Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
kmanning

Question For cowpatz

Recommended Posts

Hi Steve,I think I have it pretty much down path but I would like to know if this is how you do this procedure. Starting from the FAF, I have the airplane approaching the runway at VREF+5 knots. Seems like I've heard some say VREF+10, but I think it's plus 5 knots. Okay, my question is do I maintain VREF+5 until I start the flare or do I slow down to VREF or VREF+0 as I come over the threshold and then start my flare? When do you usually start your flare, at 30 feet or 40 feet? Okay, my understanding is that I retard the throttles back to idle at 50 feet but this seems to be pretty high when retarding the throttles. Or did I read that wrong? LOL. Here's what's confusing to me. I have 2 or 3 747-400 videos where the pilot retards the throttles just after the altitude callouts calls out 10 feet and they retard them instantly. Is this how it's done in the real plane? But since the manual says to retard the throttles to idle at 50 feet, if I read that correctly, are the throttles gradually retarded to idle beginning at 50 feet slowly? But in these videos, the pilots retards them instantly after the altitude callout of 10 feet. Would give us full details on how you do this procedure? Ken.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Ken,As you could imagine everybody has there own "formula" for landing....even the autopilot. Have you watched the autoland flare manoeuver? There are a lot of variable to consider regarding approach speed and flare. As far as the additive to Vref goes what my company uses is this:Add half the steady Head wind component and all the gust factor to Vref to a minimum of 5 kts (calm or less than 10 kts headwind component) and a maximum additive of 25 kts. So for example if the wind was straight down the runway at say 20 kts gusting 30 kts you would add half of 10 (20/2 = 10) plus the gust factor (diff of steady wind from gust wind...30-20 =10).So half the steady wind is 10 plus the gust factor 10 = a total of 20 kts to add to Vref. The aim on landing is to bleed off the steady component and leave the gust factor additive down to landing or very close to it. If the wind is not down the runway then you need to calculate the headwind component. Just draw a simple diagram and approximate the value.The flare commencement altitude is dependant on the flap configuration and approach speed (weight dependant). For a heavy aircraft I start the flare at 30 ft and retard the thrust levers so that they are at idle on touchdown or just before. For a light aircraft I start at between 20 and 10 ft and close the thrust levers a bit quicker so once again they are at idle at touchdown or just before. If the conditions are very gusty or there is a strong crosswind I tend to flare lower with a bit of power on and fly it on rather than hold it off as you would a light aircraft. The autoland on the aircraft seems to flare quite high (40 to 50 ft) and retard the thrust levers at the same time but it seems to work well. Believe it or not the 747 lands just like a heavy Cessna 172.Keep watching those autolands!CheersSteve


Cheers

Steve Hall

Share this post


Link to post

Great info. I can recall when I started trying to land the C172 with my CFI, trying to get some standardized formula about what speed and when to flare. While speed is critical, after some experience it becomes all feel and much less numbers.Steve- I have enjoyed reading some of your posts here. I'm an ex-pat Kiwi (still a NZ citizen, as well as a US one) living near Denver, CO, and often travel on ANZ back to visit my family in Greymouth (NZ) and Melbourne. From a pax point of view, the IFE and seating on your upgraded B744's (last flight on one was YMML-NZAA, then some days later NZAA-KLAX)is great and very comfortable, even in Y :).Assuming you will be changing to the T7 soon (if still domiciled in London), how much training is required for the type conversion?Thanks- Bruce.


ASEL, Instrument.

KBJC, Colorado.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Bruce,I am domiciled in Auckland NZ. The B777 course is very similar to the 747 and a straight forward conversion. I would have to brush up on ETOPS again but that would be the only critical difference.My next step would be a command on the B767. It should have come up a long time ago but in my time I have seen the retirement age go from 55 to 58 to 60 and is now set to possibly reach 65, if the FAA follows the ICAO recommendation. It is a bit like trying to surf on the back side of a wave!In reality the B767 might not happen as they are being slowly phased out. Most likely the 787.CheersSteve


Cheers

Steve Hall

Share this post


Link to post
Guest andyman

Back in the temporary PMDG forums a real pilot says that he slowly retards the throttles and flares nearly simultaniously at 30 feet. I find that to work excellent, and it doesnt eat up too much runway if you do it correctly.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Steve,Thanks for the reply- I had incorrectly thought that the KLAX-EGLL legs were done with London based crews.You mention the next step being a command role on the B763. I wonder how going from a full glass (744) to a partial glass-partial steam (763) configuration goes? It sounds like this is the usual promotion path in the company.Thanks again, Bruce.


ASEL, Instrument.

KBJC, Colorado.

Share this post


Link to post

Should be straight forward transition Bruce. I went from the 767 to the 747-200 without a problem and that was from Glass/ FMC to analogue!CheersSteve


Cheers

Steve Hall

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Steve.Good to see a Kiwi offering so much help.However you've not really flown till you've flown the A320!!Thanks againCheersDavid


David Cook

Share this post


Link to post

Ive flown the A320 simulator and didn't like it. The only cockpit I have sat in that I felt ill at ease. Sure anything becomes customary after a while but it was just very unfamiliar and I found the fact that the thrust levers just doing their own thing a little hard to get my head around. Also there is far too much talking on that aircraft. A hot air balloon uses less hot air to get into the air. I much prefer the Boeing philosophy. CheersSteve


Cheers

Steve Hall

Share this post


Link to post

Hi SteveFunny isn't it, I much prefer the Airbus, I'm in no hurry to go back to the Boeing. Just as well I suppose, with the zero movement going on now. I do enjoy the PMDG products even if they are Boeing so far, really looking forward to the up coming A320.Thanks again for the input on the -400.CherioDavid.


David Cook

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    2%
    $640.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...