Landing an Airliner in near stall speed

Trip7

Trip7

Well-Known Member
Some captains I fly with have a technique of pulling power to idle early and landing the 700/900 like a cessna, near stall speed and with a very high pitch attitude. Haven't seen it but I've heard some get the shaker in the flare. Anybody else use this technique?

I would think you really gotta know the airplane to use this technique due to having less margin for error. If you don't know exactly where the wheels are and flare too high, it could make for a very hard landing and/or tailstrike. Also, I would be nervous using this technique in gusty/wind shear advisory conditions.
 
Trip7 said:
Some captains I fly with have a technique of pulling power to idle early and landing the 700/900 like a cessna, near stall speed and with a very high pitch attitude. Haven't seen it but I've heard some get the shaker in the flare. Anybody else use this technique?

I would think you really gotta know the airplane to use this technique due to having less margin for error. If you don't know exactly where the wheels are and flare too high, it could make for a very hard landing and/or tailstrike. Also, I would be nervous using this technique in gusty/wind shear advisory conditions.
Click to expand...

I never liked being anywhere near stall in a swept-wing jet, even on landing. There's just no need for it. A Cessna should be landed like a Cessna; a fast jet landed like a fast jet. Like you said, with the pitch attitude, you're risking a tailstrike and overall leave little wiggle-room for error. IMO, no need to put oneself in that square corner needlessly.
 
Trip7 said:
Some captains I fly with have a technique of pulling power to idle early and landing the 700/900 like a cessna, near stall speed and with a very high pitch attitude. Haven't seen it but I've heard some get the shaker in the flare. Anybody else use this technique?

I would think you really gotta know the airplane to use this technique due to having less margin for error. If you don't know exactly where the wheels are and flare too high, it could make for a very hard landing and/or tailstrike. Also, I would be nervous using this technique in gusty/wind shear advisory conditions.
Click to expand...

Well, a few things.

How close to the stall speed for your weight are they getting? Because the shaker is close to stall speed, but while I'd say it's a horrible technique, I wouldn't call anything under REF being "near stall speed."

So with that, I'd say it's a bad technique and as Mike said, you don't want to fly a swept wing jet like that. It takes one gust at the wrong moment to drop your airplane like a bad habit.

Isn't that how you land the -200? Did these guys just make the transition out of it?
 
As noted, not a good idea or technique. The higher the nose, the more likely a tail strike. Tail strike can mean crushed or compromised aft pressure bulkhead. NOT good. For some reason, I seem to remember angle of attack equaling about 1.17 Vso. Probably wrong. But not that far above the actual stall speed.

we had a guy who liked to do slow-speed touchdowns in the 737. When he went to the 767 he continued the practice. He crushed the APB landing at KLAX and the airplane had to be ferried unpressurized to Boeing in KSEA. Dean retired shortly after that.
24080_1091106453.jpg


In this one the strike occurs at about 1:05 in the video. NOT pretty. And no reason for it except rogue behavior. Not good airmanship.

[YT]uxfAHDrihDU[/YT]
 
jtrain609 said:
Well, a few things.

How close to the stall speed for your weight are they getting? Because the shaker is close to stall speed, but while I'd say it's a horrible technique, I wouldn't call anything under REF being "near stall speed."

So with that, I'd say it's a bad technique and as Mike said, you don't want to fly a swept wing jet like that. It takes one gust at the wrong moment to drop your airplane like a bad habit.

Isn't that how you land the -200? Did these guys just make the transition out of it?
Click to expand...

Na, the 200 lands at near level pitch attitude with minimal flare. The 700 and 900 can really be pitched up high depending on how early you take out the power. But the 700 and 900 can be landed flat smoothly as well so it all really comes down to personal preference.

How close to stall speed? Well ref in the 700 is normally 130-135. I've seen some land touchdown close to 100knts.

Personally I'm not brave enough to do the super high pitch attitude landings yet because I have a good feeling where the mains are, but not precise enough feeling to be pitching the plane way up like that.
 
Orange Anchor said:
As noted, not a good idea or technique. The higher the nose, the more likely a tail strike. Tail strike can mean crushed or compromised aft pressure bulkhead. NOT good. For some reason, I seem to remember angle of attack equaling about 1.17 Vso. Probably wrong. But not that far above the actual stall speed.

we had a guy who liked to do slow-speed touchdowns in the 737. When he went to the 767 he continued the practice. He crushed the APB landing at KLAX and the airplane had to be ferried unpressurized to Boeing in KSEA. Dean retired shortly after that.
24080_1091106453.jpg


In this one the strike occurs at about 1:05 in the video. NOT pretty. And no reason for it except rogue behavior. Not good airmanship.

[YT]uxfAHDrihDU[/YT]
Click to expand...

Thanks, that definitely answered my concerns.
 
Trip7 said:
Some captains I fly with have a technique of pulling power to idle early and landing the 700/900 like a cessna
Click to expand...

First, I am a huge advocate for full stall landings in small airplanes.

Scenario 1 Cessna 172: Flare/stall 10 feet high, pilot "omg" shoving power in, nice save.

Scenario 2 Large Jet: Flare/stall 10 feet high, pilot "omg" shoving power in, CRUNCH

Inertia wins again, good old physics and I don't need to fly a big plane for this common sense reply. Correct me if I am wrong here but there just is no backup plan for a bad stall landing in a large aircraft right?

Disclaimer: Not picking on you or anyone here, just this idea seems fairly funny to me.
 
shdw said:
First, I am a huge advocate for full stall landings in small airplanes.

Scenario 1 Cessna 172: Flare/stall 10 feet high, pilot "omg" shoving power in, nice save.

Scenario 2 Large Jet: Flare/stall 10 feet high, pilot "omg" shoving power in, CRUNCH

Inertia wins again, good old physics and I don't need to fly a big plane for this common sense reply. Correct me if I am wrong here but there just is no backup plan for a bad stall landing in a large aircraft right?

Disclaimer: Not picking on you or anyone here, just this idea seems fairly funny to me.
Click to expand...

Hey I agree with you. :beer: Just looking to get other people's opinions.
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
Video comments say "near tail strike". To me, it doesn't look like there was one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxfAHDrihDU
Click to expand...

Look at the smoke coming off the runway near the tail. At first, I thought maybe the center gear but it comes too fast.

You may be right. Still nose high attitudes and holding a jet off for landing is a recipe for a tail strike, dog or no dog. For fun, go to the NASA ASRS website. Run a search on 'tailstrike'. I come up with 250+ reports where guys dinged the bird.

FWIW, a few machines I flew were reportedly susceptible to strikes.. the 737-400 and the 757-200 especially. Most of the time the strikes came from guys trying to get a real smooth landing and continuing to hold the bird off by increasing pitch.
 
I'll agree with what the others said but add this. You should touch down below Vref, but not that far below ref that you're getting a shaker. Bad stuff.

-mini
 
minitour said:
I'll agree with what the others said but add this. You should touch down below Vref, but not that far below ref that you're getting a shaker. Bad stuff.

-mini
Click to expand...

Indeed, and I guess that's my point. I have no idea what airspeed my mains ever touched down at. We'd fly Ref + 5 for the approach, then in the last 50'-100' we're supposed to lose the 5 knots so we're flaring at ref, and then the speed the mains actually come down at? No idea, I was always focused outside, and never trusted the guy next to me enough to look down and check their airspeed on landing.
 
Like others have said, it seems like this would be incredibly poor form in a transport or otherwise swept wing jet. I know some folks use air braking as a technique on roll-out, but taking a swept wing jet into shakers close to the ground? No thanks.
 
Can any of you confirm this for me, "Correct me if I am wrong here but there just is no backup plan for a bad stall landing in a large aircraft right?" I am curious if my thoughts as applied here are accurate, thank you.

Edit: Trip7, I didn't mean to imply you disagreed, sorry if it came off like that. I was more laughing at your captain buddies, it sounds like they have some macho in them.
 
Sounds like there are some captains that have gotten lucky and not had a tail strike.

Might be time for a little jet refresher for some of your coworkers!
 
there are some aircraft that are basically impossible to tail strike in landing. the emb-145 and dc9-10 are such aircraft, and in decades ago times, there were operators that would land the dc-9 full stall or close to it - they were operating off of 5000' runways with the (poor) -10 brakes. in size and destinations, the dc9-10 was the RJ of the day, but without the tremendous reversers and brakes of the modern RJ. full stall land it, or meet the rescue equipment at the far end of the snow covered runway. easy to say "i would never do that" these days, but in 1965, this wasn't an unusual procedure.

full stall landing is also a difficult procedure. the speed becomes very unstable as the wing doesn't respond well to pitch due to the outboard sections of the wing washing out at high angles of attack. but the drag still increases, so pitching up does little to increase lift while greatly increasing drag. additionally, because of this washout, the center of lift moves forward, further aiding the pilot's ability to flare it out, and thus augmenting the increasing instability. this is more seen in aircraft with body mounted engines. in aircraft with wing mounted engines, the reduction of thrust in the flare helps pull the nose down and this nicely counteracts the pitching up tendency of the swept wing as it slows. one final effect of the washout is that it will negate the ailerons, and aircraft without roll spoilers may have nil roll authority during a full stall landing.


some aircraft are very easy to tail strike on landing, namely the 737-800, A321, and dc9-80 (md80).

there is also one 727 that deep stalled on landing - it didn't tail strike, but the elevator was unresponsive, as it was in a deep stall condition. when the wing finally did quit flying completely, the nose dropped hard enough to fail the nose gear.

one final problem with a full stall landing is the possibility for the need of a go-around. the aircraft is in a very low energy state, with a very high amount of drag. add in engines that are slow to spool, and you might be looking at 2000-3000 feet of runway before there is any positive rate of climb after initiating the go-around.
 
shdw said:
Can any of you confirm this for me, "Correct me if I am wrong here but there just is no backup plan for a bad stall landing in a large aircraft right?" I am curious if my thoughts as applied here are accurate, thank you.

Edit: Trip7, I didn't mean to imply you disagreed, sorry if it came off like that. I was more laughing at your captain buddies, it sounds like they have some macho in them.
Click to expand...


You are correct. There is no way to reasonably recover from this situation in a transport category airplane - it is just a matter of how much damage you will inflict on your aircraft. This technique is not taught or endorsed by Boeing and I have never known anyone who embraces this landing concept in a large swept wing jet. Macho is not quite the word I would use here.
 
stratoduck said:
there are some aircraft that are basically impossible to tail strike in landing. the emb-145 and dc9-10 are such aircraft, and in decades ago times, there were operators that would land the dc-9 full stall or close to it - they were operating off of 5000' runways with the (poor) -10 brakes. in size and destinations, the dc9-10 was the RJ of the day, but without the tremendous reversers and brakes of the modern RJ. full stall land it, or meet the rescue equipment at the far end of the snow covered runway. easy to say "i would never do that" these days, but in 1965, this wasn't an unusual procedure.
Click to expand...

Just wondering.. are you speaking from experience, observation or stories? I began a long time ago and with the exception of a few rogues, I NEVER saw anyone, especially in t-tail machines landing near the stall. Not saying it didn't happen and there were still a lot of old WWII guys who would say, "Let me show you what this thing can really do!" But except for Dean, our resident wacko, none got into the shaker much less near the stall.

FWIW, I got to fly the 737-400 at the factory with a demo pilot and we did FULL stalls clean, flaps 5 and full dirty. Not really unusual but it doesn't have a t-tail. And did some FULL stalls in the Lear 31A and it has a t-tail but it also has ventrals. Again, no big deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top