A little too much flying of his Cub (or whatever) on his days off,
and subconsciously was trying to land the jet the same way?
Oopsie!

Which Embraer? Big difference between an EMB-110 and an EMB-195.

In any case, I find it extremely unlikely that he stalled it. Even in the Brasilia, typical ref speed was 125-130 kts depending on weight at flaps 25. That was a 1.3 Vso number, so if ref was 125, stall would have been 96. Any of the Embraer jets would probably be higher. Plus, they all have stick pushers or some other form of stall protection.

In my entire career, I've never seen someone get 5 kts below ref, let alone 29 kts..

[quote="Cannon"]Which Embraer? Big difference between an EMB-110 and an EMB-195.



Not really much difference at all, they are both Bandeirante's, one is pressurized and one is not!

You're right! They are strikingly similar .

Reminds me of a flight I had a number of years ago. I was flying a 747-400 and after passing 10K on departure the purser called and informed me that a passenger was very upset and was going to report us to the FAA for stalling the aircraft on initial climb out. After we leveled in cruise (pre 911) I went back to talk with this fellow. He was a pilot and he knew what a stall felt like and he was absolutely certain we had stalled. I tried to be polite. Listened to his story and then asked when and where he got his type rating in the 747. He said he didn't have a type rating but was certain we had stalled. I explained that during flap retraction from flaps 5 to flaps 1 that there is an aerodynamic shudder which is what he felt, not a stall. It happens every time and is unique to the 747. He knew he was right and was reporting me. I held out my company ID, told him he was free to write down the information and report whatever he wanted. Everything is on the flight recorder. Needless to say, I never got a call from the Feds.

From the rear of the ship, no instrumentation available, it is very difficult to know what is going on up front. Even if you are a pilot. Sometimes that even makes it worse. You don't have the instruments you normally have that confirm or refute what you are sensing so you fill in the blanks with assumptions. Five knots slow is the tolerance limit where I work. Get any slower than that and it's a mandatory go around. Looking out a rear window at relative motion across the ground is a tough way to judge airspeed. I wasn't there, didn't see and feel what you did but my guess would be that it was just a crappy landing. I've had my share that I wasn't proud of over the years............it happens.

Mr Ed,

You're right about how unnormal it looks and feels from a passenger seat on an airliner. I am both amazed and scared by the pitch and power on climbout. I would be upset with the poor energy management except that I realize you have to go over, rather than around, tall buildings. What was the power to weight radio of your loaded 747?

Total thrust was 224,000 pounds, 56K/engine. Max gross takeoff weight 875,000 pounds. Unless going to Sydney or Hong Kong you were seldom maxed out. Frequently did reduced power takeoffs if max wasn't needed...........extended the life of the engines.

Mr. Ed wrote:Reminds me of a flight I had a number of years ago. I was flying a 747-400 and after passing 10K on departure the purser called and informed me that a passenger was very upset and was going to report us to the FAA for stalling the aircraft on initial climb out. After we leveled in cruise (pre 911) I went back to talk with this fellow. He was a pilot and he knew what a stall felt like and he was absolutely certain we had stalled. I tried to be polite. Listened to his story and then asked when and where he got his type rating in the 747. He said he didn't have a type rating but was certain we had stalled. I explained that during flap retraction from flaps 5 to flaps 1 that there is an aerodynamic shudder which is what he felt, not a stall. It happens every time and is unique to the 747. He knew he was right and was reporting me. I held out my company ID, told him he was free to write down the information and report whatever he wanted. Everything is on the flight recorder. Needless to say, I never got a call from the Feds.

That is hilarious.

Reminds of a story I read recently, related by a airline pilot, of a passenger who, while loading, stopped at the cockpit door and leaned in to present his private pilot certificate. "If anyone has any trouble or gets sick up here, I'm in 12A."

Yeahh......

Reminds of a story I read recently, related by a airline pilot, of a passenger who, while loading, stopped at the cockpit door and leaned in to present his private pilot certificate. "If anyone has any trouble or gets sick up here, I'm in 12A."

Off topic but reminds me of a story from the late 60's when Ozark was flying DC 9's around the Midwest. My Dad was bringing two friends, one was our preacher and the other was our County Attorney in Virginia, out to Iowa to go pheasant hunting. The CA was a character and when he got just inside the plane, carrying his shotgun in a case, he asked if this plane was going to Cuba. Not cool but he got to sit up front with the pilots for the trip.

Two stories:

A friend who is a senior Delta captain landed one night in Paris. As he came out of the cockpit, he saw the head flight attendant using a flashlight to look at the wings. He asked her what she was doing. "Just checking to see if the landing gear is pushing up through the wings." He admits that he has rarely made a smooth landing--and he's flown everything from T-crafts through 747s, owns a King Air in partnership, and spends his vacations doing charity flights in 3rd world countries, where he usually flies Twin Otters. The guy is a superb pilot, just can't land (or so he says).

We were returning from a vacation in the Gulf Islands of BC. When we landed in Denver (don't recall what model the airliner was), it was one of those greasy-smooth, "are we down yet?" landings. So as we disembarked, one of the crew was standing by the open cockpit door. Being a bit of a smart ass, I asked, "Who was responsible for that landing?" He said, "That would be me." I quipped, "Good job--almost as good as I can do." He was ready for me. "Great--next time you fly with us, let me know, and you can land it!"

Cary

Mr. Ed nailed it.

Mr. Ed wrote:...From the rear of the ship, no instrumentation available, it is very difficult to know what is going on up front. Even if you are a pilot. Sometimes that even makes it worse. You don't have the instruments you normally have that confirm or refute what you are sensing so you fill in the blanks with assumptions. Five knots slow is the tolerance limit where I work. Get any slower than that and it's a mandatory go around. Looking out a rear window at relative motion across the ground is a tough way to judge airspeed. I wasn't there, didn't see and feel what you did but my guess would be that it was just a crappy landing...

I've got well over a thousand takeoff and landings in Stearmans in which the pilot sits at the back of the wing and has zero forward visibility. Keeping the aircraft straight and the wings level is done almost entirely with periphery vision, with a little slightly forward of 90 degrees, and seat-of-the-pants. That alone keeps the workload high enough that there is no time for looking at instruments- not that any in a Stearman would help in these phases of flight. Off-airport landing/takeoff workloads are equally high enough (in different ways) that looking at instruments are not part of either. Both types of flying, done successfully, are seat-of-the-pants flying. They do both have their "mandatory go-arounds" but neither cockpit instruments nor stick shakers nor a computer (nor copilot) talking in one's ear have anything to do with the decision making process. It is seat-of-the-pants and instant judgement calls. A big part of precision off-airport flying is about knowing, nearly exactly, when a wing can produce lift and when it can't, that is STOL ,and that is seat-of-the-pants as well. Without this skill takeoffs and landings are either too-early or too-late, both of which can ball up a plane.

Zzz wrote: That is hilarious. Reminds of a story I read recently, related by a airline pilot, of a passenger who, while loading, stopped at the cockpit door and leaned in to present his private pilot certificate. "If anyone has any trouble or gets sick up here, I'm in 12A."

I do that.
Haven't you ever seen the movie "Airplane"?
("we're all counting on you")
Ya just never know......

oh yeah, also,
I never have the same meal as the pilots!

Barnstormer wrote:I've got well over a thousand takeoff and landings in Stearmans in which the pilot sits at the back of the wing and has zero forward visibility. Keeping the aircraft straight and the wings level is done almost entirely with periphery vision, with a little slightly forward of 90 degrees, and seat-of-the-pants.

At the risk of getting way off topic, the difference is that you can't fly a lot of jets well purely by feel. Small power changes have a significant effect on pitch trim, and it screws up the usual pitch feel present in almost any GA airplane. In a 737, for example, if you get slow, you end up with *forward* pressure on the yoke, and trim nose down accordingly. That's because as you get slow, you add power which causes a nose up pitch moment (wings being under the wings and all). Then, when you're back on speed (or fast), you pull the power back and the nose pitches down, requiring nose up trim. And these aren't large speed changes. Most people easily keep a +5/-0 speed range, often +2/-0. This dance continues all the way into the flare unless it's a dead smooth day with no wind changes all the way down final.

Flying purely by outside pitch reference is also a challenge in most jets. It's super easy in my Cessna since I have a cowl sticking way out ahead of me that makes it quite easy to see miniscule pitch changes - even moreso in a Cub or Stearman. In most jets, the furthest thing in front of you is the windshield wiper (if it even has one). Combine this with the fact that you're making tiny pitch changes (1/4 degree and less), and flying with the required precision is extremely tough without at least partial reliance on the instruments.

Throw in fly-by-wire with artificial feedback and it becomes even trickier. But I sure do love the side stick and how the bus flies. But if you ride it in the flare 4 feet above the ground in ground effect without proper correction , it will find terra firma with a thud!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reading this thread and sitting around listening to the stories told by pilots who fly both GA singles and the heavy iron, I'd have to say that those of us who fly only light GA have no real way of comparing how we fly with how "they" fly. I like to think that if I had to do it, I could get an airliner on the ground safely, but the chances of pranging it are probably as good as doing that.

So I conclude that no matter how well I might land from the front or back seat of a GA single, sitting in 26D of any airliner isn't likely to give me much of a feel for how the airliner is being landed.

Cary

Grassstrippilot wrote:Throw in fly-by-wire with artificial feedback and it becomes even trickier. But I sure do love the side stick and how the bus flies. But if you ride it in the flare 4 feet above the ground in ground effect without proper correction , it will find terra firma with a thud!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Admit it. It's all about the tray table.

Cannon wrote:

Grassstrippilot wrote:Throw in fly-by-wire with artificial feedback and it becomes even trickier. But I sure do love the side stick and how the bus flies. But if you ride it in the flare 4 feet above the ground in ground effect without proper correction , it will find terra firma with a thud!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Admit it. It's all about the tray table.

That’s right![emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Once you forget everything you knew and learn to speak Airbus she’s a wonderful ship to fly. Especially the A321 NEO.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Kind of narrows down who works where..

And yes the NEO is the bee's knees. Sips fuel in a climb and cruise, almost nothing in the decent. (Haven't flown it in a year, but 1700lbs/hr idle decent if I recall)
The Blackhawk sucks down about 1100lbs/hr as a comparison. (Pretty much all phases).

Some of my best and worst landings happen in DEN. The airport is possessed.

Trying to fly precisely is different in GA aircraft, as compared to a medium jet (100k+lbs). The post above does a good job detailing my same thoughts.

I think you'll find a lot of airline guys fly GA for the same reason accountants and lawyers do.