LANDING AIRPLANESIN SIMULATORS AND PERIPHERAL VISION

Hal Stoen, © 1999

12/28/99

I've read several posts on the flight simulator lists aboutthe difficulty in achieving decent landings in flight simulators,and thought that I would pass along some observations in general.

It seems that no matter what the pilot encounters during thedeparture, enroute or approach phases of a flight, the landingbecomes the final judgment criteria for the entire trip. You cango out and do battle with ice, thunderstorms, equipment failures,near-minimums approaches and guide your passengers through themall without their spilling a drop of their drinks, or being jostledin their chairs.

Ah, but the landing. Bust that one, and it is the sole thingthat most will remember about the entire flight. And, in all fairness,most pilots, knowing all of this, set themselves up for the samescenario.

A little background information first.

During my eighteen years as a corporate pilot I only flew onetype of aircraft- the Cessna 421B. In that time period, the companyused two different models: a 1972 421B, the one that I destroyedin a corn field, and a 1974 421B, the one I "finished mycareer" with, N1557G.

While the same model series, there were some differences betweenthe two. The 1974 model had a higher pressurization differential-5.3 PSI, and it also had a longer interior cabin. Cessna movedthe aft pressure bulkhead back about 2 feet allowing for a largerbar area, and the addition of an eighth chair.

They also made some changes up front, in the office, and hereis where the landing "cue" information comes into play.

The 1972 model had a higher brow over the top of the instrumentpanel that went straight across and then made a near 90 degreeturn to vertical at each end. As an aside, the flight instrumentson the pilot and co-pilot sides were mounted on sheet metal(actually aluminum) at a three degree tilt toward the pilots,the theory being that it would help eliminate parallax errors,while the center of the panel, the "radio stack area"was vertical.

For 1974 Cessna made the entire panel vertical. In addition,they rearranged some of the top-mounted instruments so that thetop of the panel, the "brow", was lower and sloped moregently into the sidewalls on both ends. There were numerous otherengineering changes between the two models.

When I first started operating the new aircraft I noticed thatI was able to consistently achieve better landings. Now I knewthat I hadn't gotten any better, so it had to be something withthe aircraft. And then it finally dawned on this dumb Norwegian-peripheral vision. Unbeknownst to me, while landing I was lookingdown the runway but picking up my vertical distance clues throughmy side vision. The window area that had been blocked before bythe higher brow was now exposed by the new, lower, design. Upuntil that time, I had no idea as to how important that informationwas to me when it came to the landing phase of the operation.

The next time I went to Flight Safety for my annual check Inoticed the same thing in their full-motion simulators. Even thoughthey had the newer cockpit in the simulators, there was not aCRT display for this area. There was a side window display, butit did not extend that far down. And sure enough, landings inthe simulator were not the same as in the actual aircraft. I discussedthis with other crews doing training at the same time, and theyall came to the same conclusion.

So there you have it. The next time you don't "greaseit on", blame it on your lack of "peripheral vision",certainly not on your lack of skills as an aircraft commander.

This tutorial is available on aCD

This tutorial, along with additional content, is availableon a CD. Click here formore information.

Hal Stoen

© 1999

12/28/99

clickto return to the index