Forecasting Arrival Barometer & Descent Forecasting

[softreset 33]

Depends on the situation. The 10/250 thing is more of a slow before reaching kind of thing, so you descend, reduce the descent rate just prior to 10 and reduce speed to 250. In cases where I need a steeper descent, I might slow down before going down where I can use the speed reserve for an increased descent rate. If I'm low enough, slowing down before trying to descend may also help me get flaps out to aid said descent.

 

The instruction was "reaching 6000, reduce speed 220 knots or less." In other words, "upon getting to 6000, reduce speed to 220 or less." I was distracted by not properly setting up the VOR info once I got to 6000 though, so my action was a little delayed.

 

EDIT: Re-watched that one segment (thanks for the time stamp on that - helped me from having to search for the reference) and noticed how weak my old computer was...man...ouch...

 

My pleasure. Yeah, you've got a lot of videos and they're all pretty long. So saying: "In that one video where you did the thing" is about unhelpful as possible.

 

It was a very helpful video, in addition to the tutorials.

 

Yeah... I've just reached the threshold with add-ons where my computer is no longer happy. A sub 200 ft/min touchdown at 9-14 FPS isn't really a thing.

 

Thanks again.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

[...] they're all pretty long.

 

Me? Long-winded? Surely you jest...

 

 

 

It was a very helpful video, in addition to the tutorials.

 

Glad it helped.

 

 

 

A sub 200 ft/min touchdown at 9-14 FPS isn't really a thing.

 

This is the subject of quite a lot of hyperfocus in the sim crowd (probably because of a lot of the VAs have "best landing rate" boards), but it's not something that we really concentrate on up front. Put the plane on the ground. Be gentle, but it doesn't need to be a greaser.

 

Flew for a while on Saturday. Upon returning to JYO, we had a nice gusty crosswind. The primary goal here is to put the plane on the ground. Trying to grease it on is going to put you at risk of being blown sideways. This could mean side-loading a tire, or putting you in the grass if the runway is narrow enough.

[softreset 33]

Me? Long-winded? Surely you jest...

 

Glad it helped.

 

This is the subject of quite a lot of hyperfocus in the sim crowd (probably because of a lot of the VAs have "best landing rate" boards), but it's not something that we really concentrate on up front. Put the plane on the ground. Be gentle, but it doesn't need to be a greaser.

 

Flew for a while on Saturday. Upon returning to JYO, we had a nice gusty crosswind. The primary goal here is to put the plane on the ground. Trying to grease it on is going to put you at risk of being blown sideways. This could mean side-loading a tire, or putting you in the grass if the runway is narrow enough.

 

Honestly, I prefer the "exhaustive data" approach. I'd rather watch a 2 hour long YouTube video that floods me with data than have to watch a dozen, 10-15 minute videos and try to piece together information. Not to mention, without fail each of those videos are done a little bit differently.

 

Oh I'm a 350+ (but sub 600) ft/min T/D guy, all day. It's fun to let the plan auto land at <100 but I jokingly call myself the "tooth fairy" because I'm collecting loose ones at the conclusion of the flight.

 

Yeah the SWA virtual I fly with broadcasts it the moment you land on the ACARS plugin and there's always ribbing on anything above 350. One of these days I'm going to set it down like a meteorite and see what they say.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Yeah the SWA virtual I fly with broadcasts it the moment you land on the ACARS plugin and there's always ribbing on anything above 350. One of these days I'm going to set it down like a meteorite and see what they say.

 

I had a feeling it was them. Just don't pay attention to it at all. Land the plane. Done.  :wink:

 

If anyone gives you trouble about it, tell them to go ask a real pilot how much they concentrate on landing / touchdown rates. Apart for making sure to flare properly and not drop it on the runway, you're not going to hear any one of them refer to a rate unless it's the manufacturer limit for gear/structure damage (which is usually quite high).

[Nick Dobda 24]

 

 

eah the SWA virtual I fly with broadcasts it the moment you land on the ACARS plugin

 

You mean theres a way to see what your touchdown rate was? Do you need a plugin or does FSX have that data somewhere? Unless the thing touches down like a feather it always looks / sounds like a bomb drop with EZDOK and all that happens when the wheels hit. EZDOK slams your head around and it looks like you're bouncing even if you're not.

[softreset 33]

You mean theres a way to see what your touchdown rate was? Do you need a plugin or does FSX have that data somewhere? Unless the thing touches down like a feather it always looks / sounds like a bomb drop with EZDOK and all that happens when the wheels hit. EZDOK slams your head around and it looks like you're bouncing even if you're not.

 

Nick,

 

http://bobbyallen.me/landing-rate-monitor/

 

That's the one I've seen, but there's definitely a lot of other ones. At a minimum you'll need FSUIPC (http://www.schiratti.com/dowson.html)

 

The VA I've joined has all of the "stuff" built-into a GUI. It's pretty cool, actually.

 

 

 

[Nick Dobda 24]

 

 

http://bobbyallen.me...g-rate-monitor/
 
That's the one I've seen, but there's definitely a lot of other ones.

 

Very cool, I'll have to check it out. Thanks!

[scandinavian13 5,192]

haha - all this, right after I mentioned that people really need to stop hyperfocusing on it...

 

"Hey guys! Did you see the landing rate board yet? I just got back from..."

 

 

 

Focusing on landing rate too much is actually counterproductive, and especially so in certain situations. Crosswind, as I mentioned earlier is one of those situations where lingering over the runway in an effort to keep the rate down actually puts you at risk of being blown off center, and/or side loading the tires. Another is when you have a wet runway. Not setting down firmly can contribute to aquaplaning/hydroplaning. To my knowledge, no landing rate calculator out there takes either of those into account.

 

If someone is just getting into the hobby, and even more so if they're going to eventually start taking lessons, it's important to develop good habits by avoiding the bad ones. Your eyes should be up and out in the flare, but if you're trying to chase some mythical 0.00000000000000001 fpm landing, you're going to get into the habit of glancing down at the VSI, or, at the very least, adjusting your flare technique such that you're unnecessarily delaying touchdown. Negative sim transfer is already bad enough with sim pilots having a very distinct gauge fixation when getting into the real thing (bad for the private pilot cert; very good once they get to the inst rating). I'd offer up the opinion that we should try to downplay this landing rate stuff such that we don't encourage more bad habits. A good landing is not a landing where the rate was the lowest. Sorry.

 

 

 

EDIT: I want to clarify that if you're treating it as a simple 'neat' debrief item, I don't see anything wrong with that. Still, I think that hyperfocusing on it can be detrimental to developing good habits.

[skelsey 765]

What Kyle said.

 

What is a good landing? One that accomplished at the right speed and in the right place -- on the centreline and in the touchdown zone, from a stable approach. Anything else is, essentially, a bonus.

 

Obviously it's nice to get a "greaser", but the above parameters are more important: runway excursion is a major RW safety issue at the moment and deep landings/unstable approaches are major contributory factors to overrun incidents. Most operators these days I think have FDM parameters that will get you a "tea, no biscuits" chat with the Chief Pilot if you fail to land inside the touchdown zone, or if you exceed pitch or speed parameters on landing. Most common reason for missing the touchdown zone -- floating whilst looking for a greaser...

[Nick Dobda 24]

EDIT: I want to clarify that if you're treating it as a simple 'neat' debrief item, I don't see anything wrong with that. Still, I think that hyperfocusing on it can be detrimental to developing good habits

 

Kyle, 

 

I think your last sentence encompasses my feeling on the tool. 

 

I'm a simmer, I'm never going to be a pilot. Catching the landing rate is just another measurable that is apparently easy to capture with that addon. If I could have someone sitting over my shoulder grading my landing and critiquing me on all parameters so that I can learn each time that would be great.. hey an addon that does all that would be awesome! Good luck programming that...

 

From the times I've gone plane spotting, from afar the landings nearly all look "greased". Youtube some plane spotting vids, those cagey veteran commercial pilots nearly grease it every time. At least it looks that way from the spectator point of view. They're not floating down the runway, but they pull up and touchdown ever so softly. So for me in clear weather a soft landing is my goal, if the weather is iffy then a firm landing works (and might even be preferred), only in the severe weather conditions should a hard landing be acceptable. But if I'm consistently landing hard throughout all weather conditions, I'm clearly doing it wrong.

 

Right now I just have no idea at this point, as my eyes at touchdown are out the window (through the HGS), and I honestly have no idea what my touchdown rate is (even though the rate is in that HGS box, I can honestly say that after 50 or so landings with it I have never looked at the descent rate). 

 

 

[softreset 33]

 

EDIT: I want to clarify that if you're treating it as a simple 'neat' debrief item, I don't see anything wrong with that. Still, I think that hyperfocusing on it can be detrimental to developing good habits.

 

It's 100% about the 'neat' factor for me. So I apologize if I've poked the bear on a sensitive topic. Honestly, considering how so many VA sites seem to emphasize that, I just assumed it was... a thing.

 

I think Nick has done a pretty good job of encompassing my feelings about it. My entire life/profession revolves around metrics and performance calculators (I manage a large call center that does 5000+ inbound calls a day) so for me, the tool is about having a sort of "report card" at the conclusion of my experience. I don't treat it like a leader board in a video game, per say (although it's clear there are many places that do) but it's a nice tool to have in the already plethora of add-ons out there.

 

Honestly, if there was an add-on that evaluated me on every stage of the flight, I'd run it. I'd love to have a tool that tells me: "You're too slow on the approach, you took long to do X." Certainly not barking at me during my play time but a sort of post-game wrap up. I have very little doubt that I routinely arrive at my FAF too slow or that my flare isn't smooth. I also struggle to maintain a smooth taxi speed and frequently find myself having to constantly adjust my throttle.

 

Once I get that confidence up, I then move onto the next thing. So rather than taking control of the plane at 500 feet above the runway I can then take control at 750 or 1000. Or maybe I try to hand fly the LOOP8 SID out of LAX to the letter versus immediately engaging the AP and avoid what would be a total disaster on the initial turn (I always seem to overshoot it).

 

Heck, that's part of the reason I haven't flown on VATSIM yet (and I want to real bad). Because I don't want to "screw it up." I want to ensure near mastery level of basic flight mechanics and be able to reproduce them almost subconsciously. Anyway, long enough, here.

 

Again, apologies if I poked the bear and derailed the subject.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

I'm a simmer, I'm never going to be a pilot. Catching the landing rate is just another measurable that is apparently easy to capture with that addon. If I could have someone sitting over my shoulder grading my landing and critiquing me on all parameters so that I can learn each time that would be great.. hey an addon that does all that would be awesome! Good luck programming that...

 

That's just the thing, though. Pilots all usually joke about the adage "a good landing is any one you can walk away from, and a great landing is one where you can use the plane again," but there's a lot of truth to it. We may all have internal opinions of how rough the landing was, but apart from FOQA reporting, we really don't say much to each other about it. If the landing sucked, then it sucked. I know you know that. If it was great, we might brag on your behalf when we're all sitting at a crew dinner, or in the pilot lounge. Either way, nobody is looking over your shoulder grading your landings. Heck, even a CFI is hard pressed to specifically grade landings. He or she is there to provide ways to make a landing better - to learn. If there is some sort of grading metric, it's usually quite subjective and abstract (the flight school I went to back in 2003 used a 1-3 scale, where 3 needed improvement and 1 was exceeds requirements).

 

Like I said, I think a little bit of curiosity regarding the landing rate is natural, but I think the better sign of piloting intelligence and maturity is to be able to look at a flight on your own and say "okay, what did I do correctly; what did I do incorrectly; how can I improve?" If I'm looking at bare metrics, I get nothing from them. The fpm approaching zero might be considered "good" in the sim community, but it's really not. At all. So, if you're looking at landing rate, what's acceptable? Ideally? Somewhere above 0 (zero is impossible, obviously) and below the threshold of gear/structural damage. What's best? That's all subjective, but a lot of the sim groups swear that lower always equals better. I wholeheartedly disagree, which is why I usually chime in when I see people discussing it. Treated as a nifty extra measurement it's fine, but most people treat it like a learning tool, or a badge of honor (note most VAs put it on their front page, or some prominent area once you've logged in), which doesn't really help anyone - real pilot or not (though the prospective real pilot is more negatively affected by it, in my opinion).

 

 

 

From the times I've gone plane spotting, from afar the landings nearly all look "greased". Youtube some plane spotting vids, those cagey veteran commercial pilots nearly grease it every time. At least it looks that way from the spectator point of view. They're not floating down the runway, but they pull up and touchdown ever so softly.

 

They have lots of practice. Oddly enough, I'm willing to bet not a single one of them has ever seen landing rate metrics unless they slammed a FOQA-enabled aircraft particularly onto the ground. They learned simply by self evaluation mixed in with CFI and crew feedback. Make sure to debrief your flights.

 

 

 

So for me in clear weather a soft landing is my goal, if the weather is iffy then a firm landing works (and might even be preferred), only in the severe weather conditions should a hard landing be acceptable. But if I'm consistently landing hard throughout all weather conditions, I'm clearly doing it wrong. 

 

Define soft, though. Define hard. Define what weather conditions merit each. If you can set numbers to that, then you're doing it wrong.

 

If you land particularly softly, then the weight on wheels sensors might not actually trigger the spoilers, which will greatly increase the landing distance that you've already probably exacerbated by trying to land softly. Put the plane down (and turn that extra camera shake junk off - guess what it's triggered by). Did that seem overly rough? Yeah? Did you break the plane? No? Okay, good, now make the next one better.

[Nick Dobda 24]

that's part of the reason I haven't flown on VATSIM yet

 

Ditto, however I'm more concerned about screwing up the language. I share all your thoughts on getting a "report card" at the end of the flight. 

 

For the hand flying, (for me anyway) I just learn enough to know how to do it if I had to - like if the autopilot failed. Otherwise, if its there, and you're cleared to use it... then why not use it. Its not like VATSIM is going to require you to hand fly. They'll require to do certain things, so my first thing would be to learn those things, but most (all as far as I know) are done through manipulating buttons and switches. The only hand flying I do is takeoff and touchdown, because its required (and fun, especially the landing). 

 

Different rules for different folks, I'm a simmer, I CAN't fly by the seat of my pants, so hand flying doesn't really do it for me. Plus the consequences of my not having a ton of hand flying experience is nil, I am a threat to nobody by my ego when it comes to that. 

 

Keep in mind when reading my posts, I am a simmer, through and through. If my comments are detrimental to the goal of PMDG (by promoting bad habits) then I won't get offended if you delete my posts or use me as the poster boy for simmers. 

Define soft, though. Define hard. Define what weather conditions merit each. If you can set numbers to that, then you're doing it wrong.

 

I would have to assign values to define them, its the only way to use it as a metric. The values may be arbitrary if like you say you don't take other variables into account. But used properly (at the very least in the sim world), it can be a tool to help expose a problem, or use it as an indicator that perhaps I'm not landing properly. If I'm getting inconsistent touchdown rates across consistent weather, then its likely I need to work on something. If I'm landing consistently hard (by whatever that magic "hard" threshold is) across all weather then perhaps I need to work on my flare or something like that.

 

Your point is well taken that you can't pick that number out and separate it from all other variables and rate a landing on it, but I don't intend to use it that way.  

 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Heck, that's part of the reason I haven't flown on VATSIM yet (and I want to real bad). Because I don't want to "screw it up." I want to ensure near mastery level of basic flight mechanics and be able to reproduce them almost subconsciously. Anyway, long enough, here.

 

Just jump on the network. If you're paying attention to what you're doing, and care about it, you're well ahead of many of the others on there, honestly. Just know how to control your aircraft in general, and be able to respond to ATC instructions reasonably quickly (on the ANC concept: aviate, navigate, communicate - in the battle between any of those three concepts, make sure to do the action first, and then read it back if you can't do it simultaneously).

 

 

 

Again, apologies if I poked the bear and derailed the subject.

 

No apologies necessary. I kinda took it as an opportunity to break out the soap box, but mostly because I don't think people truly think the metric through (kinda like the descent rate flags in VA programs), and I try to challenge it when I see it. Someone started doing it, and it seemed like a good metric, so it caught on in the sim community. Just encouraging people to think about it, I guess (and via text, I'm sure a lot of my posts can come across as a little bear-y).

 

Ditto, however I'm more concerned about screwing up the language. I share all your thoughts on getting a "report card" at the end of the flight. 

 

For the hand flying, (for me anyway) I just learn enough to know how to do it if I had to - like if the autopilot failed. Otherwise, if its there, and you're cleared to use it... then why not use it. Its not like VATSIM is going to require you to hand fly. They'll require to do certain things, so my first thing would be to learn those things, but most (all as far as I know) are done through manipulating buttons and switches. The only hand flying I do is takeoff and touchdown, because its required (and fun, especially the landing). 

 

Don't worry about VATSIM too much (not saying it's not merited - I was a mess on my first few flights on the network). A controller is there to move traffic, and as I mentioned in my response to Jason, seeing pilots who care and want to learn usually absolves any incorrect action, provided you're not trying to learn everything in the middle of a Friday Night Ops event at the main airport (busy). When I'm on Center, I control from PA to the southern tip of NC. I can't see your landing, or the fact that you're 5 knots above 250 (or above 250 at all, since the scope shows ground speed, so the only way I could guess is if you're about to truck over the person in front of you), or the possibility that you have written templates down on a piece of paper to make radio calls easier (I definitely did this when I started flying)...I'm just there to enjoy myself and hope that the pilots enjoy the ATC, too.

 

Number ways to impress a controller:

1. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate - in that order. If you need to do things one at a time because you're overwhelmed, unless you need clarification, act first on the instruction, and respond once you've done that.
2. Be willing to learn. Ask if you're unsure.
3. Be patient. If a controller is busy, they may miss a call, or they may need you to repeat something because they're off looking up an approach, or typing something to a text-only pilot.
4. Don't control for the controller, and/or be polite. If something seems out of sorts, just ask. Don't accuse.
5. Check in with your position if it's the first time you're talking to a controller.
   If you're calling Center from the ground for clearance, let them know which airport - they usually manage dozens at a time.
   If you're calling APP/DEP/Center without being handed off, provide a position report (ideally from a major airport or VOR - there are thousands of fixes at the Center level...not very helpful)

Pro Tips (the "really makes the controller think you know your stuff, but it's kinda nitpicky" kind of stuff):

• On a handoff: callsigns and altitude: "Washington Center, Clipper 14, FL320." (Leave the "with you" out - I know you're with me, otherwise I wouldn't hear you.)
• When requesting clearance: callsign and destination: "Dulles Clearance, Clipper 14, clearance to Miami." (Leave out the "as filed." If you didn't want clearance as filed, then why file?)

[skelsey 765]

From the times I've gone plane spotting, from afar the landings nearly all look "greased". Youtube some plane spotting vids, those cagey veteran commercial pilots nearly grease it every time. At least it looks that way from the spectator point of view. They're not floating down the runway, but they pull up and touchdown ever so softly. So for me in clear weather a soft landing is my goal, if the weather is iffy then a firm landing works (and might even be preferred), only in the severe weather conditions should a hard landing be acceptable. But if I'm consistently landing hard throughout all weather conditions, I'm clearly doing it wrong.

 

Just remember that cameras/viewing from afar can do wonders, and the experience inside the flight deck/cabin might not necessarily be the same  :wink:.

 

As a general comment on landing technique, as we're talking about it: I don't know about anybody else, but I know that I'm not good enough to decide, within what in reality is going to be a few tenths of a g, how firmly I'm going to put the aeroplane down based on whether it's dry, raining or whatever. The aeroplane lands exactly the same whether the runway is wet or dry, long or short -- if you're consciously trying to modify your technique because "a wet runway requires a firm touchdown" or whatever -- you'll end up all over the place because you'll never be repeating the same technique twice. Just do what the FCOM says (easier said than done, I grant!) -- check back on the control column, close the thrust levers, raise the nose a degree or two (how much is two degrees? Just barely enough to be able to detect a change in pitch attitude out of the window, no more) and wait for the aeroplane to touch down. Of course, all of the previous relies on you consistently arriving over the threshold at the correct height, speed, on centreline and on the correct, stable approach path. Which is why I always say to anybody who asks about improving their landings -- by the time you get the the flare it is too late. You need to look further back at the approach as a whole and particularly concentrate on making sure you consistently cross the threshold at 50ft (you should be getting the "fifty" auto-call just a fraction after the numbers have slid out of view under the nose, assuming your eyepoint is correct) at the right speed, with the engines spooled and at the correct pitch attitude and rate of descent (i.e. circa 700fpm for a typical 3 degree glidepath). If you can do that, then you are well-placed to execute the flare correctly. If you are not in the right place at 50ft, you are always going to struggle. But fundamentally, you should be aiming to do the same thing every time.

 

What you don't want to do in a situation where you are landing on sub-optimal (short/wet/contaminated etc) runway is over-flare and end up floating down the runway at circa 72 metres per second. Therefore if you're going to err -- and we all err, because landing the aeroplane is a dynamic manoeuvre with lots of variables -- you generally want to err on the side of under-flaring slightly/accepting a firmer landing in order make sure the aeroplane is on the ground in the right place. On the other hand, if you float a little on a long, dry runway, the consequences are generally less dramatic and therefore there is more margin for error in the flare itself. However, fundamentally the technique is the same -- check back, close the thrust levers, raise the nose a degree or two.

 

On the subject of landing rate calculators, apart from anything else I'm always a bit mistrustful of the data anyway. At BAV the system displays the landing rate afterwards, but it's not particularly prominently advertised anywhere and you neither gain nor lose points for any particular range -- personally I'd be happy for it to disappear altogether. However, there are plenty of occasions when I've really stacked it in, yet the software gives me a figure like -50fpm or something equally stupid -- likewise there are occasions where I've felt the touchdown was pretty smooth, yet the data suggests otherwise. Generally speaking, though, I know whether I've thumped it in or not -- the precise numbers are pretty meaningless most of the time (and, as I say, are often questionable anyway).

 

As I say, better metrics and ways of analysing your landings would be to replay your landing (note: if you're flying online, make sure you disconnect first otherwise everybody gets to see you replaying your touchdown and you get in the way!) and note your height and speed over the threshold, flare height and attitude, alignment with the centreline and the point and speed at which you touch down, particularly in relation to the marked touchdown zone.

 

 

 

If you land particularly softly, then the weight on wheels sensors might not actually trigger the spoilers

 

Now, I hesitate to disagree with you Kyle, because you know your stuff. However, I'm going to call this one as an old wives' tale -- let's be honest and realistic about it, the WoW sensing relies on MLG shock strut compression as far as I know in the NG. Now, I don't care how gently you touch down, that MLG shock absorber is going to compress. In nearly twenty years of following this hobby I've never yet come across one actual, first-hand account of the spoilers or any other system failing to activate because of a landing so soft the WoW switch didn't activate. However, I'd be delighted to hear one.

 

Personally, my suspicion is that an instructor probably said this to someone once upon a time in order to give a "technical" reason why it's important to prioritise putting it down in the right place over greasing it on, and it's since stuck and become embellished over the years. But, as I say, if anybody can stand it up with personal, first-hand experience then I'm all for it.