Airplane Landing Questions -- How can the pilot see the ground?

[Tiran]

What would happen if a plane lands too fast? Any videos. I know if it's too slow, it would stall.

Up to a point, nothing. Way too fast and you won't be able to stop the plane before you go off the end of the runway, but airfields are designed for even that. (Assuming the airfield is a reasonable match for the aircraft.)

 

[seazal]

Up to a point, nothing. Way too fast and you won't be able to stop the plane before you go off the end of the runway, but airfields are designed for even that. (Assuming the airfield is a reasonable match for the aircraft.)

For decades, I always wonder how the airplane can time it's descend and speed enough to land at the first meters of the runway. Is it done by any instruments or just estimated by pilots? For example, your runway is 15 miles away and you are at certain altitude. How do you descend such that you can time the landing gear to touch down at the start of the landing strip? It's something I wasn't able to learn in the MS flight simulator.

 

[OCR]

What would happen if a plane lands too fast? Any videos.

Yes, a few ...And... watch ALL of these....

Oh... and this one too.

.

 

[Tiran]

For decades, I always wonder how the airplane can time it's descend and speed enough to land at the first meters of the runway. Is it done by any instruments or just estimated by pilots? For example, your runway is 15 miles away and you are at certain altitude. How do you descend such that you can time the landing gear to touch down at the start of the landing strip? It's something I wasn't able to learn in the MS flight simulator.

There are all sorts of ways of estimating a starting point for descent, but really you are just aiming the plane at a spot and flying to it. If your descent angle matches your predicted landing spot, it won't change location much in the windscreen.

Conceptually, it is little different than learning archery on a bow with no sights.You learn to direct the action based on visual cues that are hard to describe concretely.

 

[FactChecker]

I strongly disagree with the idea that a Microsoft flight simulator will reduce your fear of flying. You are not a real pilot. Microsoft is not a real airplane (no real visual or "seat of the pants" feedback). You would probably be trying to fly situations that would not occur in a hundred years of riding in a commercial airplane.

I like to encourage you to learn more, but IMHO this is not the way to decrease fear of flying. I have seen fighter pilots in their first practice restarting engines in a simulator and all I can say is that it was terrifying (single-engine airplane).

 

[CWatters]

If you are rich you some places offer time in a real simulator...

http://www.realsimulation.co.uk/gift-experiences-vouchers/

 

[seazal]

There are all sorts of ways of estimating a starting point for descent, but really you are just aiming the plane at a spot and flying to it. If your descent angle matches your predicted landing spot, it won't change location much in the windscreen.

Conceptually, it is little different than learning archery on a bow with no sights.You learn to direct the action based on visual cues that are hard to describe concretely.

So if the descend is too fast and the runway is still off a mile away then the plane will start to level and then descend again? Or there is some kind of HUD (Head Up Display) in the windscreen that shows the runway that you must align?

 

[Tiran]

So if the descend is too fast and the runway is still off a mile away then the plane will start to level and then descend again? Or there is some kind of HUD (Head Up Display) in the windscreen that shows the runway that you must align?

No, you just learn that the landing area should be (let's say) 4 inches above the instrument panel when your airspeed and vertical speed indicator are in a proper ratio.

You are assuming this is very technical when it is not. Once you've done it ten times it is rather obvious whether you are headed to the right spot. But your questions are like me asking you how you parallel park a car without radar and a compass.

 

[russ_watters]

This is an example of the smartphone maps.me application that can works with gps in any airborne airliner even without any cell signal.

Do you know of other apps that gives even more details than it?

Any app that works on the ground will work aloft. I use Google Maps when riding in planes. The only caveat is the trade-off between area covered and resolution -- and the need for a data connection. If the plane doesn't have wifi, you'll need offline maps, which many apps support (google maps does).

Also does all airplane from Cessna to the giant Airbus Dreamliner have similar landing speed? what knots is it? Or does it vary by airplane?

A Cessna can't even fly as fast as an airliner lands. A Cessna lands at about 50kts and an airliner around 140.

 

[russ_watters]

So if the descend is too fast and the runway is still off a mile away then the plane will start to level and then descend again? Or there is some kind of HUD (Head Up Display) in the windscreen that shows the runway that you must align?

You asked this before and were told about ILS. Did you forget already? Did you not read the link provided? Again: effort.

...however as @Tiran says, all pilots first learn visual approaches, using little more than their airspeed indicator and altimeter and looking out the window. It isn't much different from lining up a car for a turn. You can see if the runway is moving up or down in your windshield and therefore if you are getting low or high.

 

[Tiran]

So if the descend is too fast and the runway is still off a mile away then the plane will start to level and then descend again?

I didn't really address this directly: The plane won't do anything on its own. The pilot will recognize that the landing spot is rising in the windscreen and add power to level out until the appearance of proper glideslope is back in view.

Please understand this is just how things are done normally. You could also land by flying the last five miles 10 feet above the ground at landing speed and pull power off when you get to the runway. But that just isn't practical.

 

[rcgldr]

Let's say you are a pilot and you don't know the landing speed of an unknown plane

While in level flight before attempting a landing approach, a pilot could reduce speed until the angle of attack as shown by the attitude indicator became too high and then increase speed before allowing the aircraft to stall. Probably 5 to 7 degrees on the attitude indicator would be slow enough for landing (if there's a choice, choose the longer runway), and fast enough to avoid a stall. In a real world situation where a pilot has become unable to fly, a passenger has contacted the tower, and in some cases another aircraft flew along side the passenger controlled aircraft to guide it down.

For most civilian type aircraft, reducing speed to the point of needing 5 to 7 degrees nose up for level flight, might be slow enough to deploy flaps one step, then reducing speed until again needing perhaps 3 to 5 degrees nose up before deploying flaps to the next step, repeating the process until flaps were deployed around 20 degrees (full flaps might be an issue depending on ground conditions).

However, as posted by jrmichler, the airspeed indicator would be the best reference for the airspeed ranges of an aircraft, and the airspeed at the mid point of flaps fully down would be safe enough for a long runway.

For decades, I always wonder how the airplane can time it's descend and speed enough to land at the first meters of the runway.

The target landing spot on typical runways is 1/4 to 1/3 down the runway to allow margin for error or changing conditions. Advanced pilots will sometimes land on the "numbers", somewhat less than 1/4 of the runway length, but still have some margin for error.

 

[Tiran]

While in level flight before attempting a landing approach, a pilot could reduce speed until the angle of attack as shown by the attitude indicator became too high and then increase speed before allowing the aircraft to stall. Probably 5 to 7 degrees on the attitude indicator would be slow enough for landing (if there's a choice, choose the longer runway), and fast enough to avoid a stall.

I really don't see how this would work. 7° nose up in level flight is not going to be an approach attitude, or that it will give you an airspeed that is around stall. Plus you would have to be in landing configuration and not too high above landing altitude.

You could experiment with the impending stall indicator (buzzing pedals), but that is not going to be fun.

 

[FactChecker]

You could experiment with the impending stall indicator (buzzing pedals), but that is not going to be fun.

Ha! You can say that again. I'm not a pilot, but I would guess that playing with stall at low altitude is not a good idea.

 

[rcgldr]

I really don't see how this would work. 7° nose up in level flight is not going to be an approach attitude, or that it will give you an airspeed that is around stall. Plus you would have to be in landing configuration and not too high above landing altitude. You could experiment with the impending stall indicator (buzzing pedals), but that is not going to be fun.

The ideal here is a conservative approach to avoid a stall, as some aircraft can't recover from a spin (for example, the Piper Cherokee Warrior is not certified for spins). 3 to 4 degrees nose up on approach (while descending at 3 degrees) should be slow enough to land on a longer runway. A pilot could try mostly holding attitude at 3 to 4 degrees nose up while following the glide slope, mostly using throttle to stay on the glide slope. There are exceptions, the twin engine civilian aircraft at a local (to me) airport land on a runway shared by commercial aircraft, and approach at a faster than normal speed (almost nose down) to avoid interfering with the airliner traffic, but the runway is long enough (since it's meant for commercial airliners) for the twins to bleed off speed once they're near the end of the runway, and land with margin to spare. In an emergency, with airliners put in a holding pattern, that runway would be more than long enough for something like a Cessna 182 to approach at 3 to 4 degrees nose up and land with margin to spare.

As posted by jrmichler, the airspeed indicator would be the best reference for the airspeed ranges of an aircraft, and the airspeed at the mid point of flaps fully down would be safe enough for a long runway.

 

[Tiran]

The ideal here is a conservative approach to avoid a stall, as some aircraft can't recover from a spin (for example, the Piper Cherokee Warrior is not certified for spins). 3 to 5 degrees nose up on approach (while descending at 3 degrees) should be slow enough to land on a longer runway. A pilot could try mostly holding attitude at 3 to 4 degrees nose up while following the glide slope, mostly using throttle to stay on the glide slope. There are exceptions, the twin engine civilian aircraft at a local (to me) airport land on a runway shared by commercial aircraft, and approach at a faster than normal speed (almost nose down) to avoid interfering with the airliner traffic, but the runway is long enough (since it's meant for commercial airliners) for the twins to bleed off speed once they're near the end of the runway, and land with margin to spare. In an emergency, with airliners put in a holding pattern, that runway would be more than long enough for something like a Cessna 182 to approach at 5 degrees nose up and land with margin to spare.

Spin and stall aren't the same thing. Stalling in level flight should not induce a spin, it just causes the nose to fall suddenly. Some planes can't even be made to stall.

And not all aircraft approach nose up - it depends on configuration and approach speed. Put the nose 5° up with no flaps and you'll either climb or get too slow.

Planes are mostly flown by observing some preferred airspeed and altitude (or descent rate) and putting the nose and power wherever they might need to be to keep those and go to where you want to get to. The pilot may have no or even the wrong feeling about the nose attitude because that's not what they are looking at.

 

[jrmichler]

A pilot is expected to know the correct speeds for takeoff and landing before starting the engine. That's federal law, or at least an FAA regulation. Europeans have similar rules. In case the pilot forgets, they have only to look at the airspeed indicator:

The white arc shows the allowable speed range with the flaps fully down, from stall to maximum allowable. The green arc starts at the stall speed with flaps up, and extends to maximum speed in rough air. Yellow arc speeds are only for use in smooth air. The red line is the red line, bad things happen above that speed. These markings are specific to the airplane in which that airspeed indicator is installed.

 

[rcgldr]

Spin and stall aren't the same thing. Stalling in level flight should not induce a spin

Some aircraft (usually aerobatic) may go into a snap roll if stalled.

And not all aircraft approach nose up

True, I'll amend my prior posts. The idea behind 3 to 5 degrees nose up in level flight while trimmed for approach was to determine an airspeed slow enough for approach on a long runway, but fast enough to avoid a stall, and use that airspeed for approach speed regardless if nose up or down.

However, as posted by jrmichler, the airspeed indicator would be the best reference for the airspeed ranges of an aircraft, and the airspeed at the mid point of flaps fully down would be safe enough for a long runway.

 

[seazal]

I didn't really address this directly: The plane won't do anything on its own. The pilot will recognize that the landing spot is rising in the windscreen and add power to level out until the appearance of proper glideslope is back in view.

Please understand this is just how things are done normally. You could also land by flying the last five miles 10 feet above the ground at landing speed and pull power off when you get to the runway. But that just isn't practical.

We were told that high above in the clouds. A plane wouldn't stall even if power is cut off or airspeed reduced (because it is traveling way faster than the stall speed (90% above stall speed?). But during landing when the speed is 30% above stall speed. What if the pilot suddenly (accidentally) pulled up the lever to decrease throttle (equivalent to say half the stall speed), would the plane falls down or stall.. or would it maintain speed or momentum just like high above in the clouds? My worry for over 30 flights I rode was when landing and what if the speed was decrease suddenly (accidentally). Earlier in the thread one has answered that it won't suddenly fall down but this is from the context of high in the clouds at higher speed. But it was not addressed during landing scenerio. Thanks.

 

[jrmichler]

When a jet (business jet or airliner) descends from cruising altitude, the pilot reduces power all the way to idle. The airplane glides the last 100 miles or so, depending on the exact cruise altitude. Airplanes, especially airliners, cannot change speed suddenly because they have mass. They also have potential energy from their altitude. There is a famous case where an airliner ran out of fuel, and glided to a safe landing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider. They glided for 17 minutes before making a safe landing.

The big challenge when landing is getting the airplane to slow down, not keeping it moving.

 

[Tiran]

A pilot is expected to know the correct speeds for takeoff and landing before starting the engine. That's federal law, or at least an FAA regulation.

That isn't true. Take off and landing speeds are condition dependent and vary widely. It is calculated shortly before take off or landing based on the most current conditions.

The gauge markings are generally never-exceed speeds for flaps or landing gear.

We were told that high above in the clouds. A plane wouldn't stall even if power is cut off or airspeed reduced (because it is traveling way faster than the stall speed (90% above stall speed?). But during landing when the speed is 30% above stall speed. What if the pilot suddenly (accidentally) pulled up the lever to decrease throttle (equivalent to say half the stall speed), would the plane falls down or stall.. or would it maintain speed or momentum just like high above in the clouds?

You have to do something to stall, like pull the nose up or keep it up when the plane is slowing. And stall is a temporary condition, just a bad one when you are very low. Airplanes already on final are unlikely to stall - there is no reason for it to happen and losing a bunch of airspeed is actually hard to do.

On the other hand, the higher a plane flies, the higher the stall speed as the air gets thinner. The U2 flies in a 10kt range between stall and transonic at 90,000 feet. I doubt stall is 10% of airspeed at 35,000 feet.

 

[seazal]

That isn't true. Take off and landing speeds are condition dependent and vary widely. It is calculated shortly before take off or landing based on the most current conditions.

The gauge markings are generally never-exceed speeds for flaps or landing gear.You have to do something to stall, like pull the nose up or keep it up when the plane is slowing. And stall is a temporary condition, just a bad one when you are very low. Airplanes already on final are unlikely to stall - there is no reason for it to happen and losing a bunch of airspeed is actually hard to do.

On the other hand, the higher a plane flies, the higher the stall speed as the air gets thinner. The U2 flies in a 10kt range between stall and transonic at 90,000 feet. I doubt stall is 10% of airspeed at 35,000 feet.

Wished I knew this 20 years ago so all my flight would have been more enjoyable. I got nervous at every landing thinking that the plane was moving so slowly, and engine power is decreasing. Although I knew about airfoil principle, I forgot about it because I couldn't imagine that mere air was enough to lift an airplane. It's not intuitive that was why no one thought heavier than air can fly before the Wright Brothers.

Do you know what brand and model of commercial airliner has the redundant double fly by wire systems used in fighter jets? My other worries are lost of control of the flaps, etc.. For example. What if the motors controlling the rudder or up/down no longer works. Don't they fail?

 

[Tiran]

Do you know what brand and model of commercial airliner has the redundant double fly by wire systems used in fighter jets? My other worries are lost of control of the flaps, etc.. For example. What if the motors controlling the rudder or up/down no longer works. Don't they fail?

There probably hasn't been a jet or turboprop airplane designed in the last 70 years that didn't have redundant flight control systems.

This thread is an expression of your phobia, not a learned discussion about aviation safety and engineering. You know very well how safe flying is.

 

[seazal]

There probably hasn't been a jet or turboprop airplane designed in the last 70 years that didn't have redundant flight control systems.

This thread is an expression of your phobia, not a learned discussion about aviation safety and engineering. You know very well how safe flying is.

I read that fighter jets have many fly by wire backups so if a part was hit, other parts can work. They also did this to airliners? I didn't know that. As a normal citizen who reads a lot about airplanes. I missed this part. So this is part of learning about aviation safety and engineering. It's not a serious phobia. But learning about it can decrease any concern.

So I guess the focus or emphasis must be how to increase aviation safety in newer aircrafts.

 

[rcgldr]

Camcorder recording from the cockpit of a 747 approach and landing at Kaitak in 1998. The plane heads towards a checkerboard on a hillside, then makes a 47 degree right turn to line up with the runway. Skip to 3:40 into the video to see the turn. The runway is clearly visible. You can also hear the altitude call out starting at 60 feet.

 

[Tom.G]

For a pilots-eye view of landing an Airbus A380, see:
https://www.youtube.com//watch?v=ENe89j89tBA

 

[seazal]

For a pilots-eye view of landing an Airbus A380, see:
https://www.youtube.com//watch?v=ENe89j89tBA

In a single day, hundreds of planes land in the same runway and take the same landing path, so I guess the tower directs all traffic so if there are many still trying to land, the plane circles around. But I don't experience much circling, does it mean even the arrival is scheduled?

But far away from airport, when planes move through clouds. How do they know there are no planes nearby? Do all of them have some kind of radar? Or is it just randomly path? Whenever the plane I'm riding move through dense clouds, I wonder how they could know if no other planes in the path. Radar, Beacon, random?

 

[Tiran]

In a single day, hundreds of planes land in the same runway and take the same landing path, so I guess the tower directs all traffic so if there are many still trying to land, the plane circles around. But I don't experience much circling, does it mean even the arrival is scheduled?

But far away from airport, when planes move through clouds. How do they know there are no planes nearby? Do all of them have some kind of radar? Or is it just randomly path? Whenever the plane I'm riding move through dense clouds, I wonder how they could know if no other planes in the path. Radar, Beacon, random?

This really isn't a topic for a thread anymore. The aviation system is over a century old and very well thought out. Start with Wikipedia then go to the library.

To answer your most basic question, virtually nothing that happens is left to chance, last minute decisions or near-superhuman skill. It is all boringly standardized, methodical, redundant and safe.

 

[seazal]

This really isn't a topic for a thread anymore. The aviation system is over a century old and very well thought out. Start with Wikipedia then go to the library.

To answer your most basic question, virtually nothing that happens is left to chance, last minute decisions or near-superhuman skill. It is all boringly standardized, methodical, redundant and safe.

But for 20 years ever since playing MS Flight Simulator or F-15 Strike Eagle. All I know is that only fighter jets have onboard radar. I know old airliners have no on board radar system. But for new versions, they may have them? I hope they can retrofit the old aircrafts with radar too.

This is my concern when flying through dense clouds for 20 years. Next year during the 2 year LHC shutdown. I'll take long trip to Europe so need all concerns addressed. I guess many from elsewhere want to visit LHC too.

 

[Tiran]

But for 20 years ever since playing MS Flight Simulator or F-15 Strike Eagle. All I know is that only fighter jets have onboard radar. I know old airliners have no on board radar system. But for new versions, they may have them? I hope they can retrofit the old aircrafts with radar too.

This is my concern when flying through dense clouds for 20 years. Next year during the 2 year LHC shutdown. I'll take long trip to Europe so needs all concerns addressed. I guess many from elsewhere want to visit LHC too.

Well, you might also have concerns about how blenders manage to blend liquids despite being electrical, or how glass floors don't break or how you might get radiation poisoning from smoke detectors. But that doesn't mean your fears are grounded.