Ses -

 

http://www.b737.org.uk/vspeeds.htm

 

you might want to look at this before you spout generalities about landing configuration.

 

You are painting his situation with a broad brush - that could get you killed IRL.

 

Since none of US know exactly what his configuration and wind speed was, we cannot make any judgements about his speed OTHER than if he was floating he was too fast FOR THE SITUATION.

 

Vic

I was right on the money...  Most commercial flights are maxed to that top tier and ok..they publish 152..so I'll knock off 3 knots. LOL.   I was right....and I always fly my tubes  manually, 10 miles out from the outer marker, to keep my pilot skills up...and not be a 'constipated' FMC, fly-wire babysitter.  FMC and auto throttle is not an option on my flight deck.  My passengers have the pilot, flying that bird, and in his control.....at taking off, and landing.   The guy up front is flying....and will get you to your gate.   The only exception on my flight deck, is a CAT 3 approach....  There has been too much removal of the actual cockpit crew as being involved in actually flying manually..., and in flight crew-control of the plane...and we are paying for it with our lives...   Just wait, until in the next three years, people are texting and phoning, and reading a magazine...or playing checkers...as their car's RMC (route management computer) 'cruises' them to their destination.  Oh, the lawsuits then....  OH...and you can not get 'killed' in bringing the bird down at the highest knot-to-weight spec published in your guideline.  No...for you have built-in headroom, for you to make adjustments and decisions to the numbers.  Relying on a lower approach speed, removes all the headroom above that published rating up to the 153 knots...and I would not want to be there.  Yes..my comment was for a 'broad brush' and mean average landing weight.    I was over by 3 knots...and so...am bad...way baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.  Personally, I'll be happy for the pilot to be 3 knots higher than lower...but hey...I want to get down alive...and that's just me....    I agree with you...he was in his vid, floating...and that prompted my initial comment about a 737's commercial mean average approach speed F(fe) before the flare and retard...., for I had no idea what his flare out knots occurred at....     Oh in final comment, --what you said about 'that could get you killed'....what can get you killed, is a crew that has lost its intuitive edge, lost the feel of the aircraft, and are relying totally on published numbers for every conceivable event....but just not the one they are dealing with.... and in hours of just sitting there monitoring flight ops,as things buzz and click around them.... have lost the core 1960's era '707' 'old-boy' flying skill to deal with it.. Just my opinion... In the 60's and the 70's...you TRULY had a flight crew trained to fly the craft they held tickets for....from lift off , to flare...but today?   Very, very...scary........

Please check to assure Egg to Nog ratio is within normal limits.

 

And Merry Christmas

 

Hook

I don't mean to be a prig, but why did the conversation change from comparing Weather 'Injectors', to critiquing someone's ability to land an aircraft and their knowledge in doing the same?

 

I thought the Video was demonstrating Weather Effects, not the quality of the Landing.

 

Please check to assure Egg to Nog ratio is within normal limits.

 

And Merry Christmas

 

Hook

Larry..now THAT was funny... ))))   Thumb's up...yep...how many crews flying today's comptuer conrolled birds...are into it...  Heck, you need to do SOMETHING with those four hours, right?  "Want some more egg nog?  Nah...you got anything harder?  Yeah...right here in my flight  bag...give me your glass..."

 

"Man...what is that?!?!  Good stuff.....that makes this flight... Parrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrteeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. Hey..you wanna bring the cabin crew in for a snort?"

 

"Nah...we could really catch (#((# for that!"

 

"OK...let's keep this in house....here's my glass...I need another hit.....hey..did I just see Philly down there below us?!?!?"  Ah who cares....the Cattle can catch another connection....".....

I don't mean to be a prig, but why did the conversation change from comparing Weather 'Injectors', to critiquing someone's ability to land an aircraft and their knowledge in doing the same?

 

I thought the Video was demonstrating Weather Effects, not the quality of the Landing.

 

Oh man...we never critiqued with a frown, his ability. I was just indicating for his future flights, perhaps try 155 as the target speed.  It was never BIg Daddy looking at it..

This is what's great about the forums...that we read and learn...perhaps do something as suggested by a fellow forum member...and enjoy...

 

You're not a prig....and you're right...back to regular scheduled  programming...   I was more focused on waiting for that bird to touch down...before concrete gave way to grass and snow...  ))))  Happy Holidays!

Ses - too bad my point went right over your head. SO you are saying that if, according to the chart, he was configured to land at 107 and YOU tell him 155 - he's not in trouble?

 

my point was - YOU have NO clue as to what his weight, etc was during that approach. Had you been able to determine same AND if it fit the landing chart, then 155 would be correct. Do you not see the difference? The whole purpose of the charts are because with different winds and different weights the landing speed will be different, so you can NOT just say try 155 - well, you can, this IS a sim after all but that's my point. Lot's of a/c have overrun the runway for the exact same reason - any yes, it CAN get you killed.

 

You get last shot - I have presents to wrap!!

 

Merry Christmas!

 

Vic

I was right on the money...  Most commercial flights are maxed to that top tier and ok..they publish 152..so I'll knock off 3 knots. LOL.   I was right....and I always fly my tubes  manually, 10 miles out from the outer marker, to keep my pilot skills up...and not be a 'constipated' FMC, fly-wire babysitter.  FMC and auto throttle is not an option on my flight deck.  My passengers have the pilot, flying that bird, and in his control.....at taking off, and landing.   The guy up front is flying....and will get you to your gate.   The only exception on my flight deck, is a CAT 3 approach....  There has been too much removal of the actual cockpit crew as being involved in actually flying manually..., and in flight crew-control of the plane...and we are paying for it with our lives...   Just wait, until in the next three years, people are texting and phoning, and reading a magazine...or playing checkers...as their car's RMC (route management computer) 'cruises' them to their destination.  Oh, the lawsuits then....  OH...and you can not get 'killed' in bringing the bird down at the highest knot-to-weight spec published in your guideline.  No...for you have built-in headroom, for you to make adjustments and decisions to the numbers.  Relying on a lower approach speed, removes all the headroom above that published rating up to the 153 knots...and I would not want to be there.  Yes..my comment was for a 'broad brush' and mean average landing weight.    I was over by 3 knots...and so...am bad...way baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.  Personally, I'll be happy for the pilot to be 3 knots higher than lower...but hey...I want to get down alive...and that's just me....    I agree with you...he was in his vid, floating...and that prompted my initial comment about a 737's commercial mean average approach speed F(fe) before the flare and retard...., for I had no idea what his flare out knots occurred at....     Oh in final comment, --what you said about 'that could get you killed'....what can get you killed, is a crew that has lost its intuitive edge, lost the feel of the aircraft, and are relying totally on published numbers for every conceivable event....but just not the one they are dealing with.... and in hours of just sitting there monitoring flight ops,as things buzz and click around them.... have lost the core 1960's era '707' 'old-boy' flying skill to deal with it.. Just my opinion... In the 60's and the 70's...you TRULY had a flight crew trained to fly the craft they held tickets for....from lift off , to flare...but today?   Very, very...scary........

 

You still have no idea here.  Yes, commercial aircraft seek to fly the greatest revenue, which indirectly means greatest load, but you have no idea what his landing weight was.  Even assuming maximum payload, you have no idea what his landing weight would be.  He could have just taken the NG through a 5 hour flight starting at MTOW, but burned off 35-40k in fuel and is now relatively light.  And passenger weight is only  half the situation.  Some flights get a lot of cargo weight, others don't.

 

NG's with Vrefs of 135-140 is fairly common.  Additionally, even at 155, you would not in fact expect him to be stalling at 137 kts.  Boeing reference speeds are stall speed + 30%.  So even at 155 kts, stall would be down about 120 kts. 

 

And flying at the heights "kts to weight" ratio (your post is the first I've even seen such a ratio can be dangerous.  Why not land at Vne?  You want to touch down with as little energy as safely possible because you need to stop on the runway once you're down.  Because of the relationship of velocity to kinetic energy, even the seemingly small difference of 137 to 155 kts gives you about 30% more energy for the same weight.  That's a lot of extra work on the braking systems.

 

Your attack on published numbers is unfounded.  Go back and look at the QRH's for your fabled 707 and you'll still see all of your Vspeeds you see on an automated aircraft today.  You have to rely on these data because they are what keeps you safe.  And I agree piloting skill is important, but seat of your pants flying isn't going to replace fundamental physics where these speeds are based.  You need both.

Guys... guys... just have some eggnog.  With everyone on the same page, we should all be in the right spirit.  Best to continue after the hangover wears off some time in January.

 

Hook

Put some rum in that nog Hook and I'm all for it!!

 

Happy Holidays to all!

 

Vic

You can't make eggnog without breaking the seal on a few bottles of rum. 

 

Hook

6 quarts eggnog

2 5ths Puerto Rican Rum

2 cans whipped cream (emptied under the liquid

sprinkle nutmeg on top as necessary

 

drink - forget about driving - you may have trouble walking to the car!

 

Vic

737-700 (real one or PMDG one) with 2800kg of fuel at landing and 15kg of bags for every passenger and only 800kg extra cargo (bags of air mail "Express envelopes - paper only", nothing else) , 2 seats spare in the cabin...

 

a vref of 132kts flap 30 isn't unheard of. Vref + 5 = 137kts.

 

Approach speed (set in the window) would be 137kts (steady/light wind)

touchdown speed should be 132kts (thrust to idle at 30ft and flare attitude.)

 

the 737-800 tends to be a bit faster on approach (obviously, because it's heavier), but a Vref of 134 knots flap 40 isn't unheard of when it's light (say, 130 passengers with 15kg bags each, no extra cargo and 2800kg fuel at landing)

The airline that I have had the most to do with in Australia has a standard config of flap 40 on landing for the 737-800. I hear other airlines will usually go for flap 30. It's a SOP thing. Both configurations are valid depending on weather and runway situations.

(I mention this because I know I've seen some weird comments made to me before like "If you use flap 40 on a 737-800 the wings will fall off and Boeing will personally come around to your house and kill you for suggesting that any airline has ever used flap 40 for anything other than an emergency where they had to glide-land to a 20 foot long runway." - even though it's Standard operating procedure for "Normal landings" for several airlines which was approved by Boeing and the Civil Aviation Authorities and ICAO.)

 

As I already have ActiveSky 2012, I am more likely to get ActiveSky Next than other products. I still havn't made the purchase yet, once I get my paycheck from work (with the "Worked Christmas Day and Boxing Day and New Years day" extra money on it) I will have a bit of a think about it.

Ses - too bad my point went right over your head. SO you are saying that if, according to the chart, he was configured to land at 107 and YOU tell him 155 - he's not in trouble?

 

my point was - YOU have NO clue as to what his weight, etc was during that approach. Had you been able to determine same AND if it fit the landing chart, then 155 would be correct. Do you not see the difference? The whole purpose of the charts are because with different winds and different weights the landing speed will be different, so you can NOT just say try 155 - well, you can, this IS a sim after all but that's my point. Lot's of a/c have overrun the runway for the exact same reason - any yes, it CAN get you killed.

 

You get last shot - I have presents to wrap!!

 

Merry Christmas!

 

Vic

Lol...a most Merry Christmas to you and yours, Vic!