How are most approaches flown?

[kessler1]

I'm just wondering, are most approaches flown by the fmc or are they flown manually or semi manually down to minimums? For example, the ILS app to rwy 08L at EDDT Tegel, if the IAF is LANUM, the procedure chart states to fly course 135 for 31 miles which is also 41.3 miles from KLF then turn left to the final approach course of 079 for the ILS, with glideslope intercept starting at LIGBA which is 9.7 miles from TGL and initial altitude being 3000.

Therefore, at LANUM, would the fmc continue to be used to fly the whole approach or would the aircraft be flown in HDG mode with manual input to make the turns? And would this be typical of most approaches? Or maybe it depends on the aircraft used? Would it be normal for ATC to issue an instruction for the crew to fly such and such approach?

I'm not a real flyer, obviously, but I am a keen flight simmer. Within the simulation, I usually request the option to fly the full approach and, if for example I'm flying the A320, I fly the full procedure via the MCDU down to minimums.

Just wondered what the norm was in the real world.

Thanks,

Rory

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Remember that at many major airfields approaches are flown on the instructions of radar controllers until the aircraft is established on the ILS. The range at which this happens depends on traffic and can be anything from 8-20 miles. What happens thereafter you will need a pilot to tell you but I believe that most approaches are flown automatically becoming manual for the last part.

[Tu.114]

Heathrow Director is spot on - in a radar-controlled environment, a full approach procedure is extremely rare. In our route network, they are only routinely cleared at LYPG (beginning at FL110 in the arrival, the clearance usually reads "Cleared MOJ 1A and ILS-Z 36, descend according to profile and call me established on the ILS"). Until some years ago, such procedures were also in use at LBSF, UKLL and other larger Eastern european fields, but now usually radar vectors are available.

The reason for this boils down to cost savings: nearly always will radar vectors keep the track mileage down compared to the standard procedures, resulting in noticeable reductions in flight time and fuel consumption.

Now, what happens after the vectors depends on several items. Type of approach, weather, operational status on ground and in the aircraft and yes, personal preference of the pilots as well. A low visibility approach will likely see maximum use of automation, while in fine weather one might opt for switching the autopilot off already under vectors, maybe even switch off the flight director and autothrust for a raw data approach. In case of malfunctions or high workload situations, it is good custom to dump as much of the work on the computers; one will possibly fly an ILS down to the minimum on the A/P in this case more likely than in others. Some approaches on some types cannot be flown on the A/P at all (a Cat III on the DH8 is hand flown by the LP on the HGS for example); some restrict the use of systems (a NDB on the F70/100 will be flown using heading bug and vertical speed modes, as the FMS is not certified for flying them).

So to sum it up - it depends.

To pick up Your example at EDDT - one would likely get radar vectors to an intercept heading of about 050 (if approaching from the south) or 110 (if from N) followed by the clearance for the ILS. Then one would arm the approach mode (type dependent, but it usually shows LOC and GS in the lower FMA line) and let the systems capture the track. Configuration depends on speed requirements, but one will likely want to keep 160kIAS to the OM and be fully established (on final approach speed and configuration with the checklist read and the engines already above idle) by 1000ft AAL (some companies prefer 500ftAAL).

[kessler1]

Those are very informative replies! Thankyou very much for taking the time to explain all of that, much appreciated.

Cheeres,

Rory

[Jet Simulation]

Also, depending on the pilot they may just request a visual approach instead of an ILS or something else.

The above comments are spot on as already said however from the flight deck point of view we tend to like to take the automatics out and get back into the spirit of flying once in a while so sometimes change things up from time to time and of course when circumstances permit. Also sometimes ATC will ask us to do something different in order to help them out, its better to just take the automatics down a notch and just go into heading/ altitude hold modes rather than get your head into the FMC last minute.

Off topic, search for a video called "Children of the magenta" which is a fairly long lecture by an AA captain but a very very good insight of how to use the automation to your advantage. I think it will give you a better understanding of the overall processes of what's going on to get a better appreciation of Heathrow Director's and Tu 114's response as well.

Jet Simulation.

[Denti]

Really depends, arriving from the south today we were initially cleared direct to KLF, then taken onto a heading roughly towards DT552. I switched it all off during that part and flew the rest on basic instruments and manually just for the fun of it. There were a few more heading changes onto the ILS so we could get established at LIGBA.

Just a normal day in EDDT. Being based there i have flown the standard procedure only once in the last 13 years, all other approaches are a mix between parts of the arrival procedures, direct to some RNAV waypoints, vectors or parts of the transition and then whatever kind of approach we like to fly, usually an ILS.

Usually once we're on headings (vectors) we can disregard most of what is in the FMC, sometimes however the controllers like to use a vector initially and lateron parts of the RNAV procedure again.

Sadly visual approaches are not allowed at most german airports including EDDT so they are not an option, however where they are available we love to do them whenever possible. Saves fuel, time and is plain fun.