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

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

I just told you. LOOP4, KEPEC1, ILS 25L at KLAS. Those are also
charts.

I have those.

You should look at those, because if you choose the wrong
chart, and your equipment can't support the chart you're filing, you'll
be given another SID/STAR to use.

On the 737, I have essentially everything. I usually check for
specific instructions or restrictions on the type of aircraft.

If you lost your FMC, what would you do?

I would use the MCP alone. If that fails, I fly the aircraft by hand,
which I can do, although it's rather tedious over long distances.

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.

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

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.

I'd fathom to see what would happen if you were a /A and didn't have an
FMC.

I don't know what /A is, but if I don't have a FMC, I fly with
autopilot alone. If I don't have that, I fly by hand. However, I
would not want to fly an aircraft without at least an autopilot, if I
were planning anything other than practice in the pattern.

I doubt it. There's two places where the Center controller
could give you the crossing restriction; one at MISEN, the other at
CLARR. If he gave you the one at MISEN (which I know he did), it would
make the CLARR crossing restriction a lot easier to make.

I don't recall MISEN, but I recall the CLARR restriction. He said
cross CLARR at 12000 or whatever, and I was at FL290, and so I assumed
that my descent to CLARR was implied in this--otherwise how could I
follow the instructions. So when the FMC started down, I didn't say
anything, as I recall.

They had visual approaches in use.

Yes. Visual approaches seem to be popular when weather permits. I
still tune the ILS and follow it, if possible.

Also, it has been said befo 99.9% of all landings are hand
flown, not autolanding, unless on a Cat III ILS approach. ILS 25L
is not CATIII.

The aircraft will still autoland on it.

It could be because visual approaches may be in use over using
an instrument approach.

No doubt, although ATCs in simulation seem to enjoy making more work
for themselves, rather than less (in contrast to the real world).

It provides more flexibility with ATC, plus puts separation
responsibility back on the pilot.

That is probably the main motivation in real life. Simulation ATCs
just like to have more practice, understandably.

If you were following traffic, and you were coming in too fast
and had to go around, that may not be ATC's fault. There would
be some things you could have done to slow your speed down.

When he first called the traffic, it was at 11:00. By the time I saw
it, it was around 8:00 and moving fast opposite to my track. When I
called the traffic in sight, he told me to follow it, which required a
steep 180 to get behind him. As I was still in LNAV and was fooling
with the FMC and MCP trying to figure out why it had refused the
descent path for my approach, I got confused and had trouble turning
to follow the traffic. I was all over the place on the approach and
way too close to the other traffic (which had not yet touched down,
and I was only at 1500 feet or so and nearly abeam the threshold), and
finally I decided to go around--which was an adventure in itself since
I had not previously tried to go around with an FMC and fancy
autopilot in the mix. I disconnected everything and flew by hand to a
few thousand feet, and ATC vectored me around, which was troublesome
because the VOR he wanted was on my MFD but not tuned, so I had to try
to find it on the MFD and steer towards it. I finally stabilized and
there was another aircraft on the way in and I was told to find it and
follow it as before. This time I was much further out, however, and I
was able to line up better. Once I was nearly on the centerline I set
up the MCP for the ILS again, and then I set for autoland just to get
some rest. The landing proceeded uneventfully on 25R, I think.

I don't know if the ATC screwed up; he was a regular controller, not a
student. I certainly made a mess of it, though. It's good that I had
the seat belt sign on. I need to practice more with dealing with the
unexpected while using an FMC and/or autopilot.

This is all much easier when I fly the Baron, as the autopilot isn't
terribly fancy and there's no FMC, so I'm already on top of things
when ATC calls. But I've screwed up in that as well, in one case
trying to land on the wrong runway until I heard Approach telling
other people about a plane that didn't seem to know where it was
going, hint hint.

I haven't had any crashes, though, except in extremely strong winds
(near Denver, once at KVGT in incredibly gusty winds, etc.). I
haven't had a fatal crash in a long time. The last one was when I hit
a hill on the way out of Henderson Executive at night. I still don't
know which hill it was, as I had examined the chart carefully and was
sure that my departure was clear of terrain. But it was dark.

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

Mxsmanic,

Also, it has been said befo 99.9% of all landings are hand
flown, not autolanding, unless on a Cat III ILS approach. ILS 25L
is not CATIII.

The aircraft will still autoland on it.


But t odo that would be totally unrealistic. You can't have it both
ways: Either you strive for attempting maximum realism, or you fudge.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert writes:

But to do that would be totally unrealistic.

Not at all. The aircraft is perfectly capable of autolanding in real
life. As far as I know, the actual ground equipment is the same for
all ILS categories. The aircraft equipment differs by category (the
higher the category, the fancier the equipment), but the 737-800 is
fully equipped for Cat IIIc autolanding.

I don't know how often autolanding is used in real life. Apparently
many pilots like to fly the landing and perhaps at least part of the
approach by hand. But they can still autoland if they want to.

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

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

The aircraft is perfectly capable of autolanding in real
life. As far as I know, the actual ground equipment is the same for
all ILS categories.

And you'd be *wrong*.

Buck Murdock writes:

And you'd be *wrong*.

OK. What's different about the ground equipment for the different
categories of ILS approach?

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

Mxsmanic,

OK. What's different about the ground equipment for the different
categories of ILS approach?


That information is rather easy to find on the internet. Look it up.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert writes:

That information is rather easy to find on the internet. Look it up.

Information is elsewhere.

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

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Thomas Borchert writes:

But to do that would be totally unrealistic.

Not at all. The aircraft is perfectly capable of autolanding in real
life. As far as I know, the actual ground equipment is the same for
all ILS categories. The aircraft equipment differs by category (the
higher the category, the fancier the equipment), but the 737-800 is
fully equipped for Cat IIIc autolanding.

I don't know how often autolanding is used in real life. Apparently
many pilots like to fly the landing and perhaps at least part of the
approach by hand. But they can still autoland if they want to.


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.

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)

iD8DBQFFnXmXyBkZmuMZ8L8RAhhpAJ92Lh5yirlENcqWYuyvC6 pjGHKUHACgkS55
LIEW8SE3CIIXM6D0XJDlLsc=
=DrqL
-----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.

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-----