|
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A
(Post 10154261)
Probably a 146. |
Originally Posted by wb727d
(Post 10157040)
that’s a bit harsh |
No it's not, the autopilot on those things is ****. I have extensive first hand experience. Even then it's not a guarantee. After LOC capture, you still have to be prepared to disengage and hand-fly in case you drift too far off centreline. I was once called "Tracking" with the ILS captured, AP engaged (had been for a while) and we were almost half-scale deflection with a 15kt quartering tailwind. Luckily for 34R and the wind blowing us away from 34L. DIVOSH! |
No it's not, the autopilot on those things is ****. I have extensive first hand experience. |
Judd, I have found that some aircraft simply have pretty average autopilots - they're not suffering from a "fault" as such, they're just not that flash!
The CL604 couldn't maintain the localiser (particularly well) with any more than an 18 knot crosswind - it wasn't broken or faulty, it was how it was... What's with the whole high and mighty "Naturally, you would have done the right thing by writing up the perceived autopilot defect in great detail in the maintenance document." attitude? (Interesting note - both aircraft produced by Bombardier!) |
Originally Posted by Judd
(Post 10157488)
Naturally, you would have done the right thing by writing up the perceived autopilot defect in great detail in the maintenance document. Did the technicians fix the fault?
Originally Posted by DIVOSH!
Same for the Q400. Most pilots hand-fly onto the Localiser and then (possibly) re-engaging the autopilot.
Even then it's not a guarantee. After LOC capture, you still have to be prepared to disengage and hand-fly in case you drift too far off centreline. I was once called "Tracking" with the ILS captured, AP engaged (had been for a while) and we were almost half-scale deflection with a 15kt quartering tailwind. Luckily for 34R and the wind blowing us away from 34L. |
Interesting. I've only flown the classic Dash 8s and thought the autopilot was pretty good apart from a tendency to porpoise in a VNAV descent, but I did very few ILSs. I do remember the porpoising (spelling?) on VNAV descents. Sometimes just went down in V/S to stop it. JUDD, love the sarcastic comment! DIVOSH! |
the Q400 doesn't do a great job of turning the corner on an RNAV either. |
The procedure is an independent visual approach (IVA);
The pilot has been assigned a visual approach, has confirmed that the runway is in sight and been given a 30 degree or less intercept of final; So why is everyone on this thread referring to the localiser? No clearance for an ILS approach has been issued because the ILS is an instrument approach with tolerances that can take the aircraft through final; (In some circumstances the pilot may have been previously assigned tracking via the localiser, however once the visual approach is commenced the pilot is expected to track the centerline visually) AIP Page ENR 1.1-61 starting at paragraph 7.4.2 (Available on the Airservices web site) explains all. |
We talk about the loc cause that's what we'll use if its there
|
Not a bad point Mr Approach. I think the reality is that pilots are so used to ‘ maximum use of automation’ policies that they engage the localiser pick up as a matter of course ( so to speak). It could be easily argued that it is more reliable than a human looking Out the window and choosing the correct runway. What we really want IMO is utilisation of the automation combined with a willingness to intervene if doubt exists about its effectiveness. Eg sometimes it is wise to amend the ATC heading towards the inbound heading as the aircraft approaches the loc if the groundspeed is high or the angle is greater than 30 degrees, a reluctance to do this is symptomatic of how we train pilots now days. ( bare minimum type rating, bare minimum number of line sectors etc) and what is now normal on the line. |
Below is the current Sydney ATIS. Note that you can be initially cleared for an ILS or GLS approach but still are not to fly through the RWY CL.
ATIS YSSY O 291114 APCH: EXP GLS OR ILS APCH THEN INDEPENDENT VISUAL APCH WHEN VISUAL.DO NOT PASS THRU, ASSIGNED RWY CL RWY: 16L AND R FOR ARRS AND DEPS + SFC COND: WET OPR INFO: PARL RWY OPS IN PROGRESS. INDEPENDENT DEPS IN PROGRESS + WIND: 220/15KTS, XW14KTS VIS: GT 10KM WX: SHOWERS IN AREA CLD: SCT040 TMP: 18 + QNH: 1018 |
Originally Posted by framer
(Post 10159691)
combined with a willingness to intervene if doubt exists about its effectiveness. Eg sometimes it is wise to amend the ATC heading towards the inbound heading as the aircraft approaches the loc if the groundspeed is high or the angle is greater than 30 degrees, a reluctance to do this is symptomatic of how we train pilots now days. ( bare minimum type rating, bare minimum number of line sectors etc) and what is now normal on the line. Uptight automation policies. Lays at the foot of the managers. |
So why is everyone on this thread referring to the localiser? No clearance for an ILS approach has been issued If we didn’t use the Loc, it would leave very little options for automation should you still want to use it. It’s a visual approach, whatever tracking guidance the crew choose is their choice, but they need to make sure it contains the aircraft within the IVA tolerance which I’m certain a LOC would. 16L for example, can be cleared way out. If we didn’t follow the loc we could only do it in HDG (shudder) or switch everything off and do it visually which is fine, but not always appropriate. |
Course inbound to the CF 155 and nav
if you're way out is a good option |
How about the elephant in the room or in this case Sydney Terminal Area. STARs joining onto final and this thread wouldn’t have started. Perhaps ASA need to lift their game, get with the program and operate like the rest of the world. Tic Toc. |
Actually that’s a good point too. Why doesnt Jakln join up to Endev and then if ATC want to increase spacing they can vector you a mile past Jakln before turning you in? there may be a good reason for it.....anyone know? |
Originally Posted by hoss
(Post 10160140)
How about the elephant in the room or in this case Sydney Terminal Area. STARs joining onto final and this thread wouldn’t have started. Perhaps ASA need to lift their game, get with the program and operate like the rest of the world. Tic Toc. |
Originally Posted by hoss
(Post 10160140)
How about the elephant in the room or in this case Sydney Terminal Area. STARs joining onto final and this thread wouldn’t have started. Perhaps ASA need to lift their game, get with the program and operate like the rest of the world. Tic Toc. I don't know about that, the ARBEY STAR on to RWY 27 in Melbourne is ripe for flying through the centreline if your equipment isn't great and you don't get your speed right. It's not just dodgy BAe146s either, I've been passenger in a B737 that's had the wobbles hooking on to the 27 LOC. |
Sure, I think the PAULA to VISAS intercept is about 90 degrees and could perhaps get screwed up with poor speed control. It wouldn’t be difficult to design the Sydney intercepts at 30 degrees. It’s just another waypoint, but agreed we are dealing with ASA in 2018. There really is no excuse. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 20:02. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.