Short runway landing practice in the simulator.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short runway landing practice in the simulator.
According to the aviation correspondent of the "The Australian" newspaper, the Indonesian plane crash that left five Australians and 16 others dead last year was among 48 percent of jet aircraft accidents that took place during landing and a big percentage that involved leaving the runway. An annual safety report released by the International Air Transport Association also suggests that many of these accidents could have been prevented by a "timely go-around."
Assuming jet crews undergo regular simulator checks then it brings up the question of should simulator training specifically address factors causing overruns. From personal experience in the simulator training industry I have observed countless cases of landing long and if the "runway" had been on the limiting length dry or wet for the aircraft configuration, an overrun would certainly have been on the cards.
It is difficult not to generalise in these cases. But it is probable that most simulator sessions on type rating or recurrent training, centre around full use of automation in accordance with perceived manufacturer's recommendations for the aircraft type. Landings in the simulator are at airports selected by the airline and in most cases the runways are far in excess of the limiting length.
There is no shortage of engine failures on take off and long winded radar vectors including holding patterns preceding an engine-out landing or maybe go-around. All these no sweat with autopilot engaged and 8-10,000 ft length sealed surfaces. No problem if the surface is slippery either. LOFT exercises go for a couple of hours and may include lots of taxiing, Vnav and Lnav air-route flying accompanied by head-scratching scenarios involving poring through manuals in-flight, coupled with CRM and inter-active discussions with imagined cabin crew, ATC, company people. All very fine stuff of course. But accidents continue to happen caused by overuns on short wet runways and people get killed. And rarely are these addressed in simulator sessions.
Surely, if operators are to seriously address the overrun problem there should be greater accent given to having regular training in the simulator using a relatively short wet runway in order to fine-tune basic handling skills. This means actual hands-on flying - not an interminable automatic approach to 200 ft to a 10,000 ft runway where gross speed errors rarely cause a raised eyebrow because there is no danger of an overrun.
Landing on a runway limiting length in a strong crosswind is a good test of pilot pure flying skill. While some simulators can be programmed for a generic short runway, others may have many airports in their data base but mostly with runways far in excess of that needed for a real test of piloting skill. It should not be too hard to programme a simulator with one short runway for adverse weather landing practice.
It never ceases to amaze me that there are operators whose simulator training philosophy is to tick the boxes to meet minimum regulatory requirements, then steer clear of any sequence that smacks of something different to full use of automatics - then shake their heads in wonderment at the perceived stupidity of a crew where people get killed as a result of a poorly executed approach and landing. Simulators are wonderful tools that can provide crews with manipulative skills at no risk. No wonder an injured fore-finger is considered a no-go MEL item where automatics are concerned.
Assuming jet crews undergo regular simulator checks then it brings up the question of should simulator training specifically address factors causing overruns. From personal experience in the simulator training industry I have observed countless cases of landing long and if the "runway" had been on the limiting length dry or wet for the aircraft configuration, an overrun would certainly have been on the cards.
It is difficult not to generalise in these cases. But it is probable that most simulator sessions on type rating or recurrent training, centre around full use of automation in accordance with perceived manufacturer's recommendations for the aircraft type. Landings in the simulator are at airports selected by the airline and in most cases the runways are far in excess of the limiting length.
There is no shortage of engine failures on take off and long winded radar vectors including holding patterns preceding an engine-out landing or maybe go-around. All these no sweat with autopilot engaged and 8-10,000 ft length sealed surfaces. No problem if the surface is slippery either. LOFT exercises go for a couple of hours and may include lots of taxiing, Vnav and Lnav air-route flying accompanied by head-scratching scenarios involving poring through manuals in-flight, coupled with CRM and inter-active discussions with imagined cabin crew, ATC, company people. All very fine stuff of course. But accidents continue to happen caused by overuns on short wet runways and people get killed. And rarely are these addressed in simulator sessions.
Surely, if operators are to seriously address the overrun problem there should be greater accent given to having regular training in the simulator using a relatively short wet runway in order to fine-tune basic handling skills. This means actual hands-on flying - not an interminable automatic approach to 200 ft to a 10,000 ft runway where gross speed errors rarely cause a raised eyebrow because there is no danger of an overrun.
Landing on a runway limiting length in a strong crosswind is a good test of pilot pure flying skill. While some simulators can be programmed for a generic short runway, others may have many airports in their data base but mostly with runways far in excess of that needed for a real test of piloting skill. It should not be too hard to programme a simulator with one short runway for adverse weather landing practice.
It never ceases to amaze me that there are operators whose simulator training philosophy is to tick the boxes to meet minimum regulatory requirements, then steer clear of any sequence that smacks of something different to full use of automatics - then shake their heads in wonderment at the perceived stupidity of a crew where people get killed as a result of a poorly executed approach and landing. Simulators are wonderful tools that can provide crews with manipulative skills at no risk. No wonder an injured fore-finger is considered a no-go MEL item where automatics are concerned.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I'm flying a light (2 tonne) aircraft, I make it a regular thing to practice short field landings. Why shouldn't the pros do likewise, if only in the sim?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But when compared to the many thousands of landings made everyday, including landings on contaminated pavements, overruns, statistically, are still rare. . . no?
Where I work, I haven't heard of anyone having left the pavement. The B74 has superlative stopping cabability. . . . even for a crew that uses less than optimum landing technique! In an emergency, for example, with max auto brake [3000psi], auto spoilers and reversers deployed, the airplane can in fact be stopped within 3500' from the point of touchdown.
Where I work, I haven't heard of anyone having left the pavement. The B74 has superlative stopping cabability. . . . even for a crew that uses less than optimum landing technique! In an emergency, for example, with max auto brake [3000psi], auto spoilers and reversers deployed, the airplane can in fact be stopped within 3500' from the point of touchdown.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the "pro's" there is no such thing as a short field landing technique.
There is the right technique or the wrong technique and performance issues are absolutely central in the conversion training process particularly with airline jets.
The so called short field landing discussion is prevelant in light avaition much to the surprise of authorities/professionals. The correct landing technique should always use the minimum amount of distance required.
At airline level no one should ever intentionally land long.
There is the right technique or the wrong technique and performance issues are absolutely central in the conversion training process particularly with airline jets.
The so called short field landing discussion is prevelant in light avaition much to the surprise of authorities/professionals. The correct landing technique should always use the minimum amount of distance required.
At airline level no one should ever intentionally land long.
Mistrust in Management
8che is quite correct
Stable approaches followed by a landing in the correct place at the correct speed will assure a safe outcome providing the runway is within the landing performance limit for the aircraft.
If the approach is not stable by the point defined in any particular airline's SOP's then a go-around must be executed. Those Pilots who persist in continuing an approach when 'unstable' are behaving irresponsibly.
Regards
Exeng
If the approach is not stable by the point defined in any particular airline's SOP's then a go-around must be executed. Those Pilots who persist in continuing an approach when 'unstable' are behaving irresponsibly.
Regards
Exeng
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During my 4 conversion courses and many proficiency checks in level C and D ZFTT approved simulators I think I've made only a handful of landings I'm personally satisfied with. Strangely enough I've never experienced such issues in real aircraft.
Simulator time, precious as it is, is best used for what it is most useful for. Perfecting landing technique is best learned in actual flight operations.
Simulator time, precious as it is, is best used for what it is most useful for. Perfecting landing technique is best learned in actual flight operations.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short field landing techniques are in fact regularly exercised, planed and executed everyday in airliner's lives: You are close to your required landing length, so you choose maximum flaps, minimum speed increments and use the most useful type of approach. If you still cannot make it, you have done something wrong before and shouldn't have departed anyway.
The short runway problem anyway is rather a problem in some countries, of which Indonesia and Australia seem to be suffering more than others, something I realized after having flown there for years. In other parts of the world, especially in the western world, runways are normally pretty long, 3 to 4 km, which is enough for every type of aircraft.
It still doesn't get into my head why in these countries they use so short runways. It's clearly a lack of public infrastructure, and it would be much cheaper to have long runways than accidents. Those countries shouldn't also have problems with land ressources, something in Europe is the biggest problem with airport extensions.
Dani
The short runway problem anyway is rather a problem in some countries, of which Indonesia and Australia seem to be suffering more than others, something I realized after having flown there for years. In other parts of the world, especially in the western world, runways are normally pretty long, 3 to 4 km, which is enough for every type of aircraft.
It still doesn't get into my head why in these countries they use so short runways. It's clearly a lack of public infrastructure, and it would be much cheaper to have long runways than accidents. Those countries shouldn't also have problems with land ressources, something in Europe is the biggest problem with airport extensions.
Dani
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
per 8che:
Not so sure about that; I've been on final for a 8000' rw and ATC asks me to "expedite" - and the first turnoff is 3000' beyond the numbers, and I'm in a taildragger in which high-speed turnoffs have a risk all their own. In that case I'll probably use half flaps and carry a bit of power to 1000' beyond the numbers - getting me down to a reasonable taxi speed about the time I make the turnoff. Is "correct landing technique" per your definition, or per mine?
I want to satisfy ATC's request (8che's right behind me in an A380, and he'll be awful mad
if he has to go around!), but I respect my own aeroplane's limitations.
Alternate scenario: Same 8000' rw, but no close traffic, and the FBO is at the far end of the field. Why shouldn't I keep power on and fly the first 5000' at 100' altitude, then throttle back to land in the final 3000'? I'm paying for my tires & brakes, and ATC has no objection.
It's all about good judgement, eh?
The so called short field landing discussion is prevelant in light avaition much to the surprise of authorities/professionals. The correct landing technique should always use the minimum amount of distance required.
I want to satisfy ATC's request (8che's right behind me in an A380, and he'll be awful mad
if he has to go around!), but I respect my own aeroplane's limitations.Alternate scenario: Same 8000' rw, but no close traffic, and the FBO is at the far end of the field. Why shouldn't I keep power on and fly the first 5000' at 100' altitude, then throttle back to land in the final 3000'? I'm paying for my tires & brakes, and ATC has no objection.
It's all about good judgement, eh?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Northport, NW England
Age: 44
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure exactly to which Indonesian landing the original post is referring to but if it was the the Garuda approach into yogakarta in March 07 I think you'll find it was more his non-standard approach and excess speed leading to an unstable approach to a wet runway that caused the exit from the runway surface. Rather than any lack of so-called 'short field landing' technique!!
If I remember rightly in G.A. short field landings are to land on the numbers... do that in a 757 and you'll drag the gear through the approach lighting system!
If I remember rightly in G.A. short field landings are to land on the numbers... do that in a 757 and you'll drag the gear through the approach lighting system!
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the "pro's" there is no such thing as a short field landing technique.
There is the right technique or the wrong technique and performance issues are absolutely central in the conversion training process particularly with airline jets.
The so called short field landing discussion is prevelant in light avaition much to the surprise of authorities/professionals. The correct landing technique should always use the minimum amount of distance required.
At airline level no one should ever intentionally land long. By 8che
There is the right technique or the wrong technique and performance issues are absolutely central in the conversion training process particularly with airline jets.
The so called short field landing discussion is prevelant in light avaition much to the surprise of authorities/professionals. The correct landing technique should always use the minimum amount of distance required.
At airline level no one should ever intentionally land long. By 8che
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stable approaches followed by a landing in the correct place at the correct speed will assure a safe outcome providing the runway is within the landing performance limit for the aircraft.
If the approach is not stable by the point defined in any particular airline's SOP's then a go-around must be executed. Those Pilots who persist in continuing an approach when 'unstable' are behaving irresponsibly.
If the approach is not stable by the point defined in any particular airline's SOP's then a go-around must be executed. Those Pilots who persist in continuing an approach when 'unstable' are behaving irresponsibly.
A37575 made the point that a significant number of landing accidents are overuns and how best address the problem. In the scheme of things, the total number of engine failures at V1 or, for example emergency descents, are statistically insignificant in terms of causes of accidents. Yet there is evidence these are fully addressed in simulator training.
ICAO published accident reports reveal that overuns on landing are a greater threat to safety than an engine failure at V1. Seems logical therefore that operators should include landing training on limiting runways more realistically in simulator training. Accident reports where the cause was excess speed and unstable approaches clearly indicate training is lacking. A37575 was correct to highlight this point
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: cloud 9
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barit1 - got it perfectly, except far too many pilots think that the judgement is about "smooth touchdowns" rather than "appropriate touchdowns".
DANI - quite agree with you -Australia offers the short runway because of noise rather than safety- see what happens when you decline the 'offer' of the short one , for the sensible one.
DANI - quite agree with you -Australia offers the short runway because of noise rather than safety- see what happens when you decline the 'offer' of the short one , for the sensible one.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some do practice short-field landings on the actual aircraft: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Atlan...next_id=NEXTID Btw, that runway is 917x23m (balanced field length)...
I too would rather do a "firm" landing in the right spot, than a smooth one way past the thouch-down zone. Then again, I have no PAX to upset
I can, however, think of two cases in which we land long (with tower's approval):
1/ to "expedite" landing so as to vacate the runway for departing traffic on the reciprocal (HAM 15/33 in the morning, due noise abatement)
2/ to vacate at the end, when there is no traffic behind (FCO 16L).
We flare (just), then overfly half the runway at 5ft RA
Cheers
I too would rather do a "firm" landing in the right spot, than a smooth one way past the thouch-down zone. Then again, I have no PAX to upset
I can, however, think of two cases in which we land long (with tower's approval):1/ to "expedite" landing so as to vacate the runway for departing traffic on the reciprocal (HAM 15/33 in the morning, due noise abatement)
2/ to vacate at the end, when there is no traffic behind (FCO 16L).
We flare (just), then overfly half the runway at 5ft RA
Cheers
Superfluous "support" calls under banner of Situational Awareness.
Among other manfacturers, Boeing provide recommended support calls during approch and landing. It is a good bet that the company has received advice from its legal people before recommending these support calls in the FCTM or other sister publications. Before committing to print its is also certain that Boeing Operations or Flight Standards people would have looked closely at the relevance of each call and decided it was important to use them.
Most operators then add their own version of "support" calls, almost always far in excess of the Boeing recommendations. Situational Awareness is the usual reason offered for what some may argue as superfluous calls.
One such superfluous call mentioned in some operators manuals is "500 feet - Stabilised." during short final. Another call noted is that of acceleration altitude for clean up after take off. "EFFRA" or engine failure flap retraction altitude" is sung out by the PNF on reaching.
On levelling out at cruise altitude is heard "Flight Level 350 one, two three..." in relation to three altimeters reading the same altitude.
Boeing recommend a call of "500 feet" above airfield elevation on final in VMC. However what is the point of then adding "stabilised" when standard operating procedures already recommend that the aircraft be stabilised by 500 feet. Situational Awareness is a buzz word used to excuse all sorts of superfluous "support" calls. Comment invited.
Most operators then add their own version of "support" calls, almost always far in excess of the Boeing recommendations. Situational Awareness is the usual reason offered for what some may argue as superfluous calls.
One such superfluous call mentioned in some operators manuals is "500 feet - Stabilised." during short final. Another call noted is that of acceleration altitude for clean up after take off. "EFFRA" or engine failure flap retraction altitude" is sung out by the PNF on reaching.
On levelling out at cruise altitude is heard "Flight Level 350 one, two three..." in relation to three altimeters reading the same altitude.
Boeing recommend a call of "500 feet" above airfield elevation on final in VMC. However what is the point of then adding "stabilised" when standard operating procedures already recommend that the aircraft be stabilised by 500 feet. Situational Awareness is a buzz word used to excuse all sorts of superfluous "support" calls. Comment invited.
A37575. Thanks for raising the issue. I think you raise a very valid point.
For all the shortcomings of the modern day simulator, I think it can at least show up those pilots who abandon their aiming point on the runway too early, and find themselves reducing the rate of descent without really being aware of it, waiting for some visual cue that they can't consciously describe. All the better if the runway is limiting.
Centurious.
It forces both pilots to acknowledge the elephant that has just entered the room.
For all the shortcomings of the modern day simulator, I think it can at least show up those pilots who abandon their aiming point on the runway too early, and find themselves reducing the rate of descent without really being aware of it, waiting for some visual cue that they can't consciously describe. All the better if the runway is limiting.
Centurious.
However what is the point of then adding "stabilised" when standard operating procedures already recommend that the aircraft be stabilised by 500 feet.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Northport, NW England
Age: 44
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would disagree Blip - Saying "500ft - stabilised" would in my opinion cause an ill-advised automatic, motor response-association with the five hundred foot call.
Most standard calls become second nature and on dark late night sometimes automatic. The 500 call is mandatory and driven from single parametric cue, ones altitude and in any case is actually given to aid the detection of incapacitation of either crew member. The "Stablilised" call is clearly more conditional and in my opinion pointless.
With such a call I would fear that we train ourselves at 500AGL to say "500 - Stablised" whether we are or not. If we are talking about meeting Ops Man requirements well let me say that if by the Five hundred call you are not stablised then according to my companies OM (and I'm guessing yours) you should already be initiating a go-around and "Go-Around" then becomes the appropriate call from your PM/PNF.
Simply put the Stability Call seems redundant.
Most standard calls become second nature and on dark late night sometimes automatic. The 500 call is mandatory and driven from single parametric cue, ones altitude and in any case is actually given to aid the detection of incapacitation of either crew member. The "Stablilised" call is clearly more conditional and in my opinion pointless.
With such a call I would fear that we train ourselves at 500AGL to say "500 - Stablised" whether we are or not. If we are talking about meeting Ops Man requirements well let me say that if by the Five hundred call you are not stablised then according to my companies OM (and I'm guessing yours) you should already be initiating a go-around and "Go-Around" then becomes the appropriate call from your PM/PNF.
Simply put the Stability Call seems redundant.
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing recommend a call of "500 feet" above airfield elevation on final in VMC. However what is the point of then adding "stabilised" when standard operating procedures already recommend that the aircraft be stabilised by 500 feet. Situational Awareness is a buzz word used to excuse all sorts of superfluous "support" calls. Comment invited
Join Date: May 2005
Location: F370
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landing a simulator is very different from landing the real aircraft, so there is no point in using sim time for this.
The way to protect from the errors that cause overruns is to have SOPs for being stabilized on approach, and mandatory missed approach if not stablized. Then you need the company culture to actually follow the SOPs in place, and for copilots to speak up and captains to listen to copilot inputs. Changing the company culture takes a lot more than a few hours in the sim, and sadly that is where the real problems lie.
The way to protect from the errors that cause overruns is to have SOPs for being stabilized on approach, and mandatory missed approach if not stablized. Then you need the company culture to actually follow the SOPs in place, and for copilots to speak up and captains to listen to copilot inputs. Changing the company culture takes a lot more than a few hours in the sim, and sadly that is where the real problems lie.
Landing a simulator is very different from landing the real aircraft, so there is no point in using sim time for this.
What better way to show the consequences of a long landing than to observe the end of the runway moving into the foreground. The point being made by A37575 is that this simply won't happen unless the runway is length limited.
The 500 call is mandatory and driven from single parametric cue, ones altitude and in any case is actually given to aid the detection of incapacitation of either crew member.
Intercepted the final approach path,
Called the tower,
Armed the speedbrakes,
Put the gear down,
Progressively extended the flaps,
Set the correct MCP Speed,
Called for the check list,
Responded to the checklist items correctly,
Probably already acknowledged the landing clearance.
All pretty hard to do if you are incapacitated!
Last edited by Blip; 11th May 2008 at 22:26.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: F370
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blip,
I see what you are saying; I was just saying there IS a difference between sim & aircraft behaviour in the last 50' which trainees learn and adapt to in the first few landings.
My main point is that the real problem is caused by pilot attitudes and what the company allows them to do. You could practise a go round from the flare in the sim, but that is wasted training if the pilot won't do it when he is running out of runway. You can have a policy of being configured and stabilized by 1500' or 1000' or 500', but that means nothing if pilots don't actually go round when they are not stabilized. The best way to fix this is to change attitudes and to monitor flight data. The crash happened because the pilots involved kept pressing on, not because they mishandled the manoueuvre.
I see what you are saying; I was just saying there IS a difference between sim & aircraft behaviour in the last 50' which trainees learn and adapt to in the first few landings.
My main point is that the real problem is caused by pilot attitudes and what the company allows them to do. You could practise a go round from the flare in the sim, but that is wasted training if the pilot won't do it when he is running out of runway. You can have a policy of being configured and stabilized by 1500' or 1000' or 500', but that means nothing if pilots don't actually go round when they are not stabilized. The best way to fix this is to change attitudes and to monitor flight data. The crash happened because the pilots involved kept pressing on, not because they mishandled the manoueuvre.