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

-----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-----

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.

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

Sam Spade wrote:
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.

Depending. It's done commonly at LAS on the 25s. I agree, it
isn't done often, but it is done.

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)

iD8DBQFFnuhkyBkZmuMZ8L8RAqRjAKCVCZuS7s8bwMZTjEcmnR UtPhX90gCgqs4b
9/Fr7n/tJZX3uUgNjs6UQrs=
=+R5B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

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

Sam Spade wrote:

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.


Depending. It's done commonly at LAS on the 25s. I agree, it
isn't done often, but it is done.

I guess we agree?

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.