Talk:Landing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

Removed the Wiki request for "Relevant Internal Links" every word that is relevant to the process of landing has a link on it in the first 3 paragraphs, except "Airplane" and since "Aircraft" has a link, and the Wikifier didn't give examples, I removed the Wiki request.

I moved some of the airliner and small plane items around in respect to landing. I thought it best that the process was described in the context of both smaller and larger aircraft, as stalls, crabs, and low-wing landings apply to both types of airplanes. I thought it also important to mention "airliners" land well above stall speed to ensure those who are not so keen on flying, understand what "fly on runway" means. --DevonSprings 16:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the whole conversation about being too high or too low, causing a dynamic stall... How often does that happen? Most pilots can take a plane around at 1,000 - 1,200 AGL and hit the button everytime. So it seemd an odd sentence to me to talk about being too high or too low before discussing the normal landing. --DevonSprings 23:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the buoyancy of a balloon be increased to cushion the landing ? Mike Stramba 16:15, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

For aircraft or birds, landing is generally accomplished by gradually tapering down airspeed and lift. This statement is I think misleading. The first step is to increase the lift in order to change the path of flight from a downward angle to level. The second is to try to maintain level flight just above the surface, and then at the last moment the lift starts to decline alowing a gentle transition to the surface.PR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.21.16 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think what is meant is decreased compared with when the balloon stays in the air. However, the buoyancy of a balloon can perhaps be increased again at the last stage of landing, so that it hits the ground with a lower speed than with which is was going down. - Patrick 18:26, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

merge alighting

I think alighting and landing should be merged. Although they are distinguishable concepts they are closely-enough related, sometimes even used as synonyms, and individually stubby articles. If this topic ever gets much longer it can be split again. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-14 21:53Z

Definitely; the other one is just a dictionary definition. —Michael Z. 2006-01-14 23:06 Z

Removed "how-to" section

I was surprised on reading this article for the first time to find that it included a section giving pointers (presumably aimed at a student pilot) on how to make a good landing in a light single-engine aircraft. This type of material, while it is educational, does not belong in an encyclopedia. The article on saxophone doesn't tell students how to play notes, the article on sailboats doesn't describe how to beat upwind, etc. So this article should describe the process of landing, the different types or challenges in landing (short field, soft field, crosswind, water, on skis, etc.) but shouldn't have a section containing tips. —SaxTeacher (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally Agree "how-to" should be removed

When the article first started it had a lot of high and hot, low and slow and crabbing discussion, which made me want to fix it up a bit. I agree the encylopedia should say "how-it-happens" not how-to-do-it. This is espically true in any motor skill like flying a plane, driving a car, or playing an instrument, where each individual must learn the skill for themselves. Each "how-to" interpretation might be for someone else. DevonSprings 00:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

altitude is the result of attitude -- Rolled back user (talk)

This user changed the word attitude to altitude. The altitude is the result of the adjustments of attitude, flaps, gear, air-brake, droops, and especially power. The pitch attitude is often expressed in three gross terms (nose down, level, nose up). I suppose the article should mention flaps, gear, droops, and power. While attitude and pitch seem to be the same thing, if I remember correctly attitude represents both Pitch, Roll.

However this is also why I like the word attitude, as in a crosswind there might be a few degrees of pitch and roll as well as a slight nose-up pitch to induce drag and reduce speed. It might also have some Yaw input.

I believe in the big planes that they almost never have a wing down attitude as the wings are so long they have to come in level, meaning that they have to crab significantly more than a smaller plane.

I believe, but would need to ask some of my pilot friends, that brake is rarely applied on a normal descent.

(I checked and the speed-brake is applied during descent to reduce speed, to where the flaps can be extended.) 

DevonSprings 20:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Architecture

I was looking for the definition and description of a landing as used in architecture regarding the origination and termination of a stairway. I wanted to know if a doorway could exist in a landing without affecting the landing's status as a place of safety or a landing in terms of the national building code. I did not find the definition of landing in the glossary of the 2005 issue of the Oregon Residential Specialty (building) Code based on the National Building Code. --Qi4u 04:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The last line of the article...

"When a plane fails to land, it is called a crash."

Hahaha that cracked me up. Totally wasn't expecting that :) --smileyborg (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed that line, not necessary and pretty stupid. M173627 (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rear-Wheels

Is there any particular reason an aircraft almost always lands on it's real wheels? Are there any that don't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.95.246 (talk) 05:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

well probably because there are two sets of wheels on an airplane in the rear, and one in the front; I'm no expert, but if it landed nose first, it would probably land off balance and result in a crash Aykleinman (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason is simple, the most amount of drag, and least amount of descent is achieved by putting the plane in a Nose up Attitude. In a tricycle gear the flare and landing angle are about the same, you come in on two wheels.

Occasionally you will get pilots who perform a 3 wheel landing where they come in flat, pilots who do it, swear by it...

using electronics while landing

in the article, there is a picture of an airplane landing, taken from the inside of the plane (by me). Don't they announce to put away any electronics while landing, taking off, or taxiing? oops... Aykleinman (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Why is the Cessna landing sideways on a country road? What does the Qantas jumbo on the rooftops? The pictures might be spectacular, but not adequate to explain the term 'landing' in an encyclopedia. A good picture or picture sequence is still needed. It should show the aircraft in neutral colors, the landing gear, a runway distinct from surroundings, and maybe an airport building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.190.192.67 (talk) 10:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, image fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Water crash image

An IP editor has been edit warring to include and image of a water crash. This article is about normal landings, not crashes. The image doesn't belong here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

You are the one who likes to war. The image stays and this article is about all landings, emergency landing included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.89.30 (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The image has now been removed as inappropriate by three editors, so we have an editing consensus to not include it. The aircraft image you have been trying to include is an aircraft that was written off as a result of the accident depicted, so this was not a "landing", it was a crash. You now need to make a very convincing case here for including it, one convincing enough to change three other editors' minds on this. So make your case here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Obviously it has been written off because it was an emergency landing. Who are you to blame them for taking it out if service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.89.30 (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You aren't making a very good case here, and you need to to do so to gain a consensus to include this image, so let me spell it out for you. This article is about landings and the photo is not of a landing, but of a crash that wrote off the aircraft. We could put any number of aircraft crash photos here, but we don't because it is off-topic for the subject of the article. You need to explain why we need a photo of a crash in an article about landings. - Ahunt (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Update: Okay now four editors have removed your insertion of this image. We seem to have a solid editing consensus not to include it, so you need to make a very strong and convincing case for including the image here. - Ahunt (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It has now been over a week since this item was brought here for discussion. There has been no logical reason given to include the image and it has been removed as inappropriate by four editors and supported by none other than the person who originally wanted to include it, so I think we can close this discussion as "consensus to not include this image". - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)