Old, but interesting topic

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Why not?

It autotunes the frequency and selects the inbound course of the
approach you have selected, it does about 20 miles out.

You can override it anytime, you check it during your approach
briefing.
It does not follow it unless you arm the approach on the panel.


I don't see any problem with it, as with anything on the aircraft you
have the ultimate control, I let the autopilot fly the aircraft most
of
the time, but I always monitor what it does.

Well, you have to.. obviously. They do strange things from time to
time..

Didn't mean to suggest you didn't. But the way you said it sounded like
you would let it nav onto the ils and fly it off it's own bat not using
the ILS at all, just it's own input like an LNAV non precision.
We don't even allow LNAV intercepts of ILS's. We always intercept from
heading select, though we do allow a glidepath intercept from vnav from
below. I wouldn't trust the fjukkwit to do that, though. I wouldn't let
him use a toaster, in fact.



Bertie

Well I agree not to trust it blindly, computers are computers.

True that most of the time you intercept using heading mode, most of the
time you are on radar vectors.

But when you are not on vectors and you are using the nav fuction to
follow the STAR, you can leave the panel on NAV, the FMS will autotune
the ILS frequency, set the imbound track, as the LOC comes alive the
flght director will switch to "green data" intercept the LOC and the
Glide path using the navaid. All that can be done on autopilot.
As I said, all the time the pilot will monitor it, and of course manual
intervention is still needed to configure the aircraft and ultimately to
land it.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Global Express? Would that be th eGlobal Express X3000A2, or the Global
Express X3000C5? That's a modern derivit\ive of th eold Speedbird 500,
isn't it?





Bertie


That would be the Bombardier Global Express, long range business aircraft.

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/global/

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Flydive wrote in :

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

ILS freqs won't autotune on anything I know of..
Then you don't know of all FMCs, because some FMCs will definitely
autotune the ILS. The 747-400 will do this (in fact, it autotunes all
the navaids, although you can override this).
All FMCs tune navaids fjukkktard, but none do autoapproaches, fjukkwit.


Bertie

Sorry to disagree again, but the latest FMS can tune the ILS frequency
and set the imbound track.


RTFP. If you set up your FMC, clever as you like, punched your toga
switches and jumped out of the airplane, would it land at your
destination?

I'm guessing "no".


Bertie




Bertie

Well I believe we were not talking about take off here.
But once airborne, lets say in cruise........if FMS programmed,
including RWY and APPCH, set on VNAV, APPCH preselected and altitude
selector set to RWY elevation..... well I guess pretty much yes.
Of course gear and flaps will not be set by the aircraft itself, so it
would be a pretty interesting landing ;-) but it would definetely hit
the runway at destination.

Nope I don't think they could have. If they were used doors that
lock
electrically rather the mechanically sound rather like a bad choice
to
ward off terrorists.

Not only would the methods I've described allow the flight attendant
to land,
but in this case the flight attendant also had had pilot training.

You seem to have some detailed information about this incident. Please
cite your references so we can all argue based on the same facts.

Really, it's amazing that so many posters make fun of Mx for not using
Google, when you apparently fail to do the same. Google "Helios
crash" and you'll find everything from a Wikipedia article to safety
articles to whatever.

Kev

Precisely!

The probable beginning point of the chain of events leading to the Helios
crash was ridiculously easy to find, and the interim training
recommendations by the manufacturer (Boeing) appeared without any additional
research...

Mxsmanic is not the only offender, but he is the worst and also the most
consistent, and there is no sane reason for any of us to act as his personal
research assistant. That was my reason for simply inserting "Google is your
friend."

Peter

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
What does that have to do with MTBF?

Nothing because that wasn't what you said. You weren't talking about mean
time between failures (in case you thought I didn't understand), you stated
that jet engines (implicity individual units within the context of this
thread) could run for hundreds of thousands of hours without failure. This
is patently not true and has not happened yet.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Bertie the Bunyip writes:

I know how it works (I've flown 73's in the past, BTW) and I know why it
crashed and I alsop know you';re talking straight out of your ass.

I've flown SR-71s and F-16s.


No you haven't. You are a simmer, or gamer, you have never flown a damn
thing but your desk.

Iain Smith writes:

Nothing because that wasn't what you said. You weren't talking about mean
time between failures (in case you thought I didn't understand), you stated
that jet engines (implicity individual units within the context of this
thread) could run for hundreds of thousands of hours without failure. This
is patently not true and has not happened yet.

The alleged fact that it hasn't happened doesn't prove that it cannot. And
how do you know it hasn't happened? Is someone keeping track of the worldwide
record for running time between failures?

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

Maxwell writes:

No you haven't. You are a simmer, or gamer, you have never flown a damn
thing but your desk.

How do you know? All I see here is names on a screen, some of them making
extravagant claims. Historically, claims made on USENET have a very low
probability of being truthful.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Maxwell writes:

No you haven't. You are a simmer, or gamer, you have never flown a damn
thing but your desk.

How do you know? All I see here is names on a screen, some of them making
extravagant claims. Historically, claims made on USENET have a very low
probability of being truthful.


Well then, by all means. Tell us what you have actually flown.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Is someone keeping track of the worldwide record for running time between
failures?

You bet they are! All engine manufacturers do.