Landing a large jet without the Basic 6 Instruments
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: Netherlands
Landing a large jet without the Basic 6 Instruments
Hello. Recently me and a friend discussed the Turkish crash at AMS. Without going too much in to it we ended the conversation by placing a bet: Can pilots land a large jet without the basic six instruments?
Visibility is perfect, the weather is perfect, the aircraft is in perfect conditions, it is just that there is a blanket on the instruments and you need to land successfully only based on the way you feel the aircraft.
Is that possible and is such scenario trained in simulators? By large jet I mean 737/A320 and up.
Visibility is perfect, the weather is perfect, the aircraft is in perfect conditions, it is just that there is a blanket on the instruments and you need to land successfully only based on the way you feel the aircraft.
Is that possible and is such scenario trained in simulators? By large jet I mean 737/A320 and up.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 2,396
Likes: 3
From: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
With an experienced pilot, in that particular aircraft, yes. Under normal conditions, all engines, you use power setting, such as fuel flow for one, to maintain target airspeeds and sink rates for any given aircraft configurations.
As for flap and gear extension speeds, you can use audio clues for those.
Now you'll not be spot on any given airspeed, but close enough to make a safe landing.
As for flap and gear extension speeds, you can use audio clues for those.
Now you'll not be spot on any given airspeed, but close enough to make a safe landing.
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 1
As con-pilot says, yes.
In the circumstances you describe, the real horizon substitutes very well for the artificial one. The altitude can be reasonably estimated, but you can see the ground and the surrounding terrain as well as other aircraft, so that base is covered. Speeds can be reasonably well estimated and established by an experienced pilot by power settings and visual pitch angles.
All of this notwithstanding, there are all sorts of secondary clues you can utilize that don't comprise part of your primary instruments. For example in a depressurised aircraft, the cabin altitude indicator gives some indication of true altitude. The IRS/INS/GPS systems will supply groundspeed and heading information.
For an experienced and or very aware pilot, mental trend monitoring, coupled with aerodynamic clues and an awareness of pitch and power settings should make the visual task reasonably straight forward.
In circumstances where accidents have occurred to pilots deprived of (some) basic instrumentation such as the AeroPeru 757 accident near Lima, or the Birgenair 757 accident near Puerto Plata, the crew were to a greater extent deprived of external visual cues, and were hindered by visual and audio cues and warnings that undoubtably added to their confusion.
I would go further and say that flying "by the seat of your pants" in visual conditions shouldn't present too many problems. However landing with conflicting warning signals and erroneous instrumentation at night or in poor weather requires a degree of discipline and skill that needs careful and thorough training. These scenarios are more likely and more dangerous and are more relevant to simulator training.
In the circumstances you describe, the real horizon substitutes very well for the artificial one. The altitude can be reasonably estimated, but you can see the ground and the surrounding terrain as well as other aircraft, so that base is covered. Speeds can be reasonably well estimated and established by an experienced pilot by power settings and visual pitch angles.
All of this notwithstanding, there are all sorts of secondary clues you can utilize that don't comprise part of your primary instruments. For example in a depressurised aircraft, the cabin altitude indicator gives some indication of true altitude. The IRS/INS/GPS systems will supply groundspeed and heading information.
For an experienced and or very aware pilot, mental trend monitoring, coupled with aerodynamic clues and an awareness of pitch and power settings should make the visual task reasonably straight forward.
In circumstances where accidents have occurred to pilots deprived of (some) basic instrumentation such as the AeroPeru 757 accident near Lima, or the Birgenair 757 accident near Puerto Plata, the crew were to a greater extent deprived of external visual cues, and were hindered by visual and audio cues and warnings that undoubtably added to their confusion.
I would go further and say that flying "by the seat of your pants" in visual conditions shouldn't present too many problems. However landing with conflicting warning signals and erroneous instrumentation at night or in poor weather requires a degree of discipline and skill that needs careful and thorough training. These scenarios are more likely and more dangerous and are more relevant to simulator training.
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
From: England
To be perfectly honest you don't even need...
Let's move it on a step and lose all the engine instruments as well. All you've got now is some throttles, a control column and a window.
Now we're flying. Look at your landing point, fly towards it, configure, don't stall. Easy.
Yes, you may not be at the 'correct speed' or the 'correct approach angle' or the 'correct rate of descent' etc. but do we really care about that at the moment?!
Edit to add that there are now some airliners that aren't flown with reference to power settings and fuel flows and things like that. A simple energy trend and acceleration vector is what they use. Doesn't lead to people learning and remembering power settings and the like.
you use power setting, such as fuel flow for one, to maintain target airspeeds and sink rates for any given aircraft configurations.
Now we're flying. Look at your landing point, fly towards it, configure, don't stall. Easy.
Yes, you may not be at the 'correct speed' or the 'correct approach angle' or the 'correct rate of descent' etc. but do we really care about that at the moment?!
Edit to add that there are now some airliners that aren't flown with reference to power settings and fuel flows and things like that. A simple energy trend and acceleration vector is what they use. Doesn't lead to people learning and remembering power settings and the like.
