Airline Greasers

[dell30rb]

Franklin, your first sentence remove all credit to your second paragraph.

We do what we do for safety. Going for the numbers removes the safety and whole idea of a touch down zone.

Its not an IFR touch down zone, its an always touch down zone.

I'll explain a bit further, maybe I was not clear. I understand the point of the markers..

Earlier it was stated that on instrument approaches, jet pilots are taught to fly it on to the runway without a flare. I take this to mean you set up a stabilized approach on glide slope aimed right at the markers, and don't touch anything until you hit the runway.

We all know a flare takes up some runway. What's the issue with setting up a stabilized approach aimed a few hundred feet short of the td markers WITH the intention of flaring and squeaking it on at the markers? I never meant the pilot should try to touch down elsewhere

On the video, it appears the pilot would touch down well short of the markers if he continues his stabilized approach and did not flare. but he flares and greases it on right at the markers. This is the type of approach / landing I was describing.

 

[Rex Kramer]

I'll explain a bit further, maybe I was not clear. I understand the point of the markers..

Earlier it was stated that on instrument approaches, jet pilots are taught to fly it on to the runway without a flare. I take this to mean you set up a stabilized approach on glide slope aimed right at the markers, and don't touch anything until you hit the runway.

We all know a flare takes up some runway. What's the issue with setting up a stabilized approach aimed a few hundred feet short of the td markers WITH the intention of flaring and squeaking it on at the markers? I never meant the pilot should try to touch down elsewhere

On the video, it appears the pilot would touch down well short of the markers if he continues his stabilized approach and did not flare. but he flares and greases it on right at the markers. This is the type of approach / landing I was describing.

What? I've never not flared an airplane, instrument approach or not. Our descent rate is about 700-800fpm down the glide path. If we didn't flare it would be like straight dropping the plane from a height of several feet. If the runway is wet or contaminated we try to set it down a little more firm to get the spoilers up and weight on the wheels to aid in braking, but we never not flare.

FWIW, the A330 in the video touched down past the 1000' touchdown markers. He was almost at the 1500' markers. He was landing on what looks like 05R, which is 10,000' long with all the turnoffs in the last third. You have some room to play with for a nice touchdown and it will be light on the brakes on the roll out. Since he's a heavy they have 5 miles spacing behind them so they'll have plenty of time to clear before the next arrival becomes a factor. They dept off the left side there so there's no issue to get a departure out between them. It's a good runway to try for a nice landing. One of my best landings in the 757 was there.


Going below the glide slope, whether electronic or vasi/papi, is a huge no-no. There are airports that if you were to do that you could drag the tail through the blast fence. Runway 29 in EWR is a good example. Take a look at a sat image of it. If you were to put it down on the numbers your landing gear would be less than 50' over the turnpike. Not a lot of room for error.

 

[spiderweb]

FWIW, the A330 in the video touched down past the 1000' touchdown markers. He was almost at the 1500' markers. He was landing on what looks like 05R, which is 10,000' long with all the turnoffs in the last third. You have some room to play with for a nice touchdown and it will be light on the brakes on the roll out. Since he's a heavy they have 5 miles spacing behind them so they'll have plenty of time to clear before the next arrival becomes a factor. They dept off the left side there so there's no issue to get a departure out between them. It's a good runway to try for a nice landing. One of my best landings in the 757 was there.

That's it! From now on, I'm going to insist on flying in nothing lighter than a 747, and landing on a 3-mile runway.

Just kidding, but it does explain a lot. As stated above, 737 landings can be harder than others, and I do a lot of flying (riding) in those. Now that I'm thinking about it, the softer landings have been in the 767 and 747 flights.

Not scientific, and I don't ride the airlines everyday. . . .

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Earlier it was stated that on instrument approaches, jet pilots are taught to fly it on to the runway without a flare. I take this to mean you set up a stabilized approach on glide slope aimed right at the markers, and don't touch anything until you hit the runway.

That really isn't true. While a flare in a bigger airplane isn't as pronounced as one in, say, a 172, there is a couple of degrees of pitch change in the flare in the airplanes I flew.

We all know a flare takes up some runway. What's the issue with setting up a stabilized approach aimed a few hundred feet short of the td markers WITH the intention of flaring and squeaking it on at the markers? I never meant the pilot should try to touch down elsewhere

On the video, it appears the pilot would touch down well short of the markers if he continues his stabilized approach and did not flare. but he flares and greases it on right at the markers. This is the type of approach / landing I was describing.

I am not entirely sure exactly where the glideslope antenna is located on transport airplanes, but on the 777 at least, the main gear is many tens of feet lower than the glideslope antenna. In other words, when the airplane is on glideslope, it would appear as if it was actually below glideslope. On the 777, the threshold crossing height has to be a minimum of 40 feet to ensure the main gear touches down on the runway and not short of it.

 

[DouglasBader]

Earlier it was stated that on instrument approaches, jet pilots are taught to fly it on to the runway without a flare. I take this to mean you set up a stabilized approach on glide slope aimed right at the markers, and don't touch anything until you hit the runway.

I don't see anyone in this thread stating that turbojet pilots are taught to fly it onto the runway and not flare. That appears to be something you said, not anything anyone else said.

We don't aim for markers. We fly the glideslope. It's not a small airplane.

What's the issue with setting up a stabilized approach aimed a few hundred feet short of the td markers WITH the intention of flaring and squeaking it on at the markers? I never meant the pilot should try to touch down elsewhere

How do you know where your gear is if your'e planning on landing short? The glidepath takes into account gear height crossing the threshold. When gear height can be less than 50' crossing the threshold, planning an earlier touchdown or an earlier "aim point," with an approach below the glidepath, means reducing the gear height, which reduces obstacle clearance. With no aircraft feel and only a radio altimeter to call out the height above touchdown, and a lot of mass and a lot of airplane hanging a long way below the airplane, flying low is a really bad idea.

We don't "spot" the runway and play light airplane games. There's a reason it's flown in a standardized manner to the runway. Freelancing and making up your own technique will get you hurt and/or fired most likely sooner rather than later.

 

[dell30rb]

My landings are smooth. With that being said, they are supposed to be "firm" to dissapate energy idown nstead of transitioning it forward for the reversers/brakes to handle.

< 4,000 runways we go back to firm to achieve advertised landing distances. We have the same pitch attitude from FAF to touchdown, zero flare.

This post....

And thanks for the insight. No, I have never had to consider snagging my tail or gear on the fence. I certainly understand why this is a consideration. Actually most of my hrs in the last two months have been in a 85hp j3

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I've had several of compliments from passengers on landings I thought were far from greasy. It seems everyone is used to commercial jets slamming down.

Me too... I just never realized why until now! I've berated myself for my "bad" landing and then had pax compliment me on it. Which, of course, makes it all the better when I do get a really great greaser!

I must be lucky, but my two best landings have had multple pax/witnesses.

 

[dell30rb]

I don't see anyone in this thread stating that turbojet pilots are taught to fly it onto the runway and not flare. That appears to be something you said, not anything anyone else said.

We don't "spot" the runway and play light airplane games.

Look i'm no expert just asking questions!

 

[DouglasBader]

Actually most of my hrs in the last two months have been in a 85hp j3

It's the best way to fly. I learned to fly in a 1947 J3 with a 65 hp motor.