Landing an Airliner in near stall speed

Calcapt,

Thanks for the reply and I meant macho as in there is no need for this procedure other than the "watch what I can do" idea. Maybe it doesn't apply as stratoduck was referring to older procedures which they may just be applying but without questioning the pilots in question who knows I guess.

On a complete side note, why don't people on the forum try to use less space quoting other people and just reply with a name? I have seen a few do this and it drastically reduces the scrolling needed to get to the bottom of a post. :) Meaning only quote necessary, short ideas, instead of entire pages of a reply to simply say I agree. Disclaimer: A recently (yesterday) adapted this idea that I will now be trying and see how it goes, feel free to join me in my rogue ways!!!
 
shdw said:
....why don't people on the forum try to use less space quoting other people and just reply with a name? ....Meaning only quote necessary, short ideas, instead of entire pages of a reply to simply say I agree.
Click to expand...


Great idea. I will commit to your keep it brief philosophy.
 
I've always been taught and tried to heed the land at ref to ref-5 philosiphy. From the barbie fun jet to the whale, it's same-same.While everyone is correct with all I've read, just a few comments to add. 1) All performance data is built on the approach at ref to ref+5, flare lose the 5 knots and land at ref to ref-5. The gear is usually designed to take a no flare landing, so cut the descent rate and hit the marks....smoothness will come.2) Look up the pitch attitude the tail will strike and see how close the cowboys get to that.3) Air braking - civillian transport jets. I say no. The goal is to get the jet on the ground and get it stopped. Again, the aircraft was designed to land, the spoilers put weight on the brakes (and we all know how carbon brakes like a quick heat cycle to redue wear) and aerobrake the jet. Also with the nosewheel on the ground that will add to directional stability as the rudder loses effectiveness (which will happen at a higher AS since the rudder won't be directly into the relative wind and will additionally the dirty air flowing around the fuse)YMMV - be safe and have fun out there!
 
shdw said:
On a complete side note, why don't people on the forum try to use less space quoting other people and just reply with a name? I have seen a few do this and it drastically reduces the scrolling needed to get to the bottom of a post. :) Meaning only quote necessary, short ideas, instead of entire pages of a reply to simply say I agree. Disclaimer: A recently (yesterday) adapted this idea that I will now be trying and see how it goes, feel free to join me in my rogue ways!!!
Click to expand...

calcapt said:
Great idea. I will commit to your keep it brief philosophy.
Click to expand...
I'm just happy anytime calcapt posts in a thread because I ususally learn something.
 
The 700 has the tail strike indicator which will pop out when a strike occurs. However from what I have heard it is incredibly difficult to strike the tail of the 700. 900 may be a different story. From flying the 700 previously, small changes in speed will drastically change the height of the cockpit during flare, ie lower speed and the pilots will sit much, much higher as the mains touch. In moderation that's more a technique thing although personally I liked to keep the nose lower and speed higher on touchdown for controlability. The 200 is shorter and the height difference is less obvious.

A lot of this poor technique is probably a carry over from primary training where you hold it off as long as possible; in a larger aircraft the best thing to do when flaring too high is simply lower the nose slightly and cut your losses. It will be a firm but safe touchdown. The 700 is not a good plane to 'pull the power to idle early' as you say, the spool up time is fairly long from idle so you won't get power if you need it. Also, as in any swept wing, the sink rate can get quite high very quickly as the speed drops.
 
There was an FO at a certain airline flying the 700 and he liked to use this technique. One day he caught a small gust of wind and yanked back on the yoke to correct. The Captain tried to correct by adding full thrust, but it was too late and they had a tail strike.
 
Eh... I was supposed to have that plane later in the day at this certain airline. Got to deadhead home a day early.

Beyond that though, it was pretty bad.
 
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...

You should be talking to one of the instructors at your airline about this. You don't need to mention any specific captain names, but ask them about this technique. If it is a recurring problem then it needs to be brought up during recurrent ground training and perhaps even sim sessions where they point out to pilots why they should not be doing this. If your airline is the one I think it is it has a very good safety record (two fatal accidents in 30 years, one caused by a prop quill problem, the other caused by a fault in the H&S prop rebuild facility). One of the reasons behind the safety record is that the instructors (this company has internal instructors, they don't farm out their instruction), have been pretty good in the past about identifying possible problem areas and instituting training to correct the problems.
 
EDUC8-or said:
There was an FO at a certain airline flying the 700 and he liked to use this technique. One day he caught a small gust of wind and yanked back on the yoke to correct. The Captain tried to correct by adding full thrust, but it was too late and they had a tail strike.
Click to expand...

BobDDuck said:
Eh... I was supposed to have that plane later in the day at this certain airline. Got to deadhead home a day early.

Beyond that though, it was pretty bad.
Click to expand...

Can you guys elaborate more on what exactly happened? What kind of gust it was and how far off the ground the plane was?
 
Blackhawk said:
You should be talking to one of the instructors at your airline about this. You don't need to mention any specific captain names, but ask them about this technique. If it is a recurring problem then it needs to be brought up during recurrent ground training and perhaps even sim sessions where they point out to pilots why they should not be doing this. If your airline is the one I think it is it has a very good safety record (two fatal accidents in 30 years, one caused by a prop quill problem, the other caused by a fault in the H&S prop rebuild facility). One of the reasons behind the safety record is that the instructors (this company has internal instructors, they don't farm out their instruction), have been pretty good in the past about identifying possible problem areas and instituting training to correct the problems.
Click to expand...

Good idea. I got recurrent coming up and I'll ask them about that
 
But in the grand scale of things, dooooooon't do it man.

"I saw other guys doing it" will not suffice during your post tail-strike exit interview.
 
Trip7 said:
Can you guys elaborate more on what exactly happened? What kind of gust it was and how far off the ground the plane was?
Click to expand...

I can't really elaborate on the exact details, but from what I understand the FO and yanked back on the yoke when they began to sink (remember how you could do that in a 172 to save a landing?) after they caught a small gust. It wasn't a very windy day and it took too long for the engines to get spooled up to save the landing.

We now include a "Bounced Landings" discussion in our recurrent brief. The FAA strongly recommends a go around if you bounce a landing or somehow become unstable at the last minute.
 
Can you go around after a bounce in the CRJ? If you activate the WOW logic you're going to get the boards out in the ERJ and at that point, you're kinda stuck where you are from my perspective.

Or do the boards not deploy that quickly in the CRJ?
 
They will deploy, but retract @ 79% N1 in the 200 and in the TOGA detent in the 700.

From personal experiences, a bounce is much more likely and less forgiving in the 700.
 
jtrain609 said:
Can you go around after a bounce in the CRJ? If you activate the WOW logic you're going to get the boards out in the ERJ and at that point, you're kinda stuck where you are from my perspective.

Or do the boards not deploy that quickly in the CRJ?
Click to expand...

Remember when you increase the TLA enough on the ERJ, the boards automatically stow. And, if the jet has enough bounce, the boards will also stow automatically.
 
EDUC8-or said:
I can't really elaborate on the exact details, but from what I understand the FO and yanked back on the yoke when they began to sink (remember how you could do that in a 172 to save a landing?) after they caught a small gust. It wasn't a very windy day and it took too long for the engines to get spooled up to save the landing.

We now include a "Bounced Landings" discussion in our recurrent brief. The FAA strongly recommends a go around if you bounce a landing or somehow become unstable at the last minute.
Click to expand...

Ok I see. I must have been coming in so slow the plane was behind the power curve. I've heard of that happening before. The situation where when you pull back all it does is drives the mains harder into the ground. That's why I don't like pulling the power early. In that situation all you can do is push forward at the last sec and hope for the best.
 
Polar742 said:
Remember when you increase the TLA enough on the ERJ, the boards automatically stow. And, if the jet has enough bounce, the boards will also stow automatically.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm aware of that, I guess I've never had a bounce that bad then, because even when I've hammered the airplane into the runway, the boards come up and we stay on the ground.
 
jtrain609 said:
Can you go around after a bounce in the CRJ?

Or do the boards not deploy that quickly in the CRJ?
Click to expand...

It takes a bit of force on the WOW sensors to throw up the boards (actually it's the "ground lift dumping system") on the CRJ. It doesn't happen very often, but I've had a soft enough landing (that's the part that doesn't happen often) where the sensors never registered WOW and the boards didn't come up. There's a whole list of things that are supposed to occur to allow for the GLD to activate, including RA readout, MLG spin up and something else that I've forgotten, but it takes a certain number of those and WOW is required. That's just another good reason to plant the thing when you are coming in on a short runway and really need everything to get stopped.
 
jtrain609 said:
Oh I'm aware of that, I guess I've never had a bounce that bad then, because even when I've hammered the airplane into the runway, the boards come up and we stay on the ground.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it'd have to be a humdinger. Then again, I had some real crappy landings in the ERJ (especially swapping between a 145 and 135 since there were different techniques to land them), and I never had a real high bounce. Once that plane got on the ground, it pretty much stuck.

IIRC, it was TLA <50 degrees, wheel speed >25kts, and On Ground. And I think there was a 3 second delay in case you did a small skip or so.

I think the bigger issue that no one really is bringing up either is if one engine spools and one doesn't. On fuselage mounted engines, not SUCH a big deal, but it could be, especially below Vmc. On wing mounted engines a bigger deal. However, the effects of which are more manageable if you have the airplane in the proper profile.
 
I usually forgot I was flying a 135 until I either rotated, and the thing jumped off the ground on me, or I was landing, and I planted it.

I liked the 135's, though. They were a lot more sporty than the 145's. I think the 135 control feel was a lot closer to what the airplane was supposed to have than the 145's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top