"Forward on that yoke, boy!"
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 2
From: USA
Trying to drag the airplane in at an excessive pitch angle / AoA is asking for trouble. It's one thin to drag a Cessna into a sort field behind the power curve, but large airplanes are not feel airplanes...whether that be "feeling" nosegear extention or "feeling" dragging it in behind the power curve.
That line of thinking really is irrelevant with respect to the Citation pilot holding aft yoke at sub-reverser speeds.
As for making a short field landing, which is somewhat far afield from the topic at hand, one isn't going to shorten the landing distance by "holding off" or keeping the nosewheel flying. Getting the nosewheel on the ground and using maximum braking and reverse, and spoilers are going to shorten the distance. Why you want to introduce short field techniques and short runways to support the idea of flying the nosewheel and experimenting with the airplane are somewhat beyond me...just as you discarded large airplanes and at the same time invoked Mr. Davis' book.
Rather than repeatedly attempting to cloud the issue with irrelevant, incorrect concepts, why not stick to the topic at hand. There's nothing to be gained in a transport category airplane by holding the stick back while slowing to sub-reverser speeds, or by holding the nose off, while landing, or from aerodynamic drag from a raised elevator. Even if one is moving fast enough to hold the nosewheel off, the benefit from such aerodynamic braking is negligible, whereas the lowering the nose decreases AoA, decreases lift, puts weight on the wheels and makes wheel braking and steering effective. End result; there's nothing to be gained by aerodynamic braking unless one has substantial runway and no other choice.
I've flown LR35's without reversers from locations where I could let it roll and save a little brake, while still having runway remaining. However, once the nosewheel was on the ground, applying back elevator wouldn't have helped, and the real slowing power was in the brakes, not in the yoke...and I wouldn't have considered for one moment attempting to stop the airplane from going off the end "with my mind."
That line of thinking really is irrelevant with respect to the Citation pilot holding aft yoke at sub-reverser speeds.
As for making a short field landing, which is somewhat far afield from the topic at hand, one isn't going to shorten the landing distance by "holding off" or keeping the nosewheel flying. Getting the nosewheel on the ground and using maximum braking and reverse, and spoilers are going to shorten the distance. Why you want to introduce short field techniques and short runways to support the idea of flying the nosewheel and experimenting with the airplane are somewhat beyond me...just as you discarded large airplanes and at the same time invoked Mr. Davis' book.
Rather than repeatedly attempting to cloud the issue with irrelevant, incorrect concepts, why not stick to the topic at hand. There's nothing to be gained in a transport category airplane by holding the stick back while slowing to sub-reverser speeds, or by holding the nose off, while landing, or from aerodynamic drag from a raised elevator. Even if one is moving fast enough to hold the nosewheel off, the benefit from such aerodynamic braking is negligible, whereas the lowering the nose decreases AoA, decreases lift, puts weight on the wheels and makes wheel braking and steering effective. End result; there's nothing to be gained by aerodynamic braking unless one has substantial runway and no other choice.
I've flown LR35's without reversers from locations where I could let it roll and save a little brake, while still having runway remaining. However, once the nosewheel was on the ground, applying back elevator wouldn't have helped, and the real slowing power was in the brakes, not in the yoke...and I wouldn't have considered for one moment attempting to stop the airplane from going off the end "with my mind."
Psychophysiological entity
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,383
Likes: 169
From: Walton on the Naze Essex.
Well, that was funny...once.
If you look very carefully at my admittedly out of date opinions, you will find that I have not argued for charging down the runway holding the nose off.
I have argued several points.
Basically that it's a shame that pilots can not have more practice at edge of the envelope situations, on real aircraft. That and that alone is where I introduce Davis' latter-day plea.
Huge savings in brakes and tires can be achieved by small changes in final pitch attitude. It has nothing to do with which technique gives the best deceleration per se. I clearly state that modern systems might be adversely affected by not towing the manufacturer's line. I'm sure they do stop the aircraft to the optimum. That is very specifically not the most economical under many runway conditions. Just that. Nothing else.
Dragging in at an excessive angle would indeed be asking for trouble, what I'm saying is, some aircraft...and loud and clear this time, not your huge modern machines, but say 20 to 150 seat bracket, quite simply can be flown with a little of the old technique that 'real' airplanes used to respond so well to.
Since my argument is that it's a shame that crew can't practice these techniques, then I'm not really surprised that such flying is not common place.
The discussion has become somewhat circular, so let me end by just saying that I would not advocate busting SOPs or entering into experimentation without a clear authority and reason to do so.
I'm not alone in being sad that some of the old ways have gone...but gone they have, unless aviation suddenly starts to make vast profits that will enable Davis' dream of advanced handling practice on real aircraft.
At the end of the day, I'm arguing for an ideal state that allows modern pilots to really be able to master their machines, not only in extreme circumstances, but have that gentle edge that I used to see in perhaps one in five candidates. You just had the feeling that if they operated the aircraft throughout its life, it would last twice as long!
Maybe I am foolish in thinking such standards can be taught. I have a niggling feeling that these folk were born with that touch.
If you look very carefully at my admittedly out of date opinions, you will find that I have not argued for charging down the runway holding the nose off.
I have argued several points.
Basically that it's a shame that pilots can not have more practice at edge of the envelope situations, on real aircraft. That and that alone is where I introduce Davis' latter-day plea.
Huge savings in brakes and tires can be achieved by small changes in final pitch attitude. It has nothing to do with which technique gives the best deceleration per se. I clearly state that modern systems might be adversely affected by not towing the manufacturer's line. I'm sure they do stop the aircraft to the optimum. That is very specifically not the most economical under many runway conditions. Just that. Nothing else.
Dragging in at an excessive angle would indeed be asking for trouble, what I'm saying is, some aircraft...and loud and clear this time, not your huge modern machines, but say 20 to 150 seat bracket, quite simply can be flown with a little of the old technique that 'real' airplanes used to respond so well to.
Since my argument is that it's a shame that crew can't practice these techniques, then I'm not really surprised that such flying is not common place.
The discussion has become somewhat circular, so let me end by just saying that I would not advocate busting SOPs or entering into experimentation without a clear authority and reason to do so.
I'm not alone in being sad that some of the old ways have gone...but gone they have, unless aviation suddenly starts to make vast profits that will enable Davis' dream of advanced handling practice on real aircraft.
At the end of the day, I'm arguing for an ideal state that allows modern pilots to really be able to master their machines, not only in extreme circumstances, but have that gentle edge that I used to see in perhaps one in five candidates. You just had the feeling that if they operated the aircraft throughout its life, it would last twice as long!
Maybe I am foolish in thinking such standards can be taught. I have a niggling feeling that these folk were born with that touch.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
From: dubai
Loose rivets
Good posts.
I was informed a few years ago by the chief pilot of a large carrier, that "flying skills and finesse" were not the priority in skills required to operate a large modern aircraft. Seeing videos of at least two crosswind landing incidences, involving medium weight aircraft belonging to "flag carriers", his comments could be called into question.
Not an "ace" myself I hasten to add, nor am I a robot on the other hand but I too had a "free hand to explore" a little of aircraft envelopes in my line of work. We had no company SOP's. Having said that, you are very correct in your advice in sticking to published company or manufacturers SOP's of course. Just like to add, that aircraft manufacturers SOP's are published with litigation in mind. "Cover thy a***e" comes to mind!
A point of possible interest, the DA series of aircraft, was the only series of aircraft i operated, where the reverse thrust could not be activated until the nose wheel was in contact with the ground. This I believe was to avoid the possibility of not getting the nose wheel on the ground when required, with TR engaged.
Good posts.
I was informed a few years ago by the chief pilot of a large carrier, that "flying skills and finesse" were not the priority in skills required to operate a large modern aircraft. Seeing videos of at least two crosswind landing incidences, involving medium weight aircraft belonging to "flag carriers", his comments could be called into question.
Not an "ace" myself I hasten to add, nor am I a robot on the other hand but I too had a "free hand to explore" a little of aircraft envelopes in my line of work. We had no company SOP's. Having said that, you are very correct in your advice in sticking to published company or manufacturers SOP's of course. Just like to add, that aircraft manufacturers SOP's are published with litigation in mind. "Cover thy a***e" comes to mind!
A point of possible interest, the DA series of aircraft, was the only series of aircraft i operated, where the reverse thrust could not be activated until the nose wheel was in contact with the ground. This I believe was to avoid the possibility of not getting the nose wheel on the ground when required, with TR engaged.
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
From: Location: Location:
Guppy - got to be said you seem to be coming over a bit holier than thou!
Loose rivets is admitting wholeheartedly that his opinions are maybe out of date with todays sanitis(z)ed SOP regimented flying but he has a valid points. If it was all by the book then technically there would be no need for reduced limits or higher minima for less experienced crew. Obviously this is not the case so it goes some way to proving the theory that finding out how the aircraft behaves is important knowledge to have on the days that you dont need to know for when you do need to know.......
You trying to tell me that you havn't tried that bit harder to grease it on when light on a 12000ft runway...... by the tones of your posts you haven't !!
I have this image in my mind of you telling another oldtimer Ernest K Gann he was doing it all wrong!!!
Just to add the hi viz vest comment of crew should comply with their own companies SOP's at all times blah blah blah etc etc etc
Loose rivets is admitting wholeheartedly that his opinions are maybe out of date with todays sanitis(z)ed SOP regimented flying but he has a valid points. If it was all by the book then technically there would be no need for reduced limits or higher minima for less experienced crew. Obviously this is not the case so it goes some way to proving the theory that finding out how the aircraft behaves is important knowledge to have on the days that you dont need to know for when you do need to know.......
You trying to tell me that you havn't tried that bit harder to grease it on when light on a 12000ft runway...... by the tones of your posts you haven't !!
I have this image in my mind of you telling another oldtimer Ernest K Gann he was doing it all wrong!!!
Just to add the hi viz vest comment of crew should comply with their own companies SOP's at all times blah blah blah etc etc etc
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,103
Likes: 5
From: Chabanais, France
There's nothing to be gained in a transport category airplane by holding the stick back while slowing to sub-reverser speeds, or by holding the nose off, while landing.
Just about says it? Aerodynamic breaking may have been relevant in the days of the Comet, with it's barn door flaps etc., and the original V bombers but not in the case of the high speed wing of the majority of Boeings.
Obviously applying reverse when the nose wheel is still off the runway in a rear engined plane is a complete NO NO.
Just about says it? Aerodynamic breaking may have been relevant in the days of the Comet, with it's barn door flaps etc., and the original V bombers but not in the case of the high speed wing of the majority of Boeings.
Obviously applying reverse when the nose wheel is still off the runway in a rear engined plane is a complete NO NO.
Joined: Jun 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,697
Likes: 1,299
From: Australia
And talking about best methods of retardation on the landing run reminds me of the RAF flight safety magazine "Air Clues" describing an accident incident where a Vampire pilot ran out of brake pressure and looked like going off the end at speed. In his report he described whipping open his sliding canopy in an attempt to create more drag.
In reply, the editor of Air Clues one Wing Commander Spry (a wonderfully evocative name) commended the pilot on his theory but then nailed the pilot by saying that more drag than an open canopy could be gained by simply knotting the corners of the pilot's scarf and then holding it out in the breeze like a braking parachute...
In reply, the editor of Air Clues one Wing Commander Spry (a wonderfully evocative name) commended the pilot on his theory but then nailed the pilot by saying that more drag than an open canopy could be gained by simply knotting the corners of the pilot's scarf and then holding it out in the breeze like a braking parachute...
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
From: dubai
parabellum
"There's nothing to be gained in a transport category airplane by holding the stick back while slowing to sub-reverser speeds, or by holding the nose off, while landing."
Beg to differ old chap.
In Eastern Europe, especially before the iron curtain was scrapped, the runways, were made of good old concrete blocks. These blocks were very often poorly matched together making the surface quiet rough. In the middle of winter, ice would gather on the protruding edges and make the surfaces of these runways very rough indeed. So are you going to tell me if you were operating into such places you would "forward on that yoke" and putting great weight on the nose wheels at high speed? If you tried that technique at speed on landing, or t/o for that matter, damage would be done to the aircraft and the crew quiet possibly hurt, as some of those runways were that rough.
"Obviously applying reverse when the nose wheel is still off the runway in a rear engined plane is a complete NO NO. "
Really?
With care and within elevator authority, there is no problem.
I am aware the reverse thrust is not factored in performance calculations. However you will, if you fly for long enough and far enough, come across situations e.g. slippery icy runways, reported or not, where reverse thrust is the only thing that is going to decelerate the aircraft, initially at least. IMHO the only way to operate reverse thrust in those conditions, is to have the engines "spooled up". That can only be effectively carried out in time, by touching down with power I.E., engines spooled up and engaging reverse thrust immediately the air brakes are deployed and the nose wheel off the ground. You will "burn up" a surprising amount of concrete, if you wait until the nose wheel is on the ground, then attempt to engage reverse thrust when the engines are at idle.
"There's nothing to be gained in a transport category airplane by holding the stick back while slowing to sub-reverser speeds, or by holding the nose off, while landing."
Beg to differ old chap.
In Eastern Europe, especially before the iron curtain was scrapped, the runways, were made of good old concrete blocks. These blocks were very often poorly matched together making the surface quiet rough. In the middle of winter, ice would gather on the protruding edges and make the surfaces of these runways very rough indeed. So are you going to tell me if you were operating into such places you would "forward on that yoke" and putting great weight on the nose wheels at high speed? If you tried that technique at speed on landing, or t/o for that matter, damage would be done to the aircraft and the crew quiet possibly hurt, as some of those runways were that rough.
"Obviously applying reverse when the nose wheel is still off the runway in a rear engined plane is a complete NO NO. "
Really?
With care and within elevator authority, there is no problem.
I am aware the reverse thrust is not factored in performance calculations. However you will, if you fly for long enough and far enough, come across situations e.g. slippery icy runways, reported or not, where reverse thrust is the only thing that is going to decelerate the aircraft, initially at least. IMHO the only way to operate reverse thrust in those conditions, is to have the engines "spooled up". That can only be effectively carried out in time, by touching down with power I.E., engines spooled up and engaging reverse thrust immediately the air brakes are deployed and the nose wheel off the ground. You will "burn up" a surprising amount of concrete, if you wait until the nose wheel is on the ground, then attempt to engage reverse thrust when the engines are at idle.
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 312
Likes: 7
From: On the right of the clowns and to the left of the jokers
@Gspots
Humble pie in microwave! Maybe I'll chase it down with a side order of my hat 
@Flyingthru
thanks its always nice to be appreciated!
HS125
C550 s/n 800 and on Pilot Training Manual 13-9 i.e. BRAVO
Quote:
Use of thrust reversers is prohibited at speeds greater than 115 KIAS. Nose down column pressure is required with thrust reversers deployed at speeds greater then 60 KIAS
C550 s/n 800 and on Pilot Training Manual 13-9 i.e. BRAVO
Quote:
Use of thrust reversers is prohibited at speeds greater than 115 KIAS. Nose down column pressure is required with thrust reversers deployed at speeds greater then 60 KIAS
@Flyingthru
thanks its always nice to be appreciated!
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 3
From: Arizona USA
In Eastern Europe, especially before the iron curtain was scrapped, the runways, were made of good old concrete blocks. These blocks were very often poorly matched together making the surface quiet rough.
5R/23L was especially rough with this type of construction, altho winter ice was (fortunately) not a problem.
Now, all nicely paved over, this is now long forgotten, but at the time, provided a very rough ride.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
From: dubai
HS125.
Thanks for pointing that out. I have not flown the Cessna Bravo but as I am 20 stone, so I reckon I would stop that nose lifting.
I believe my posts have been relevant to aircraft I have flown. I apologize for being so sweeping.
Thanks for pointing that out. I have not flown the Cessna Bravo but as I am 20 stone, so I reckon I would stop that nose lifting.
I believe my posts have been relevant to aircraft I have flown. I apologize for being so sweeping.
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 94
Likes: 8
From: Ontario, Canada
question from naive spectators' balcony
- Given no thrust reversers available,
- Given slippery runway, i.e. braking action not limited by available brake pressure but but available vertical force on the wheels,
- Given that the elevator application were not so large that you would end up lifting the front wheel,
Then:
Wouldn't you get more braking by applying some back stick?
The force vectory diagram says so.
bm.
Scotty! Divert all power to the force shields!
- Given slippery runway, i.e. braking action not limited by available brake pressure but but available vertical force on the wheels,
- Given that the elevator application were not so large that you would end up lifting the front wheel,
Then:
Wouldn't you get more braking by applying some back stick?
The force vectory diagram says so.
bm.
Scotty! Divert all power to the force shields!
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 2
From: USA
- Given no thrust reversers available,
- Given slippery runway, i.e. braking action not limited by available brake pressure but but available vertical force on the wheels,
- Given that the elevator application were not so large that you would end up lifting the front wheel,
Then:
Wouldn't you get more braking by applying some back stick?
The force vectory diagram says so.
bm.
- Given slippery runway, i.e. braking action not limited by available brake pressure but but available vertical force on the wheels,
- Given that the elevator application were not so large that you would end up lifting the front wheel,
Then:
Wouldn't you get more braking by applying some back stick?
The force vectory diagram says so.
bm.
By lowering the nosewheel to the runway, the reduction of angle of attack dumps lift, putting weight on the wheels. If you have a slippery surface, then reducing weight on wheels (by holding the nosewheel off, or maintaining an angle of attack which generates some degree of lift) only serves to reduce control and any available braking effect. The aerodynamic braking effect is negligible.
The size of the horizontal stab means that it's effect in slowing the airplane is largely inconsequential, particularly with respect to sub-reverser speeds...such as preparin to exit the runway.
For those who advocate holding the hosewheel clear of the runway, any development of assymetrical thrust or reverse compromises directional control authority at a time when rudder authority is rapidly decreasing. Putting the nosewheel on the runway enhances control.
Would you get more braking by applying back stick? Not enough to make a difference, and not enough to measure or see in real time.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 1
From: AEP
Some clarifications, maybe...?
The original (1st edition) Handling the Big Jets from D.P. Davies was published with the 707 as the subject airplane, and numerous notes about the Trident aircraft. The third and last edition included additional chapters on the subject of the 747 classic models.
xxx
Use of reversers on the 727 had the inconvenience of "blanking" the tail surfaces, particularly the rudder surfaces if aerodynamic directional control was required. The nose had a very slight tendency of "coming up" when full reverse was used before putting the nose wheel on the ground, to compensate.
xxx
The "US Air Force" technique of keeping the nose high after landing to slow the airplane is due to the fact that air force planes do not have reversers. All they have, are wheel brakes, spoilers, drag chutes and using aerodynamic braking is just additional drag for them.
xxx
Of course you kids do not remember the Caravelle which had NO reversers up to the model SE210-6N. These gentlemen always used "aerodynamic braking" to assist their brakes and spoilers. Yes, they had drag chute as well, but to deploy one required efforts to retrieve it after its use.
xxx
I say with a smile, that I got my nose chewed by many captains and/or instructor pilots in my young days because I almost always use aerodynamic braking, and keeping the nose high to somewhat low speed... The guys always told me "one day, you will hit the tail"... Well, 35 years later, with some 1000 landings with aerodynamic braking, even includes the stretched DC8s... I have yet to hit that tail... My last landing in a 747 will be next month, for retirement, and I will make a last one...!
xxx
My flying is quite poor, but my landings are smoother/softer than most of yours.
Airline passengers know nothing about what a good landing is. But they love MY landings.
Happy contrails
xxx
Use of reversers on the 727 had the inconvenience of "blanking" the tail surfaces, particularly the rudder surfaces if aerodynamic directional control was required. The nose had a very slight tendency of "coming up" when full reverse was used before putting the nose wheel on the ground, to compensate.
xxx
The "US Air Force" technique of keeping the nose high after landing to slow the airplane is due to the fact that air force planes do not have reversers. All they have, are wheel brakes, spoilers, drag chutes and using aerodynamic braking is just additional drag for them.
xxx
Of course you kids do not remember the Caravelle which had NO reversers up to the model SE210-6N. These gentlemen always used "aerodynamic braking" to assist their brakes and spoilers. Yes, they had drag chute as well, but to deploy one required efforts to retrieve it after its use.
xxx
I say with a smile, that I got my nose chewed by many captains and/or instructor pilots in my young days because I almost always use aerodynamic braking, and keeping the nose high to somewhat low speed... The guys always told me "one day, you will hit the tail"... Well, 35 years later, with some 1000 landings with aerodynamic braking, even includes the stretched DC8s... I have yet to hit that tail... My last landing in a 747 will be next month, for retirement, and I will make a last one...!
xxx
My flying is quite poor, but my landings are smoother/softer than most of yours.
Airline passengers know nothing about what a good landing is. But they love MY landings.
Happy contrails
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 3
From: Arizona USA
...the L-1011 would have handled it like a champ...like no other airplane could or would.
Otherwise, you are just guessing...as perhaps with some of your other rather loooong posts.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 4,103
Likes: 5
From: Chabanais, France
doubleu-anker
Re badly constructed runways in Eastern Europe my experience is limited, you may have a point there but holding the nose off as a general practice is poor flying, especially in a Boeing as it is totally contrary to the AFM.
Re selecting reverse in a rear engined aircraft when the nose is still off the ground is a definite NO NO. Try it next time and don't be suprised that applying the reverse vector in such a position will swiftly sit your aircraft on it's arse, your CP will not be pleased.
Re selecting reverse in a rear engined aircraft when the nose is still off the ground is a definite NO NO. Try it next time and don't be suprised that applying the reverse vector in such a position will swiftly sit your aircraft on it's arse, your CP will not be pleased.
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
From: France
Rough Runways
In Far Eastern Russia, during six years of Corporate Jet operations, the locals used to take bets on when the undercarriage of the "Western Jets" would collapse through the use of their concrete slab runways.
The problem was the filling material between the slabs used to deteriorate and/or come out due to the thermal expansion and contraction caused by temperature changes over the year.(approximately minus 35C to plus 35C).
The runways were rough, however the "Western Jets" stood up to them well and the money was kept for the drinks!
The Russian aircraft were very strong in the undercarriage department.
Tmb
The problem was the filling material between the slabs used to deteriorate and/or come out due to the thermal expansion and contraction caused by temperature changes over the year.(approximately minus 35C to plus 35C).
The runways were rough, however the "Western Jets" stood up to them well and the money was kept for the drinks!
The Russian aircraft were very strong in the undercarriage department.
Tmb
