-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic wrote:
A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

Not often. For the most, visual approaches are used over ILS
approaches. When cleared for the visual approach, you won't be using
autoland, as you won't be on an ILS approach, regardless of if you join
the localizer and track it. You're still on the visual approach.

I'm kind of surprised that ATC so often goes with visual approaches
for IFR flights. Wouldn't it be more straightforward to funnel
everyone into ILS approaches, given that they are already IFR?


No. And if you understood more about ATC in general, as well as
the differences between visual and instrument approaches, you wouldn't
be asking this question. What would you do if the runway in use does
not have an instrument approach? You'd be screwed. I'd love to see you
land at KLAS during the summer when winds are out of the east and
density altitude is so high that they have 19L/R and 7L/R active.

There is no correlation between VFR/IFR and visual/instrument
approaches.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFnprlyBkZmuMZ8L8RAvv3AJ0arFR62WVDOVkp9fJY+/wxGfDAuwCgly9I
TG1sXMKn9xv1T6vOEWbWDH8=
=o9er
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----