landing technique B737NG
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the response, Ashling.
I appreciate the fact that you fly your airplane the way you choose to fly it, and I have no intent to even try to convince you to do otherwise. However, I would respectfully suggest that you re-read what I posted. I did not say that you were to maintain “level flight,” nor did I say that you should “continue raising your attitude as the speed decreases” as you suggest I said. I specifically said that you maintain level flight attitude.
I also said that while you were obtaining that attitude, and after you achieved it, you would still be descending. While this would be true even if you did not reduce power (although you would land an unacceptable distance down the runway), if you were to flare to the level flight attitude either while reducing power, or reduce power reasonably quickly after reaching that attitude, the airplane will continue to descend. The only thing I said that you would have to “increase” at this time would be “back stick” pressure, and perhaps a bit of back stick movement. But that would be to MAINTAIN the attitude, not increase it.
Next, you seem to be correcting me in that somehow you presume that what I am advocating will result in “too gentle a touchdown.” Please note, that is not what I said either. I said what I am advocating should provide touchdown at a comfortable rate - not a "greased" landing, but very acceptable. Usually, a descent rate at touchdown of something less than 25 fpm will get you the accolades of a “greased” landing – depending on your particular definition of “grease.” An acceptable, comfortable rate of descent at touchdown will be “firm;” and a firm touchdown is all you need to “break through the surface layer” and give you a better chance to avoid hydroplaning if the runway is wet. By way of comparison let me point out that if the flare height you reach is between 5 and 15 feet above the runway, if you take between 1.5 and 3.0 seconds to get to the runway, you will arrive at the runway at a rate of descent between 100 and 600 feet per minute. The 100 fpm rate would be taking the full 3.0 seconds to descend 5 feet. The 600 fpm rate would be taking the 1.5 seconds to descend 15 feet. The preferred situation is to take the (plus or minus) 1.5 seconds to descend the (plus or minus) 5-foot distance – giving you a (plus or minus) 200 fpm rate of descent at touchdown; as I said, “firm but acceptable.”
Next, if you flare to achieve a level flight attitude, I would argue that you are not, as you suggest, “in tail strike territory.” I think you’ll find that you get into that territory when you get to 10 degrees of pitch. You can correct me if I’m mistaken, but I was under the impression that the B737-800 tail strike attitude is about 11 degrees with the gear struts fully extended. Level flight attitude with landing flaps, and a speed between 1.1 and 1.2 of stall speed should be in the neighborhood of 3 - 6 degrees of pitch; a considerable angular distance below that “tail strike territory.”
Obviously, I have no way of knowing your experience level; nor you mine. A part of that experience includes reading, understanding, working in compliance with, and collaborating (with pilot groups, regulatory authorities, airplane manufacturers, and others) regarding suggestions for changes to Flight Crew Training Manuals. That being a fact, statements like…
…I believe come off carrying just a bit too much of an arrogantly condescending tone – at least for my taste.
I appreciate the fact that you fly your airplane the way you choose to fly it, and I have no intent to even try to convince you to do otherwise. However, I would respectfully suggest that you re-read what I posted. I did not say that you were to maintain “level flight,” nor did I say that you should “continue raising your attitude as the speed decreases” as you suggest I said. I specifically said that you maintain level flight attitude.
I also said that while you were obtaining that attitude, and after you achieved it, you would still be descending. While this would be true even if you did not reduce power (although you would land an unacceptable distance down the runway), if you were to flare to the level flight attitude either while reducing power, or reduce power reasonably quickly after reaching that attitude, the airplane will continue to descend. The only thing I said that you would have to “increase” at this time would be “back stick” pressure, and perhaps a bit of back stick movement. But that would be to MAINTAIN the attitude, not increase it.
Next, you seem to be correcting me in that somehow you presume that what I am advocating will result in “too gentle a touchdown.” Please note, that is not what I said either. I said what I am advocating should provide touchdown at a comfortable rate - not a "greased" landing, but very acceptable. Usually, a descent rate at touchdown of something less than 25 fpm will get you the accolades of a “greased” landing – depending on your particular definition of “grease.” An acceptable, comfortable rate of descent at touchdown will be “firm;” and a firm touchdown is all you need to “break through the surface layer” and give you a better chance to avoid hydroplaning if the runway is wet. By way of comparison let me point out that if the flare height you reach is between 5 and 15 feet above the runway, if you take between 1.5 and 3.0 seconds to get to the runway, you will arrive at the runway at a rate of descent between 100 and 600 feet per minute. The 100 fpm rate would be taking the full 3.0 seconds to descend 5 feet. The 600 fpm rate would be taking the 1.5 seconds to descend 15 feet. The preferred situation is to take the (plus or minus) 1.5 seconds to descend the (plus or minus) 5-foot distance – giving you a (plus or minus) 200 fpm rate of descent at touchdown; as I said, “firm but acceptable.”
Next, if you flare to achieve a level flight attitude, I would argue that you are not, as you suggest, “in tail strike territory.” I think you’ll find that you get into that territory when you get to 10 degrees of pitch. You can correct me if I’m mistaken, but I was under the impression that the B737-800 tail strike attitude is about 11 degrees with the gear struts fully extended. Level flight attitude with landing flaps, and a speed between 1.1 and 1.2 of stall speed should be in the neighborhood of 3 - 6 degrees of pitch; a considerable angular distance below that “tail strike territory.”
Obviously, I have no way of knowing your experience level; nor you mine. A part of that experience includes reading, understanding, working in compliance with, and collaborating (with pilot groups, regulatory authorities, airplane manufacturers, and others) regarding suggestions for changes to Flight Crew Training Manuals. That being a fact, statements like…
Boeings Flight Crew Training Manual for the type gives you a perfectly good repeatable technique for landing the aircraft. Its written down for a purpose I suggest you read it.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello, Pilot Pete,
With comments like...
...it is apparent, to me at least, that you believe you have the definitive knowledge in this area. Perhaps you do. Perhaps if everyone were to fly airplanes the way you fly airplanes we’d never have another pilot error problem. However, I suspect that even you would say that was going overboard.
A couple of comments, s'il vous plait: First; while you apparently are of the opinion that what I’ve proposed is most assuredly NOT B737 technique, I believe that if you performed an exhaustive search of such proposals you might be surprised at the results. Second; I have not ever advocated, and still do not advocate, ignoring the FCTM or any instructor’s teaching. Third; if what I have proposed sounds to be a “complicated waffle,” I’m puzzled at how you would fly a non-precision instrument approach. Fourth; I’d like to know why it is you believe that flaring to a level flight attitude, doing so to reach that flared attitude between 5 and 15 above the runway, retarding the throttle to idle during or after the flare (to have the throttles at flight idle at or just after touchdown), maintaining the achieved attitude (please note – I did not say maintain altitude – I said maintain attitude), taking less than 3 seconds to flare, and suggesting that the wheels be on the runway absolutely not more than 3 seconds after flaring … taken together would put a pilot in a position of a possible tailstrike. As I mentioned to Mr. Ashling, above, the B737-800 tail strike attitude is about 11 degrees with the gear struts fully extended. Level flight attitude, with landing flaps and a speed between 1.1 and 1.2 of stall speed, should be in the neighborhood of 3 - 6 degrees of pitch; a considerable angular distance below “tail strike territory.
I would also point out that there is a difference between teaching pilots to fly the way you fly and teaching pilots to fly the way they fly best.
With comments like...
Originally Posted by Pilot Pete
Ignore AirRabbit's advice, it is NOT 737 technique as has been pointed out by others. The FCTM is the definitive guide and input from your Training Captains. AirRabbit's overly complicated waffle will lead you into flight regimes close to the ground that could result in tailstrike, and you don't want to be there.
A couple of comments, s'il vous plait: First; while you apparently are of the opinion that what I’ve proposed is most assuredly NOT B737 technique, I believe that if you performed an exhaustive search of such proposals you might be surprised at the results. Second; I have not ever advocated, and still do not advocate, ignoring the FCTM or any instructor’s teaching. Third; if what I have proposed sounds to be a “complicated waffle,” I’m puzzled at how you would fly a non-precision instrument approach. Fourth; I’d like to know why it is you believe that flaring to a level flight attitude, doing so to reach that flared attitude between 5 and 15 above the runway, retarding the throttle to idle during or after the flare (to have the throttles at flight idle at or just after touchdown), maintaining the achieved attitude (please note – I did not say maintain altitude – I said maintain attitude), taking less than 3 seconds to flare, and suggesting that the wheels be on the runway absolutely not more than 3 seconds after flaring … taken together would put a pilot in a position of a possible tailstrike. As I mentioned to Mr. Ashling, above, the B737-800 tail strike attitude is about 11 degrees with the gear struts fully extended. Level flight attitude, with landing flaps and a speed between 1.1 and 1.2 of stall speed, should be in the neighborhood of 3 - 6 degrees of pitch; a considerable angular distance below “tail strike territory.
I would also point out that there is a difference between teaching pilots to fly the way you fly and teaching pilots to fly the way they fly best.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Level flight attitude is waffle. The guy wants to know how to land. Level flight attitude (whatever that is defined as) is nothing to do with flying a stable approach and then raising the nose by 2-3 degrees, as per the FCTM, at the correct point. What 'level flight attitude', which varies so much with config, has to do with a descending aeroplane about to land is at best confusing. You are overly complicating the explanation of a manoeuvre. How does the student know what 2-3 degrees looks like? It's approximately the thickness of the coming. Relate that to the outside and that's how much the horizon should move by when you raise the nose. K.I.S.S.
PP
Your way is best then?
Pot, kettle, black? I'd get on to Boeing and let them know they are not providing BEST info to their customers.
PP
I would also point out that there is a difference between teaching pilots to fly the way you fly and teaching pilots to fly the way they fly best
Pot, kettle, black? I'd get on to Boeing and let them know they are not providing BEST info to their customers.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Over the Moon
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirRabbit, the snag I have with your "level flight attitude" is that you define it as the level flight attitude at the airspeed at the end of the flare. This will be a different, and higher, attitude to the one directed by Boeing and written in their FCTM. Sure if you raise the nose the full 3 degrees from the approach attitude and speed you will briefly approach a level flight attitude but with what you suggest the level flight attitude will have to be higher as the speed will have reduced in the flare and as the aircraft will be slower the attitude will have to be higher than it would be at approach speed and therefore incorrect. You ahve not answered that inconsistancy as yet.
Your right about the tailstrike attitude but its more like 12 degrees min on a 700 but only 9 degrees or so on an 800. If you let the speed drop to ref -5 at 55 tonnes you will have just over 3 degrees of clearance and at vref -10 just 1.5 degrees so not as much as you might think. If you talk about straight and level attitudes some muppet might decide to develop the flare on an already high attitude, especially if he starts to sink suddenly, and there you go. I'm going nowhere remotely near it ta very much.
I do realise you are not suggesting maintaining level and of course as speed reduces the aircraft will descend if you do not select a higher attitude and this will be compounded if you reduce power. However your initial attitude as you have previously defined it is too high and that is the rub technicaly for me.
The above said I have to agree with PP, all this chat about level flight attitudes in relation to the flare is over complicated. Boeings explanation is very simple. It also has the benefit of being repeatable for any combination of weight, speed and flap setting including one engine inop. Selecting a level flight attitude does not have that advantage as by definition it will change with all of the above so you'll just find yourself asking which attiude now rather than doing what Boeing say and raising the nose a set amount each time.
Reading this thread is a real insight into why so many of the people who sit beside me cannot land the aircraft in the right place at the right speed. Far too many suggest raising the nose early. This can have but one result, a long landing. It may also lead to the need to increase power compounding the problem. If the aircraft is light you may even unintentionaly level off too high and then you really do have a problem unless you go-around.
You need to practise the right technique so that on a dark wet windy night on a short runway with a problem you can get the job done. If you don't practise it then when you need them the skills won't be there.
On an instructional and standardisation point it is v important for instructors to train their students in the correct published techniques. I have had to fail or mark students lower than I otherwise would due to incorrect technique which in some cases lead to major errors. When asked why they did it that way the reply was along the lines of "well thats what I was taught" or "I didn't realise it said that" I would suggest that the arrogant and condescending attitude comes from those who make up their own techniques.
Your right about the tailstrike attitude but its more like 12 degrees min on a 700 but only 9 degrees or so on an 800. If you let the speed drop to ref -5 at 55 tonnes you will have just over 3 degrees of clearance and at vref -10 just 1.5 degrees so not as much as you might think. If you talk about straight and level attitudes some muppet might decide to develop the flare on an already high attitude, especially if he starts to sink suddenly, and there you go. I'm going nowhere remotely near it ta very much.
I do realise you are not suggesting maintaining level and of course as speed reduces the aircraft will descend if you do not select a higher attitude and this will be compounded if you reduce power. However your initial attitude as you have previously defined it is too high and that is the rub technicaly for me.
The above said I have to agree with PP, all this chat about level flight attitudes in relation to the flare is over complicated. Boeings explanation is very simple. It also has the benefit of being repeatable for any combination of weight, speed and flap setting including one engine inop. Selecting a level flight attitude does not have that advantage as by definition it will change with all of the above so you'll just find yourself asking which attiude now rather than doing what Boeing say and raising the nose a set amount each time.
Reading this thread is a real insight into why so many of the people who sit beside me cannot land the aircraft in the right place at the right speed. Far too many suggest raising the nose early. This can have but one result, a long landing. It may also lead to the need to increase power compounding the problem. If the aircraft is light you may even unintentionaly level off too high and then you really do have a problem unless you go-around.
You need to practise the right technique so that on a dark wet windy night on a short runway with a problem you can get the job done. If you don't practise it then when you need them the skills won't be there.
On an instructional and standardisation point it is v important for instructors to train their students in the correct published techniques. I have had to fail or mark students lower than I otherwise would due to incorrect technique which in some cases lead to major errors. When asked why they did it that way the reply was along the lines of "well thats what I was taught" or "I didn't realise it said that" I would suggest that the arrogant and condescending attitude comes from those who make up their own techniques.
Last edited by Ashling; 30th Aug 2007 at 14:27.
And I thought landing was simple!
I think we have definitive proof here that most pilots are predominantly "left-brain" thinkers! It makes us more comfortable to think that landing an aeroplane safely is "logical".
Years ago there was an interesting article in the Log highlighting the experience that when the landing conditions are ideal we sometimes tend to plant the a/c on the runway but when it's right on crosswind limits, blowing a gale and/or raining we end up greasing it on without intending to do so!
The explanation is that when we have lots of spare capacity we are using the logical left brain (flying more "mechanically") but when we are working hard we are using more of the creative right brain. Whether you think the pyschologists are correct is another matter of course.
However returning to the question posed at the beginning of the thread as to how to land I would remind everyone that the brain cannot differentiate between a real experience and one thats vividly imagined. Put quite simply if you practice imagining yourself doing a "good" landing then you are more likely to do so in practice because you are "hard-wiring" the neurons! Another avenue is to use affirmations - something like "I am in the process of improving my landing technique everyday" might suit the bill. Just recite this phrase ten times after you wake up, during the day at least once and then last thing before sleep. By doing so you are programming the sub conscious which will work on bringing the affirmation into your reality. Dont even think about how it will do this - thats the whole point you dont need to. The affirmation needs to be done for at least 21 days for full effect.
Much of our self programming is very "negative" because thats the way we have often been previously programmed (usually as a child by people like parents and teachers). Statements like "I am still having problems landing" are really going to set you up for "failure" so avoid making them and replace them with something better, eg. "I am in the process of learning how to land accurately and safely".
Hope this helps!
I think we have definitive proof here that most pilots are predominantly "left-brain" thinkers! It makes us more comfortable to think that landing an aeroplane safely is "logical".
Years ago there was an interesting article in the Log highlighting the experience that when the landing conditions are ideal we sometimes tend to plant the a/c on the runway but when it's right on crosswind limits, blowing a gale and/or raining we end up greasing it on without intending to do so!
The explanation is that when we have lots of spare capacity we are using the logical left brain (flying more "mechanically") but when we are working hard we are using more of the creative right brain. Whether you think the pyschologists are correct is another matter of course.
However returning to the question posed at the beginning of the thread as to how to land I would remind everyone that the brain cannot differentiate between a real experience and one thats vividly imagined. Put quite simply if you practice imagining yourself doing a "good" landing then you are more likely to do so in practice because you are "hard-wiring" the neurons! Another avenue is to use affirmations - something like "I am in the process of improving my landing technique everyday" might suit the bill. Just recite this phrase ten times after you wake up, during the day at least once and then last thing before sleep. By doing so you are programming the sub conscious which will work on bringing the affirmation into your reality. Dont even think about how it will do this - thats the whole point you dont need to. The affirmation needs to be done for at least 21 days for full effect.
Much of our self programming is very "negative" because thats the way we have often been previously programmed (usually as a child by people like parents and teachers). Statements like "I am still having problems landing" are really going to set you up for "failure" so avoid making them and replace them with something better, eg. "I am in the process of learning how to land accurately and safely".
Hope this helps!
More tips for landing
1. Watch carefully how other pilots fly the approach and landing - best to do so from the jump seat so you have more spare capacity to just observe. When doing so critically evaluate the landing - where was the touchdown point, was the speed correct, what was the feel of the touchdown like, was the a/c on the centreline, what was the speed control etc like on the approach. Copy what you see as correct.
2. Whenever given a choice opt for the more "difficult" landing (ie crosswind, limiting runway etc) - this will stretch your skills. (I digress here but its a bit like teaching 45 degree bank turns in basic flying - if they can do a 60 degree bank turn the 45 er is a piece of cake!)
3. Just do more landings! It takes time to programme the brain. Do NOT expect to get better from every "try" but LEARN from every "try" - plateaus and regressions in learning are often signs of progress - dont treat them as "failure". But remember practice makes permanent so make sure what you practice is correct!
Happy Landings
2. Whenever given a choice opt for the more "difficult" landing (ie crosswind, limiting runway etc) - this will stretch your skills. (I digress here but its a bit like teaching 45 degree bank turns in basic flying - if they can do a 60 degree bank turn the 45 er is a piece of cake!)
3. Just do more landings! It takes time to programme the brain. Do NOT expect to get better from every "try" but LEARN from every "try" - plateaus and regressions in learning are often signs of progress - dont treat them as "failure". But remember practice makes permanent so make sure what you practice is correct!
Happy Landings
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 3 NM on final!
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another avenue is to use affirmations - something like "I am in the process of improving my landing technique everyday" might suit the bill. Just recite this phrase ten times after you wake up, during the day at least once and then last thing before sleep. By doing so you are programming the sub conscious which will work on bringing the affirmation into your reality. Dont even think about how it will do this - thats the whole point you dont need to. The affirmation needs to be done for at least 21 days for full effect.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Pilot Pete:
I am well aware of the question asked. And, of course, you are correct about the stabilized approach being critical to the accomplishment of a reasonable flare, descent, and touchdown. Additionally, of course, I recognize that “level flight attitude” varies with a lot of things, including, but not limited to configuration; however, I’m surprised that you believe that “understanding level flight attitude” is confusing when discussing descent and landing. I have had the opportunity to fly quite a range of aircraft in my career – and the one constant through all of it is that airplanes land best from a level flight attitude – from Cessna trainers to military fast jets (fighters) to miltary and civilian transport category including several of the Douglas and most of the Boeing family, including the B747. I’m not saying this to “impress” you with my credentials – somehow I think you would be more or less immune to such an attempt – I merely point that out to confirm my earlier comment about this being applicable to “every airplane.”
I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood my comment about teaching students to fly and the “Pot, kettle, black” comment is, I believe, unnecessary. I haven’t said that flying “my way” is best. What I AM saying is that teaching the pilot to determine his or her own technique for getting the airplane into the proper attitude for landing is likely to be better than having them learn a specific technique – particularly if that technique seems awkward to them. Will the technique you advocate work? Of course it will. But is it the technique that suits every pilot? I doubt it.
I recognize that you think I’ve tried, probably in your view, unsuccessfully, to put you down or criticize your way of describing your technique. That is truly NOT my intent. The individual asked a question. I believe that if I’m going to offer an answer, it should help – not hinder. If you believe that the explanation I offer is too much of a hinder – please feel welcome to disregard it completely. I would only point out that many of the things we do that appear to be “simple,” are far more complex when you try to explain it in detail; for example, try describing to someone, who has no idea of the mechanics involved, how to button a shirt, or tie a “bow tie,” or tie a pair of shoe laces. It seems to me that the business of flying has gotten down to the point of asking for and being provided a whole series of “short cut gouges:” e.g., “What power setting should I use for final approach of an XYZ make, 123 model airplane with landing flaps?” “How much nose up trim should I use to maintain a 30-degree bank turn at 200 knots?” If you need or want to provide those kinds of gouges, be my guest. Personally, if I’m a bit slow on final approach, I say “add some power.” Still a bit slow, I say “add some more.” How much more? I say “enough to go a bit faster.” When someone says what’s the best way to land XYZ make, 123 model airplane, I could give them the “gouges” that a lot of people believe work for them. However, I’d rather have that questioner be able to understand what is happening so that he (or she) has the best opportunity to learn how his (or her) airplane performs and handles.
Perhaps an example? I’m sure you know of Tiger Woods. When he drives a golf ball off a tee, he places the ball, selects a club for distance, addresses the ball, executes a back swing, a down swing, and a follow-through. Simple, right? If Mr. Woods was asked, “how should I drive a golf ball,” I would imagine if he thought it was a serious question, we would likely provide a dissertation on how much research he’s done on shaft length, shaft bending, constant arc swings and their variations, and club head face effect when contacting the ball, including the effect of contacting the ball while the club head is still descending, or has reached bottom-dead-center of the swing, or has started on the up-swing; to mention only a very, very few areas he would touch on. Would that be considered too complicated an answer? Not if the questioner was serious about his question.
Lastly, while I appreciate your frustrations, I would appreciate it if you’d dial back the insults, just a small bit. Thanks.
I am well aware of the question asked. And, of course, you are correct about the stabilized approach being critical to the accomplishment of a reasonable flare, descent, and touchdown. Additionally, of course, I recognize that “level flight attitude” varies with a lot of things, including, but not limited to configuration; however, I’m surprised that you believe that “understanding level flight attitude” is confusing when discussing descent and landing. I have had the opportunity to fly quite a range of aircraft in my career – and the one constant through all of it is that airplanes land best from a level flight attitude – from Cessna trainers to military fast jets (fighters) to miltary and civilian transport category including several of the Douglas and most of the Boeing family, including the B747. I’m not saying this to “impress” you with my credentials – somehow I think you would be more or less immune to such an attempt – I merely point that out to confirm my earlier comment about this being applicable to “every airplane.”
I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood my comment about teaching students to fly and the “Pot, kettle, black” comment is, I believe, unnecessary. I haven’t said that flying “my way” is best. What I AM saying is that teaching the pilot to determine his or her own technique for getting the airplane into the proper attitude for landing is likely to be better than having them learn a specific technique – particularly if that technique seems awkward to them. Will the technique you advocate work? Of course it will. But is it the technique that suits every pilot? I doubt it.
I recognize that you think I’ve tried, probably in your view, unsuccessfully, to put you down or criticize your way of describing your technique. That is truly NOT my intent. The individual asked a question. I believe that if I’m going to offer an answer, it should help – not hinder. If you believe that the explanation I offer is too much of a hinder – please feel welcome to disregard it completely. I would only point out that many of the things we do that appear to be “simple,” are far more complex when you try to explain it in detail; for example, try describing to someone, who has no idea of the mechanics involved, how to button a shirt, or tie a “bow tie,” or tie a pair of shoe laces. It seems to me that the business of flying has gotten down to the point of asking for and being provided a whole series of “short cut gouges:” e.g., “What power setting should I use for final approach of an XYZ make, 123 model airplane with landing flaps?” “How much nose up trim should I use to maintain a 30-degree bank turn at 200 knots?” If you need or want to provide those kinds of gouges, be my guest. Personally, if I’m a bit slow on final approach, I say “add some power.” Still a bit slow, I say “add some more.” How much more? I say “enough to go a bit faster.” When someone says what’s the best way to land XYZ make, 123 model airplane, I could give them the “gouges” that a lot of people believe work for them. However, I’d rather have that questioner be able to understand what is happening so that he (or she) has the best opportunity to learn how his (or her) airplane performs and handles.
Perhaps an example? I’m sure you know of Tiger Woods. When he drives a golf ball off a tee, he places the ball, selects a club for distance, addresses the ball, executes a back swing, a down swing, and a follow-through. Simple, right? If Mr. Woods was asked, “how should I drive a golf ball,” I would imagine if he thought it was a serious question, we would likely provide a dissertation on how much research he’s done on shaft length, shaft bending, constant arc swings and their variations, and club head face effect when contacting the ball, including the effect of contacting the ball while the club head is still descending, or has reached bottom-dead-center of the swing, or has started on the up-swing; to mention only a very, very few areas he would touch on. Would that be considered too complicated an answer? Not if the questioner was serious about his question.
Lastly, while I appreciate your frustrations, I would appreciate it if you’d dial back the insults, just a small bit. Thanks.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Ashling:
First, let me say that I’m trying diligently to keep this on a professional, hopefully respectful, level. I took your comment, “I-suggest-you-read-the-Boeing-FTCM,” as an indication of your opinion that I’ve certainly not done so. I hope it would make a difference if I told you that I have. The bottom line here is I’d like to stay out of the mud and am going to side-step your suggestion that I’m making up my own techniques. My intent is NOT to insult you, sir … at all. I appreciate your comment about my description being more complicated than you typically hear. As for its being “overly complicated,” I would take exception to that characterization. Please see my detailed response to Pilot Pete above. If my “attitude” comes across to you as being arrogant and condescending, I apologize. Again, that is not my intent.
You say that your “snag” with a “level flight attitude” is that it will not only be different, the difference will be that it will be a greater attitude than described in the Boeing FCTM. I don’t agree with your assessment. And to demonstrate that, I would ask, if it is at all possible, the next time you have an opportunity to be in a simulator, that, after you’ve finished all of the requirements, and if you have time available, you fly a normal final approach, flare the airplane (simulator), as you would normally, to land, but do not land. Instead, add the power necessary to fly down the runway at the height above the runway and at the airspeed you achieved at the end of the flare. As you fly down the runway, do not climb, do not descend, do not accelerate, and do not decelerate (the definition of straight and level, unaccelerated flight). Note the airspeed you have. Note the attitude you have. The reason I’m suggesting not to accelerate or decelerate is to avoid necessarily changing the pitch attitude accordingly.
Do the same thing a second time. Flare as you would to land. Achieve the same level flight attitude as you had the previous run down the runway, but this time instead of adding power to fly down the runway, pull the throttles to idle in the manner that best suits your particular situation (i.e., some begin retarding the throttles over the threshold; some begin retarding at flare initiation, some begin retarding when the flare attitude is reached; some snatch to idle as the mains touch), such that the throttles are at flight idle at (or just slightly prior to or just slightly after) main gear touch down. Do not adjust the pitch and do not accept a change in pitch – maintain it to touchdown. I’d be interested in your comments.
It is my expectation that, if you were to do as I have suggested, you would see that I am not advocating doing anything differently than what is described in the Boeing FCTM; despite your opinion to the contrary.
Please understand, I do not attempt to negate whatever a qualified instructor teaches – and if anyone got that impression, let me correct that right now. Each instructor has a right and a responsibility when it comes to his or her own students.
I am more than a little concerned that pilots are repeatedly being provided a quick, easy-to-understand series of mechanical inputs that will yield a result that will be acceptable in most cases. Without throwing darts at ANY airplane manufacturer, we all know that all of any manufacturer’s customers are not necessarily candidates for the “ace of the base” award. For some, such mechanical instructions are an acceptable way of achieving acceptable performance. Some of these pilots will, over time, become curious or seek better ways of performing the task – not dramatically different ways, but different – perhaps only in a manner of understanding what is happening. It is my opinion that when a pilot learns mechanically, he or she will fly mechanically – including those situations that the mechanical method isn’t exactly what is necessary. Does that happen frequently? Certainly not. In today’s environment, there will be quite a few pilots who will go an entire career without seeing anything out of the ordinary. And in those few times when an “ordinary abnormality” DOES stick its head into the mix, (e.g., dark, stormy night; ILS approach at minimums; variable head, cross, and tail winds; wet and short runway) a combination of airplane and systems reliability, other-pilot-in-the-cockpit experience, and a kind wink from the good fortune fairy, maybe nothing untoward will occur. Maybe. Sometimes, it sneaks up and bites some long-time veterans.
My goal is to provide an understanding of not only “how” but “why” regarding the way the airplane performs and handles. Again, my opinion only, if we teach pilots to understand the various “whys” involved in flying, we will have provided each pilot with the best opportunity to be able to deal competently with those rare, but potentially disastrous circumstances where the specific “mechanical” approach will not work.
First, let me say that I’m trying diligently to keep this on a professional, hopefully respectful, level. I took your comment, “I-suggest-you-read-the-Boeing-FTCM,” as an indication of your opinion that I’ve certainly not done so. I hope it would make a difference if I told you that I have. The bottom line here is I’d like to stay out of the mud and am going to side-step your suggestion that I’m making up my own techniques. My intent is NOT to insult you, sir … at all. I appreciate your comment about my description being more complicated than you typically hear. As for its being “overly complicated,” I would take exception to that characterization. Please see my detailed response to Pilot Pete above. If my “attitude” comes across to you as being arrogant and condescending, I apologize. Again, that is not my intent.
You say that your “snag” with a “level flight attitude” is that it will not only be different, the difference will be that it will be a greater attitude than described in the Boeing FCTM. I don’t agree with your assessment. And to demonstrate that, I would ask, if it is at all possible, the next time you have an opportunity to be in a simulator, that, after you’ve finished all of the requirements, and if you have time available, you fly a normal final approach, flare the airplane (simulator), as you would normally, to land, but do not land. Instead, add the power necessary to fly down the runway at the height above the runway and at the airspeed you achieved at the end of the flare. As you fly down the runway, do not climb, do not descend, do not accelerate, and do not decelerate (the definition of straight and level, unaccelerated flight). Note the airspeed you have. Note the attitude you have. The reason I’m suggesting not to accelerate or decelerate is to avoid necessarily changing the pitch attitude accordingly.
Do the same thing a second time. Flare as you would to land. Achieve the same level flight attitude as you had the previous run down the runway, but this time instead of adding power to fly down the runway, pull the throttles to idle in the manner that best suits your particular situation (i.e., some begin retarding the throttles over the threshold; some begin retarding at flare initiation, some begin retarding when the flare attitude is reached; some snatch to idle as the mains touch), such that the throttles are at flight idle at (or just slightly prior to or just slightly after) main gear touch down. Do not adjust the pitch and do not accept a change in pitch – maintain it to touchdown. I’d be interested in your comments.
It is my expectation that, if you were to do as I have suggested, you would see that I am not advocating doing anything differently than what is described in the Boeing FCTM; despite your opinion to the contrary.
Please understand, I do not attempt to negate whatever a qualified instructor teaches – and if anyone got that impression, let me correct that right now. Each instructor has a right and a responsibility when it comes to his or her own students.
I am more than a little concerned that pilots are repeatedly being provided a quick, easy-to-understand series of mechanical inputs that will yield a result that will be acceptable in most cases. Without throwing darts at ANY airplane manufacturer, we all know that all of any manufacturer’s customers are not necessarily candidates for the “ace of the base” award. For some, such mechanical instructions are an acceptable way of achieving acceptable performance. Some of these pilots will, over time, become curious or seek better ways of performing the task – not dramatically different ways, but different – perhaps only in a manner of understanding what is happening. It is my opinion that when a pilot learns mechanically, he or she will fly mechanically – including those situations that the mechanical method isn’t exactly what is necessary. Does that happen frequently? Certainly not. In today’s environment, there will be quite a few pilots who will go an entire career without seeing anything out of the ordinary. And in those few times when an “ordinary abnormality” DOES stick its head into the mix, (e.g., dark, stormy night; ILS approach at minimums; variable head, cross, and tail winds; wet and short runway) a combination of airplane and systems reliability, other-pilot-in-the-cockpit experience, and a kind wink from the good fortune fairy, maybe nothing untoward will occur. Maybe. Sometimes, it sneaks up and bites some long-time veterans.
My goal is to provide an understanding of not only “how” but “why” regarding the way the airplane performs and handles. Again, my opinion only, if we teach pilots to understand the various “whys” involved in flying, we will have provided each pilot with the best opportunity to be able to deal competently with those rare, but potentially disastrous circumstances where the specific “mechanical” approach will not work.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: on the edge
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post PP.
Never having flown 737 (never had enough seniority!) but other Boeing types e.g.76, 74 I concur.
Reduce your rate of descent so that impact is acceptable (until you get a feel for the airplane) BUT ensure you touchdown in the Touchdown Zone defined by your company's SOPs (and on the 1000ft marker if the runway is limiting), Refer Normal Touchdown distances in the QRH Perf TAB. Float for a smooth touchdown at your peril.
GSV
Never having flown 737 (never had enough seniority!) but other Boeing types e.g.76, 74 I concur.
Reduce your rate of descent so that impact is acceptable (until you get a feel for the airplane) BUT ensure you touchdown in the Touchdown Zone defined by your company's SOPs (and on the 1000ft marker if the runway is limiting), Refer Normal Touchdown distances in the QRH Perf TAB. Float for a smooth touchdown at your peril.
GSV
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Rabbit
The length of your posts says it all. It seems to take you an awful lot of effort to explain it to us, therefore I draw my own conclusion from that. I've not flown in an airline which would advocate your method. They have all based their training around the FCTM description. Why? Because it is straightforward, simple, easy to visualise and it works. That is what the newbie needs until they get a feel for the aircraft. Not some idea that varies so much and that each new pilot needs to find their own 'way' of doing it. They WANT to be told/ shown a simple method to aim at.
Be careful about claiming people are insulting you. There has been no such insult thrown from me. If you believe you haven't been waffling then that is up to you, I sir think you have, so it is a statement, not an insult.
You ask
In the same way. I would start a descent at the descent point and use V/S to control my rate of descent over distance. I would aim (as per my company SOPs) to fly a constant descent to 50ft above MDA at which point I would either see the visual reference and continue FULLY STABILISED, or go around. As I came over the threshold I would use exactly the same technique as described by the FCTM to flare and land the aircraft. Again, simple as the same method works again. Why would you think there must be a different technique for a non-precision approach? You imply the Boeing method would not work if it wasn't off an ILS.
No, I believe Boeing do. That's what I follow every time as it works and what I am reciting here. That is what my training department would have me teach and what every other airline that I have worked in (four Boeing airlines) have advocated. I'm not the one going against the grain here Air Rabbit.
I wish you well, but will continue to disagree that your method has merits in a 737.
PP
The length of your posts says it all. It seems to take you an awful lot of effort to explain it to us, therefore I draw my own conclusion from that. I've not flown in an airline which would advocate your method. They have all based their training around the FCTM description. Why? Because it is straightforward, simple, easy to visualise and it works. That is what the newbie needs until they get a feel for the aircraft. Not some idea that varies so much and that each new pilot needs to find their own 'way' of doing it. They WANT to be told/ shown a simple method to aim at.
Be careful about claiming people are insulting you. There has been no such insult thrown from me. If you believe you haven't been waffling then that is up to you, I sir think you have, so it is a statement, not an insult.
You ask
I’m puzzled at how you would fly a non-precision instrument approach.
...it is apparent, to me at least, that you believe you have the definitive knowledge in this area.
I wish you well, but will continue to disagree that your method has merits in a 737.
PP
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post #21
That is a lot of text explaining those few seconds of flight,but only once, in post #21 (by looseobject), point 3, I have seen the extremely important tip to shift your focus from the intended touch down point towards a point far down the runway. Only that way you will be able to judge your vertical rate from your peripheral vision, and without that, all you will be doing is monkey tricks.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Pilot Pete:
Perhaps, then, I misunderstood your comment, "I'd get on to Boeing and let them know they are not providing BEST info to their customers" as an insult. It certainly sounded like an insult. But, if you say it was not, then I'll take you at your word, since it was your statement. I also regret that you think that the verbosity of my efforts to explain things is evidence that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Also, perhaps I misunderstood your use of the term "waffle." In the US that term is used to describe the inability of someone to make up their mind about a specific issue; an insult, if you will. As far as I am aware, what I've described here hasn't changed in the 30 plus years I've been involved in teaching and evaluating pilots. At least in the US, a 30-year consistent positon would be exactly the opposite of "waffling." Again, I am willing to take your word that your description of my advocacy as "waffling" as being merely your observation and not an insult - I'll chalk that up to my not understanding the colloquialism you chose as a descriptor.
As I said initially, anyone here (and elsewhere, for that matter) is free to think, believe, or fly any way they choose. That includes teaching any way they choose. Those who choose to fly via specific, mechanical responses to given circumstances are free to do just that, and I wish all of them well in their endeavors. That includes you as well.
Perhaps, then, I misunderstood your comment, "I'd get on to Boeing and let them know they are not providing BEST info to their customers" as an insult. It certainly sounded like an insult. But, if you say it was not, then I'll take you at your word, since it was your statement. I also regret that you think that the verbosity of my efforts to explain things is evidence that I don't know what I'm talking about.
Also, perhaps I misunderstood your use of the term "waffle." In the US that term is used to describe the inability of someone to make up their mind about a specific issue; an insult, if you will. As far as I am aware, what I've described here hasn't changed in the 30 plus years I've been involved in teaching and evaluating pilots. At least in the US, a 30-year consistent positon would be exactly the opposite of "waffling." Again, I am willing to take your word that your description of my advocacy as "waffling" as being merely your observation and not an insult - I'll chalk that up to my not understanding the colloquialism you chose as a descriptor.
As I said initially, anyone here (and elsewhere, for that matter) is free to think, believe, or fly any way they choose. That includes teaching any way they choose. Those who choose to fly via specific, mechanical responses to given circumstances are free to do just that, and I wish all of them well in their endeavors. That includes you as well.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey chksix:
Thanks for the link. While I recognize that you are not “taking sides” in this on-going debate … (perhaps discussion is a better word) … I think that the diagram of the airplane in the landing attitude provided in your link sheds some additional light on the subject. This diagram clearly indicates that the proper pitch attitude for landing is between 4 and 6 degrees. I made a statement earlier that “Level flight attitude, with landing flaps and a speed between 1.1 and 1.2 of stall speed should be in the neighborhood of 3 - 6 degrees of pitch…” The 1.1 to 1.2 of stall speed range I described is the airspeed you should have at the end of the flare if you maintain Vref+5 until start of the flare.
I’ll not go any further with that explanation and rationale for this attitude being appropriate for recovery from a bounced landing or the initiation of a go-around, as it seems that my use of extended descriptions are interpreted by some as an indication of ignorance on the subject.
Thanks again.
Thanks for the link. While I recognize that you are not “taking sides” in this on-going debate … (perhaps discussion is a better word) … I think that the diagram of the airplane in the landing attitude provided in your link sheds some additional light on the subject. This diagram clearly indicates that the proper pitch attitude for landing is between 4 and 6 degrees. I made a statement earlier that “Level flight attitude, with landing flaps and a speed between 1.1 and 1.2 of stall speed should be in the neighborhood of 3 - 6 degrees of pitch…” The 1.1 to 1.2 of stall speed range I described is the airspeed you should have at the end of the flare if you maintain Vref+5 until start of the flare.
I’ll not go any further with that explanation and rationale for this attitude being appropriate for recovery from a bounced landing or the initiation of a go-around, as it seems that my use of extended descriptions are interpreted by some as an indication of ignorance on the subject.
Thanks again.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Egcc
Posts: 1,695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emit
You missed the reference in my first post about it then.
From post number 15
PP
That is a lot of text explaining those few seconds of flight,but only once, in post #21 (by looseobject), point 3, I have seen the extremely important tip to shift your focus from the intended touch down point towards a point far down the runway. Only that way you will be able to judge your vertical rate from your peripheral vision, and without that, all you will be doing is monkey tricks.
From post number 15
When you hear that call of "FIFTY" you should raise your stare from the touchdown point that is going to disappear under the nose, to 2/3 the way down the runway (I just look to the end personally), which gives you the horizon in your peripheral vision to judge your sink rate.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bournemouth UK
Age: 49
Posts: 862
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firefly Bob.
Your technique does not work!! I told myself how perfect my landing was going to be today, I visualised a nice stable approach, flaring, kicking off the drift and gently easing the into wind wheel onto the runway, quickly followed by the other main gear, and gentle flying the nose wheel onto the runway, all on the centre line and in the touchdown zone of course. Nowhere in my visualisation was the FIRM untidy landing that I managed to achieved!!
Air Rabbit, as a new 737 pilot I have to say your explanation is far too complex for me to try and think about at 50ft. I need it in very simple terms, and Pilot Pete’s explanation is easier for me to understand and remember when I'm landing.
PP and other 737NG pilots. My landings are sometimes (today for instance) a tad on the firm side and it seems it's because my speed decays in the flare, the aircraft runs out of energy and drops onto the runway. Should I be keeping my approach speed right up to the point that my wheels touch the runway and if so, should I be scanning the speed IN the flare? If that's the case should I also add thrust momentarily to maintain speed if it starts decaying before I touchdown? The FCTM does say that thrust should not be adjusted near to the ground. My guess is I shouldn’t get into that low speed situation in the first place, however all the time I’m scanning the speed up to the point when I’m looking completely outside, my speed is on target.
Obviously I’ll ask the pilots and trainers that I work with, but I'm off work for a few days and since I'm still sulking about my landing today it would be nice to hear 737NG pilots views.
Cheers.
SW
Your technique does not work!! I told myself how perfect my landing was going to be today, I visualised a nice stable approach, flaring, kicking off the drift and gently easing the into wind wheel onto the runway, quickly followed by the other main gear, and gentle flying the nose wheel onto the runway, all on the centre line and in the touchdown zone of course. Nowhere in my visualisation was the FIRM untidy landing that I managed to achieved!!
Air Rabbit, as a new 737 pilot I have to say your explanation is far too complex for me to try and think about at 50ft. I need it in very simple terms, and Pilot Pete’s explanation is easier for me to understand and remember when I'm landing.
PP and other 737NG pilots. My landings are sometimes (today for instance) a tad on the firm side and it seems it's because my speed decays in the flare, the aircraft runs out of energy and drops onto the runway. Should I be keeping my approach speed right up to the point that my wheels touch the runway and if so, should I be scanning the speed IN the flare? If that's the case should I also add thrust momentarily to maintain speed if it starts decaying before I touchdown? The FCTM does say that thrust should not be adjusted near to the ground. My guess is I shouldn’t get into that low speed situation in the first place, however all the time I’m scanning the speed up to the point when I’m looking completely outside, my speed is on target.
Obviously I’ll ask the pilots and trainers that I work with, but I'm off work for a few days and since I'm still sulking about my landing today it would be nice to hear 737NG pilots views.
Cheers.
SW
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Ski Wave:
I certainly understand your position. I am not saying that what I’ve described is what you have to do each time you descend through 50 feet. After you’ve worked through what is happening – you won’t even have to think it through. Example – how many times do you check your rear-view mirror driving to work? But, I’d bet you do it and take what ever action you need to take (if any) without thinking about it.
Like I was trying to describe to PP, anything you do sounds a lot more complex than actually doing it when it is described in any detail. And within a reasonably short time, you will not realize that you’re doing all that you thought was so complex when you started. I am advocating achieving level flight attitude (which should be somewhere between 3 and 6 degrees of pitch – depending on the weight of the airplane), and doing so somewhere between 3 and 5 feet above the runway at the end of the flare, with an airspeed something on the order of 1.1 to 1.2 times the stalling speed in that configuration and weight. The more you land, the more you’re going to understand the sight picture you want to see; and the more you’re going to be able to “feel” what level flight feels like. I think it important that YOU pick whatever YOU use to determine level flight – some look at the departure end of the runway; others place certain windshield bolts on a tree line or horizon line; others use a side-glance at the distance to the runway edge (paint stripe); others use the windshield bolt and runway edge (paint stripe) match-up; and there are probably dozens of other “techniques” that work for different pilots. I don’t want to teach you to recognize level flight the way I recognize it. I want you to pick what seems easiest and most natural for you.
The very best way isn’t available to many of us any longer – that is to fly level down the runway at a 5-foot height and proper speed (1.1 – 1.2 Vsl). But, you CAN do that in a simulator, and do it quite nicely – assuming your instructor or the simulator guys are agreeable. Using the simulator you can try it from landing weights that run the range from max to minimum. You can do it for various flap settings. Use whatever cues you need to maintain level flight. You ARE allowed to “cheat” if you desire. Raise the nose the recommended number of degrees to see if that is enough if you want. Crosscheck the vertical speed indicator if you want. Check the attitude indicator and/or the airspeed indicator, if you want. Look at the end of the runway. Look directly over the nose. Look out the side windows. Determine what spot on the runway surface that does not move up or down in the windscreen (where you are actually headed). Take into consideration your peripheral view of the world. Use the tiny burble you get in the column as the tail plane settles into ground effect. Use whatever you feel most comfortably and most accurately gets you to achieve level flight attitude. What attitude is that? Well, you’ll have to experiment a couple of times. You’ll also have to add some power – not a lot – in order to maintain the airspeed. Fly down the length of the runway way. Crosschecking whatever you desire to see and checking all of the possible confirmations available to you to be sure that you are, indeed, in level flight. This is to be able to recognize the attitude. If you change airspeed the attitude will change as well. In a rather short time you will determine what you are most comfortable with taking into your scan to determine that attitude.
After you’ve done this a few times (some people need 2 or 3 passes – some either like it or want to experiment and take 10 or more times – not a real cost in the simulator). The next time do exactly the same thing, but instead of adding power, pull it off. Change nothing else. Do not let the attitude of the airplane change – don’t increase it, don’t allow it to decrease with the reduction of power – this will likely require a bit of an increase in back pressure, but don’t raise the nose – use just enough back pressure to keep it from falling. Don’t stay in that attitude beyond 3 seconds. Usually you’ll be close enough to the ground that you’ll touchdown in less than 2 seconds. The landing will likely be “firm,” but not uncomfortably so. Once on the ground and the spoilers have deployed, fly the nose to the ground quickly but smoothly. Reverse thrust is used according to the situation and, obviously, in accordance with your company procedures.
The value here is actually multiple: If you add power in this condition – you’ll gain forward speed rather quickly and level off without having to do anything to the nose position. If you need to climb slightly, add just a bit more power, you don’t need to adjust the nose position. Both of these are valuable pieces of information should you ever have to recover from a bounced landing. We’ve all done them – so will you. Should you need to go around, as you add go around thrust and increase forward speed, you will begin to climb slightly, which is an advantage in tail clearance when you rotate to the takeoff / go-around attitude. Also, once you start perfecting your crosswind landing techniques, you’ll already have this part of the puzzle worked out. Now all you’ll have to get is the timing of pressuring the nose around to line up with the runway during the flare and, at the same time, be able to finesse the amount of “aileron into the wind” that you might need to keep that wing from rising.
So that I don't incur the ire of those who may read this - I am not advocating that you do ANYTHING contrary to what your instructors have taught you to do. If you have the opportunity to check this out ... do so ... I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say.
Cheers!
I certainly understand your position. I am not saying that what I’ve described is what you have to do each time you descend through 50 feet. After you’ve worked through what is happening – you won’t even have to think it through. Example – how many times do you check your rear-view mirror driving to work? But, I’d bet you do it and take what ever action you need to take (if any) without thinking about it.
Like I was trying to describe to PP, anything you do sounds a lot more complex than actually doing it when it is described in any detail. And within a reasonably short time, you will not realize that you’re doing all that you thought was so complex when you started. I am advocating achieving level flight attitude (which should be somewhere between 3 and 6 degrees of pitch – depending on the weight of the airplane), and doing so somewhere between 3 and 5 feet above the runway at the end of the flare, with an airspeed something on the order of 1.1 to 1.2 times the stalling speed in that configuration and weight. The more you land, the more you’re going to understand the sight picture you want to see; and the more you’re going to be able to “feel” what level flight feels like. I think it important that YOU pick whatever YOU use to determine level flight – some look at the departure end of the runway; others place certain windshield bolts on a tree line or horizon line; others use a side-glance at the distance to the runway edge (paint stripe); others use the windshield bolt and runway edge (paint stripe) match-up; and there are probably dozens of other “techniques” that work for different pilots. I don’t want to teach you to recognize level flight the way I recognize it. I want you to pick what seems easiest and most natural for you.
The very best way isn’t available to many of us any longer – that is to fly level down the runway at a 5-foot height and proper speed (1.1 – 1.2 Vsl). But, you CAN do that in a simulator, and do it quite nicely – assuming your instructor or the simulator guys are agreeable. Using the simulator you can try it from landing weights that run the range from max to minimum. You can do it for various flap settings. Use whatever cues you need to maintain level flight. You ARE allowed to “cheat” if you desire. Raise the nose the recommended number of degrees to see if that is enough if you want. Crosscheck the vertical speed indicator if you want. Check the attitude indicator and/or the airspeed indicator, if you want. Look at the end of the runway. Look directly over the nose. Look out the side windows. Determine what spot on the runway surface that does not move up or down in the windscreen (where you are actually headed). Take into consideration your peripheral view of the world. Use the tiny burble you get in the column as the tail plane settles into ground effect. Use whatever you feel most comfortably and most accurately gets you to achieve level flight attitude. What attitude is that? Well, you’ll have to experiment a couple of times. You’ll also have to add some power – not a lot – in order to maintain the airspeed. Fly down the length of the runway way. Crosschecking whatever you desire to see and checking all of the possible confirmations available to you to be sure that you are, indeed, in level flight. This is to be able to recognize the attitude. If you change airspeed the attitude will change as well. In a rather short time you will determine what you are most comfortable with taking into your scan to determine that attitude.
After you’ve done this a few times (some people need 2 or 3 passes – some either like it or want to experiment and take 10 or more times – not a real cost in the simulator). The next time do exactly the same thing, but instead of adding power, pull it off. Change nothing else. Do not let the attitude of the airplane change – don’t increase it, don’t allow it to decrease with the reduction of power – this will likely require a bit of an increase in back pressure, but don’t raise the nose – use just enough back pressure to keep it from falling. Don’t stay in that attitude beyond 3 seconds. Usually you’ll be close enough to the ground that you’ll touchdown in less than 2 seconds. The landing will likely be “firm,” but not uncomfortably so. Once on the ground and the spoilers have deployed, fly the nose to the ground quickly but smoothly. Reverse thrust is used according to the situation and, obviously, in accordance with your company procedures.
The value here is actually multiple: If you add power in this condition – you’ll gain forward speed rather quickly and level off without having to do anything to the nose position. If you need to climb slightly, add just a bit more power, you don’t need to adjust the nose position. Both of these are valuable pieces of information should you ever have to recover from a bounced landing. We’ve all done them – so will you. Should you need to go around, as you add go around thrust and increase forward speed, you will begin to climb slightly, which is an advantage in tail clearance when you rotate to the takeoff / go-around attitude. Also, once you start perfecting your crosswind landing techniques, you’ll already have this part of the puzzle worked out. Now all you’ll have to get is the timing of pressuring the nose around to line up with the runway during the flare and, at the same time, be able to finesse the amount of “aileron into the wind” that you might need to keep that wing from rising.
So that I don't incur the ire of those who may read this - I am not advocating that you do ANYTHING contrary to what your instructors have taught you to do. If you have the opportunity to check this out ... do so ... I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say.
Cheers!
Your technique does not work!! I told myself how perfect my landing was going to be today, I visualised a nice stable approach, flaring, kicking off the drift and gently easing the into wind wheel onto the runway, quickly followed by the other main gear, and gentle flying the nose wheel onto the runway, all on the centre line and in the touchdown zone of course. Nowhere in my visualisation was the FIRM untidy landing that I managed to achieved!!
Firstly, it's not "my" technique! There are plenty of good books on the market about how to programme yourself for success (at anything) - try Tony Buzan's book called Head Strong for starters. If, as you say, you "...told yourself how perfect the landing was going to be today..." then this will always be in the future and never "now". How long and how often have you been practising the visualisation? Try the visualisation as though you are observing yourself from, say, the jump seat or even outside the a/c.
Many will think this is new age mumbo jumbo but I can tell you it works if you work it!. Jack Nicklaus the champion golfer said he always pictured how he wanted a shot to proceed in his mind before he actually took the shot.
Happy Landings