Make Better Landings

256 Pages·1982·9.587 MB·English

by  Alan Bramson

Make
Better Landings
-Alan Bramson, FRAcS
Chairman of the Panel of Examiners
Liveryman of the Guild of Air Pilots and Air Navigators
Illustrations and photographs by the author
VAN NOSTRAND REINHOLD COMPANY
NEW YORK CINCINNATI TORONTO LONDON MELBOURNE
For Miriam
Copyright © 1982 by Alan Bramson
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 82-2754
ISBN 0—442-21308-5
All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by the copyright hereon
may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means — graphic, electronic,
or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or information
storage and retrieval systems — without written permission of the publisher.
Printed in Belgium
Published in the United States in 1982
by Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc.
135 West 50th Street
New York, NY 10020, U.S.A.
First published in the United Kingdom in 1982
by Martin Dunitz Ltd, London
16 15 14 13 12 11 10987654321
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Bramson, Alan Ellesmere.
Make better landings.
Includes index.
1. Airplanes—Landing. I. Title.
TL711.L3B75 629.132'5213 82-2754
ISBN 0—442—21308-5 AACR2
Contents
Acknowledgements ..................5
Abbreviations .....................6
Preface ................. 0000002227
1. The problem that provoked this book 10
2. The engine-assisted approach
and landing ....................19
Revision, 18
Flying the approach, 31
The round-out, 44
The hold-off, 47
The landing roll, 57
The landing process summarized, 61
Missed-approach action, 64
Landing at night, 65
g. Glide, flapless and other abnormal
landings .......................68
The glide approach and landing, 69
The flapless approach and landing, 84
Wake turbulence, 96
The asymmetric approach and landing, 99
4. Crosswind landings ............. 101
The crosswind problem, 101
Crosswinds and the circuit pattern, 103
The crosswind approach and landing, 108
5- Short-field landings .............117
The need for short landings, 118
Aircraft landing performance, 119
Airfield suitability, 121
The short-field landing procedure, 125
6. Tailwheel techniques ............142
The special demands of tailwheel design, 144
Handling techniques, 148
Landing a tailwheel aircraft, 153
The effects of wind on handling tailwheel aircraft,
161
7. Landing turboprop aircraft ...... .163
Turboprop engines, 163
Handling turboprop engines, 169
The approach, 176
The landing, 182
8. Landing jet aircraft .............188
Jet engines, 188
Handling jet engines, 194
The special characteristics of jet aircraft, 196
The approach, 208
The landing, 211
g- Landing on contaminated surfaces . .218
Standing water and aquaplaning, 218
Slush, snow and ice, 225
Landing on skis, 235
Appendix: Landing accident statistics .248
Index...........................250
Acknowledgements
My thanks to the Aviation Safety Bureau, Transport Canada, the South
African Department of Transport, the Director of Aviation Safety at the
US Federal Aviation Administration, The Air Safety Investigation De-
partment of Australia and the UK Civil Aviation Authority for providing
details of accidents during the approach and landing phase for inclusion
in the appendix to this book.
I am grateful to Captain P. Dallosso and Training First Officer T.
Carver for their valued advice on landing swept wing Jets.
For expert advice on the specialist activity of ski flying I have been
fortunate in obtaining the valued help of Giles Kershaw, a young airline
pilot who since 1974 has spent most winters flying a Twin Otter in
support of the British Antarctic and Transglobe Expeditions.
And finally I am happy to acknowledge that the idea ofa book devoted
to the various problems of landing was that of Martin Dunitz who kindly
invited me to write Make Better Landings. My thanks to him and his
splendid team.
Abbreviations
agl above ground level driving turbine on a
ASI Airspeed Indicator turboprop or the gas
ATC Air Traffic Control generator turbine on a fanjet
CAA Civil Aviation Authority OAT Outside Air Temperature
CAS Calibrated Airspeed PAPI Precision Approach Slope
(American term. See RAS) Indicator
CofG Centre of Gravity PPL Private Pilot’s Licence
DG Directional Gyro (American psi pounds per square inch
term) ODM Magnetic bearing to a
DI Directional Indicator station or destination
(British term) RAS Rectified Airspeed (British
ESHP Equivalent Shaft term. See CAS)
Horsepower (relating to RCAF Royal Canadian Airforce
turboprops) RPM Revolutions per Minute
FRAeS Fellow of the Royal SHP Shaft Horsepower
Aeronautical Society STOL Short Take-Off and Landing
ft feet (relating to an aircraft class)
HF High Frequency TAS True Airspeed
TAS Indicated Airspeed VASI Visual Approach Slope
ICAO International Civil Aviation Indicator
Organization VFR Visual Flight Rules
IFR Instrument Flight Rules VOR VHF Omnidirectional
ILS Instrument Landing System Range
ISA International Standard VSI Vertical Speed Indicator
Atmosphere WED Water Equivalent Depth (a
rrr Interstage Turbine reading related to
Temperature contaminated runways)
kg kilogramme
km kilometre
kt knot V-code related to landing
lb pound Vat Target Threshold Speed
L/D ratio Lift/Drag ratio (approach speed over the
m mile threshold. British term. See
Never Exceed Mach
Mne Vref)
Number Minimum Control Speed,
Vincl
mph miles per hour Landing
Ny Relates to gas generator Reference Speed (approach
Viet
turbine on a turboprop or speed over the threshold.
the fan turbine on a fan jet American term. See Va;)
N>
Relates to the propeller Vs Stalling Speed
Preface
Most people imagine the Wright brothers to have been small-town cycle
repairers who, by diligence and sound workmanship, managed to build
the first heavier-than-air machine capable of taking off under its own
power. Popular belief is often spiced with a sneaking satisfaction that
these splendid, simple, country folk were able to solve a problem that
had defied all men through the ages, one that had driven some of the
finest scientific talent of the day to build complex ‘aircraft’ which ended
in failure. Some of these failures were spectacular, while others might
have been capable of flight had the ‘operator’ (the word ‘pilot’ was then
not in use) known how to fly.
There are several reasons why Wilbur and Orville Wright became the
first men to fly under power and control. First, and contrary to popular
belief, their mathematics and physics were good, while the conduct of
their experiments was to the highest scientific standards; they took
nothing for granted. Second, they were fortunate in being possessed of
great practical engineering skills, which enabled them quickly to translate
their ideas into hardware. But third, and most important, from the start
of their experiments at the turn of the century the Wright brothers
recognized one vital fact that had escaped the great majority of aviation
pioneers — having designed and built a flying machine, the inventor must
then learn how to control it. So while others were making flimsy wings
and jumping off balloons or mountains (often breaking their necks in the
process), the brothers from Dayton, Ohio, went about their task cau-
tiously, step by step. Then they lay in their frail, wire-braced creations,
restraining ropes pulled taut in the steady winds of Kitty Hawk, while
experience was gained with their unique method of control. Next came
free gliding, short hops at first followed by longer ones, so that when the
time came to fit an engine of their own design and manufacture, the
Wrights were probably the most experienced glider pilots of the time.
On studying the various Wright letters and diagrams, one finds no
particular reference to the problem of landing; in fact, such mundane
exercises as entry to a turn and the subsequent return to level flight
were, during their early powered flying days, regarded by them as hurdles
of a magnitude to equal the sound barrier of half a century later. Of
Make better landings
course, the aircraft of the day, often with wing loadings of less than 12 Ib
per sq ft (2.44 kg per sq m), had a touchdown speed of 20 knots, or
considerably less when a wind was blowing, and such breakages that
occurred were usually ofa minor nature, which could be repaired on the
spot.
It was a long time before dual controls and formalized instruction
became available, and the student pilot of dim and distant 1910 could
only learn by example. The French had a manually tilted simulator that
vaguely resembled an Antoinette, and, if nothing else, it enabled the
student to learn the effects of controls, at the same time giving an
impression of what attitude to adopt during climbs, descents and turns.
You may ask: what has all this to do with landing? The point is that
in those far-off days, when flying machines alighted at a fast walking
pace, it was considered quite normal to let a student attempt his first
landing on his own. Indeed, the aircraft of the period offered no alterna-
tive. But it is interesting to contemplate whether even the Wright brothers
would have been able to teach themselves how to land if, instead of 20
knots or less, their ‘flyer’ had, of necessity, to touch down at two, three
or more times that speed. The modern two-seat trainer lands at more
than double the maximum speed of those early ‘flying machines’, and
contemporary passenger jets must approach to land faster than the
cruising speed of 1930 vintage airliners. Personally, I doubt if the early
pioneers would have been able to land a modern aircraft without previous
experience or tuition — certainly not one of the few tailwheel designs that
remain in present-day production.
This brings me to the purpose of my book, which is devoted to the
problem of landing. Few flying instructors would disagree that the most
difficult exercise a student pilot has to learn is landing. True, one occa-
sionally meets the trainee pilot who sails through this part of the flying
course without trouble; it comes as easily to the fortunate few as, for
example, climbing, descending or medium-level turns. But the great
majority who have gained a pilot’s licence, myself included, did not take
readily to judging the approach, checking the descent and holding off,
all of these functions demanding a good eye and above average co-
ordination.
My early training with the RAF was on Tiger Moths in the days
before electric intercom. We had Gosport tubes (a form of Victorian
in-house telephone), which allowed us to hear one word in ten. I had a
bad habit of undershooting, which must have tried the patience of my
Preface
instructor. If he had known then what many of us in flying training
understand now, my problem would have been recognized, corrected
and cured. As it was, my instructor adopted drama as a means of making
his point. During one approach I was alarmed to see him undo his
harness and stand up in the front cockpit. ‘What are you doing, sir?’ I
enquired somewhat anxiously through the speaking tube. ‘I am going to
open the bloody gate to let you in,’ he replied. I never undershot an
approach again.
This book is intended to advise the pilot under training on aspects of
landing, to assist the instructor with a student who seems unable to learn
how to cope with the problem, to offer a few hints to qualified pilots who
are going through a bad patch with their landings (most of us do at one
time or another), and to explain how to handle those difficult landing
conditions.
Some readers may be surprised at the absence of a section dealing
with instrument approaches but this book is confined to the landing
process and, autoland excepted, all instrument approaches must termi-
nate in a visual touchdown as described in Chapter 2. Likewise, very
little is said about night landings because, other than the interpretation
of angle of approach indicators, the final act of touchdown in the dark
is, with minor modifications, very similar to daytime landing. Yet again
I have said very little about asymmetric landings because most of the
special techniques involved when an engine quits are related to shut-
down, make-safe and clean-up procedures which often occur many miles
from the point of landing. Where I have departed from the confines of
the landing process is in the chapters on turboprops, jets and skiplanes
because these types of aircraft will very likely: be a closed book to most
readers.
My book sets out io be all things to all men, a dangerous aim for any
writer, but, judging by the number of accidents that continue to occur
throughout the world (sometimes at the hands of experienced pilots),
there is a need for a work of this kind, one devoted entirely to the
problems of landing. I therefore hope that Make Better Landings will
encourage the student who 1s having trouble with this phase of flight,
offer advice to the inexperienced on how to tidy up their arrivals and
(dare I suggest it?) offer the older hands a few techniques aimed at
improving their already high standards of landing.
A. E. B., January 1982
IO
1. The problem that provoked
this book
On the face of it, one could be forgiven for questioning whether there 1s
a need for a work devoted entirely to the approach and landing or even
if there is enough information on the subject to fill a book of this size.
After all, various flying training manuals deal with the subject, and since
the earliest days of formalized pilot training the student has been shown
how to land and how to cope with various situations demanding special
techniques (crosswind and short landing being two examples that spring
to mind). Unfortunately, all is not well on the landing front, and a few
moments’ study of the approach and landing accident statistics shown
in the appendix will explain more eloquently than my most persuasive
prose why it was thought necessary to publish this book. Opinion is one
thing: fact is another. And the facts of the matter are that over a five-
year period 38.56 per cent of all notifiable accidents in Canada occurred
during the approach and landing phase, while the corresponding figure
in the United States was an even higher 46.16 per cent. Within the
ten-year period 1970 to 1979 almost 40 per cent of all South African
accidents took place during the approach and landing, while over the
same period in Britain half of all accidents have, more or less as a matter
of tradition, been enacted in that brief interlude between turning on to
finals and bringing the machinery to a dignified halt at the end of the
arrival. In Australia, over the years spanning 1975-9, a staggering 74.26
per cent of all accidents happened during the approach and landing.
While, in the main, accident statistics are prepared in accordance with
ICAO recommendations, the various states have their own ways of
presenting the information. In compiling the simplified charts shown in
the appendix, I have tried to list the numbers vertically according to
accident type (e.g., hard landing, ground-loop, undershoot, etc.). In the
United States, where more flying activity takes place than in the rest of
the world combined, sheer numbers make it possible to break down the
statistics in great detail and to cross-reference them against phase of