Flare A320, is looking far away useless?
 

Hello,

I ask to many more experienced people like you. During my first 500hrs I always did what the textbook says. Approaching the threshold look away. My flare has always been quite average, because as soon as I looked away I was tempted to break the attitude so I had to consciously avoid.
recently I flew with an instructor that told me that looking away is definitely non sense and normally those people that teach this don’t do this when they land themselves. The idea is too keep looking towards the fat markers aiming point because in this way you are able to assess closure rate and height properly. Looking away is good only to destablize the approach. My flare has improved I see. Do you agree with his words?

What do you mean with "looking away"?

Not a A320 pilot, but the attitude change is something that happens with all young pilots. The key is to keep it coming down and not be scared of the runway. I have a feeling this is more likely the issue here: you are scared to go low before you initiate the flare. From that point of view I advice new pilots as well to keep their eyes focused on the aiming point until they really want to start the flare, and only then quickly shift to the end of the runway. In training this means sometimes the flare is "forced", or "late" resulting in a positive touchdown, but that isn't a bad thing. It's a safe landing. Once you have that habit of "keeping it coming down", you can shift to end of the runway earlier and get a smoother flare.

If you don't shift to the end of the runway, you can't "see" your rate of descent during the flare. A flare while looking at the aiming point is nothing more than guesstimating your descent rate based on how quickly the numbers 30-20-10 change. I wouldn't call that correct technique.

I disagree there. You may have to land this thing in 550m vis. Looking towards the end of the runway in those conditions is next to useless, you wont see it and all depth perception will be lost. What you need to do is bring in your peripheral vision to help estimate closure rate, how you do that is up to you. I find the RA count down helps, but really you're using all your senses to feel what the aircraft is doing in a very dynamic environment.

Without looking towards the distance you can't judge the pitch changes you're making and the decent rate as you 'fly' the flare. There's a reason all manufacturers teach this as the way to land in the manuals, and that airline instructors are also taught this. I would ask yourself the question: "Who is more likely to be right, those working on the knowledge and experience evolved through 120 years of aviation, or a few random guys who have come up with their own theories?".

I'm not against new ideas and new thinking, but it's got to be scientifically testable through data and lived experience. "Some people say" is a talking point, rather than a firm base.

Look ALONG the runway.

If you look down at the tarmac in the touch-down zone you cannot judge your sink rate.

You need to look ahead of you along the runway to be able to see the change in your descent rate as you flare.

For me looking at distance has never worked…
Looking quite close to me helps assessing the rate of closure and how quick I’m approaching the runway. In the end the goal is to reduce the rate of closure. the amount the pitch changes is the consequence.

After 20 years I still don't know where I am looking, if someone asks me.

The other day I lowered the elevation of the runway, locally I should say, when planting it in winds gusting up to 50 kts. I think I was "unlucky" and had an energy loss right as I shifted focus from inside to outside, but I can't really explain what happened as I did not see anything unusual. I felt it coming though, in my but and my hand, as the side stick reached the aft stop, a few seconds before impact. As you gain experience your landings don't become smoother, you just raise the bar and the real crushers become less frequent. My believe is that do what works for you and the only real way to proficiency is continued exposure. Small tips and tricks could be helpful in the beginning of your career, for coarse calibration, then you eventually develope your own style.

This is from our company manual.

From section 2.2.1 of the Standardised Landing Technique Guide

"2.2.1 "At 50ft look towards the end of the runway"

Appropriate statement? 99.9% of trainees will look towards the end of the runway, but mostly believe this to be for depth perception and discuss the "runway rising around my ears" as an aid to judging the flare.
This is of limited value. Attitude control is key in the landing phase. When you guide the trainee to look toward the end of the runway, ensure that they positively note and monitor the attitude as this facilitates a key point in the landing technique i.e., when, and how much to adjust the attitude."


The key point is "attitude monitoring".

Personally I find looking "along" the runway helpful, trying to look at the end a definite no no, but whatever it is that you do (and it can be very personal, what works for one may not work for another) positively note the attitude and the attitude change, also the rate of attitude change.

Combine that with flare height, management of thrust levers, and the ability to refine the attitude and maintain centreline whilst in the flare, and you're on your way to a good touchdown.

Yes you use peripheral vision, but how do you create the best peripheral vision? By looking in the distance.

We are talking about a young F/O who is trying to get a good flare technique. In training it is key to give correct guidelines. Tell them where to look, don't say "use your peripheral vision". You tell them to look as far as possible to get the most of information possible. That is the end of the runway. And if the visibility is 550m, they will automatically look at the last visual centerline lights and follow along as the flare progresses. There is no issue with that technique in limited visibility, it still gives you the most possible information for you to use.

There is more to a flare than rate of descent. There is also wings level (which is on equal terms when starting line training with ab-initio's with rate of descent control, I would even say it is more neglected). When looking in the distance you create a dynamic visual picture that is a combination of direct info (roll, lateral position) and peripheral infor (rate of descent, the "rising shoulders"). Once they have this technique, it will help them in many situations. It will help them from the standard windless cavok day, to ferry flights, to high gross weight, to emergency flapless landings.

The attitude remark is correct but doesn't help when the situation is "unfamiliar" (like non-normals). It works as an initial guideline to initiate the flare (and creates "semi-boundaries" to avoid floats and nose gear contact), it also helps when transitioning from one fleet to the other. There is some truth indeed. But how do you determine correct attitude if you don't look at the horizon in the distance? How do you determine correct attitude in 550m visibility?

Been there, done it (T shirt), thought about it, still don't know
 

This is a very contentious issue for which there might not be a definitive view.

It is likely that the technique used in training will be refined with experience and possibly for different types.

With personal experience ranging from landing175 kt fast jet, regional turboprops, steep approaches - DLC, FBW, and research into manual landing in low visibility (cat 3) - and combinations thereof, there is at best only a correlation involving primarily judgement of height and height rate.
How these parameters are deduced is conjecture; height appears to involve aspects of triangulation as noted by different runway width and the size of runway concrete blocks, etc, although experienced pilots (prior knowledge / experience) can manage differences.

Height rate probably involves the height parameter but also ground 'texture'. Day landings did not vary with surface type or markings, however night landings were challenged by reducing texture - visibility and quality of touchdown zone lighting, the latter's absence was critical, as was being over-bright which destroyed the 'fairy-light' ground carpet; so too, a very bright centreline. However, bright edge lighting was an aid as was a well defined runway edge by day - peripheral vision.
There was an interesting correlation between manual landing and auto-land (and FD/HUD), where the latter's control law (generalised as ht + ht rate + k = 0) could be seen in human performance, although different for each aircraft type. This does not exclude damping / feed back cues from stick position, force, and attitude, looking ahead - particularly for 'Airbus' type controls.

A speculative view could relate ht / ht rate to a mental short-cut similar to the ability to catch a 'fly-ball' when running - the gaze heuristic, which improves with experience, but not known how this is learnt; practice, practice, practice. Then there are further variables with approach speed, wind, glide-path, ….

The workload and quality of landing was influenced by visibility, particularly the far-point seen in pure manual landings (n.b. FD/Auto requirements cat 2-3); this also correlates the heuristic with flightpath angle, line of sight, projected touchdown point - looking ahead.

The visual - manual skills involved are learnt by observation and practice; they are tacit, thus unlikely to be adequately described by others; thus observe, feel it, do as I do not as I say.

Play cricket / baseball, don't sweat the landing it takes time, and with honest refection, landing involves skills never mastered, only good enough, and always opportunity for improvement.

Edit:
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....54fbacf32.jpeg

I’ll also raise my hands saying I never used the ‘look at the end of the runway’ advise. I’m not a trainer so I don’t pretend to know how to teach landings, but one things for sure: often enough there is no end of the runway for you to see. So what do you do then? I look at the blocks and the surrounding periphery.

As pilot monitoring I use a side glance at the runway edge to asses how long an inadvertent float is gonna take and wether I should take over or not. I find it much easier to judge the closure rate that way, or the lack thereof.

As with all things aviation - you can ask 10 people a question and get 11 answers (12 now :P). As everyone has their own 'style' on a subject. The key is to find one that is correct, consistent and SOP.

I'll preface the following with - this is only my tip - not a replacement of FCTM guidance or company trainer input.

The main point of where to look is to gauge some form of depth perception / closure rate to make a decision on when to flare. It is a visual maneuver always but the rad alt cadence callout offer a decent secondary guide.
The flare is an attitude change to reduce the ROD (not eliminate) until touchdown.
The landing flare is a few seconds of flight - no big deal.

Is it useless to look far away? It depends.
Looking at the touch down point gives little depth perception / closure rate - but in the same vein looking arbitrarily at the end of the runway can also offer little depth perception / closure rate.
Find what works for you (runways can in all shapes and sizes length and width - so end of runway isn't always consistent)

With experience you enter the "unconscious competency" stage where you don't really think about applying the above, it just happens (similar to gear changing in a car from your first driving lesson to passing your test)

After over three cumulative years in the air and still thumping it in occasionally, I agree that it is a subject for discussion but there seems to be no ‘one simple trick’ in this respect.

Do you look out into the distance, do you look out to the side, do you look at the aiming point? I would suggest the answer probably lies close to the answer to: do you look at the ASI, altimeter or A/H when you’re instrument flying...?

“Stick and Rudder” by Wolfgang Langewiesche and the “Jacobson Flare” (https://www.jacobsonflare.com) are still two of the best explanations out there of where to look during the landing flare, and how to transition from looking at the aim point to looking farther out and judging vertical rate. Jacobson may be somewhat mechanical but it is a great place to start for large aircraft (though he is not really saying anything different than Langewieshce at the end of the day). Remember these and any other advice given are “techniques” to accomplish the “procedure” in the Airbus FCTM, and do not override it.

Never forget that (autolands notwithstanding) an ILS glideslope and a VASI / PAPI are just tools to get you into a position to find a solid visual aim point on the runway and complete the landing maneuver visually. If snaking up and down at 75 feet trying to bracket the PAPI causes you to lose the visual “lock” on your “non moving” aim point thru the windshield, your priorities are backwards.

Once you learn to really see this, you can actually watch this as PM and catch if the PF’s aim point on the ground wanders up and down the runway. You will see their VASI deviations well before the lights change color.

To add to the above:

You need to create a mental separation between the transition in your gaze along the runway length, and the sidestick inputs you make to initiate the flare.

If you set up your visual reference for landing at 50’ (say), but don’t touch the sidestick just yet, you’ll put yourself in a position where you can judge the closure rate over more time.

This is not about fixating on the stop end, or any one point in particular, but rather taking your gaze away from the TDZ, which would have been your reference hitherto.

The A320 is a funny old thing. Same hand movements 10 times in a row yield 10 different landings. Find a technique that gives you the references you need to assess the closure rate, then give yourself enough time before the flare to make use of them.

I would say do what suits you in most of conditions, but be adaptable. There are pros and cons of both “techniques”, I personally combine a bit of both strategies but of course there are situations where I can’t even judge where I was looking :)

Another question is, what does it mean your flare was average. Many (too) many people still judge a landing by its smoothness (or hardness we can say) and it doesn’t really depend on experience. Of course, if you go to 3500m runway in cavok with nothing but headwind, you can go for a butter smooth landing not only to please your pax but also pilots ego however if you go for a short wet runway with crosswind+tailwind while being close to performance limited nothing wrong in doing positive touchdown. It’s about if you have control over what you do, if you float on a short wet tailwind runway, you know you could probably handle it differently you know what I mean.

TLDR. As long as you have control over what you do, Its consistent and within all the envelopes, do what you find most comfortable

While I certainly haven't mastered landings (far from it) I do think I have found a repetitive way of accomplishing an "ok" landing that doesn't break anything or result in safety reports: keep looking at the aiming markings all the way down to 50 ft height while resisting the temptation to flare early. Then when the auto callout of "30" is heard, pull on the yoke ever so gently just enought to raise the nose by 2 or 3 degrees, then hold it there and simultaneously close the thrust levers. A touch down within the touch down zone will happen. A lot of the times the landing will be firm, but it will do.

Having said that, I wish I could spend a day in the sim just practicing landings in all different conditions (weight, CG, config, weather, day/night, airport etc.) until I can consistently land it "well" and not just "ok".

There are far too many problems with that 'technique' to endorse it. If you don't look up til 50ft on a 3.5, 4 or 4.5deg visual segment (eg a slightly steeper approach), you're going to wallop it into the runway and break something OR you'll snatch at it in horror, overflare and whack the tail. Maybe it works on a conventional aircraft (I don't fly non-fbw), with someone to save you by feeling through what you're doing on the yoke and save the day, I can promise you that it's neither reliably even vaguely useful on the Airbus. There are far too many variables to come up with a rad alt to add a specific input to the controls. I'm not doubting that it might work some times, but you'll fluke it until one day you break your lovely aircraft.

Eyes up away from the aiming point AT THE LATEST crossing the threshold (not starter extension, the landing threshold) so you can judge the closure rate and flare the aircraft smoothly and progressively to reduce (don't stop) the closure rate towards the runway. Eyes don't need to be at the end of the runway or anywhere specific, just somewhere else (away from the aiming point) so you can judge that closure rate and have it done soon enoug... Soon enough is is simply 'not too late', don't be fixated on wherever your final aiming point ended up being.

Sure I don't argue with the fact that my technique might be rubbish, I wasn't trying to teach anyone or recommend it, just describing what I do which results in repetitive landings which have always been a pass for me, a 3 on the 1 to 5 grading system. What I care about is landing on centreline, within the touchdown zone, wings level and at the correct pitch. If it's firm, positive, carrier or whatever I don't care during a line check.

On the last paragraph, it can be consistent with what I said though. If you keep flying the aircraft towards the aiming markers down to 50 feet that's also where the threshold begins (on a normal 3º slope anyway), and that's when you start looking further ahead.

shift to the end of the rwy. Enters dubrovnik, manchester… in the chat, where you land and only can see a hump at 1/4 of the rwy which if you land past that, bye bye

Except you can see the Manchester hump from more or less any point on the final approach? Even if you’re ‘head’s in’ until CAT1 minima then you’ve still got time to prepare for it.

A lot of the conversation around standard flare technique is relevant to low experienced pilots or new to type. At a certain point, especially when it comes to runways with unusual profiles, restricted visibility, lack of useable horizon etc you need to engage the grey matter to understand which cues are of most use for the particular runway in question and anticipate those cues which might mislead you. There is no magic sauce, the FCTM technique is a good way to develop a baseline technique which is perfectly good for the vast majority of runways under most conditions. Having a solid, consistent technique allows you to adjust as appropriate for particular circumstances.

Speedrestriction summed it up perefctly.

Just to add to the very valuable points above, I would say that my best tip to a new pilot learning to land an Airbus FBW would be to make sure you fly your profile (ie. 3 deg-700ft/min) all the way down to the flare height, to maintain that consistency in your visual perspective and closure rate.. and of course if for any reason you are too flat or too steep adjust your flare height accordingly. So keep your scan (including VS) going for as long as possible to help you in the process.

I agree but would add that when giving advice like the sentence above you have to be careful how it is interpreted. For example, some new pilots who have a very literal way of thinking ( let’s face it, the best of us are not smack-bang in the middle of the spectrum) will take that to mean they should glance inside at their v/s indicator at 31ft. You can avoid that misunderstanding by reiterating that below 50’ you’re conducting a visual manoeuvre using outside references.

Absolutely right framer!

Speedrestriction has summed it up perfectly for me!

Great video on "arresting sink rate" prior to flare:
I have started doing this, prior to seeing this video, and really improved my Airbus landings. The 320 remains a thumper every time

15 minute speech to butter it, and then on the first flight with me you would get the remark "don't try to butter it, it's the cause of all problems" lol :-)

As a FAA Examiner debriefed me, “there’s nothing on your checkride that 10,000 hours of flying won’t fix”.

A/T off.. Small movements of the side stick (almost none). Keep yourself super stabilized but don't over control. Flare but try and time it so you can do another mini flare just bas the wheels are about to touch.

Your instructor is half right - and fixing the half he's wrong about will clean up the rest of your flare.

The old "look away from the aiming point" advice causes exactly the problem you described. A sudden shift in visual reference mid-flare disrupts your pitch control because your hands follow your eyes. So he's correct that a deliberate "look away" can destabilize things. That part checks out.

Where he's slightly off: "keep looking at the fat markers" isn't the answer either. If you stare at the touchdown zone all the way down, you lose your ability to judge sink rate and height in the last 20 feet - the markers rush under you and your brain runs out of depth cues right when you need them most.

The technique that actually works is a progressive shift. Use the aiming point to fly the path on approach. As you begin the flare, let your eyes travel further down the runway - not sideways, not randomly "away," just progressively ahead. This is what gives you the peripheral runway expansion cues that tell you how fast the ground is coming up and whether your attitude is right.

Airbus training material says it plainly - look well ahead during the flare and landing to judge aircraft position relative to the ground. The A320 cockpit geometry actually makes this easier than most types because the sight picture is so clean.

Your old technique was probably too abrupt. Your instructor smoothed out the scan and that's why your flare improved. But the real target isn't "stare at the markers." It's a gradual transition from aiming point to runway ahead as you enter the flare. Once that becomes habit, the rest sorts itself out.

Lots of useful advice in this thread, but what it all comes down to, in summary, is that the new chum needs something (?) to provide a bit of guidance so he/she doesn't bend the bird on the first landing. Then after some time, he/she will use the benefit of exposure and thinking about what has been going on to modify that initial "guidance" to produce something acceptable for his/her routine landings. Progressively, things will resolve for the thinking pilot and the "quality" (however you might like to define that) will improve. For some, this happens relatively quickly, for others it takes a bit longer. For some, I guess, it only reaches a plateau sufficient not to frighten the passengers too much but still get a pass grade on recurrent checks.

Some pilots are exceptional in their final approach and touchdown. I well recall a lovely chap, Standish Brooke, who is no longer with us, on the 727-200. He would drive it down to the aiming point and then, just as any rational person would expect a crash, the aircraft just, sort of, ran along the runway. In the time I flew with him, his worst landing was near perfect, and his best, absolutely perfect. Yet, over overnight beers, he couldn't quite explain how he did it. Whatever he did just, sort of, worked. Certainly, I couldn't figure out what his technique sequence was in any detail. Me ? All my initial 727 flying was on the -200 and the company's "check and roll" guidance just didn't cut the mustard - my landings were the stuff of not bothering to write home to mother about. Then, I flew a couple of months on a -100 freighter. All of a sudden, the landing became little different to landing a 172 and my problems on the -200 disappeared relatively rapidly once I returned to passenger flying.

My suggestion is not to sweat it too much in the early days, either learning to fly, or transitioning to a new Type. Apply the advised guidance until you have enough landings to modify and refine that guidance to come up with a technique which works consistently and reliably for you.

At day's end, it's just another FAR 25 style aeroplane ....