|
Post by Travis on Dec 6, 2019 23:09:06 GMT -5
After a good night's sleep, I've come up with a cunning plan. I'll hope to run a couple of short tests by the end of my Saturday. Cunning Plan 1 was a 90% success. On my Saturday I'll attempt Cunning Plan 2.
If I am ever forced into Cunning Plan 9, it would have to include Space Zombies and Bela Lugosi.
Best,
|
|
|
Post by g5flyer on Dec 7, 2019 18:17:45 GMT -5
I could see an option to add hard landings to the existing system that requires inspection before the next flight. I know the Boeing FCOM that comes with the PMDG NGX recommends the aircraft be inspected after a hard landing. I also know from experience as a mechanic that hard landings can do some damage (cracks in wing supports, landing gear attach points, and engine mounts; bent drag braces; popped tires; etc.). I've added this to our inspection routine. If a Captain has inspections enabled, this certainly counts as a reason. We randomly call for a minor inspection if you land slightly overweight (an option allows some customization), and a 'medium' inspection if you land severely overweight. What fpm rate would you judge to be a minimum for an inspection call? I used 1000fpm as a placeholder - that sounds pretty hard to me.
Is there anything else we should consider to call for an inspection? Should smaller aircraft like your Cadet or a Skyhawk be judged at a different (less?) rate than airliners??
I didn't move the option to the airline policy area because I'm coming down with a sinus headache and I would like to get Alpha 2 out this weekend. So my efforts stop here (barring any observances on any test flights). Best regards from your anhedral (old and sagging) F/O. Greetings Travis, I flew heavy type aircraft during my military career and my current civil career. Here is the standard I have seen in all of the aircraft I have flown. A Landing at 600fpm or more was considered a hard landing in the limitations section and a hard landing inspection was required. If you were above maximum landing weight, the 600 number was reduced to 360fpm. I remember 360 because it's such an odd number. In the DC-10, I saw that number a lot because we would do a lot of overweight landings in the sim during recurrents. It was in the over weight landing checklist to minimize fpm to 360fpm at touch down. Now in the AirForce, we had a saying during the approach brief and this is what we taught. If I'm not down in the first third of the runway, send me around. The KC10/DC10 had a nominal touch down point of 1500 down. If you aimed for the captain bars(1000ft down), the flare would put you down about 1200 to 1500ft down the runway with a textbook flare. Flare distance on average was about 1000ft form the 50ft agl point. 1000ft is the standard aimpoint for most jets. When evaluating landings, we also had some guidance from our evaluation regulation. I will attach a pic from it. As far as touch down, the first third keeps you out of trouble. We also had a slot started at 300ft agl, you had to be stable, on speed and path by this point or go around.
In my Gulfstream flying, we do something a little interesting. We perform minimum runwway landings. You fly the approach normally, but at 300ft agl, you shift your aimpoint to the numbers. You goal is to put the jet down at 500 no later than 1000ft down. We perform these landings on runways 5000ft or less. Being that the clear way and obstruction path goes up to 400ft, you have obstruction clear at 300ft as long as there are no NOTAMs or aby normal obstructions.
Rick
Rick
|
|
|
Post by Travis on Dec 13, 2019 4:08:25 GMT -5
Hi Rick, Thanks for your insights! We should be making Alpha 3 available within 24-36 hours, and while we're looking at landing vertical speed as a deciding factor for 'smooth', 'bland', and 'hard', we are logging and displaying landing GForce values. For a while now, I've had a bone to pick with our runway detection. I know of a few runways that come nearly to defying our efforts to identify them. Once we enter the Beta phase of our next version, I hope to work with Dutch to make our 'runway center-line offset' and our 'runway distance' measuring much improved. Then we can begin to offer the ability to measure landing points as well as landing force. From Alpha 2 and thereafter, you can define the maximum landing vertical speed to call for an aircraft's inspection. (If you've enabled inspections.) If we get good feedback on this, I hope to expand it to include a value good for all of an airline's fleet... and possibly even a settable global option. (Currently the global factor is 1000fpm, and it's only overridable per aircraft type/override.) For a year or so we've had 'overweight landing inspections' with a global 'fudge factor', as well as 'severely overweight landing inspections.' We can certainly loop back and add the landing FPM/GForce as a contributing factor! I think we do rather well when we offer Captains the ability to annoy themselves with limitations. Best,
|
|
|
Post by cxn4026 on Dec 21, 2019 23:20:14 GMT -5
For flare distance, I would recommand use the Touch down point to 50ft RA distance, That make sence if you stable on approach but flare too long or too short It's typically 450m/1500ft
|
|
|
Post by Travis on Apr 27, 2022 18:09:18 GMT -5
|
|