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

Buck Murdock wrote:

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:


Ross writes:


Nope, this was the real multi million $ American Airline simulator in
Ft. Worth Texas at their training center. I do not suspect they you
MSFS.

Sometimes it can be surprising what runs on the back end.


As someone who's been flying them every six months for a decade, and
*instructing* in them for several years, it wouldn't be surprising at
all. And as Mr. Space correctly points out, there's not so much as a
snippet of Microsoft code running those $12 MM simulators.

They run custom-designed simulator software, running on banks of
computers. They can communicate with the actual, physical avionics that
are the same as those installed in the aircraft. (Very, very different
from painting graphics on what amounts to a matte painting that looks
somewhat like a cockpit.) They also mimic the physical sensations,
which are *critical* in coming anywhere close to completely simulating
flight.

I've played MSFS, I've spent hundreds of hours in full-motion
simulators, and I've flown thousands of hours in transport aircraft.
Until you have done more than one of the above, you ARE NOT QUALIFIED to
make comparisons amongst them.

AMEN

And, it is Mr. Spade. ;-)

Newps wrote:



Sam Spade wrote:

Newps wrote:



Mxsmanic wrote:


Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.





Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.




There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.



Not so. When an engine fails on a multi, a lot of rudder is required.
Skillfully done, the application of a lot of rudder is mandatory to
maintain the desired flight path.





Yep, thus changing the flight path from the centered position.

That is pure b.s. It keeps the flight path intended going, rather than
letting if follow the flight path at the centered position, which is
also known as a torgue roll into intverted flight, followed by a briefly
painful death for all aboard.

Newps wrote:



Sam Spade wrote:

Newps wrote:



Mxsmanic wrote:


Uh, gee, Einstein, a real rudder DOES control flight path.





Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.




There is never a case where it doesn't change flight path.



Not so. When an engine fails on a multi, a lot of rudder is required.
Skillfully done, the application of a lot of rudder is mandatory to
maintain the desired flight path.





Yep, thus changing the flight path from the centered position.

Have a nice torque roll day.

It is common to ask any aircraft you need to give you some S turns.
More common at VFR towers.



Sam Spade wrote:
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.

Nomen Nescio wrote in
:

But that gets boring after a while since it's so damned easy to cook this
ant.
So I'm done.

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

And the result ended up with you showing your lack of
proaction and initiative.

The result depends on the reader. It was deliberately ambiguous in
order to ensure this. The interpretation put upon it by the reader
can reveal much.

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

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.

Sam Spade writes:

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.

That regulation applies only to Class D airports.

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

Capt.Doug writes:

They are both important, however altitude leeway is +/-300' whereas airways
have .5 to 4 miles of leeway.

Three hundred feet seems generous for altitudes. I thought I read
somewhere that I was supposed to be within 100 feet, or was it 60
feet? Now I can't seem to find a specific tolerance in the FARs. Of
course this isn't normally a problem if I'm on autopilot, but when
flying by hand I still have trouble holding an altitude.

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

Sam Spade writes:

In those $10 million simulators it sure as Hell ain't windows.

I don't know, as I don't have any specs in front of me, but Windows
might well be used for certain functions, as it would lower
implementation costs if the OS is suitable for the purpose (writing a
custom operating system is very expensive). If the actual simulation
software is custom-written, I'd expect something a bit more efficient,
like a bare-bones UNIX system, or a dedicated real-time OS. But one
cannot use just anything, because the more exotic the OS, the more
expensive the development carried out for it.

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