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

-----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-----

-----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-----

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message Do you often need a different altitude from
the one you filed?
Perhaps for fuel considerations, or headwinds, or something?

Often times our actual weight will be slightly different from the flight
planned weight requiring 2000' up or down for fuel optimization. Turbulence
is another reason to change altitudes, sometimes 10000' or more. A 2000'
change in altitude usually doesn't make enough difference in headwinds to
justify the increased fuel burn of changing altitudes. Sometimes we are just
plain stuck at an inefficient altitude because of same direction traffic.

So what do they say in this telephone call?

Along the lines of 'Now you know- don't do it again".

I would have thought that altitude and track would both be about
equally important.

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

D.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
Actually, no, it doesn't. The word "for" is to be avoided because it sound
the same as "four". It sounds like many airline pilots (just like "twelve
hundred" or "with you"), but professional it is not.

Let's split hairs- I am aware of the Flying Tigers' accident. However,
'four' followed by 'twelve' is hard to confuse. 'four one two thousand'
doesn't make sense either. Professionals are admonished to be concise and
efficient in their transmissions. In that sense, and because Maniac did say
that he was already issued the crossing restriction, "Leaving FL290" would
be better.

D.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

I know they aren't stupid.

How do you know this?

In article ,
"Viperdoc" wrote:

While this thread is obviously degenerating to your base level of illogic
and circular reasoning, I can tell you that your statement "anyone competent
to flying can probably can land (an Extra) virtually blindfolded" is
laughingly untrue.

Aww heck, landings are assured. Surviving the landing is a different matter

:-)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

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 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.

Capt.Doug wrote:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
So it would probably be best to set the MCP to prevent any descent
until I'm cleared, then?


MCP = max continuous power? Sorry- not familiar with the term as used on an
FMS. The important thing is to not set the altitude hold for descent until
cleared by ATC.

Mode Control Panel

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Mxsmanic,


Which airline do you fly for, again?



Are you determined to make a complete idiot of yourself now? But I'm
glad to see it is possible to penetrate that armor you've conveniently
constructed around your sorry self.

Well stated, Tom.

I fell for this jerk in the beginning.