In real life

[Guest ba747heavy]

>I imagine it's hard to see the little town and the railraod>intersecting from the west at 35,000 feet in a 737. That, and once you get above 18k, you get into class A airspace, which is IFR only :)

[Guest boxjockey99]

GuysIn my experience most commercial flying is accomplished under IFR mainly because it is safer. Let us not forget that IFR is not about how you navigate but more about how much separation ATC must give between you and the other aluminnium tubes full of people. Yes IFR requires radio aids but there is no rule that says you can't use a VOR or NDB while flying VFR as long as you are not using it as your sole method of navigation.As stated earlier Class A airpace requires an IFR flight plan, all Airways are class A and so if you want to fly airways you need to file IFR, simple as that. Class A also applies to most major TMA's such as London, PAris Etc. After all the last thing you want is to find a puddle jumper ahead of you when you are barrelling down an approach at 200mph! I have flown VFR in a commercial aircraft but this was in order to remove an ATC slot restriction that would have put me and my crew out of our duty hours. The advent of systems such as TCAS make this a slightly safer option but I wouldn't want to make a habit of it. We did this in the Fokker F27 which is significantly larger than a Twotter of Islander but from a speed point of view is not prohibitive for VFR. The B737-300 I fly now however would make VFR more difficult because: a) moving faster makes navigation difficult:( flight above FL245 in Europe is deemed Class A airpsce and so needs to be IFR, flight below FL245 would be permitted BUT would be very inefficient on the fuel burnAs for SIDS and STARS, In most major European airports we fly full SIDS, STARS are less commonly enforced but must be planned for just in case. Often you only end up flying the first part of the SID or STAR before being vectored off it or given a Direct routing. SO in short yes we use them but to varying degrees, they are not cast in stone by any stretch of the imaginationFinally Visual approaches are notoriously difficult in the B737, nothing that cannot be overcome with practice though. Crosswinds make it difficult and this is compounded by not having any direct rudder control (be it pedals or twisting of your stick) but it can be done. The trick is to stabilise the approach as early as possible find a heading that keeps you on the loc and a pitch / power setting that keeps you on the G/S then leave it there. Make SMALL corrections as required and then as you get to the last 30 or so feet then start to kick off the crab and land straight. Landing straight is not mandatory and in fact is not even attempted when the aircraft autolands as it has no direct rudder control.Hope that lot helpsKris

[Guest gsisteve]

yes it does, thanks a lot nice to hear it from the horses mouth so to speak :)steve

[Guest rcritz]

>Isn't commuter operations under Part 135, not 121? My>understanding is that those small commuter planes under VFR>might be operating under 135....those airline operations under>121 I don't think are aloud to be under IFR. Again, my take>on the situation.No, they can also be under Part 121. The real issue is the planned altitude. If, for operational reasons, you want to go above FL180 (this is US-only, of course), then you must file IFR. But you'll find B190s, SF34s, DH8Qs and even some RJs running around at 15,500 or 16,500 VFR on short legs. It all depends on the op specs approved for the company by the FAA.Then, of course, there's our operation. We *NEVER EVER EVER* go anywhere VFR. Even the 21nm reposition we do twice per trip is done IFR. We call it the "7-minute circus" but we want all the help with separation we can get. Even still, the only real TCAS RA I've ever gotten was on one of these legs.

[Guest georg]

>I would fly IFR in FS if the default flight rules were much>more realistic. In real life, you probably won't have as much>trouble as the FS one and the won't circle you around the>whole airport tons of times without clearing you to land. I>only use VFR in FS because the IFR in FS is poorly done.>Try VATSIM then. Ofcourse the default ATC is a bull****. Do you really think that computer can "think" so well to separate so many planes and give them smart vectors etc all at the same time? Try VATSIM, you dont always have ATC, but in the evenings its quite realistic in major airports. There's nothing wrong with IFR in FS. Nothing. Just the ATC that is not Instrument Flight Rules, but Air Traffic Controller :)

[Guest ba747heavy]

Thanks for that Richard :)

[Guest kavan2]

How do you fly a an approach if it is IFR conditions and poor vis where there is no ILS or localizer. How do you line up for the runway and know if you are on the correct glide slope and on course for the threshold?kavan

[Guest gkrangers]

Most airports have some kind of VOR, NDB, or GPS approach designed for these situations.You follow the procedures, and if you don't have the runway in sight by a certain time (just for instance, 90 seconds after passing a certain waypoint) or passing a certain altitude, then you go missed approach and can either try again, or divert to an alternate airport.

[brucek 38]

Hi Richard,What are the 2 airports you use in the 21nm reposition? Sounds like fun!Thanks,Bruce.

[Guest rcritz]

Hi Bruce,We bounce between KASH and KBED on those legs.cz

[brucek 38]

Thanks!

[Guest Davest]

I'm a helicopter pilot in real life and we just follow the nearest deer when it comes to nav in New Zealand.

[brucek 38]

Hi (Dave?),Where are you flying in New Zealand? I used to live there and know some chopper pilots still (in the Greymouth area).Bruce.