Taking off from Santa Ana (SNA) - wooo that was fun.

Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
18,740
Location
NH
If you’re able to have a sense of humor about this scenario, and Air Traffic control, Google up the James McAvoy SNL skit on Scottish Air Traffic Control. It’s on YouTube and a variety of social media platforms. I can’t link it right now, but it’s totally worth it.

Absolutely hilarious as a Scottish air traffic controller tries to talk to a passenger on an American plane in which both pilots are incapacitated.
I think it's this?

 
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
7,333
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
I don't think I EVER said that I slam an airliner onto a runway. I used to carrier land the F-14 on a runway because that is how it was designed to be landed.

Sorry. Just my interpretation from memory. Didn’t look up exactly how you described it, but I’m sure you said that your runway landings were like carrier landings.
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
224
If you’re able to have a sense of humor about this scenario, and Air Traffic control, Google up the James McAvoy SNL skit on Scottish Air Traffic Control. It’s on YouTube and a variety of social media platforms. I can’t link it right now, but it’s totally worth it.

Absolutely hilarious as a Scottish air traffic controller tries to talk to a passenger on an American plane in which both pilots are incapacitated.
I will check it out , thanks.
 

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
13,867
Location
Virginia Beach
Sorry. Just my interpretation from memory. Didn’t look up exactly how you described it, but I’m sure you said that your runway landings were like carrier landings.
I probably said that I bring the same precision to the game, or something like that.

To catch a 3 wire on a NIMITZ-class ship, the airplane must be on centerline, within about two knots of airspeed, and within fifteen inches of glideslope. That’s 38 cm for the rest of the world. I used to get the 3 wire most of the time. Honest. I’ve got some “Top Ten” patches on my flight jacket to prove it.

Where I see airline pilots (and I teach in the airplane, now, so this discussion comes up) err in the landing process is the transition to visual. They allow the rate of descent to shift, slightly, and the aim point to shift, slightly, so that when they cross the runway threshold, they are 20 feet or more, sometimes as much as fifty feet, high - which leads to a poor landing. Long, for sure. Sometimes firm, sometimes a go around. It could’ve been fixed with a tiny nose and power correction ten seconds earlier.

So, a good landing, in my experience, comes from rigid discipline in the approach. A Naval Aviator flying aboard the boat makes hundreds of tiny, timely corrections to power and flight path in the last twenty seconds. Watch an F-14 landing video and pay particular attention to the horizontal tails, they never stop moving as the pilot continues to work Stick, rudder and throttles, and perhaps DLC, to keep the jet precisely on parameters through the turbulent air behind a moving ship. That’s how I learned to fly. It’s ingrained now.

I’m fascinated by airline pilots, who came up through the civilian ranks, or through the USAF, who set the power, leave it, and then accept being 5 knots off airspeed, and accept being a dot off on glideslope. Good pilots in most respects....

But clearly grew up in a world in which that level of precision was never required.

Maybe they think they’re being smooth, or that it doesn’t matter. I’ve heard both explanations.

But every knot matters. So does every foot. On means on, not even a foot, or a knot, off. Being on the flight Director means an equal number of pixels above and below, and on either side of, the aircraft reticle, not just the symbols touching.

It’s discipline, and precision, that lead to a good landing in an airliner. The difference between back then and now, is that at about 20 feet (30 in the 767, 50 in the 747), the nose is tweaked up a bit, the throttles come smoothly to idle, and my aim point shifts to the far end of the runway to flare, maintain centerline, and touchdown smoothly.
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
1,122
Location
Cleveland
Chicago Midway offers some fun landings due to the short runways. One time connecting through had a combination of a fairly hard bounce, slam and then very, very hard braking and reverse thrust. Always a good time!
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
1,569
Location
Oz with Dorothy and Toto
Our Gulfstream G550/650 will skid all 4 main tires if the brakes are held too long... We've done a number of max performance takeoff's. I brought my G-Tech along and it recorded 11.69 seconds 1/4 mile at 144 MPH. Rumor has it that 10 second 1/4 mile runs are possible if you hold the brakes longer. But risking $20K worth of tires is probably not smart.

If light, the G550/650 will climb at 45 degrees pitch up and still accelerate!
You airline guys might like the fact that normal climb in the G650ER is M0.87.


She thicc :love:
 
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
7,333
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
I probably said that I bring the same precision to the game, or something like that.

Easy enough to find. I misinterpreted. I did find video of the last US F-14 landing before it was retired. It definitely looks like a hard landing.

A carrier landing was a normal landing in the F-14. Constant sink rate (700-800 FPM) until touchdown.​
At every Naval Air Station, there was an FLOLS, a Fresnel Lens, the "meatball".​
So, every landing at an NAS was a chance to practice a normal carrier landing with the same visual cues.​

I used the term "slam" as I've heard that to describe a carrier landing.

 
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
7,333
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Chicago Midway offers some fun landings due to the short runways. One time connecting through had a combination of a fairly hard bounce, slam and then very, very hard braking and reverse thrust. Always a good time!

We have a few short runways in California here where they might try landing a 737 or Airbus A319. Charles M. Schulz–Sonoma County Airport has 6000 ft. Santa Barbara doesn't have much more runway than that.
 

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
13,867
Location
Virginia Beach
Easy enough to find. I misinterpreted. I did find video of the last US F-14 landing before it was retired. It definitely looks like a hard landing.

A carrier landing was a normal landing in the F-14. Constant sink rate (700-800 FPM) until touchdown.​
At every Naval Air Station, there was an FLOLS, a Fresnel Lens, the "meatball".​
So, every landing at an NAS was a chance to practice a normal carrier landing with the same visual cues.​

I used the term "slam" as I've heard that to describe a carrier landing.

Ah, OK. I think I misread your post in this thread and we got our wires crossed as a result. My apologies.

Yes. Your memory is excellent. I landed the F-14 “carrier style” for every normal landing. With good reasons.

Not a popular (or even good) technique for an airliner. Their max structural limit for a hard landing is about 600 feet per minute (I think, this is in the maintenance manual, not our flight manual). Normal carrier landing in a fighter was about 700-800 feet per minute.
 

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
13,867
Location
Virginia Beach
By the way, I found this precise verbiage in our FM.

“Idle reverse, as a minimum, is required for all landings. If conditions warrant, use reverse thrust up to maximum without delay.” It goes on to discuss performance and requires maximum reverse for all contaminated (rain, slush, snow) runways which is pretty much what I said.
 
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
7,333
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Ah, OK. I think I misread your post in this thread and we got our wires crossed as a result. My apologies.

Yes. Your memory is excellent. I landed the F-14 “carrier style” for every normal landing. With good reasons.

Not a popular (or even good) technique for an airliner. Their max structural limit for a hard landing is about 600 feet per minute (I think, this is in the maintenance manual, not our flight manual). Normal carrier landing in a fighter was about 700-800 feet per minute.

I wonder what Iran did with their F-14s. I get that they're trying to keep them in the air by cannibalizing parts and trying to produce new ones. I know the landing gear is the same, but I'd think they could make them last longer since replacement parts are kind of hard to come by.
 

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Joined
Oct 10, 2010
Messages
13,867
Location
Virginia Beach
Wish I knew. Do they flare the landing to spare the strain on the airplane? We had an issue with wing sweep pivot bearing retaining pins that limited the G on some airplanes until they got updated pins. It’s kind of a big deal if that bearing comes loose - that means the wing comes off.

Are they facing that, or other fatigue issues? We had a Navy Tomcat accumulate over 10,000 hours. That’s an incredible life for a fighter. It was still structurally sound. But it had parts support and good maintenance. I’m doubtful that Iran has either.
 
Joined
May 6, 2005
Messages
7,333
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Wish I knew. Do they flare the landing to spare the strain on the airplane? We had an issue with wing sweep pivot bearing retaining pins that limited the G on some airplanes until they got updated pins. It’s kind of a big deal if that bearing comes loose - that means the wing comes off.

Are they facing that, or other fatigue issues? We had a Navy Tomcat accumulate over 10,000 hours. That’s an incredible life for a fighter. It was still structurally sound. But it had parts support and good maintenance. I’m doubtful that Iran has either.

I found this video that claims to show an emergency landing after an engine failure. Looks like it's showing bits and pieces of the actual emergency landing, but with cockpit and other footage that looks too staged to be from the actual emergency landing.

 
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
224
I probably said that I bring the same precision to the game, or something like that.

To catch a 3 wire on a NIMITZ-class ship, the airplane must be on centerline, within about two knots of airspeed, and within fifteen inches of glideslope. That’s 38 cm for the rest of the world. I used to get the 3 wire most of the time. Honest. I’ve got some “Top Ten” patches on my flight jacket to prove it.

Where I see airline pilots (and I teach in the airplane, now, so this discussion comes up) err in the landing process is the transition to visual. They allow the rate of descent to shift, slightly, and the aim point to shift, slightly, so that when they cross the runway threshold, they are 20 feet or more, sometimes as much as fifty feet, high - which leads to a poor landing. Long, for sure. Sometimes firm, sometimes a go around. It could’ve been fixed with a tiny nose and power correction ten seconds earlier.

So, a good landing, in my experience, comes from rigid discipline in the approach. A Naval Aviator flying aboard the boat makes hundreds of tiny, timely corrections to power and flight path in the last twenty seconds. Watch an F-14 landing video and pay particular attention to the horizontal tails, they never stop moving as the pilot continues to work Stick, rudder and throttles, and perhaps DLC, to keep the jet precisely on parameters through the turbulent air behind a moving ship. That’s how I learned to fly. It’s ingrained now.

I’m fascinated by airline pilots, who came up through the civilian ranks, or through the USAF, who set the power, leave it, and then accept being 5 knots off airspeed, and accept being a dot off on glideslope. Good pilots in most respects....

But clearly grew up in a world in which that level of precision was never required.

Maybe they think they’re being smooth, or that it doesn’t matter. I’ve heard both explanations.

But every knot matters. So does every foot. On means on, not even a foot, or a knot, off. Being on the flight Director means an equal number of pixels above and below, and on either side of, the aircraft reticle, not just the symbols touching.

It’s discipline, and precision, that lead to a good landing in an airliner. The difference between back then and now, is that at about 20 feet (30 in the 767, 50 in the 747), the nose is tweaked up a bit, the throttles come smoothly to idle, and my aim point shifts to the far end of the runway to flare, maintain centerline, and touchdown smoothly.
Very interesting. Another thing, the vast majority of airline pilots do not deal with “black hole“ approaches vey often, if at all, like landing on a carrier
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
224
By the way, I found this precise verbiage in our FM.

“Idle reverse, as a minimum, is required for all landings. If conditions warrant, use reverse thrust up to maximum without delay.” It goes on to discuss performance and requires maximum reverse for all contaminated (rain, slush, snow) runways which is pretty much what I said.
Minimum “idle“ reverse on the Airbus in case the spoilers were not armed before landing. If someone forgot to arm them, they will still deploy when idle reverse ( or more ) is selected.
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
3,860
Location
Caldwell Idaho
Most airline pilots do not get a chance to do any extreme short landing , hard braking type stuff because we carry passengers and they wouldn’t like it. We fly like limo drivers when possible.....gently.

More later on brakes and reverse thrust on the Airbus ( wife’s calling me to watch a movie ). Hint, reverse thrust is not very effective ( sounds like it should be ).
I like the g force take offs and landings. But then that is just me.
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
3,860
Location
Caldwell Idaho
It’s discipline, and precision, that lead to a good landing in an airliner. The difference between back then and now, is that at about 20 feet (30 in the 767, 50 in the 747), the nose is tweaked up a bit, the throttles come smoothly to idle, and my aim point shifts to the far end of the runway to flare, maintain centerline, and touchdown smoothly.
Naval aviator ,,Duh.:)
 
Top