The Importance of a good Landing
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tamworth, UK / Nairobi, Kenya
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
144 knots ground speed. African.
ie. are we ABOVE or BELOW the recommended IAS for this approach?
Because, no matter the glide slope, if we're above the recommended speed, we will float. The faster we're going, the longer we'll float.
If the glide slope is too high but the IAS is right, we won't float (we might bounce if it's too too high, and if it's way way too high then we'll splat), and if the glide slope is too low, but the IAS is right, we won't float either.
But if we're configured correctly, then we "should" fly the glide slope at the same speed as any where else (depending on wind of course), so we should be at the correct IAS.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry folks, but it continues to sound like there is a group who prefer to leave the landing up to the airplane …
The last time I checked it was the pilot flying who was to fly-the-airplane and not the other way around. If the airspeed is, or is going to be, wrong – the pilot flying should make the appropriate correction. If the airplane is, or is going to be, either too high or too low – the pilot flying should make the appropriate correction. If the airplane is, or is going to be, either above or below the glide slope – the pilot flying should make the appropriate correction. I’d go on, but I would just be repeating myself.
If you are the pilot flying the airplane and you don’t know exactly where you want the airplane to be and know how to get it there, and keep it there – no matter where you are, at all times between engine start and engine shut down – you were not trained completely or you were not trained correctly. We all make mistakes – heaven knows, I’ve made my share. But when a mistake is made, it should be immediately recognized and the appropriate correction should be applied.
So, what is the appropriate correction? That depends on the condition of the airplane at that moment and what the condition of the airplane should be at that moment – AND that extends to and includes what the airplane condition should be in the NEXT moment. And, for the uninitiated, airplane “condition” is attitude, altitude, airspeed, configuration, and direction … with full awareness of flight control position (including any control pressures being held in any of the 3 axes), as well as throttle position, and trim (in all 3 axes). So, to correct an error, the pilot flying would have to know and understand the current airplane condition AND know and understand what kind of correction(s) will have to be made (via the application of the controls available to the pilot) to adjust the airplane condition to achieve one that is desired – given the location and the circumstances at that moment.
Also, it’s my opinion (for whatever it’s worth) that “floating” is a description of what the airplane is doing, all by itself, with the pilot along for the ride.
The last time I checked it was the pilot flying who was to fly-the-airplane and not the other way around. If the airspeed is, or is going to be, wrong – the pilot flying should make the appropriate correction. If the airplane is, or is going to be, either too high or too low – the pilot flying should make the appropriate correction. If the airplane is, or is going to be, either above or below the glide slope – the pilot flying should make the appropriate correction. I’d go on, but I would just be repeating myself.
If you are the pilot flying the airplane and you don’t know exactly where you want the airplane to be and know how to get it there, and keep it there – no matter where you are, at all times between engine start and engine shut down – you were not trained completely or you were not trained correctly. We all make mistakes – heaven knows, I’ve made my share. But when a mistake is made, it should be immediately recognized and the appropriate correction should be applied.
So, what is the appropriate correction? That depends on the condition of the airplane at that moment and what the condition of the airplane should be at that moment – AND that extends to and includes what the airplane condition should be in the NEXT moment. And, for the uninitiated, airplane “condition” is attitude, altitude, airspeed, configuration, and direction … with full awareness of flight control position (including any control pressures being held in any of the 3 axes), as well as throttle position, and trim (in all 3 axes). So, to correct an error, the pilot flying would have to know and understand the current airplane condition AND know and understand what kind of correction(s) will have to be made (via the application of the controls available to the pilot) to adjust the airplane condition to achieve one that is desired – given the location and the circumstances at that moment.
Also, it’s my opinion (for whatever it’s worth) that “floating” is a description of what the airplane is doing, all by itself, with the pilot along for the ride.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exascot is on the money. Trailing links are a gift to ham-fisted monkeys like me. It makes it bloody difficult to really plant it.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: B.F.E.
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The best type of gear for making really great hammer-on landings, the kind that could actually strike crude oil if there is a vein under the runway TDZ, is that on the DHC-8 Classic.
It is a 12-foot-long metal stick with a pair of wheels attached to the end, jammed up into the wing.
No matter WHAT you do, if there is even a gnat's you-know-what of residual crab at touchdown, those sticks will send a shudder through the entire airframe that creates a nice S-wave. This culminates with the cockpit door making a lovely "THWACKACKACKACK!!!" sound, like the "cracker" on a bullwhip.
It is a 12-foot-long metal stick with a pair of wheels attached to the end, jammed up into the wing.
No matter WHAT you do, if there is even a gnat's you-know-what of residual crab at touchdown, those sticks will send a shudder through the entire airframe that creates a nice S-wave. This culminates with the cockpit door making a lovely "THWACKACKACKACK!!!" sound, like the "cracker" on a bullwhip.
I was reliably informed the previous occupation of the individual who designed the Q400 gear was at a manufacturer of shopping trollies!
AirRabbit I am not Mr. Ferret, but perhaps I can offer my view. Ithink perhaps sometimes you forget what it was like to be inexperienced. When I was released to Line training after base training in my first jet type, I could land the aircraft safely within my limitations (there were company imposed crosswind limits until a certain number of hours on type.) That is to say, I could land the aircraft safely in the touchdown zone, on centreline and speed. What I could not do until I had more experience and still cannot always do to my satisfaction is control the smoothness of the touchdown or touch down at the precise point I have nominated.
When I might say I floated, what that means is that I have either arrived in the slot with too much energy, or arrested the descent rate too aggressively or too early, and the aircraft is still flying when I want it to be on the ground. From that point, on a short runway one has to be aggressive to put the aircraft on the ground to ensure stopping performance which tends to result in an arrival, or on a longer runway you can smoothly correct your error resulting in a smoother touchdown but a longer landing roll. Floating by definition is an error in the first place, and one is not necessarily so much a passenger as trying to correct the initial error.
I think our innate perfectionism leads us to be a bit more self-deprecating about our landing than is perhaps warranted. Also, certainly in the case of the 737, the continued buggering about with the aircraft fuselage length, wing section and characteristics has left an aircraft that requires very precise handling and control, whereas the bizjets one might step up from are comparatively easy to land and do not provide much preparation for the move to larger aircraft.
Hello Mr. Ferret - thanks for the reply. But before I get too far into an exchange, I probably need to ask you straight out ... are you saying that after 7 years you cannot land your A320 airplane at all; you don't make landings that are consistent; every once in a while you wind up really "planting" the airplane on the runway; or the majority of your landings are not the mythical, 'we-didn't-know-we-were-on-the-ground' kind of "greased-on" landings? I ask because the answer(s) to these kinds of questions tend to reveal the actual source of your comment. And before you ask ... No, I'm NOT "pulling your chain," or attempting to belittle or insult you. I hope you provide an honest and direct answer. I'm looking forward to your response.
When I might say I floated, what that means is that I have either arrived in the slot with too much energy, or arrested the descent rate too aggressively or too early, and the aircraft is still flying when I want it to be on the ground. From that point, on a short runway one has to be aggressive to put the aircraft on the ground to ensure stopping performance which tends to result in an arrival, or on a longer runway you can smoothly correct your error resulting in a smoother touchdown but a longer landing roll. Floating by definition is an error in the first place, and one is not necessarily so much a passenger as trying to correct the initial error.
I think our innate perfectionism leads us to be a bit more self-deprecating about our landing than is perhaps warranted. Also, certainly in the case of the 737, the continued buggering about with the aircraft fuselage length, wing section and characteristics has left an aircraft that requires very precise handling and control, whereas the bizjets one might step up from are comparatively easy to land and do not provide much preparation for the move to larger aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Jwscud;
First, let me thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions … and, second, I think that if you have not already found for yourself, you most certainly will find, that remembering when you were “inexperienced” is something that isn’t easily forgotten! And, the better one remembers, the greater the opportunity to be an even better instructor.
Also, in “rank-order” of the questions I had posed for Mr. Ferret, your comments would place you right below the last question, at the “top end” of that list (…the majority of your landings are not the mythical, 'we-didn't-know-we-were-on-the-ground' kind of "greased-on" landings…) – and you apparently reached that level when you had finished your initial training and were “released” to line flying. A pilot who is able to, as you described yourself as being able to “…land the aircraft safely within … limitations (there were company imposed crosswind limits until a certain number of hours on type). That is to say, I could land the aircraft safely in the touchdown zone, on centerline, and speed.”
Not to overwork the thought, but landing the airplane safely, in the touchdown zone, on centerline and on speed, is a very complete definition of a “proficient landing.” “Greasing” the landing whenever and where ever you desire comes with a bit more practice – but the practice I’m describing is not "landing practice." The practice I'm describing is the practice of recognizing the condition of the airplane, and making adjustments to the controls available to you to adjust that condition … AND knowing when the environmental conditions are such that seeking to perform such a “greased-on landing” doesn’t compromise the pilot's maintaining complete control at all times.
A good, professional landing is NOT a “grease job.” A good, professional landing comprises all of the aspects you were capable of performing very early in your career, simply adding that the actual touchdown should not be hard, but should be firm (and there IS a difference) where “firm” gets the tires through any contaminates to the runway surface (water, ice, snow, etc. to allow the tire/wheel assemblies to start turning), and doing so ON the centerline, tracking to stay on that centerline, from such an airplane attitude (called the 'level flight attitude') that the nose can be lowered to the runway surface in a very short time - but not “dropping" it, and then activating the wheel brakes quickly (mostly to assure they are working correctly), ensuring that the speed brakes have deployed and that the thrust reversers are deployed when selected – from there you can determine the amount of reverse thrust desired. All of that should be regularly accomplished in the first 3000 feet of the runway, or the first 1/3 of the runway, whichever is SHORTER.
If you want to know some “crutches” that I’ve used to teach pilots how to practice and what to practice so that all of the above is able to be accomplished on each landing, just let me know. I’ve posted those practice scenarios on this forum previously. And, NO, these practice scenarios are not ‘mine’ but the way I was taught and the way I’ve taught for my entire instructing career. I use them simply because they work – on all airplanes – light civilian, military fighter, military transport, and, a whole litany of civilian passenger jets … and, although I’ve not landed an A380 or a B-52, I would suspect these practice tasks would work there too.
First, let me thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions … and, second, I think that if you have not already found for yourself, you most certainly will find, that remembering when you were “inexperienced” is something that isn’t easily forgotten! And, the better one remembers, the greater the opportunity to be an even better instructor.
Also, in “rank-order” of the questions I had posed for Mr. Ferret, your comments would place you right below the last question, at the “top end” of that list (…the majority of your landings are not the mythical, 'we-didn't-know-we-were-on-the-ground' kind of "greased-on" landings…) – and you apparently reached that level when you had finished your initial training and were “released” to line flying. A pilot who is able to, as you described yourself as being able to “…land the aircraft safely within … limitations (there were company imposed crosswind limits until a certain number of hours on type). That is to say, I could land the aircraft safely in the touchdown zone, on centerline, and speed.”
Not to overwork the thought, but landing the airplane safely, in the touchdown zone, on centerline and on speed, is a very complete definition of a “proficient landing.” “Greasing” the landing whenever and where ever you desire comes with a bit more practice – but the practice I’m describing is not "landing practice." The practice I'm describing is the practice of recognizing the condition of the airplane, and making adjustments to the controls available to you to adjust that condition … AND knowing when the environmental conditions are such that seeking to perform such a “greased-on landing” doesn’t compromise the pilot's maintaining complete control at all times.
A good, professional landing is NOT a “grease job.” A good, professional landing comprises all of the aspects you were capable of performing very early in your career, simply adding that the actual touchdown should not be hard, but should be firm (and there IS a difference) where “firm” gets the tires through any contaminates to the runway surface (water, ice, snow, etc. to allow the tire/wheel assemblies to start turning), and doing so ON the centerline, tracking to stay on that centerline, from such an airplane attitude (called the 'level flight attitude') that the nose can be lowered to the runway surface in a very short time - but not “dropping" it, and then activating the wheel brakes quickly (mostly to assure they are working correctly), ensuring that the speed brakes have deployed and that the thrust reversers are deployed when selected – from there you can determine the amount of reverse thrust desired. All of that should be regularly accomplished in the first 3000 feet of the runway, or the first 1/3 of the runway, whichever is SHORTER.
If you want to know some “crutches” that I’ve used to teach pilots how to practice and what to practice so that all of the above is able to be accomplished on each landing, just let me know. I’ve posted those practice scenarios on this forum previously. And, NO, these practice scenarios are not ‘mine’ but the way I was taught and the way I’ve taught for my entire instructing career. I use them simply because they work – on all airplanes – light civilian, military fighter, military transport, and, a whole litany of civilian passenger jets … and, although I’ve not landed an A380 or a B-52, I would suspect these practice tasks would work there too.
Last edited by AirRabbit; 11th Jun 2015 at 00:23.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: B.F.E.
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed look out the window. Watch your aiming point, and keep it stationary in the windshield. The old "non-moving point" technique of aiming a visual final approach. Subconsciously you will also be maintaining your pitch relationship with the horizon as well, and scanning airspeed and vertical rate. This will keep you squared into the glide path. PAPI and electronic GS etc will back you up.
As we cross the airport fence and get towards ground effect (say 100 ish feet or so for a widebody), your scan goes entirely outside. No point micromanaging the speed and rate at this point, if it gets wonky at this point you'll feel it in your arse before it shows up on the gauges anyway. It's time to focus entirely outside.
Entirely personal technique, but I keep the aiming point until I first start to think about flaring (maybe 50 - 70 feet or so). I then transition focus to about 2/3rds down the runway and let my eyes soft-focus just a little to bring in more visual field. When my eyes start to "feel" the sinking motion, the flare begins. When deep in the flare and "settling in", I let my eyes go out closer to the horizon for the last fine tune.
Then, when the airplane calls out "3,3,3,3" and I realize it's a floater, I just close both eyes and wait. At impact, open them and look out again, roll the nose over a couple degrees, crack reverse and pull back again to keep the weight of the airplane "on the wing" until the second bogie snaps down, honk in a fistfull of reverse and keep the backpressure coming. Aim to run out of elevator right as the nose touches the ground. Should be around 80 knots ish.
Makes landing a 330 feel just like my PPL-era attempts at Cessna 172 soft-field landings (questionable and mixed). The French designed a nice-feeling airplane (well during the last 8 seconds of the flight at least). Gets you stopped nice and short, too.
I swear the trick is to close your eyes and pray at the 5-foot call.
As we cross the airport fence and get towards ground effect (say 100 ish feet or so for a widebody), your scan goes entirely outside. No point micromanaging the speed and rate at this point, if it gets wonky at this point you'll feel it in your arse before it shows up on the gauges anyway. It's time to focus entirely outside.
Entirely personal technique, but I keep the aiming point until I first start to think about flaring (maybe 50 - 70 feet or so). I then transition focus to about 2/3rds down the runway and let my eyes soft-focus just a little to bring in more visual field. When my eyes start to "feel" the sinking motion, the flare begins. When deep in the flare and "settling in", I let my eyes go out closer to the horizon for the last fine tune.
Then, when the airplane calls out "3,3,3,3" and I realize it's a floater, I just close both eyes and wait. At impact, open them and look out again, roll the nose over a couple degrees, crack reverse and pull back again to keep the weight of the airplane "on the wing" until the second bogie snaps down, honk in a fistfull of reverse and keep the backpressure coming. Aim to run out of elevator right as the nose touches the ground. Should be around 80 knots ish.
Makes landing a 330 feel just like my PPL-era attempts at Cessna 172 soft-field landings (questionable and mixed). The French designed a nice-feeling airplane (well during the last 8 seconds of the flight at least). Gets you stopped nice and short, too.
I swear the trick is to close your eyes and pray at the 5-foot call.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Mr. Ferret - thanks for the reply. But before I get too far into an exchange, I probably need to ask you straight out ... are you saying that after 7 years you cannot land your A320 airplane at all; you don't make landings that are consistent; every once in a while you wind up really "planting" the airplane on the runway; or the majority of your landings are not the mythical, 'we-didn't-know-we-were-on-the-ground' kind of "greased-on" landings? I ask because the answer(s) to these kinds of questions tend to reveal the actual source of your comment. And before you ask ... No, I'm NOT "pulling your chain," or attempting to belittle or insult you. I hope you provide an honest and direct answer. I'm looking forward to your response.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed look out the window. Watch your aiming point, and keep it stationary in the windshield. The old "non-moving point" technique of aiming a visual final approach. Subconsciously you will also be maintaining your pitch relationship with the horizon as well, and scanning airspeed and vertical rate. This will keep you squared into the glide path. PAPI and electronic GS etc will back you up.
"Glide fits?", "Crap now we have 3 red!" - *correction*, "ups now 1/2 a dot above the glide" *correcting again*.
^ A lot of unnecessary instability introduced into the path in the very last few feet, and focus on the instruments, at a time where the pilot should only concentrate on the aim point and speed.
Usually it lead to a "panic pull", when being surprised at seeing the runway come rushing towards the pilot who is now more inside, than outside - manifesting as a small break in 100-50 feet. Now a long landing at the end of the touchdown zone is inevitable... or passing the threshold in 75-100 feet, the pilot now becomes aware and delays the flare. To avoid a smack, leaves the throttles in until 10 feet -> airplane keeps flying and floats to the end of the touchdown zone.
It's so easy to see what is going on when you are aware of it. And usually, the after landing question "where did you look?", confirms exactly the above scenario.
Hence, my mantra "aim point, airspeed - aim point, airspeed" ONLY - from the last 300 feet LATEST or better 500+, phasing out the electronics aids slowly, the higher you switch reference to the aim point (visual conditions permitting of course). If the glide and PAPIs don't fit OK doing this technique, the chance is the approach was messed up before switching reference anyway.
Hence, in short: forget about the PAPI and glide as you are approaching the runway. They are there to lead you to the visual segment, not to lead you into the flare.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fursty Ferret
Most of my landings are a gentle plop into the touchdown zone, occasionally a greaser, and sometimes the WHUMP onto the markers. And sometimes I have no idea why that happened, 'cos it can be onto any runway, with any slope, and any wind.
My recommendation would be that you:
FIRST, pay significantly closer attention to how you are handling the controls during short final … and if that doesn’t give you a meaningful clue as to what you’re doing or not doing from one landing to the next;
SECOND, grab a knowledgeable instructor and have him/her take you into the simulator to examine your technique during approach/landings with all the variables you mentioned. If that instructor knows anything he/she should be able to point out to you what inconsistencies you may be bouncing between (no pun intended); or … if you're interested, I can forward to you a copy of some of the recommendations I've made for how a lot of folks really learn and/or polish their landing technique - and I can certainly do that publically or privately - as you prefer.
LASTLY, and only because “a WHUMP onto the markers,” is not a long way from “a WHUMP into the ground short of the runway,” if the first and/or second recommendations don’t work, I hear that the Post Office is hiring.
LASTLY, and only because “a WHUMP onto the markers,” is not a long way from “a WHUMP into the ground short of the runway
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi framer …
Hmmm … I was reading “marker” as the runway end, threshold marking stripes - primarily due to the fact that he specifically described most of his landings as being "in the touchdown zone" with some additional landings being "greasers" and others being a "WHUMP into the markers," both of which I read as being outside of the touchdown zone. If the correct interpretation was intended to be the “fixed distance” markings, normally placed 1000 feet from the threshold and considered the beginning of the touchdown zone, of course, you are correct. However, normally any “WHUMP” touchdowns - where ever they occur - occur when the pilot isn’t paying very close attention to what is happening. Not necessarily a big deal – as you say – who hasn’t “been there – done that?” However, I go back to the original comment, from someone who lands in the TD zone all of the time – even with the occasional, unexpected “WHUMP” (apparently, also in the touchdown zone) – why say …
...and if it is appropriate, even with my lack of understanding for that statement, I extend my apologies to Mr. Ferret.
Hmmm … I was reading “marker” as the runway end, threshold marking stripes - primarily due to the fact that he specifically described most of his landings as being "in the touchdown zone" with some additional landings being "greasers" and others being a "WHUMP into the markers," both of which I read as being outside of the touchdown zone. If the correct interpretation was intended to be the “fixed distance” markings, normally placed 1000 feet from the threshold and considered the beginning of the touchdown zone, of course, you are correct. However, normally any “WHUMP” touchdowns - where ever they occur - occur when the pilot isn’t paying very close attention to what is happening. Not necessarily a big deal – as you say – who hasn’t “been there – done that?” However, I go back to the original comment, from someone who lands in the TD zone all of the time – even with the occasional, unexpected “WHUMP” (apparently, also in the touchdown zone) – why say …
Originally Posted by Fursty Ferret
“I've been flying the A320 for seven years and still can't land it. Does that help your query?”
Last edited by AirRabbit; 12th Jun 2015 at 17:38.
Hi AirRabbit,
No doubt the Ferret will come back and tell us if he or she meant the 1000ft markers or the threshold markers. I will be very very surprised if he meant the threshold markers because of the different way I interpreted his writings.
Also, a whump onto the 1000ft markers makes sense as that will be his aiming point and indicative of mis judging the flare/ energy state as happens to us all sometimes.
His original statement of
Sounds like a tongue in cheek way of saying " it isn't that easy to land an airliner, as long as it's safe who cares" that's my interpretation anyway.
I think that there is a bit of a pattern with pilots who get wound up about landing their aircraft. My hypothesis is that they were fine and dandy pilots on their last type and then made the jump to jets. During their TQ it became apparent to them that the swept wing jet is perhaps less forgiving than their fat wing turbo prop with regard to decaying airspeed. They may have had an experience in the simulator where five or six knots slipped away on them during the last hundred feet and they didn't feel it in their bum and suffered the almighty arrival that surely follows as they try to arrest the sink with elevator instead of thrust ( it would have worked in their fat wing turbo prop). Nobody takes the time to explain to them that in the real aircraft you can in fact feel changes through the seat of your pants even if it is a bit more subtle than in other types. Being dedicated and motivated pilots they vow and declare to be right on top of that airspeed and never again let the earth rise up to smight them. To achieve their new goal they scan inside at the ASI at 80ft, at 50ft, and maybe even at 30 ft. Each time they do this it ruins the picture they are building of the outside world and they have to start again at 30ft, as a result their judgement of the flare suffers. Then they progress to line training in the real aircraft and it is not long before they plant the aircraft hard. What to do what to do......? Being dedicated and motivated pilots they decide to create a wee break in the rate of descent prior to the actual flare as a safeguard against another heavy landing, some even give a burst of thrust at ten feet. They have now, all by themselves come up with a way of avoiding a hard landing due to airspeed decay, and also avoiding a hard landing because they have not got enough time to build a nice picture of the rate of descent. The result is what many of us have seen, slightly anxious pilots who land long and inconsistently and don't like runways less than 2500m long.
That is my hypothesis.
The fix is to go back to basics, maintain an aiming point visually, control airspeed by the seat of the pants below 100ft, shift focus down the runway at 30 ft. Fly the plane.
I am not a training Captain so am more than happy to have that theory destroyed by those more experienced than myself. Personally I think people who have trouble are trying to avoid a hard landing by using their instrumentation while they are low to the ground. Outside is best.
No doubt the Ferret will come back and tell us if he or she meant the 1000ft markers or the threshold markers. I will be very very surprised if he meant the threshold markers because of the different way I interpreted his writings.
Also, a whump onto the 1000ft markers makes sense as that will be his aiming point and indicative of mis judging the flare/ energy state as happens to us all sometimes.
His original statement of
“I've been flying the A320 for seven years and still can't land it. Does that help your query?”
I think that there is a bit of a pattern with pilots who get wound up about landing their aircraft. My hypothesis is that they were fine and dandy pilots on their last type and then made the jump to jets. During their TQ it became apparent to them that the swept wing jet is perhaps less forgiving than their fat wing turbo prop with regard to decaying airspeed. They may have had an experience in the simulator where five or six knots slipped away on them during the last hundred feet and they didn't feel it in their bum and suffered the almighty arrival that surely follows as they try to arrest the sink with elevator instead of thrust ( it would have worked in their fat wing turbo prop). Nobody takes the time to explain to them that in the real aircraft you can in fact feel changes through the seat of your pants even if it is a bit more subtle than in other types. Being dedicated and motivated pilots they vow and declare to be right on top of that airspeed and never again let the earth rise up to smight them. To achieve their new goal they scan inside at the ASI at 80ft, at 50ft, and maybe even at 30 ft. Each time they do this it ruins the picture they are building of the outside world and they have to start again at 30ft, as a result their judgement of the flare suffers. Then they progress to line training in the real aircraft and it is not long before they plant the aircraft hard. What to do what to do......? Being dedicated and motivated pilots they decide to create a wee break in the rate of descent prior to the actual flare as a safeguard against another heavy landing, some even give a burst of thrust at ten feet. They have now, all by themselves come up with a way of avoiding a hard landing due to airspeed decay, and also avoiding a hard landing because they have not got enough time to build a nice picture of the rate of descent. The result is what many of us have seen, slightly anxious pilots who land long and inconsistently and don't like runways less than 2500m long.
That is my hypothesis.
The fix is to go back to basics, maintain an aiming point visually, control airspeed by the seat of the pants below 100ft, shift focus down the runway at 30 ft. Fly the plane.
I am not a training Captain so am more than happy to have that theory destroyed by those more experienced than myself. Personally I think people who have trouble are trying to avoid a hard landing by using their instrumentation while they are low to the ground. Outside is best.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: B.F.E.
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was in full agreement until the last sentence. I think the last sentence is where many (beginners especially) go wrong. Because they try to get everything to "fit". And below DA/DH or even several 100 feet prior, they won't match up (not co-located, PAPI calibrated for different eye height etc). Hence, with each scan, a new (inappropriate) correction is made:
"Glide fits?", "Crap now we have 3 red!" - *correction*, "ups now 1/2 a dot above the glide" *correcting again*.
^ A lot of unnecessary instability introduced into the path in the very last few feet, and focus on the instruments, at a time where the pilot should only concentrate on the aim point and speed.
Usually it lead to a "panic pull", when being surprised at seeing the runway come rushing towards the pilot who is now more inside, than outside - manifesting as a small break in 100-50 feet. Now a long landing at the end of the touchdown zone is inevitable... or passing the threshold in 75-100 feet, the pilot now becomes aware and delays the flare. To avoid a smack, leaves the throttles in until 10 feet -> airplane keeps flying and floats to the end of the touchdown zone.
It's so easy to see what is going on when you are aware of it. And usually, the after landing question "where did you look?", confirms exactly the above scenario.
Hence, my mantra "aim point, airspeed - aim point, airspeed" ONLY - from the last 300 feet LATEST or better 500+, phasing out the electronics aids slowly, the higher you switch reference to the aim point (visual conditions permitting of course). If the glide and PAPIs don't fit OK doing this technique, the chance is the approach was messed up before switching reference anyway.
Hence, in short: forget about the PAPI and glide as you are approaching the runway. They are there to lead you to the visual segment, not to lead you into the flare.
"Glide fits?", "Crap now we have 3 red!" - *correction*, "ups now 1/2 a dot above the glide" *correcting again*.
^ A lot of unnecessary instability introduced into the path in the very last few feet, and focus on the instruments, at a time where the pilot should only concentrate on the aim point and speed.
Usually it lead to a "panic pull", when being surprised at seeing the runway come rushing towards the pilot who is now more inside, than outside - manifesting as a small break in 100-50 feet. Now a long landing at the end of the touchdown zone is inevitable... or passing the threshold in 75-100 feet, the pilot now becomes aware and delays the flare. To avoid a smack, leaves the throttles in until 10 feet -> airplane keeps flying and floats to the end of the touchdown zone.
It's so easy to see what is going on when you are aware of it. And usually, the after landing question "where did you look?", confirms exactly the above scenario.
Hence, my mantra "aim point, airspeed - aim point, airspeed" ONLY - from the last 300 feet LATEST or better 500+, phasing out the electronics aids slowly, the higher you switch reference to the aim point (visual conditions permitting of course). If the glide and PAPIs don't fit OK doing this technique, the chance is the approach was messed up before switching reference anyway.
Hence, in short: forget about the PAPI and glide as you are approaching the runway. They are there to lead you to the visual segment, not to lead you into the flare.
Also, you can always read the damn approach plate and see if the glideslope and PAPI are out if whack from each other.
