To be honest, I've been flying real planes for over a decade now, and I still have trouble in the sim sometimes. They're still decent landings, but I know for sure I'd be able to pull it off better in the real thing. Comparing the A2A 172 to the 172s I fly, I miss all of the tactile feedback in the sim.

 

Never a truer word said. I remember the very first time I went up in a c172 there was a crosswind and my instructor was telling me I could have a go but would find it difficult to get it down, and while of course I had help, I couldn't believe how much easier it was. I've also been in a full 737 sim and a Level D full scale 777 simulator at Heathrow. We did some crosswind zero visibility 20kt crosswind landings and did excellently (even the pilot who was with us was surprised) but I found it so much easier. He commented that it was so obvious in the full visibility landings that I've used sims because I was too worried about the gauges. Sims really are quite difficult in that sense.

 

I wonder if something like the Occulus would make it slightly easier (thought you still miss tactile)? One comment I've seen from so many youtube videos when playing Elite:Dangers or Asseto Corsa, GTA et al is everyone uses the same sentience; "the sense of scale" and the graphics feeling so much more real, as if everything was touchable and you really understood distances better.

Well ofc that comes first who suggested other wise?

 

You aren't, but vRYR -- indirectly -- are, by setting a parameter that rewards something that doesn't really matter that much (vertical speed at touchdown), ignores the parameters which do (speed, touchdown point, centreline), and indirectly penalises those who achieve the most important factors at the expense of a slightly firmer (or even less firm) touchdown.

 

Of course, the sensible thing is to do exactly what you describe -- fly the approach and landing correctly and accept whatever V/S pops up on the report afterwards. Sadly, I expect there will be plenty keen to boast about how they always get -150fpm landings, without concentrating on the parameters which really matter. 

 

We still have the touchdown V/S appear on the subsequent report, incidentally -- but what we removed was the award (or otherwise) of points for achieving a specific rate. So you still see the figure (though frankly I, and I suspect most of us who've been at this for a while, know when the wheels hit the ground if it's firmer than one would have ideally liked, whatever the subsequent printout says!)

 

 

Am thinking of joining BAV.

 

You'd be very welcome!

 

 

 

I'm really concious of my landing (call it vanity of people watching) and I really don't want to go-around...<snip>...Kinda as if I don't get it down now it's game over.

 

The extra concentration is definitely a good thing (long-haul tends to do that to me as well: doing fewer sectors you get less opportunity to make amends when you thump it in!), but there's no shame in throwing an approach away and starting again if you're not happy with it. Far better to go around than to press on and end up making a real hash of it -- to me, a well-judged (and well-handled) go-around is just as impressive as a perfect touchdown.

 

A wise old pilot once said: "I plan every approach to end in a go around. If I land, that's a bonus!" -- the sentiment being that you should always be in the mindset to go around at the first sign that something's not right, rather than determined to press on at all costs because you view a go-around as a failure.

 

Practice helps -- but also some things from the real world transfer as well. Seat position is crucial -- in the old days of 2D cockpits this was actually easier as we always had the same fixed viewpoint. Now we (mostly) all fly from the VC where our eyepoint can move around, it's something to be aware of: if your eye position is different each time, you'll be seeing a different picture each time, and that makes the visual cues that much more difficult to pick up. In the real world, there are markings and devices in the cockpit that pilots use to ensure their seat (more accurately, their eyes) are positioned correctly: something which doesn't tend to be transferred to the sim VC textures/models, but I wish they were!

 

I also heartily recommend setting the zoom to 1.00 for the landing as well. As Kyle points out, we already have challenges in the sim world that don't exist in real life, such as small screens, lack of tactile feedback etc. No point making it even harder by zooming to 0.70 and making the target 30% smaller!

 

Finally, and most importantly, every good landing comes from a good, stable approach. Be fully configured on final nice and early, and in any event by the stable approach criteria -- 1000ft IMC, 500ft VMC -- though many airlines are moving towards a blanket 1000ft stabilisation point unless a specific approach requires otherwise. Ultimately, that means on the glidepath and centreline, gear down, landing flap set, speed at or very close to the Vref + whatever target and engines spooled -- if you fail to meet these criteria, a go around is mandatory. Control inputs and thrust changes should be smooth and to the minimum required to correct any deviations: it's very easy to end up fighting yourself with large, opposing control movements (PIO). Learn the "datums" for your particular airframe: chances are it will fly down a 3 degree glide at a roughly similar thrust setting and pitch attitude for any given combination of weight and flap setting. Aim for those datums, and as I say, make small corrections to remain on path and then return to the original 'datum' setting. Ground effect is not particularly well-modelled in FSX, but something to watch out for in the final stages as this will tend to make you "balloon" slightly and end up high if not corrected. Likewise, be aware of the thrust/pitch couple with underslung engines: if you add or take away power you will cause the nose to rise or drop, and this particularly needs to be considered in the flare. In general, one should avoid "chopping" the thrust levers: like any other control, handle them gently and remember the Boeing advice: "From around 30ft, slowly retard the thrust levers to reach the idle stop at touchdown".

 

Keep an ear on the RA callouts: once you get used to the normal cadence you will very quickly be able to tell whether your descent rate is higher than normal!

 

Finally -- keep flying the aircraft all the way to the ground (and, indeed, all the way to taxi speed). Lots of people (in the real world as well, I hear) tend to fly down to 30ft, then chop the power, pull back on the yoke and wait for the impact. Whilst you clearly shouldn't be making major corrections at this stage, you should be judging the progress of the flare and making minute adjustments as needed. Likewise, when you do touch down, don't just let go of the yoke: if you've got a crosswind in particular, you need to maintain the proper aileron and rudder inputs to keep the aircraft straight all the way down to taxi speed.

You aren't, but vRYR -- indirectly -- are, by setting a parameter that rewards something that doesn't really matter that much (vertical speed at touchdown), ignores the parameters which do (speed, touchdown point, centreline), and indirectly penalises those who achieve the most important factors at the expense of a slightly firmer (or even less firm) touchdown.

 

Of course, the sensible thing is to do exactly what you describe -- fly the approach and landing correctly and accept whatever V/S pops up on the report afterwards. Sadly, I expect there will be plenty keen to boast about how they always get -150fpm landings, without concentrating on the parameters which really matter.

 

We still have the touchdown V/S appear on the subsequent report, incidentally -- but what we removed was the award (or otherwise) of points for achieving a specific rate. So you still see the figure (though frankly I, and I suspect most of us who've been at this for a while, know when the wheels hit the ground if it's firmer than one would have ideally liked, whatever the subsequent printout says!)

 

 

 

You'd be very welcome!

On thinking it though your right, although it's nice to see a great landing VS, your right you already know if you made a good landing or not and the things you have pointed out I agree are far more important.

Good write up on landing.

 

I will look at joining, very kind of you to say I would be very welcome.

My VA does the same thing re landing rates.  They chastise the practice in the forums, yet have landing rate graphs and the pilots (mostly newer ones) post their landing rates via ACARS all of the time.  The closer to 0 v/s, apparently the better they think their landing is.  Who cares if they floated 10,000ft down an 8,000ft runway!  They landed a -2fpm rate.  I've even seen positive rates upon landing.  The problem with the ACARS software is that it records the final landing rate, so they could have crashed into the runway at -3500fpm the 1st time, bounced and hit -120fpm the Second time, and it's recorded as a good landing.  

My point is not to bash my va by any means.  They are a fine organization that have helped many people in many different ways, and I am proud to be a member.  Rather it is an example of how ridiculous these landing rates can be.  Out of the thousands of real world landings I have ever performed, I don't know a single landing rate.  Only in a simulator that is ironically "as real as it gets" are such trivial things celebrated. 

The tires didn't blow+the lg strut wasn't tweaked+my wife/passengers didn't cuss=good landing.

Interestingly, I came across this while taking a break at work:

http://www.nycaviation.com/2014/08/landing-perfect-10/#.VVt5hY7F_Ak

Simon,

Ive just applied to join BAV, Application Reference Number (ARN) is ARN-24889-TQG

 

 

Interestingly, I came across this while taking a break at work:

 

Nice article, Kyle -- sums it up very well!

 

 

 

Ive just applied to join BAV

 

Brilliant -- look forward to seeing you there!

 

Glad you liked the landing write-up.