Learning Manual Landings

[Fabo 213]

 

 

I have found I can land pretty well if I disengage the autopilot once I enter the glideslope/localiser area.

Good.

 

 

I keep the autothrottle on to keep a steady speed as I descend and line up by hand,

Not good.

While not forbidden per se, it is heavily recommended by Boeing to avoid using autothrottle modes other than N1 modes with autopilot off. Due to the nature of the combination pilot/computer (pilot is proactive, autothrottle is reactive), the autothrottle cannot properly correct for induced changes in flight stability.

 

Turn the autothrottle off as soon as you turn off the autopilot, and work the throttle yourself. You will get a better hand for the approach, and you will find it more stable.

 

 

As a result of flying Airbus I thought that reducing throttle to idle would disengage the autothrottle but clearly it doesn't. No wonder I was floating.

Airbus is indeed different, even if principially reducing throttle to idle should disconnect autothrottle in the 737 as well. But the simulation is behaving a bit different since we are missing the actual motors on our controllers...

 

 

With Ryanair, for instance, how many of their landings will be "fully manual"?

 

Almost all of them.  Autolands are a "couple times a year" occurence to the flightcrew, and even then it is often just to keep current. Most airports in Ryanair network cannot even support an autoland.

[FLEX1978 373]

 

 

Most airports in Ryanair network cannot even support an autoland.

 

As long as an ILS is available at the airfield it will support autoland.  To the OP, download a good freeware twin engine prop and do touch & Go's for a week, forget airline flying just hand fly the circuit in a small prop.

 

Then get back in the NGX and do the exact same thing, no automatics, just touch and go's around your favourite airfield for a week until you are sick of hand flying,. 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

I know I'm probably going to be seen as a little overboard on this topic for saying this, but can we please get rid of this "manual landing" business?

 

99% of the time, you're going to land the plane yourself.  This is simply called landing.

 

The term for what happens when you fly a coupled approach and let the aircraft put itself on the ground is called an autoland.  It is rare.  You only do it when you have to, as Peter mentioned: very poor weather, or for currency purposes.

 

 

 

A little pedantic, sure, but there wouldn't so many people who think planes fly themselves if the knowledge had been out there before.

[James Bennett 52]

I know I'm probably going to be seen as a little overboard on this topic for saying this, but can we please get rid of this "manual landing" business?

 

99% of the time, you're going to land the plane yourself.  This is simply called landing.

 

The term for what happens when you fly a coupled approach and let the aircraft put itself on the ground is called an autoland.  It is rare.  You only do it when you have to, as Peter mentioned: very poor weather, or for currency purposes.

 

 

 

A little pedantic, sure, but there wouldn't so many people who think planes fly themselves if the knowledge had been out there before.

 

Err, so if i said i need help performing landings what would your response be? I could be asking what the procedures for an autoland are, or i could be asking for hints on how to land by hand flying. That's why we have these lovely things called verbs.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Err, so if i said i need help performing landings what would your response be? I could be asking what the procedures for an autoland are, or i could be asking for hints on how to land by hand flying. That's why we have these lovely things called verbs.

 

If you said you needed help landing, I would've assumed you meant the normal act of landing (by hand, since that's apparently too ambiguous).  If you were asking for autoland procedures, the expectation would be someone would ask for autoland procedures.

 

...and I may be misreading what you're getting at, but if you're referring to the addition of 'manual' that would be an adjective.

[James Bennett 52]

If you said you needed help landing, I would've assumed you meant the normal act of landing (by hand, since that's apparently too ambiguous).  If you were asking for autoland procedures, the expectation would be someone would ask for autoland procedures.

 

...and I may be misreading what you're getting at, but if you're referring to the addition of 'manual' that would be an adjective.

I meant "hand flying" as a verb, even though it's two words really. But anyway i can see why you want people to consider hand flown landings as the norm, far too many simmers these days have learned to become button pushers, i'd like too see if they would still fly the same way in the sim if they took a few real flying lessons. I used to fly Grob Tutors way back before i got into simming and rarely ever autoland.

 

But you do come across pedantic as you say and i think it would fast get confusing in the FS world to ban the term "manual" before the word "landing".

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

I meant "hand flying" as a verb, even though it's two words really.

 

I see what you're getting at.  Adjective + verb combination, but that's definitely getting pedantically semantic...haha.

 

 

 

But anyway i can see why you want people to consider hand flown landings as the norm, far too many simmers these days have learned to become button pushers, i'd like too see if they would still fly the same way in the sim if they took a few real flying lessons. I used to fly Grob Tutors way back before i got into simming and rarely ever autoland.

 

Yeah.  My main point is getting rid of the idea that manual landings are unique, odd, and rare.  I guess I just find it absurd because I've never referred to a landing as manual.  Granted, I've never flown an aircraft capable of an autoland, but I doubt I'd even use it then.

 

 

 

But you do come across pedantic as you say and i think it would fast get confusing in the FS world to ban the term "manual" before the word "landing".

 

I may be somewhat of a jerk to people, but I don't mince words when taking shots at myself either...haha.

I'd argue that the only reason ridding the world of the use of manual before landing would be confusing is that we've allowed it to get to that point.  The assumption should be the landing is made by hand, which would mean 'manual' would be superfluous.

[Odosim 0]

The advice given by Scandinavian13 is what I started typing but no point repeating it. I think his comments are good. I fly small planes, medium sizes and heavies and each one is, of course different. But what they all have in common is that you become more proficient with practise. Flying the aircrafts by hand is what we should do. I have been a simulator "pilot" since 1983, if I remember rightly, and my ultimate aim when I fly any aircraft for the first time is to taxi, take off, do the circuit and land without any autopilot. It takes time and discipline to know the configurations for each phase of the flight and repeat it until it becomes second nature.

 

I would advise that pilots who are having problems landing planes without the autopilot should just take a small plane such as a Cessna 172 or a Mooney and do the circuit day in day out until it becomes second nature without using the autopilot. I learnt by practising under windy conditions. The next thing I did was to move to turbo props. They respond differently around the circuit during take off and landings when you change throttle settings. When these types of planes are mastered, then moving to the jets is somewhat "easier" than just jumping into the jet "seat" without knowing how to hand fly the props.

 

In order to stay proficient, I regularly fly the smaller planes, turbo props, medium jets and heavies. But when you fly any of them, forget about other planes; just fly what you have at that time.

 

As a start with PMDG 737NGX, take off with settings for altitude, vertical speed, heading and then turn on the autopilot. Do the circuit and 10 nm out, and at the right altitude configure for descent. But do not use the ILS. Just fly the plane at the right speed and descent rate. When this is done properly we only have to make pitch adjustments for changes in descent rates and power for speed. But above all, the changes should be small.

 

If this is practised often and with the plane well configured, we smile every time we land.

[ahuimanu 50]

"Manual Landing"

It is not a big deal. What else are we going to use to distinguish from a fully-automated landing? That is, either the plane landed without human input (automatic) or it landed with the guidance of human inputs (manual).

Personally, I try to fly in what the conditions call for: low IFR probably calls for allowing for full or partial autolanding. However, as I've usually taken the 737 up in the skies over both Europe and North America, I am mostly greeted with conditions that warrant a visual approach and landing. While I will tune the ILS to confirm sight picture with localizer and, more rarely, my descent with the glide path, practice will allow for good judgment for visual. Also, if you want to NAIL near-perfect visual/manual landings, drop that HUD down and you'll realize better landings very quickly. If you keep the Flight Path Indicator (that circle-like symbol in the middle of the display) on the aiming point markings - look here: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/aim0203.html and in the Flight Crew Training Manual on page 6.9 - you'll hit paydirt almost all the time. Of course, as has also been mentioned earlier, maintaining proper approach speed is important as well.

The only significance of sharing this is that I find the potential to hand fly present at least 9 our of 10 times in daylight (perhaps less so at night).

Among the good morsels of advice I've seen in this thread is the importance of having trim mapped to your controller/yoke. Also, don't forget to adjust the repeat rate to half for more realistic response in trim. Also, try flying inter-island in Hawaii; shorter hops allow you to experience the full flight regime and also practice visual landings. The inter-island jet pilots will approach PHNL 8L by doing a quick base leg and short final very consistently (B737-200s when Aloha still did passengers and B717-200s for Hawaiian) for flights coming from the east. Those were always visual and "manual."

The NGX hand-flies quite well and practice will make perfect.

 

Edit: Good places in the Flight Crew Training Manual to look for more guidance on doing visual approaches and landings:

 

Visual Approach and pattern work:  Chapter 5: 5.77 to 5.81

Landing: Chapter 6 (in particular the parts on flare and touchdown - 6.10 to 6.32)

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Personally, I try to fly in what the conditions call for: low IFR probally calls for allowing for full or partial autolanding.

 

...and this is why I get so irritated by phraseology.

Note: I'm not saying upset (irritated) at you, and the following is not an attack.  I'm simply using what you wrote as an example of the larger issue.

 

 

 

Could you explain what a partial autoland is?  You either let the plane hit the pavement on automation (which is an autoland), or you land the plane yourself (a landing - note the lack of 'manual,' because the alternative is an autoland.)  You can certainly couple the approach and then kick the AP off late, but that's not at all a partial autoland as you're still in the air when you kick the AP off.  That's called a coupled approach.

 

This confusion of terms is exactly why I brought this up in the first place.  People who are learning about aviation see this stuff - either those wanting to get more into aviation, or the public trying to find out more information - and they get misguided opinions about what is going on here.  The public (and news) continue to have bad information, and those getting into aviation have to be retrained out of the bad information.

 

Go up to any airport and shoot the [breeze] with a whole bunch of pilots.  I guarantee every single one of them will use the term landing, and many will probably give you a weird look if you use "manual landing."  Why?  It makes no sense and implies landing with your hands is irregular.

 

 

 

Think of it this way:

If I ask someone for some pointers on parallel parking - despite the existence of certain cars that can do that via automation (called "park assist") - you're going to assume I mean I'm trying to do it myself.  The only difference is the visibility.  The general public are around cars so much, and see all the adverts so much that they know that most people park their cars on their own - it's only certain models and certain situations where you use park assist.  That visibility isn't available in aviation, so when they see people refer to landings as manual, then it looks like that's abnormal, and it most assuredly is not.

 

One needs only look as far as the threads where people are wondering why you can't autoland on [such-and-such non-precision approach], and there are several.  It's an issue of perpetuated misinformation, and it perpetuates because people don't step up to correct people (and as I'm seeing here, simmers stepping up to defend their own unique - and often incorrect - vernacular.)  Without correction, people never learn what's correct, and then they start sharing what's incorrect with others.

 

 

 

Pedantic, sure, I know.

...but if nobody ever stepped up to put me in my place (and believe you me, many here have), I'd be continuing to tell people all kinds of crazy things.

[G-CIVA 62]

Throwing some popcorn down to the cat....

 

munch munch munch

[Paul_Smith 92]

As long as an ILS is available at the airfield it will support autoland.  To the OP, download a good freeware twin engine prop and do touch & Go's for a week, forget airline flying just hand fly the circuit in a small prop.

 

Then get back in the NGX and do the exact same thing, no automatics, just touch and go's around your favourite airfield for a week until you are sick of hand flying,. 

Sorry but that is just not correct. Yes, in FSX you can autoland anywhere with an ILS but just having a radio glideslope is not enough to autoland in the real world.

 

ILS stands for Intrument Landing SYSTEM and the glideslope indication is only one component of that system. Other components include the pilots certifications, the aircraft equipment, the aircraft catagory and weight and so on. Just like PAPI lights, the GS gives the pilot a helping hand, but it does not do the job for him.

 

(I do agree with the rest of your post)

[FLEX1978 373]

Paul, I really don't have the time to get into this with you so let me be clear. If you have an ILS signal the Aircraft will not care about pilot certifications, aircraft weight (most types I know of are certified for an autoland above MLW) or what catagory approach/runway centreline lighting, protected ILS area etc etc etc.

 

My post was in reply to the comment about ryanair destinations. Simple fact, the aircraft will perform an autoland on any ILS signal. That's all I am saying...

[Fabo 213]

The fact that you might enjoy a successful autoland in these placess does not mean they support an autoland, I stand by my words.

[g_precentralis 191]

The fact that at some conditions autoland would be unsafe or illegal does not mean it's not possible to perform one.