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

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

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.

All you have to do is pull a switch and take over.

If you want the realism, you should and fly the approach and land,
and use your instruments when you need them.

Yes, in principle. But if I'm practicing the systems and automation,
I use those. If I'm offline, I can just stop the simulation when I've
covered the part I want to practice, and then go back and do it again.
If I'm online, I'm required to land, as it is bad form to simply
disappear from the controller's scope with no explanation. So I may
autoland, both for the practice with automation and to conform to the
requirement to land, given that online simulation is supposed to be
like real life.

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

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:



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.

You can't S-turn at busy airline airports very often.

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.

bdl writes:

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.

OK, but I don't see how this distinguishes simulation from real life.

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.

Actually, I did know that. ATC does that in simulation, too.

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.

Simulation traffic is usually low enough that this isn't a factor at
uncontrolled airports. Of course, when controllers are in short
supply, sometimes even KLAX or KORD are uncontrolled, which makes
things a bit weird.

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

bdl wrote:


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.

Depends what you mean by approach. If there is radar and a
non-conflicted missed approach there can be quite a string of aircraft
on the ILS.

bdl wrote:




Another case of where simulation doesn't match real life. By giving a
visual approach clearance, separation rules change.

Separation does not change because visual approaches are in use. It
remains the same unless visual separation is used. This is independent
of any type of approach clearance.



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.


Not even remotley true. You are mixing and matching rules.

-----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-----