Thrust on during flare...Q for AIRBUS test pilots...
Nitpicker330: I'm with you! 23 years operating out of Kai Tak and Chep Lap Kok tells me that 737Jock just doesn't have a clue! Crosswind components to one place of decimal "............ Oh dear, oh dear!!! Give up.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thread is about the flare no ? not whatever one does at 1000ft AGL ?
What is happening on your big machines 50ft and below? ( if it is different from what is happening between 200 and 50 ?
What is happening on your big machines 50ft and below? ( if it is different from what is happening between 200 and 50 ?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You might want to check who started with the decimal winds meikleour! I called it 7.
Nitpicker's (quite appropriate name in this case) answer:
Why is it so hard to read?
Nitpicker's (quite appropriate name in this case) answer:
Giving a xwind component of up to 22 kts and a tailwaind component of up to 5.3 kts ( oh and Max Tailwind for the A330 is 15kts )
I think your pencil is too thick.
Me? I used 2 different Apps to check it in the hotel!!
I think your pencil is too thick.
Me? I used 2 different Apps to check it in the hotel!!
Last edited by 737Jock; 30th Mar 2014 at 23:04.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CL300 its not different if you realise that thrust manages energy directly and pitch manages airspeed and vertical speed directly.
But apparently that is heresy! Despite it being valid in all phases of flight.
The discussion issue results from both airspeed and vertical speed being a form of energy. And thus they can both be "managed" with thrust depending on the pitch change or lack thereof.
And offcourse there is an element of mass inertia, that initially keeps the aircraft on its path despite disturbances.
With regard to the airbus, you need to keep in mind that even though you might not move the sidestick in manual flight, this does not imply that various control surfaces are not moving either.
With regard to the flare. The requirement for energy reduces as the aircraft enters the groundeffect (wingspan determines when groundeffect starts), so we have to reduce thrust.
Speed is traded for a reduced vertical speed (to prevent structural damage).
If you suddenly encounter a disturbance in the flare say a downdraft the aircraft lacks energy. And either the speed decays faster (higher pitch needed to control v/s) or rate-of-descent increases in order to make up for this loss of energy, which is not very desirable so close to the ground. You can counter this by retarding the thrust slower, stop retarding the thrust or in severe cases adding thrust (might need to think of a go-around).
In case of an updraft you may need to retard thrust faster or close it completely straight away. After that there is not much to do except making sure you touchdown in the touchdown zone or go-around, so likely you will pitch up a bit less/hold the pitch in order to keep the aircraft descending.
Obviously there will be pitch changes, or changes in the rate of pitch change as well.
If you try to manage the energy solely with pitch, in severe cases you might make a nosewheel landing, a tailstrike or land with to much vertical speed (hard landing).
Excess energy makes it easier to "finetune" the vertical speed, so often leaving thrust on makes it's easier to make a greaser, but obviously it increases the landing distance as well. Therefore it's not desired.
But apparently that is heresy! Despite it being valid in all phases of flight.
The discussion issue results from both airspeed and vertical speed being a form of energy. And thus they can both be "managed" with thrust depending on the pitch change or lack thereof.
And offcourse there is an element of mass inertia, that initially keeps the aircraft on its path despite disturbances.
With regard to the airbus, you need to keep in mind that even though you might not move the sidestick in manual flight, this does not imply that various control surfaces are not moving either.
With regard to the flare. The requirement for energy reduces as the aircraft enters the groundeffect (wingspan determines when groundeffect starts), so we have to reduce thrust.
Speed is traded for a reduced vertical speed (to prevent structural damage).
If you suddenly encounter a disturbance in the flare say a downdraft the aircraft lacks energy. And either the speed decays faster (higher pitch needed to control v/s) or rate-of-descent increases in order to make up for this loss of energy, which is not very desirable so close to the ground. You can counter this by retarding the thrust slower, stop retarding the thrust or in severe cases adding thrust (might need to think of a go-around).
In case of an updraft you may need to retard thrust faster or close it completely straight away. After that there is not much to do except making sure you touchdown in the touchdown zone or go-around, so likely you will pitch up a bit less/hold the pitch in order to keep the aircraft descending.
Obviously there will be pitch changes, or changes in the rate of pitch change as well.
If you try to manage the energy solely with pitch, in severe cases you might make a nosewheel landing, a tailstrike or land with to much vertical speed (hard landing).
Excess energy makes it easier to "finetune" the vertical speed, so often leaving thrust on makes it's easier to make a greaser, but obviously it increases the landing distance as well. Therefore it's not desired.
Last edited by 737Jock; 31st Mar 2014 at 00:19.
1/ I'll say it one last time, We all know that Pitch can control airspeed in all phases of flight and indeed in some modes it does. Airbus and Boeing ( these silly people that MADE the Aircraft ) train that during approach phase down to the Flare phase they want you to use THRUST to control the Airpseed BECAUSE it's the quickest and SAFEST most efficient way to do it. You don't have time at 1000' or 500' to adjust Pitch primarily to control speed excursions especially ones +/- 10 to 15 kts during turbulent conditions. Please let us put this to bed once and for all.
2/ The Flare is a PITCH manoeuvre. If you Balloon high you'll need to relax or adjust the elevator to change the trajectory of the Aircraft back down toward the runway. That doesn't mean shoving forward so much you drive the nose wheel into the runway first. You still need to have some Piloting skill and fly the Aircraft!!
If you under flare or flare too late then in this case either increase pitch a little ( can't too much or you will drive the main gear harder into the runway ) OR indeed increase Thrust for second to try and arrest the sink rate before contact. It's probably a bit too late.
So, we all agree PITCH and THRUST are always used in conjunction to control the path of the Aircraft, movement of one will most likely need adjustment of the other. It comes down to the phase of flight as to which one does it best.
This is not rocket science, has been done this way since the advent of the commercial Jet back in the 1950's. Airbus and Boeing clearly write in their manuals how they want you fly the Aircraft they designed.
You can get wound up in science aerodynamics and wonderful theories about path management, energy state, thrust vectors and the like until you turn blue in the face but it doesn't change the facts of what's best and when.
Quoting again from the Airbus FCTM regarding the FLARE:---
Avoid under flaring. • The rate of descent must be controlled prior to the initiation of the flare (i.e. nominal 3 ° slope and rate not increasing) • Start the flare with positive (or "prompt") backpressure on the sidestick and holding as necessary • Avoid significant forward stick movement once Flare initiated (releasing backpressure is acceptable) At 20 ft, the "RETARD" auto call-out reminds the pilot to retard thrust levers. It is a reminder rather than an order. When best adapted, the pilot will rapidly retard all thrust levers : depending on the conditions, the pilot will retard earlier or later. However, the pilot must ensure that all thrust levers are at IDLE detent at the latest at touchdown, to ensure ground spoilers extension at touchdown. In order to assess the rate of descent in the flare, and the aircraft position relative to the ground, look well ahead of the aircraft. The typical pitch increment in the flare is approximately 2.3 ° (2.6 ° for A340-500/600 aircraft), which leads to -1 ° flight path angle associated with a 10 kt speed decay in the manoeuvre. Do not allow the aircraft to float or do not attempt to extend the flare by increasing pitch attitude in an attempt to achieve a perfectly smooth touchdown. A prolonged float will increase both the landing distance and the risk of tail strike.
2/ The Flare is a PITCH manoeuvre. If you Balloon high you'll need to relax or adjust the elevator to change the trajectory of the Aircraft back down toward the runway. That doesn't mean shoving forward so much you drive the nose wheel into the runway first. You still need to have some Piloting skill and fly the Aircraft!!
If you under flare or flare too late then in this case either increase pitch a little ( can't too much or you will drive the main gear harder into the runway ) OR indeed increase Thrust for second to try and arrest the sink rate before contact. It's probably a bit too late.
So, we all agree PITCH and THRUST are always used in conjunction to control the path of the Aircraft, movement of one will most likely need adjustment of the other. It comes down to the phase of flight as to which one does it best.
This is not rocket science, has been done this way since the advent of the commercial Jet back in the 1950's. Airbus and Boeing clearly write in their manuals how they want you fly the Aircraft they designed.
You can get wound up in science aerodynamics and wonderful theories about path management, energy state, thrust vectors and the like until you turn blue in the face but it doesn't change the facts of what's best and when.
Quoting again from the Airbus FCTM regarding the FLARE:---
Avoid under flaring. • The rate of descent must be controlled prior to the initiation of the flare (i.e. nominal 3 ° slope and rate not increasing) • Start the flare with positive (or "prompt") backpressure on the sidestick and holding as necessary • Avoid significant forward stick movement once Flare initiated (releasing backpressure is acceptable) At 20 ft, the "RETARD" auto call-out reminds the pilot to retard thrust levers. It is a reminder rather than an order. When best adapted, the pilot will rapidly retard all thrust levers : depending on the conditions, the pilot will retard earlier or later. However, the pilot must ensure that all thrust levers are at IDLE detent at the latest at touchdown, to ensure ground spoilers extension at touchdown. In order to assess the rate of descent in the flare, and the aircraft position relative to the ground, look well ahead of the aircraft. The typical pitch increment in the flare is approximately 2.3 ° (2.6 ° for A340-500/600 aircraft), which leads to -1 ° flight path angle associated with a 10 kt speed decay in the manoeuvre. Do not allow the aircraft to float or do not attempt to extend the flare by increasing pitch attitude in an attempt to achieve a perfectly smooth touchdown. A prolonged float will increase both the landing distance and the risk of tail strike.
Last edited by nitpicker330; 31st Mar 2014 at 00:38.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. The speed excursion you speak about is excess energy. You reduce thrust to manage that excess energy.
The speed excursion itself is caused by a combination of pitch and mass inertia. But you should realise that the vertical speed also has to increase as the speed increases to maintain that 3 degree path. After all if you would fly twice as fast down the glide your ROD would need to be twice as fast as well.
ie. if I normally fly to the runway in 4 minutes at 700 ft/min I would need to descent at 1400ft/min if I fly the same distance over the ground in 2 minutes. This is also true on a smaller scale.
So clearly then thrust manages both speed and vertical speed.
I like to think the thrust manages the total energy and the pitch manages the path (which is both speed and vertical speed).
The increase in speed and vertical speed is just a symptom of excess energy.
Oh and offcourse as soon as you are at minimum or maximum power (running out of additional energy so to speak) , pitch still controls the path (airspeed and vertical speed).
2. The flare is a pitch AND energy management maneuvre.
The ground effect tends to add energy to the aircraft, which without thrust reduction would lead to either an increase in speed or t0o much reduced vertical speed. Which we don't want for landing distance reasons.
Again I'm not contradicting anything that is said in the FCTM. It just explains what is happening.
The speed excursion itself is caused by a combination of pitch and mass inertia. But you should realise that the vertical speed also has to increase as the speed increases to maintain that 3 degree path. After all if you would fly twice as fast down the glide your ROD would need to be twice as fast as well.
ie. if I normally fly to the runway in 4 minutes at 700 ft/min I would need to descent at 1400ft/min if I fly the same distance over the ground in 2 minutes. This is also true on a smaller scale.
So clearly then thrust manages both speed and vertical speed.
I like to think the thrust manages the total energy and the pitch manages the path (which is both speed and vertical speed).
The increase in speed and vertical speed is just a symptom of excess energy.
Oh and offcourse as soon as you are at minimum or maximum power (running out of additional energy so to speak) , pitch still controls the path (airspeed and vertical speed).
2. The flare is a pitch AND energy management maneuvre.
The ground effect tends to add energy to the aircraft, which without thrust reduction would lead to either an increase in speed or t0o much reduced vertical speed. Which we don't want for landing distance reasons.
Again I'm not contradicting anything that is said in the FCTM. It just explains what is happening.
Last edited by 737Jock; 31st Mar 2014 at 01:18.
The sudden speed excursions I'm talking about on approach are caused by windshear or turbulance changing the state of the Aircraft. The quickest easiest safest way to control them is via Thrust.
Good, I'm off for breakfast!!
Good, I'm off for breakfast!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ...
Posts: 3,753
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you think the windshear or turbulence does to the energy state of the aircraft? Exactly it increases or decreases the energystate!
Is this really a discussion point?
Air that moves has energy. When air moves an object it transfers this energy to the object! Think windmills that convert wind into electricity. The wind loses some of its energy when it moves the blades which happen to be aerofoils.
If you hit a downdraft you need more energy to counter it. If you hit an updraft you need to reduce energy to counter it.
Therefore it's no surprise that the thrust manages excess/lack of energy most efficiently. That's exactly what I have been saying. If you encounter an updraft reduce thrust immediately. If you encounter positive windshear reduce thrust immediately.
There is no need to wait for a huge speed excursion that it the result of your efforts to maintain on a 3 degree path and mass inertia.
Have a look at your vertical speed when you next encounter gusty winds and turbulence.
BTW under flaring or flaring too late is a pilot error it's not an energy management problem. It has very little to do with external disturbances that I described that need to be managed with energy.
Is this really a discussion point?
Air that moves has energy. When air moves an object it transfers this energy to the object! Think windmills that convert wind into electricity. The wind loses some of its energy when it moves the blades which happen to be aerofoils.
If you hit a downdraft you need more energy to counter it. If you hit an updraft you need to reduce energy to counter it.
Therefore it's no surprise that the thrust manages excess/lack of energy most efficiently. That's exactly what I have been saying. If you encounter an updraft reduce thrust immediately. If you encounter positive windshear reduce thrust immediately.
There is no need to wait for a huge speed excursion that it the result of your efforts to maintain on a 3 degree path and mass inertia.
Have a look at your vertical speed when you next encounter gusty winds and turbulence.
BTW under flaring or flaring too late is a pilot error it's not an energy management problem. It has very little to do with external disturbances that I described that need to be managed with energy.
Last edited by 737Jock; 31st Mar 2014 at 01:26.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Netherlands
Age: 71
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting discussion here. Nice to read about things I used to do (retired now after 30 Yrs of flying mostly Boeing heavy jets with an airline) without ever realising many things posted here.
Indeed, after finishing flying SE props, where, at least 40 years ago it was common to fly with pitch for speed I had to get used to the other system when converting to jets. For most pilots, as it did for me, it takes a few hours to get used to.
My explanation for the way to fly a heavy jet in the approach is: about the last thing You want to F&*$ U# is Your descent angle/glide slope. Even to the cost of overspeed if it happens.
For example at 200' You run into a positive windshear which tries to flatten out the descent and increase the IAS. Now I can cope with overspeed, but at that height correcting a completely destabilised approach angle is just alarming in a heavy jet. So what You do is to pitch down first and fight to stick to the G/S. Of course the second reaction is reduce some power, but that is limited, because who wants to idle a heavy jet at 200'?
When passing the threshold You decide if the overspeed is acceptable to continue landing or press the GA button.
One thing was stated in earlier posts was that You could never push during a flare. Anyway the B747 could easily cope with short pulsed pushed elevator inputs if needed to stop a prolonged flare. Slightly increasing the descent but the movement raised the main gears a bit and the overall effect was a smooth landing.
I still fly SE nowadays and would never allow a student to do that on a C172 however....
Indeed, after finishing flying SE props, where, at least 40 years ago it was common to fly with pitch for speed I had to get used to the other system when converting to jets. For most pilots, as it did for me, it takes a few hours to get used to.
My explanation for the way to fly a heavy jet in the approach is: about the last thing You want to F&*$ U# is Your descent angle/glide slope. Even to the cost of overspeed if it happens.
For example at 200' You run into a positive windshear which tries to flatten out the descent and increase the IAS. Now I can cope with overspeed, but at that height correcting a completely destabilised approach angle is just alarming in a heavy jet. So what You do is to pitch down first and fight to stick to the G/S. Of course the second reaction is reduce some power, but that is limited, because who wants to idle a heavy jet at 200'?
When passing the threshold You decide if the overspeed is acceptable to continue landing or press the GA button.
One thing was stated in earlier posts was that You could never push during a flare. Anyway the B747 could easily cope with short pulsed pushed elevator inputs if needed to stop a prolonged flare. Slightly increasing the descent but the movement raised the main gears a bit and the overall effect was a smooth landing.
I still fly SE nowadays and would never allow a student to do that on a C172 however....
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The moment at which to retard the thrust levers depends on several factors, specially your sink rate. The more the sink rate, the later you retard.
However, if you hear RETARD RETARD 3 or 4 times as the first post says, then the sink rate did not justify the delay in retarding at all.
You delay retarding when you hear the RA callouts very quick fiftfortythertwentten… Oops, flare some more and don't retard just jet (watch your pitch) then accept a somewhat harder landing and retard before touch down.
Floating and floating with thrust still on with RETARD RETARD repeatedly, I have seen many times. It is annoying indeed, and you eat up runway meters very quick. A BAD "technique" probably resulting from a previous traumatising hard landing.
However, if you hear RETARD RETARD 3 or 4 times as the first post says, then the sink rate did not justify the delay in retarding at all.
You delay retarding when you hear the RA callouts very quick fiftfortythertwentten… Oops, flare some more and don't retard just jet (watch your pitch) then accept a somewhat harder landing and retard before touch down.
Floating and floating with thrust still on with RETARD RETARD repeatedly, I have seen many times. It is annoying indeed, and you eat up runway meters very quick. A BAD "technique" probably resulting from a previous traumatising hard landing.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not far from the edge of the Milky Way Galaxy in the Orion Arm.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
guys, I got lost in the melee`
Remember the good old days when you wuz littul and you used to float in the basic trainer and it sometimes sank like a brick
t house suddenly - well remember when you were taught to apply a little power just to cushion the sink and remember when it, the aeroplane, landed beautiful like, on the runway and all the old geezers who had a million hours flying said "that was a proper text book landing that was"?
Remember that? - well, forgetting for a moment this is a rather more high-tech baby than the one first basic trainer you started off in, namely this the A320 Airbus -
At the end of the day, although I am Magenta-ised because it feels cool to be called a child of the magenta, or child of anything for that matter being predominantly a dinosaur
Is not, at the end of all discussion, the A320, an aeroplane and therefore does it not fly as such? This being the case, I put to you learned men and girlies of pprune, should not the said aircraft be therefore flown like an aircraft - which it indeed is and therefore would it not respond, I ask you, respond, to the inputs of the pilot at this juncture in his/her life i.e., during the Landing.
therefore - if it works in the basic trainer by "putting on a little power if it sinks a bit after a slight balloon" or forget the balloon - just look at the sink, caused by whatever.
Are we not merely cushioning to a perfect touchdown by adding a little power then? Hmmm? (if you have got the runway for it)
and look at the comment on failing to do so with increasing alpha and ever grazing tail.
No one said apply enough power to go floating down the runway and into the Long Term car park at the end.
Versus
Having retarded - would adding a little bit of power be nigh on impossible - why? Well, the spool up time for a start (or maybe that amount of thrust would just about do it) If not you`re going to hit the runway anyway.
Secondly - will not applying power combined with (now approaching VLS na, na, na na na) cause a TOGA - . . .
just thought a bit of power might be nice - you don`t need a lot.
While we are here - what was the previous discussion many moons ago about - if you are on the ILS in Autoland and you applied TOGA you would continue the descent - in TOGA, this seeming rather an alarming result - I just wondered if anyone could clarify as it would take ages to have to walk to the terminal from the runway.
BTW nit-picker - I agree with everything you wrote - its flying.
Microburst2002 - you are right too. Nitpicker is after the sink and you are before it - but you would both say the same thing.
One is preventing which is ideal but you both prevent for a living and the other is using tactics - fly-ing to grease the baby onto the tarmac - which is not always what the say should be done with an A320 but rather firmer, without holding off with ever increasing angle.
I love the A320 and cannot imagine ever landing it other than perfectly - simply because it is an ace babe at landing - so was the L1011-1 if you got it right if you tried to land it like today`s A320 you would bury the mains into the tarmac. See the difference - keep it off V let it on - on that sea-shell, I notice most of the A330 pilots grease it on, like some tantric experience - a different story to the A320, firmer.
nitpicker - love your idea of a good brekky whilst waiting for the thunderstorm, and you are getting paid for it too - kewel!
Remember the good old days when you wuz littul and you used to float in the basic trainer and it sometimes sank like a brick
t house suddenly - well remember when you were taught to apply a little power just to cushion the sink and remember when it, the aeroplane, landed beautiful like, on the runway and all the old geezers who had a million hours flying said "that was a proper text book landing that was"?Remember that? - well, forgetting for a moment this is a rather more high-tech baby than the one first basic trainer you started off in, namely this the A320 Airbus -
At the end of the day, although I am Magenta-ised because it feels cool to be called a child of the magenta, or child of anything for that matter being predominantly a
dinosaurIs not, at the end of all discussion, the A320, an aeroplane and therefore does it not fly as such? This being the case, I put to you learned men and girlies of pprune, should not the said aircraft be therefore flown like an aircraft - which it indeed is and therefore would it not respond, I ask you, respond, to the inputs of the pilot at this juncture in his/her life i.e., during the Landing.
therefore - if it works in the basic trainer by "putting on a little power if it sinks a bit after a slight balloon" or forget the
balloon - just look at the sink, caused by whatever.Are we not merely cushioning to a perfect touchdown by adding a little power then? Hmmm? (if you have got the runway for it)
and look at the comment on failing to do so with increasing alpha and ever grazing tail.
No one said apply enough power to go floating down the runway and into the Long Term car park at the end.
Versus
Having retarded - would adding a little bit of power be nigh on impossible - why? Well, the spool up time for a start (or maybe that amount of thrust would just about do it) If not you`re going to hit the runway anyway.
Secondly - will not applying power combined with (now approaching VLS na, na, na na na) cause a TOGA - . . .
just thought a bit of power might be nice - you don`t need a lot.
While we are here - what was the previous discussion many moons ago about - if you are on the ILS in Autoland and you applied TOGA you would continue the descent - in TOGA, this seeming rather an alarming result - I just wondered if anyone could clarify as it would take ages to have to walk to the terminal from the runway.
BTW nit-picker - I agree with everything you wrote - its flying.
Microburst2002 - you are right too. Nitpicker is after the sink and you are before it - but you would both say the same thing.
One is preventing which is ideal but you both prevent for a living and the other is using tactics - fly-ing to grease the baby onto the tarmac - which is not always what the say should be done with an A320 but rather firmer, without holding off with ever increasing angle.
I love the A320 and cannot imagine ever landing it other than perfectly - simply because it is an ace babe at landing - so was the L1011-1 if you got it right if you tried to land it like today`s A320 you would bury the mains into the tarmac. See the difference - keep it off V let it on - on that sea-shell, I notice most of the A330 pilots grease it on, like some tantric experience - a different story to the A320, firmer.
nitpicker - love your idea of a good brekky whilst waiting for the thunderstorm, and you are getting paid for it too - kewel!
Last edited by Natstrackalpha; 19th May 2014 at 00:50.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Double Oak, Texas
Age: 71
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Retired now but I do remember my technique for flaring just prior to touchdown.
Let's see I used the same basic technique in every civil jet I ever flew beginning in Lears and Citations in 1978, to B727, DC10, MD11, S80, B757, B767 and last, the B777.
The military jets I never flared, T2C TA4J A4M F4 and RF4......
Anywho, I tried to arrive at around 50 feet, stabilized on speed and over a runway threshold. At 30 to 20 feet I would flare slightly and ALMOST NEVER retarded the throttles until touchdown. Worked nearly every time for a very smooth touchdown. The jets were all trimmed up, on speed , pulling the power off would tend to cause the nose to drop, especially on the wing mounted engine jets. Leaving the power on, just started a push-me / pull you yoke fest.
Often, the power was still on at touchdown, thus requiring close monitoring of auto speed brakes when equipped and auto brakes.
Worked well on generally level runways. Had to pull power sooner on downhill runways. For steep uphill runways, say San Jose, Costa Rica or La Paz, Bolivia if
I or a co-pilot pulled power during flare, I was very demanding in allowing NO
FLOATING along an uphill runway with flight idle or close to it.
Again, I generally found it so much easier to leave the power alone and just flare slightly.
Offered that "flare system"as a possible technique to think about to pilots I taught as a line 757/767 CKA during 14 of my airline years.
Let's see I used the same basic technique in every civil jet I ever flew beginning in Lears and Citations in 1978, to B727, DC10, MD11, S80, B757, B767 and last, the B777.
The military jets I never flared, T2C TA4J A4M F4 and RF4......
Anywho, I tried to arrive at around 50 feet, stabilized on speed and over a runway threshold. At 30 to 20 feet I would flare slightly and ALMOST NEVER retarded the throttles until touchdown. Worked nearly every time for a very smooth touchdown. The jets were all trimmed up, on speed , pulling the power off would tend to cause the nose to drop, especially on the wing mounted engine jets. Leaving the power on, just started a push-me / pull you yoke fest.
Often, the power was still on at touchdown, thus requiring close monitoring of auto speed brakes when equipped and auto brakes.
Worked well on generally level runways. Had to pull power sooner on downhill runways. For steep uphill runways, say San Jose, Costa Rica or La Paz, Bolivia if
I or a co-pilot pulled power during flare, I was very demanding in allowing NO
FLOATING along an uphill runway with flight idle or close to it.
Again, I generally found it so much easier to leave the power alone and just flare slightly.
Offered that "flare system"as a possible technique to think about to pilots I taught as a line 757/767 CKA during 14 of my airline years.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ???
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Natstrackalpha that must be some good weed.
SKS777FLYER the aim of the game nowadays is to land in the touchdown zone. smooth landing are secondary. using thrust to achieve a smooth touchdown is bad technique and could seriously mess things up. bounched landings/ floating halfway down the rwy/overruns all come to mind
SKS777FLYER the aim of the game nowadays is to land in the touchdown zone. smooth landing are secondary. using thrust to achieve a smooth touchdown is bad technique and could seriously mess things up. bounched landings/ floating halfway down the rwy/overruns all come to mind
Last edited by InSoMnIaC; 19th May 2014 at 12:47.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Double Oak, Texas
Age: 71
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wrote that I only flared slightly, meaning the sink rate usually slowed slightly.
I sure wish I had your knowledge back in the day at short fields like Tegucigalpa, where the touchdown zone ended 750 ft from the threshold or Jackson Hole, or maybe La Guardia during the winter landing a DC10.
Never knew a thing about touchdown zones..... When did that come into play (sarcasm)
I sure wish I had your knowledge back in the day at short fields like Tegucigalpa, where the touchdown zone ended 750 ft from the threshold or Jackson Hole, or maybe La Guardia during the winter landing a DC10.
Never knew a thing about touchdown zones..... When did that come into play (sarcasm)
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not far from the edge of the Milky Way Galaxy in the Orion Arm.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ insomniac
Oi ! Listen up - you spent half your posts telling Jet Pilots of Big Jets that as opposed to using elevator for speed (like in little aeroplanes) and thrust for RoD - in the big jets you use Elevator for RoD and thrust for speed. No way? Boy is that true? - wow, must go and tell the air-line pilots about that - they will really want to know that.
So, some of the pilots come in to explain how instinctively all that . . .drill can be pre-empted due to the feel of the aircraft viz a vis the motion (which you can feel by the seat of your pants and see by your most beautiful radial scan).
Duh?
So - if you were less into what you accused me of - then you would not be talking baby talk on a professional pilots forum, consisting of jet pilots that fly jets every single day - you num nut.
So Mr ---ola, how pray, would you arrest a nasty sink in the A320 - ooooh, I dunno lets say an unprecedented windshear - a reverse in the wind speed - at 50 feet and falling like the clappers. What would you do - there are perhaps many options - I would choose only one of them, if I were you - and after having done so - what would be the result of your actions? What would be the result, despite your actions?
You should sleep more.
Touchdown zones - now there`s a thang! Must phone up ICAO and tell `em about that - they could use it in their next manual. (hmmm, touch down zones - might catch on . . . touchdown zones, yep - certainly got a nice ring to it . . . . )
So, some of the pilots come in to explain how instinctively all that . . .drill can be pre-empted due to the feel of the aircraft viz a vis the motion (which you can feel by the seat of your pants and see by your most beautiful radial scan).
Duh?
So - if you were less into what you accused me of - then you would not be talking baby talk on a professional pilots forum, consisting of jet pilots that fly jets every single
day - you num nut.So Mr ---ola, how pray, would you arrest a nasty sink in the A320 - ooooh, I dunno lets say an unprecedented windshear - a reverse in the wind speed - at 50 feet and falling like the clappers. What would you do - there are perhaps many options - I would choose only one of them, if I were you - and after having done so - what would be the result of your actions? What would be the result, despite your actions?
You should sleep more.
Touchdown zones - now there`s a thang! Must phone up ICAO and tell `em about that - they could use it in their next manual. (hmmm, touch down zones - might catch on . . . touchdown zones, yep - certainly got a nice ring to it . . . . )
Last edited by Natstrackalpha; 19th May 2014 at 09:01.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Kansas
Age: 85
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Threads like this make me nervous about the whole industry.
Thrust. Attitude. Use both, or either, judiciously and you should arrive at the same time as the aircraft does.
Thrust. Attitude. Use both, or either, judiciously and you should arrive at the same time as the aircraft does.
