CRJ operators, what is YOUR definition of "touchdown zone?"

kellwolf

kellwolf

Piece of Trash
Cause here it's not "3000 feet or half the distance" anymore. FAA is apparently cracking down on a little known aspect of our ops specs that says a "normal touchdown will be between 1000-1500 ft." So, now guys are getting called on the carpet if they land further than 1500 ft down the runway. Now, you can grease a CRJ on in the touchdown zone (at least as defined by the AIM) and have it stopped without jamming passengers into the seat in front of them without too much trouble. Doing that while maintaining the G/S AND touching down between 1000-1500 ft? Not likely. My CA and I have been trying that for the past week, and it's more of an arrival than a landing. Any other CRJ operators out there have this "re-defining" of the touchdown zone going on, or are we just the lucky ones? I doubt TVC has anything to do with this since our landing data doesn't even count using thrust reversers.
 
Re: CRJ operators, what is YOUR definition of "touchdown zon

What is the Ops Spec number for that?
 
Re: CRJ operators, what is YOUR definition of "touchdown zon

I was always told the first third or 3000 feet, whichever is first. Looking through the FOM and OpSpecs, I can't find anything that says either way.

Is this because of the overrun over the winter?
 
Re: CRJ operators, what is YOUR definition of "touchdown zon

I can't speak for all CRJ operators, but Comair ran artificially high Vref speeds. This was done at the genesis of the RJ program to protect a pilot group that had limited to no swept wing experience. Add the 5 or 10 knots that some sloppy pilots add for Mom and the kids and you end up with an airplane crossing the fence with a remarkable amount of energy.

Bleed that energy off in the flare and you'll touchdown thousands of feet down the runway. Vref (the original 1.3 Vso) is a significant margin above stall and the airplane is quite controllable. Flying Vref results in a more normal approach attitude (less of the RJ "nose down" effect), less energy to bleed in the flare, and more precise planning of touchdown.

Ok... now all that being said, the RJ is still the biggest POS jet i've ever flown.

With the autopilot on make a configuration change, or allow it to intercept the glideslope! Yowsa! You could chip a tooth on the yoke!

When the gear goes down the darned thing sounds like it's been hit by a missile!

500-1000 feet per minute climbing through the mid-twenties?

Compared with Boeing and Douglas products i've flown in the past I felt like the Canadair is a throwaway jet that really lacks acceptable flying qualities... so it is possible that pilot technique is not to blame in the long-landing incidents, but rather that the aircraft is a piece of junk.

You know what they say, "Oh that thing is Canadian? I thought I smelled beaver poop!"
 
Re: CRJ operators, what is YOUR definition of "touchdown zon

ZapBrannigan said:
I can't speak for all CRJ operators, but Comair ran artificially high Vref speeds. This was done at the genesis of the RJ program to protect a pilot group that had limited to no swept wing experience. Add the 5 or 10 knots that some sloppy pilots add for Mom and the kids and you end up with an airplane crossing the fence with a remarkable amount of energy.

Bleed that energy off in the flare and you'll touchdown thousands of feet down the runway. Vref (the original 1.3 Vso) is a significant margin above stall and the airplane is quite controllable. Flying Vref results in a more normal approach attitude (less of the RJ "nose down" effect), less energy to bleed in the flare, and more precise planning of touchdown.

Ok... now all that being said, the RJ is still the biggest POS jet i've ever flown.

With the autopilot on make a configuration change, or allow it to intercept the glideslope! Yowsa! You could chip a tooth on the yoke!

When the gear goes down the darned thing sounds like it's been hit by a missile!

500-1000 feet per minute climbing through the mid-twenties?

Compared with Boeing and Douglas products i've flown in the past I felt like the Canadair is a throwaway jet that really lacks acceptable flying qualities... so it is possible that pilot technique is not to blame in the long-landing incidents, but rather that the aircraft is a piece of junk.

You know what they say, "Oh that thing is Canadian? I thought I smelled beaver poop!"
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight...you're saying that you really don't like the CRJ, right?

:buck:
 
Re: CRJ operators, what is YOUR definition of "touchdown zon

At least it's not a Dornier... ;)
 
Re: CRJ operators, what is YOUR definition of "touchdown zon

i dunno, i dig it. i don't have much to compare it to though. i will agree that the autopilot seems to be very violent on the controls...damn thing whips the yoke back and forth like crazy. also configuration changes were a little eye opening at first (and still now sometimes in fact). other than that its just another airplane, and like any other aircraft its got an envelope of control that we have to work within. i don't get made at my car for being slow, because I know its only got 90hp. as long as it gets me from A-B safely i'm cool with it. seriously though, it is interesting to hear about the artiffically high ref speed...i have noticed that when flying on profile (comair's) that putting it down somewhat soft takes up alot of the "landing zone". then again i'm fairly new to the a/c and maybe i should just plant the thing instead of trying to squeak it in every time.
 
Re: CRJ operators, what is YOUR definition of "touchdown zon

Not sure what the Ops Spec number is. That's just what one of the check airmen told me was where it was. It's in the FOM, though. They just released a revision to make sure we're all aware of it. "Normally, all landings touch down within the first 1,500 feet of available runway. Landing standards are that all touchdowns normally be between the first 1000 and 1500 feet of available runway. If a touchdown cannot be made within the landing standards, a go-around is normally executed." Not sure if they can use the word "normally" any more than that.

Then you go to our LAHSO ops.... IT says the landing must be made within the first 1/3 of the available runway distance, but no more than 3000 feet down the runway. So, on a 10,000 ft runway we have to land between 1,000-1,500 ft, but if we're doing LAHSO ops on a 7000 foot runway, we can go as far as 3,000. WTF??!?!

We do the Vref +5 thing, so you're slowing the thing down to Vref at about 200 ft so you don't float down the runway. THEN if you wanna hit (and I do mean HIT) the touchdown zone where they want it, you pull idle at 100 AGL and manage airspeed with pitch. Anything else, you've gotta go below G/S to do it. I don't think anyone writing this stuff has noticed that a) the G/S antenea is in the nose b) we don't have leading edge devices which brings us to c) we're flying nose down and fast until about 30 feet off the ground, which changes where the G/S is at touchdown.

You can get it down without thumping it into the pavement within the first 3000 ft pretty easily if you know what you're doing. Getting it to do that in half that distance is.....well, difficult to say the least.
 
Re: CRJ operators, what is YOUR definition of "touchdown zon

All it's going to take is somebody dragging it in and hitting an approach light and that will be the end of the Approach End Engagement program at 9E.
 
Re: CRJ operators, what is YOUR definition of "touchdown zon

Once they start noticing a high number of go-arounds, the policy will change.
 
Re: CRJ operators, what is YOUR definition of "touchdown zon

I've studied this closely over the past few years. Even more so after the Southwest crash at KMDW. I think a jet should be touching down at 1500'. Anything less is unrealistic, given a standard ILS G/S or limited by gear crossing heights at the threshold for larger aircraft.

Working a trigonometry problem of 50' over the threshold of a 3 degree glideslope...the tangent results in 954'. Given 300' to 500' for a flare maneuver...1500' is a good number. If you are really working for a good touchdown and have plenty of runway...1800' max. Even the autoland system takes 500' or so to flare.

Some contaminated runway stopping distance charts are predicated upon 1000' touchdown. This is not reasonable, in my opinion, and is a trap for the line pilot. A pilot should be expertly proficient in their performance data...and know exactly what it is providing for them...and evaluate whether a realistic scenario is available to achieve a runway limited value.

I rarely fly with someone who touches down 2000' or more down the runway. Anything over 2000' is unprofessional in my oponion, unless extra airspeed is being carried to account for gust or headwind considerations. This situation should be briefed and discussed and plenty of extra runway should be available. I believe this is where the context "normal" comes into consideration. If you have to add speed additives above "normal" for the approach....you may not be able to accomodate the "normal" situation. Again...the situation should be briefed and evaluated appropriately.

On a visual approach, 1000' is doable. A higher approach path would be necessary to account for gear height. KDCA/KLGA are runways that come to mind where 1000' to 1200' touching down are appropriate.

As I look at airplanes that have departed the hard surface during landing, there is a common theme. Most have landed later, rather than earlier, in the touchdown zone.
 
Re: CRJ operators, what is YOUR definition of "touchdown zon

kellwolf said:
So, now guys are getting called on the carpet if they land further than 1500 ft down the runway.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to how the company can know exactly where the aircraft touched down. I know FOQA plays a part, but I figure they could only use that to make sure we're at Vref @ 50', can they somehow use the data to figure out the actual touchdown point on the runway?
 
Re: CRJ operators, what is YOUR definition of "touchdown zon

B767, how much of the CRJ's flare is in that problem? The -200 flares considerably different than a DC-9 or a A320. It's got more in common with a C172 in the flare than those two. Since the GS antennae is in the nose, that's a factor, IMO.

I agree, that 2000 ft is long. I can normally get a nice, non-jawing slamming touchdown in about 1500-1800 ft. According to my company, however, that's not good enough. They'd rather I slam it down on the concrete than go for a little more passenger comfort on a 10,000 ft runway. I'm no fool, though. If I've got a 5000-6000 ft runway, I'm going for a firm, early touchdown over comfort anyway. Most of us just feel like we're being singled out right now.

As for how do they know, FOQA plays a big part in it. Not sure if they download FMS data as well. If they do, then they can pretty much tell where you touched down on the runway.
 
Re: CRJ operators, what is YOUR definition of "touchdown zon

My capt and I were "evaluating" our landings and we concluded on a theory. It CAN be done to cross @50ft and Vref, but if you do you violate "stabilized". If you carrier land you get very close to what is listed in the CFM as a "hard" landing requiring a Mx writeup (i believe the number was 600fpm). At MLW of 47K# ref=142. Your decent rate at 50ft @ threshold and ref is roughly 800fpm. If you wait until 30ft to flare you can touch down "smooth" at roughly 200fpm, result is roughly 1600ft down the runway. This "setup" to get you to 1600 ft is the same as a short field landing from the PPL days. My problem is that as we slam the planes in and slow down we have to then give it some thrust to make it to the taxiway to turn off- happened 3 times, one time the MSP controller even asked if we were doing "something new" because I "planted" around 1400ft and made one of the first turnoffs. That would be fine if we had 6000 ft total to play with, but we have well over 10K' or rnwy to stop on. Runway behind is useless, but we are bringing the -200 is Faster AND shorter than the -700's, -900's, and the vast majority of the mainliners. These guys have much slower Vrefs, leading edge devices, and don't cross the threshold at 4 degrees nose down. A smooth landing in the -200 requires 1400-1800ft realisticly. You can "plant" all day long and the landings aren't bad- they are firm as if you are landing on a short strip, but WHY are we getting "looked at" by the FAA for landing and stopping before we are even out of the Touchdown Zone Lights? Yea- that chaps me, landing in MEM- we landed (aka planted) and were below 80kts and we were still rolling on the orange touchdown zone lights- at roughly 3000' down the runway. Its frustrating! I am waiting for a memo on hard landings, tire wear, and customer complaints that tells us to land 1000-1500ft down the runway at under 200fpm at touchdown. Mgmt can have some cake, and try to eat it too, but eventually they are going to gain some weight- in this case some broke planes!:banghead: I landed in Wichita the "normal way" and touched down at around 1800 ft but it was a very smooth landing- pax said so themselves! hehe- (roughly 200fpm at touchdown) but I guess I was "out of standards" because I only landed on the first 1/5th of the runway! I guess if I had asked for a LAHSO I would have been legal.... Ok.... I am just ranting now...I am sure we will get some new memos on this..:panic:
 
Re: CRJ operators, what is YOUR definition of "touchdown zon

kellwolf said:
B767, how much of the CRJ's flare is in that problem? The -200 flares considerably different than a DC-9 or a A320. It's got more in common with a C172 in the flare than those two. Since the GS antennae is in the nose, that's a factor, IMO.
Click to expand...


I don't know. There's probably certification data pertaining to a "flare" maneuver...but I'm not privy to it. Most airplanes that I've l flown that have been "on speed" going into the flare can accomplish the maneuver in 500 to 800 feet. 1000' to 1500' feet from the end of the runway is not easy...and it definitely does not have "smooth" touchdown considerations built in.
 
Re: CRJ operators, what is YOUR definition of "touchdown zon

I've been playing with this the last couple of flights in the Citation. To make the "1500" foot mark it takes either of two techniques. Being slightly below the GS and throttles "briskly" moved to idle just prior to the threshold and hold the nose in the landing attitude and "thud" or duck under the glideslope when over the approach lights by about a dot, on Vref and ease the throttles out to come to idle right at touchdown.

The first way gets a more consistent impact, the second way is easier to grease on but you are coming over the end of the runway at 25 to 30 feet (really flat).

If I fly on speed on GS to the threshold, pull the power out over the threshold (at 50 feet) I usually end up about 2000 feet down the runway still with a thud, try to smooth it out and we get into the 2200 or so range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top