Manual Landing

[Andreas Schmitz-Schunken]

Hello!

Every time the weather allow me I request a "visual approach" from FS ATC and fly manually down to the runway only use the Vasi or Papi
lights of the runway....

And I do not find a autoland System in the payware planes that do a autoland really goodt... yes it works, but it often slams you with -400-
500 fpm down on the runway...

Even in ILS approach I switch AP/AT off when I get runway in sight....

When you get a new plane in your FS do what real pilots will do.... make 50 touch and goes and you will master it.... do not switch the
plane every flight...stick with 3-5 favourite planes, practise them and you will master them....

I be in a glider club and flight model planes.... Many of my friends who flight a ultralight or a litte plane say land in FS out of cockpit view is
harder than land a real plane (do the lack of 3d Vision and the feedback from your äh.... ass

Greets!

Andreas

[SWAFO]

John,
Regarding keeping the plane rated: That's only to keep the aircrafts CAT IIIA ILS certification valid. That's an approach down to near
0 visibility. Southwest doesn't perform CAT III ILS manuevers, we only can go down to CAT II (usually more than enough). If we were like
United, or one of the airlines that uses autoland, we'd have to do an autoland every 30 days (at least) to keep the aircraft CAT IIIA certified.
In CAT IIIA approaches, the autoland MUST be used.

Hope that clears it up.

[Nickio]

Man, you guys down there in southwest are real pilots. Air Canada up here are all computerized with A319-A340. I'de say more like 80%
of the time its an Autoland. Just a standard.

Nick

[jboweruk]

Thanks SWAFO, I know BA pilots seem to do a lot of manual landings too. I did a spell on their mobile simulator that goes to shows
when I flew into Fairford for the Air Tattoo last year, that was great and couldn't use auto approach at all, manual all the way.

[pegase]

Question to Brad:

Not about autoland but auto approach :

I usually use automatic approach when ils is available and switch on manual about 100 ft above the unway or earlier if I feel some adjustment
necessary.

With some planes and turbulent crossind (ex: 15-20 kts > 80°) the auto pilot simply "hang down" or on others planes get "dead drunk" needing a quick
switch on manual.

What are in real flights these limitations ?

[SWAFO]

Here at Southwest, we CAN use the autopilot down to about 150FT AGL on a clear day, and 50FT AGL on CAT II ILS minima days. That
doesn't mean we always do (actually, it's much the opposite for approaches... hardly ever used.)

Usually, through rough turbulence regardless of what stage of the flight we're in, we'll use the autopilot on CWS (Command Wheel
Steering) mode. In this mode the pilot can maintain control of the aircrafts control surfaces, however when all pressure is released on
them, the autopilot will maintain that attitude.

For example, If I'm climbing up through some thick cumulus with the autopilot on and in LNAV and VSPEED mode (our usual climb
configuration), and the turbulence is affecting our control of the aircraft, or causing excessive attitudes, we'll flip on the CWS mode
and "semi-automatically" fly the aircraft. If I need 10 degrees of left bank, and 5 degrees pitch up; I manually set the controls where
desired, and the autopilot maintains that setting.

I hope I answered your question alright, if I didn't, let me know and I can elaborate more, or try to help you out.

Oh, by the way. If we've got a bumpy approach to deal with (gusty winds, windshear, low cloud base, etc.) we'll normally use the autopilot
in approach or localizer mode (depending on the type of approach). The autopilot makes flying the plane a lot easier, and can usually
deal with these types of approaches much better than a human pilot. For the really heavy stuff, we'll use the monitored approach
procedures with the autocoupled approach mode engaged (both autopilots on, as if I was setting up for an autoland.). We'll still
disengage them by 50 feet under the minimums (sometimes higher), but that's the closest we'll do to an autoland.

If you have any more questions, feel free to ask here, or start a new thread.

[SWAFO]

I hope that post makes sense, I just woke up no more than 30 minutes ago. lol. I'm going to try FSPassengers today, I'll post my
thoughts here after my flight.

[pegase]

Thanks a lot Brad,

Your post brought indeed quite more answers than my original question and put the finger on the big differences between the real and virtual flights.

First off all the virtual pilot is usually in cool leisure mode while the real life ATP is in full professinnal activity involving heavy responsability
Second, the virtual pilot has just perception through a flat screen , loudspeakers and sometime force feedback joystich while the real pilot (and
her/his passengers) have all perception sense of what is going on.

I never feel the need to fight turbulences during climb or cruise because... I don't feel these turbulences. Should it happend, it would mean I have a
big problem with my house or the ground on which it is built.... So, in these stages, I just use the autopilot to enjoy all external views from all
angles rather than keeping my eyes stuck on the instruments. or during cruise to eat a bit, read something or any domestic activity.

In descent and approach, auto-pilot becomes much more important. the airspeed needs more attention, the aircraft configuration and the radio settings
too. When I am in manual mode, I always have by time to pause the game (a shamefull P.I.T.A.) to make sure of something around a frequency, aircraft
configuration or course setting.

In final approach, the auto-pilot is really VERY helpfull. It gives all indication about the heading correction and windshear i will have to cope with
at landing. So, even when I prefere for any reason to switch it off several miles before the runway, It has already be usefull to get a perception of
the conditions. Still because my armchair does not shake my ass and the force feedback joystick does not react (in the current state of sim art) to
these conditions.

Thanks again for bringing to us your knowlege and experience.

Pierre

[Big Vern]

Second that.

I was under the impression that ILS landings were the norm (for safety reasons, where provided) and that a visual landing would only be
attempted as a last resort. As Pierre says and I mentioned above the problem with any "home entertainment" flight sim (not just MSFS) is
that there's little perception of height and depth so very difficult to judge the vertical course.

So I will have to grow a new respect for the Air Canada Captain in a couple of weeks when we fly over the "pond" to Calgary and he
puts the plane down on the tarmac - he probably won't have his feet up on the panel!

[SWAFO]

Pierre,
I understand the differences between simulation and reality, however that's the beauty of it. My simulator allows me to practice
things I can't do in real life. It's a much more laid back and relaxed atmosphere (wait till you try FSP though!... lol)

And to Big Vern; ILS approaches are a "standard" but that's about all they are. Normally, in good weather we'll fly a visual approach
using the ILS as reference if necessary and available. Pilots (at my airline at least) don't always like letting the AP do the work for them,
and I'd say that 75% of approaches are hand flown from the FAF or earlier, with equipment like ILS, VOR, NDB, etc. used to back up the
pilot in his visual navigation. Personally, I'll only use the AP Approach mode if I expect a bumpy approach, or can't see the runway at the
initiation of the approach. Hand flying landings is good practice, and makes sure our pilots don't become too dependent on the AP.

I enjoy answering questions, and if anyone has any, don't hesitate to ask.

[jboweruk]

One big difference of course is in a real plane you got 2 ppl to do the work. In FS you got 1, double the chance to foul up, hence autopilot
comes in very handy on those foggy finals.

[fruitfly]

Hi there Brad!
Here's a question I asked on another forum, but the answer I got was more like explaining the general terms instead of 'why'

I believe the length of the runway doesn't enter the equation when calculating the V1. But WHY? To me it seems logical it should: the
longer the runway you've got in front of you - higher V1 you can allow to yourself? No?
If a runway is short or the plane is very heavy or requires high V2 like say, concorde, thant the rwy length wouldn't much influence the V1
because there aren't many THAT long runways. I understand that.
But otherwise..... ?
What would you do in case of a serious failure after V1, but on an airport where you still have say 3 kilometers in front of you? Would you
try to stop the plane anyway? So is there any reason WHY that extra runway is not included in the calculus to allow higher V1?

[SWAFO]

Good questions... I'll try to clarify these issues the best I can for you, and if you'd like more specific answers on different questions, just let
me know.

The runway length is usually not a factor in determining V speeds. It may become a factor if we're very heavy, and can't accelerate
through V2 with the available runway length. Actually, what we'll do when we've got a very light aircraft, or a LONG runway is used a
reduced thrust takeoff. There are standard thrust de-rates available for our CFM-56 engines, and that helps reduce wear on the
powerplants, as well as decreasing the force of extreme acceleration that the PAX feel. If necessary, we can also use an outside air
temperature value (different than the actual OAT) to assume reduced thrust for takeoff.

We've had situations where we've had to unload either cargo, or PAX, or both in order to be under the max gross takeoff weight. The
manufacturer of the aircraft (in this case Boeing) has specified minimum-required runway lengths, and we can takeoff on the minimum
length runway at any weight up to and including the max gross takeoff weight.

To be honest, we like to have the lowest V speeds as possible in most situations (occasionally they're adjusted upwards for improved
climb performance, or adverse weather such as windshear). This allows us to make the go/no-go takeoff descision sooner, and as
such we have more runway available to stop.

As for failures after V1; we'll only reject a takeoff after V1 if flight is impossible. Most of the time we'll continue all takeoffs after V1, and
treat the situation as an airborne emergency.

I hope I answered some of your questions, please don't hesitate to ask more.

[fruitfly]

Yes, you sure did! Thanks.
I just couldn't figure out what could be a different point of view from what I thought, but now I know.

There's only one thing I strongly disagree: where did you get the idea that PAX don't like the extreme acceleration? WE DO!!
Nail us to the seats! Don't spare the horses!

[SWAFO]

Lol. We've got a lot of passengers that get very nervous during takeoff and landing. I personally love the force of acceleration (outside of
work I drive a supercharged Mustang), and the landing phase of flight. You'd be suprised though, quite a few PAX are terrified of flight, so
our only option is to reasonably accommodate them too, so that everyone's feeling as relaxed as possible. Using reduced thrust also
helps reduce the passengers sensation of "pitch-over" that occurs at higher speeds and thrust settings. They'll feel like our initial
decrease in pitch attitude to accelerate is actually us nosing over into the ground. Remember, they can't see what's in front of them, I
can! lol.


Don't let my PAX know, but for me it's not a flight unless we hit some rough stuff enroute.