Are planes landing differently nowadays?
September 14, 2024 10:49 AM Subscribe
I've noticed that in the last 10+ flights I've taken, all of the landings have seemed very fast, with heavy braking. Is this just a coincidence or has something changed in aviation?
Last night I was on a Southwest plane landing at Burbank and I genuinely had a moment of fear as we braked so abruptly and heavily that it seemed like anyone who didn't have their seatbelt on snugly might actually hurt themselves.
Most of my last 10 or flights have been domestic, at smaller airports like Burbank and Albany. I've also landed at Midway, Baltimore, Denver and Las Vegas. I've also been arriving at LAX on giant international planes. (Sorry I don't know what types.)
Maybe this is just a coincidence, but if there's anything more about it to know, please tell me.
Last night I was on a Southwest plane landing at Burbank and I genuinely had a moment of fear as we braked so abruptly and heavily that it seemed like anyone who didn't have their seatbelt on snugly might actually hurt themselves.
Most of my last 10 or flights have been domestic, at smaller airports like Burbank and Albany. I've also landed at Midway, Baltimore, Denver and Las Vegas. I've also been arriving at LAX on giant international planes. (Sorry I don't know what types.)
Maybe this is just a coincidence, but if there's anything more about it to know, please tell me.
Best answer: Most of the airports that you mention are Southwest operating bases. Southwest operates an all Boeing 737 fleet. Modern 737s have a reputation for being difficult to land smoothly due to how the airframe has been stretched, and Boeing recommends that they be landed firmly-here's an interesting reddit comment about why RyanAir flights land so firmly. link
If most of your flying has been on Southwest, that could be part of the explanation.
posted by Kwine at 10:59 AM on September 14 [15 favorites]
If most of your flying has been on Southwest, that could be part of the explanation.
posted by Kwine at 10:59 AM on September 14 [15 favorites]
It is a coincidence. Plane landing speeds are dictated by weight and aerodynamics, and neither of those have radically changed. A smaller runway length will require greater braking force, but planes will still have the same mandated minimum runway lengths based on weight and aerodynamics, so they aren't suddenly flying bigger planes to smaller places.
Noise abatements may impact the profile of ascent or descent, including the angle or throttle amount, but that won't translate to any difference touching down.
posted by so fucking future at 10:59 AM on September 14 [1 favorite]
Noise abatements may impact the profile of ascent or descent, including the angle or throttle amount, but that won't translate to any difference touching down.
posted by so fucking future at 10:59 AM on September 14 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Yes, probably 8 out of my last 10 flights have been on Southwest. (It's the 2 free bags per person; that has made an enormous difference when, for example, taking my kid to/from college.)
posted by BlahLaLa at 11:11 AM on September 14 [1 favorite]
posted by BlahLaLa at 11:11 AM on September 14 [1 favorite]
Traditionally, this has also been attributed to ex-Navy pilots as opposed to ex-Air Force. (I.e., Navy pilots are accustomed to carrier landings, which are short and hard.)
posted by McCoy Pauley at 11:49 AM on September 14 [12 favorites]
posted by McCoy Pauley at 11:49 AM on September 14 [12 favorites]
If the plane is using only brakes and not a thurst reverser (the loud WHOOSH you hear after landing), it could be a lot of reasons. Evening noise abatement rules can be a large one, there's also less fuel consumed by not using the reversers and then having to spool the engines back up to get off the runway.
It could also be an expediting move. If it's a busy landing time at the airport the landing aircraft has a very short amount of time to get off the runway and onto a taxiway - the next plane is VERY close behind. You'll feel the plane slow down quickly and then make the turnoff almost as rapidly.
posted by JoeZydeco at 12:03 PM on September 14 [1 favorite]
It could also be an expediting move. If it's a busy landing time at the airport the landing aircraft has a very short amount of time to get off the runway and onto a taxiway - the next plane is VERY close behind. You'll feel the plane slow down quickly and then make the turnoff almost as rapidly.
posted by JoeZydeco at 12:03 PM on September 14 [1 favorite]
Such cool info!
I haven't flown in over a decade, and if I'm not crossing an ocean, probably won't be. But, so interesting that certain plane's aerodynamics and noise abatement rules and such have such a large impact on landing properly.
posted by Windopaene at 6:18 PM on September 14
I haven't flown in over a decade, and if I'm not crossing an ocean, probably won't be. But, so interesting that certain plane's aerodynamics and noise abatement rules and such have such a large impact on landing properly.
posted by Windopaene at 6:18 PM on September 14
Best answer: Airline pilot here. Passenger comfort is paramount but physics tends to win those battles.
As noted above, Burbank has a short runway and terrain to avoid so a "slam-dunk" approach followed by aggressive braking is the norm there.
At some airlines there's been a trend to use a lower flap setting (if possible) for final approach which uses less fuel- especially at airports with longer runways. (Burbank is not one of these) That energy the airplane carries coming down the approach has to be bled off somewhere; you can use thrust reversers deployed with engines idle, or deployed with reverse thrust (which is hard on the engines and the airplane) and/or aggressive braking, although, again, in the case of Burbank, you usually have to use everything to get the airplane stopped there. The shorter runway there is....really short for a heavy jet, but it's fun to do.
Most airliners have automatic braking systems, although it's up to the crew whether or not to use them, depending on the specific operational guidance of that airline. So you might be seeing at least some of a trend if the airlines are looking at safe ways to save fuel.
posted by Thistledown at 5:41 AM on September 15 [14 favorites]
As noted above, Burbank has a short runway and terrain to avoid so a "slam-dunk" approach followed by aggressive braking is the norm there.
At some airlines there's been a trend to use a lower flap setting (if possible) for final approach which uses less fuel- especially at airports with longer runways. (Burbank is not one of these) That energy the airplane carries coming down the approach has to be bled off somewhere; you can use thrust reversers deployed with engines idle, or deployed with reverse thrust (which is hard on the engines and the airplane) and/or aggressive braking, although, again, in the case of Burbank, you usually have to use everything to get the airplane stopped there. The shorter runway there is....really short for a heavy jet, but it's fun to do.
Most airliners have automatic braking systems, although it's up to the crew whether or not to use them, depending on the specific operational guidance of that airline. So you might be seeing at least some of a trend if the airlines are looking at safe ways to save fuel.
posted by Thistledown at 5:41 AM on September 15 [14 favorites]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by samthemander at 10:58 AM on September 14 [7 favorites]