Download Airbus A320 Amm Pdf
Nadia Grubb
I'm asking bcs my landings (in FSX) are about 240 fpm and i try hard to improve this rate..I know that up to 500 fpm is acceptable,but the question is "what landing rate make you happy and is considered as a nice landing?" or "what is your average landing rate?"
there are some design Limits based on touch down feet per Minute. They are 10feet/sec (=600fpm) below max landing weight and 6feet/sec (=360fpm) above max landinging weight. But a hard landing inspection is based on more Parameters than touch down sink rate alone. For example single or dual main landing gear strut compression at "Impact". With substantial crosswinds there is a good Chance you touch down with the wing lowered into the wind, i.e. the energy has to be absorbed initially from one gear strut only. However there are much more things getting into account, mainly G-Force, which is measered by accelerometers.
However, this knowledge is only required for maintenance. As a Pilot you never glance at the sinkrate indication, the second you touch down in real life. Your view is always outside of the aircraft, directing towards the opposite runway end, to get a reliable depth perception, i.e. closure rate towards the ground.
To make it more complicated, a landing is never graded on smoothness alone. Most important is the touchdown Point within the touchdown Zone (approx. 300M/100ft behind threshold). Condition of the runway is also a big factor. Wet or even snow or slush, requires a firm (of course within the design Limits) touchdown, to get immediate steering and braking control.
In real, I can refer to my experiences and FFS-sessions, there are more factors as explained above perfectly.
But as a simmer I can say that I am happy with every landing above -250fpm because in the FFS it is really hard to achieve this rate at the real touchdown. Remember that the vertical velocity indicator(VVI) shows the past vertical sink rate and not the ACTUAL one!
I made a couple landings in the sim and above 200fpm[at last "look" before touchdown] there was always a very, very smooth landing...
The hydraulics of the gear improve every landing and stabilize the A/C itself very precisely.
All above for good conditions of course.
EDIT: Just look up an Airbus A320 document with recommended landing angles at touchdown. It should be in the web somewhere.
When you follow this, you can be quite sure your landing is on a high level of security and quality.
I can understand that in real life its not the precision of the landing rate that matters, but the actual feel of the touchdown.. No harms done if its a 200 fpm landing or 170 fpm..you cannot tell if you are in the aircraft..
30 feet, retard the donuts (btw i leave the auto-throttle ON untill this time) and either simultaneously, either at 20 feet pull back the stick a couple of times to pitch up the nose and minimize the descend rate..
I also recommend you to add a bit more speed (usually you will fly faster due to the wind correction anyway) to your approach speed. Vls+5 is the minimum you should fly during approach with a calm wind.
Fly the aircraft down to approx 20ft and then retard the throttles and slightly pull back the stick to flare. Do not level the aircraft, but let it descend a bit by purpose. As soon as you touch the ground and the speedbrakes deploy all remaining lift will be destroyed and you can brake, even though you may still be above the 135kt.
And now it is time to do what all pilots have to do: Get the A320, search for a nice little airport without much traffic and join the traffic pattern for some touch and go's. I assure you that after a few hours in the traffic pattern you will be perfectly able to do a nice -100fpm landing
Thank you very much.. i guess that's why they call the flaring technique of the airbus the "shit pants technique".. Because you wait to get that close to the ground to start the flare.. I'll try the extra speed on Vapp and i'll wait untill 20 feet..
please read my sentence again carefully: I'm talking about the touch down POINT, not the touch down ZONE. The touch down Point is approx. 300M/1000FT behind the threshold. NOT every touchdown POINT is acceptable, even within the touch down Zone.
Consider a landing at Samos Island with some 1900M landing runway. If you touch down 900M past the threshold you are still within the touch down Zone, but there are merely 1000M runway left to come to a safe stop. Thats not a good landing at all. For example within "Oneworld Airlines Group" every touch down beyond 400M - 600M (depending on runway length, glide path angle, runway slope, etc.) Triggers a flight safety Event and ruins the statistics of a safe landing.
I think the main Thing with FSX and AXE is the Overall Approach you are using it. If your prime concern is Simulation of the real world professional Airline bussiness, it soon gets a never ending process of studying.
To come to a conclusion, in my opinion a good landing starts with a stable Approach: On Speed, stabilized sink rate, 50FT over the threshold, flare at 20-30FT, touch down around 300M/1000FT behind threshold
Always the a320, the 767 you can just keep the nose up for so long, when the a319 spoilers are deployed on touchdown the nose likes to slam straight down sort of like the Embraer. Devs might want to rephysic the a319 and 767 in a rework.
Hey, so, about the A320 and B738 in the game. The A320 seems to have a longer range than the B738, like 4300 NM versus 3010 NM. Does this give the A320 an advantage? Maybe for some routes that need more range. But in real life, their ranges are pretty similar. Just something to think about, you know? Oh, and if you want more info, check out this link: -a320-vs-boeing-737-a-comprehensive-comparison/
7fc3f7cf58