pilots landing harder
Nov 6, 2018, 10:36 am
#17
Moderator Hilton Honors, Travel News, West, The Suggestion Box, Smoking Lounge & DiningBuzz
Join Date: Jun 2000
Programs: Honors Diamond, Hertz Presidents Circle, National Exec Elite
Posts: 36,018
For pilots (although I'm only a lowly private pilot), it's a little frustrating for a flight to be judged primarily or only by the "smoothness" of the landing. There are lots of other things that pilots know are better indices of how well a flight was conducted. Moreover, as Badenoch notes, there are more than a few occasions on which you don't want to try for a "smooth landing," but want to firmly plant the plane on the runway headed in the correct direction for rollout (severe crosswind and windshear conditions, for example -- the smooth "floaty" kiss-the-runway landings are an invitation to disaster in such conditions).
Nov 6, 2018, 10:38 am
#18
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,875
<metadiscussion removed by moderator>
Anyways, got something from quora:
The plane shouldn’t be landing “very hard”, but a little firm is common. Mostly it’s an industry-wide change in technique and philosophy. Decades ago, pilots valued the “greaser” (a landing you can barely feel), but not so much any more. A greaser, while not necessarily a bad landing, is not the hallmark of a good landing. A good landing is on centerline, on or just past the aim point, and with no drift (sideways movement). Professionally, there is no benefit to a greaser. In fact, a little firmness (but not hard) generally makes for a better landing.
Anyways, got something from quora:
The plane shouldn’t be landing “very hard”, but a little firm is common. Mostly it’s an industry-wide change in technique and philosophy. Decades ago, pilots valued the “greaser” (a landing you can barely feel), but not so much any more. A greaser, while not necessarily a bad landing, is not the hallmark of a good landing. A good landing is on centerline, on or just past the aim point, and with no drift (sideways movement). Professionally, there is no benefit to a greaser. In fact, a little firmness (but not hard) generally makes for a better landing.
Last edited by JY1024; Nov 6, 2018 at 7:09 pm Reason: Metadiscussion removed by moderator
Nov 6, 2018, 10:40 am
#19
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,875
For pilots (although I'm only a lowly private pilot), it's a little frustrating for a flight to be judged primarily or only by the "smoothness" of the landing. There are lots of other things that pilots know are better indices of how well a flight was conducted. Moreover, as Badenoch notes, there are more than a few occasions on which you don't want to try for a "smooth landing," but want to firmly plant the plane on the runway headed in the correct direction for rollout (severe crosswind and windshear conditions, for example -- the smooth "floaty" kiss-the-runway landings are an invitation to disaster in such conditions).
Nov 6, 2018, 2:23 pm
#20
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: It's hot here
Posts: 4,284
Maybe it's just the ones that stick out now, a product of selective memory. I can think back to having some of each in the past. My roughest was at JFK maybe 7 or 8 years ago. We bounced, I actually felt myself lift up. Seatbelt was on, of course, but you can feel it hold you down. But all was fine. Just a bounce. FA made a face of like "oh, well" and went on with her day.
Nov 6, 2018, 4:06 pm
#21
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: YVR
Programs: AC SE 2MM; UA MP Premier Silver; Marriott Bonvoy LT Titanium Elite; Radisson; Avis PC
Posts: 35,255
Last year I flew over 400 flights on various narrowbody and widebody commercial aircraft. This year roughly 40 flights. From what I can recall, I did not notice an increase in harder landings from the past years. It was really a mix of everything.
Nov 6, 2018, 7:44 pm
#22
Senior Moderator and Moderator: American AAdvantage & TravelBuzz
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: BOS
Programs: AA EXP, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 10,413
Moderator Note:
Some metadiscussion about FlyerTalk and this thread have been removed. A few gentle reminders:
- If you do not enjoy the topic of a thread, please feel free to move along without posting any snark.
- Please be willing to engage and discuss; this is a internet bulletin board - folks will share their own experiences and viewpoints.
- Feel free agree or disagree with a topic; however, do keep things civil and respectful.
- And remember: personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Thanks for your cooperation and understanding.
/Moderator
Some metadiscussion about FlyerTalk and this thread have been removed. A few gentle reminders:
- If you do not enjoy the topic of a thread, please feel free to move along without posting any snark.
- Please be willing to engage and discuss; this is a internet bulletin board - folks will share their own experiences and viewpoints.
- Feel free agree or disagree with a topic; however, do keep things civil and respectful.
- And remember: personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Thanks for your cooperation and understanding.
/Moderator
Nov 7, 2018, 12:44 pm
#23
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South Park, CO
Programs: Tegridy Elite
Posts: 5,678
Nothing has changed in terms of procedures, training, etc. I certainly haven't noticed any overall difference, other than normal minor variations attributable to aircraft type, weather and runway conditions, seat location, etc. There is a degree of subjectivity, too, in passengers' characterization of sensations from things like turbulence and landing.
Nov 9, 2018, 8:52 pm
#27
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Aussie in ORD
Programs: Marriott Plat, Ua Gold, GE.. Sucker for punishment
Posts: 4,237
Funny thread.. BUT.. I did experience two heavy landings in a row.. Both on 737-900s .. yesterday on IAD-ORD and today on ORD-LAX..
Yesterdays was a bouncer.. hit the tarmac pretty hard and we jumped and hit again.. and then a slapper of a nosewheel.
Pretty sure that one would have caused a check to be done.
(but everything else has been smoooooth)
Yesterdays was a bouncer.. hit the tarmac pretty hard and we jumped and hit again.. and then a slapper of a nosewheel.
Pretty sure that one would have caused a check to be done.
(but everything else has been smoooooth)
Nov 9, 2018, 9:54 pm
#28
Moderator Hilton Honors, Travel News, West, The Suggestion Box, Smoking Lounge & DiningBuzz
Join Date: Jun 2000
Programs: Honors Diamond, Hertz Presidents Circle, National Exec Elite
Posts: 36,018
I don't know whether you are a pilot or not (and, if so, you can ignore what follows ) , but there are lots of studies over the years that show that non-pilot passengers on commercial flights consistently overestimate
) , but there are lots of studies over the years that show that non-pilot passengers on commercial flights consistently overestimate- The angle of bank
- The angle of pitch-up/angle of attack
- The degree of turbulence (the AIM has very precise definitions and it is the relatively rare pilot who ever experiences a case of actually "severe" turbulence.)
- Whether a landing was hard enough to potentially break something.
Nov 10, 2018, 7:47 am
#29
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Aussie in ORD
Programs: Marriott Plat, Ua Gold, GE.. Sucker for punishment
Posts: 4,237
I don't know whether you are a pilot or not (and, if so, you can ignore what follows ) , but there are lots of studies over the years that show that non-pilot passengers on commercial flights consistently overestimate
) , but there are lots of studies over the years that show that non-pilot passengers on commercial flights consistently overestimate- The angle of bank
- The angle of pitch-up/angle of attack
- The degree of turbulence (the AIM has very precise definitions and it is the relatively rare pilot who ever experiences a case of actually "severe" turbulence.)
- Whether a landing was hard enough to potentially break something.
And yes... indeed
Nov 10, 2018, 11:53 am
#30
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: RNO
Programs: AA/DL/UA
Posts: 10,766
Funny thread.. BUT.. I did experience two heavy landings in a row.. Both on 737-900s .. yesterday on IAD-ORD and today on ORD-LAX..
Yesterdays was a bouncer.. hit the tarmac pretty hard and we jumped and hit again.. and then a slapper of a nosewheel.
Pretty sure that one would have caused a check to be done.
(but everything else has been smoooooth)
Yesterdays was a bouncer.. hit the tarmac pretty hard and we jumped and hit again.. and then a slapper of a nosewheel.
Pretty sure that one would have caused a check to be done.
(but everything else has been smoooooth)
The ridiculous length of the 737-900 means the plane must take off at higher speeds (usually not a problem but using more runway unnecessarily is not something I really like), and also must land at higher speeds, which leads to rougher landing. The plane has to take off and land at higher speeds because they can't pull the nose up as much as a normal length 737 without smashing the tail into the ground.
