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

Mxsmanic wrote:

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.

Autopilot does work quite well in MSFS, really. In real
flight under IFR, the bounds of permissible altitude
deviation as seen by ATC via our Mode C squawks are derived
from published FAA documents, not the FARs. Google is fun;
site:www.faa.gov. Knock yourself out. I also can hold
altitude quite well within 10's of feet in a real
no-autopilot airplane in even raucous meteorological
conditions. Years of MSFS sim weenie experience taught me
how, I must admit.

F--

Mxsmanic wrote:

The real aircraft cannot climb to that altitude, so _nobody_ knows
whether the simulation is accurate or not.

You are missing the point that MSFS does not model, nor need
it for the vast majority of sensible users, the forced
(slewed) behavior of a 172 in the high flight levels be
real. Any real pilot, who knows the feel/behavior of a 172
class airplane near sea level, verses say 12,000 feet, and
who understands the aerodynamics involved and the effect of
limited HP in really rarefied air, need not be a "rocket
surgeon" to be able to accurately extrapolate.

F--

Mxsmanic wrote:

What happens on the real aircraft?

They crash. Real airplanes easily crash, despite what even
a King Air pilot I know well tells me. Not exactly a
pussycat, but a solid, predictable machine. Heck, he's just
a "blowhard," to use your word. Please also ignore any
alleged pilot here who tells you anything. The Microsoft
Games Development Team are the real gurus; I though we
stipulated that hundreds of posts ago.

F--

Newps wrote:

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

I understand that. But, it is very uncommon at major air carrier
airports because turns quickly compromise operations on adjacent, often
closely spaced runways.

The context of the OP was that type of airport.

Mxsmanic wrote:

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.

Virtually all aircraft that can autoland operate only into Class D airports.

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.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Buck Murdock writes:


Until you have done more than one of the above, you ARE NOT QUALIFIED to
make comparisons amongst them.


Qualifications on USENET are never certain.

You think I am making up the knowledge I have about air carrier operations?

You could learn from someone like me, instead you would rather be
arrogant and defend your lack of knowledge as being what it is most
certainly not.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Sam Spade writes:


The King Air, on autopilot, will not maintain the set vertical speed if
the IAS drops below 120 knots or so. It will nose-dive and crash. Not
so with a real King Air.


Does the King Air allow you to set a vertical speed? What happens on
the real aircraft?


Cross winds on autopilot are not handled correctly on an RNAV approach.


Which autopilot? What does it do incorrectly?


Strong winds aloft dramatically affect IAS in a holding pattern, which
is wrong beyond belief.


I'll have to look.


That is my short list.


I don't recall ever flying the King Air, but I'll try to remember to
look at the other things the next time the opportunity arises.

Again, you're handicaped because you have no experience in comperable
aircraft.

You are a total waste of time.

Sam Spade writes:

Virtually all aircraft that can autoland operate only into Class D airports.

That would mean that all the largest and most expensive aircraft
(which are generally equipped with autoland) avoid all the largest and
most complex airports in the United States (which are generally Class
B or Class C), which is exactly the opposite of reality.

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

Sam Spade writes:

You think I am making up the knowledge I have about air carrier
operations?

I don't know. But I'm certain that many people make up many things on
USENET, and I know better than to believe whatever I'm told.

When someone tells me that most of the autoland-enabled aircraft are
landing only at Class D airports, I start to wonder.

You could learn from someone like me, instead you would rather be
arrogant and defend your lack of knowledge as being what it is most
certainly not.

I see a lot of anomalies, and it makes me wary. See, despite what
people claim, I _do_ consult other sources, and if they conflict with
what people tell me here, it raises a lot of questions in my mind
about who is correct.

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