Captain Bloggs:
That's the problem with discussing this as though pitch and power work in isolation. They don't, they work together, and always have.
P + A = performance. Not just a Navy thing.
Pitch and power together, lead with power if a correction is needed when high and fast or when low and slow.
If Hi and slow, then you'd probably want to lead with pitch, so you can trade alt for a/s and your correction may work. If low and fast, likewise not a bad idea to lead with pitch.
In either case, you'd end up with a pitch correction, and then counter correction when back on the numbers to resume profile. In either case, you may need to adjust power slightly to stay on profile.
As with anything flying, depends on the situation.
When I consider the lead time you need in a heavy, I'd guess that you have to stay well ahead of the aircraft, and lead with power by more time, if you find yourself high and fast or low and slow, which means that you need to lead the counter correction as well by some seconds as your correction gets you back toward your glide path. You still want to "catch" it rather than go through and porpise about the glide path.
Anyway, I don't think the principles differ, what differs is response time and how much you have to lead the aircraft
in time to get the corrections you want to regain the profile (performance) that you are looking for.
squawk7700
So either you are managing both, or you manage none. They both go hand in hand, taking one of those out is just opening the door to create bad habits - like not noticing a huge airspeed loss on short final.
That is what I am trying to get at. Thanks for saying it better.
dba7
thanks for your polite and insightful post, error in re AF 447 crew considered.
6. At the end of the day a very experienced crew crashed an aircraft they were concentrating on flying. Sure they weren't quite stabilised blah blah but there's more to it. If there is a latent trap in the autoflight system I want to know about it so it doesn't bite me in the arse on that one time when I'm not quite on top of my game.
Well said, HPSOV L
The stuff up a visual approach, in visual conditions, is appalling, but I am only surprised it has taken this long. Many carriers around the world are using FOQA data recorders for punishment of their pilots. The result is the CP's and pilots are reluctant to hand fly, or turn the auto-throttles off, ever. While this may reduce the number of exceedences on a daily basis, it destroys pilot proficiency.
This mishap isn't the only one where the above point has been raised.
Deepest respects to the poor souls who lost their lives. They will find NOTHING of any value here!
The departed will find nothing here, of any sort, being no longer among the quick and thus not able to read what's here.
3
rd Floor
Is that how you fly an ILS?
If you maintain constant airspeed, your power will be what varies your glide path.
Granted, each time you adjust power you'll tend to adjust pitch to stay on speed.
Correction, counter correction.
It was my impression that
the aim is to fly the final stretch of an approach at a chosen approach speed. (in the case under consideration, 137 kts).
If you mess about with using your pitch to find the aim point, you'll change your speed, won't you?
So I have to ask: do you fly with one hand or two?
Why my approach to this "scares you" mystifies me. The principles in question have been successfully putting high performance jets on carrier decks for about sixty years. They work.
They also work very well for flying an ILS or a GCA to touchdown in crap weather.
I do understand that you can lead with your nose and catch up with power. So long as one works power and attitude together, one should get to where one is aiming to land. See Squawk7700's post for a better way of putting that.