Landing an Airliner in near stall speed

BobDDuck said:
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.
Click to expand...

Isn't the other thing power lever angle. Something like 79 degrees?? ie yes you can still go around once the GLDs are out, they automatically retract once the power is pushed up.

As far as bouncing goes, like most I've had some REAL 'is-the-gear-still-attached' stinkers of landings and never got the jet to bounce. I really gotta wonder just what the hell kind of landings guys are doing out there if their jets are literally bouncing off the ground, as if the ground is pissed for getting hit so hard.
 
LatitudeDancer said:
I think the A380 tried a landing near stall speed at Oshkosh...
Click to expand...

In NORMAL Law, you can't go below what is termed the 'alpha floor' and that is not 'near the stall'. Hard landing yes but the long lens also creates foreshortening and exaggerates the crab.

Not pretty for sure and probably a very firm landing. But hard landings usually leave some damage and require a post flight inspection.

War story...We had a guy put a 737 on the runway in MSY for a hard landing years ago. George was famous for his work. Anyway, nothing special noted until a few days later a F/O is doing a preflight and notice what appears to be something odd with the fuselage. The mechs check it and sure enough, George had rung the bell. The MSY smash had broken a few fuselage stringers. That put the little bird in the hangar for a while.
 
Orange Anchor said:
Hard landing yes but the long lens also creates foreshortening and exaggerates the crab.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I couldn't pass up the chance to participate in taking the piss out of an (I'm assuming) effete French crew. I'm sure they're the type of guys who shoot parallel approaches into de Gaulle in IMC refusing to speak English.

Oh yea, and Texas is bigger than France
 
LatitudeDancer said:
Agreed, but I couldn't pass up the chance to participate in taking the piss out of an (I'm assuming) effete French crew. I'm sure they're the type of guys who shoot parallel approaches into de Gaulle in IMC refusing to speak English.
Click to expand...

I recently traveled to/from Paris on Air France. Very nice group of people. I enjoy Paris. I enjoy France. I just don't care for some of their politics. Having said that, Madame Sarkozy is something to behold.

Also, having worked with Airbus on a number of occasions and having spent time with the French, they are not that difficult. And their food and wine are excellent.

As for dipsticks in the cockpit, we have dorks here who think that 3 or 4 stripes are tickets to Olympus. That seems to be universal.
 
I just think you old bus drivers need to stop draggin your tails and start using your noggins again.
 
Yea, but still...
 

Attachments

  • BiggerThanFrance-full.jpg
    BiggerThanFrance-full.jpg
    32.3 KB · Views: 169
shdw said:
I just think you old bus drivers need to stop draggin your tails and start using your noggins again.
Click to expand...

??

I liked the 'bus. I enjoyed the 757/767. I was intrigued by the handling of the MD-80 and its systems. The 737-200 was a fine machine but the -300/400 had too much fuel for too small a cockpit and too fat a wing. For sheer flying pleasure, the 727-200 with -15 engines was a real treat, especially when in the A mode. In each I tried to play to the strengths and respect the weaknesses. I never thought I was giving up thinking.
And in the NY Times yesterday there was a very good article on decision making and how we process info. It seems the facts are we use more info than we realize and not every decision is a logical process.
 
Orange Anchor said:
??

I liked the 'bus. I enjoyed the 757/767. I was intrigued by the handling of the MD-80 and its systems. The 737-200 was a fine machine but the -300/400 had too much fuel for too small a cockpit and too fat a wing. For sheer flying pleasure, the 727-200 with -15 engines was a real treat, especially when in the A mode. In each I tried to play to the strengths and respect the weaknesses. I never thought I was giving up thinking.
And in the NY Times yesterday there was a very good article on decision making and how we process info. It seems the facts are we use more info than we realize and not every decision is a logical process.
Click to expand...

Breathe...was a joke.
 
BobDDuck said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've had the opposite happen. Land so soft that the struts are still extended, get WOW and the boards come out shoving me down the rest of the way. All I can think of when that happen is "NO SOUP FOR YOU!" So close to a perfect landing but the airplane decides not to play along ;-)

I actually flew with a guy yesterday that did what Trip7 is talking about (same airline). Made me feel pretty uneasy as the nose was higher than I've ever seen it. I need to get my nose in the books but another thought about landing like that is not only the stick shaker but the stick pusher. That could be a pretty crappy surprise.

Personally I subscribe to the "throw it at the ground and miss" method of landing the 700/900. Power starts slowly coming out at 50 ft. By the time I get to about 10ft the power is still around 1/3rd of the travel of the thrust levers (not sure what % that equates to, I'm never looking inside). I do this because I find the slowest part of the spin up is the bottom 1/3rd of travel.

Once I'm down to about 10 ft the power comes all the way to idle. The flare starts at about 40 ft. I know a lot of people start it at 50, but when I do that its a good way to end up floating towards the end of the TDZ. As I get closer to the ground the rate at which I flare increases.

Its really a muscle memory thing, so it either works well or doesn't. What I like about this method is if it works out well its a greaser maybe 50 ft past the markers. If it doesn't work the plane attempts to burry the mains into the runway but its exactly on the markers.

Smooth landings are nice but its better to be on centerline, on speed, and early in the touchdown zone.
 
Where do people come up with this stuff? It's all fun and games until you collapse a nosewheel strut.

Personally, round-out at around 20 feet, so I touchdown with maybe three degrees pitch up. This allows me to fly the nosewheel smoothly onto the runway. None of this "yank back on the yoke so the nose doesn't hammer down" stuff.

I can only imagine what's going through the passengers minds when pilots do stuff like this. I know when I'm in back and people pull these stunts, I get really concerned for what they'll try next.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top