Firm landings becoming standard in commercial ops?

Just guessing but I suspect they need to get weight on wheels so that the spoilers activate. A feathery greaser of a touchdown may delay this.

I think that’s a SOP especially on 737.

I was told avoids hydro planning on wet runways, but can’t remember if it was an actually informed person.

I learned this even in 206 as part of Flight Safety Foundation ALAR (app and landing accident reduction). It shouldn’t be hard, it shouldn’t be soft, it’s better touch a bit firmer in the touchdown zone than softer thereafter.

On airline flights as pax I hear several comments everytime upon a firm landing to the tone of „oh that must be a student pilot“, „wow we crashed“, „we crashed hahaha“), while everyone usually compliments soft landings after a looong flare.

Arne wrote:

For the last couple of years, on commercial flights I have noticed pilots tend to plant the planes into the runway upon landing, with not much in the way of a flare, just exercising the main oleos. It used to happen every once in a while, but nowadays I find it’s more the rule than the exception, even in perfectly good weather.

I’ve seen in a couple of interviews with CAT pilots (and a training captain) that a very soft landing is not good – touchdown needs to be firm, but not hard. If I remember correctly, around 200fpm

One reason for “positive” touchdowns is the lack of experience among a small group of pilots (200h FOs, but can’t blame them – GA in Europe is dead so where are they gonna gain experience?).

But the second reason is quite simple – these days airlines focus on eliminating long flares. At least my company does. Every flight is monitored and long flare is the most common violation by a large margin. A violation is a flare longer than 1000m. A perfect flare results in a touchdown somewhere around 300-450m from the threshold. It’s quite easy to have a greaser using 700-800m of the runway (with a 737). It takes a lot more to do it 300m from the threshold. Obviously everyone tries, except when the runway is flooded (possibility of hydroplaning) or we are limited by landing performance (short runway, high weight due to tankering, etc.).

I was told it is an SOP at Ryanair for training and flying, always touch down at same spot as the previous guy or as you did yesterday, so they make standard training out of it, if you can do it smoothly it is a bonus if not the pax seats pay the bill for the landing not the next guy waiting for your flare at the threshold !!

@Arne I have some hours on B737NG and want to ensure you that as a captain; I do favor positive landings, the book clearly states the importance. The prolonged flare brings some dangerous situations. If the pilot misjudges height above runway surface, a tail strike is a possible threat with not proper speed control . A smooth touchdown is NOT a criteria for safe landing. Every “meter” of the runway is so valuable. All calculations are made with consideration that you fly over threshold at 50 feet.
Regarding to 5P-*P*roper *P*lanning *P*revents *P*oor *P*erformance- rule, and since we are constant decision makers, if you think you would not make it within first 1/3 of the runway , on final, at flare, just push GA button in your airmanship part of your brain, and it is always better to try again.

I have wondered about this as well. I fly somewhat often with airlines, SAS and Norwegian mostly, and about 80-90% 737 and some CRJ, Dash etc. A few years ago this was really something you felt and heard. SAS landed smoothly and and stopped much earlier with minimal/smooth breaking. Norwegian landed with a big bang and used almost the entire runway with lots of noise and braking. Today it seems Norwegian has gotten it right as well. Smooth and nice, mostly at least.

I wonder if speed is a factor. Coming in at a high speed just to be “safe” ?