I used to hunt smooth touchdowns until I buggered up a landing with a very old and bold Captain in the LHS who gave me a bit of a pep talk in the cruise on the next leg. His point was if you can't validate your performance calculations by hitting the slot at the threshold and planting the mains on the aiming point there's no point. The TDZ is pretty bloody long and you can be a fair way past your aiming point and still in the TDZ.

These days I score my landings based on speed control and touchdown point. Adjustment of -1 for a cruncher and +1 for a smooth touchdown. How smooth your touchdown is can all depend on which main gear sinks first - on the 737 if you touch the left first you only get the flight spoilers and the aircraft sinks nicely. If you touch the right, you get all the boards and it drops like a sack of potatoes.

The fact that we are all professional pilots, and we are engaged in an online thread of what is a "good landing" scares the sh*t out of me. I'd like to believe that we all know what a safe landing is, fullstop.

There's this colleague of mine, loves to grease it and then steps on the brakes so we won't end up in the mud. On stand he goes out in the galley greeting every single pax.. On the other hand, after a positive landing, the cockpit door stays closed.

Why do some pilots need to be acknowledged? Desperately looking for reassurance, approval, passenger's applause, a tap on their shoulder.. :uhoh:

On the L1011 Tristar there were five techniques for a smooth landing ..... unfortunately, no one knew what they were !

Love it ... can anyone use it or do you claim rights ? Echo the comment re 411A.


One consideration not apparently raised in earlier posts .. putting to one side the floater attempt to get a greaser which we all agree is poor practice.

On those very rare occasions where the ordinary folk amongst us accidentally get a perfect touchdown the result can be very unnerving. I can recall only two such events (one each on B727-200 and L188).

The L188, being the pussycat it is, was fine.

For the -200 example, though, and we all feared ending the flare more than a few inches above the runway, the touchdown (nothing much to do with my efforts although, naturally enough, I claimed the credit at the time) produced no shudder, no sound and I really didn't know whether we were on the ground .. or still in no-man's land.

Eventually, after what seemed an eternity .. but was probably a couple of seconds, the ASI and the boards told the story.

Nonetheless, it was probably the most unsettling feeling I have ever experienced in an aeroplane.

Lest anyone think it typical of my skills, the other few thousand landings brought my average back down to where it justly resided ...

Just kiss it, like you're kissing your sister...
 

Bloggs:

Spot on!!

John T:


I will claim that very nice landings can be made in an L1011 but not as consistently as nice as a 727 (nor a 707).

Repeatedly doing those special landings require the ability to very accurately judge the height of the airplane in last few feet before the touch down and feeling the increasing heaviness of elevator as the speed starts decreasing. Like any sportsman or a performer a pilot also keeps developing the judgment but finally best landings start to happen when you get into what sportsmen or artists call "in the zone". All planning and calculations are done but dissolve in the subconscious and the execution is marked by absence of thought. B747 was a very good airplane for the pleasure of landing. You could feel the aircraft entering the ground effect cushion. A small flare and controlled thrust reduction and the touch down was noticed only by the reluctant speed brake moving gently back and forth as full weight of the aircraft was not yet on wheels. This is difficult to achieve in Airbus FBW as it lacks tactile feed back so it is purely visual landing as other senses do not come in play.

Turning off the silly DLC system would be a start.

I laughed out loud Bloggs.

Not much more to add that hasn’t been said already about getting it in the right place at the right speed.

On the large types I’ve flown, touching down with a small but definite rate of descent often led to a better perceived landing than skimming the deck. If the oleos had fully compressed by the time the spoilers deployed, you didn’t get that thump as the lift dumped and you effectively fell the rest of the oleo travel. Also, you were more likely to actually land as opposed to do a low flypast through the TDZ...

A really good pilot can usually make the plane do what he wants. As in land on centerline, on speed, and in the touchdown zone. With plenty of stopping ability grease it on. At 6700 feet field elevation, a 6000 ft runway, and in a snow storm you had better be able to plant it firmly.

Depends how hard your planting is:p
What Vila wrote concerning the feel of the elevator is quite important hence the need to avoid entering the flare with a thrust higher than necessary..too often seen as a technique to achieve a smooth landing...all it will achieve when the day comes is a large bounce.
Yes landing softly is in the passenger view important as it is a way if not only the only way to judge the skills of the pilot in front.
However i never intervene if my colleague is seen to come in harder than usual (as long as all is in limits) as experience of mistakes is a key learning fact...and i wont let a passenger feel go before that.
First officer is the time and place to learn by mistake.
So let them learn and when the day they get on the left,hopefully they will do the same.

Look at the end of the runway, barring a last minute high sink rate and after observing the correct response to the flare, take the power off and touch down at idle thrust.


Elementary stuff you would think but I see pilots leaving power on all the time in an attempt to 'grease it on'


They don't realize they are just 'powering it into the ground' and using up a lot of runway in the process.

In the end it comes down to practice.

Changed type a couple months ago and still in the phase of alignment of my lower back to the regular touchdowns.

AVRO RJ after some 2'000 landings the touchdowns were within narrow margins on the touchdown marker, not firm, not soft but then this is a real pilots aircraft as far as landing is concerned.

E190 still getting used to the longer aircraft and different attitude but my landings are in general on speed and on touchdown zone on the normal firmness one would expect. Power off is important and needs experience as with all "mastering" of skills and has been said in the other posts on this thread.

This is my personal goal:
Develop the ability to get "consistent" landings in the touchdown zone on "normal" speeds not being hard nor soft with different landing masses.
Then advance to be able to land it with overspeeds up to 5 kts above VApp which is the SOP limits. (Normal and ice-speeds.)

I fly short and narrow runways as well as steep approaches and there the landing becomes important. Be on speed on centerline and on touchdown marker as often as possible on "ANY" landing to develop the eye - the skill - the seat of your pants feel and you will have a high probability to put it exactly where you want all the time.

Not at the expense of the passengers and cabin staff who can be badly frightened in any severe landing impact due pilot misjudgement. The time to learn is in the multi-million dollar full flight simulator under the tutelage of a competent simulator instructor who has the enthusiasm and flying ability to actually demonstrate what he wants - not just shout from the back.

Landing mistakes by the first officer - especially during line training - should not happen if he has had proper training in the simulator especially on crosswind landings. Pilots should not progress to line training until his approach and landings are consistently sound in the simulator. If that cost the company extra time and money, then that's a company problem.

Too many simulator sessions are a head-long rush to tick all the boxes. The result being rarely do we see first officers (and some incompetent captains, too) given sufficient simulator practice until these pilots are confident and confident in handling crosswinds, for example. I once observed a type rating candidate on an A320 simulator conducting an all-flaps up approach and landing on a 11,000 ft runway. He was far too high and fast over the fence - floated for 15 seconds or more and touched down well off the centreline with 3000 ft left to go. He over-ran the runway on to the grass.

Clearly he should have gone around earlier but he didn't. The simulator instructor looked at his watch and saw the session time was up. He ticked the box as all flaps up landing successfully completed, without insisting on further remedial training. The same first officer had similar problems with other parts of his type rating training and was simply out of his depth. But his boxes were ticked and that man has been let loose on line.

I sort of agree but having flown in five different level-D 777 sims in the last couple of years, I’ve come to the conclusion that they are good for technique, yes, but to really build confidence there’s still nothing like the real thing. Unless your particular sim hits the sweet spot.

There were significant differences between all five: in one every touchdown felt like you’d collapsed the gear and in another whatever you did produced a greaser.

It’s sounds OK to tell people that everything they did was right but if the last thing they remember was a bang and a crunch, it doesn’t do much for confidence, whatever the instructor might say.

A really good instructor can talk their way though flying a demo with the other guy watching and feeling. I rarely see trainers do this and although sim time is precious and should be used by the trainee, every once in a while having something demonstrated by someone in the other seat can be highly educational.

Good G-d, I'm speechless Centaurus! :eek:

Of all the 737 simulators I flew, none of them were anyway like the real aircraft. Like for anything else, the sim is a good procedure trainer. And the same for landing, to get a feel for the timing of the event (callouts, when to reduce thrust, when to make flare inputs)..

But there is a risk!

For comparison, I recently I flew with a fresh F/O. His rotation was very brisk (enough to get me startled and holding my thumbs on the control wheel to prevent him from over rotating). By himself, he paused the rotation at 10 degs. Later on, we talked about his rotation and I asked him where he was looking during rotation. His answer was on the PFD, because that was what he had been taught during the type rating in the sim.

That is the problem with the sim for anything that is relies on vision - it's 2D. So to compensate you have to do things a bit different in the sim. Like keeping an eye on the PFD during rotation and flare. These are techniques that are NOT desireable to bring over to the actual aircraft.

So, I agree with your post to a certain extend. The COMPETENT simulator instructor should emphasize the pitfalls of the sim. But since the instructor can't see exactly what the student is doing or where he is looking, it might go unnoticed and the topic not brought up.

As in the case of the guy with the rotation, I am pretty sure that no one intentionally taught him this technique. Probably, rather it was mentioned to him to keep an eye on the RA and pitch during rotation as an aid in the sim. And unnoticed he brought that to the aircraft.

I have yet to operate a simulator which has flown like the real thing.

I have flown just about every type of aircraft, by this I mean types not models, ie single piston, single jet up to heavy, wide body and four jet. I am convinced that it depends on the type. For example; BN2T, VC10 - grease them on. C206, A300 - usually a controlled crash :{

Exascot
A300B4 had marked lack of ground effect and that made it challenging to do a greaser. That doesn't mean it could not be done only it required more skill to do that.