Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Altitude Of Landing Aircraft  
User currently offlineMrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5847 times:

While spotting, I often realized that smaller aircraft, landing at an airport, take a different approach. OK, let's take a point X, which, measured from the soil, has the distance Y to an airport (numbers are fictional).

While landing, a 737 might be at an altitute of 1000 feet at X, a 747 might be at an altitute of 500 feet at X, while a small turboprop might be at 2000 feet..

why is this so? Do bigger planes have to commence their approach earlier, as they are not able to descend as fast as smaller planes?

OK, confusing, so here the attempt to visualize in "two dimensions"


2000 ft Turboprop


1000 ft 737



0500 ft 747


ground X...................................................... Airport in distance Y

Got my question? Big grin

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5810 times:

What you think you're seeing isn't really so. It's an optical illusion. They should all be at the same height AGL at the same point in space.

If an ILS has a 3 degree glide slope at 5 miles all aircraft are at about 1500' AGL. (assuming on glide slope) What it looks like is a different story. It looks just as you described, and that's because of the relative size of the aircraft. If you look closely, the large plane appears to be going slower than the small one. Again, an optical illusion.


User currently offlineZID From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 294 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5792 times:

If it's a VFR day and therefore a glideslope doesn't come into play, a smaller aircraft is going to want to stay a little higher and land a little farther down the runway that any preceding larger aircraft in order to stay out of the larger aircraft's wake turbulence. That may have been what you were witnessing.


I'm not joking! This is my job!
User currently offlineAir2gxs From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5763 times:

You may be seeing pilots in smaller aircraft compensating for the possibility of wake turbulance from a larger aircraft. When I was training for my PPL the instructor told me it was safer to land a little long (thus, be higher over the threshold) when following larger aircraft. By planning to land long, you assure yourself that the wake turbulance will be below and behind you during the approach and landing.

User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6965 posts, RR: 76
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5750 times:

And then U got props coming in on a dive bomber angle! but in most cases, it's only for tight and visual from 1500ft AGL or less... Otherwise U'll get puking pax...

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineMrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5560 times:

Thx guys!

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 1):
looks just as you described, and that's because of the relative size of the aircraft.

Are you sure.. ? I thought so, too, but somehow the difference looked to significant?  

Edit: silly question of mine "Are you sure"!  Wink Just saw your profile and you being a pilot, you must be right, I suppose! Thanks man!

[Edited 2005-05-10 08:25:09]

User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31712 posts, RR: 56
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5535 times:

Subin.
Likely to be just an Illusion.
Speaking on Mumbai,I watch the Landings every night on Rnwy 27.Although mainly at nights.The Approaches looks similiar.
What was your viewing Angle,that could be a reason.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineLogan22L From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5479 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 1):
If you look closely, the large plane appears to be going slower than the small one.

I've noticed what appears to be a significant difference in speed based on aircraft size. What causes this illusion?

Logan


User currently offlineMeister808 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 973 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5474 times:

The illusion of a significant difference in speed comes from a significant difference in size. When you see something moving, you generally tend to judge it based on relative motion. Thus, a 737 looks like it is going twice as fast as the 747 just based on the fact that it covers its own length in a much shorter time.

-Meister



Twin Cessna 812 Victor, Minneapolis Center, we observe your operation in the immediate vicinity of extreme precipitation
User currently offlineChazzerguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 277 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5456 times:

Quoting Meister808 (Reply 8):
The illusion of a significant difference in speed comes from a significant difference in size. When you see something moving, you generally tend to judge it based on relative motion. Thus, a 737 looks like it is going twice as fast as the 747 just based on the fact that it covers its own length in a much shorter time.

They say this is why people often get killed at railroad crossings... Trains tend to look like they are going a lot slower than they really are due to their size.


User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2124 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5452 times:

About the size/speed comparisons and illusions.


C-5 Galaxy length 247'

F-16 Length 47'

Pitts S-2 Biplane 17'

So to cover 500', the C-5 is only moving one length ahead.

To cover the same 500', the F-15 is covering 9 more lengths.

To cover the same 500', the S-2 is covering 29 more lengths.

Thus the illusion.


And I agree with Phil, the same thing applies to height.


At 1,500' the C-5 is only 6 of its lengths above ground.

The F-16 is 30 of its lengths above ground.

The S-2 is 88 of its lengths above ground.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Altitude Of Landing Aircraft
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Effect Of Altitude /temperature On Aircraft Range posted Thu Feb 12 2004 10:42:01 by Thestooges
Passive Stability Of An Aircraft? posted Fri Oct 21 2005 15:55:08 by GLAGAZ
Altitude Of 39000 Ft posted Fri Sep 30 2005 12:09:17 by SNBru
? For Pilots Of 4 Engined Aircraft posted Sat Feb 26 2005 12:03:35 by Undies737
Airlines' Detailed Records Of Individual Aircraft posted Sat Feb 19 2005 23:57:20 by Argonaut
Dangers Of Landing In Tailwinds posted Wed Feb 25 2004 09:33:40 by KBUF737
Feasibility Of Landing At ASE Rwy 33 & SXM Rwy 27 posted Sun Sep 21 2003 17:58:34 by Phatfarmlines
Where ´s The CG Of This Aircraft? posted Thu May 15 2003 21:35:17 by MASB747
737s And MD80s Have 2 Pairs Of Landing Lights,why? posted Sat Apr 26 2003 03:53:00 by William
Aerodynamics Of Modern Aircraft posted Sun Apr 14 2002 03:18:28 by Vez

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format