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

Mxsmanic,

Also, it has been said befo 99.9% of all landings are hand
flown, not autolanding, unless on a Cat III ILS approach. ILS 25L
is not CATIII.

The aircraft will still autoland on it.


But t odo that would be totally unrealistic. You can't have it both
ways: Either you strive for attempting maximum realism, or you fudge.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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.

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

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

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.

And you'd be *wrong*.

Buck Murdock writes:

And you'd be *wrong*.

OK. What's different about the ground equipment for the different
categories of ILS approach?

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

Mxsmanic,

OK. What's different about the ground equipment for the different
categories of ILS approach?


That information is rather easy to find on the internet. Look it up.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert writes:

That information is rather easy to find on the internet. Look it up.

Information is elsewhere.

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

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Thomas Borchert writes:

That information is rather easy to find on the internet. Look it up.

Information is elsewhere.

And it's up to you to find it, not be spoonfed it. Otherwise,
you will never know how to be self supportive. Like the old saying:

"Give a man a fish, and he'll feed himself for the night. Teach
a man to fish, and he'll feed himself for a lifetime."

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)

iD8DBQFFnpoGyBkZmuMZ8L8RAsWZAJ9q1kitdOphCPc7yifa12 P0SO+0jgCg1MAt
yQkE81+SQpavYN+cdtpLCw8=
=Win3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----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-----