Airlines and jets and stuff...

[flyingcheesehead]

So I recently took my first round-trip airline flight since 2003 (I've had a few one-ways in between then, most recently from Maine back to Wisconsin after ferrying an airplane in the opposite direction). All of my personal travel has been via GA.

A few things I noticed:

1) ERJ's use a LOT of runway on landing. Maybe it's a pilot thing - All four legs were on ERJ-145's and at least two of them did not touch down until 3,000 feet down the runway. The final leg into Madison yesterday, they touched down 3,000 feet down the wet runway, braked hard enough that we skidded briefly, and finally got to taxiing speed with only 1,000 feet remaining of the 9,000 foot runway. Is it really normal to touch down 3,000 feet down the runway?

2) DFW takes up a HUGE amount of land - It's very spread out. The first leg, KMSN-KDFW, we landed on 17L and it took 20 minutes to taxi to the gate, with no stops!

3) The plane we used on the last leg seemed to have an autopilot issue - In cruise, it was rolling back and forth a few degrees a lot of the time.

4) Total door-to-door time between KMSN and KHOU was 8:39 in one direction and 8:42 in the other. I'm pretty sure I could have done at least that well in the 182 (especially since going to EFD would have cut a bit off the driving time - And if I used C29 up here, I'd have certainly spent less time driving up here, though I'd have had to ferry the airplane as well.) Problem was the price difference: $350 vs. $1500. But if I had filled all the seats, it would have only been a $25/person difference.

5) KMSN to KDFW, a roughly 2-hour trip, is too damn long to cram my 6'4" frame into an RJ. It's very hard to move at all, what with my knees jammed into the back of the seat in front of me. I felt like I needed new knees, feet, and tailbone by the time we finally landed. Having the A seat (aisle and window) on the way back helped.

TAFN.

 

[AWACSEng]

I don't think the smaller RJ's have T/Rs. I may be wrong on this, but I don't recall seeing them on anything smaller than the -200 series. Some of the more frequent flyers here may say otherwise. As far as touching down 3k on a 9k runway, I know our standards in the E-3 are within the first 3k on a dry runway and 2k or first 1/3, whichever is shorter, for a wet runway. 3k does seem a bit long for such a small airplane, but that's what you get by trying to make every landing a greaser. The touchdown should be firm on a wet runway especially.

 

[LearDriver]

The engines on the CRJ -200 are the same as on the Challenger. That engine has reversers on it.

It is possible to pin them closed in the MEL. So if you flew on one that might have been the case.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

1) braked hard enough that we skidded briefly, and finally got to taxiing speed with only 1,000 feet remaining of the 9,000 foot runway. Is it really normal to touch down 3,000 feet down the runway?

Doubtful on the skidding unless the antiskid was inop. And the touchdown zone is 3,000 feet, so that is the far side of acceptable. But normally they should be on the ground about 1,500 feet down the runway.

2) DFW takes up a HUGE amount of land - It's very spread out. The first leg, KMSN-KDFW, we landed on 17L and it took 20 minutes to taxi to the gate, with no stops!

Yeah. 27R at O'Hare is like that. Takes 20 minutes to get to the gate from that runway. Thing is, ground control is not allowed to clear planes across an active runway, which has the effect of adding at least 5 minutes to the taxi time.

5) KMSN to KDFW, a roughly 2-hour trip, is too damn long to cram my 6'4" frame into an RJ. It's very hard to move at all, what with my knees jammed into the back of the seat in front of me. I felt like I needed new knees, feet, and tailbone by the time we finally landed. Having the A seat (aisle and window) on the way back helped.

Welcome to the new paradigm. Sucks, doesn't it?

 

[Dart]

A few things I noticed:

1) ERJ's use a LOT of runway on landing. Maybe it's a pilot thing - All four legs were on ERJ-145's and at least two of them did not touch down until 3,000 feet down the runway. The final leg into Madison yesterday, they touched down 3,000 feet down the wet runway, braked hard enough that we skidded briefly, and finally got to taxiing speed with only 1,000 feet remaining of the 9,000 foot runway. Is it really normal to touch down 3,000 feet down the runway?

2) DFW takes up a HUGE amount of land - It's very spread out. The first leg, KMSN-KDFW, we landed on 17L and it took 20 minutes to taxi to the gate, with no stops!

Not an expert on airline ops or ATR's but, considering your comment 2) and some of my own flying: Could it be that landing long put them closer to a favorable taxiway?

When I flew out of Executive it was worth it to stick by the numbers on 7 or land long on 25 (6000ft). For awhile at Sanford it was the same for 9L or 27R (9600ft)

 

[astanley]

From someone who rots in RJ's 4-8 legs a month:

None of the Embraer RJ's (I don't consider the 170 and above a RJ) have T/R.

At ORD, we usually touch down 250-500 beyond the ILS. DFW as well, this is one of the few things I pay attention to every flight.

The E's wallow in cruise. Drives me nuts. The roll rate doesn't seem to be very smooth, either; it always feels like the last 10 of bank "snaps" in.

Some pilots are less "heavy" with the brakes than others; I have some who will stand on the pedals and get us off at the first possible taxiway; others who let it "run out" on the landing. Braking in the E's suck, especially if you are over wing, because the brakes tend to pulse loudly and the suspension locks up, leading to a very firm experience.

I generally hate the RJ, for what it is worth.

Cheers,

-Anderw

 

[Teller1900]

1) ERJ's use a LOT of runway on landing. Maybe it's a pilot thing - All four legs were on ERJ-145's and at least two of them did not touch down until 3,000 feet down the runway. The final leg into Madison yesterday, they touched down 3,000 feet down the wet runway, braked hard enough that we skidded briefly, and finally got to taxiing speed with only 1,000 feet remaining of the 9,000 foot runway. Is it really normal to touch down 3,000 feet down the runway?

They land fast because they don't have much wing, and their reverse thrust isn't all that powerful. If they're like us (which I think they are), they also have composite brakes that seem to take forever to become effective then snatch really hard when they do work. Chances are you were feeling the anti-skid opperate, not actual skidding - they feel very similar.

As far as the touchdown point...first 3,000 feet or first 1/3 of the runway (whichever is less) is the touchdown zone. Anything further than that should have been a go around, but it sounds like they were within the limits (if only just). The 1000 footers are the aiming point, not the touchdown point in a transport category aircraft.

3) The plane we used on the last leg seemed to have an autopilot issue - In cruise, it was rolling back and forth a few degrees a lot of the time.

That seems to be an ERJ thing. At high altitudes in anything less than perfectly smooth air, they seem to dutch roll a lot.

5) KMSN to KDFW, a roughly 2-hour trip, is too damn long to cram my 6'4" frame into an RJ. It's very hard to move at all, what with my knees jammed into the back of the seat in front of me. I felt like I needed new knees, feet, and tailbone by the time we finally landed. Having the A seat (aisle and window) on the way back helped.

TAFN.

I hate RJs. Norfolk, VA to Wichita, KS and back, I never got off RJs (until the last RJ and its replacement broke...like they do) and ended up on AirTran. I'm 6'3" 225; there's just no way to get comfortable in RJs, especially not when they're doing 2-3+hr long legs (seeming to make them not really "regional" any more). Some of my most painful experiences come from the back (or worse yet, jumpseats) of RJs.

 

[Teller1900]

I don't think the smaller RJ's have T/Rs. I may be wrong on this, but I don't recall seeing them on anything smaller than the -200 series. Some of the more frequent flyers here may say otherwise.

From someone who rots in RJ's 4-8 legs a month:

None of the Embraer RJ's (I don't consider the 170 and above a RJ) have T/R.

All the ERJ/CRJ products have thrust reversers. On the small ERJs, they're the cutouts on the back of the engine nacelle; same as the Legacy. On the larger RJs, they operate similar to Boeing's. As LearDriver noted, the CRJs use the same engines as the Challenger - they all have reversers.

Not an expert on airline ops or ATR's but, considering your comment 2) and some of my own flying: Could it be that landing long put them closer to a favorable taxiway?

When I flew out of Executive it was worth it to stick by the numbers on 7 or land long on 25 (6000ft). For awhile at Sanford it was the same for 9L or 27R (9600ft)

We don't have that option. OpSpecs are pretty strict about where to touchdown. Aim at the 1000 footers, down within first 3,000feet or first 1/3. Doesn't matter how long the runway is, anything outside of that is an unstabilized approach and requires a go around.

I generally hate the RJ, for what it is worth.

Cheers,

-Anderw

Me too!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Chances are you were feeling the anti-skid opperate, not actual skidding - they feel very similar.

Aha. It was shortly after brakes were applied, it seemed to "let go" for a second and then come back, and it didn't feel like it was rolling. I take it airplane anti-skid works differently than vehicle anti-lock?

As far as the touchdown point...first 3,000 feet or first 1/3 of the runway (whichever is less) is the touchdown zone. Anything further than that should have been a go around, but it sounds like they were within the limits (if only just).

Yeah, I was kinda surprised to see that they were touching down right at 3,000 feet on two of the four legs. When I'm watching planes land here, they seem to be down more in the 1,500-2,000 range.

That seems to be an ERJ thing. At high altitudes in anything less than perfectly smooth air, they seem to dutch roll a lot.

Yep, the leg that I noticed it on was at 37,000 feet and there wasn't a whole lot of smooth air - It'd be smooth for a bit, then we'd bump around a bit, etc.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I don't think the smaller RJ's have T/Rs.

None of the Embraer RJ's (I don't consider the 170 and above a RJ) have T/R.

The engines on the CRJ -200 are the same as on the Challenger. That engine has reversers on it.

It is possible to pin them closed in the MEL. So if you flew on one that might have been the case.

All the ERJ/CRJ products have thrust reversers.

Hmm. I was kind of wondering myself - They did appear to have the nacelle cutout variety of reverser, but if they did have 'em, they didn't use 'em - Or at least, I couldn't hear or feel them. And it wasn't that they were pinned on one aircraft, I didn't hear or feel them on any of the four legs.

I would think that using TR's would cause less expensive wear and tear than trying to slow down using only brakes, but I can't come up with any other explanation for why they would have TR's and not use them.

 

[HPNPilot1200]

I would think that using TR's would cause less expensive wear and tear than trying to slow down using only brakes, but I can't come up with any other explanation for why they would have TR's and not use them.

Or they did and you just didn't hear them. What seat were you in?

 

[d.grimm]

My last round trip was four ERJ legs, all with a good crosswind, all four landings never touched down straight, and never used any aileron for crosswind correction taking off or landing. Is this a ERJ thing or poor airmanship?
Dave

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Not an expert on airline ops or ATR's but, considering your comment 2) and some of my own flying: Could it be that landing long put them closer to a favorable taxiway?

Nope - At MSN they landed on 18 and just barely made the turnoff at A6, and taxied back north on A to the terminal. At DFW, we landed on 31R and took the high-speed R1 but had to taxi all the way to the other side of the terminal anyway - And it was pretty heavy braking to make R1.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Doubtful on the skidding unless the antiskid was inop.

Like Teller said, it may have been the antiskid working. It felt exactly like a skid.

Yeah. 27R at O'Hare is like that. Takes 20 minutes to get to the gate from that runway. Thing is, ground control is not allowed to clear planes across an active runway, which has the effect of adding at least 5 minutes to the taxi time.

Surprising thing is, it took that long despite never crossing a runway - We landed on 17L, then taxied via Q8, Q, ER, P, ES, JS, B, G, WJ to a B gate. Long way to go!

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Or they did and you just didn't hear them. What seat were you in?

10C, 12C, 7A, and 16A (right in front of the engines). And I was listening for them too...

 

[Lance F]

The cascade type thrust reversers that divert only bypass air out the sides of the nacelles are quieter than the bucket type reversers, but you'd still hear them. Hard to believe they wouldn't use them both because they're effective and save wear and tear on the expensive brakes.
Antiskid is pretty important, and it really works. I know on the Falcon 20 if the antiskid is inop, you are not supposed to use the brakes at all until slowed to 105 kts and then very carefully.
I don't care for RJs either, and I'm a little guy. (Referring to passenger comfort only - I'd fly one in a minute if somebody'd let me )

 

[LearDriver]

The crj being the same as a challenger is one of the most comfortable airplanes that I have ever flown. The problem is that the two most comfortable seats don't go to the passengers.

 

[vontresc]

Yeah the Ticket agents, just don't get it, when you say "I'd like the right front seat" when they ask for seating preference

 

[LearDriver]

Yeah the Ticket agents, just don't get it, when you say "I'd like the right front seat" when they ask for seating preference

I'd be careful about that. Someone could take that the wrong way and call security on you. That might make your day go a lot longer than you were expecting.

 

[Teller1900]

Aha. It was shortly after brakes were applied, it seemed to "let go" for a second and then come back, and it didn't feel like it was rolling. I take it airplane anti-skid works differently than vehicle anti-lock?

Indeed, very differently. That's exactly what it feels like; they work, then let go for a second, then grab again. It's an awful feeling, but really easy to get with these stupid carbon brakes, especially as the plane slows. But it's better than smoking a hole in the tire, I guess.

My last round trip was four ERJ legs, all with a good crosswind, all four landings never touched down straight, and never used any aileron for crosswind correction taking off or landing. Is this a ERJ thing or poor airmanship?
Dave

They're jet jocks, it's just bad airmanship! *ducks*
[/sarcasm]

I can't answer that one. I know the 737 (and I'd assume comparable Airbusii) can't slip because the engine pods are so damn close to the ground, but I don't know if the RJs have some prohibition on it.

 

[LearDriver]

My last round trip was four ERJ legs, all with a good crosswind, all four landings never touched down straight, and never used any aileron for crosswind correction taking off or landing. Is this a ERJ thing or poor airmanship?
Dave

I don't know the systems on the ERJ. However, on some transport category aircraft if you roll in the ailerons above a specified value of deflection, the wing with the up aileron will also get a spoiler deflection as well to help break lift on the wing on that side of the airplane.

This is why your wind offset has to be done with a heading correction and not a slip like you can do in light aircraft. Also one of the goals is to have the passenger cabin be as level as possible. Also, If you were to slip with a wing low it is very possible to make contact with the wing on the ground. On an aircraft with wing mounted engines like the 737 it is very possible to hit an engine on the runway.

I wouldn't assume that it is poor airmanship thing. More than likely it is a Part 25 Transport Category aircraft systems thing.

Hydraulic and Braking systems normally run at 3000 psi. So when the anti-skid does its job you tend to feel it. Some of the aircraft have auto brake systems that change their effectiveness based on deceleration rates. Deceleration rates change based on how much reverse that you use. So this can add or release brake pressure, which is felt in the cabin. Releasing the auto brakes can be done by pressing on the toe brakes which usually causes a little bit of lurching if you timing and foot pressure isn't just spot on.

There are F/O's at many of these regionals that may be in the 250 hour range if they are a new hire. So maybe you had a couple of flights where this was the situation. Those guys are learning while on revenue flights.

So it was just a combination of some or all these things. I will say though that I airline around quite a lot to pick up my trips. I fly often enough on ERJ's and CRJ's. I find that the ERJ's tend in general to be much more jerky and less comfortable in all phases of flight than the CRJ.

 

[d.grimm]

The jets I've flown, Hawker,Citations,DC9's, all wanted to be straight on
touchdown. The Sovereign I currently fly has roll spoilers with ailerons and its not a factor to have roll spoilers out a little to keep the wing down on landing.I agree with the comment about side slips all the way down final, however runway alignment was still the desired outcome on landing. On the DC9 with landing lights extended the bank angle couldn't be more than 7 degrees or you would scrape the light off the wingtip. I thought the whole thing was poor airmanship, personally.
Dave

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Hmmm.

I know the 737 (and I'd assume comparable Airbusii) can't slip because the engine pods are so damn close to the ground,

Well, that isn't true. Yes it is true that there isn't all that much ground clearance between the engine pod and the ground on a 737 WHEN IT IS ON THE GROUND, but look at the relationship between the landing gear and the engine nacelle when the airplane is in the landing attitude in the flare. You can actually slip it quite aggressively and not get the nacelle.

5 years and 3500 hours of 737-300 and -500 time. 2 years and 1,800 hours of Airbus 320 time. Same idea.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I don't know the systems on the ERJ. However, on some transport category aircraft if you roll in the ailerons above a specified value of deflection, the wing with the up aileron will also get a spoiler deflection as well to help break lift on the wing on that side of the airplane.

This is true, but it actually takes a lot of deflection for that to be a real issue. The spoilers are NOT all or nothing. They do deploy at a progressive rate.

Also, If you were to slip with a wing low it is very possible to make contact with the wing on the ground. On an aircraft with wing mounted engines like the 737 it is very possible to hit an engine on the runway.

See my post above.

 

[maddog52]

Hmmm.



Well, that isn't true. Yes it is true that there isn't all that much ground clearance between the engine pod and the ground on a 737 WHEN IT IS ON THE GROUND, but look at the relationship between the landing gear and the engine nacelle when the airplane is in the landing attitude in the flare. You can actually slip it quite aggressively and not get the nacelle.

5 years and 3500 hours of 737-300 and -500 time. 2 years and 1,800 hours of Airbus 320 time. Same idea.

Greg,

That's pretty much my observation also after having been in both fleets. The Airbus as a little more clearance than the -300 and -500 but you can slip both pretty well. Getting over the whole "Fly By Wire" thing and just flying it was the hardest part.

One thing I have noticed is that pilots with taildragger time are not as timid about killing drift in the flare as those that haven't flown properly configured aircraft!! I can tell after a couple of landins if a guy has taildragger time by the quality of the landings.

I've also seen the the 250 hour RJ FOs paired with min time captains at some of the carriers. The experience level of new hires at the regionals has fallen dramatically over the last five years and the style of flying sometimes shows.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

The crj being the same as a challenger is one of the most comfortable airplanes that I have ever flown. The problem is that the two most comfortable seats don't go to the passengers.

I just wish I could stand up in the thing. Literally, I can't stand up in the aisle, without dragging my head down the nice little plastic ceiling. Plus, the windows are set up for some small people, that can't be more than like 5'6", at least on the CRJ200. I've never flown on the jungle jet, but I'd bet its better than the CRJ200. It doesn't take much to be better than a CRJ, IMO.

 

[Eamon]

Greg,

I've also seen the the 250 hour RJ FOs paired with min time captains at some of the carriers. The experience level of new hires at the regionals has fallen dramatically over the last five years and the style of flying sometimes shows.

It goes in cycles, but at the moment there are almost no FOs under 1.5 yrs or Capts 3.5 yrs on the job at any of the regionals. Most Companys have 10% or more of their pilots on temp vacation waiting for recall.

We have 2 EMB145EP that have no reversers. Our other 75 (EMB140, EMB145LR, EMB145LR2) have reversers.

Our company teaches to use idle reverse for a normal landing. You might not notice it come on, but it does help slow down. We can used powered Rev as ness. Contaminated runway call for min brakes till 95 kts (hydroplane speed) Other than that they kind of let us decide what to do

Yesterday when I landed VFR at ORD, I was told by tower to plan to exit at Tango (7000 ft) so I touched down light 3000 ft with no brakes and idle reverse. Then after 4000ft, I was told to expedite so I added power & then had to brake heavy to make the turn off.

Then later when I landed ILS 4 LGA in rain, I touched down at 1500 ft with mod brakes & 1/4 reverse so I could make Taxiway "P" and also not end up in the bay

The 145 has a very stiff suspension so pilots that care too much about not letting the passengers feel the ground tend to float way down the runway looking for a greaser & a pat on the back.

 

[Everskyward]

I agree with most people here in that I have always made it a point to try not to touch down in a crab. There's no reason to fly wing down all the way down final, but I at least try to straighten it out in the flare. The Lears have spoilerons and the Sovereign has roll spoilers in addition to ailerons, but that doesn't limit you in putting the wing down for a crosswind landing.