Lonewolf 50:
Originally Posted by aterpster
The modern FMS navigator does a better job with course reversals than pilots, whether they be teardrops, procedure turns, or hold-in-lieu-of-procedure turn. (positive course guidance throughout the maneuver.) The pilot nonetheless has the duty to monitor the flight path for reasonableness.
Thank you for summarizing why I have stopped flying as a passenger unless absolutely necessary. That viewpoint, and its acceptance in the aviation industry. Not your fault, but the state of being that this paragraph describes makes me puke. I shall cross reference the discussion on rudder reversals and AA 587 and conclude that all the pilot is for in the airline is to provide a scapegoat on demand, eh? (Yes, a bit of sarcasm there, sorry ... ) Grrrr. Time turn time transition ... basic airmanship, the fundamentals.
EDIT: As to why it makes me puke, let's think about what the auto pilot is designed to do ... it is designed to imitate, or to attempt to replicate the
pilot flying task.
Quote:Circle to land is a nasty visual-segment option from the dark ages of aviation to visually proceed in sometimes lousy, unforgiving weather conditions to a runway that lacks an IAP. Why is is usually done? Because of straight-in tailwind limits, the very winds that send you rapidly on your way to the other runway.
Dark ages? That's a curious take on what they are there for. Granted, I'd prefer straight from the FAF to the RWY every time. It's easier.
Circle to land got me home, and into a few airports that were not home, very nicely (thanks very much!) when NAVAIDS weren't working or a bit of equipment was on the fritz leading me to a non-precision approach. Granted, I was not hauling three hundred people at the time (the most I ever had in the back was five) but I don't find the flexibility that CTL allows to be a bad thing.