Are pilots graded on their landings?

boccy23

I was on a Ryanair flight last night from Milan. It was a hard landing and it go me thinking is there a grading given to pilots for their various landings with the elements taken into account?

ned14

Any landing you can walk away from is a good one. Any landing you can use the plane again is a great one.
On a more serious note, the FMC (Flight Management Computer) records the G-Force upon landing. If it exceeds a specified limit, the aircraft must be inspected and signed off before it is flown again. As for a grading, the only thing a pilot would get is a dirty look off the passengers when disembarking the aircraft.
Hard landings are common if there is a lot of surface water on the runway. These are intentional and allow the wheels to break through the water layer and prevent aqua-planing.

jjbrien

ned14 wrote: »

Any landing you can walk away from is a good one. Any landing you can use the plane again is a great one.
On a more serious note, the FMC (Flight Management Computer) records the G-Force upon landing. If it exceeds a specified limit, the aircraft must be inspected and signed off before it is flown again. As for a grading, the only thing a pilot would get is a dirty look off the passengers when disembarking the aircraft.
Hard landings are common if there is a lot of surface water on the runway. These are intentional and allow the wheels to break through the water layer and prevent aqua-planing.

Had a lot of very hard landings with Ryanair the last one I took last month into Birmingham the pilot was going way too fast way above the normal landing speed.

smurfjed

I took last month into Birmingham the pilot was going way too fast way above the normal landing speed.

How did you measure the speed?

faoiarvok

jjbrien wrote: »

Had a lot of very hard landings with Ryanair the last one I took last month into Birmingham the pilot was going way too fast way above the normal landing speed.

I believe pilots of 737-800s are trained to make firm contact as it reduces the risks of tail strike which are increased by the stretched fuselage.

The landing will also be done in a pretty limited range of airspeeds, but ground speed will vary based on how much of a headwind/tailwind there is on the day.

jjbrien

smurfjed wrote: »

How did you measure the speed?

Just visually landing speed for a 737-800 is 155 knots it looked like they were in excess of this and lead to very hard breaking on the runway. We stopped just short of the runway end.

faoiarvok wrote: »

I believe pilots of 737-800s are trained to make firm contact as it reduces the risks of tail strike which are increased by the stretched fuselage.

The landing will also be done in a pretty limited range of airspeeds, but ground speed will vary based on how much of a headwind/tailwind there is on the day.

Well as i said above they almost ran out of runway on this landing the breaks were very hard.

Tenger

jjbrien wrote: »

Just visually landing speed for a 737-800 is 155 knots it looked like they were in excess of this and lead to very hard breaking on the runway. We stopped just short of the runway end.



Well as i said above they almost ran out of runway on this landing the breaks were very hard.

What would your eyeball estimate of the speed be? 160 kts, or maybe 165 kts?

Did you see the end of the runaway as you turned off? Can you estimate how much was left as they took the exit?
Perhaps the brakes were used with gusto in an effort to make the best turnoff for a short taxi onto stand?

smurfjed

As faoiarvok pointed out above, the B737-800 needs to be landed with a limited flare to avoid tailstrikes, the more that they attempt the flare, the slower that they become and they will hit the tail at an angle that is 3 degrees less than the -700.  


As for your talent of being able to measure speed visually, I sincerely doubt that you are able.
I will add that the -700 has a 40 kt range of V-speeds for VREF based on weight, not to mention wind additives or performance additives for various issues, I would assume that the -800 has a similar VREF range.

endacl

jjbrien wrote: »

Just visually landing speed for a 737-800 is 155 knots it looked like they were in excess of this and lead to very hard breaking on the runway.

Did you visually assess headwind? That'd be some skill!

goingnowhere

The 737-800 is a pain due the combination of a long fuselage and a short landing gear as Boeing try to convince the world the 737 is still the same as the 1960's 737-100. 'Make firm contact with the runway'. Also significant in poor conditions to trigger brakes, spoilers and reverse thrust as soon as possible.

If you exceed the G limit then its an inspection and possibly a chat with management.

Depending on the airline the aircraft may have a QAR fitted and that logs a huge amount of data so if you are a heavy lander you likely will be identified in time.

Of course what happens if the autopilos messes up an autoland, who you blame, had a heavy one with EI on a 320 recently, bounced and AP only came out half way down 28 in Dublin

Simon Gruber Says

Flew before on a 737-900 in the states. It's an even longer version than the -800. Combination of that and snow lead to a rather firm landing. It was by no means a hard landing, but some passengers would have considered it one.

Nonoperational

jjbrien wrote: »

Had a lot of very hard landings with Ryanair the last one I took last month into Birmingham the pilot was going way too fast way above the normal landing speed.

No more than any other airlines, and 99% of those "hard landings" were perfectly normal.

duskyjoe

I genuinely have never read so much horse dung and balderdash from the resident arm chair bandits here...... " just visually the landing speeding of a 737-800 is 155kts" ......where is the guidance to come up with an informed opinion for this visual assessment? Pure and utter drivel....
Mr Boeing will also certainly disagree.

Tenger

To be fair Joe, there is only one poster claiming that they can visually assess a landing speed as "....above 155kts"

cml387

I have a relation who is a pilot with Stobart, he told me they have an unofficial competition for the best greaser.

Henry Ford III

The only place pilots get graded on their landings is on an aircraft carrier.

boccy23

Henry Ford III wrote: »

The only place pilots get graded on their landings is on an aircraft carrier.

Yeah, I know this and wondered whether commercial pilots were graded similarly.

smurfjed

No boccy23, they are not. In most cases the aircraft will record hard landings above certain limits, these will be transmitted to the airline or downloaded on a regular basis as part of the airlines flight data monitoring program. Otherwise landings are not graded nor even recorded.

And as Duskyjoe has nicely pointed out, it's impossible for a passenger or even the guy in the left seat to judge speed by eyeball.

martinsvi

weeelll.. technically.. :rolleyes: if you know the distance from M1 to runway threshold, with a stop watch you could work out the ground speed...

I think we're giving jjbrien a hard time, if you're a frequent flier on a specific type, you don't really have to have super powers to tell that ground is passing by a bit quicker than it typically does

as for the man in the left seat, sure enough doesn't work for fast jets, but any GA pilot should be able to make a safe approach and landing without the airspeed indication (case of a blocked pitot for example), purely by watching RPMs, nose attitude and yes - eyeballing how quickly the runway is coming towards you

smurfjed

Did you miss the part where Jjbrien said that then approach speed was a constant value of 155kts?

If someone has a stopwatch and knows an exact distance then the maths Is easy, but how many passengers carry stopwatches or open that App on their phones ?

smurfjed

double,posting

martinsvi

smurfjed wrote: »

Did you miss the part where Jjbrien said that then approach speed was a constant value of 155kts?

If someone has a stopwatch and knows an exact distance then the maths Is easy, but how many passengers carry stopwatches or open that App on their phones ?

I don't think that's what he said. I think he meant that typically b737 approaches at 155kt (is that gs or ias I wonder?) and this time it visually appeared faster..

I wouldn't go crazy over it anyway, let's be positive about it

martinsvi

cml387 wrote: »

I have a relation who is a pilot with Stobart, he told me they have an unofficial competition for the best greaser.

I have to say, one of the last flights I did with Stobart the landing was the smoothest ever.. How do they determine the winner I wonder?

smurfjed

Typically a B737 will approach at a speed based on weight and altitude combined with whatever additives are required. He has no idea of the planned speed for that day nor the actual speed.

martinsvi

smurfjed wrote: »

Typically a B737 will approach at a speed based on weight and altitude combined with whatever additives are required. He has no idea of the planned speed for that day nor the actual speed.

sigh, I know. Wouldn't it be great thou if you didn't have to calculate Vref for every landing? And those pesky mass and balance trim sheets..

smurfjed

With the exception of time/fuel, nothing is measured in GROUND,SPEED.

smurfjed

VREF is done but the FMS, so nothing to calculated

Bazzy

Stop , he's talking about a certain airline who hit the planes onto the runway as hard as they can to get more people on board quickly

If ever there was a ryanair bashing thread this is it

L1011

Bazzy wrote: »

Stop , he's talking about a certain airline who hit the planes onto the runway as hard as they can to get more people on board quickly

If ever there was a ryanair bashing thread this is it

Ryanair's landings are within guidelines; if not actually meeting specific recommendations for landing from the manufacturer, yet you are accusing the thread of being "Ryanair bashing" while making unfounded accusations about their SOPs?