Airline Greasers

spiderweb

spiderweb

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
9,488
Display Name
Display name:
Ben
I fly the airlines (unfortunately) about 20 trips a year. Almost every landing ranges from "heavy thud" to "smack down." Those airline pilots, as we all well know, fly nearly every day.

Now to GA: I and the pilots with whom I've flown usually get a far higher percentage of smooth landings, and definitely more greasers. Except for the CFIs, we do NOT fly every day.

So, I guess airliners are just too hard to land smoothly. Maybe Boeings and Airbuses should be equip their landing gear with some sort of memory-foam inserts! :rofl:
 
You get mostly FO legs I bet although I've been through a few more than solid captain landings as well. I have had a few greasers though from the guys that actually learned to land a small plane before being brainwashed into driving on every landing.
 
How much extra pay do you receive for your greasers? How much extra do you think big-iron pilots make? Do you think they're more likely to bust a check ride by making a less-than-wonderful landing where they're supposed to land or by nursing it a few hundred yards farther to get a squeaker?

spiderweb said:
I fly the airlines (unfortunately) about 20 trips a year. Almost every landing ranges from "heavy thud" to "smack down." Those airline pilots, as we all well know, fly nearly every day.

Now to GA: I and the pilots with whom I've flown usually get a far higher percentage of smooth landings, and definitely more greasers. Except for the CFIs, we do NOT fly every day.

So, I guess airliners are just too hard to land smoothly. Maybe Boeings and Airbuses should be equip their landing gear with some sort of memory-foam inserts! :rofl:
Click to expand...
 
Henning said:
You get mostly FO legs I bet although I've been through a few more than solid captain landings as well. I have had a few greasers though from the guys that actually learned to land a small plane before being brainwashed into driving on every landing.
Click to expand...

I have experienced the occasional greaser. Usually it is on an international flight.
 
Here's what happens when it's gusty and you don't plant it and get the auto-spoilers to deploy...


I think I'll happily leave it up to Frick and Frack up front in the pointy part of the airplane to decide how hard they wish to land, and where.
 
How much extra pay does an aviator get when he greases an F-18 onto a carrier deck?
 
A "greaser" usually eats up more runway; the longer one "holds it off" the more runway gets eaten up.

Some large airplanes land easier than others. In the 727, a greaser landing is more a matter of luck. In the 747, I've had a lot of landings in which I didn't know the airplane was on the ground until the autospoilers deployed and I saw the spoiler handle move. I've also had a number of them that were "firm."

One is usually better off planting it than floating and looking for smoothness.

The feel that you get in a light airplane isn't necessarily there in a large airplane.

Particularly large airplanes use enough landing distance as it is, that adding additional distance may not be conducive to safety. I've had a lot of landings in which the calculated distance was greater than ten thousand feet, with a minimum autobrake setting. The more runway gets eaten up, the greater the chance of requiring a higher brake setting, which means hotter brakes, which affects turn-around time (can't go flying again until the brakes are cooled).

On slick runways, especially slick runways with a crosswind, planting the airplane a little more firmly is usually a better choice than trying to hold it off and grease it on.
 
Lack of craftsmanship IMHO, a greaser does not take up a inch of more room if done right.
 
DouglasBader said:
...One is usually better off planting it than floating and looking for smoothness...
Click to expand...

True dat. Greasers are overrated and will continue to be so as long as folks' egos are stroked by those who don't fly. The message is usually made when the airport fence at the departure end of the runway is used for braking.
 
DouglasBader said:
Uh-huh. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Maybe folks should get a better feel for their A/C, it's just energy management. I strive for the shortest and smoothest landings I can, even when I'm running a empty leg.

Good enough, aint good enough for me... you maybe? ...not me. BESIDES whats the fun in slamming rubber to runway :dunno:
 
An airline person explained it to me as "an airplane is made for flying or driving. It isn't good to keep them lingering in between. When it is no longer completely in the flying mode, get it into the driving mode.
 
Henning said:
You get mostly FO legs I bet although I've been through a few more than solid captain landings as well. I have had a few greasers though from the guys that actually learned to land a small plane before being brainwashed into driving on every landing.
Click to expand...


The idea that captains land better than FOs is laughable. I've seen incredibly bad and incredibly good landings from pilots in both seats.


A smooth landing in an airliner can really depend on the airplane. 777s and A330s make for incredibly smooth landings. So does the A320 IMO. The 737 is much more firm. A 757 does a pretty good job but you better be aligned when you touch down, especially in the -300 model with it's stretched fuse, or you'll really feel the plane swing around as it's straightening out. The 767 series is an oddball with it the geometry of the landing gear. It tilts forward/down rather than up/aft and can make for a "stubbed toe" sensation when touching down. Not to mention the -400 is stiff. Which brings us to another point. A lot of these planes are stretched versions of the original. They don't handle the same as the original design. A stretched 737 or 767 can be coming down final at up to around 150+kts depending on the circumstances. You just don't have that much room to play with trying to get a greaser. I usually give myself about to the count of two to get a greaser and then I will just set it down. While I always try for a nice landing and honestly I'm almost always successful (thank you 777), landing the airplane safely in the touchdown zone and getting stopped is much more important than pleasing the peanut gallery in the back. Not to mention even if it's a nice long runway and we have plenty of room we A) need to be down in the touchdown zone or it's a go around and B) while we "own the runway", we are part of a big picture and if we take longer than "normal" on the runway it can send the guy behind us around. Professional courtesy says get off the runway.


Now here's what a greaser looks like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lowrM-780tg
 
Same is true in the GA fleet. Citation V's have single-strut mains that are quite firm and transmit most surface irregularities directly to the frames of the passenger seats--or so it seems. Later versions of the same airframe are equipped with trailing link gear that make life better for the pax and easier for the GIF's.

Rex Kramer said:
The idea that captains land better than FOs is laughable. I've seen incredibly bad and incredibly good landings from pilots in both seats.


A smooth landing in an airliner can really depend on the airplane.
Click to expand...
 
I've had several of compliments from passengers on landings I thought were far from greasy. It seems everyone is used to commercial jets slamming down.
 
I thought when they slammed down I had an ex Navy pilot ;)
 
wabower said:
Later versions of the same airframe are equipped with trailing link gear that make life better for the pax and easier for the GIF's.
Click to expand...
My landings have improved considerably since I moved to an airplane with trailing link gear. :D
 
Yeah, I noticed that your performance evals are much better these days.:wink2:
Everskyward said:
My landings have improved considerably since I moved to an airplane with trailing link gear. :D
Click to expand...
 
I agree with Doug. Flying a jet, get it on the ground so that the spoilers and reversers can do their thing. Greasers are over-rated.

Bob Gardner
 
Fearless Tower said:
There are no greasers in carrier ops.....they are called bolters.

/QUOTE]

My point exactly.

I really don't give a damn whether I grease it on or not anymore. It really isn't that big of a deal.
Click to expand...
 
My landings are smooth. With that being said, they are supposed to be "firm" to dissapate energy down instead of transitioning it forward for the reversers/brakes to handle.

< 4,000 runways we go back to firm to achieve advertised landing distances. We have the same pitch attitude from FAF to touchdown, zero flare.
 
Last edited:
spiderweb said:
I fly the airlines (unfortunately) about 20 trips a year. Almost every landing ranges from "heavy thud" to "smack down." Those airline pilots, as we all well know, fly nearly every day.

Now to GA: I and the pilots with whom I've flown usually get a far higher percentage of smooth landings, and definitely more greasers. Except for the CFIs, we do NOT fly every day.

So, I guess airliners are just too hard to land smoothly. Maybe Boeings and Airbuses should be equip their landing gear with some sort of memory-foam inserts! :rofl:
Click to expand...

20 trips a year? Your experience could be influenced by where you fly. Do you fly out of a short (for airliners) runways like MDW or something? My experience is vastly different from yours. I find most (incredibly) hard landings come from the GA folks I fly with. Although, my experience might be influenced too.

:)
 
Smoooooothest airline landing ever was in a Frontier 'bus with a bad wheel. Mechanics were busy before all pax were off. Aircraft was supposed to continue to somewhere but instead all folks had to leave. Anyway, the landing was long, missed the 1,000 ft marks by at least 500' but it was as gentle as could be. Second smoooothest had to be in a Delta 727 in Vienna. It was so smoooth that I still remember it.

Roughest landings? Me learning to land a 172! The gear make the neatest "sprong" sound when ya bounce them just right...

The Frankenkota is pretty easy to land smooothly. At least I haven't pushed the struts up through the wing yet. Oleos are nice...if ya can't have trailing link.
 
spiderweb said:
I fly the airlines (unfortunately) about 20 trips a year. Almost every landing ranges from "heavy thud" to "smack down." Those airline pilots, as we all well know, fly nearly every day.

Now to GA: I and the pilots with whom I've flown usually get a far higher percentage of smooth landings, and definitely more greasers. Except for the CFIs, we do NOT fly every day.

So, I guess airliners are just too hard to land smoothly. Maybe Boeings and Airbuses should be equip their landing gear with some sort of memory-foam inserts! :rofl:
Click to expand...

I know there are jet pilots who have already responded, but see if you can get your hands on a copy of "Takeoffs and Landings" by Leighton Collins and read the section "The Airlines' Approach" in chapter 8. In it he discusses jet "no flare" landings and noted:

"At any rate, the big jets do hit hard much of the time, or at least hard if you're sitting over the wheels rather than in the nose. On one of my few domestic airline flights, to Alaska a year or so ago, I didn't see a soft landing anywhere along the line. They were all very much on the hard side, some alarmingly so. Which tells me that the big ones, while maybe less so with their higher approach speeds, are still subject to the atmospheric ups and downs that our small airplanes experience in exaggerated forms."
 
Captain said:
20 trips a year? Your experience could be influenced by where you fly. Do you fly out of a short (for airliners) runways like MDW or something? My experience is vastly different from yours. I find most (incredibly) hard landings come from the GA folks I fly with. Although, my experience might be influenced too.

:)
Click to expand...

I fly everywhere, including internationally. I probably experience a smooth touchdown two or three times a year.
 
spiderweb said:
I fly everywhere, including internationally. I probably experience a smooth touchdown two or three times a year.
Click to expand...

Well I don't know what to say. Maybe our idea of 'smooth' is different. Except you stated your GA landings are 'smooth' so I'm befuddled.

Have I ever seen a hard 121 landing? Sure. Once or twice per 1,000. It's near 80% for GA though. And I use the same criteria for both...would I even 'consider' writing up the plane as a pax. Airliners do much better in my experience.
 
Maybe folks should get a better feel for their A/C, it's just energy management. I strive for the shortest and smoothest landings I can, even when I'm running a empty leg.

Good enough, aint good enough for me... you maybe? ...not me. BESIDES whats the fun in slamming rubber to runway
Click to expand...

Maybe you're not flying heavy aircraft.

Typical landing distances as calculated are usually close to published runway length. Adding finesse isn't always a good idea.
 
DouglasBader said:
Maybe you're not flying heavy aircraft.

Typical landing distances as calculated are usually close to published runway length. Adding finesse isn't always a good idea.
Click to expand...


Most are turbines and piston just under 12500.

Im not a 121 airline guy, however my experience with many of those guys has been less then impressive...
 
Small aircraft, then.

You're making statements about landing large transport category aircraft, as authoritative.

It's clear you don't. Do you think that perhaps some difference may exist between what you fly in a light airplane, and what others fly in the 830,000 lb range, perhaps?

When you get into a large airplane, energy management takes on a whole new meaning.

As for stopping in the shortest distance possible, try that at max gross weight in Kandahar and getting a short turn, with hot brakes. Not happening.
 
wabower said:
How much extra pay do you receive for your greasers? How much extra do you think big-iron pilots make? Do you think they're more likely to bust a check ride by making a less-than-wonderful landing where they're supposed to land or by nursing it a few hundred yards farther to get a squeaker?
Click to expand...

Perhaps they could deviate below glideslope just a bit in good VFR conditions and manage a little flare while still hitting the touchdown markers.

I know the feeling of just wanting to get it on the ground and go home after a long day of flying and i'm sure the airline pilot experiences this a lot more than I. However these guys are aviators and i'd think it strange for them not to take a little pride in their work
 
Last edited:
Perhaps they could deviate below glideslope just a bit in good VFR conditions and manage a little flare while still hitting the touchdown markers.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but that would be illegal and unsafe, to say nothing of nonstandard in a world where standardization is everything.

I know the feeling of just wanting to get it on the ground and go home after a long day of flying and i'm sure the airline pilot experiences this a lot more than I. However these guys are aviators and i'd think it strange for them not to take a little pride in their work
Click to expand...

Who says that aviators flying transport category aircraft don't take pride in our work?

Pride doesn't excuse deviations below the glide path.

You'll find very few large airplane pilots who will tell you that the "greaser" is anything more than luck.
 
DouglasBader said:
Perhaps, but that would be illegal and unsafe, to say nothing of nonstandard in a world where standardization is everything.



Who says that aviators flying transport category aircraft don't take pride in our work?

Pride doesn't excuse deviations below the glide path.

You'll find very few large airplane pilots who will tell you that the "greaser" is anything more than luck.
Click to expand...

I'm not terribly familiar with 121 flying and I beg your pardon

I would guess the company manual for a visual approach states the requirement for a stabilized approach. Is there a big problem for a pilot to make a normal stabilized approach but aim for the numbers, then flare a bit and try to make a smooth touchdown on the td markers? Instead of driving it on to the TD markers like a robot.

That's what the pilot in the video rex posted did.
 
Last edited:
I would guess the company manual for a visual approach states the requirement for a stabilized approach. Is there a big problem for a pilot to make a normal stabilized approach but aim for the numbers, then flare a bit and try to make a smooth touchdown on the td markers? Instead of driving it on to the TD markers like a robot.

That's what the pilot in the video rex posted did.
Click to expand...

Out of that video you saw the pilot descend below an electronic glideslope, aim for the numbers, then flare, rather than flying the glideslope down? You've got some real insight there, because I didn't see that at all.

Who "drives it on to the TD markers like a robot?"

The requirement for large aircraft to remain above the electronic glidepath is regulatory. It's also standard.

There's a lot of airplane hanging down behind the flight deck when passing over the fence on the glidepath. Deviating below the glidepath is a bad idea.

Obviously flaring is accomplished prior to touchdown. We have a limit of 600 fpm at max landing weight, and 300 fpm at max takeoff weight, for a descent rate on touchdown. However, seeking a "greaser" is not the goal; a safe landing in the prescribed distance is.

I don't know what the TOLD data (takeoff and landing data) calculations were for the aircraft in the video that you reference, and can't say how much extra runway he had to play with.

One of my last landings had 470' margin between what was calculated, and the total runway length. That equates to very little floating or holding it off, before that margin is gone, especially at 180 knots touchdown groundspeed. That's about 1.5 seconds of holding it off, and the landing calculations are out the window; the remaining runway is then insufficient for the calculated data. How long does one hold it off under such circumstances while trying to achieve a "greaser?"
 
Franklin, your first sentence remove all credit to your second paragraph.

We do what we do for safety. Going for the numbers removes the safety and whole idea of a touch down zone.

Its not an IFR touch down zone, its an always touch down zone.
 
I've never flown anything that would be considered as "heavy" (The 130H has a max landing weight of 130K) But I will second the statements here about standardization of approach profiles and adherence to procedure. Inertia is inertia is inertia. When you get some weight sliding towards the center of the Earth it is a good idea to keep it under control. Extrapolating a technique one might get away with in a GA machine to something orders of magnitude heavier is not a great idea. If it turns out that you get a squeak instead of a bump then goodie for you.
 
Captain said:
Well I don't know what to say. Maybe our idea of 'smooth' is different. Except you stated your GA landings are 'smooth' so I'm befuddled.

Have I ever seen a hard 121 landing? Sure. Once or twice per 1,000. It's near 80% for GA though. And I use the same criteria for both...would I even 'consider' writing up the plane as a pax. Airliners do much better in my experience.
Click to expand...

I might just be having a run of bad luck!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top