Well I hope he is tongue in cheek Bloggs but I suspect he's serious......

Well, we all knew how this discussion always ends, didn't we….

You are correct, it is Magenta. I am sure you will forgive my spelling mistake.

But it is flying principles we are discussing here, not your personal achievements.

So, pitch for path in your….. A330 it was……?

Yep in the 330 and the 777 I flew and the 744 and the 737 and the F50.

It was different in the Helo I flew, but then again I only did 1 hour in it.....:} great fun, you should try it young fella.:suspect:

Do you have a big watch?

Seems to be some confusion between Boeing And Airbus guys.

A Boeing is speedstable, thus pitch controls speed. Add thrust nose comes up, decrease thrust nose comes down, as the aircraft is trimmed for speed.

An Airbus, files very different in normal law. Add thrust, pitch stays the same thus speed increases. Decrease thrust, pitch stays the same and speed reduces.

Anyway thrust + pitch = performance in all aircraft.
You can fly the aircraft in a fixed pitch attitude and use thrust to arrest the rate of descent until touchdown.

737 Jock---It's not as simple as that. On the 777 it does trim for speed BUT the FBW compensates for configuration AND power changes.... So in effect on approach it won't pitch up if you increase thrust. The 737 and 744 would pitch up. Either way Boeing instructors teach Thrust for speed and Pitch for path control.

What you are describing is secondary effect.

Yes power + attitude equals performance. Thus would be true no matter which way you do it.


The Airbus FBW logic goes one step further in normal law and maintains a G. Great In theory but it does move in practice!!

The flying techniques used in both are the same as taught by Boeing and Airbus.

Blatant lie!

Sorry but that's the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard. There is no such thing as NEVER and ALWAYS in aviation.

The flying techniques are just that techniques. Thrust and pitch are linked, cause what we want to fly is performance.
It doesn't matter one bit what you change first. It's just an easy way to teach students and give them some good concepts to quickly deal with matters. But it is as easy as I said.

But I bet your ass that when you feel a kick in your back due to a gust you immediately reduce thrust, which in a Boeing will automatically lower the nose due to it being trimmed for speed. You know this you have this experience, a student might actually lower the nose (increasing speed) and then reduce thrust to reduce speed. No experienced pilot would do this.
In an airbus you will immediately take thrust off and lower the nose with the sidestick to maintain speed.

Can't believe professional pilots are discussing this.

If I get a sudden positive shear causing the a/c to ballon high I will immediatly lower the nose to keep the path AND reduce thrust to check the speed. All within acceptable limits depending on the altitude above the runway. ( We don't want to go shoving the nose forward at low levels!!! )

This has happened in all the types I've flown including the A330, you might think it won't change the pitch but it does.

I agree though, you do both at the same time to achieve the performance result. But you must get the basics correct in your head first.

I'll say it again, the 777 isn't only trimmed for speed, the FBW compensates for configuration AND thrust changes. Nice piece of kit and to my mind way way better than the A330.

The guy still insists that he pitches for path in a 777 and a 747.

Ok :ok:

By the way, we are discussing handling the aircraft yourself, not on AP that compensates blah blah blah through FBW or whatever.

Try manual flight and see if your theory works. Don't forget to pitch for your path now……...

Ok noodle guy I give up.

I'm going to leave now, you can play with other guys in here.

Happy trails and fly safe ( as they say )

Can you just grasp the simple fact that pitch + power is performance?
Or that Power + Pitch = performance

It doesn't matter which one gets changed first.

Outside factors influence what performance is needed to fly the desired path and speed. You have 2 tools to achieve this pitch and power, and they consistently interact with each other no matter what aircraft you fly or which fancy computer Boeing or Airbus came up with this time.

I never said pitch doesn't change.

But you apparently want to make a big point about the following 3 options which happen to be exactly the same:
1. Pitch down then reduce thrust = less performance
2. Reduce thrust then pitch down = less performance
3. Pitch down and reduce thrust simultaneously = less performance

Except that example 2 in a Boeing the thrust reduction will cause an automatic lowering of the nose (it is trimmed for speed, less thrust causes speed reduction thus nose lowers to increase speed and vertical speed increases (no gusts)). So less pilot input needed.
The only thing that we fix in our aircraft is the speed we fly at. And that dictates our pitch and thrust changes.

Whereas in an Airbus it doesn't matter one bit which sequence you chose.

Hmm. Well, you can, but... How's the speed going to reduce from Vapp to Vref for the touchdown if you're increasing power to arrest the descent? Not what the 737 FCTM says.

No, only two: sink rate and speed reduction. That's all. You still haven't actually told us how you land, Noodles. You just keep pointing the stick and at the flare point jam on some power? Or do you pull the stick back to reduce the speed and put the power up to reduce the descent rate? What do you do when it says "Retard"?

Picker's and my point is you use the primary effects of controls to control the aeroplane. That's all. If you're low on slope, pull the stick back to get back on it pronto. If necessary, adjust the thrust to maintain or regain the speed. Just like the AP and autothrottle does on an ILS. If you're on the glidselope and slow, you don't push the nose down...do you?? Don't use the secondary effects of controls to control the aeroplane.

It's just to illustrate the point that pitch + power = performance. And end this stupid discussion if power is speed or path and pitch is speed or path. They both are speed and path, as they determine the performance together.
Nor would I like to fly an approach with a fixed pitch setting, to many power changes.

And anyway I bet you have no idea what your actual speed is during the flare, you just know it's reducing and approximately ok as you were at Vapp when you started your flare.

That's why we add factors on top of the in factored landing distance which is based on Vref.

So how much speed do you actually lose during flare? Is it significant? If you wouldn't flare, what would most likely be the result? A runway overrun?

Maybe next time you land on a long runway, so a few knots more doesn't matter, why not try to land without flaring to see what happens? If flaring is only for speed reduction, it shouldn't matter?

Actually, I don't think it is a stupid discussion. You and I can fly satisfactorily using our own techniques (dunno about Noodles) but throw a newby in the seat and tell them to use thrust to control the slope and the stick to control the speed and they'd be in all sorts of bother. I certainly don't tell my FOs to do that. If they try, I growl at them. I've seen to many near-splats with the nose still down and the thrust up all because we fell into a bit of a hole. Pull the friggin' stick back a bit, Bloggs!

http://www.americanflyers.net/aviati...207_img_44.jpg

http://www.americanflyers.net/aviati...207_img_43.jpg

Large Airplanes

Pilots of larger airplanes with higher stall speeds may find the speed they maintain on the instrument approach is near

1.3 VSO, putting them near point C (in figure 2-7) the entire time the airplane is on the final approach segment. In this case, precise speed control is necessary throughout the approach. It may be necessary to overpower or underpower in relation to the target power setting in order to quickly correct for airspeed deviations.

For example, a pilot is on an instrument approach at 1.3 VSO, a speed near L/DMAX, and knows that a certain power setting will maintain that speed. The airplane slows several knots below the desired speed because of a slight reduction in the power setting. The pilot increases the power slightly, and the airplane begins to accelerate, but at a slow rate. Because the airplane is still in the “flat part” of the drag curve, this slight increase in power will not cause a rapid return to the desired speed. The pilot may need to increase the power higher than normally needed to maintain the new speed, allow the airplane to accelerate, then reduce the power to the setting that will maintain the desired speed.

One of the more difficult tasks that a pilot must routinely execute occurs during the brief transition between the final approach and first contact with the landing surface. This transition is known as the landing flare. The flare process requires that the pilot adjust the aircraft attitude and power settings from those maintained during final approach to values which are appropriate for landing. To be successful, these adjustments must occur at a height above the landing surface that will vary based on the size, weight and performance criteria of the aircraft and the prevailing environmental conditions. In many aircraft, pilots are required to make all height assessments based solely on external visual clues. A radio altimeter, when fitted, will provide an accurate height above the runway and can aid the pilot in determining the appropriate point at which to initiate the flare.
If executed correctly, the flare will result in the aircraft achieving the appropriate landing attitude with power at or near idle, a reduced rate of descent and a decaying airspeed, all at a height varying from several inches to several feet above the landing surface (dependant upon aircraft type). If not executed correctly, the flare could result in a hard landing, the collapse of the landing gear, a tailstrike or in a runway overrun or excursion.
Flare technique, and the amount of time prior to touchdown that the aircraft is maintained in the landing attitude to allow the speed to decay, varies from aircraft to aircraft. At one end of the spectrum are landings on an aircraft carrier in which the aircraft maintains the approach attitude and rate of descent until touchdown. For all intents, there is no flare and the landing gear design must be robust enough to ensure that no damage occurs because of the high rate of descent. At the other extreme are many light, general aviation, aircraft in which proper landing technique requires that the aircraft be held off the runway in the landing attitude until the speed decays almost to the point of aerodynamic stall. The majority of aircraft fall in between these extremes with touchdown occurring after the flare, power reduction and a brief hold off, at a speed well above Vs. Note that for these aircraft, intentionally holding the aircraft off of the runway for a protracted period in an attempt to achieve a smooth touchdown will result in a significant increase in landing distance and could lead to a tailstrike.
Once the main landing gear is in contact with the runway, de-rotation should occur without delay and before decaying airspeed results in the loss of elevator authority. In all cases, appropriate roll out and deceleration procedures should be initiated immediately following the touchdown as dictated by the calculated stopping distance and the available runway.


Enjoy willy fighting...:ok: :)

Just to throw it in there:

B747, Japan, 1985-ish. Phugoid motions ended in worst single air crash ever.

DC10, Sioux City, 1989-ish. Phugoid motions ended in not-too-bad-landing.

A3x0, Baghdad, 2002-ish. Phugoid motions but pilots managed to land it.

What goes first in phugoid motions?

Why do you get a phugoid motion?

How were the successful landings managed?

Why was it possible to get successful landings?

Depending on the answers, you would know which pilot to trust with such a scenario.

Bloggs, it is evident that you are not an experienced jet pilot. Spare us the stories of "your FOs"….

You rely too much on quotes from the FCTM and you exhibit a typical weak personality trait, trying to be a part of a team or a bigger group of people with the same opinion ( "Picker and I" "all of us" etc).

Why is it so important for you to be at Vref during touchdown? What do these speeds mean to you? Do you comprehend the real meaning behind these reference numbers?
Can your aircraft touch down without floating at Vref +30 or +40?

I repeat, you are using a wrong technique, it doesn't mean it doesn't work, just means that you are not actually "flying" the plane all the way to touchdown.
Flaring the way you describe it, translates into touching down whenever the aircraft feels like it, not where you want it. Read my posts more carefully to see the details, try it next time, and you will see that there is no floating, no hard landing, and most of all exact spot landing.

Its not for everyone. Boeing in the manuals, describes a simplistic technique that assures the company does not get in any legal trouble from possible misinterpretations.
Manuals are written with a team of lawyers over the pilots' shoulders.
Boeing instructors, technical pilots, test pilots and other experienced pilots will instruct you more complex details, only able to be shown while at the controls of the actual aircraft.

Read the fundamentals as described in Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators. You might learn a few things besides arguing for the sake of argument.

FWIW, on the A320, provided the speed was on (or above) the target IAS, and the VS and profile were good, I routinely closed the throttle levers between 50 ft and 30 ft. (IIRC, it's done at 50 ft for landing-performance certification.)

On the B707, I wouldn't dream of closing the thrust levers before the flare was nearly completed, unless the speed was high...

Post #40 got it right.
Finger is out and not in cheek.:E

Offcourse not, cause pitch for path and thrust for speed is much easier to explain. And for a newby much easier to execute. I'm certainly not advocating to change the way we teach flying.

If you would make us two fly the exact same approach in the exact same conditions I doubt you would see any difference in the way it is flown.

From my observations newbee pilots often use a lot more and bigger input on the controls (stick/yoke and thrust levers), more experienced pilots who are used to manual flight make smaller and less input. I believe this is because of better anticipation who the inputs affect each other.

The simple fact though is that pitch and thrust directly affect each other (and not only through underslung engines). SO it really doesn't matter if you say pitch controls speed/path and thrust controls path/speed.
Both statements are true! And as such you are ALL wrong.

Offcourse this is all valid if your approach speed is fixed... This thinking exercise can be even more fun if you allow speed variations. Offcourse this would not be very practical with regard to landing distance calculations.

BTW if you make students do fake approaches and get them to fly level and add power as required you will miraculously find the flare pitch attitude. we are not bleeding off speed at all, we are reducing the rate of descent to zero and if you can fly level while the wheels touch the ground its called a greaser. And because we don't add power we lose speed which helps with reducing the landing distance.

I am not sure why you are pointing fingers at Noodle.

There is no doubt that flying a jet -manually- one should use his pitch to control airspeed WHILE controlling the thrust to maintain the path he aims for.

They are interconnected as performance factors, so they go hand in hand as said already BUT, you do not control speed with thrust, and you also do not control path by pulling or pushing the yoke. Not in a Boeing. I don't know about Airbus so cannot comment, but I assume even Airbus without computer intervention follows the same laws sod physics.

Do correct me if I am wrong.

Keep the thread free of personal conflicts, lets try to present professional opinions without criticism. You all fly your aircraft, no need to play peacock here.
That said, I have noticed that members who easily jump into a discussion with the wrong answer (excess speed and always happy to point fingers at someone) find it very difficult to admit their mistake and keep being a part of the conversation in a more helpful way.
Sure nobody flies a heavy Boeing like a piston prop. Come on…..

You're wrong! Its not that black and white. Either statement is correct.

I really don't see how this even matters. These statements are just a very simplified manner of teaching someone how to fly. The tricks of the jobs are learned through experience, and change per aircraft type, they can't be taught that easily.

737jock---I think we agreed earlier that power + Atitude = Performance and that one will obviously effect the other.

Have you flown only the 737? Because I've flown both and can tell you that the 777 with its FBW will also maintain approx the same attitude if you change the thrust unlike non FBW Boeing's.

However be that as it may, Boeing and Airbus tech Pilots teach Pitch to control the profile and Thrust to control the speed followed by Pitch to Flare.

Both myself and Bloggs quoted the training manuals which are quite clear on the subject of pitch control during the flare and speed management on the approach.

Boeing and Airbus teach that during a manual approach they suggest the use of auto thrust ( or auto throttle ) to control the speed. This is the way it's done end if story full stop.

No amount of bull**** spewing from the crack pot Noodle will change that.

So what happens on an approach if you are on slope but 15 kts slow? 1/ you add thrust 2/ you maintain pitch attitude
That's what the manufacturer says to do and I don't see the point to do otherwise. Is noodle suggesting in that case he's going to push forward to regain the speed then increase thrust?does he think that's a good idea at low level? Because I don't think it is and neither do the manufacturers. Does he ever fly approaches manually with auto thrust? So why change techniques with or without auto thrust?

Don't get me started about his flare technique.......wow

Crazy people trying to re invent the damn wheel!!

nitpicker or Bloggs (I guess it is your alter ego…) Boeing suggests manual flight with Auto Throttle? :suspect:

Even if it did, is this what we are discussing here?

Do you know how a wheel looks like buddy? Who is trying to reinvent what here?

There is no way you are flying anything heavier than a kite.

Please tell me which Airline you "fly" for so I can avoid them.

You are a class one moron.

Now f off

It is more than evident who is the moron.

By the way, misd-agin replied in avery nice way to your initial post.
Gave you a clue to help you understand how absurd is your theory.

You decided to reply in your typical way….. Most probably because you could not understand his comment. Standard reaction of a distressed ape.

You have 5 days till Sunday to learn how to fly your sim A330:}

Congratulations Second officer Noodle you've made my ignore list

I have flown 737 and A320. Not 777 unfortunately, but in terms of discussion I think its better to leave the fancy computer bits out of it anyway.
But as you may remember from small aircraft during training, if you trim the aircraft for a speed in level flight and you add power, eventually you will end up climbing as the pitch attitude increases to maintain speed. This is obviously slower and likely less pronounced then the pitch up effect from underslung engines.

When someone is 15 kts slow I call go-around. No point trying to save that mess.:ok: But for the sake of the discussion I'll oblige.

Offcourse you need to add power and a lot of it as well since your on the back side of the powercurve. As the speed increases the pitch attitude reduces in order to maintain the path.
But what if you are so slow that you at a stall, you will lower the pitch attitude to reduce the aoa and thus increase airspeed. Only when that is under control you will slowly add power. Thats the new stall procedure according to the same manufacturers.

This example however has very little to do with a normal stabilized approach in windy or thermal conditions. And none of the manufacturers would advise us to get in a Vapp-15 situation.

The actual performance of the aircraft= pitch + power + external conditions (up/downdraft, gusts, tail/headwind etc)
The required performance is usually a 3 degree glidepath at Vapp.

As the external conditions vary you can only adjust pitch and power to match the actual performance of the aircraft to the required performance. As Vapp is fixed, pitch and power are linked. And it doesn't really matter which one is changed first.

My 15 kts example may have been a touch excessive but certainly at around say 2000' you could get 7 to 10 kts below desired speed. Then it's the same, add thrust FIRST and not push forward first. The whole idea is that a Jet being swept wing is quite slippery and will accelerate nicely as a result of thrust application without needed to push the nose down. Simply pushing the nose down to regain the speed will result in a deviation below path and take a lot longer to accelerate. Thrust is a much more direct way of maintaining speed without flight path deviations.

Anyway my 2 bobs worth.

As said offcourse you add thrust, but thats only because you haven't been paying attention for a considerable amount of time during which you haven't been meeting the performance requirement for the last few seconds due to lack of thrust.

At 2000 feet i'm doing 160kts usually not anywhere near being low on my approach speed.

i'm talking about stabilized approaches as taught in the FCTM, not rescueing massive ****ups in this area.

Bet the OP wished he never asked...:sad:

Yes exactly at 2000' we will be gear down Flap 3 just about to select Flap full and be around 160 kts somewhere depending on ATC speed control requirements. A speed incursion below maneuver speed for that configuration isn't a hugh problem at that point as long as you correct immediately WITH THRUST.

Once again it was only an example I quoted above. Speed fluctuations as you know are caused by a myriad of things and not always the result of in-attention on the crews behalf!!

It's not unusual during gusty conditions to see + - 10 to 15kts during approach and this doesn't automatically require a go around if you are correcting ok.

In those conditions you will have bugged up anyway so being 10 kts below VRef ( VAPP ) isn't a problem as you are still way above VLS.

Airbus recommend ( as do Boeing ) use of Autothrust in managed mode for all manual approaches. Me? If it's gusty I actually prefer manual thrust in the 330 but on the 777 I always left it in. ( for reasons of ergonomics and design )

Besides. ATC often require 160kts to 4 DME on approach.
How does Noodle propose to slow down to a VREF of 135kts??
He says you use pitch for speed. So at 4 DME he raises the nose first does he? That would have the result of causing the aircraft to balloon high above the GS. Then he would have to quickly reduce thrust to get back down destabilizing his approach considerably. This is untidy and wrong practice. On Jets you don't want the nose to be pitching up or down on approach if you can help it, thrust is much more effective in facilitating speed changes whilst keeping a relative stable pitch attitude and thus flight path angle.

Handling the Big Jets 101.

I think this discussion is becoming heated because we are talking about a specific situation, i.e. within seconds of the flight path intersecting with the ground.

In such a situation, we are relying much more on the short term effects of control inputs rather than the eventual steady state you would get in unaccelerated flight. This is a dynamic situation.

If you wish to reduce the rate of descent before touching down (a usual requirement), you need to apply a significant force for a period of time to the mass of the airframe such as to reduce the component of its velocity normal to the plane of the runway. How to do this in a jet aircraft...?

1) Add more thrust. As common airliners in a normal approach attitude have a thrust vector almost tangential to the surface, most of the applied force will go towards accelerating the airframe in the direction of flight. On an aircraft with underslung engines, a secondary effect will be a pitch-up moment but this will be mostly countered by the FBW on aircraft like the 777 and modern Airbuses. We are left with the other secondary effect of thrust, which is to increase the groundspeed over time (and hopefully the airspeed with it). The increase in lift generated from a few knots of extra airspeed (a few %) is not enough to significantly reduce the RoD during the time available before touchdown.

2) Increase the angle of attack. On a typical airfoil, the coefficient of lift could go up by c.25% for a c.3deg increase in AoA. This would result in a significant normal acceleration, reducing the RoD markedly over a short space of time.

On a non-FBW, low engined jet, applying thrust has the secondary effect of raising the nose, if not countered by the elevator. At this point the pilot has ceased to control the pitch through normal means and is relying on that secondary effect to provide an appropriate AoA to reduce the RoD. It is a technique but not one that I would recommend due to the extra delay in the feedback loop and the possibility of adding significant unwanted speed just before touchdown.

On the 777, adding more thrust just drives you faster towards where you were going before. Manual go-arounds often catch out people the first time when converting from conventional types as you have to deliberately pitch the aircraft positively into a go-around attitude after pressing TO/GA. Eventually, the 777 will pitch up of its own accord as the built in speed stability kicks in but it is a rather lengthy process and involves significant height loss before climbing.

I suppose the difference in the two methods near the ground is that by using pitch for RoD and power for airspeed, you are directly controlling all the important variables: the flightpath (touchdown point) and speed (runway used to stop). By relying on secondary effects, you may have to accept a significant deviation in one in order to make the other what you want.

This is becoming more irrational by the post. Fake approaches, flying level, adding power to find the pitch attitude? And then...we don't add power, we lose speed? I thought you said you use power to control PITCH? The reason you lose speed in the flare is because you pull the stick back to arrest the rate of descent.

So now we are using power to control (recover) the speed. Good. And how does the pitch attitude "reduce in order to maintain the path"? As the speed increases the pitch attitude will increase.

737Jock, We're not talking about Ref-15, nor stalling on the ILS, nor 160KIAS reducing at 2000ft, nor backside of the powercurve. Simple question: you get slow, say Vapp-5 or 10, you are on the glideslope. Please tell me you are not going to lower the nose to retrieve the speed. Please just put the power up! Whatever subsequently happens to the pitch, just use the stick to stay on the GS.

Shock! Horror! Yes! Try it sometime; it works well. Not being a 737 driver, I understand though that it's not recommended in the 737 because of the amount of pitch-power coupling.

If you can't cope with the concept of manual flying with AT you probably shouldn't be in the cockpit.

I think happening here (and now that worldrover is here espousing the same heresy as Noodle and 737 jock) is that the pitch-power couple of the 737 is so powerful that you can, if low on slope, increase power and the nose will come up (just like a C150; trick flying). But if you get slow or fast whilst on-slope, I'll bet you don't lower the nose or pull the nose up (otherwise you'll obviously go off-slope). You adjust the power to get the speed back!

That is what picker and I are on about. Stick for slope/attitude control, power for speed control, just like the autopilot does it on an ILS.

Oh I don't know. It's been interesting reading how pilots fly aeroplanes. I see now the potential for overruns what with people advocating/using power to control the rate of descent at touchdown...

Fullwings: very well put. 737Jock and Noodle, I suggest you read Fullwing's post carefully. He has hit the nail on the head (after me and Nitpicker belted it first! ;))

Noodle, Noodle, Noodle. Boy, did I open a can of worms back on page 1, or what?

Back when I learned to fly, circa 1983, I was taught pitch for speed on approach and power for RoD.

Then when I returned to the flying establishment as an instructor, mentored by a couple of excellent ex RAAF pilots, one the Chief Pilot, one the CFI, I had to teach their way, which was power for speed in all regimes of flight, and pitch for flight path. I didn't like it because it wasn't what I had been taught but as I didn't have any say in the policy I had to come to terms with it.

Coming to terms with this obvious heresy took only a very short time. It really made so much sense. I no longer had to think differently on approach as opposed to level flight, or climbing. In all phases of flight, and ground ops, if I want to go faster, I use more power, with a commensurate adjustment of pitch attitude to maintain the desired flight path.

BTW, your petulant smearing of Bloggs is so far wide of the mark, it reflects quite poorly on your own credibility. I can't comment on Nitpicker because I don't know him, whereas I've worked with Bloggs for close to 20 years, and even enjoyed his line training on my first jet. :=

Wow…thanks for the GF1 brief on landing technique guys…I think I've got that covered!

My question, for the third time now, was to Airbus long course test pilots (NTPS, ETPS etc) and was asked to confirm my suspicion that hearing "RETARD" called 3 or 4 times during the flare is a symptom of incorrect technique.

I'm sure if we are all intelligent enough to register for a PPRUNE account, we are all aware that P + A = Perf, and that you adjust both P and A to correct MOMENTARY sink during the flare!

Anyway, assuming the odd useful comment will continue to be clouded by vitriol, I'll leave you guys to it!

Now Nitpicker isn't a test pilot AFAIK, but both his answers to your two previous posts clearly explain the scenario where keeping the thrust on during the flare would be appropriate.

What don't you understand about his answers?

Right…this is DEFINITELY my last post…I promise!

No, he has explained that in the event of sink during very late finals, or during the initial part of the flare, that we control this with power (delayed thrust reduction) and attitude (slightly higher flare attitude). Ab-initio technique which is unquestionable.

If you hear RETARD 3-4 times during the flare, I suspect you have gone WAY beyond the requirement of avoiding a firm touchdown due sink, and are now confusing the aircraft and the rest of the crew! To quote Happy Gilmore's putting analogy…the aircraft wants to be on the ground…send it home…all you have to do is send it home. i.e…CLOSE THE FRICKIN' THRUST LEVERS!!!

(A mitigating factor for this seemingly less than ideal technique, is that my outfit is obsessed with touchdown zone…there is an impression on check rides that you must touchdown from 1000-2000' or face death…despite crossing the threshold at 50' and using correct technique but then prevailing wind conditions 'flying' you slightly outside this area)