ILS Approaches

[KeroseneSnorter]

Did Luke need an FD or autopilot in his [SIZE=-1]T-16 Skyhopper to shoot womp rats in Begger's Canyon?

I think not. [/SIZE]

Now you've done it!! Gone and brought the Force into the equasion!!

Now we will be arguing about using the force vs not using the force on tight approaches!

Next thing you know we will have to be Force Sensitive to obtain an ATP.......Thanks Alot there bub!!

 

[A Squared]

The same way you find the airport via hand flying it. If you don't know where the airport is, how do you find it hand flying it? You are confusing me, AP can either be controlled by heading, speed, vertical speed, or other nav means. If you can handfly the airplane to the airport, you can use the AP as well.

Oh, I see, you're just talking about steering it around by twiddling the heading bug (so to speak). Hmmmm, I though that when you said "program the PMS" you actually meant you'd program the PMS, then "sit back and watch" like you said.

You're really not talking about programing anything at all, you're talkiing about flying it through the autopilot controls instead of the flight controls. Well sure, I suppose you could do that, but that's certainly not what programming means, and you wouldn't be sitting back and watching, you'd be pretty busy with that heading bug.

 

[pilot error]

Maybe I wasn't very clear. You don't have any meaningful coordinates for the runway end. It's a dirt strip on the side of a mountain. When you're down *in* a valley, 80 nm from the nearest VOR, you don't have VHF NAV. The GPS/INS can give you all kinds neato informatin, about where *you* are, but if your INS doesn't know where the end of runway is, your position is relatively meaningless. Oh, and the approach is around a hill and down a valley, otherwise you're too high to descend to the runway.

I'm curious how you plan to program a an autopilot to take you right to the end of the runway when you don't know exactly where the runway is, and by the same token you don't know exactly where you are relative to the end of the runway.

though it has nothing to do with flying an ils, if you can save your own waypoints with entered cords in whichever gps you have it could be done quite easily. wouldn't be tough to figure out the coords on the end of the runway if you and the gps were there at the same time (presumably after landing, not 10' above the runway).

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

Just to put things in perspective for large glass airplanes such as the 777: The F/D is on 100% of the time from take off to landing. The A/P is usually turned on any where from 12,000 feet to cruise level off. Most pilots have the A/P on by FL180. It remains on until about 10,000 feet or anytime thereafter with most pilots shutting it off by about 3000 feet if the field is VFR. For IFR the A/P will usually be on until the runway is in sight. Of course for an autoland it will be on until the airplane is at taxi speed. Autolands are only used when the weather is at CAT I minimums or below, or for A/P currency. No one ever flies with total raw data. Auto-throttles are used nearly 100% of the time except about 15% of pilots turn off the A/T's for approach and landing. The auto-brakes are used for 100% of all takeoffs and landings.

Some people ask if automation takes the fun out? My answer is that it does not. The automation is all gee-wiz stuff and exciting to operate.

If you like the Honda Gold Wing you'll love advanced airplanes. If you like Harleys then you'll go for A Squared's DC-6. It's all a matter of choice from one extreme to the other and anywhere in between.

So you decide, which do you like, the Gold Wing or the Harley?

 

[cezzna]

I believe the Luftansa approach is the best way to handle the automation use or not use question. I agree that overuse of automation leads to a deterioration of some flying skills. I also agree that always flying raw data is just bravado. In Luftansa they require their pilots to split flying into thirds. One third of the time full automation, one third of the time partial automation which would probably be hand flying with the flight director. The last third being raw data. The lower the weather the more automation should be used. This keeps proficiency with and without the automation. I think we've all seen pilots who can use the hell out of the autopilot, but are like a fish out of water when it's turned off. We've also seen the raw data macho types who can't run the FMS other than direct to a fix. Raw data to mins. when you have a good autopilot and flight director is just stupid.

 

[Gorilla]

A-squared, as others have mentioned, a modern FMS could easily be programmed to fly your custom "Curving Canyon 2" approach... a curved ILS, if you will, complete with vertical guidance. That profile could be flown coupled to AP, or totally hand flown, your choice.

The original question was flawed in that it didn't include weather. 99/100 guys I fly with, if the weather is better than about 500'/2, will begin to hand fly while taking vectors to final. If near CAT I minimums, maybe 1/2 will leave the autopilot coupled through much of the approach. All of this is with flight director ON. Very few guys turn off the FD.

Here's where it gets interesting... in the hud-equipped 737-800, at least in our fleet, there is no autoland, and CAT III approaches are hand flown throughout. The aircraft is certified to do so. There is nothing inherently more dangerous about hand flying vs AP coupled. In the sim, during our transition training, as a confidence maneuver, the sim visuals are completely turned off, and the aircraft landed with the HUD, including rollout to a stop. We did several. When the airplane is braked to a stop, the sim visuals are turned up, and there we sit, maybe 5,000' down the runway, never more than 10' from centerline. Pretty impressive technology.

 

[h25b]

Here's where it gets interesting... in the hud-equipped 737-800, at least in our fleet, there is no autoland, and CAT III approaches are hand flown throughout. The aircraft is certified to do so. There is nothing inherently more dangerous about hand flying vs AP coupled. In the sim, during our transition training, as a confidence maneuver, the sim visuals are completely turned off, and the aircraft landed with the HUD, including rollout to a stop. We did several. When the airplane is braked to a stop, the sim visuals are turned up, and there we sit, maybe 5,000' down the runway, never more than 10' from centerline. Pretty impressive technology.

Throwing in the HUD to this discussion totally changes the set of assumptions in terms of hand flying... The HUD has a totally different approach to guidance than the simple flight director that most of us are accustomed to. I don't think you're going there, but if you are trying to say that because there are operators hand flying CAT III with HUD it is therefore perfectly fine to be routinely hand flying the more traditional glass cockpits I'd have to respectfully disagree. To my limited knowledge the HUD is generating the velocity vector which allows a degree of accuracy to which to fly by that is an order of magnitude better than the traditional flight director...

 

[kevdog]

Oh, I see, you're just talking about steering it around by twiddling the heading bug (so to speak). Hmmmm, I though that when you said "program the PMS" you actually meant you'd program the PMS, then "sit back and watch" like you said.

You're really not talking about programing anything at all, you're talkiing about flying it through the autopilot controls instead of the flight controls. Well sure, I suppose you could do that, but that's certainly not what programming means, and you wouldn't be sitting back and watching, you'd be pretty busy with that heading bug.

less busy than with the yoke and yes, if you wanted to, you could program the INS/PMS system to do almost anything. Maybe easier to use your wrist in your scenario though.

 

[Gorilla]

Throwing in the HUD to this discussion totally changes the set of assumptions in terms of hand flying... The HUD has a totally different approach to guidance than the simple flight director that most of us are accustomed to. I don't think you're going there, but if you are trying to say that because there are operators hand flying CAT III with HUD it is therefore it is perfectly fine to be routinely hand flying the more traditional glass cockpits I'd have to respectfully disagree. To my limited knowledge the HUD is generating the velocity vector which allows a degree of accuracy to which to fly by that is an order of magnitude better than the traditional flight director...

Very true, and I agree, I was throwing the HUD in there just to demonstrate that there are automation modes so good that they certify the approach for hand flying. The sensitivity and accuracy of the HUD makes a normal FD look like a B-17 instrument.

I think we can all agree that a hand-flown, no FD ILS flown to mins, when there is better automation available, is foolish and arrogant. Where we may deviate is a FD ILS. I personally believe that there is nothing wrong with hand-flying a FD ILS to CAT I minimums. Others would go batty if they didn't use the AP to visual, click it off, and land.

The reason I prefer hand flying (FD ILS) to AP coupled is that on my airplane at least (737 for now), the AP does a poor job of trimming for pitch. When you click off the AP, it's usually WAY off, and I'd rather discover that fact at 1,000' rather than 100'

 

[DrewBlows]

You say that not using automation doesn't make you a better pilot? Take two pilots, one who always uses automation for T/O and approach, and one who hardly uses them for T/O and approach. Who do you think is going to retain their skills at actually FLYING the airplane.

Who's going to bust an altitude, or miss a waypoint (think ATL/ DFW RNAV departures, KORRY arrival to LGA)?

From a NFP perspective, if you want to hand fly do it on nice days at airports without complicated departure procedures (anything more complicated than vectors on-course) and visual approaches. I have enough to do already and don't want to babysit you and twist your altitude and headings. Hand fly in IMC on your check-rides, you have to do them every six months anyway.

By the way, how I described is how I fly. I enjoy hand flying, but I'm not looking to make my Captain work any harder than he has to.

 

[UndauntedFlyer]

In Luftansa they require their pilots to split flying into thirds. One third of the time full automation, one third of the time partial automation which would probably be hand flying with the flight director. The last third being raw data. The lower the weather the more automation should be used. This keeps proficiency with and without the automation.

While this may be some kind of general guidance put in their manual by a Chief Pilot guy philosophically like Carl, no disrespect intened, who believes it is important to hand fly alot. In reality, I would guess that the pilots at Luftansa use the automation just as I have described above which is most all the time. So unless this you are currently flying for Luftansa and therefore know first hand just how it is done on the line, reports from others are not really indicative of reality on the line.

 

[washout]

Hand flown almost all of the time. Unless it really low, no FD either.

The worst pilots are the ones who use the AP all the time. Any airline (or any pilots) should be able to fly a raw data approach.

By his own words, Spackler clearly thinks my crews and I are some of the "worst pilots" out there. Cryin' shame they let us fly DC-10s.

Nobody can do it better than the autopilot, period. Hand fly VMC if you want, but IMC is no time to show how wonderful you are.

Thankfully, all the captains I fly with got past their "Look at me I am a great stick!" phase about 25 years ago.

I wonder when Spackler will.....

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

Depends on the view point I guess and the equipment.

My company has had a lot of guys coming off of F/O on the 747 400 and upgrading to Capt. on the 200's that are not making the cut and having to return to the line as F/O's on the 400. More of this than should be expected.

Probably due to such a tech difference in the two types, the 400 fleet uses the automation mentality with hand flying as secondary, where as the 200's are almost all hand flown in most of the approaches due to the limitations of the older equipment.

Conversly, I have heard of no problems for the guys going from the 200 to 400's.

The reply about Luftansa makes a lot of sense, no matter what airplane you are in one cannot rely completly on automation, and at the same time it is stupid to not use all that is available when the weather is bad.

 

[TurboS7]

Positive Rate: You need to go fly in the Pacific you will fit right in. People with your mentality and training need to reevaluate your whole stance, pilots fly airplanes not autopilots, if you need a FD and autopilot to be safe then maybe you shouldn't be in an airplane. To call pilot skill bravado then you need to get your head screwed on straight.

 

[TurboS7]

Ataboy my kind of flying, describe to these guys what the river and rocks look like.l