Very hard landing
#16
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: UK
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 532
We had a very nice flight today to faro but had a query. There was a very hard landing with a long pause between rear and front wheels hitting tarmac and the aircraft did not slow for a considerable time and then jolted to a stop. Is this standard for the arrival airfield or could something have been amiss? We were a little jet lagged from our arrival yesterday from the US but it felt unusual to a landing we’d experienced. I thought for a moment or two we were not going to stop and had a problem.
Excellent crew and food on board although the product itself remains poor.
Excellent crew and food on board although the product itself remains poor.
The firmness or otherwise of the touchdown isn't an indicator of quality of the landing. That said overly 'hard' landings can and do occur with reasonable regularity and require maintenance inspections and occasionally they cause some damage. It's quite tricky as a passenger to tell where on the scale of firm to damagingly hard the landing is because you'd have to sit in the same seat, on the same model of aircraft, over and over again to train your bottom. (no really).
Stopping wise modern aircraft 'carbon' brakes work better with a single application. At many busy airports there is need to minimise the time spent on the runway. So if you land and brake then have a long way to trundle slowly to the exit you spend too long on the runway. What tends to happen is the aircraft lands, rolls to near the exit it has chosen and then a single firm brake application is used. In the original software build of the A380s fully automatic braking system (called "brake to vacate") if you told the computer to use the last exit from the runway you would swear you were going to run off the end really very quickly before the computer applied the brakes very hard indeed. It was so disconcerting that they had to mod the software a bit though that costs a little more in both runway occupancy and in brake wear.
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London
Programs: Hilton, IHG - BA, GA, LH, QR, SV, TK
Posts: 17,008
I'm always fascinated by the technical knowledge posted by fellow FT-ers. I wonder how much of this involving aircraft operation is derived from engineering activity, pilot-practioner experience or skills learned through using simulation software.
Not in anyway denigrating simulation as an activity. Just sad that i have had such limited exposure to an interesting world!
Not in anyway denigrating simulation as an activity. Just sad that i have had such limited exposure to an interesting world!
#18
#19
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,065
There’s some skillets of truth in the above comments but also a lot of comment that is not quite right.
A “good”landing is one at the correct speed, in the correct place and within the touchdown parameters of the aircraft. A smooth landing does not indicate a landing. A smooth touchdown is the icing on the cake but it is not important. In big aircraft with the exception of big deltas like the Vulcan and to some extent Concorde there is little benefit in aero braking, the brakes do the braking and the spoilers ensure that the weight of the aircraft is on the wheels, the comments about carbon brakes from TinKicker are spot on. Auto brake is used and is planned for a certain exit, sometimes ATC ask us to vacate expeditiously and we change the plan and brake harder to get off the runway quickly. Crosswind landing technique is not different to normal landing except to say that you remove the drift in the flare, but the flare is normal for most big aircraft - there are not many that use the “wing down” technique as big engines in pods mean there is a higher likelihood of a pod scrape if this is done.
A “good”landing is one at the correct speed, in the correct place and within the touchdown parameters of the aircraft. A smooth landing does not indicate a landing. A smooth touchdown is the icing on the cake but it is not important. In big aircraft with the exception of big deltas like the Vulcan and to some extent Concorde there is little benefit in aero braking, the brakes do the braking and the spoilers ensure that the weight of the aircraft is on the wheels, the comments about carbon brakes from TinKicker are spot on. Auto brake is used and is planned for a certain exit, sometimes ATC ask us to vacate expeditiously and we change the plan and brake harder to get off the runway quickly. Crosswind landing technique is not different to normal landing except to say that you remove the drift in the flare, but the flare is normal for most big aircraft - there are not many that use the “wing down” technique as big engines in pods mean there is a higher likelihood of a pod scrape if this is done.
Last edited by Waterhorse; Aug 8, 2018 at 5:28 am
#20
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: New York
Programs: Navy A-4 Skyhawk, B727 FE/FO, S80 FO, B757/767 FO, B737 CA
Posts: 1,342
#21
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,065
The usual reason on the 320 series for a nose in the air is as described, a late, snatched flare which drives the mainwheels into the ground, the nose up from the flare input is stil active, this is compounded by the spoiler deployment which causes a further nose up input. It is something to be aware of and to guard against on the A320, indeed in a A321 should the pitch angle reach 7.5 degrees noseup the pilot monitoring calls a warning, as a tailscraoe is now highly likely should any further noseup attitude happen.
#22
Absolutely, aerobraking is not an approved technique on the A320 series, try it in a 321 and you will scrape the tail, an A320 wont be pretty either.
The usual reason on the 320 series for a nose in the air is as described, a late, snatched flare which drives the mainwheels into the ground, the nose up from the flare input is stil active, this is compounded by the spoiler deployment which causes a further nose up input. It is something to be aware of and to guard against on the A320, indeed in a A321 should the pitch angle reach 7.5 degrees noseup the pilot monitoring calls a warning, as a tailscraoe is now highly likely should any further noseup attitude happen.
I’ve always found the carbon brakes to be great, yet to not have the decel light come on after landing in the required time (admittedly don’t fly to many colder destinations though so not many contaminated runways), in the summer season at warmer destinations with short runways on each end of the flight the temperature control is a bit of a pain, I’ve seen them pushing towards 500 degrees once or twice even with the brake fans on after landing.
Refer to above quote, the tailstrike risk doesn’t justify the increase in drag
Last edited by All She Wrote; Aug 8, 2018 at 6:54 am Reason: Typo
#23
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: New York
Programs: Navy A-4 Skyhawk, B727 FE/FO, S80 FO, B757/767 FO, B737 CA
Posts: 1,342
That's why we are paid to fly airplanes, to actually fly them and control them. On landing, holding the nose off to help increase drag is not a "tail strike risk" the pilot is holding the A/C in the same attitude it had on landing, it's not an 'extra' risk of tail strike.
#24
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: UK
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 532
I'm always fascinated by the technical knowledge posted by fellow FT-ers. I wonder how much of this involving aircraft operation is derived from engineering activity, pilot-practioner experience or skills learned through using simulation software.
Not in anyway denigrating simulation as an activity. Just sad that i have had such limited exposure to an interesting world!
Not in anyway denigrating simulation as an activity. Just sad that i have had such limited exposure to an interesting world!
#25
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold; FB Silver; SPG; IHG Gold
Posts: 2,985
I never speak of "good" or "bad" landings, precisely for all the reasons stated in various posts above. I don;t recall any noteworthy landings on any of the hundreds of BA sectors I've flown, though I got the impression that some of the early Dreamliner touchdowns were a bit hard. I did also have an incredibly firm landing at SDU the other day on a Latam 319, but that strikes me as a very tricky airport to fly into.
#26
That's why we are paid to fly airplanes, to actually fly them and control them. On landing, holding the nose off to help increase drag is not a "tail strike risk" the pilot is holding the A/C in the same attitude it had on landing, it's not an 'extra' risk of tail strike.
#27
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: New York
Programs: Navy A-4 Skyhawk, B727 FE/FO, S80 FO, B757/767 FO, B737 CA
Posts: 1,342
I'm always fascinated by the technical knowledge posted by fellow FT-ers. I wonder how much of this involving aircraft operation is derived from engineering activity, pilot-practioner experience or skills learned through using simulation software.
Not in anyway denigrating simulation as an activity. Just sad that i have had such limited exposure to an interesting world!
Not in anyway denigrating simulation as an activity. Just sad that i have had such limited exposure to an interesting world!
#28
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: New York
Programs: Navy A-4 Skyhawk, B727 FE/FO, S80 FO, B757/767 FO, B737 CA
Posts: 1,342
Check the last section of this post. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobraking
#29
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 42,967