Ask The Pilot

[petercr]

Narita can be a turd of a place to land. There was a hotel that we stayed at that had viewing area...it was full of pilots having a beer and assessing everyone else's landings from afar. ..

Sounds like what you read about the US Navy and Marine pilots doing on their floating airports... (minus the beer and a bit closer) Did you do that in your Skyhawk days?

 

[jb747]

Sounds like what you read about the US Navy and Marine pilots doing on their floating airports... (minus the beer and a bit closer) Did you do that in your Skyhawk days?

Sadly no. I got as close as you can get without going to the ship. I did two cruises as a back seater (in Seaking), but that doesn't count.

On the A4, we did the work up to go to the ship, and the very next step was going out to do it...and they called a halt to those ops. It was meant to be temporary, but was the beginning of the end.

But, in all honesty, having seen the faces of the guys flying the A4s aboard at night (during my Seaking cruises), I'm not sure that I needed my eyes to be made that large!

 

[Hvr]

Narita can be a turd of a place to land.

Can you explain why? As a passenger all I really remember about the place is the very long taxiing to get to the runway. I almost thought we were going to drive home.

 

[MickC32]

It seems that we in Australia pronounce 737, 747 etc as seven three seven, seven four seven etc but in the US they seem to pronounce as seven thirty seven, seven forty seven etc. Am I correct in this assumption?

Do you have an international way of pronouncing the aircraft you fly?

Also, I do not seem to notice this with the Airbus, perhaps because we take on the American way of three eighty, three thirty etc.

 

[jb747]

Can you explain why? As a passenger all I really remember about the place is the very long taxiing to get to the runway. I almost thought we were going to drive home.

Because the winds can be very strong, and mostly seem to be crosswinds. I suspect that the best alignment wasn't available because of all of the political issues that affected its development.

Strong, especially gusty, crosswinds are not easy. Imagine how accurate you'd be if you were driving your car down the road at about 280 kph. Then throw in a simultaneous slide at about 75 kph. Now make that slide vary randomly. And you have to keep right on that white line. And, of course, in an aircraft, there's a vertical component too.

 

[jb747]

It seems that we in Australia pronounce 737, 747 etc as seven three seven, seven four seven etc but in the US they seem to pronounce as seven thirty seven, seven forty seven etc. Am I correct in this assumption?

Do you have an international way of pronouncing the aircraft you fly?

Also, I do not seem to notice this with the Airbus, perhaps because we take on the American way of three eighty, three thirty etc.

There's no convention. Just long term habit.

 

[flyer89]

Because the winds can be very strong, and mostly seem to be crosswinds. I suspect that the best alignment wasn't available because of all of the political issues that affected its development.

Strong, especially gusty, crosswinds are not easy. Imagine how accurate you'd be if you were driving your car down the road at about 280 kph. Then throw in a simultaneous slide at about 75 kph. Now make that slide vary randomly. And you have to keep right on that white line. And, of course, in an aircraft, there's a vertical component too.

Is there something in particular that makes the 380 a pain in said conditions?

 

[jb747]

Is there something in particular that makes the 380 a pain in said conditions?

I wasn't actually referring to the 380. I mostly flew the 767 into Narita, and the crosswinds could be hard work in that aircraft...which I actually consider to be the best aircraft I've flown with regard to handling them.

The 380 has a crosswind limit that's higher than the 747, though I think that is more to do with Airbus wanting to be 'better' than Boeing, than any real extra capability. Compared to the Boeings, the biggest weakness of a the ABs, is that a landing must have less than 5º of drift at touchdown, whereas in the Boeings, you can land with all of the drift intact. A positive on the other hand, is that in gusty crosswind conditions, the flight control system sees the changes as momentary sideslip, and automatically applies rudder to remove it.

 

[flyer89]

Compared to the Boeings, the biggest weakness of a the ABs, is that a landing must have less than 5º of drift at touchdown

Does this mean correcting at low altitude to straighten up the nose so it falls within 5 Deg. of the centerline?

 

[jb747]

Does this mean correcting at low altitude to straighten up the nose so it falls within 5 Deg. of the centerline?

Drift is the difference between where the aircraft is pointed (heading), and where it is going (track).

 

[D747]

the biggest weakness of a the ABs, is that a landing must have less than 5º of drift at touchdown, whereas in the Boeings, you can land with all of the drift intact.

What are the differences between these two aircraft that allows drift in one while landing and not the other?

 

[jb747]

What are the differences between these two aircraft that allows drift in one while landing and not the other?

Engineering. AB have decided that 5º is enough, and have built that amount of strength into the gear. Boeing have made theirs strong enough to withstand any drift up to the max crosswind allowed (which would be about 12-15º. Presumably that means that one is also heavier than the other. It's a design choice, but the reality is that ABs are quite regularly landed with the drift intact...you only have to look at youtube.

 

[mjt57]

I like this one, JB.

What I find unnerving, but shouldn’t, is how everything seems to be flexing.

 

[jb747]

I like this one, JB.

What I find unnerving, but shouldn’t, is how everything seems to be flexing.

The dip in the runways makes that look horrible, but it's actually a decent landing in a strong crosswind.

If things don't flex...they crack.

 

[flyer89]

A bit better than the now infamous Düsseldorf cruncher.

 

[jb747]

A bit better than the now infamous Düsseldorf cruncher.

Airbus managed this one all by themselves...

 

[flyer89]

Airbus managed this one all by themselves...

They built it so they have no excuse...

 

[lastrow]

Hi jb its a little while since I posted. A good while ago I was seated next to a pilot from the same airline who flew 727 's , the same plane as we were in. I must say that in common with all pilots his conversation was of huge interest. As we were flying towards MEL airport but still with some distance to go my pilot companion said "listen, the pilot is riding the throttles" which according to my friend was bad practice. He told me that an experienced pilot will set his throttles at the top of decent and be able to maintain this power setting until final approach. What is your take on this?

 

[jb747]

Hi jb its a little while since I posted. A good while ago I was seated next to a pilot from the same airline who flew 727 's , the same plane as we were in. I must say that in common with all pilots his conversation was of huge interest. As we were flying towards MEL airport but still with some distance to go my pilot companion said "listen, the pilot is riding the throttles" which according to my friend was bad practice. He told me that an experienced pilot will set his throttles at the top of decent and be able to maintain this power setting until final approach. What is your take on this?

Given that the atmosphere is a dynamic environment, it's almost impossible to pick the exact point at which you could take idle thrust and not need any adjustment until on final. It happens, but is more luck than anything else. These days, the aircraft all have auto thrust (throttles) engaged throughout the descent, and they often make power adjustments to keep the aircraft on your programmed profile.

If I wanted to set up an idle descent, I'd descend a little later than usual (I'd have more energy). A small amount of speed brake, or early flap and gear selections can be used to finesse the profile. It rarely fits in with ATC, so it's a technique from the GoDs.

I wouldn't think twice about power changes on descent....

 

[jb747]

Sounds like what you read about the US Navy and Marine pilots doing on their floating airports... (minus the beer and a bit closer) Did you do that in your Skyhawk days?

My A4 time was right at the end of the aircraft’s time in the RAN. I was posted to 805 (the carrier based squadron), and did the work up to go to the ship, but after a couple of aircraft losses, ops on the ship stopped, and sadly never restarted. So, very close, but no cigar.

We didn’t flare the aircraft on landings even when on a runway. The same technique that was to be used on the ship was used for all landings at Nowra, and they had the same mirror guidance system installed next to the runway. Even though we hit the runway far harder than any landing you’ll hopefully ever experience, the aircraft undercarriage had a lot of compression, and virtually no rebound, so it did not bounce.

There was no flare for a number of reasons. Firstly, it makes your touchdown point less accurate. The target zone on the ship was very small, and a flare, as you see at airports, would most likely have you miss the ship entirely. Secondly, the aircraft was flown at a very high angle of attack during the approach...i.e. slowly. Couple that with a delta wing’s high drag behaviour, and there was no actual potential to flare anyway. In some circumstances, at shore bases, we might land at a higher than usual weight. In that case a flare was required, and it was done with a large handful of power.