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

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

-----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.

You must be another non-pilot?

91.129

A large or turbine-powered airplane approaching to land on a runway
served by an instrument landing system (ILS), if the airplane is ILS
equipped, shall fly that airplane at an altitude at or above the glide
slope between the outer marker (or point of interception of glide slope,
if compliance with the applicable distance from clouds criteria requires
interception closer in) and the middle marker; and
(3) An airplane approaching to land on a runway served by a visual
approach slope indicator shall maintain an altitude at or above the
glide slope until a lower altitude is necessary for a safe landing.

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.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
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?

Depends. There are times when you pick up the glideslope at or
a bit above the appropriate altitude before it is totally intercepted.
Case in point: ILS 25L and 24R at LAX, ILS 25L at Vegas.

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?

You really don't get it.

No-one is depriving anyone from the readouts an ILS approach
has. Because you're on a visual approach however, it is the pilot's
responsibility for separation, not ATC's. ATC can tell you to join the
runway localizer and track it inbound, but still to expect a visual
approach.

Just because an airport has a runway with an instrument
approach does not always mean you will use that runway. Like I said
before.. I'd hate to see how you'd get into some place like LAS when
the 19s and 7s are in use, or PSP when the 13s are in use.

Let me ask this.. Granted, you will have more issues to deal
with when/if it happens, but what would you do if you were on approach
to an airport, and you lost your entire panel? According to your very
post above, you'd be deprived of your precious ILS.. I hope you know
how to land a plane without anything.

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)

iD8DBQFFn0ouyBkZmuMZ8L8RAoEhAKCyUWd0jhOzy8Vs6epbuP bFboptpgCgtU2A
pqlzJGxUDPTkoswCaSlpxKU=
=DYAi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mxsmanic wrote:

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?

The FAR requires remaining on or above the glideslope. It is very
difficult to comply with the regulation without tuning and identifying
the ILS. It probably is company policy at most, if not all, airlines.

Company policies are established to assure compliance with regulations
that might otherwise be overlooked.

So, the say it is a company policy for other than FAR compliance would
be quite mistaken.

Further, I suspect FAA operations inspectors get all over any airline
that does not have this policy.

-----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.