Proper jet landing technique
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: far too low
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another thing that came to mind,
If your Vref is 140kts and there is a 20kt headwind component, and you carry 10kts , you end up with a Vapp of 150kts.
In this situation, you are targetting 150kts as you fly down final, if you see 153, 154kts it is natural to think öh well thats only 3 or 4 kts above my target, no big deal¨, but I think that it is worth remembering that you are 13 or 14kts above Vref, thats a fair bit of energy that you have to lose prior to taxiing off the runway. It would be preferable (in my mind) to be 3 or 4kts off you target speed the other way, ie be 146kts, 147kts. In that situation you are still carrying a buffer for the wind on Vref but you haven't added energy that has to be dealt with at some stage.
I'm not suggesting that you don't fix these speed excursions, just that it is better to be below your Vapp driving back up to it than above it trying to lose energy if you have an additive that is more than 5kts.
This is just my mindset and I would welcome constructive criticism of it.
Cheers, Framer
If your Vref is 140kts and there is a 20kt headwind component, and you carry 10kts , you end up with a Vapp of 150kts.
In this situation, you are targetting 150kts as you fly down final, if you see 153, 154kts it is natural to think öh well thats only 3 or 4 kts above my target, no big deal¨, but I think that it is worth remembering that you are 13 or 14kts above Vref, thats a fair bit of energy that you have to lose prior to taxiing off the runway. It would be preferable (in my mind) to be 3 or 4kts off you target speed the other way, ie be 146kts, 147kts. In that situation you are still carrying a buffer for the wind on Vref but you haven't added energy that has to be dealt with at some stage.
I'm not suggesting that you don't fix these speed excursions, just that it is better to be below your Vapp driving back up to it than above it trying to lose energy if you have an additive that is more than 5kts.
This is just my mindset and I would welcome constructive criticism of it.
Cheers, Framer
If on the other hand we have a 20kt headwind we fly 150 kts (vref + 10) but have a g/s of 130 kts to dissipate surely even flying 3/4 kts fast we still have less energy to dissipate than on a wind calm day. I'm not advocating anything but flying what your FCOM states and I may be wrong in my thought process, but still food for thought.
Nah fair call and I agree with that.
You may have just brought attention to a flaw in the way I think about it. I was thinking about it in terms of total energy but it may be that the reason I prefer a few knots below target speed than a few knots above it is because of airflow over the wing in the flare resulting in a longer flare. I definately feel that being on the low side driving up to the Vapp results in better control of the touchdown point and a more apropriate energy in the flare.
With all this said, on every approach I aim to be exactly on the Vapp and not below it.
You may have just brought attention to a flaw in the way I think about it. I was thinking about it in terms of total energy but it may be that the reason I prefer a few knots below target speed than a few knots above it is because of airflow over the wing in the flare resulting in a longer flare. I definately feel that being on the low side driving up to the Vapp results in better control of the touchdown point and a more apropriate energy in the flare.
With all this said, on every approach I aim to be exactly on the Vapp and not below it.
Yeah true but the aircraft I'm on that isn't an issue (737). I am not saying that I routinely fly around below Vapp though, I always aim to be on it, but I am less forgiving of being fast because it seems to me to result in a deeper touchdown than desired whereas being a couple of knots slow (but still at least 5kts above Vref) doesn't seem to have any negative influence.
None of us are capable of flying exactly Vapp all the way to the flare, my preference is to be below it and driving back up to it by adding thrust rather than above it and slipping back towards it by removing thrust.
I guess one way of describing it is that if I am above Vapp I fix it more positively than if I am below it.
None of us are capable of flying exactly Vapp all the way to the flare, my preference is to be below it and driving back up to it by adding thrust rather than above it and slipping back towards it by removing thrust.
I guess one way of describing it is that if I am above Vapp I fix it more positively than if I am below it.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good pilots don't have to look at their airspeed because they can feel the airplane during the final flare. The throttle is always there if you have a wind shear so you can fix it.
I don't think any competent pilot would be looking at his airspeed in a flare. I never have in 23,000 hrs. You can see and feel the shear if it happens and fix it.
I have never had a problem fixing a shear problem but have never flown an automatic airplane either.
I don't think any competent pilot would be looking at his airspeed in a flare. I never have in 23,000 hrs. You can see and feel the shear if it happens and fix it.
I have never had a problem fixing a shear problem but have never flown an automatic airplane either.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
framer - you don't mind being a bit slow, but never less then Vref +5?
What speed do you use for Vapp? We use Vref +5 as a standard/minimum. Less than that is slow and has to be corrected.
What speed do you use for Vapp? We use Vref +5 as a standard/minimum. Less than that is slow and has to be corrected.
We use Vref +5 as a standard/minimum. Less than that is slow and has to be corrected.
(but still at least 5kts above Vref
Join Date: May 2001
Location: A few degrees South
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First read your FCTM. Then fly with your instructor until you get it right. I think some things in flying come with experience, not by reading posts. Many people seem to think you can get your ATPL, trying to bypass years of experience by asking questions on this forum. I am (was) rated on 10 types, not counting all the small ones, and I can still not just tell you how to land an taking into account all the different parameters. However I have no problem making landings in say any aircraft after a few practices.
I too forget about monitoring speed close to the ground (below 50ft) and judge performance with my eyes and my bum. I assume that all pilots do that, do some of you sneak a glance at IAS below 50ft? I would be interested to know.
? franzl
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quick peek at the airspeed down low? At 50' you've got 2-3 seconds before it really gets busy so you've got enough time to look if you'd like.
I peek at the RA' during the flare, especially on the 737 HUD. Not everytime but often enough. Takes maybe a second? Actually relaxing your focus/scan/shifting what you're looking at prevents tunnel vision IMO and improves your total visual acuity. Time to from 100' to 10' is about 7 seconds, 10' to touchdown is about 5 seconds, so it's not THAT rushed.
IMO looking TOO hard(staring), is wrong. You see it with inexperienced pilots, just like you do with inexperienced drivers. Relax, see more by focusing less(hard to explain, more peripheal at less straight ahead acuity), and events happen slightly slower.
It's not uncommon to miss last second lateral drift or miss the de-crabbing right(centering effect) after touchdown. Both drift and crab reduce the 'quality' of the touchdown. It can be obvious to the PNF or a jumpseater while the PF misses it.
I peek at the RA' during the flare, especially on the 737 HUD. Not everytime but often enough. Takes maybe a second? Actually relaxing your focus/scan/shifting what you're looking at prevents tunnel vision IMO and improves your total visual acuity. Time to from 100' to 10' is about 7 seconds, 10' to touchdown is about 5 seconds, so it's not THAT rushed.
IMO looking TOO hard(staring), is wrong. You see it with inexperienced pilots, just like you do with inexperienced drivers. Relax, see more by focusing less(hard to explain, more peripheal at less straight ahead acuity), and events happen slightly slower.
It's not uncommon to miss last second lateral drift or miss the de-crabbing right(centering effect) after touchdown. Both drift and crab reduce the 'quality' of the touchdown. It can be obvious to the PNF or a jumpseater while the PF misses it.
framer / gorter, re energy/speed #21 –
Whilst the energy discussion is physically / mathematically correct, it may not be relevant when considering a fixed landing distance.
Where a decision to land is made on a particular length runway as adjusted for wind, any increase in flight speed over that used in the calculation will affect the distance required / safety margin; – the distance required to dissipate the increased energy vs that planned. And this involves V*V.
From a certification aspect the operational landing distance is often based on a fixed flare time and speed loss from Vref, e.g. 7 sec and -7kts; actual certification distances may differ from this.
Vref is usually the basis for the approach speed, e.g. Vref+5, but this speed should be considered as a target not a minimum. If the approach speed is considered a minimum, accepting speed variations above the target, then the net approach speed will be higher and thus this increment should be considered in the landing distance required (~300ft/10kts).
Many operators add speed and buffers for an approach and landing, but few actually consider the distance / safety effects, nor adjust the landing distance required.
As for landing technique; IIRC it involves matching height-rate against height for the time / speed loss as above, with a target residual height-rate at touchdown.
Whilst the energy discussion is physically / mathematically correct, it may not be relevant when considering a fixed landing distance.
Where a decision to land is made on a particular length runway as adjusted for wind, any increase in flight speed over that used in the calculation will affect the distance required / safety margin; – the distance required to dissipate the increased energy vs that planned. And this involves V*V.
From a certification aspect the operational landing distance is often based on a fixed flare time and speed loss from Vref, e.g. 7 sec and -7kts; actual certification distances may differ from this.
Vref is usually the basis for the approach speed, e.g. Vref+5, but this speed should be considered as a target not a minimum. If the approach speed is considered a minimum, accepting speed variations above the target, then the net approach speed will be higher and thus this increment should be considered in the landing distance required (~300ft/10kts).
Many operators add speed and buffers for an approach and landing, but few actually consider the distance / safety effects, nor adjust the landing distance required.
As for landing technique; IIRC it involves matching height-rate against height for the time / speed loss as above, with a target residual height-rate at touchdown.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: through the door, left
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Darius, in case you are still following this thread:
with a light a/c like a C560, a few kts over Vref won't make the brakes only last half their lifetime, unless you always land with max. tailwind component.
Your POH or AOM will give you an idea about the preferred landing technique for your aircraft.
Depending on the type of brakes, your guys might be using the brakes not enough. On the ERJ145 (carbon brakes) the preferred procedure is to apply very positive braking after touchdown, in order to get heat into the brakes. The brake wear is largely due to the number of brake applications. According to Embraer, ERJs equipped with thrust reverse wear down the brakes faster than those without. This is due to the crews not getting enough heat into the brakes. We have some Captains on our fleet, that have previously flown B735 or A340 (as F/O) and have tried to teach our F/Os the wrong braking technique. Now we have to hammer the Embraer way into their heads again.
with a light a/c like a C560, a few kts over Vref won't make the brakes only last half their lifetime, unless you always land with max. tailwind component.
Your POH or AOM will give you an idea about the preferred landing technique for your aircraft.
Depending on the type of brakes, your guys might be using the brakes not enough. On the ERJ145 (carbon brakes) the preferred procedure is to apply very positive braking after touchdown, in order to get heat into the brakes. The brake wear is largely due to the number of brake applications. According to Embraer, ERJs equipped with thrust reverse wear down the brakes faster than those without. This is due to the crews not getting enough heat into the brakes. We have some Captains on our fleet, that have previously flown B735 or A340 (as F/O) and have tried to teach our F/Os the wrong braking technique. Now we have to hammer the Embraer way into their heads again.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think such threads are a classic at pprune 
of course, nothing other is expected- many self named +20000hour gents quickly jump in at such threads and report their massive experience.
reading e.g such impressive posts
truly saves the day.
coming at vref over the threshold with a turboprop and retarding power to idle at 40 ft is a sure way to crash and burn .
the most fun at tech log is reading the 100% of +20000hours ATPL dreamers .
best regards !
of course, nothing other is expected- many self named +20000hour gents quickly jump in at such threads and report their massive experience. reading e.g such impressive posts
16 years flying, pistons, turboprops, medium jets (A320), I don't remember ONCE looking at my speed past the threshold.
I try to fly at Vapp/Vref stable until I hear 30/40 feet, thrust idle, flare and let it sit in the TDZ.
I try to fly at Vapp/Vref stable until I hear 30/40 feet, thrust idle, flare and let it sit in the TDZ.
coming at vref over the threshold with a turboprop and retarding power to idle at 40 ft is a sure way to crash and burn .
the most fun at tech log is reading the 100% of +20000hours ATPL dreamers .
best regards !
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aerobat - 20,000+ hrs. 
Autothrottles reduce at 22'. As a new guy I let them. It made all the CKA and FO's VERY nervous, especially when you start the flare following the HUD guidance. Light twin (737).
30-40' in a jet? Nope. In a turboprop?
Actually some turboprops you could go to idle much higher. Twin Otter landing flaps up, with enough energy, was a pretty high altitude power reduction.
Autothrottles reduce at 22'. As a new guy I let them. It made all the CKA and FO's VERY nervous, especially when you start the flare following the HUD guidance. Light twin (737).
30-40' in a jet? Nope. In a turboprop?
Actually some turboprops you could go to idle much higher. Twin Otter landing flaps up, with enough energy, was a pretty high altitude power reduction.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: bkk
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EVERY LANDING IS DIFFERENT
Ive been an IP for a very long time.Ive taught 250 hour FOs during base training to land a large jet and a lot of others too.Starting in the SIM.This is a controlled environment and does not represent the real world, but its very useful to teach the MECHANICS of jet landings.
Then moving to the real machine, a briefing is conducted reading from the makers FCTM.This standard technique is again useful for mild weather conditions.If the student just follows it like a robot, he will achieve a SAFE arrival.HOWEVER.Every landing is always going to be slightly different.Different load, different runway slope, in short ,many variations that require slightly different flare technique.When im demonstrating a landing to a less experienced pilot, I tell them at the end of approach briefing how I intend to make "adjustments" to the standard landing method to accomodate the actual runway or weather conditions on the day.In other words, there is no such thing as a STANDARD LANDING TECHNIQUE.It must deviate slightly from STD each and every time.......thats just the way it is.Pete.
Then moving to the real machine, a briefing is conducted reading from the makers FCTM.This standard technique is again useful for mild weather conditions.If the student just follows it like a robot, he will achieve a SAFE arrival.HOWEVER.Every landing is always going to be slightly different.Different load, different runway slope, in short ,many variations that require slightly different flare technique.When im demonstrating a landing to a less experienced pilot, I tell them at the end of approach briefing how I intend to make "adjustments" to the standard landing method to accomodate the actual runway or weather conditions on the day.In other words, there is no such thing as a STANDARD LANDING TECHNIQUE.It must deviate slightly from STD each and every time.......thats just the way it is.Pete.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trim Damnit
I admit to just skimming the responses, but in NONE of them did I see the KEYWORD TRIM.
Trim for your Vref plus 5 knots and be in trim in the vicinity of the middle marker or 200 feet height above touchdown. Be on speed, be able to release your hand to prove plane is in trim, but of course Don't remove hand, unexpected shear could ruin your day.
IF you are flying a plane with underwing engines, remember when you pull off power, the nose may come down a bit. Tail mounted engines have less of a problem with this. But as you cut your power maintain your pitch by back pressure and the back pressure will clue you into your SPEED...the harder you pull the slower you are getting...in this way you don't have to look at the airspeed indicator.
Now, some will tell you to pull the throttles back smartly at BLANK feet...some planes even tell you how smart you are (RETARD) but it is all judgement...wind, even how much roughness is on the leading edge of your wing (old plane...ice...whatever)> I like to think about this part of landing in the same way as someone judges the automobile stopping at a stop sign...there is a feel to the deceleration rate.
And touchdown at Vref minus five was quite acceptable at our airline.
One thing I really think is useful is determining the slope of the runway...are you always landing downhill? that will kill your brakes a bit more! Are you landing long? ARe you landing on short runways. Are you using brakes too much?
Well...anyhoo, the whole thing about judging speed with the feel of the stick in trim may help you a bit.
Also...remember, even a commercial pilot (certificate) requires landing within 200 feet of your spot...so make sure every landing is a spot landing...and don't hesitate to take the last turnoff...as long as you are going to make it for sure.
Our airline was always using alot of brakes landing on runway23 at KCLT...it is downhill and the guys made a huge effort to not go to the end....longer taxi. But boy the brakes were smoking!
If you are flying a light jet, be sure you have calculated Vref carefully...also, be sure you airspeed indicator is accurate.
I have to point out one more thing. The wind gradient changes during touchdown and you might be landing with a kiss of tailwind. A calm wind might actually be a tiny tailwind by the time you touchdown.
Ok...good luck, and read the following books for a better understanding of landing.
1. Stick and Rudder...see the "stall down landing" for the best way to land anything...
2. Fly the Wing...great book, great advice
3. Handling the big jets...great book great advice.
Trim for your Vref plus 5 knots and be in trim in the vicinity of the middle marker or 200 feet height above touchdown. Be on speed, be able to release your hand to prove plane is in trim, but of course Don't remove hand, unexpected shear could ruin your day.
IF you are flying a plane with underwing engines, remember when you pull off power, the nose may come down a bit. Tail mounted engines have less of a problem with this. But as you cut your power maintain your pitch by back pressure and the back pressure will clue you into your SPEED...the harder you pull the slower you are getting...in this way you don't have to look at the airspeed indicator.
Now, some will tell you to pull the throttles back smartly at BLANK feet...some planes even tell you how smart you are (RETARD) but it is all judgement...wind, even how much roughness is on the leading edge of your wing (old plane...ice...whatever)> I like to think about this part of landing in the same way as someone judges the automobile stopping at a stop sign...there is a feel to the deceleration rate.
And touchdown at Vref minus five was quite acceptable at our airline.
One thing I really think is useful is determining the slope of the runway...are you always landing downhill? that will kill your brakes a bit more! Are you landing long? ARe you landing on short runways. Are you using brakes too much?
Well...anyhoo, the whole thing about judging speed with the feel of the stick in trim may help you a bit.
Also...remember, even a commercial pilot (certificate) requires landing within 200 feet of your spot...so make sure every landing is a spot landing...and don't hesitate to take the last turnoff...as long as you are going to make it for sure.
Our airline was always using alot of brakes landing on runway23 at KCLT...it is downhill and the guys made a huge effort to not go to the end....longer taxi. But boy the brakes were smoking!
If you are flying a light jet, be sure you have calculated Vref carefully...also, be sure you airspeed indicator is accurate.
I have to point out one more thing. The wind gradient changes during touchdown and you might be landing with a kiss of tailwind. A calm wind might actually be a tiny tailwind by the time you touchdown.
Ok...good luck, and read the following books for a better understanding of landing.
1. Stick and Rudder...see the "stall down landing" for the best way to land anything...
2. Fly the Wing...great book, great advice
3. Handling the big jets...great book great advice.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30-40' in a jet? Nope. In a turboprop? 
like said , try to reduce to idle being at vref and 40ft in lets say a cheyenne and you will fall out of the sky.
best regards
