water...if the landing occurred in the first third, adequate distance to stop remained...if landing was not to occur in this area, a go around should have been accomplished
this is a nutty one...I'm thinking that the words ''tunnel vision'' might be used at some point. only thinking how short the runway was instead of everything else in the duty of being a pilot.
it is very odd that the NTSB would even mention the reduction in power...we normally reduce power as part of landing ( I know you know this OLD BOEING DRIVER).
and for lord spandex masher...I will revise my statement to only include the B737.
the runway is 7000' long followed by a dip into the water...if the landing occurred in the first third, adequate distance to stop remained...if landing was not to occur in this area, a go around should have been accomplished
this is a nutty one...I'm thinking that the words ''tunnel vision'' might be used at some point. only thinking how short the runway was instead of everything else in the duty of being a pilot.
Always felt it took an effort to stop them (-3/400s), I can only guess for the -900s.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a 7000 foot runway and the737...flew em to DCA and MDW, and LGA...wasn't worried about stopping...but takeoff...hmmmm
however, planting the airplane firmly on the 1000' marker was always my goal.
wow spandex...thought you could do better than that...automatic trim tells me that the plane would act conventionally without the auto trim.
old boeing driver...did you ever hear the expression "bubba jet"?
however, planting the airplane firmly on the 1000' marker was always my goal.
wow spandex...thought you could do better than that...automatic trim tells me that the plane would act conventionally without the auto trim.
old boeing driver...did you ever hear the expression "bubba jet"?
Nose drops with power
“Nose drops with power”
No, only if you let it. What is being (poorly) described is the change of pitching moment with power. In manual flight this can be detected by the pilot as a change in stick force – a change in the trimmed condition.
The stick position controls the nose attitude; changes in trim due to power, speed, or configuration, contribute to the ‘feel’ of the aircraft – that aspect which pilots should be familiar with and is necessary for maintaining control.
Poor descriptions might be lazy posting; alternatively poor understanding. If this is the way people think, then often what you think is what you do.
Rule 1 fly the aircraft; you determine the nose attitude, not the aircraft trim state or power setting.
No, only if you let it. What is being (poorly) described is the change of pitching moment with power. In manual flight this can be detected by the pilot as a change in stick force – a change in the trimmed condition.
The stick position controls the nose attitude; changes in trim due to power, speed, or configuration, contribute to the ‘feel’ of the aircraft – that aspect which pilots should be familiar with and is necessary for maintaining control.
Poor descriptions might be lazy posting; alternatively poor understanding. If this is the way people think, then often what you think is what you do.
Rule 1 fly the aircraft; you determine the nose attitude, not the aircraft trim state or power setting.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ocean crosser
A 7000' runway is not short for any current single-aisle airplane except the 737
I am sure I can improve my technique for a lot of things BOAC. But out of 4 transport category jet types I have flown, the 737 classics were the worst "stoppers". Not to mention dismal runway performance/requirements at MTOW.
A quick search of the word "overrun" on Avherald produces 57 hits. 17 are
B737s.
Now I know there is a lot of them around, but this seems disproportionate. SWA has had some high profile runway excursions/overruns which included fatalities, probably most before they discovered that using the Autobrake (installed, but deactivated) might be a good idea.
A quick search of the word "overrun" on Avherald produces 57 hits. 17 are
B737s.
Now I know there is a lot of them around, but this seems disproportionate. SWA has had some high profile runway excursions/overruns which included fatalities, probably most before they discovered that using the Autobrake (installed, but deactivated) might be a good idea.
Last edited by oceancrosser; 23rd Aug 2013 at 16:45.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by safteypee
“Nose drops with power”
No, only if you let it. ........
No, only if you let it. ........
I'm pretty sure everyone reading this thread understood that comment was intended in the context of; "if you don't move anything else"
Except you, obviously.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Squared, “Never assume the obvious is true.” ― William Safire
The context arises from the suggestion that the crew sensed the aircraft pitch down; however the reported absence of a malfunction suggests that this was not 'airframe' induced. Thus if the pitch change came from thrust reduction, it suggests no or a late correcting control input, which might indicate deliberate intent or poor co-ordination.
The other scenario is that the pitch change was independent of power and thus it was deliberate, but the magnitude was greater than required for a ‘normal’ adjustment of the touch-down aiming point, resulting in a nose wheel first landing.
The context arises from the suggestion that the crew sensed the aircraft pitch down; however the reported absence of a malfunction suggests that this was not 'airframe' induced. Thus if the pitch change came from thrust reduction, it suggests no or a late correcting control input, which might indicate deliberate intent or poor co-ordination.
The other scenario is that the pitch change was independent of power and thus it was deliberate, but the magnitude was greater than required for a ‘normal’ adjustment of the touch-down aiming point, resulting in a nose wheel first landing.
Since we got onto the subject......
1. Engine thrust will affect nose pitch - absent any corrective input from the pilot, auto-trim, or other sources - based on the engine location relative to vertical CG.
It has nothing to do with where the engine is relative to the wing, although it is obviously probable that an engine below the wing will usually also be below the CG.
E.G. - Twin Otter - engine thrust line essentially level with high wing. Power reduction (with no other corrective change in controls) will result in brief pitch UP because the engine is above the CG.
--------------------------
@oceancrosser: The 737-800/900 have been mentioned (specifically on this forum with regard to AA 331 in Kingston, 2009) as being a bit hotter on landing due to the stretch overhang behind the wing requiring a flatter flare to avoid a tail strike.
You might want to check your stats and make sure you've factored out the 800/900 accidents in analyzing the shorter versions. In addition, accidents like Mangalore, where the aircraft type was mostly irrelevant to an overrun primarily caused by a grossly unstable final approach.
You may be absolutely right - but I'd want to be sure the data is appropriately "filtered" for other factors before drawing a conclusion.
1. Engine thrust will affect nose pitch - absent any corrective input from the pilot, auto-trim, or other sources - based on the engine location relative to vertical CG.
It has nothing to do with where the engine is relative to the wing, although it is obviously probable that an engine below the wing will usually also be below the CG.
E.G. - Twin Otter - engine thrust line essentially level with high wing. Power reduction (with no other corrective change in controls) will result in brief pitch UP because the engine is above the CG.
--------------------------
@oceancrosser: The 737-800/900 have been mentioned (specifically on this forum with regard to AA 331 in Kingston, 2009) as being a bit hotter on landing due to the stretch overhang behind the wing requiring a flatter flare to avoid a tail strike.
You might want to check your stats and make sure you've factored out the 800/900 accidents in analyzing the shorter versions. In addition, accidents like Mangalore, where the aircraft type was mostly irrelevant to an overrun primarily caused by a grossly unstable final approach.
You may be absolutely right - but I'd want to be sure the data is appropriately "filtered" for other factors before drawing a conclusion.
Pure Speculation
It's been a long time since I flew the 737, and then it was only the classic model.
I don't remember any pitch problems when pulling the power off at landing. Other times it was noticeable and trim was immediately necessary.
I have heard that WN flies their approaches at less than full flaps (40) to save fuel and block time.
As I recall, if the flaps move from 25 or 30 to the 40 position, there was quite a "balloon" effect, and you had to push the nose over to counteract that.
Maybe the captain called for the extra flaps and pushed over at the same time.
Possibly some current 737 folks can comment on this wild speculation??
Regards.
I don't remember any pitch problems when pulling the power off at landing. Other times it was noticeable and trim was immediately necessary.
I have heard that WN flies their approaches at less than full flaps (40) to save fuel and block time.
As I recall, if the flaps move from 25 or 30 to the 40 position, there was quite a "balloon" effect, and you had to push the nose over to counteract that.
Maybe the captain called for the extra flaps and pushed over at the same time.
Possibly some current 737 folks can comment on this wild speculation??
Regards.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: US
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OBD is correct. While it is certainly a bad idea, I have seen pilots both extend and retract flaps close to the ground in attempts to fix poor arrivals. It was probably even more prevalant in the days befor FOQA and QAR data. You see a lot of crazy stuff if you ride jumpseats for 25 years. Having said that, I have also witnessed aviators who we all should try to emulate. Somebody has to be on the good side of the bell curve.
Jet
Jet