Fenix A320 landing technique and general discussion thread

[thepilot 579]

12 minutes ago, F737MAX said:

The A318s with the steep approach certification had the callouts: "Standby" at 117ft AGL, "Standby" at 90ft and "Flare" at 63ft to assist the Captain with the landing.

The A318 also has a lower Vapp, is rated 6 tonnes lighter for MLW, and has a much shorter stopping distance than the A320. Well done for being bold, taking the 737-600 into EGLC is challenging enough for me!

Wish Fenix did an A318 with steep approach capability...

[AGuther 187]

On 3/18/2024 at 9:58 AM, El Diablito said:

 

From all what I know this is absolutely an overreaction. The computers and control surfaces cannot move as fast as he moves the stick...therefore this behavior is increasing the risk of PIO.

Edited March 19 by AGuther

[Cpt_Piett 4,689]

Haha first attempt at EGLC ended in a ginormous bounce and a go-around. Need to find a way to transition to a “usual approach”, but the margins are small. I tried to sneak underneath the glide slope in what I thought was a clever attempt to flatten out a bit earlier…

2nd attempt: flattened out as I was crossing the threshold then let her sink, then flare. That seemed to do the trick. Used a little bit more than half of the 1500m long runway. And for once the FO had something nice to say 😅

 

Edited March 19 by Cpt_Piett

[Cpt_Piett 4,689]

Video link above redundant as I did some more editing. Here's the updated link if anyone's interested. It could be worth seeing just for the entertainment value of seeing my miserable 900fpm touchdown 😆

[El Diablito 328]

18 hours ago, AGuther said:

From all what I know this is absolutely an overreaction.

So are we saying that he is using bad technique under these wind conditions or he is just doing it for the camera?

Considering this was a safe landing under the conditions, I guess the question should be - why is it an "overreaction" if the landing was safe and within limits?

[Farlis 2,287]

20 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

But I found something else though, that I’ve never heard of before:

FSDreamteam had a scnery in P3D where they actually simulated the EMAS. Louisville perhaps? I don't remember, it was a U.S. airport that I didn't bother to buy.

[Cpt_Piett 4,689]

46 minutes ago, El Diablito said:

So are we saying that he is using bad technique under these wind conditions or he is just doing it for the camera?

Considering this was a safe landing under the conditions, I guess the question should be - why is it an "overreaction" if the landing was safe and within limits?

Are we still discussing the phenomenon of "youtube-pilots"? If so, I guess my question would be "why use so dramatic control inputs when the same results can be achieved with less". 

Been hand-flying the Fenix a lot lately. Even in my recent EGLC landing with winds at around 15kts with a significant x-wind component, I found that very little control input was needed. Even during the tricky transition from 1400fpm to flare, raising the nose a couple of degrees was all that was needed (in addition to de-crabbing with rudders). 

And based on this observation - are we saying that the Fenix does not handle realistically? Because it might seem that too little input is needed vs how some "youtube-pilots" are flying?

Edited March 20 by Cpt_Piett

[El Diablito 328]

28 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

If so, I guess my question would be "why use so dramatic control inputs when the same results can be achieved with less". 

This is the question that pilots don't seem to be able (want to) to answer on here! Are these inputs "normal" for the conditions the pilot had? If not - why isn't the plane acting erratically to the inputs?

The pilot clearly has control of the aircraft and has a successful touchdown (I think he even disconnects autothrottle early because it wasn't responding properly) and it isn't a fake video, so I'm confused.

 

 

 

[Cpt_Piett 4,689]

14 minutes ago, El Diablito said:

This is the question that pilots don't seem to be able (want to) to answer on here! Are these inputs "normal" for the conditions the pilot had? If not - why isn't the plane acting erratically to the inputs?

The pilot clearly has control of the aircraft and has a successful touchdown (I think he even disconnects autothrottle early because it wasn't responding properly) and it isn't a fake video, so I'm confused.

I found the guy in the 747 simulator convincing, but as always I guess there's more ways of achieving the same goal. And I'm sure the "dramatic input"-pilots must do it for a reason, as I've seen it many times on YT. Heck, I even tried it myself in the Fenix, and it definitely didn't make things easier or better. 

[G550flyer 1,014]

20 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

"why use so dramatic control inputs when the same results can be achieved with less"

I touch on this a bit in one of my earlier posts. My opinion, FBW exaggerates the situation due to the active dampening on the controls VS the conventional controls with feel springs, tensioners and cartridges. If you are truely in rough air, those disturbances about the roll and pitch axes are large. If the disturbance is enough to cause the aircraft to pitch and roll, there will be inertia and momentum in that movement. So if my left wing drops sharply, I will have to put a sharp, large opposite input in to stop that movement before relaxing it out. In true rough air, the controls are mushy because of the disturbances. It's the same experience when using reverse with tail mounted engines. The rough air from the reversers require more rudder input because it blanks out the rudder. Now add in a stiff crosswind or contaminated runway and it gets very sporty. In fact, some will delay reverse until they have full control of the aircraft after touch down and then will only use half.

Flying through true rough air is like driving fast on a gravel road or a boat through choppy water🤔. That's about as close as I can get to something you may have experience with. Now with conventional aircraft, when I move the yoke, the controls are moving instantly. Though I have to overcome the linear tension, It moves where I need it. From what I understand with FBW, computers look at my input and then decides what rate and movement I will get. With a side stick, it's easier to get to those outer regions. I believe when a certain position is reached, it tells the computer, hey, I need more rate and movement. I believe in true rough air, a subtle movement of the stick will not get you the opposite control needed to counter a induced roll or pitch moment. I feel that's why it's more exaggerated because it's not the same feel/control you have in a conventional sense.

Flying in rough air at altitude is one thing. You set pitch and power and take what you get while working to keep a stable platform. You don't fight the altitude loss/gain as hard. But on approach, you are trying to maintain trajectory and alignment through the mess. Unfortunately, you won't experience this in flightsim. I can fly though a thunderstorm with no worries control wise. Let's take a place such as going into KCOS. Once you get low and near the mountains, it gets crazy on a windy day. You get the thermals and rising/falling air columns. Multiple times the AP drops off and you are better off hand flying with the AT off. It's like flying in constant wake turbulence. If you haven't hand flown in true rough air, KCOS will make you a believer. I had a FA hit the ceiling and smash back down during a descent into KCOS. She had to go to the hospital after landing for a sprained ankle. This happened after delaying for 2 hours due to severe low level windshear at KCOS.         

[Cpt_Piett 4,689]

52 minutes ago, G550flyer said:

My opinion, FBW exaggerates the situation due to the active dampening on the controls VS the conventional controls with feel springs, tensioners and cartridges.

52 minutes ago, G550flyer said:

Now with conventional aircraft, when I move the yoke, the controls are moving instantly.

52 minutes ago, G550flyer said:

I believe in true rough air, a subtle movement of the stick will not get you the opposite control needed to counter a induced roll or pitch moment. I feel that's why it's more exaggerated because it's not the same feel/control you have in a conventional sense.

Interesting!

52 minutes ago, G550flyer said:

Unfortunately, you won't experience this in flightsim. I can fly though a thunderstorm with no worries control wise.

I'm thinking this is the most important point as it relates to MSFS weather system (which of course has nothing to do with the Fenix). Also, we're recommended to set turbulence to low (Fenix).  

Come to think of it, I think I've yet to experience truly rough air. Perhaps once in the Caravan whilst trying to land at Iceland's Vestmannaeyjar Rwy 30 with 320° 22kt, gusting 35kt  - that was my wildest experience in MSFS so far! As seen in the video I finally decided to apply beta range to bring her down. 

Perhaps things have gotten better after the introduction of  fluid dynamics (CFD) though. 

(and of course now I'm considering going to KCOS and try to configure some really crazy weather!)

Edited March 20 by Cpt_Piett

[G550flyer 1,014]

After all of the talk of EGLC, I decided to give it a shot. I flew a 125,500 pounds 737-700 from good ole EGUN. First as I noted, you need that energy control from the start, make sure to slow down early. A rushed descent = a rushed approach. I was given the ILS to 27. I know it references aircraft capable of 5.5% approach gradients. I decided to fly the aircraft with full flaps with an approach speed of 133. I elected to select HGS and short field performance as a plus. The cruise altitude was 13000 and I planned to reach the descent point at 245. Again, less than 245 is better. Slow early or descend earlier or both. Part of this requires you to know your aircraft too. Knowing slow down rates level and while descending is key. Also configuration timing is key.  Since I slowed to 245, I could keep the descent going passing 10000. I was cleared to 2000 and wanted to be at 200KTS 20 miles from the airport. I started slowing below 8000 and made 200KTS by the 20 mark. Next, I wanted to be at 180KTS at 2000FT at LAVNO. Here's a note to keep in mind.

An FMS/FMC wants to keep you efficient through out the flight. This means descending at the perfect moment and higher speeds along points. As soon as things are no longer perfect, you are BEHIND! Don't be afraid of taking charge and using FMS speed override and manually edited speeds at points. Some are slaves to VNAV, if this is you, you need to make edits, override/intervene or both. Some FMSs will do those unexpected slow downs when configuring, overrides and edits will stop this. 

I planned to be at 133KTS and fully configured by G/S intercept. Once on the slope, I put down the trusty HUD to monitor my progress. I noted that the ILS had me aiming just short of the runway. Once the river touched my glare shield, I slightly adjusted my aimpoint lower to pick up that 3.0 degree path. I was clear and proceeded visually with a normal landing right at the touch down marker. If you have a hard time visualizing the 3 degree line and you have a HUD, set it for 3 degrees, drag the line to the runway and then put the flight path vector on it. 

Give it a try in the 737-700 and let me know what ya think.

Edited March 20 by G550flyer
added

[El Diablito 328]

9 minutes ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Come to think of it, I think I've yet to experience really rough air.

Last week flying into Milan was the choppiest I've ever had, it was a lot of fun.

[El Diablito 328]

@G550flyer Thanks for that info, so although it looks exaggerated in the video it was par for the course on this particular approach given the conditions. Good to know.

@Cpt_Piett The 747 vid is interesting but it only factors in one scenario under "easy" conditions, from what I can gather.

[Cpt_Piett 4,689]

17 minutes ago, El Diablito said:

@Cpt_Piett The 747 vid is interesting but it only factors in one scenario under "easy" conditions, from what I can gather.

Good point.

30 minutes ago, G550flyer said:

Give it a try in the 737-700 and let me know what ya think.

I’d like to. I probably should as I broke the A320 landing gear during first EGLC attempt yesterday. Don’t think it can handle 900fpm 🙄 Sadly, I’m too rusty on the 737 (despite the fact that I flied the Zibo -800 for years in XP11). In MSFS I’ve used the -700 very little due to its late arrival. By then I was more familiar with the Airbus way.

Edited March 20 by Cpt_Piett
spelling, schpelling, szpelling…