Not really raw data then is it. :rolleyes:

A question of semantics but certainly a sensible use of available resources if you need to fly a raw data.

Hallelujah:ok:

Youve been cruising at 3 deg nose up for few hours and a thrust of about 88%,
you fly around weather and you get IAS disagree then unreliable airspeed...amazing how many will choose select 4 deg nose up and thrust of 75%:uhoh:

de facto: that one has been thrashed to death earlier. I hope Boeing come to their senses on that one sooner rather than later. It is a sticking plaster on the wound when an operation is needed = improved basic training.

Fireflybob: raw data ILS was a requirement to test skills long before FPV was invented. That skill test should not be diluted by later technology allowing cheating.

RAT5, I am aware of that.

Who said anything about a skill test?

Test of Skill!

All my approaches are a test of skill

Criticism of FPV tools typically come from people with little or no experience of using them.

It is a different mindset to a certain degree but certainly not a toy or a waste of time.

The embraer ejets use FPV for everything except takeoff, and it is brilliant. Similarly the 330 uses FPV though the implementation, in my opinion, isn't as good as the embraer.

I have flown the 737 with FPV as well and when tied in with the track up display on the ND makes flying approaches much easier, even in an unstable machine like the 737.

I wish the 330 had the VSD like the embraer and vertical direct to, but alas it doesn't :(

I would bet Boeing doesn't recommend its use has more to do with a lack of training and proficiency than its usefulness.

Like I said before, if I hadn't got used to it on a HUD, I don't know if I would have ever gotten used to it.

I can't think of any FPV that has ANY pitot static input. It should be coming straight from the INS.


Boeing and Airbus training for unreliable speed makes one HUGE assumption of power and pitch: That is that you are close to the desired speed. If you bled off a bunch of speed, or are too fast, you have to get back to the correct speed before pitch and power do any good.

I prefer just flying AOA, which I can do because, well, I used to do it in a HUD. They should train it more.

That's what the Pitch Limit Indicators are for?

framer, you are correct. I have edited the post to remove "touché".

Have a nice day!

c100;
The pitch limiters help you when your AOA is too high approaching stall. They are of no use at normal AOA and airspeed. The FPV works perfectly for AOA in normal cruise and approach AOA.

Unfortunately it is not something that is trained.

The FPV as implemented on a PFD is only half a solution. The whole point of the original FPV was that it was displayed as part of the HUD to provide instantaneous flight path info and as such is brilliant.

When using it as part of a visual segment on say the 737, all it gives you is another piece of information about the flight path that you have to integrate into your brain and respond to together with the view out of the window &c.

I use it on runways with no visual or electronic slope guidance, and in IMC close to minima as a reminder where to look for the runway but not in other circumstances.

In the real airplane I mostly use it for descentplanning.

In the sim with 1eng F/D off approaches it makes things much easier. Pass the descent point, lower the nose to put the FPV onto the desired glidepath while simultaneously setting the N1. On the sim printout, you will have a perfectly straight line hitting the all the altitude gates within 10-20ft with almost no input at all on the column wheel regardless of the headwind. If the instructor says FPV-off though, it tends to look a little different :}