For all that sort of information, I read the Aircraft Owners Manual, (as one should, before pressing the starter button!... ...).
All the operating parameters to be complied with are contained there for each individual aircraft.

Some of this information is often available on the Knee-board for quick reference...

http://www.cessna150.net/information/perspec.html

Paul...Climb rate = max 670 FPM at sea level for my little Cessna 150.

pete wrote on Dec 17^th, 2012 at 3:28am:


Indeed, you ought to inform ATC if you can't maintain 500fpm, as they will be assuming this in their forward planning. I've never heard of having too great a rate of climb, as the airspace should be clear for you to attain your cleared level as soon as you are cleared to it. Lowering the ROC/ROD as you approach your cleared level, partly for passenger comfort, partly so you don't end up with an uncomfortable TCAS alert on any traffic cruising directly above, is fairly normal in my experience.

stephan wrote on Dec 27^th, 2012 at 1:51am:



3.2G's at landing any I would be ripping the piss and tell you to let the F/O do the landing next time. The 737NG spits out an automatic heavy landing report at 2.1G's. I would have to do a hard landing check. The following is for the 737-800:

"For landing at or below maximum design landing weight on airplanes with flight data
recording systems capable of at least eight (8) samples per second, the following can be
used: An indication of a hard landing on the main landing gear is a peak recorded vertical
acceleration that exceeds 2.1 G (incremental 1.1 G). This vertical accelerometer data must
be measured by the flight data recorder accelerometer at a data sampling rate of at least
eight (8) samples per second. This vertical acceleration G-level threshold is valid for a
conventional landing with impact with no more than two (2) degrees of airplane roll, main
landing gear touchdown first and normal rotation onto the nose gear. For a hard landing
that is a hard nose landing or is accompanied by more than two (2) degrees of roll at the
time of main landing gear impact, the recorded peak acceleration can be significantly less
than the 2.1 G, but a hard landing inspection may still be necessary.

(d) For a landing at or below maximum design landing weight on airplanes with flight data
recording systems capable of at least sixteen (16) samples per second, the following can
be used: An indication of a hard landing on the main landing gear is a peak recorded
vertical acceleration that exceeds 2.2 G (incremental 1.2 G). This vertical accelerometer
data must be measured by the flight data recorder accelerometer at a data sampling rate of
at least sixteen (16) samples per second. This vertical acceleration G-level threshold is
valid for a conventional landing with impact with no more than two (2) degrees of airplane
roll, main landing gear touchdown first and normal rotation onto the nose gear. For a hard
landing that is a hard nose landing or is accompanied by more than two (2) degrees of roll
at the time of main landing gear impact, the recorded peak acceleration can be significantly
less than the 2.1 G, but a hard landing inspection may still be necessary."

If the aircraft registers or the pilot reports a heavy landing, then it is broken down in to phase checks. Depending on the figure reached, it could involve a walk around looking for ripples to jacking the aircraft up for retract checks or gear replacement for example. If you want to know about the individual phases, then ask, but it is very in depth and long.

Matt

C wrote on Dec 27^th, 2012 at 5:02pm:



Sorry Charlie, in the words of "Goose", that is pilot shit. I just wait for the ACARS printer to spit out a heavy landing report and then act upon it (also take the piss a little). The 737 does not actually have a max landing weight. It has a recommended max of 65550 kg's which to all intents an purposes is treated as a max. If it was all up with full tanks, it can land with only take off and circuit fuel missing. The deciding factor then is the touchdown G loading the aircraft experiences, thought the 9 out of 10 pilots need a very long runway to pull it off. This year we had three medical diversions to Brest on the way to Mallorca, all over weight and all landings well below 2.1G Mind you Brest is just under 2 miles long............

Matt

Holy beJesus!..those are wolf pelts on that prop!!! Cool! At any rate...you gents are talking WAY above my head here,but it makes for interesting reading.What I AM getting from what I THINK I understand is what G would be acceptable in one condition (quarter load of fuel) would not be acceptable for a landing with a nearly full load of fuel.So,my best bet would be to 'skim' the runway to a stop.Guess I'll use my ILS till I get a visual,then do my own flying.Means I'll be running a longer distance at a lower altitude till I tag the rwy,but it should make for a smoother landing.Some airports make that idea tough to practice when they're located near the mountains because my flairing technique has a lot to be desired.OK...Thanks a bunch guys.Love hearing y'all talk all that tech stuff even though most of it goes way over my head. Have a good'n! //stephan  'Altitude With Attitude!'