Interesting Greg.

 

To answer your question I'm no longer current on the Embryo 120 but if I remember correctly (and take this with a grain of salt) it is connected to the WoW. I remember specifically mx discussing this because it happened more than once but to a different crew on a longer runway, thank God.

 

 

 I remember when I was flying the Embraer 120 (we used to call it the "embryo" lol. I was brand new Fo straight out of ioe and we landed so soft once that the airplane still thought we were flying so the antiskid, nosewheel steering, reverse thrust, etc. were still deactive because as far as the ADC knew we we flying, lol. We almost ended up on the grass at the end of the runway! We blew the onboard tires trying to stop this baby, and that's a small 30 seat prop, our landing weight that day was around 23k, nothing compared to a heavy airliner. So yes, landing too softly can bring unwanted issues. 

 

Sorry, a bit confused by your story. Did you float down the runway in trying to achieve this soft landing? How long was the runway? Please provide more details, your story has a few inconsistencies otherwise. 

 

The reason the aircraft thought you were still flying was probably because your power levers where above the threshold limit to trigger an "on ground" condition. You would have to maintain such a power lever angle long enough for it to become a problem, which seems very strange. The problem which you say arose from such a touchdown would be very momentary otherwise. It doesn't matter how smooth a touchdown is, it is a very momentary situation and it is a matter of 1 or 2 seconds where the aircraft might not have the required compression on the struts to sense on ground. This would not be a condition that would continue for the duration of the rollout. 

 

I don't understand how you ended up almost in the grass? A smooth touchdown could only be achieved with the nose still in the air, so nose wheel steering would be irrelevant. Besides, you would not be dependent on nose wheel steering during the initial part of a landing, the rudder is your primary method to maintain centerline until your speed decreases its efficiency. Are you sure your incident was not a system failure, or a significant float trying to achieve a smooth landing in which getting the aircraft stopped became and issue?

 

Onboard tires? I thought they where all "onboard". Did you mean "Inboard"? Still makes no sense, why would the Inboard tires fail but the outboard ones not? Blowing tires would mean the ABS failed to prevent lock-up, which would affect the outboard tires the same. Can you elaborate on this please, I am a bit confused.

 

Keep in mind, no-one here is saying that floating past the touchdown zone in order to achieve a smooth landing is good. My point was that a smooth landing is not mutually exclusive from a safe landing. 

 

 

 

Btw, I couldn't tell you what my V/S was on my last landing, it's all "seat of your pants" you just feel the landing, however, we don't have that luxury in our desktop sim, so I can see why people are so inclined to look at the VSI on touchdown.

 

Again, "seat of your pants" does not exists. What you describe as "seat of your pants" is your experience gathered from carrying out such a maneuver many times, and your brain making incredibly fast calculations which you make on the controls almost unconsciously and without thought. As in, you are not really thinking about it. For example, you don't have to "think" about the processes involved in walking. You just do it, without thinking "hey, I'm gonna move my left foot forward, then I'm gonna move my right foot forward". That does not mean walking is simple by any means, it is an incredibly complex process that to this day, scientists have an incredibly difficult time replicating with say, a robot or machine. 

 

Which means that looking at the VSI on touchdown, even in the sim, will also result in a terribly bad landing. Give it a try, right before you think you are gonna touchdown, look down and try to fly by looking at your VSI. 

My point was that a smooth landing is not mutually exclusive from a safe landing. 

 

 

Huh... no one said it was.   Not one person has condemned a smooth landing in this thread. The only point made was that to AIM for a -50fpm touchdown or a greaser as a priority is a bad idea. So why have you conducted this protracted rant?

 

 

 

Which means that looking at the VSI on touchdown, even in the sim, will also result in a terribly bad landing.

 

 

 

Again... no one, not one person in this thread, has claimed one should "look at the VSI on touchdown" not once.

 

 

Give it a try, right before you think you are gonna touchdown, look down and try to fly by looking at your VSI. 

 

 

I don't know anyone that looks at the VSI a spilt second before touchdown. Again... no one has claimed that should be done.

 

 

You seem to have totally missed the point, that the only reason a vertical speed figure was mentioned in this thread, was because the individual that sparked this debate did so. It's also the only objective means we have in the sim, to measure and compare each others touchdowns.  

Thanks for another insult and more mocking with a laughing emoticon. So mocking us and telling us we talk garbage wasn't enough for you.

 

 

Real world airliner pilots have agreed with my stance, see dmncnpilots's response above. However, at no time have I claimed to be any kind of an expert. I have merely complained about your arrogant and very rude manner.

 

I can see I am just feeding a troll here.

If you go on pprune or a.net you'll find real world pilots arguing about techniques. Some do try to finesse landings more than others.

 

He is certainly right that touch down rate has no effect on a weight on wheels switch. However gently the aircraft touches, the switch will make. This is especially true for aircraft like the 777 where its gear tilt rather that oleo compression that operates the switch.

 

Very soft landings are a problem when aquaplaning is a risk, preventing wheel spin up. That will stop the brakes working and may prevent spoilers deploying.

Some do try to finesse landings more than others.

 

I have no problem with finessing landings or soft landings...

 

My contribution in this thread was in regard to the notion that one should AIM for a super gentle landing, greaser, as a priority.

 

In my opinion, not based on real world experience, just on flight simulation since the Sinclair Spectrum, and numerous aviation articles and documentaries is...

 

1st priority: Land in the touchdown zone. On the centre line. With a sink rate that does not cause structural damage.

 

2nd priority: Land with a sink rate that's comfortable for the passengers, as long as the criteria in "1" is observed. If you are lucky enough to perform a greaser, in the TDZ, then that's a bonus. But it shouldn't be the priority.

 

As for spoiler deployment, I would guess that depends on the aircraft type. As "dmncnpilot" mentioned above in his anecdote it was an issue for him.

 

An example here...

 

 

The touchdown should be done positive without being excessively hard. When the touchdown is

too smooth spin up of the tires could be delayed when the runway is slippery. As explained later

this can affect the deployment of ground spoilers and the proper functioning of the antiskid

system.

 

The above was a DC10 I believe.

 

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1146.pdf

I have no problem with finessing landings or soft landings...

 

My contribution in this thread was in regard to the notion that one should AIM for a super gentle landing, greaser, as a priority.

 

In my opinion, not based on real world experience, just on flight simulation since the Sinclair Spectrum, and numerous aviation articles and documentaries is...

 

1st priority: Land in the touchdown zone. On the centre line. With a sink rate that does not cause structural damage.

 

2nd priority: Land with a sink rate that's comfortable for the passengers, as long as the criteria in "1" is observed. If you are lucky enough to perform a greaser, in the TDZ, then that's a bonus. But it shouldn't be the priority.

 

As for spoiler deployment, I would guess that depends on the aircraft type. As "dmncnpilot" mentioned above in his anecdote it was an issue for him.

 

An example here...

 

 

 

The above was a DC10 I believe.

 

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1146.pdf

 

That's correct;

 

Priority is Touchdown Zone, Centerline and a positive touchdown.

 

Good read, thanks Martin

Sorry, a bit confused by your story. Did you float down the runway in trying to achieve this soft landing? How long was the runway? Please provide more details, your story has a few inconsistencies otherwise.

What is it that you're confused about sir? Nope, we didn't float down the runway. We touched down right in the landing zone. The runway was 5276ft/1608m. The wx was hot and muggy. What else do you want to know, What are the inconsistencies you mention? If you're confused please reread my post.

The reason the aircraft thought you were still flying was probably because your power levers where above the threshold limit to trigger an "on ground" condition.

No, they were not sir, you are incorrect. The power levers wouldn't move into the reverse position. As far as the aircraft knew, we were still flying.

You would have to maintain such a power lever angle long enough for it to become a problem, which seems very strange.

Yes, I agree however, as soon as we touched down the captain tried numerous times to place the power levers into the reverse detent however he couldn't. So yes, very strange.

The problem which you say arose from such a touchdown would be very momentary otherwise. It doesn't matter how smooth a touchdown is, it is a very momentary situation and it is a matter of 1 or 2 seconds where the aircraft might not have the required compression on the struts to sense on ground. This would not be a condition that would continue for the duration of the rollout.

Well sir, it did in my case. I know, it seems strange but it did. Of course the oleo strut compressed and all, we did weigh 23k, however the switch never activated and it was contributed to the soft landing.

I don't understand how you ended up almost in the grass?

I know you are having a very hard time grasping this, but bear with me here... Can you imagine an Embraer 120, weighing 23k lbs (which is nothing compared to the heavier airplanes out there), ref of about 120ish kts on a runway length of 5276ft/1608m. with no reverse, no anti skid, no brakes? Sir, we had to turn off the anti skid system and pull the emergency brake handle to stop this thing! Now do you understand why we almost ended up on the grass with an overrun accident on our hands?

A smooth touchdown could only be achieved with the nose still in the air, so nose wheel steering would be irrelevant. Besides, you would not be dependent on nose wheel steering during the initial part of a landing,

Now I'm confused! The way I land is with the main gear first, I then lower the nose gear. How do you land? Unless you want to end up with a nose gear collapse then I'd suggest you put the mains down first. Once you lower the nose you have to rollout correct? So you will eventually need nose wheel steering which in my case was deactivated because of the ADC still thinking we were flying.

Are you sure your incident was not a system failure, or a significant float trying to achieve a smooth landing in which getting the aircraft stopped became and issue?

No sir, as mentioned above. It might have been an ADC failure, who knows! MX inspected everything and didn't find issues with it. After the investigation that by the way included the FAA, VP of OPS, VP of MX, VP of Safety, Lead MX, The CA and yours truly the conclusion was that it was attributed to a soft landing and that a more positive touchdown was preferred. So not a hard landing but a firm landing.

Onboard tires? I thought they where all "onboard". Did you mean "Inboard"? Still makes no sense, why would the Inboard tires fail but the outboard ones not? Blowing tires would mean the ABS failed to prevent lock-up, which would affect the outboard tires the same. Can you elaborate on this please, I am a bit confused.

Yes, you are correct I meant inboard tires, thanks for catching that. It's so hard to reply on my Galaxy Tab. On the EMB-120 once you apply the emergency brake it applies more brake pressure to the inboard tires than the outboard tires. When we disabled the Anti Skid during rollout and with the end of the runway getting closer, the only choice we had was to use the emergency brake, which in turn did what it was supposed to do and because of that we put to big holes in the inboard tires. Clear as mud now?

Keep in mind, no-one here is saying that floating past the touchdown zone in order to achieve a smooth landing is good. My point was that a smooth landing is not mutually exclusive from a safe landing.

I agree. However you did mention that your primary focus on your landing is a smooth one. I disagree with you there. It should be Touchdown Zone and Centerline. If the landing is smooth within those parameters then great, if it's not great too, as long as you can use the airplane again.

Again, "seat of your pants" does not exists. What you describe as "seat of your pants" is your experience gathered from carrying out such a maneuver many times, and your brain making incredibly fast calculations which you make on the controls almost unconsciously and without thought. As in, you are not really thinking about it.

We disagree here also, or maybe you're just making the whole "seat of your pants" thingy too mechanical, too scientific. Maybe we're talking about the same thing here, maybe not. I feel my landings, I've been feeling my landings ever since I started flying. Maybe you don't, and that's fine as long as every person on your airplane walks out alive and safe. We can't really feel out landing in FSX, we don't have the peripherals, the feeling in your stomach, the sensations like we do in RL.

 

It might have been an ADC failure, who knows!

 

Well that is a big if! That was the gist of my post, that a soft landing might diable the air ground sensing mometarily, but not for the whole rollout. To me that sounds more like a system failure than a soft landing.

 

 

However you did mention that your primary focus on your landing is a smooth one.

 

No, that was not me. I never said the primary focus is to make a smooth landing. Here is the direct quote of what I said:

 

 

Every landing you make is with the aim of making it soft. You know, planes break above a certain G-load. Sure, you don't want to "float" by holding off a bad flare trying to turn it into a soft landing, but you also don't want to carrier-land you transport category certified aluminum tube.

 

So unless you are getting me confused with another individual, we are in a "heated agreement". Trading valuable runway while holding the aircraft off is incredibly bad technique and has led to many runway excursions. I've never advocated that as you can see from posts.

 

 

On the EMB-120 once you apply the emergency brake it applies more brake pressure to the inboard tires than the outboard tires.

 

Actually perfectly understandable, thanks for clearing that up.

 

 

We disagree here also, or maybe you're just making the whole "seat of your pants" thingy too mechanical, too scientific. Maybe we're talking about the same thing here, maybe not. I feel my landings, I've been feeling my landings ever since I started flying. Maybe you don't, and that's fine as long as every person on your airplane walks out alive and safe. We can't really feel out landing in FSX, we don't have the peripherals, the feeling in your stomach, the sensations like we do in RL.

 

I am merely stating that what you refer as "seat of your pants", is really a calculated and coordinated response that you don't actually think through. There is no "feeling in your stomach", it is all sensory and from your eyes and ears. Sure, if you experience sink or lift from a downdraft or thermal, you could say you might feel it in your stomach. But there is no magical "feeling" as you come in to land. Otherwise you would be able to land the aircraft blindfolded, which you can't. I know it sounds like semantics on this, but I think if you tought about it you would agree.

 

What you are describing as a "feeling" is really what you see out the cockpit window matching the mental model stored inside your brain. This is why we are prone to runway illusions that match that mental model but deceive us as well. For example - Narrow or wide runways, up-slope or down-slope runways, non-standard runway light spacing. These sort of factors can really mess up a landing because they match your mental model yet they are not what they seem. If you come in to land at a narrower than normal runway you run the risk of flaring late and having a hard landing. This is because the normal visual cues you use to judge flare height will occur closer to the ground due to the runway being narrower. This is obviously more pronounced at night where visual cues decrease.

 

If you were feeling your way to the runway, your brain would not suffer from these factors. I wish we did have such a sense, but unfortunately we don't. We can mitigate the illusions by briefing them and using strategies to deal with them, but that is all we can do.

Very good post Mr Sauce, see we do agree in many things but we weren't using CRM, lol. Now let's put our differences aside and tend to our sim friends, they need us to be positive role models

 

Happy flying!

I am merely stating that what you refer as "seat of your pants", is really a calculated and coordinated response that you don't actually think through.

I think you are taking the phrase "seat of your pants" rather too literally. It means exactly the kind of subconscious empirical judgements that you describe. It doesn't only refer to 'g' sensations, though that us how the phrase originated.

 

In FSX you don't get cues from motion, peripheral vision, etc, which makes judging flare and touchdown much harder.

Rule: Make sure it's a greaser if significant other is in back. 

I had my daughter in the back of one of my flights, she's the biggest landing critic I have ever met. I made her proud but I was sweating my butt off doing it, LOL

Yes, of the two landings in airliners I've made with friends travelling with me, they both said the same thing: "so who's landing was that." (and one was in the Q400 when I was training a new CA, sitting right seat!)

How is the Q on landing? Someone told me that it was a squirmy airplane to land, is that true?

It is- it has a very reinforced main gear and makes "greasers" hard to get. However, normal landings weren't difficult, and it really was great in crosswinds when Continental was circling with their lower x-wind limitation.