Vatsim Virtual Airlines for X-Plane

[Luke Kolin]

My only beef with XAcars is that it doesn't give as many reports as the other Acars flavours, so on a status map of our pilots it simply shows my position but no ETA or distance remaining, etc, and XAcars doesn't report landing rates, so I don't qualify for the greased landing awards. I'm still very happy overall with the airline, however, as I'm not treated as a second-cl[Mod - Happy Thoughts] citizen for using X-Plane, and the people are great—and that's usually the most important part.

 

I'd love to work with the XAcars folks on a standard reporting format for flight recording software.

 

Cheers!

 

Luke

[Jordan Krushen 1135174]

I'd love to work with the XAcars folks on a standard reporting format for flight recording software.

And I'd love to test anything you come up with

 

It does seem that having a few different Acars clients with varying protocols is a situation that would really benefit from standardization. If they changed from strict HTTP requests to instead posting a chunk of XML, it'd be easy enough to ignore records you don't understand, and gradually introduce support for the rest, and the strict ordering of parameters wouldn't be necessary.

[Phillip Kurus]

Hey Jordan, just wondering about the "greased landing" points you refer to. I understand the basic notion (er, I guess), that r/w aviation does not generally see a 757 plummeting toward the runway at 2,000 fpm, and I've seen references on various VA sites about descent rates.

 

But wouldn't the use of the autopilot on an ILS slope automatically turn every landing into a points-worthy greased one? In which case, is this a measure of a pilot's skill to fly the plane or to use an autopilot?

 

Curiously, &c.

[Brendan Lynch 1167842]

XPlane VAs

 

 

Virtual airlines who predominately and fully support XPlane as a simulation platform

 

Taken directly from the links manager, might be part of the reason there is only one VA in the category.

[Jordan Krushen 1135174]

But wouldn't the use of the autopilot on an ILS slope automatically turn every landing into a points-worthy greased one? In which case, is this a measure of a pilot's skill to fly the plane or to use an autopilot?

A lot of them have autopilots but not autoland capability, that's a different functionality. The ILS gets you to the threshold, but you still have to flare, in most cases. Some systems/FMCs do support autolanding, that's correct, but this is a VA, so the honour system seems to work. Also, I'm sure they'd notice if someone had the exact same landing rate every time.

[Phillip Kurus]

Also, I'm sure they'd notice if someone had the exact same landing rate every time.

 

Interesting. As far as I know, the default XP ILS logic will deliver you safely to the pavement, no matter what theoretical CAT is in use.

 

I generally turn the a/p completely off at about 500 ft, but the rest of the way down is pretty much going to match the final unless there's windshear waiting to delight...

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

I took out "predominately and" from the listing for XP VA's, hope that meets the need.

[Jordan Krushen 1135174]

Also, I'm sure they'd notice if someone had the exact same landing rate every time.

 

Interesting. As far as I know, the default XP ILS logic will deliver you safely to the pavement, no matter what theoretical CAT is in use.

 

I generally turn the a/p completely off at about 500 ft, but the rest of the way down is pretty much going to match the final unless there's windshear waiting to delight...

There's a big difference between contacting the pavement and having a smooth landing. The pilot must still deploy flaps and manage their speed, taking into account the weight of the aircraft, etc, in order to get a decent descent rate.

 

For example, I just took the A320 to a 10 mile final, dialed in 140 knots and let it land itself. It impacted the ground at almost -500fps and immediately veered off the side of the runway—nowhere near the landing you'd need to get a greased landing award. In the parlance of the plugin I have installed that grades your landing rates, "You're fired!"

 

Repeating the exercise at an approach speed of 125 knots and it still hit at -578fpm, with a comment of "anybody survived?"

 

I hardly agree that the default behaviour of the A/P is to get you down at a smooth rate, and even if it did, that would only apply for runways with aligned ILS systems ([Mod - Happy Thoughts]uming they have an ILS at all), not a given unless it's a CAT II/III runway. Some systems, like UFMC, may do a more proper flare, but that's beside the point...

 

My point is still that even if using the autopilot, you must be well versed in the operation of your aircraft, and control flap deployments, speed, and weight issues, if you're to bring down your plane gently. And if you can do those things and grease the landing, go ahead, take the award—it's not a manual landing award, it's a greased landing award, regardless of how you got it.

 

And if you're in a VA where your pilots are constantly trying to deceive the system instead of improving themselves and their piloting ability, I'd look for a new VA anyway

[Jordan Krushen 1135174]

I took out "predominately and" from the listing for XP VA's, hope that meets the need.

Thanks Kyle. I can now recommend that VirtualACA also list itself there, for example.

[Phillip Kurus]

I hardly agree that the default behaviour of the A/P is to get you down at a smooth rate...

 

An ILS slope is an ILS slope. I think we're confusing angle of descent (always "smooth" when properly set up and maintained) and FPM while on that slope.

 

My point is still that even if using the autopilot, you must be well versed in the operation of your aircraft, and control flap deployments, speed, and weight issues, if you're to bring down your plane gently.

 

Er, of course. I'm not suggesting otherwise.

 

Naturally you need to read the POH and know what your approach flaps and speed should be. But that's pretty basic, right? Who doesn't do that at this level of simming?

 

I don't think we're really disagreeing here. My point was (and is) that it really doesn't take much beyond common sense to grease a landing if, like the Air Canada pilot who lives across the street says he does IRL, you let the autopilot handle the approach and only take over for the last several seconds. Accordingly, I find FPM an odd measure to use, in that it should really only weed out sim pilots who haven't the faintest clue how to land their aircraft. (Okay, useful in itself, I guess. )

[Jordan Krushen 1135174]

I hardly agree that the default behaviour of the A/P is to get you down at a smooth rate...

An ILS slope is an ILS slope. I think we're confusing angle of descent (always "smooth" when properly set up and maintained) and FPM while on that slope.

The greased landing is for a greased landing—it has nothing to do with descent rates on the glideslope. You're the one that seems to be confused there.

 

Naturally you need to read the POH and know what your approach flaps and speed should be. But that's pretty basic, right? Who doesn't do that at this level of simming?

You can know all that and still not flare or manage your throttle properly, and not get a good landing rate. Plus there's that pesky thing called weather that's always involved. The point of these badges is to act as an incentive to our pilots to learn to touchdown as softly as possible. Winning them doesn't give them any points or currency or anything that functions in any other way—it's purely incentive to improve.

 

I don't think we're really disagreeing here. My point was (and is) that it really doesn't take much beyond common sense to grease a landing if, like the Air Canada pilot who lives across the street says he does IRL, you let the autopilot handle the approach and only take over for the last several seconds. Accordingly, I find FPM an odd measure to use, in that it should really only weed out sim pilots who haven't the faintest clue how to land their aircraft. (Okay, useful in itself, I guess. )

Again, it's those last few seconds (where you, you know, land) to which the rewards refer.

 

Ok, then, I'll bite. Go get 10 landings in a row smoother than -50FPM in an airliner, running VATSIM weather, and post the unedited footage, with the plugin reporting the landing rates. If all it takes is 'common sense' as you say, it should be a piece of cake for you.

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

If you guys want to talk about coupled landings, please make a new topic.

[Phillip Kurus]

Again, it's those last few seconds (where you, you know, land) to which the rewards refer.

 

I seem to have touched a nerve somehow--my apologies. Just posing what I thought was a pretty straightforward question.

 

 

Go get 10 landings in a row smoother than -50FPM in an airliner, running VATSIM weather, and post the unedited footage, with the plugin reporting the landing rates.

 

Ah, so there's a plug-in! Excellent. Of course, I'll give it a shot--although not just at the mo' as it's time for a nice drink and then a snooze here in the east.

 

By "smoother than" I [Mod - Happy Thoughts]ume you mean "less than or equal" to 50 FPM. Again--innocent question!--is this a real-world standard used by commercial pilots, or more of an arbitrary number for VA use?

 

Cheers!

[Darrol Larrok 1140797]

Is that even possible?

[Kyle Ramsey 810181]

Amazing. Thread locked.