Can someone tell me what a -3.00 ft /min landing looks like?

[Jetstream96 20]

soft touchdown......(crash!!)

 

I think -300 is more acceptable. Can a passenger know which is -3fpm and which is -300fpm? I think they are almost the same.

[hangar 661]

yes....a BIG difference can be felt between a landing which is less than -100fpm (which is what you might consider a greaser, or soft landing) and -300fpm. Most commercial airliners landing here at JFK ( i live only a few miles east and many times over the years I have sat at the end of rwy 31R watching landing after landing) are all greasers...you can actually count the many seconds that go by between flare and main wheel touch down. If you can get close enough like I can (not anymore though due to stricter airport security) it's very obvious they mostly touch down at less than -100fpm. This is always my goal when flight simming because I find it fun and a challenge at times to put it down at less than -100fpm BUT also exactly where I want it (which is usually within 500ft of the 1st 1,000ft markers.

 

Something like -300 -500 fpm on GA type gear would feel very shocking...certainly not soft.

[wims80 121]

Having a too low vspeed during landing can also cause the tyre to get ripped off the rim, particularly in crosswind situations. If the runway is contaminated with ice or water then a too low landing rate can cause the plane to start sliding as well.

[lodestar 186]

That's probably manually overvrited values in FSFK report or VA ACARS tool, by some obsessed VA pilot. I know one VA having a couple of pilots witch allways did that kind of things :lol:

[ZachLW 37]

Just consider anything over 500-600 ft/min. a hard landing. Ouch.

[alepro 15]

Just by the way, the RAAS tool that is available in the Avsim file library spits out a nice little summary of your landing, including the vertical speed at the moment of touchdown. I find it quite interesting to see how I fared.

 

Another thing to point out is that the vertical touchdown speed is a function of aircraft type/weight/stoping distance, runway length/surface condition, wind speed, and sometimes the taxiway the crew is aiming for (to avoid costly backtracking). I.e. a long flare is the wrong maneuver if the aircrafts anticipated stopping distance given the prevailing conditions is approaching that of the runway length. Hence it's pretty unrealistic of your VA to suggest you touch down very gently wherever you land.

 

I think it's primarily about safety margins, then about minimizing wear and tear on the aircraft, getting a short taxi to the gate/parking position and finally about passenger comfort, in that order.

 

JFK has unusually long runways, owing largely to the 707 era, and the hot summer NY can get so I'm not surprised that most aircraft touch down very softly there, but I wouldn't expect the same pilot in the same plane to land in that fashion if their next port of call is KMDW and it's raining.

[btwilks 7]

USAVA - it states all of the recent/best landings on the home page. And There is one that is -3.00 Feet per Minute. Thats a landing descent that is 3 FEET PER MINUTE. That is a completely unrealistic landing lol.

 

Jerad, I think the existence of the 'Greaser Board' on the USAVA homepage might have inadvertently given the impression that such landings are what the VA is suggesting its pilots should aim for. This isn't really so and the 'Greaser Board' is just a bit of fun for those pilots that enjoy such things.

 

In the USAVA Forums, one of the hub managers recently summed up the VA's approach to landing rates as follows

 

"Am I saying that under 100 landings are impossible? No, I am saying that I would expect to see most landings between -150 to -350 and consider this a proper approach, showing the pilot did in fact have control of the aircraft upon approach; while landings beween -350 and -500 as being incorrect flight settings, such as too much speed, too fast of a descent, improper flap settings, etc. There are other aspects that may play into a higher landing rate such as weather ... Frame rate loss upon approach is common for pilots with weaker systems in heavy trafficked airports which can also cause a pilot to have sub-par landings as lag generates.

 

In either case, the "greasers" are not the goal of the VA one bit, it is more of an individual aspect or desire which I guess some pilots feel they are much better at flying since they consistantly fly with the under 100 landings."

 

So, USAVA's approach is 'Have fun with greasers if you like' but if you want to be realistic 'aim for -150 to -350'.