Unless in reduced visibility (as in the guidelines) anybody doing an autoland should be shot ... then shot again. Anybody who lets the computer land the aircraft where a human could is not a pilot. That is all

Craig, couldn't agree more. What has airmanship been reduced t these days? I used to autoland all the time back in the day (PSS 777 in FS2000). After I started flying for real simply and learned the feeling tha comes with a gat landing I simply forgot autoland existed in the sim, unless of course in case it was required due to wx. And now, thanks to the HUGS, even my cat II and III approaches are done manually in AIII mode. Simply can't allow the ap to do it for me. I know it's capable. Am I?

lol I haven't used it in the 200 or so landings I've had to date. dunno what the attraction the autoland has...the rest of the flight is on autopilot...its like hooking up with a chick and getting someone else to do the deed! errr....maybe not a good example but you know what I mean?? most flights I watch on youtube are manually landed from about 1000 or 500 ft. I take over from about 1000 ft and manually land. otherwise whats the point of sitting there and letting the A/P do everything for you.

That's what I'm doing. I'm taking over in most cases when having the runway in sight. I want to have a balanced situation before being close to the decision hight.

Amen Gentlemen!"Horrible wings"? You mean extremely efficient wings don't you? In that case that makes them one of the best wings on any commercial airframe!And guys landing without the hugs is more fun imo, much more "real down to earth feel! " .I sometimes disengage autopilot from 10000ft, A/T off turning onto the approach,!

Horrible wings. They made them to fly further and higher. That's all difference from classics. But because of that, you have horribly high speeds on approach to keep the plane in air. If you didn't know, 767's weight is twice as 737NG, and they have about the same speed for approach. That means something to me.737NG is good parody of airbus, made from classics. If you don't know what's aerodynamics and didn't learn physics, please don't post.

I wasn´t aware that one had to have a degree in physics or aeronautical engineering to post in these forums.If you don´t have any manners with your fellow forum members, please don´t post.

Horrible wings. They made them to fly further and higher. That's all difference from classics. But because of that, you have horribly high speeds on approach to keep the plane in air. If you didn't know, 767's weight is twice as 737NG, and they have about the same speed for approach. That means something to me.737NG is good parody of airbus, made from classics. If you don't know what's aerodynamics and didn't learn physics, please don't post.

I'm a bit confused, shouldn't the short stubby little 737 Classic wings need more speed to keep the plane in the sky vs. a longer NG wing?

Yes indeed about the wings and higher speeds... Oh yes a physics degree always helps *sighs* why on Earth didn't I get one to fly it? Would of made the type rating that much easier...Anyhow, yes the classics actually operate at lower speed but thats primarily due to weight.But the post about 'horrible wings' is a bit far fetched and a bit dampening to a forum intended for people with passion for this lovely simulation of big nose, I mean the 737.Oh bring back the 737-200 why don't we and then people can fly manually most of the time or why not jump back to BOAC and Pan Am early days with planes with - wait for it - propellers? Okay I am going off topic now...

Horrible wings. They made them to fly further and higher. That's all difference from classics. But because of that, you have horribly high speeds on approach to keep the plane in air. If you didn't know, 767's weight is twice as 737NG, and they have about the same speed for approach. That means something to me.737NG is good parody of airbus, made from classics. If you don't know what's aerodynamics and didn't learn physics, please don't post.

You have no idea what you are talking about, I assume you are trolling me,, The classic's have a very inefficient wing compared to the NG. A 767, are you joking? Maybe you are flying your Captain sim with no fuel and no payload but the Vref's are not the same,IT is hard to descend with the ngx, tailwind during descent will almost certainly mean you will need speedbrake on the descent that means great efficiency.Dude, I am not sure which world you live in, but ANY SAVINGS on fuel is beneficial to the airline, so the better the wing, the less the fuel consumption.. ya dig?

This has gone too far now I think. No mud slinging everyone ... lets all be happy ad eat cake. :)Lets just admit that wings are (in the words of an instructor I had some time ago):'Big metal things that flap sometimes but without them we'd be screwed' - He also smelled of scotch if I remember right so oh well.

You have no idea what you are talking about, I assume you are trolling me,, The classic's have a very inefficient wing compared to the NG. A 767, are you joking? Maybe you are flying your Captain sim with no fuel and no payload but the Vref's are not the same,IT is hard to descend with the ngx, tailwind during descent will almost certainly mean you will need speedbrake on the descent that means great efficiency.Dude, I am not sure which world you live in, but ANY SAVINGS on fuel is beneficial to the airline, so the better the wing, the less the fuel consumption.. ya dig?

This has gone too far now I think. No mud slinging everyone ... lets all be happy ad eat cake. :)Lets just admit that wings are (in the words of an instructor I had some time ago):'Big metal things that flap sometimes but without them we'd be screwed' - He also smelled of scotch if I remember right so oh well.

I like that quote!

The reason for the high vref on the 8/ and 9's is the tail strike issue. This is caused by the short landing gear. This is why Boeing cant stretch the airplane any more than the 900.