Dj To Rule
New Member
That is a good comparison.. even for Mr.Parallax error..
And that is a greaser compared to the floater landing
When is it appropriate to grease a landing?
- Thread starter AngelFuree
- Start date
That is a good comparison.. even for Mr.Parallax error..
And that is a greaser compared to the floater landing
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
That's fine in a Cessna 207, but as we've discussed before, a great way to drag your mains through the approach lighting system in a transport category jet.
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
As John said, that will work fine for what you are flying now. If you do that with something that comes in at any kind of a deck angle you'll run the risk of taking out approch end lighting. Not to mention Feds tend to frown on landing below the glideslope point on the runway.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Works great in the 1900C too.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Have you ever seen the 207 come in? Comes in at 10 degrees or greater sometimes, but that's neither here nor there. You can't see the runway when you set down. But I don't know, I haven't flown any transport categor aircraft.
You can go below glide slow if you need to to execute a safe landing. Which is important even on a 4500' runway if its slick. If I'm going to PANC then I follow the glideslope to the deck, but most places, I want every foot of available runway in the winter months.
Cheechako
Well-Known Member
I'm with pprag here. I usually go a little pink on the vasi/papi coming into a short icy runway. Here we take the TDZ landing to the next step. . .they want to see us on the 1000' markers.
Sure wish I could have gone in to Dutch Harbor (3900') before Alaska pulled out of there. Take a look at this and note where they touched down in relation to the 1000' markers:
<object width="425" height="344">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GzY1wLy-TZ0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>
Sure wish I could have gone in to Dutch Harbor (3900') before Alaska pulled out of there. Take a look at this and note where they touched down in relation to the 1000' markers:
<object width="425" height="344">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GzY1wLy-TZ0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>
seagull
Well-Known Member
That might work on a narrow body, but a good way to drag the mains through the dirt in a widebody.
400A
New Member
I don't want to keep harping this point, thus sounding like a broken record BUUUT. This comes back to what you define as a professional(ism). If your landing data says 4000 feet required to land on an icy runway and you have 4500 feet (ignoring the 60% rule and such) then there is no need to come in low and touchdown before the 1000 foot markers.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
You have some truth there, but also, think, what are the 3 most useless things in aviation? Altitude Above, runway behind, or fuel you left at home. I'm not talking about pushing the edge of the envelope just to show off, I'm saying that every landing should be viewed as dangerous, and that you gotta do what you gotta do to keep it safe. I'm not saying land short. I'm saying be on energy, and able to touch down at minimum possible speed at the right time to guarantee safety. But what would I know, I'm just a sled driver?
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
I went into PADU alot when I worked at ACE, and frankly, its scary in the Beech 1900, god forbid we'd have to go there in a 737.
You get some crazy things like black water off of Mt. Ballyhoo, etc.
400A
New Member
You are kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth here and the self pity oh woes me thing doesn't suit you.
If you fly the airplane on profile, on speed, on centerline and cross the threshold at the required height (generally 50 feet) and your performance numbers allow for it, every landing will have a successful outcome.
Trying to land before the 1000 foot markers, coming in too shallow/too steep are not things that are required for a successful landing, on centerline, on speed, cross the threshold at the required height.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Your bolded is ridiculous. The alaska jets that went into dutch and the 1900 would slide off of the end into the drink in Dutch (as show above) if they didn't touch down early. Your performance data is done by test pilots under ideal situations, and even they use all available landing distance when they are setting it up.
On speed, on centerline, and cross the threshold at the required height will not necessarily provide a safe margin of error on icy runways. In the summer it may not provide me with adequate stoping distance on gravel. On top of that, half of the runways up here do not have a VASI, so how are you going to say I must stay on glideslope when there is no glideslope? If you don't have a VASI, then what does your profile say now? What is your profile? Just fly the airplane. Set it down, and do it safely.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
No no, you're right, I'm wrong.
gliderboy
Well-Known Member
Do any of you guys ever retract the flaps a few degrees to put the plane down when you're floating along in ground effect using up runway? I'm not talking about 10 feet above the ground or more, but one or two feet up when you want to put 'er down and get on the brakes.
ILSstud
Well-Known Member
That has NTSB crash investigation report written all over it.
Number1atNumber2
Tries to keep it fun.
Hell no. That is really not the time you want to be changing configuration. If you've got a problem with floating in ground effect and eating runway, you need to work on other techniques, probably starting with your airspeed and flareing.
Back to the original landing--by the sound of the spool up the a/c in question seems to be low...how low? I don't know. The delayed energy from spooling up for altitude then back to idle appears to have carried over. What happens if then rollout isn't standard and you need tarmac in front of you for any reason? Better yet where is the CRM?
Now I'm not current, but my last airframe was a 500-700 fpm descent to flare. I'm not a 737 guy but I wonder why, IMHO, if you're behind the profile you continue the approach? Do the TO/GA and swallow some humble pie.
Guess it's just me after logging 1.5 hrs transition at then end of every sortie for the last 2.5yrs. If it ain't right, don't do it.
Now I'm not current, but my last airframe was a 500-700 fpm descent to flare. I'm not a 737 guy but I wonder why, IMHO, if you're behind the profile you continue the approach? Do the TO/GA and swallow some humble pie.
Guess it's just me after logging 1.5 hrs transition at then end of every sortie for the last 2.5yrs. If it ain't right, don't do it.
That is incorrect. The performance data may be based off from the test pilots data, but the numbers are adjusted before publishing for use by line pilots.
It should if they are using the proper factors from the AFM. I presume that the big jets have tables or multipliers to use for different runway conditions since I know that we do in the corporate aircraft.
I retract from my landing flap (full flap) setting to my takeoff setting right before touchdown. This is in an ag plane. I dont do it in the "people" planes that I fly though. Probably not a good habit to get into.