Another way of checking if things are going wrong or not: If the rwy is slowly rising in your field of view then you are sinking and need more power stabilising your AIS at the same time. Also the contrary applies if the rwy is sinking you are not descending fast enough and need to apply more power. Also remember the difference between a visual approach and an instrument approach. the UK CAA requires that a visual approach uses no reference to your instrument landing aids at all. Whereas for an instrument approach you should not use any outside reference flying solely on your instruments.Watch carefully the a/c trends and counteract them with very small control inputs. It's much easier in real life than in the sim!!!!vololiberistaBecause the crew along with the passengers have to pay to go to the toilet, and probably also have to pay for their own on board baggage aka pilot bags etc!!!!!

"Requires" doesn't mean you can not use instruments though!If you fly -for example- a circling approach in an airliner you might use everything you have to fly a correct and stable approach.

And I agree. Claiming that pilots in US are improperly trained or have flawed understanding of aircraft controls hence their licenses are invalid elsewhere is such an utter nonsense (on many levels) that one can only scratch eyes in disbelief that something like that can be written on these forums.

I agree. By the way; a European PPL is not straight away valid in the US neither; you need some extra training over there... which makes sense :)

It's the 737 SOP used by NZ based airline that I am involved with through work, I'm not sure that it is too prevalent, but it's not all that odd: I'm told that the rationale - in part - is that it leaves minimal risk of confusion at times of high workload. It would be an extreme example, but a crew that thought the AT was engaged when it actually wasn't could end up in a low-energy situation pretty quickly on approach, especially when lowering gear, dropping flaps and intercepting the glideslope in relatively quick succession, speed can bleed off mighty quickly in that confguration. At least by having an 'all or nothing' philosophy you are ALWAYS subconsciously aware that you are either hand flying or manipulating the automatics.Tying this back into a flightsim context, most of us have non-motorized throttle quadrants. This means that invariably the hardware throttle position won't correlate with the actual throttle setting in the sim, when you disconnect. I always pull the autothrottle at the same time as the autopilot and well before the flare, so that I can get the hardware and the simulation "back in sync" again before I have to make that carefully timed cut to idle.Most of us will have had the embarrassing experience of disconnecting the AT on short final with our hardware still pushed fully forward from takeoff. Even if you get the throttle back to mid-range quickly, a small blip of power at that stage is not ideal, to say the least, and it can make for a really dicey manoeuvre if you really stuff it up and don't get the throttle back fast!

Missing FS throttle setting and yoke synchronisation is indeed quite tricky. Airbus IRL has the same problem but they have a trick for it. They have to adjust the throttle levers untill it matches a green line on their "EICAS". Might be an idea for PMDG (separate pop-up window please :) )

What an epic controversy we have going here. I've always been told by my instructors that the pitch for speed method is only viable in low gross weight aircraft. As far as the airlines go, I've heard some airlines tell their pilots to stabilize the approach by using one throttle setting and flying it without moving the thrust levers around like a madman. Note: FS is realistic enough for you to take the MD-11 or the LD763ER out for a spin and try both methods (power=speed/power=pitch). In my years of real world flying, I've found the only real difference between FS performance and reality to be the entire atmosphere itself, not necessarily flight dynamics. Go give it a whirl.

I've heard some airlines tell their pilots to stabilize the approach by using one throttle setting and flying it without moving the thrust levers around like a madman.

You wouldn't mind telling me which airlines there are? So I can avoid them. How the heck are you supposed to fly an approach without ever touching the throttles.

I didn't say without moving the throttles, I said without moving them around as ferociously as some pilots move the yoke. To try and pitch for the approach angle with a single power setting as best as possible.My mistake for not making that clearer. :(

As far as the airlines go, I've heard some airlines tell their pilots to stabilize the approach by using one throttle setting and flying it without moving the thrust levers around like a madman.

Most pilots in general aim to have the approach totally hands off, i.e. have the airplane trimmed out for approach speed with the power set to give you the proper descent rate.That's the essence of a stabilized approach.

Most pilots in general aim to have the approach totally hands off, i.e. have the airplane trimmed out for approach speed with the power set to give you the proper descent rate.That's the essence of a stabilized approach.

Joseph,Couldn't have said it better myself; No really, I tried. Looks like my communication work is what needs a stabilized approach. :( Thank you.

- speed with the throttle- descent rate with the stickIs certainly NOT the method taught in Australia, or should I say, anywhere where I have flown in AustraliaDavid

Hi David, (and Bert)Then can you please explain to me why, on an airliner equiped with an autothrottle to control speed and an autopilot that uses pitch fo control the trajectory, you should reverse methods when going manual.I understand that some (most ?) of you may have be trained differently (and there are some documented exemples of using AOA to control speed, like carrier landing as I mentioned earlier in this thread), or, as Michael said, that some prefer the pitch for speed method on small, GA planes, but I can tell you that there are at least four airliner captains flying ultralights at my club (three of them instructors on the 777 or A320) and none of them would fly differently, whether it's a 777, a GA plane or an ultralight : speed with the throttle...And Scott and Michael, you're 100% right. Criticizing other pilots training - or quality - whether they are American, Austalian or British, is definitely not a decent way to participate in a forum - and oh, by the way, Vololiberista, I am French, so please don't get me into more trouble than I deserve ! :biggrin:Happy flying to all - with hands off, stabilized approches as Joseph says - and to Matt, I hope that you'll get back into that plane real soon ! :( Bruno

Hi David, (and Bert)Then can you please explain to me why, on an airliner equiped with an autothrottle to control speed and an autopilot that uses pitch fo control the trajectory, you should reverse methods when going manual.And Scott and Michael, you're 100% right. Criticizing other pilots training - or quality - whether they are American, Austalian or British, is definitely not a decent way to participate in a forum - and oh, by the way, Vololiberista, I am French, so please don't get me into more trouble than I deserve ! :biggrin:Bruno

Hi Bruno,Two things my friend - firstly, did I say anything about airliners? What I said was simply that this is not the method taught in Australia. I should have been a little clearer in that I was referring to basic training that even your airline friend would have done many years (and hours ago). Yes, it is a well known fact that airliners are flown differently, however I have never flown an airliner and do not pretend to be an airliner pilot on the strength of flying a simulated airliner in flight sim, unlike a lot of the contributors on this forum and elsewhere.Secondly, I hope your reference to criticising other nationality training was not aimed at me with its Australian reference, as I did not indeed say anything of the sort. I simply stated that the method in question is not taught in this neck of the woods. What anyone else does is not my concern, providing I arrive alive if they fly me somewhere.Enjoy flying your ultralights.David

Hi Bruno,Two things my friend - firstly, did I say anything about airliners? What I said was simply that this is not the method taught in Australia. I should have been a little clearer in that I was referring to basic training that even your airline friend would have done many years (and hours ago). Yes, it is a well known fact that airliners are flown differently, however I have never flown an airliner and do not pretend to be an airliner pilot on the strength of flying a simulated airliner in flight sim, unlike a lot of the contributors on this forum and elsewhere.Secondly, I hope your reference to criticising other nationality training was not aimed at me with its Australian reference, as I did not indeed say anything of the sort. I simply stated that the method in question is not taught in this neck of the woods. What anyone else does is not my concern, providing I arrive alive if they fly me somewhere.Enjoy flying your ultralights.David

Hi David,To your first point : this is an airliner simulation forum and the original question was about how to land one - in a simulator, not in real life. But as Ken (and many others) says, FS/PMDG is so good that the experience is close enough to reality for this kind of training.I am no airliner pilot either, and my refering to airliner pilots was just to mention that those I know apply the same method - whether they fly an airliner, a GA plane or an ultralight.To your second point : if you re-read the thread above, it should be perfectly clear that my remark, just like those made earlier by Scott and Michael, was not pointed at you.As far I enjoying flying my ultralight, you bet I do ! Thanks :( Take care, Bruno

I didn't say without moving the throttles, I said without moving them around as ferociously as some pilots move the yoke. To try and pitch for the approach angle with a single power setting as best as possible.My mistake for not making that clearer. :(

Oh I see. No problems. Trimming the plane for minimal throttle movement of course makes perfect sense. And I am sure the airlines want that due to the high fuel burn when pilots are jabbing the throttle. In FSX I always look to trim out the aircraft on approach, but as we all know, winds change as you get closer to the Earth. I find the A/T is always making adjustments, small ones.

Then can you please explain to me why, on an airliner equiped with an autothrottle to control speed and an autopilot that uses pitch fo control the trajectory, you should reverse methods when going manual.

You don't. First off, just to clarify, when you get taught how to fly an ILS, on a Cessna single prop, you will be told to correct G/S deviations with power settings. Its textbook. Some text books even go so far as to suggest the amount of a power increase decrease to attempt to fix a deviation. Useful in a classroom, not so useful in the air, which your instructor will certainly make clear to you.The reasons correcting G/S deviation with power is so ineffective (and dangerous in certain cases) in a Jetliner, is one: the turbo lag, you will find your power change will not take immediate effect thus allowing for the deviating configuration to continue before the correction can being to be madetwo: landing weight, cutting the power as a far more dramatic dynamic effect in terms of lift and you will certainly find it a constant battle to maintain the G/S if you are correcting by power alone. These two factors make it hard (but not impossible) to do.You can try both ways in FSX of course, but I am sure you will see, that it is far more easier to have the A/T control the power to maintain your calculated approach speed, while you the Pilot in Command work the yoke to keep the G/S in the middle with pitch and adjusting the trim (little adjustments mind you)

Hi Guys,Fun discussion for another with small RW hours in Cessnas and lots of FS hours in heavies. Seems this throttle/stick debate is never ending, although I remember an old Qantas 744 pilot affirming strongly that it is always speed by throttle, rate of descent by stick in heavies. (RSR's thoughts?)Also it seems to me that there is a difference between aerodynamics & physics on the one hand and pilot technique on the other. In terms of physics everything is connected. Pilot technique may separate things out for better practical results, and techniques can vary.Finally going back to the first post, my suggestion is that for good manual landings (RW & sim) the best way to improve is through visual circuit training. Lots of manual circuits at ORBX YMAV in the 744 has improved my virtual airmanship no end. And it is much more fun (for me at least) than SOP for revenue flights!Richard S

Posted Yesterday, 11:37 PMView Postrocketfs, on 30 October 2010 - 11:34 PM, said:

Speed is controlled by pitchAltitude (climb/descent rate)is controlled by thrust

This is nonsense

This is all aircraft dependent.What you wrote applies mostly to smaller aircraft in which we trained and this is how we were taught by our instructors, when you get into bigger airplanes (airliners) this tends to be reversed.Michael J.

A Cessna and a 747 jet are both aeroplanes. i.e. they both rely on wings to fly. Therefore they both follow the exact same rules of aerodynamics. Meaning the above statement regarding speed and pitch is completely untrue. If you believe otherwise you are utterly mistaken. Go to your libraries read the books on aerodynamics check you facts before trumpeting falsehoods.The difference between a Cessna and a 747 is powerplant, size and weight. A jet engine takes some seconds before required thrust becomes available. Whereas for a propeller driven a/c the thrust is available instantly. Secondly a jet transport like a 747 is a tad heavier than a cessna so the jet engine once throttled up has to overcome a huge amount of drag even to maintain flight. This translates into momentum which requires the pilot to make corrections to the flightpath before they are needed.I have read here "in this a/c they do this" In this a/c they do that" etc. Take every aeroplane in your sim fly it manually and ALL of them will require airspeed controlled by pitch and climb and descent controlled by throttle. These are the basics of flying. We are not talking about thereafter making small adjustments either manually or by the AP.If your a/c is starting to deviate from your chosen path under AP control make small corrections to the AP. If the deviation is or has become significant you have a duty as a good pilot to kick out the AP immediately and fly it manually until you get it under control. But if you fly your recovery as in the first quoute you WILL die!!vololiberista

vololiberista - I politely suggest stop making a fool of yourself and go play in your sandbox.