You can rip the tyre off the rim if you land too softly and there's a cross wind component .... at least in the real world. A too soft landing on a contaminated (wet/icy) runway can also cause the plane to start sliding. So the ridic vspeed rates you see at some VAs like -10ft/m isnt exactly what I would classify as a good landing, or even a safe landing.

...Next, its not the feet per minute that causes you to float, its the speed above Vref that causes you to float....

Too much flare would also make you float.Cheers,- jahman.

So how was the second one?

They do it all the time.. lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhVWVb2RkQM&feature=related

And with that much water on the runway, aquaplaning is looming. In this case the pilot should have just made it land rather than flare too long....

Mine anygood ?- Cockpit and spot view - I never autoland got in the habit of manual landings -Excuse the music :)

JP, your VA is giving you a lot of totally incorrect information. I have yet to meet a pilot who landed so softly that he didn't know he was on the ground, that never happens. Secondly, if you are referring to devices that require you to be on the ground to deploy they rely on squat switches and NOT on the type of landing you just did. If you land at 1 fps or 1000 fps your ground spoilers and reversers will deploy because the weight of the airplane on the ground is still the same on the squat switches. Spoilers, reverse thrusters and autobrakes don't care at what FPM you landed, it only cares that the full weight of the aircraft is on the ground.Next, its not the feet per minute that causes you to float, its the speed above Vref that causes you to float. Meaning you landed at too high an airspeed. You should aim to come across the fence at Vref (+Wind Correction) and you should aim for the touchdown zone consistantly. In a Cessna 172 for instance, you hold the aircraft off of the ground until the stall horn sounds, in a commerical jet you fly the aircraft onto the ground to achieve a firm and consistant landing but that doesn't mean that you can't grease the landings too. You arrest your rate of descent as required and if your technique is correct you will find that you make soft landings in the same spot each and every time.

It is my understanding, and you may correct me if I am wrong,that -especially in wet conditions- a firm landing is wantedfor the following reasons :1 : the plane knows it is on the ground, so all braking equipment will be available.2 : the plane will not run the risk of aquaplaning.3 : the available runway distance will be used on the ground rather then off the ground.Though the points you make are absolutely valid the main reason that VA implemented said policywas to discourage people of "holding the plane off" on landing, which increases thelanding distance and is totally unnescessary.Also keep in mind my comments are directed to commercial airliners only,I am not talking about bug smashers.Further note that F.I the A320 relies on oleo strut compression for spoilers and TR to work.and the wheelbrakes are activated once the wheel rotation is equal to or greater as 72knots,and you might understand why, especially in wet weather, arriving with a thump of 300fps is probably betteras arriving with 1 fps.I stand by my comments, I've been advised by many a commercial pilot that it is infact the best wayto arrive for the reasons outlined above and really soft landings while nice are not really what you aim for.JP.

And with that much water on the runway, aquaplaning is looming. In this case the pilot should have just made it land rather than flare too long....

How can you possibly tell that from the video? Hydroplaning does not occur just because the runway is wet. First off, you cannot tell if the runway is grooved or not from the video. Runways are grooved specifically to prevent hydroplaning. Second, hydroplaning occures when water is deeper than the depth of the tire grooves. Again, you cannot tell how deep the water is nor how worn the tires are from this video so there is no evidence to conclude that hydroplaning is looming just because there are dramatic splashes of water. Hydroplaning has NOTHING to do with how much or little you flare, it can occur at anytime if the conditions exists to cause the phenomenon.

How can you possibly tell that from the video? Hydroplaning does not occur just because the runway is wet. First off, you cannot tell if the runway is grooved or not from the video. Runways are grooved specifically to prevent hydroplaning. Second, hydroplaning occures when water is deeper than the depth of the tire grooves. Again, you cannot tell how deep the water is nor how worn the tires are from this video so there is no evidence to conclude that hydroplaning is looming just because there are dramatic splashes of water. Hydroplaning has NOTHING to do with how much or little you flare, it can occur at anytime if the conditions exists to cause the phenomenon.

And you think any captain is going to read into his books first to whether yes or no it has been grooved,,,,,,,When then runway is wet, just make your touch down....

One could of course argue that the landing occurs the moment the aircraft stops aquaplaning... :Big Grin:Cheers,- jahman.

arriving with a thump of 300fps is probably better as arriving with 1 fps.I stand by my comments, I've been advised by many a commercial pilot that it is infact the best wayto arrive for the reasons outlined above and really soft landings while nice are not really what you aim for.

Every airline pilot is aiming for a smooth touchdown. Everything else is an excuse, It's that simple.Furthermore consistently driving a heavy with 300fpm into the runway on every landing definitely harms the structure over the planes livetime.BTW the 18000fpm you mentioned are a lot, but the 60fpm are ok

Okay guys, need feedback, put your argument somewhere else.

??? Haven't you read the feedback for your landing? As the others mentioned, night, no VC view. Difficult to tell.The minimum I can tell from that video is that you were too slow and pulled the power off too early (a bad combination), so you had to do an aggressive flare which was too much in the beginning.Thereafter you simply kept the attitude and she started dropping the last few feet. A 'classic'It wasn't good from a safety or smoothness POV but acceptable.Furthermore the FDE of that 737, whichever this one is, seems to be off a bit. If you are slow in a 737 and pull the power off at 50ft you will drop like a stone

??? Haven't you read the feedback for your landing? As the others mentioned, night, no VC view. Difficult to tell.The minimum I can tell from that video is that you were too slow and pulled the power off too early (a bad combination), so you had to do an aggressive flare which was too much in the beginning.Thereafter you simply kept the attitude and she started dropping the last few feet. A 'classic'It wasn't good from a safety or smoothness POV but acceptable.Furthermore the FDE of that 737, whichever this one is, seems to be off a bit. If you are slow in a 737 and pull the power off at 50ft you will drop like a stone

Yes, I have, I just wanted the further feedback to be on topic! This is a landing forum centered towards my landing, not how pilots should land! However, I do appreciate your opinion on the first one.

Okay guys, need feedback, put your argument somewhere else.

Absolute stinkers, I'm afraid!Well, the second was ok-ish.I remember I used to worry about my landings too. Then I realised I was playing a computer game...But you've got some proper RW pilots commenting here, including a 767 skipper, so listen and learn. Ian

Absolute stinkers, I'm afraid!Well, the second was ok-ish.I remember I used to worry about my landings too. Then I realised I was playing a computer game...But you've got some proper RW pilots commenting here, including a 767 skipper, so listen and learn. Ian

Thank you, what do you mean by ok-ish and how can I improve?