jungle

And this will help the rollout control in which way? And what is the effect of the differential thrust as the engines come to idle at different times?

shdw

It will help rollout control no more and no less than crabbed to un-crabbed round-out and touchdown. Again asymmetrical thrust is to assist you with crab, more accurately, needing less of it during the approach phase. As you prepare your round-out and flare you usually just start applying rudder, which takes time to react right? Well now you are slowly lowering the engines to even and to idle together, which takes time just the same. Both I suspect (as I haven't flown jets you can correct me here) with only a 5 percent difference a matter of a second or two, just like rudder.

Again, I suspect it isn't in any procedures because of the KISS rule. As you can clearly see more is going on in this type of approach, round out, and landing than a typical one.

aviatorhi

I bet you poor fellow wouldn't last a week doing the flying I do... oh wait... just had a few guys with multiple heave jet type ratings not last a week at the flying I do.

That ink on your license may be a nice bragging right, but I don't claim to have expertise on flying heavy jets, and I doubt you have the expertise on flying the small piston and turboprops in extreme conditions.

KC10 FATboy

Aviatorhi ...

This isn't about bragging rights, who is the best pilot, or who works in the toughest environment.

It is about decision making and responsibility. There are those of us who are saying that we don't like this technique because if you are having to perform unusual aerial feats to meet "extreme conditions", then you are probably operating outside the realm of what would be considered safe.

By all means, continue to push that envelope in order to be the yes man and to always get that job done. However, don't be surprised when everyone points the finger at you when one of these situations turn ugly -- assuming you survived.

jungle

No need for anger. I flew my share of light twins and plenty of turboprops, most of us here cut our teeth on them. The OP concerned jets, and there were two good ways to answer: 1. using published procedures or test data by your company or manufacturer 2. anecdotal examples from jets you have flown.

Not so good answers involved anecdotal usage in other aircraft, microsoft flight sim, or rambling descriptions of how many oars to keep in the water with a rowboat.

Pick the answer you would like to provide a board of inquiry.

Nortonious

Ah yes, the old technique vs procedure debate. It gets even better when someone's technique is against procedure. Throw in a little pilot ego and we've got quite the show.
Wow, did you really mean to come off that way?!! Well, since I'm sure you're also a stellar CFI it may be time tell all your students this as well:
"There are many techniques, but not all are as good as mine [aviatorhi's]"

shdw

You know what, just go on doing what your doing than. It is painstakingly obvious you, and others on here, have absolutely no desire to receive new information. You have repeatedly shot down ideas for no other reason than "you don't fly a big jet."

Like it or not, this argument applies to any object where a force is applied off centerline. This topic is not indicative solely to jet aircraft, claiming it is only further shows your lack of understanding of asymmetrical thrust.



For those of you that haven't fallen into this, "I can't learn anything from people who don't fly jets," I thank you, you are better people and pilots for it. That said, when new information is presented, view it with an open mind, with the goal being to learn something. If the information seems questionable than go test it out, in cases where you feel it may be dangerous try it in a sim.

Whatever you do, don't for a second believe that just because it is not a procedure in your book it cannot work. Driving an aircraft in at stall speed is not in any aircrafts procedure book for short field landing that I have read, however it will give one unquestionably the shortest landing distance. Procedures are nothing more than recommendations that work for the majority of situations, they are by no means limitations or a "be all end all" source of information for aircraft operation.

ryan1234

You should consider a new career as a test pilot. Based upon previous posts many schools would waive the credit hour/course requirement and just confer you a degree in aerospace engineering. Also any company will waive all experience requirements for a test pilot position for you if you list your posts as a portion of your resume.

With your new job as a test pilot you will be re-writing procedures for various aircraft - this will be a good chance to share knowledge with those other experienced test pilots about what works safely and what does not - I'm sure they will be receptive to new information.

shdw

Gosh, there are so many comedians on this forum. *gasp*

Nortonious

Would you say that in an airline interview?

FWIW-A lot of Procedures have been written in blood. A blanket dismissal of all Procedures as "recommendations" is reckless.

And with regard to this specific topic, I'm no Steve Canyon, but I have managed to land a 737 in some pretty stiff crosswinds (just legal for the steady state and with a significant gust component to boot). Normal crab with a transition to wing low during roundout did all I needed it to. And oh yeah, those auto-brakes are a wonderful thing while doing the rudder pedal dance to stay on centerline. If I had needed anything else (as in differential thrust), then maybe as KC10 says, we just didn't need to be landing there.