How many sectors do you handfly?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAT II
I'm confident in my ability to fly an NDB approach down to minimums with max crosswind, on raw data and with all the automatics switched off. Would I actually do it? Of course not, as it's a situation where it's simply not appropriate to do so.
reading this thread how privileged am I that for ten years, approx 6000 hours and roughly 10000 landings I hand flew every sector, it was in an Islander mind you!
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a pilot and it's my job, that's why.
Would I be correct in surmising that the first time you'd want to hand fly a raw data NDB to minima in a 35 knot crosswind would be when you're forced to, possibly by a surprising technical problem half way down the approach? Or maybe you think practicing once in a blue moon in benign weather is adequate preparation?
Would I be correct in surmising that the first time you'd want to hand fly a raw data NDB to minima in a 35 knot crosswind would be when you're forced to, possibly by a surprising technical problem half way down the approach? Or maybe you think practicing once in a blue moon in benign weather is adequate preparation?
Spandex.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: On the couch
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think you need to be in actual IMC to practice an instrument approach. You can practice just fine in VMC. Just don't look outside.
If I'm doing it in IMC I don't think that counts as "practice" I think I'm actually doing it. Not so?
Unless the A/P F/D are of no help at all, I would feel much better sitting in the back of someone's airplane if they would use them in actual conditions.
As an intermediate step, new guys can learn A LOT about hand flying their airplanes with the flight directors on but the auto-thrust should be off for it to be really effective. With auto-thrust on it's almost pointless.
(Edited to fix the font size. Sorry Sabena, didn't know I was shouting. As time passes I have to tilt my head further and further back to get more and more magnification from my progressive lenses... also, I thought ALL CAPS was shouting... also I'm new to posting and I didn't know how it would look... I'm full of excuses and can keep going if need be... stop me before I excuse again!
)
If I'm doing it in IMC I don't think that counts as "practice" I think I'm actually doing it. Not so?
Unless the A/P F/D are of no help at all, I would feel much better sitting in the back of someone's airplane if they would use them in actual conditions.
As an intermediate step, new guys can learn A LOT about hand flying their airplanes with the flight directors on but the auto-thrust should be off for it to be really effective. With auto-thrust on it's almost pointless.
(Edited to fix the font size. Sorry Sabena, didn't know I was shouting. As time passes I have to tilt my head further and further back to get more and more magnification from my progressive lenses... also, I thought ALL CAPS was shouting... also I'm new to posting and I didn't know how it would look... I'm full of excuses and can keep going if need be... stop me before I excuse again!
)
Last edited by Ultra Glide; 5th Aug 2013 at 05:18.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a time and place for everything. If you read through my posts, you can easily see that I'm a big fan of manual flight. In the A320, I only use auto thrust for automated cat II or III landings and I switch off the A/P and F/D on almost all approaches. The important word is "almost".
I'm absolutely, positively sure that I can get my A320 down to cat I ils minima with 550 m vis in a 35 kts gusty crosswind with A/P, F/D, A/T and one engine off with the needles centered. I even believe that I can land the A320 in actual cat III minima without A/P, F/D or A/T. (Done it in the sim) But, I do think that anybody who fails to see that there are sometimes conditions where using some or all of the autoflight systems is the most appropriate thing to do, are even more dangerous then the guys who always fly through the A/P.. (Unless your flying old equipment, without a modern, reliable autoflight system of course)
There's nothing wrong in using the A/P because it makes your life and work easier in certain conditions, as long as you don't need the A/P to fly the plane, because you're not good enough at flying it yourself.
Oh, and please, when ATC offers you do a visual approach in Corfu in ideal conditions, don't turn the offer down!
(Ultra Glide? why are you shouting?)
I'm absolutely, positively sure that I can get my A320 down to cat I ils minima with 550 m vis in a 35 kts gusty crosswind with A/P, F/D, A/T and one engine off with the needles centered. I even believe that I can land the A320 in actual cat III minima without A/P, F/D or A/T. (Done it in the sim) But, I do think that anybody who fails to see that there are sometimes conditions where using some or all of the autoflight systems is the most appropriate thing to do, are even more dangerous then the guys who always fly through the A/P.. (Unless your flying old equipment, without a modern, reliable autoflight system of course)
There's nothing wrong in using the A/P because it makes your life and work easier in certain conditions, as long as you don't need the A/P to fly the plane, because you're not good enough at flying it yourself.
Oh, and please, when ATC offers you do a visual approach in Corfu in ideal conditions, don't turn the offer down!
(Ultra Glide? why are you shouting?)
Last edited by sabenaboy; 4th Aug 2013 at 08:23.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, and please, when ATC offers you do a visual approach in Corfu in ideal conditions, don't turn the offer down!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lord spandex Masher
unless you can state how much extra fuel they used because of the way they flew their approach you're talking nonsense.
Last edited by sabenaboy; 4th Aug 2013 at 08:56. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, but you can tell me how much extra fuel they used by doing so. You can tell me why we should give a damn how much extra fuel you used. Maybe they did it just to wind you up and make you burn your extra 200 kilos. I do that sometimes.
We're they low enough to shorten their approach and not screw it up? Maybe they'd have had to fly the exact same track miles on a visual approach in which case what would be the point?
It's also possible to fly that whole procedure at flight idle, that'll still save fuel over the planned burn, maybe even over a visual approach which most people tend to fly flatter and with a bit of power on.
We're they low enough to shorten their approach and not screw it up? Maybe they'd have had to fly the exact same track miles on a visual approach in which case what would be the point?
It's also possible to fly that whole procedure at flight idle, that'll still save fuel over the planned burn, maybe even over a visual approach which most people tend to fly flatter and with a bit of power on.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe they did it just to wind you up and make you burn your extra 200 kilos. I do that sometimes.
...maybe even over a visual approach which most people tend to fly flatter and with a bit of power on.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But you haven't said how much extra fuel they used by flying the procedure! Of course, they may have had to burn off that extra fuel to get under MLW, who knows? Not you.
It's like this you see. I could save 50 kilos by shortening my approach. This might allow you to save 50 kilos too. Or I can fly what I've planned to fly, but more efficiently saving perhaps 40 kilos, which might make you use 2 or 300 kilos more. Net result - your lot spend more money. That's competition.
Or I could fly a bit faster, get in front of you and save myself 2 or 300 kilos by using a little bit more than planned and not having to extend miles downwind while you happily fly around in circles using up your reserves. Maybe you should've done that into Corfu.
Keep up the good work!
Or I could fly a bit faster, get in front of you and save myself 2 or 300 kilos by using a little bit more than planned and not having to extend miles downwind while you happily fly around in circles using up your reserves. Maybe you should've done that into Corfu.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why, you think I should be bullied into a visual approach to save your airline some fuel? You think I'm not perfectly entitled to fly my flight planned route? If it causes you to use a bit more fuel why does that make me any less professional?
