Download Airbus A320 Amm Pdf
Josephina Blincoe
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
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF & FOUNDER - SEATTLE, WA. David has written, consulted, and presented on multiple topics relating to airlines and travel since 2008. He has been quoted and written for a number of news organizations, including BBC, CNN, NBC News, Bloomberg, and others. He is passionate about sharing the complexities, the benefits, and the fun stuff of the airline business. Email me: da...@airlinereporter.com
Seat width is important, more so for larger people. I am a 6 foot, thin athletic male. Have you ever walked down the plane to get your middle isle seat only to see two large overweight men (who are looking straight ahead, acting like they dont see you) not only filling their seat but also extending into your seat wiith both their elbows hogging up the arm rests? Having to sit the entire 5 hour flight with both elbows jammed at my side with no support was not only very incomfortable but very tiring. Have an enjoyable, comfortable flight, right? Every inch in seat width makes a difference.
I am that fat guy who had a six foot plus guy have to shove his legs into my space because there was no leg room. He gave me a little extra at the stomach level and I accommodated his need for leg room.
The Airbus has a larger cabin than the Boeing and it kinda upsets me cuz as an American Id like to think there is in no way another manufacturer could edge out. Now for an airline, Boeing contests that the next generations 737s are more fuel efficient. They do not mention it beating the cabin space of an A320 however. The difference is barely noticeable but it is there. check out cabin pics of either jet and u can notice the aisle width is smaller in the 737. Its the little details.
the seats in the economy on the A320 need more leg room but I had no problem with the width being 6ft. 2in. and 240 pounds.The premiem seats have plenty of room all of the way around. The windows could be a little bigger. Opinions are like you know what, everybody has one and that is mine.
Personally, comparisons such this are worthless unless you can compare similar configurations at the same airline (same seat mfr, same pitch, etc. etc.). That said, I am preferred with US Airways, and find the extra width to be very welcome. I try to avoid any segments (if I can help it) that are non airbus.
Yes! They should carry on with the 757! Also, I understand Airbus has wider seats, but 737s are at least 15 million cheaper than the a320s and the 737s are also more fuel efficient. This makes it way cheaper for airlines. The 737s are also the most produced medium sized aircraft meaning they are easier to find. Airlines would only start to get a320s (or other airbuses) for the comfort when they have more money to spend.
The 737-900 is better looking Than the old versions, but it still fell crammed! Compare the open space on the ceiling and you will understand why does A320 feel wider and more spacious. Though it is really marginal.
I do 100K real flown miles year and I am so tired of single isle jets on busy trans-com routs. Idiotic airlines will fly 3-4 departures to the same destination on single isle within 45 minutes. Instead of putting one 777 or 787 on it. For 7 hour flight most people adjust their schedule. 45 min makes no difference. Of course on 1.2h flight the story is different. Large planes make you less tired, more comfort, better profit and less pollution per person.
I flew an Alaskan airlines 737 900 from Baltimore to LA last week and I flew a delta airlines A 320 from LA to Atlanta on the way back and in my opinion The A 320 so much more comfortable and the seats appeared to wider than what I was on on the new 737 900 that there was no comparison . And Alaska airlines is a lousy airline
I understand Airbus has wider seats, but 737s are at least 15 million cheaper than the a320s and the 737s are also more fuel efficient. This makes it way cheaper for airlines. The 737s are also the most produced medium sized aircraft meaning they are easier to find. Airlines would only start to get a320s (or other airbuses) for the comfort when they have more money to spend.
The A320 is much more comfortable than the 737. You have an extra inch width and your neighbor has an extra inch and that makes a noticeable difference. Also the A320 seat is more comfortable for the lower back. Also there is more room underneath the seat in front of you. No contest.
The standard of flights comes through the Business Class and First Class is the vast amounts of not only leg room but also fully reclining seats with the fully comforted area with all accessories of our entertainment.
Airbus Industrie is a consortium formed by EADS and BAE Systems. EADS, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company, was formed by a merger of Aerospatiale-Matra of France, Daimler-Chrysler Aerospace of Germany and CASA of Spain (former members of Airbus).
b37509886e