If you have a registered FSUIPC you can use a little Lua plug-in, like this:

function onground(off, val)   if val ~= 0 then	  landvs = -math.floor( (ipc.readSD(0x030C) * 60 * 3.28084 / 256) + 0.5)	  ipc.display("Touchdown fpm = n	 " .. landvs, 10)   endendevent.offset(0x0366, "UW", "onground")

Save that in your FS Modules folder as ipcReady.lua, then run FS, and it will display your touchdown fpm for 10 seconds after touchdown. You can choose a different time by changing the 10 in the ipc.display line.Note that if you bounce then each touchdown will show a different value, of course. ;-)RegardsPete

A landing rate of 150-200 is pretty good. For the MD-11 Boeing recommends a landing rate of 120-240 fpm (1-2 fps), I don't think the 737 will be much different. Is there no guidance somewhere in the FCTM or FCOM?Note that a landing that is too soft is almost as bad as a landing that is too hard. Landing at a low rate (lower than say 100 fpm) usually means floating for a long time, which means a long landing and thus a greater risk of an overrun (131 times greater if the runway is wet as well to be precise). Also a low vertical speed at touchdown increases the risk of hydroplaning (not modelled in FS to the best of my knowledge) and if your touchdown rate is too low you might delay triggering the weight on wheels (WOW) switch, which delays deployment of your auto-spoilers and auto-brakes.As for measuring your landing touchdown rate, there are a number of programs that can do that. FS Passengers for example, or any number of VA ACARS programs. Looking at your VSI is indeed not really a good way of measuring it, due to the lag. I'm nor sure how much of an issue that is on an airliner though, since I think there the VSI is usually derived from the IRS, which should have less lag.Regarding hard landings, hard landings are not clearly defined but anything much over 300-400 fpm should probably be considered hard. After a hard landing there will have to be an extensive (i.e. expensive) maintenance inspection. 600 fpm is the maximum landing limit. During certification the manufacturer has to demonstrate the aircraft can handle a landing at that rate, at max landing weight, plus a safety factor. So if you touchdown above 600 fpm you stand a good chance of breaking your plane.Dan, a good pilot will always have contingency plans ready, even if there are no cameras. As the cliche goes: never let a plane take you anywhere your mind hasn't reached 5 minutes before. That goes for sudden emergencies just as much (perhaps even more) as for normal operations.John-Alan Pascoe

Thank you, I have registered FSUIPC.Petr

Dan, a good pilot will always have contingency plans ready, even if there are no cameras. As the cliche goes: never let a plane take you anywhere your mind hasn't reached 5 minutes before. That goes for sudden emergencies just as much (perhaps even more) as for normal operations.

Thanks for the clarification, John. I have about 12 airline dvd's and not sure exactly which actually show the constant discussions on it (I think it's the MD11 Martinair dvd), but it showed them constantly talking along the route about the constantly changing contingency plans. I believe it's also in my Cathay Pacific dvd when flying over high mountains they are constantly talking about all the possible "what ifs". A lot of people think (or say), that other than programming the FMC, they don't do much, and if you watch a lot of dvds I can see why that point may come across. I tend to do it as they do and that's why I like to randomly at least ask myself "what would you do right now, IF...".@ Dario, That's a sweet and simple way to see your fpm! Thanks for posting it. I'm going to have to give that a try asap.

I practice go arounds, and often will just force myself to do something like change airports enroute, or even simulate a failure and kill all power. I actually do all this quite often and like to test myself and see how prepared I am. I fail misereably most of the time, meaning when I do these things, they are spur of the moment decisions. Pilots I've seen in my dvd's seem to always know where they would go at any given time and always have some form of contingency plan. Maybe that's just because the camera's there, but it's fun to think outside the box I think. I bet 90% of people reading this would also fail miserably if ATC actually told them to enter a holding pattern. Practicing these things to me is more fun then just going A-B but I guess it depends also.As for the video of St.Barts, I have no idea what he was thinking. I think either it was an emergency, or his pride told him he could do it. Landing there in the sim is even hard. Not the default, but with Fly Tampa's (Maarten Complete).I have a Grenadines Challenge in my logbook section of my forum in flying a series of flights with the J41. Landing at St.Barts in the J41 is really tough, but doable. You just need to scrape the grass on your way down that hill! :)I think most people here are talking about just looking at the PFD, or HUD.I use FSPassengers and one cool thing about it, is it stores all kinds of data that I can later look at. It's great for reference and even troubleshooting researching.

Not to break the thought guys,But Dan were you asking for photos to be uploaded to your site?Jamalje has some photos on his HDD He would love to share.

Thanks, and yes, that topic is here. Would love to see what you and whoever have. Post them in the post I linked or PM me the larger screenshots if needed. Thanks again.

Anyone wishing to record major events along their flight, including landing rate can use this:http://www.utr-online.com/Software.asp?page=4You view logs in Google Earth. Makes a great visual tool to analyze your flight. Does not effect performance at all. I don't use it often because our VA uses VAFinancials, and it gives us everything and more in there. But it's still a great tool I use when I don't have VAFS.

Anyone wishing to record major events along their flight, including landing rate can use this:http://www.utr-online.com/Software.asp?page=4You view logs in Google Earth. Makes a great visual tool to analyze your flight. Does not effect performance at all. I don't use it often because our VA uses VAFinancials, and it gives us everything and more in there. But it's still a great tool I use when I don't have VAFS.

Very nice, thanks for sharing.

This topic reminds me of an aviation magazine I read on perfect landings a few years ago, the late great master Bob Hoover claimed that a wet runway was best because he could get the mains to spin up before putting the full weight of the aircraft on them. Amazing. I remember flying Cessna singles that pushing just a tiny bit of power at touchdown for an instant might yield the desired result akin to driving over a manhole cover. But it's funny, I remember my worst landings better than my best. One evening, the gear door in the twin didn't close after the gear dropped like it normally does due to a broken crank and the main wheelwell was open to the wind when I flared and ....boom! I was afraid that one of the main struts was going to get shoved up my [blank]. Nothing damaged but my pride, alas another perfect landing: I walked away from it.

I'm watching the rate in the HUD and using "luvcars" (swavirtual) software that records the touchdown rate. Thanks for all the feedback. I love Bob Hoover stories.Thanks,Doug

I can get 150-200 fpm touchdowns regularly with the 747 but to me it does not look as smooth as it could be. I take the point from many of the posters here that a firm touchdown in the TDZ is better than floating forever however professional pilots I have seen nearly always "grease it on". With the aid of some very powerful binoculars I have watched them arriving at Tullamarine (Melbourne , Australia) and they seem to be able to hold off seemingly less than a foot off the tarmac and gently float on to the runway. I can't do that and even 3 feet per second I suppose is the equivalent of being a metre or so in the air and in the time it takes you to say "and" you have hit the tarmac - sounds a bit too firm to me. I have greased one on occasionally but I was never sure how I managed it. Should we carry a smidgin of power into the flare perhaps like I used to have to do with the heavier Cessna singles in real life? Or is it because FSX does not have ground effect modelled? Does any one else think 200 fpm is too much?Gerry

Interesting topic as it brought back a lot of memories. I was an instrumentation test engineer on the #2 737 built and accumulated 132 flight hours during the test period between May to November of 1967. That time included 32 hours of performance landings. These were landings to demonstrate maximum landing performance so were performed as I recall as close to 10fps as possible. I was seated at a test console right above the landing gear. After an hour or two of those I was tempted to stand as my back was getting pretty sore. Those days were some of the best of my carreer and loved every minute of them. I will have to admit that the pucker factor did rise occasionallyWhen you fly on a test plane doing certification testing, you put it through every conceivable failure mode that you can recover from. When you have done that you know the plane is safe.It was a carreer most of you would probably love.Tom Hibben

I can get 150-200 fpm touchdowns regularly with the 747 but to me it does not look as smooth as it could be. I take the point from many of the posters here that a firm touchdown in the TDZ is better than floating forever however professional pilots I have seen nearly always "grease it on". With the aid of some very powerful binoculars I have watched them arriving at Tullamarine (Melbourne , Australia) and they seem to be able to hold off seemingly less than a foot off the tarmac and gently float on to the runway. I can't do that and even 3 feet per second I suppose is the equivalent of being a metre or so in the air and in the time it takes you to say "and" you have hit the tarmac - sounds a bit too firm to me. I have greased one on occasionally but I was never sure how I managed it. Should we carry a smidgin of power into the flare perhaps like I used to have to do with the heavier Cessna singles in real life? Or is it because FSX does not have ground effect modelled? Does any one else think 200 fpm is too much?Gerry

Personally, when comparing a sim vs real life, I think the biggest thing your missing to allow you to consistently grease the landing is the lack of sense of vertical acceleration. Maintaining altitude, or a constant descent rate in RL is easier than in the sim as you have other senses queueing you. I remember filling up my logbook with sim hours in the Frasca and it seemed twice as hard to shoot an aproach there then it was to do it under the hood with a safety pilot.I'm only 5'9" and I could never see over the eyebrow in some planes when flaring right before touchdown. I knew I was only a few feet above the tarmac and counted on my "butt feeling" to control descent for a greaser. Can't do that on a desktop sim.JB

I can get 150-200 fpm touchdowns regularly with the 747 but to me it does not look as smooth as it could be. I take the point from many of the posters here that a firm touchdown in the TDZ is better than floating forever however professional pilots I have seen nearly always "grease it on". With the aid of some very powerful binoculars I have watched them arriving at Tullamarine (Melbourne , Australia) and they seem to be able to hold off seemingly less than a foot off the tarmac and gently float on to the runway. I can't do that and even 3 feet per second I suppose is the equivalent of being a metre or so in the air and in the time it takes you to say "and" you have hit the tarmac - sounds a bit too firm to me. I have greased one on occasionally but I was never sure how I managed it. Should we carry a smidgin of power into the flare perhaps like I used to have to do with the heavier Cessna singles in real life? Or is it because FSX does not have ground effect modelled? Does any one else think 200 fpm is too much?Gerry

During flare, are you looking at the far end of the runway? For me that helps a lot.Bert Van Bulck

Bert,Thanks for the suggestion. Yes, I do look at the end of the runway and it certainly does help. It was one of the first things I was taught when learning to fly and one of the hardest things to do as the coaming obscured your view of it as you raised to nose for touchdown. I had to learn to look out the side window at that stage of flight to judge my height above the runway. Not quite so useful when flying the 747 or 737 of course.Gerry