![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
-----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! ![]() 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----- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|