Aircraft Status.

You are missing something, or have a cool idea for us ? Tell us here !

Moderator: FSAirlines Staff

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2008
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Aircraft Status.

Post by joefremont » Thu Jan 24, 2019 12:50 am

Now that we have the failure system fixed in the client some issues have shown up I think may need to be fixed.

First is the aircraft status. Right now the % you see is the sum of the status of the hull, gear and each of the engines. Let's say you have had a very hard landing. The hull and gear are down to 50% but the engines are still fine at 100%.

If you have a single engine AC the overall status of the AC will be 67%, but if your in a twin it will be 75% and a four engine will be 83% and since the value of the AC is tied to the repair status (value = base price * repair status) that four engine AC is much more valuable than the single engine (assuming they were the same value to start).

I am thinking that this formula is flawed, and that the engines, as a percent of the aircraft status and value should be a constant percent, unless it's a glider but then I don't think any of our VA's use them.

Also I need to make the individual parts of the status visible, someone may think "my AC is 98% i'm fine" but the engines are 100% and the gear/hull are 96 and they are at risk of a flaps or gear failure.

I am going to have to study the effect of the hard landings on the repair status, I may have to dial back the damage done to the aircraft.
Image

Cat
Flight Attendant
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:56 am

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by Cat » Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:15 am

Joe,
Please see my support ticket on one of our aircraft
Hard landing status went from 99.8% to 101.6% after
Image

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2008
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by joefremont » Thu Jan 24, 2019 7:15 pm

Hi Scott, fixed that AC and hope this engine status change I discussed should prevent it in the future.

Now for landing rates, I have been thinking of recalibrating the damage based on hard landings.

My idea is, if an AC hits the runway at 2000 fpm (which is very hard), its gear and hull status should be reduced by 25%
Image

Cat
Flight Attendant
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:56 am

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by Cat » Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:12 pm

There was an intentional crash of a 727 in Mexico (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvbGiuKbmGM) a few years back where they wanted a "survivable yet catastrophic" hard landing. Go to the 47:00 min mark of that video. At -1500 fpm, the 727 hit the desert and ripped the gear off and the fuselage broke into 3 sections. Just FYI on the effects of a touchdown at that rate, although it was not on pavement, so the desert sand may have contributed to the more extreme damage. The "crash trigger" on most FSX default aircraft is -1600 fpm on the wheels, -1000 on the scrape points.

At -400 fpm the main gear struts of a Boeing 737 will fully compress and the g forces/downward energy begin to transmit directly to the airframe through the landing gear assembly mounts.... Mandatory inspections are required after any "hard landing" where the struts have fully compressed.
Image

Cat
Flight Attendant
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:56 am

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by Cat » Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:34 pm

GLOBAL STATUS FIX - has wiped all planes "clean" it so appears


Image
Image

Cat
Flight Attendant
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:56 am

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by Cat » Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:45 pm

If I go into fleets, the aircraft status is visible
Image
Image

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2008
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by joefremont » Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:11 am

Cat wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 8:12 pm
There was an intentional crash of a 727 in Mexico (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvbGiuKbmGM) a few years back where they wanted a "survivable yet catastrophic" hard landing. Go to the 47:00 min mark of that video. At -1500 fpm, the 727 hit the desert and ripped the gear off and the fuselage broke into 3 sections. Just FYI on the effects of a touchdown at that rate, although it was not on pavement, so the desert sand may have contributed to the more extreme damage. The "crash trigger" on most FSX default aircraft is -1600 fpm on the wheels, -1000 on the scrape points.

At -400 fpm the main gear struts of a Boeing 737 will fully compress and the g forces/downward energy begin to transmit directly to the airframe through the landing gear assembly mounts.... Mandatory inspections are required after any "hard landing" where the struts have fully compressed.
That's a great example of what happens in a hard landing and that detail about "-400 fpm the main gear struts of a Boeing 737 will fully compress and the g forces/downward energy begin to transmit directly to the airframe" is a great answer for all those who ask for the 'hard landing' threshold to be increased to 700+ from its current 500. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened to the 727 if it hit a runway instead of sand as the sand is much better at ripping the gear out of the airframe.
Image

Cat
Flight Attendant
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:56 am

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by Cat » Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:32 am

Yeah if you watch the whole show, their primary chase plane that had the guy flying by remote control had a mechanical issue and the backup could barely keep up, they landed about 2000 feet short of the "runway" target they had carved in the desert. It's a really interesting show, one of my fav's.
Image

Cat
Flight Attendant
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:56 am

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by Cat » Fri Jan 25, 2019 3:19 am

This article from 2004 may be dated but the information applicable..... real world airliners do not have "landing rate instrumentation" and it's up to the crew to decide whether the landing was hard enough to report it or not. even "g force meters" can be inaccurate as they only measure at the sensor point, not across the entire aircraft. So what we do in FSA/flight simulation is much more "cut and dry" than in the real world..... Perhaps it would be best to treat all landings equal in value that are -250 or less ..... "firm landings" -250 to -400 .... "very firm landings" -400 to -600 and "hard landings" above -600 with a very steep exponential curve on the hard landings going to crash threshold

This may placate sim flyers without upsetting more real world oriented sim pilots...... or not LOL sometimes it's a crap shoot what makes people happy or pissed off, seems to be a fine line at times. :shock:

One thing is for sure, we should not have to "float" large aircraft like 737-777-747 just to make butterfly touchdowns to keep the FSA landing judges happy and our aircraft serviceable. ALL Boeing manuals say to land the aircraft "with authority, do not extend the flare for soft touchdowns". Touchdown rate target for the 737 is -150 fpm.

reference document link: https://flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_aug04.pdf
Image

AdySmith
Ticket Agent
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:55 am

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by AdySmith » Mon Jan 28, 2019 9:14 am

I believe commercial jets are tested to 900 FpM touchdown, technically 15 feet per second they want to see without significant airframe damage, so that in service anything below 600FpM is insignificant.

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2008
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by joefremont » Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:27 pm

At 900 fpm we might as well scrap the whole feature. Too many pilots want to just turn on approach hold and have it slam the aircraft down on the runway without any attempt at a flare. Approach hold, which is not autoland, will typically put you down at 700 fpm. The best definition of hard landing I can find is on wikipedia and it says:
The average vertical speed in a landing is around 2 meters per second (6.6 ft/s); greater vertical speed should be classed by crew as "hard".
6.6ft/s is 396 fpm so 500 a fair buffer. It's not just the airframe to consider, its also the passengers, cargo and crew you have to worry about and at 500fpm passengers will be losing fillings in their teeth on impact.
Image

User avatar
joefremont
FSAirlines Developer
Posts: 2008
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
Location: KSFO

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by joefremont » Mon Jan 28, 2019 6:53 pm

Cat wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 3:19 am

reference document link: https://flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_aug04.pdf
That document says airbus recommend an inspection when the vertical speed on touchdown exceeds 10 feet per second, that translates to 600 fpm, the average VS for all flights in FSA over the last two years is 243 (280 for 747's) so maybe in the spirit of compromise we can change the 'normal' landing to 300 fpm or less and hard to 600 fpm or more.
Image

AdySmith
Ticket Agent
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:55 am

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by AdySmith » Tue Jan 29, 2019 8:32 am

It is very difficult to achieve a touchdown rate below 500 FpM in a Concorde, which typically has a final approach (threshold) speed of at least 160 KIAS which equates to 800 FpM down a typical 3 degree glideslope and there was very little flare involved for landing, but it did have rather strong undercarriage :D

pingvin992
Ticket Agent
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 2:07 pm

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by pingvin992 » Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:28 pm

Hello dears! Great news. But still I think that you need to make more severe punishment for the company for a broken airplane and a hard landing. For example, automatically write off money from the company for a broken plane. If the landing is more than 700 feet per minute, then there is no way to restore the aircraft.

MrJTSZ
Ticket Agent
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:39 pm
Location: LESB, Mallorca
Contact:

Re: Aircraft Status.

Post by MrJTSZ » Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:48 pm

Is a good idea, but I thing it will be more accurated if the landing are 3000 or 5000fpm. At this point i'm sure the plane would be no able to fly :lol:
Image

Post Reply