Ok, just to satisfy my curiosity, if it's not asking too much, could you kindly,please , tell me what kind of indication you get in case of dual inputs during the flare?

Why did a LH Captain, me on the jumpseat, tell me that the copilot never really knows if he mede the landing?

Again, just curious, not criticising!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!

Assuming this took place on an Airbus, it would still be interesting to know what type of Airbus.

If the additional input is very short, there will be an optical indication on the glareshield in front of the pilots which, unfortunately, one is likely to miss in high workload situation. Only after that will an acoustic warning be given. I'm not really certain about the amount of time, I'd have to look it up. But I'd guess it to be a little less than 1 sec.

That's for the technical side.

On the other side, I wouldn't take such a comment too seriously. The Copilot not noticing or not complaining about it are two different things...

Hmmmm... Is that indication "Priority left"?

No, it is "dual input".

It's included in one of the newer FWS standards. Aircraft with older FWS standards will receive only the visual warning.

used2flyboeing: were you indirectly refering to the tragedy at a Polish airport? The Lufthansa First Officer died after the 'advanced' aircraft landed either very long, maybe with a strong tailwind, on a wet runway, and because the main wheels barely rotated, the "advanced" software logic prevented all of these functions:

1) thrust reverser actuation
2) ground spoiler extension
3) auto/manual braking (probably negated anyway by antiskid transducers on a hydroplaning machine).

The plane must have had a better chance of landing and stopping after the "advanced" software was redesigned to somehow function differently. Good guess- " " denotes either irony, not so subtle sarcasm, or both. Would not a superior set of aircraft systems allow a human pilot to quickly control and lift levers and deploy spoilers plus reversers.? :hmm:

On that so called superior aircraft that was apparently not possible.
On a B733, for example, you can deploy reverser in the air below 10ft - although formally prohibited.
That means in that circumstance the pilot would have been able to deploy full reverse, even if the airplane was still in the "air" mode.
You also have a real speed brake lever, just pull fully and you'll get at least full flight spoilers.

When it comes to antiskid, it's an invaluable aid , but still it's something between our feet and the brakes, it's a device which filters our intention of braking -> if it f##ks up, it can do more harm than good: we must be aware of that, as demonstrated by numerous incidents/accidents, and be ready to turn it off promptly.


http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/lh2904/1.jpg

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=193

Comments?

Sligsby, I don't see your point. Maybe you mean that couldn't happen in an A320?

LEM

Firm on the aim point is always better than a floater, X-wind or no X-wind.

Any intervention should happen well before the outer marker. If the a/c is set up properly then keep your hands off ( and your trap shut) unless you see things getting dangerous at which point it is a go around.

Where things go wrong these days is that people get used to 12,000 ft of bitumen and forget Rule One. Then one day they get a short runway a la 16L/34R at Narita (2,180m) and end up in the grass.

LEM: quite correct and good points. Even our turbofans built in the 60s have anti-skid, armed by one small switch plus having the gear handle down (+ normal AC and DC power).

To used2flyboeing,

Yes, you're correct about the magnetic sensors etc, near/far, all that crap....BUT...it doesn't make an ounce of difference if you touch softly, or dump it down. The sensors are set into ground mode, or air mode, when the torsion links on the gears compress or extend. There is no thinking in the system, either it is on the ground or not. On the B737Ng, there are 2 sensors on each gear, and between them they work out if the aircraft is still in the air, on the ground or back in the air etc. All the sensors go to the PSEU to be sorted out.Depending on the combination of gears that are compressed/extended, as to what it allows to happen with the anti skid/aquaplaing and so on protection.

Someone asked about Captains making extra control inputs on Airbus's

There are two similar occasions, (EI and LH I think but please don't shoot me if I am wrong) where (both in A321's where the tail is much closer to the ground than the 319/320) the FO was flaring too late or too little. Both times the training captain in the left seat added his or her own stick inputs AT THE SAME TIME that the FO corrected his or her own mistake. Both resulted in tail strikes.

I believe this has been discussed here on PPRUNE at some depth but I don't know where.

I'm not saying that Captains should not make stick inputs just repeating what has happened when the Captains input didn't go according to plan. Oh yes, one important fact I nearly forgot was that on each occasion no mention (or 'I have control') was made that any additional inputs had been made.

Hello mr. LEM,

1. If you were my captain, and I was PF... would you please call for a go around before you start "helping", so neither of us knows who is steering what?? That's about the basic of basics in the crew concept! If you would "help" me in case you expect my landing to turn out to be firm... we would end "am grünen Tisch", where you may try to explain why you didn't stick to SOP and therefore greatly endangered the flight.

2. If, on an A320, the captain decides to "help", the FO has a flashing green light in front of his nose, so he will notice. This captain you met when you sat on the jump was not telling the truth. My guess he tried to look like just a real true airman as you are (which he obviously is not).

3. Is it IYHO also possible for a captain to make a hard landing? Or do you think the FO is not capable of taking over controls and saving the day, when needed? Your question only refers to the captain take correcting action, I have seen many bad landings made by the LHS.

Regards,
P77

To answer the original question: are firm landings good?

Yes - to remind the passengers how lucky they are when they get one of the 'smoother' ones;)

Come on, guys! I know very well all the above....
Our company is not a major one, and we have somevery
inexperienced FO.
Some of my colleagues let them do extremely hard landings, sometimes.
I think this no good.
It's not a training flight, we carry paying passengers, for Christ sake!

LEM, sorry for the delay in replying, but this KLM flight was training FO's in Oostend, better to get landings like this out of the way in training rather than on the line. Any kind of landing is possible in any aircraft, just that this one was rather abrupt and caught on camera. Just a bit of enlightened humour.

Better to never get a landing like that! That was quite close! Tha captain should have intervened earlier, even if it was a training flight!
Scraping the wing would not have been a nice lesson to the FO...

LEM... Point being is you need to let them practice. Remember todays F/O is tomorrows CAPT. If you don't let them practice putting it down right place, right speed, ask yourself this: How comfortable are you going to feel when positioning, with them now as CAPT, to somewhere with grotty wx and a short runway, having taken away all their practice?

Heavy landing are one thing, firm ones are acceptable. By the sounds of it you may need to chill a little.

Second point. I have been in the RHS when we had a voilent wing drop in windy weather, experienced training Capt as P/F. I saw where the control column went (correct input) and we landed something like the cloggy 737. Its not nice, not pretty but it happens. How do you know that the Training Capt hadn't taken over as a demo circuit and that happened?

Years ago, I made a very bad landing- quite hard - bounced - scared passengers....
I would have preferred the captain to "help" a little bit to avoid that, just as little as necessary not to make it so bad, and then give me a good explanation of optical illusions on narrow runways.
There are plenty of other occasions to practice and to learn...

One of my ex-bosses crashed during a NDB approach a few years before joining our company... airplane destroyed, no injuries thanksgod.
Do you consider that to be a useful experience? Wouldn't have it been more useful to have a good instructor really teaching (verbally and with actual example) how to fly a nonprecision approach?

There are many handling accidents which could have been avoided if the copilot had not been flying.
The typical captain's answer to the investigation people was: "Well, it was the copilot's leg, I figured he knew what he was doing..."

In the past, the difference in stature between Captain and copilot was enormous.
The Tenerife accident changed all that. Now our culture has shifted from one extreme to the other.
Many captains are afraid to intervene, when they should do so, to avoid harming the copilot's feelings...
There are many accidents to prove that. One of them is the Delta crash in Dallas Forth Worth, in which the captain still did not take over when it was clear they were in dire trouble....
and the list is long.

As I said lem, there is a great difference between a heavy landing, and a firm one in the right spot.

The first time a pilot makes a difficult landing should be with suitable supervision in the RHS, not after he has passed his line check and alone in the LHS.