B777 visual segment

[CVividasku]

Originally Posted by Check Airman

Sorry. Unfamiliar with that terminology on this side of the ocean.

OP, don’t worry too much about landing the simulator. The airplane doesn’t handle like the simulator. On top of that, your depth perception etc will be off. Just aim for somewhere roughly in the touchdown zone, and that’ll be good enough for the simulator.

Thanks for admitting that ! Nobody will say it very openly, as it could question the zero flight time training policy.

In the end my only problem lies with the simulator figures. My instructors, including the higher ranked ones that will supervise us just before and during the test, will rely on that figure and won't be happy if my figures are outside the TDZ (given the 200m problem, it's more likely that I will fall short of the 300m figure rather than the opposite).

So having some concrete figures in mind may prove useful in the future.

If I touchdown as the 600m mark disappear under the nose, the touchdown will have occured at 535m. That's a geometric fact.
However, sometimes the 600 mark disappear under the nose just after I touchdown, and the instructor comes up with a touchdown distance of 290m. That figure comes from who-knows-where.

[FullWings]

Landings are like NPAs: there is a tolerance built in and I agree with other posters that this can be overthought. If you and/or instructors are looking at distances using 2 or 3 significant figures, it is bordering on unhealthy fixation on trivia. Really, if you can demonstrate a stable approach to flare height (25-30ft), check back a bit (2-3degs) and make it onto the ground without excessive float then it’s job done. The FCTM suggests that you should be touching down with ~150fpm ideally.

To be brutally honest, I’d rather see a “Boeing Standard” landing (firm-ish) than a failed attempt at a greaser. The 777 is a LH aircraft and on LH or ULH routes, on many occasions you have been on duty for some considerable time and may be landing somewhere unfamiliar in the dark in crap weather, or, more insidiously, in bright sunshine at 3am on your body clock. Finesse may be surprisingly lacking the first time you’re exposed to this so having a standard technique helps a lot.

[dual land]

Originally Posted by CVividasku

Thanks for admitting that ! Nobody will say it very openly, as it could question the zero flight time training policy..

The same has applied to every sim in every type I've flown (not that there are that many of them). It's not really a secret.

[CVividasku]

Originally Posted by FullWings

To be brutally honest, I’d rather see a “Boeing Standard” landing (firm-ish) than a failed attempt at a greaser. The 777 is a LH aircraft and on LH or ULH routes, on many occasions you have been on duty for some considerable time and may be landing somewhere unfamiliar in the dark in crap weather, or, more insidiously, in bright sunshine at 3am on your body clock. Finesse may be surprisingly lacking the first time you’re exposed to this so having a standard technique helps a lot.

Don't worry, we're not trying to grease anything !
I'm just a bit worried about this gap. I hope it will be resolved in other sims. We have 4 different 777 FFS.

[FullWings]

Originally Posted by CVividasku

Don't worry, we're not trying to grease anything !
I'm just a bit worried about this gap. I hope it will be resolved in other sims. We have 4 different 777 FFS.

When I converted onto the Triple, we used two sims, one of which produced what felt like a crash every time, no matter what the method used, and the other was impossible to get anything other than a smooth touchdown, even if you didn’t flare at all. Both ZFT / Level D. The instructors knew this and were looking at technique and application, rather than the actual result...

[Check Airman]

I’m not sure what training program you’re doing, but the sim is a training aid. It’s quite good, but it’s not a 777.

IMO the sim is there to give you an idea of what to expect when you show up to the aircraft, and give you the tools you need to learn how to land while you’re doing your line training.

[PEI_3721]

Re simulation accuracy, assessment, etc.

Cautiously ask the instructors what the landing performance is based, their perception of touchdown point vs that assumed in performance data.

Also, query the use of 'touchdown zone'; this is an old term without meaning in commercial operations, particularly with the introduction of TALPA calculations.

These aspects are referenced in the updated version of AC 91-79B FAA Aircraft Landing Performance and Runway Excursion Mitigation, https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...91-79B_FAA.pdf

3.9 Touchdown Point. The touchdown point used in the landing distance assessment reflects the assumed air distance. Operational landing data usually includes an allowance for 1,500 ft or 7 seconds of air distance from the threshold to touchdown.

5.2.4 Landing Beyond the Intended Touchdown Point. AFM/POH distances are based on a touchdown point determined through flight testing procedures outlined in AC 23-8, AC 25-7, and AC 25-32. If the airplane does not touch down within the air distance included in the AFM/POH landing distance, it may not be possible to achieve the calculated landing distance.

[Oasis]

"Use the force, Luke!" or use the tried and tested method of TLAR. (That Looks About Right)

[Skittles]

Originally Posted by CVividasku

The formula is rather easy, take the pilot eye height on ground, add pitch angle (rad) * distance from pilot to main gear, to find the eye height.
Then complete a triangle with this height, and the cutoff angle minus the chosen pitch angle. This will give a good idea on how to evaluate landing distance.
I just lack the cutoff angle.

Thanks

Doesn't that entirely fall apart unless you flare to exactly the same pitch each time?