February 26, 20233 yr 15 hours ago, carlanthony24 said: You ask any Pilot they will say they do not care about landing rate. They get a hard landing, a print out, gear gets checked, a talking to possibly re training no pilot will think about it during landing or briefs etc. what incident was that because I do not remember only one I do is the one that had a lightening strike and electrics failure etc If by landing rate you mean smooth landing, I would respectfully disagree. I think a majority of, if not most, pilots aim to have as smooth of a touchdown as possible. But yes, with a contaminated runway or windy conditions, the priority would obviously be a firm, positive control landing in the touchdown zone.
February 26, 20233 yr 1 hour ago, alex86 said: If by landing rate you mean smooth landing, I would respectfully disagree. I think a majority of, if not most, pilots aim to have as smooth of a touchdown as possible. But yes, with a contaminated runway or windy conditions, the priority would obviously be a firm, positive control landing in the touchdown zone. They hope it’s smooth but they don’t go round thinking about it they just care about getting within the touchdown zone at the end of the day.
February 26, 20233 yr 5 hours ago, alex86 said: If by landing rate you mean smooth landing, I would respectfully disagree. I think a majority of, if not most, pilots aim to have as smooth of a touchdown as possible. But yes, with a contaminated runway or windy conditions, the priority would obviously be a firm, positive control landing in the touchdown zone. Not really. Everyone likes a smooth touchdown, but at the end of the day the aim is to land within parameters and get the thing on the ground, regardless of whether the touchdown rate is -50 or -300 or even -400. Incidentally, -100 to -300 is ideal and anything smoother than -100 is a nice bonus if you don't float giving up runway to achieve that but it's actively discouraged to float down the runway trying to 'smooth it out' it at under -100.
February 26, 20233 yr 11 hours ago, Fiorentoni said: That's because in real life there's a good chance you break your nose gear and set your plane on fire with a landing like that. Boeing airliners are designed for 600 FPM landings as the maximum value, with 360 FPM when above the maximum landing weight. I mean I probably wouldn't "accept" a landing either that has a high chance of destroying the airplane. AFAIK, the sensors used to generate the printouts use G Force sensors. For the A320 Family, it's 1.5G as a threshold for a low severity event, 1.6G is a High Load Event, and 1.75G is a Severe Load Event, and any landing over 2.6G will exceed the structural tolerance of the aircraft. I should note that there are a handful of cases of crews landing at over 900 ft/min and not reporting, and the aircraft continuing on for further flights. I say this to say 600 FPM isn't necessarily as appropriate as using G Force, as that's less arbitrary and far more consistent in determining thresholds at which damage will be sustained. Virtual Airlines got it wrong here, but since this is just a sim, I guess it doesn't really matter. Take-offs are optional, landings are mandatory.The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire. To make a small fortune in aviation you must start with a large fortune.There's nothing less important than the runway behind you and the altitude above you. It's better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than in the air wishing you were on the ground.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.