flight's concept of a 'good landing'

[G. Murdock Helms]

(jim frost) writes:
>I take exception at the way flight rates landings.  I've been playing
>around with the cessna lately and just a little while ago did a
>picture-perfect landing on the pavement in front of the hangar.  A
>co-worker of mine did the same thing on the pavement in front of the
>tower.  Both of us got scores of zero even though they were beautiful
>landings.

Perhaps because you're supposed to land on the *runway*.
Flight grades you on how fast you're going when you land, how much
vertical descent you've got, how far off the numbers you are, and how
much drift and heading error you've got...on the _runway_.

Note also that you can, in realtime, take off and land on grass.
Flight does not allow you to do so.  Theoretically, even if your
Cessna ran out of fuel, you should be able to make a gorgeous landing
on all that grass no matter where you are, since the only obstructions 
around is the runway area itself.  Alas, flight doesn't work that way...
it counts all that wonderful grass as "marshes".
 
>What ever happened to good landings being those you can walk away
>from?
>haven't managed to land the f15 on the strip that runs parallel to the
>runway yet, but give me some time....

Try flying the 747 inverted with the cockpit under the runway sometime.

-Murdock