Why are we taught to land differently 91 vs 121

[Seggy]

Originally Posted by Snuggle

You can land the 1900 at stall speed with the stall horn going off just like a cessna.

Not really.

Pretty unsafe actually if guys are doing that.

[Snuggle]

Originally Posted by Seggy

Not really.

Pretty unsafe actually if guys are doing that.

I agree it's not safe or smart but it is possible, as you already know I land on speed.

[phoenix 23684]

Originally Posted by ppragman

I think this is more of a twin vs. single question. You don't bring any twin in on the horn because if you lose an engine you're going to Vmc over and crash if you're not right on your toes.

This makes no sense, Vmc is related to power, you should be almost at idle therefore Vmc not an issue during the flare, but I know what you mean by single vs twin, unfortunately the airlines haven't gone to single engine jets yet. With fuel prices that could be something to invest in

Someone else mentioned that it's safer to land close to stall in a Cessna, not sure I agree. You can land plenty safe 10kts or more above the horn. I used to be able to short field a cessna in less than 1k feet landing it a little lower than 60kts. arresting the descent and landing with little ground effect or round out and not hard.

Who says airlines don't land on short runways, I had to land the saab on some short one where we make sure we hit the point. I would be afraid to land the saab to the horn, too close to the pusher, imagine that right before the mains touch.

Anyhow I like the responses I've been reading. Any season pilot/instructor that can chime in with their thoughts?

[phoenix 23684]

Originally Posted by Doug Taylor

With every knot flown below Vref, your probability of a tail strike and "Breakfast With the Chief Pilot (and your ALPA rep)" are asymptotically approaching 100%

Hey doug maybe we just need to put a little wheel on the tail like the concord had

[phoenix 23684]

Originally Posted by Windchill

Aircraft Carrier Pilots? But they also face the probability of going over the deck into the ocean.

I'd call it a controlled crash, have you ever seen an AF jet next to a Navy one? Look at the difference in the landing gear. Or call it an approach minus the flare portion I remember a Marine F-18 pilot telling me they hit the deck at 800-1000 fpm.

[Minuteman]

Originally Posted by phoenix 23684

Hey doug maybe we just need to put a little wheel on the tail like the concord had

When a real man has a tailstrike it pops rivets, deforms stringers, cracks bulkheads and applies loads the airframe was never meant to take ... none of this nancy scrape-a-little-aluminum stuff.

[Doug Taylor]

Originally Posted by phoenix 23684

Hey doug maybe we just need to put a little wheel on the tail like the concord had

Many planes have a skid, but if the skids made contact with the surface, yo ace is in trouble.

Unless, of course, you want to payroll deduct the inspection expense!

"Hon! Why's your check so small?"

"Ex-wife's garnishing it! No, actually, I wanted to be cute and land a 727 like a Cessna.... Didn't work out the way I thought it would. Do you mind picking up a few hours down at the local diner?"

[B767Driver]

Originally Posted by phoenix 23684

So I was reading one of the responses to another tread about someone looking for help with their landing, why are we taught different techniques when landing a 172 vs an airliner.

Let me clarify, I know most of us have been taught to land a C-172, during our PPL, in such a way as to touch down ideally at the slowest speed or just as the horn comes on. Yet we move into part 121/135 and no longer the case, we just fly the profile and arrest the descent. When's the last time you'd seen a 747 hold it of the ground till the horn
My only theory comes from flying tail wheels; more specifically 3 point landings, where you just hold it of the ground at that attitude until it settles, basically the wings can no longer provide sufficient lift for at that angle and speed. Can this be just a residual of earlier school of thought when tails where the norms?
Yes, I have heard all the theories about why it's important to put it down as slow as possible and understand the dangers of trying to float an airliner, but really you could very well and perhaps easier to put/teach a light GA on the ground the same way we do it with the large ones, specially career students.

Thoughts?

On a side note has anyone flown a light GA after becoming an airline pilot, I have not yet, but I hear the first time it's scary specially on final due to the slower speed.

The landing techniques are not that much different.

Actually they are very similar.

I made a crosswind landing in Paris last week...during the flare I used opposite rudder, a little wing down. The upwind wheel touched, then the downwind...then the nose. Just like in my Warrior!!

Sure, you don't full stall a jet onto the runway but you still fly a target airspeed all the way to touchdown. You'll find yourself, in a jet, carrying a lot of power throughout final approach (and even just a few feet above the ground) but this is due to the very high wing loading of the jet.

However, the throttles are still closed at touchdown.

Many performance issues are tied into the "Vref" speed of a jet (tailstrikes, hard landings, excessive floats, squat switch activation)...and this necessitates that a jet is not fully stalled at touchdown. Because of these issues, Part 25 certified jets have many technical systems designed to overcome the extra touchdown speed...chiefly spoilers (but also thrust reversers and autobrakes)...that help the jet transition from a flying machine to a ground machine.

Because of the lighter wing loading of the single, smaller body length, etc...the smaller airplane can safely be flown much closer to the stalling speed upon landing...and should!!

There are no spoiler systems on most small airplanes to to increase drag and dump lift upon landing and during rolllout. You sure don't want the airplane producing lift...because it will want to fly!

I still fly single engine airplanes occasionally. The single biggest problem I have is carrying excessive speed and power at touchdown. I find that many times I need to close the throttle earlier in the landing flare...something I would never do while flying the 767.

So, the speed and power applications are a bit different between jets and singles...but the basics are the same.

The speed, power required and wing loading between the two types of airplanes are staggering in their differences. And this, IMO, is why small airplane pilots would not be able to "save" the day after the crew became incapacitated after eating some bad fish!

[nosehair]

Originally Posted by mojo6911

172 = Small piston trainer
Airliner = Airliner

Get it?

Private Pilot Training Course: $ 8,495.00

Career Professional Pilot Program: $87,695.00

Ability to slam a new pilot's honest questions: Priceless.

[Speed Pilot]

Originally Posted by nosehair

Private Pilot Training Course: $ 8,495.00

Career Professional Pilot Program: $87,695.00

Ability to slam a new pilot's honest questions: Priceless.

[JDMcFly]

8,495.00

[OldTownPilot]

Its not a 91 vs 121 thing its a low wing loading, straight wing light plane VS. swept wing, high wing loading, transport airplane.

If you had your own BBJ and flew it part 91 you would still fly a similar landing profile as "the big boys"

[Kingairer]

Originally Posted by Screaming_Emu

Two words...stick pusher

One word, Inhibited;-)

[ElyJs]

I get my students to hold it off because otherwise they would be slamming the nosewheel in at 70 knots and shooting off the side of the runway. The plane doesn't get into a nice nose high attitude till within 10 or so KIAS of stall. By the time you get to an airliner it seems like it would be the same, just don't land flat.

BTW VMC on landing without power? Back to the semenhole for some review!

-Jason
www.flyboulder.com

[RightSeatGirl]

I think, and I'm probably wrong, but it's a lot more simpler then has been explained thus far. Carrying extra speed in transport category aircraft gives a safety margin in consideration of the dozens of lives in the back. Does landing at Vref not make a go-around safer vs. landing at Vso? More speed means the aircraft will be more controllable and will respond quicker if some abrupt type of collision avoidance maneuver is required.

In consideration of this isn't the whole Vref thing FAR based in it's origins vs. manufacturer?

[BobDDuck]

Originally Posted by Kingairer

One word, Inhibited;-)

Not on the CRJ.

That bad boy will throw down all the way through the roll out and taxi to the gate.

[Baradium]

Originally Posted by Snuggle

I agree it's not safe or smart but it is possible, as you already know I land on speed.

Only if the plane is light. A 1900 light and slow and heavy and slow are two different animals in that regard...


Back to the thread,someone already brought it up. The reason you land a 172 differently is because it has a DIFFERENT WING!!!

If a 172 was a miniature 737 with a swept wing and all the fancy high lift devices, you'd land it like the big boys, but it's not! It's a straight, low speed, wing. If you keep it fast you are going to be closer to a three point and breaking an airplane.

This is a problem a lot of people seem to have with single engine pipers,they land really flat.

Once again, a 172 is not a 737. They are designed with different purposes and performance goals. That's why you don't land them the same... it's because they aren't.

[Bumblebee]

Originally Posted by BobDDuck

Not on the CRJ.

That bad boy will throw down all the way through the roll out and taxi to the gate.

Hey Ethan . . . how fast over the fence for a 200? 143kts? . . .
How about cruise on a Cessna? (I can't remember) 130?

[Bandit_Driver]

Originally Posted by Screaming_Emu

Two words...stick pusher

Stick shaker yes....Stick pusher - not all jets.