OK Vilas, I probably needed a little more experience :rolleyes:

And the only sound was the rapid clicking of the wow solenoid as the machine decided if it was on the ground or not...

Of all the 737 simulators I flew, none of them were anyway like the real aircraft.

Have seen some dreadful boxes and some good. My initial 737 endorsement used -300/-400 sims at Qantas .. first flight in anger and I couldn't tell the difference .. other than it was much more fun and the visuals were just so much better.

Probably just a reflection on my abilities, I guess.

Surely, the need is for the sim only to be reasonably good so that the transition to the real thing is relatively painless. (Thinks back to the earlier 727 sims which were pretty dreadful).

SMOOTH LANDING TECHNIQUE
 

Many OPINIONS here.The fact is that a LANDING is not a simple manuouvre, it has so many factors affecting it.WIND, AIRPLANE WEIGHT, RUNWAY LENGTH, SURFACE CONDITIONS, VISIBILITY to name a few.One issue that I have have noticed in my 20000 hours is most pilots lack of the ACTUAL RUNWAY CONTOUR or CROSS-SECTION profile.To be truly in synch with your runway you should have this information as well.Phuket runway 27 is a classic example.You must " ADJUST" that last little bit of YOKE movement to allow for these things.Anyone who says landings are easy things are just talking rubbish.It takes years and tears to truly refine this extremely important piloting skill.

It would be very helpful if the RADALT kept calling out height every second and in steps of 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 feet so that one could very accurately assess the rate of closure of the tyres to the runway. Perhaps some do? The Airbus RADALTs I fly call at 10 feet and then one other height, say 7 or 4 then it shuts up. My eyes are outside the cockpit at that moment, but if the RADALT kept talking, I would know what our rate of closure was, or if I was doing a very low flypast!

A greaser in exchange for half the runway length is clearly wrong, but a bit of finesse producing a gentle landing is a good thing, and an experienced pilot should be able to do this when it is appropriate. The way some folk crash it on, without even de-crabbing sometimes makes me wince and feel for the aircraft structure.

My best ever landing was in a 146 (so I had a head start!) and it was one of those days when everything was perfect and all I heard were the wheels starting to go round. There was no vertical movement at all. I wrote it in my logbook then and there as being my best ever landing, because I knew I would never better it, although I have come close in an A330.

It would be very helpful if the RADALT kept calling out height every second and in steps of 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 feet so that one could very accurately assess the rate of closure of the tyres to the runway.

It's very good that you flew a B146; I assume that it did not have Rad Alt call outs. Thus you learnt to use Mk.1 eyeball as was the case before B757/767 and later types. That's the way it should always be as the system may be broken. I once flew B767 with the rad alt call outs u/s. I, as humble bag carrying F/O, forgot to make the callouts and the captain 'arrived'. My ears were ringing for a few moments as irritation vented. Personally, I believe it is another event where too much reliance has been put on yet another techno-toy.

The Chinese F/O's make those rad alt calls below 10' and as you say it is very helpful because it lets you know that you are still descending and not floating, it also gives you a higher degree of accuracy that allows you to land smoothly.

cosmo kramer...
Where do you look on rotation when the RVR is 150m?

TyroPicard, special circumstances require special techniques.

E.g. a CAT3 approach requires an autoland. That doesn't mean that we have to do autolands on every approach.

Likewise, for a low visibility takeoff a special rotation technique is required and, by the way, captains only takeoff.

For taking off in normal visibility conditions (aka not low visibility), which is what the first officer in question should have been trained for, a conventional rotation should be made = looking out the window! :ok:

Time for the ultimate landing by the Legend himself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvT0-KfnZxU

Funny about needing RAD ALT calls BELOW 10' :ugh:

When checking out in the C-5, the IP covered up the RAD ALT--"you need to be able to land without it". :ok:

I fly with a "child of the magenta line", basic skills are lacking. Simple 10 knot crosswind landing was all :mad:. Couldn't keep the wings level without letting go off the throttles, so speed varied. Touched after a short float with crab still on, so a bit of a twist there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lowrM-780tg

or

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoK_dbLDfA0

I tell you what. I make GREAT landings almost every time in the A330......

...with the first set of main gear. The next set is pretty much witchcraft, and usually of the evil variety.

Likewise, for a low visibility takeoff a special rotation technique is required

Please enlighten us.

Cosmo Kramer: During the takeoff rotation phase once sight of the runway is obscured by the coming of the cockpit can you explain why it is better to stare at the blank sky and not bother to check the progression of the rotation attitude with a view to ensuring that a tail scrape attitude is not achieved until after lift off? This is a particular concern on 4 eng./ long bodied aircraft which do not "leap" off the ground like most twins.

cosmo..
My rotation teaching...
Start visually to establish the correct rate, scan horizon and PFD, monitoring IAS, and transfer full attention to the PFD before you lose outside horizon reference. For me that means before 10 degrees pitch.
Works in all weathers, and avoids that hesitation at 8-10 degrees.

You may prefer the American method. Steer it straight down the runway and hold 'er on the deck an extra 10 knots or so past VR (you know all CAT III runways are 15000 feet long and you know it's okay so don't give me any bunk about the performance numbers only being valid at the calculated speeds, flex takeoff power and balanced field lengths or any other high-brow gibberish). Then give it a SLOW rotation for about 3 seconds and hold the nose JUST before where you lose sight of the horizon. Then, count "one-potato-TWO" and HONK back on the wheel / stick like you mean it. Which you will, because some of the faint glow you will see where the runway lights should be, will be yellow about now. T.L.A.R. That Looks About Right and HEAVE HO we are off and flying.

Now, you should have a touch of vertigo now as you are still staring out the window into the formless grey void. It's a visual maneuver until airborne so stay visual until airborne, right? All the way or nothing at all brother. So now STARE INTENTLY at the PFD, and try to resolve the 25 degree nose-up attitude you see (since you are still pulling the stick back in the Hammer Grip of Death) and push 'er on over to get back to a normal 15 degree pitch. After a few phugoid porpoises, hit the autopilot on and be done with it.

Now you see why we waited for some extra speed before the "grease-off".

Isn't that how you do it every time in really crummy weather?

For the landings, I think a better technique is to do nothing until the 20 foot call, then chop the power, flare a touch, close your eyes and pray. Works about as good as any other technique.

Read it again my friend, I didn't say I needed it, I said it would be helpful.

At the risk of sounding big headed, I usualy achieve a gentle landing within the touch down zone. Sometimes I smack it in, sometimes I float it, but usually it goes OK, and that is without the RADALT callouts below 10' (Obviously, having made that bold claim, my next few landings will be awful, so I apologise to the passengers and the airframes in advance !!)

Fly a couple of years at EGBB in a Dash 8 Q400 and you will learn a great deal about how to do turbulent crosswind landings :ok:

For the landings, I think a better technique is to do nothing until the 20 foot call, then chop the power, flare a touch, close your eyes and pray. Works about as good as any other technique.

When asked by a cadet about the height to flare, the standard reply was "point the thing at the crash pint and keep it there. When the captain has a sharp intake of breath and lifts himself out of his seat slightly, then flare - but not too much otherwise the wings trend to get a large dimple the top surface. Works about as good as...........

Regarding RAD ALT call outs below 50'; ask the LOT B767 pilot who greased it on with no undercarriage. I suspect his RAD ALT call outs based on gear height would have been confusing, if there were any at all, which I doubt.

It's funny that I get all this resistance towards looking out. If you don't think I am correct. Perhaps you would take this advice from Airbus instead:

This is the advice of the most computerised aircraft manufacturer. Boeing doesn't write it as explicit. Note Airbus' use of the word conventional. It keep me wondering that people resist doing a rotation visually. Hence, why I brought it up in this landing thread, because it's an unfortunate trend that people doesn't trust their vision anymore, because they are afraid it's less accurate than instruments. Hence, they make poor landings, because they use a wrong technique (looking inside instead of outside)...

As long as visual reference is available, your eyes are the most finely tuned instruments in the cockpit! :ok:


It was already discussed intensively in the following thread (I repost one of my replies):

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/22385...tations-2.html

You don't loose outside reference until long after airborne if you are seated correctly.

You don't need to see the runway itself, you need to have outside reference. Do you think looking at the runway (long ahead of the aircraft), will help you know how close your tail is?

It's like with flare, you don't need to look at where you want to touchdown (you look at the end of the runway).

For rotation, all you need is a combination of lateral reference and peripheral vision. Peripheral vision does wonders in judging a rate. If you keep the correct rate, your don't have to worry about tail strike, because you performance calculations take care of that for you:

Otherwise, see my replies to Dani in the mentioned thread.


It needs experience, hence commanders takeoff only. The experience that you have done countless rotations previously, and that you know exactly how the rotation is supposed to feel. That combined with an early transition to instruments, which is then less likely to be screwed up because of said experience. Watching the PFD at from 0 feet is not what I would recommend. The aircraft is still on the runway and you wan't to keep a good look at those center line lights for as long as possible. Once those center line lights are lost, you obviously switch to the PFD - when that happens (which it won't until well into the rotation) you should already have a smooth rate established, that you can safely continue to pull.


Not to derail the subject, perhaps it is better to continue rotation technique in that thread? Since most of the questions have already been asked and answered there.

Cosmo Kramer: In quoting the Airbus FTM I think you are making my point for me! Quote: mainly heads up ........ until visual reference is lost. When taking off at night from ( especially ) coastal airfields I think everyone would have trouble detecting the actual aircraft attitude accurately. You seem to assume that all types "leap off the ground" in the same manner as the A320.
All pilots should be aware of their current type's tail scrape attitude oleos compressed. Sadly tailscapes do occur from time to time and only come as a surprise to those crews who do not have this knowledge. To cite the B747 and A340 - both types exhibit a marked slowing of the rotation rate around 10 NU due to the tailplane being affected by its proximity to the runway during the rotation. This tends to lead to a slowing down of the rotation then a subsequent climb out at too fast a speed.
For the avoidance of doubt - I am not saying that the entire rotation be done with reference to the PFD but rather more useful information is given to the pilot regarding rate and achieved attitude by looking at the PFD once nothing visible is to be seen over the coming. In other words, as others have pointed out - no special techniques are required for night/fog departures.

For the avoidance of doubt - I am not saying that the entire rotation be done with reference to the PFD but rather more useful information is given to the pilot regarding rate and achieved attitude by looking at the PFD once nothing visible is to be seen over the coming.

I can't remember back to B757/767 days, but on current B738 F5 non LVO takeoffs: absolutely, the keeping of the centreline until airborne is visual; has to be. The initial rotation is visual. This is the best way to keep wings level under all circumstances and assess the correct rate. The a/c will pause at 10 degrees NU, and the nose cuts the horizon at the same time. The a/c becomes airborne as the elevator deflection is increased slightly. This is when the PFD becomes primary as you need to stop the rotation at 15 degrees. Thus, the a/c becomes airborne as the outside visual clues disappear. This is even more important with an engine failure before VR. Now the a/c will become airborne at the same point but you must stop the rotation at only 12-12.5 degrees. Thus, as you increase the elevator deflection to maintain the same rate you have only another 2 degrees to go. The PFD becomes very important. I've seen guys in the sim who tried to look over the nose after 10 degrees and they bounced again as they subconsciously pushed. If understood correctly, taught and practiced correctly, it is a doddle in any visibility, cross wind, engine failure scenario. Even more important if the engine fails in low vis/night just as gear is selected up. KISS.

Meikleour,
I take of regularly from dark costal airports (Red sea airports). A completely (until established in 15 deg climb) visual rotation is not a problem at all. Remember that we are still close to the ground and ambient light from the airport is always sufficient to make the rotation. And to that dots of light here and there, reflections etc etc. You will even still see the lit runway ahead of you until well into the rotation (12 degs at least). Even when the nose starts to block your view ahead, add to that you still have peripheral vision that see "around" the nose.
Obviously, it can be more difficult to know when 15 degs has been achieved, in which case, you phase in the PFD slightly earlier, to stop the rotation.

...So I guess we are saying the same then?

To reiterate, some are of the impression that you have to switch to the PFD from the moment you start the rotation. This is wrong!

What you need to detect during the rotation is the RATE. No matter if the plane if the plane leaps off or not. 3D vision is superior to a 2D instrument for detecting accelerations, rates etc. And I have never flown an A320, I just provided the information from Airbus.

RAT5,
The aircraft will only pause if you let it! By looking outside, it's easy to detect a change in the rate (again 3D vision catches a change immediately). So it's just a matter of adjusting your pull. Rotation should NOT be paused at 10 degs. This is a wrong technique. Boeing says to make a smooth continuous rotation.

Liftoff attitude for a 737-800 is 8.5 degs at flaps 1, 8 degs at flaps 5. So liftoff doesn't happen at 10 degs.

Also, the nose doesn't obscure the horizon at 10 degs pitch. On a day with full derate, long runway and improved climb (11-12 degs pitch), you can comfortably fly the aircraft with visual reference to the horizon - provided you are seated correctly.

Crude demonstration. It works in real life too.

http://s24.postimg.org/51eptwusl/Scr...t_15_34_50.png

I am not advocating to fly with reference to the horizon, merely saying that it can be done, and that the nose doesn't obscure the horizon to prevent a visual rotation. Also, as mentioned in the reply to Meikleour, your peripheral vision allows you to look "around" the nose.

What should be done at the end of the rotation, is to check speed and speed trend as the first, there after switch to the PFD and make fine adjustments to stop the speed from trending in either direction.

Wanted to comment on this one too:
So it seems we are starting to agree too. Visual until airborne. :ok: I like to complete the rotation fully visually and that works for me. If someone want to transition a couple of degrees earlier I won't argue about that.

Of course that goes for any flap setting. My company uses flaps 1 on most takeoffs (I know a lot of airlines banned flaps 1).

Maintaining center line AFTER airborne is something that seems to be largely ignored (as can be seen from lining up behind departing traffic in crosswind). Protected area for obstacle clearance seems to be disregarded. :hmm:

Doing the rotation visually (and completing it visually), helps in that respect too. And the crossed controls that at being applied during the rotation (rudder to keep the center line and aileron to keep wings level), can more easily be coordinated phased out so that the aircraft comes out in crab angle according to crosswind exactly maintaining the center line.

Cosmo: I think we may be arguing type specifics. A heavy A340-300 will not unstick at 10 NU , with the correct eye position forward view is lost and finally a tail scrape will occur at 14 NU with the oleos compressed! I am suggesting to you that not all rotations are done at the ideal constant correct rate. Tailscapes do happen from time to time so. ....... how do you protect yourself from this with possible gusty conditions or the over enthusiastic F/O who gives it a " hefty heave ho" around the 10 NU mark? Next time you get a chance watch a B747-400 take-off. The rear fuselage often gets to within 1metre of the runway even on correctly flown, ideal takeoffs.

No resistance to looking out.. to start the rotation. Airbus say once airborne you must look at the PFD... A320 gets airborne at 8-10 degrees of pitch .. that is when you need to be head down, for accurate pitch and speed control.

If I am PF I look outside. Looking outside and feeling how the aircraft responds to the environment, makes adjustments quite easy - including adjustments for gusts.

If I am pilot monitoring, I look at the PFD, because I can't feel the control wheel of my F/O, and don't know how hard he/she pulls. I have my hands on my knees, with my thumbs ready to push against the control wheel, should they be over eager. With 33 cm tail clearance, it's occasionally necessary - especially with those that are doing the rotation heads down.

The minimum tail clearance for a 737-800 at flaps 1 and normal rotation is only 33 cm by the way :} - that's why many airlines have a ban on flaps 1 takeoffs.

TyroPicard, you don't need to control pitch or speed during rotation, you need to control your rotation rate. It's done much easier by looking outside at at 3D environment, than on a flat 2D instrument. Once established in climb (rotation completed), you need to adjust the pitch to control speed.

I agree about rotation rate being the most important. “Speed control” is driven largely by that rate: too slow and you’ll be fast, too rapid and you’ll be slower than you want by the end of the manoeuvre. During rotation, the speed will increase from Vr to V2 and on to whatever is normal for your type. Playing around with the rate while chasing airspeed is not generally a manufacturer recommended technique; a constant rate rotation to an initial pitch attitude is.

PAUSE IN ROTATION: ALL JET TRANSPORTS
 

The reason why so many rotations in large transport jets pause around the 8-10 degrees nose up attitude has absolutely NOTHING to do with the elevator being in close contact with the ground.That (according to Mr Boeing- I asked him), is just rubbish.When the WHEELS ARE ON THE GROUND the weight vector (remember from your PPL days?) goes through the wheels.Once the wheels leave the ground (757/767 8 degrees roughly) the weight vector of the whole airplane MOVES FORWARD TO THE CENTER OF PRESSURE ON THE WING.This causes a slight NOSE DOWN effect, stopping or slowing the rotation unless THE PILOT AVOIDS THIS BY INCREASING THE back pressure slightly to KEEP THE ROTATION RATE CONSTANT............ Pete

cosmo
If you read my last post again you will see I recommend looking at the PFD passing 8-10 degrees pitch, not to start the rotation. I did it that way for 30 years and it is the most accurate way of ensuring obstacle clearance, which is arguably the most important aspect of a take-off.
If the RVR is on minimums, it looks the same (almost).
And if an engine fails you are totally in the loop re speed trend. What's not to like?

piratepete
I thought the weight vector acted through the a/c CG.... if it acts through the CofP does that not make the a/c neutrally stable and difficult to fly?
On the runway the a/c rotates about the wheels, which reduces the horizontal stabiliser downforce during rotation.. once airborne it rotates about the CG, restoring normality.

TyroPicard: I agree with both your posts. What you say is, in my experience, industry standard. In typical PPRUNE fashion we will always have posters who " know the true way"!!
Cosmo has yet to explain just how he knows how close he can get to a tail scrape on takeoff using his peripheral vision. Despite quoting Airbus FTM then saying he has never flown one, he goes on to assume that cockpit cutoff angles are the same on all types as on his current type ( 738? )

Running out of arguments and becoming personal in indeed the "typical PPRuNe fashion". God forbid you would learn anything.

33 cm. I provided the figure a few posts ago. We do flaps 1 takeoffs at MTOM regularly due to long tankering sectors. It easy to judge a rate by looking outside.
Just like flare, you judge the closure rate with the ground visually. Try doing that PFD only next time you are in the sim.
I quoted airbus because they write explicitly that rotation is a visual and conventional manoeuvre.
Boeing doesn't write it explicitly, probably because it's a conventional aircraft and they didn't see the need to do so.
I mentioned the reason for the airbus quote in a previous post too.
That was a reply to RAT5, who is also on 738 (as far as I can tell).
I doubt though, that the variance will be that great with other aircraft types (need to be able to see way over the nose during CAT3 approaches and flares). As mentioned as well, you can see "around the nose" with you peripheral vision.

Cosmo: I think we are in agreement that correct rotation rate is required. Where we disagree is the method by which this is monitored versus tail scrape protection. Your posting history suggests that you have advocated your method for some time. Equally other posters have continued to disagree with you - few seem to endorse you.
Airbus say, depending on where you look, "rotate at ABOUT 3 degrees/sec. " or
"rotate at between 2.5 to 3.5 degrees/sec". Now, on the twins I have flown (B737 , A320 & A330) the unstick occurs quite dynamically. Not so the quads. (B707, B747-2/300 & A340-300/600) The typical twin thrust/weight ratio of 1/3 is more like 1/4 on the quad. This makes the possibility of a tailscrape on the quad much more of a risk. In my own airline we had a tailscrape with a new captain on the A340 where 14 NU was achieved prior to unstick - however he escaped censure because the FDR showed that his rotation rate was " within the normal accepted parameters" !! Quote from Airbus. So yes, rotation rate is not an absolutely precise science. So, why not use all the available information to safeguard the rotation phase?
You seem to have a reluctance to acknowledge that others' experiences may not match your own. If your preferred method suited all types and all operations I am sure it would have been "industry standard" by now.

Cosmo is completely correct.


Rotation, just like the flare is a VISUAL maneuver and that's been recommended for every Boeing and Douglas aircraft I have flown.


If you're doing it by looking at the PFD you are doing it WRONG and are more likely to have a tailscrape

Stilton: If you are new to this thread, I have never advocated rotating on the ADI. The discussion is about the phase when useful visual reference is lost.

Useful visual reference is not lost at 8-10 degs pitch.

We can continue this discussion forever. But I think at the end of the day we are all pretty much in agreement.

I did a ferry flight last night as PF. With the usual back pressure the rotation felt quite slow, so I glanced at the RA to check when I could increase the rate to 4-5 degs per second, to catch up. Thereafter I switched back to visual and completed the rotation. I am saying this, because I agree that in some cases, useful information can be picked up from the PFD. Like height, which eyes are bad at judging (that's why we should look at the far end of the runway during the flare, as the eyes can't accurately judge the height, but excellently judge the closure rate).

BUT, during a normal rotation it shouldn't be necessary. This is just like the discussion about thrust reduction during flare. During a normal flare, the thrust should be reduced as per respective FCTM (30 feet for a 737 e.g.). However, in special circumstances it might be prudent to reduce later or even add thrust.

That's why we are in the cockpit and it's not just runned by computer. Improvise, adapt, overcome.

To get back on topic:

The problem, and in my opinion the core problem, and where the relevance of the discussion about rotation fits in with landing is this:

Too many are SOP/magenta line driven to the extreme and are incapable of improvising and adapting when necessary. They stare at their instruments to keep everything within the limits of the FODA ghost. In turn, they forget to do what they are supposed to do: Aviate!

Too many are SOP/magenta line driven to the extreme and are incapable of improvising and adapting when necessary. They stare at their instruments to keep everything within the limits of the FODA ghost. In turn, they forget to do what they are supposed to do: Aviate!

Aaah. Violent agreement at last. Wonderful.

This is what the current airbus FCTM says on the subject of rotation..
And an old Boeing 737NG FCT .. these a/c lift off at between 8-10 degrees as well...
I am quite clear in my own mind that the PFD is the pitch reference to be used after lift-off... i.e. after 8-10 pitch, or earlier if necessary due to weather conditions.
Any questions?

So Airbus changed the wording slightly.

You are missing 3 things though:

1) "Scan rapidly", doesn't mean to fly ONLY with reference to the PFD after the aircraft unsticks. As you advocate doing from 8-10 deg pitch.

2) Airbus tells you to give the highest priority to outside, when visual conditions permit (most takeoffs, depending if your homebase is in a swamp or not). Not switching to watch your PFD?

3) I think your definition of airborne is wrong. The aircraft is airborne at the end of the maneuver (rotation) and not in the middle, when the wheels unstick.

Your Boeing quote proves point 3. As Boeing says not to follow the FD during rotation, but only to use it AFTER, when airborne.

So no, I don't have any questions. I think your quotes just reinforced my points. ;)