Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's ATC

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.

Yes, from a regulatory standpoint. But I can still configure for
autoland. It looks like any other landing from the tower, heh heh.

Anyway, the usual reason for this is that I'm working on the systems
and procedures, and not on the actual flying of the aircraft. If I
want to practice flying it, I set up a different flight. Sometimes I
just fly offline for practice in flying skills, since I don't need ATC
for that. Exercises like flying holds by hand or by autopilot, touch
and go landings, etc. I do this more in the Baron than in the 737.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

-----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.

Yes, from a regulatory standpoint. But I can still configure for
autoland. It looks like any other landing from the tower, heh heh.

I'd hate to see what would happen if tower tells you that you
have a 40 or 50kt overtake on the traffic you're following, and to
S-turn. Kills your autoland. If you want the realism, you should and
fly the approach and land, and use your instruments when you need them.
Should you get the helmet and can't see them, you would be screwed...
royally.

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)

iD8DBQFFnaHYyBkZmuMZ8L8RAj7oAJ4+6uimAAwC0MsrBciICf cc2pI6bwCeJFBJ
GqSi/+r/pNBg5ZPYWENsT+0=
=X5cu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
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?

Another case of where simulation doesn't match real life. By giving a
visual approach clearance, separation rules change. A controller can
funnel more airplanes into the approach. Otherwise he can't have more
than one airplane on the approach at the same time.

It's also one of those reasons controllers like for you to cancel in
the air for uncontrolled airports (you wouldn't know about that because
thats just "fun" flying) is because they can't let an IFR departure
while your on the approach. Or another approach. Hence, the airport
is "closed" for IFR arrivals/departures.

Real world example, departing Quincy IFR one time (in VMC). Plane
takes off ahead of us on an IFR clearance. We can't take off IFR
because that plane just took off. And radar coverage at KUIN is spotty
below 5000. So I can wait on the ground until said plane gets into
radar coverage, or just depart VFR and pick up my clearance airborne.
We departed VFR.

-----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-----

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:




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.


That just isn't so. Jet aircraft are required to remain on, or above,
the ILS G/S whether on an ILS approach or on a visual approach. At the
company I worked for, failure to tune and identify the ILS for a visual
approach to an ILS runway was a check-ride bust.

As to autoland, most of them are down in good weather for proficiency
and to maintain certification of the airborne equipment. Autolands can
(and are) even be practiced on visual approaches provided the ILS is
intercepted prior to the PFAF.

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

Sam Spade wrote:
A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:


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.


That just isn't so. Jet aircraft are required to remain on, or above,
the ILS G/S whether on an ILS approach or on a visual approach. At the
company I worked for, failure to tune and identify the ILS for a visual
approach to an ILS runway was a check-ride bust.

This would be a company policy, no? Because it could still be
done in any other aircraft outside your company.

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)

iD8DBQFFnukEyBkZmuMZ8L8RAv1XAKCfj+FajnHlCSUmibkiUn qoSwwTWACdG9B7
hbOiFPvSRrU9vjUr8YKRGHE=
=bsZe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Sam Spade writes:

That just isn't so. Jet aircraft are required to remain on, or above,
the ILS G/S whether on an ILS approach or on a visual approach.

But doesn't one normally fly below the glide path in order to
intercept it?

At the company I worked for, failure to tune and identify the ILS for a visual
approach to an ILS runway was a check-ride bust.

So it's a company policy, but not a FAR. However, such a policy does
not surprise me. Why deprive oneself of the information from the ILS
just because it is a visual approach?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mxsmanic ]
Posted At: Thursday, January 04, 2007 3:23 AM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's
ATC
Subject: Confusion about when it's my navigation, and when it's
ATC

....

I do have a problem with transitions between automated systems and
flying by hand. Sometimes it's hard for me to keep track of what the
systems are doing and what I am doing. As a last recort I
occasionally disengage the automation entirely and fly by hand
(particularly for approaches and landings), but that is not the
objective, that's just to get on the ground safely.


So you are really using your home computer as a procedure and systems
simulator and not a flight training tool. I will agree that learning
systems and procedures are part of the flight training process (or any
training process that involves automation), but they are not as big a
part of the overall training as you seem to believe. I say that because
of your devotion to the idea that you really are doing exactly the same
thing as a professional pilot actually flying an aircraft along the same
routes.

There are a lot of freewill decisions that still take place in the
cockpit and those decisions can not be simulated.



You just can't let your instruments do everything for you
the moment you rotate.


This is another way of saying that the freewill decision process has to
be considered and you have to allocate the variables those decisions
introduce. If it were considered safe, reliable, or even desirable to
automate the entire process (as a systems simulator provides) then there
would be no flight training requirements because there would be no
pilots. True flying is involves much less systems integration and
systems management than you seem to believe. Sure, flying will always
involve some systems management -- hell we can't even fly our Super Cubs
or Taylorcraft in controlled airspace anymore without working with the
system somewhat.

My point to this post is that you seem to have the incorrect idea about
systems management and procedure memorization being the most significant
part of operating an aircraft -- that's not the way it is for the large
majority of people who fly.


You can if they work as designed. And real life comes very close to
that, although I understand most pilots fly the first part of the
departure by hand, and often landings as well.


Refer to your earlier posting about rudeness and consider that you have
no experience on which to base your comment immediately above, yet you
still have taken an authoritative position from your tone and word
choice. This is why others have suggested you consider your own
"attitude".

Jim Carter writes:

So you are really using your home computer as a procedure and systems
simulator and not a flight training tool.

I use it for both. When I fly a 737-800, there's a much greater
emphasis on systems and procedures. When I fly a Baron 58, there's a
much greater emphasis on flight training itself. I use the Baron for
pattern practice, but the 737 for complex navigation and ATC practice.

I will agree that learning
systems and procedures are part of the flight training process (or any
training process that involves automation), but they are not as big a
part of the overall training as you seem to believe.

I think that depends hugely on what type of flying you intend to do.
For airline pilots, systems and procedures seem to be the lion's share
of what they do. Actually flying the plane is becoming increasingly
incidental.

I say that because
of your devotion to the idea that you really are doing exactly the same
thing as a professional pilot actually flying an aircraft along the same
routes.

Exactly the same thing? I think not. But I come very close.

There are a lot of freewill decisions that still take place in the
cockpit and those decisions can not be simulated.

I make free-will decisions, too.

However, in practical commercial aviation, the idea is to reduce free
will to a minimum. Free will does not yield economical and
low-maintenance flight. Flying exclusively by the numbers with a
computer does. Airlines would probably love to dispense with pilots
entirely.

If it were considered safe, reliable, or even desirable to
automate the entire process (as a systems simulator provides) then there
would be no flight training requirements because there would be no
pilots.

That time will come. Their presence even today is increasingly as a
back-up. It's already possible to fly aircraft from gate to gate
without a pilot, although such systems have not actually been deployed
commercially, as far as I know.

True flying is involves much less systems integration and
systems management than you seem to believe.

Maybe in a Cessna, but not in commercial aviation.

My point to this post is that you seem to have the incorrect idea about
systems management and procedure memorization being the most significant
part of operating an aircraft -- that's not the way it is for the large
majority of people who fly.

Do you fly large jets for an airline, or small aircraft?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.