Learning Manual Landings

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Not necessarily. The equipment might be less precise, mounted less precisely or for whatever other reasons emits less precise signal (even if the signal is actually the same)

 

I've already brought that up (because I knew someone would try to bring it up), and even then, offers little to the discussion:

"The only arguable reference that could be made is that certain approaches are not certified for the ops because of physical interference to the signal by surrounding object.  Again, let me be clear that it is not the signal itself that is causing issues; rather, objects in and around the signal are causing interference.  In these cases, there will be a note that the GS is unusable below X, or the LOC is unusable in Y or Z.  As such, it would be potentially dangerous, but often still possible."

 

Having a little experience in planning these things.  I worked on all kinds of updates for airports here in Virginia.  Most relevant to the discussion was the ILS upgrade for BCB.  It required shifting the entire runway, and rerouting a road among other things, to meet the necessary requirements.  It's common practice to plan the placement of the arrays to meet the most stringent requirements, even though a CAT I is the only approach planned.  This is, of course, unless this is not possible due to physical limitations.

 

Additionally, when going from CAT I to CAT III certification, it really is mostly a paper trail.  Airport planners evaluate the areas against FAA TERPS Surface requirements, and if nothing needs to change, CAT III is granted, and much to the surprise of many, nobody came out to swap out the LOC/GS arrays.

 

Again, the main issue that we're attempting to address is this idea that you cannot use a CAT I ILS to autoland.  This is wholly untrue.  While you are not guaranteed the protections that have been verified as part of certifying that same signal for CAT III operations, the aircraft will still do it.

[FLEX1978 373]

You really have a lot of patience Kyle Good post

[LeeL 272]

It's those new Care Bears, they're just working wonders

[scandinavian13 5,192]

You really have a lot of patience Kyle Good post

 

Thanks!  I'm not sure if its patience or stubbornness.  I think I'm more prone to the latter...haha.

 

It's those new Care Bears, they're just working wonders

 

Haha. They just make everything seem...happier!

[Jimm 437]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like this topic is taking a turn for the worse.  Flight Simulator was created to be only one thing: A simulator.  It simulates real world flying but is NOT an exact science, at least to those who created it.  Sure, it has evolved exponentially since it's inception and a vast cross-section of people from around the world use it but, to the extent that this particular conversation has gone, it is in my humble opinion that if someone really wants to fly a real simulator, then get out form behind the desk and go do it.  You will find that the commercial ones react very much differently than the $50 Microsoft version.

 

Btw, can someone explain how to manually land an aircraft in FSX?

[pcubine 143]

In the Real World let's assume you have made a autoland that conforms to all regulations and the visibilty is zero and the ceiling is zero. Now what? How can you see to get off the runway much less to the gate?

 

Michael Cubine

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like this topic is taking a turn for the worse.

 

Just because there's a disagreement doesn't mean that things are bad.

 

 

 

You will find that the commercial ones react very much differently than the $50 Microsoft version.

 

Then I suppose I should go remove all of those simulator logbook entries logged in this:

 

Yes, what you are seeing above is Flight Simulator X as a base for a Redbird Simulator, which is FAA Approved (yes, I know Redbird now uses P3D) to log time.  It behaves exactly the same as the simulator on your computer right now.  The difference is Redbird paid the cost of getting it certified, and adding some hardware.

 

 

 

...and this is why I always rail on things like this.

 

Sure, it's Flight Simulator, but to a lot of people, this will be their foundation.  If we fail them by not providing corrections now, they'll go on assuming landings are autolands (and you must specify manual before landing - something that moderately disturbed my aviation friends when I brought it up), simulators are vastly different from what we have on our computers, and if you bust 250 under 10,000' you'll immediately disintegrate or have the FAA hunting them down.

 

I get that this is a hobby for some people, but for some, this is their intro into aviation.  This is what they'll base their future on.  We as a community should be providing a correct picture for them:

• Landings are landings by hand (no need for "manual" because you won't even see a plane that can do it by itself for quite some time in your aviation career); autolands are when the aircraft lands itself.
• ILS Categories are not even a consideration for the aircraft: Is there a LOC? Is there a GS?  Good to go on its side.
• Simulators are mostly only really different in paperwork between the creator/owner and the FAA.

...but because nobody is willing to correct people - seemingly because that makes them the mean one, as accused by those who don't like being corrected, or don't like the supposed conflict - people all around believe a lot of crazy things.

 

I'm trying to stop that.

And for that, I refuse to apologize.

[Jimm 437]

It seems that you twisted what I said around.  When I mentioned "commercial", I meant the simulators that say, British Airways, trains their pilots.  Guess i should have been more specific to avoid misinterpretation.

[LeeL 272]

 

 

Sure, it's Flight Simulator, but to a lot of people, this will be their foundation. If we fail them by not providing corrections now, they'll go on assuming landings are autolands (and you must specify manual before landing - something that moderately disturbed my aviation friends when I brought it up), simulators are vastly different from what we have on our computers, and if you bust 250 under 10,000' you'll immediately disintegrate or have the FAA hunting them down.



I get that this is a hobby for some people, but for some, this is their intro into aviation. This is what they'll base their future on. We as a community should be providing a correct picture for them:

Landings are landings by hand (no need for "manual" because you won't even see a plane that can do it by itself for quite some time in your aviation career); autolands are when the aircraft lands itself.
ILS Categories are not even a consideration for the aircraft: Is there a LOC? Is there a GS? Good to go on its side.
Simulators are mostly only really different in paperwork between the creator/owner and the FAA.

...but because nobody is willing to correct people - seemingly because that makes them the mean one, as accused by those who don't like being corrected, or don't like the supposed conflict - people all around believe a lot of crazy things.



I'm trying to stop that.

And for that, I refuse to apologize

 

 

Very well said as usual Kyle, and very very true

[scandinavian13 5,192]

It seems that you twisted what I said around.  When I mentioned "commercial", I meant the simulators that say, British Airways, trains their pilots.  Guess i should have been more specific to avoid misinterpretation.

 

Not quite.  Even those behave rather similarly, and have less in terms of visuals in some cases.

Future reference, to avoid the supposed misinterpretation, if you're referring to those large simulators in use by the airlines, it's likely a Level D sim.

 

Very well said as usual Kyle, and very very true

Thanks Lee.

[kevinh 409]

Simulators are mostly only really different in paperwork between the creator/owner and the FAA.

That's not really true, though, is it. There's a vast difference between a Level D FFS, a Level 5 FTD, a PC-ATD and all device levels in between. It's not just the paperwork (and it isn't just with the FAA either*). Though they are all worthy of their training credits of course. So a Level D sim will indeed behave differently to a PC-ATD using FSX or X-Plane. The lower level devices are not intended to accurately represent the flight characteristics of the aircraft simulated.

 

*Maybe I should make it my mission to remind US based forum members there is aviation outside North America. ^_^

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

That's not really true, though, is it.  There's a vast difference between a Level D FFS, a Level 5 FTD, a PC-ATD and all device levels in between.  It's not just the paperwork (and it isn't just with the FAA either).  Though they are all worthy of their training credits of course.  So a Level D sim will indeed behave differently to a PC-ATD using FSX or X-Plane.  The lower level devices are not intended to accurately represent the flight characteristics of the aircraft simulated.

 

True, and I'm constantly reminded of the epic failure of mine in that one thread a while back.  Still, the tactic to downplay FS simply because it's not perfect and certified out of the box is getting really old.  The concepts translate, otherwise versions of FSX/P3D wouldn't be getting certified by regulatory agencies for training purposes.

 

Granted, I wouldn't use FSX to fine tune how to land, or fine tune PPL maneuvers, but to downplay its validity just because it came from a store for $25-50 is a little bit of an overstatement.

 

 

 

Maybe I should make it my mission to remind US based forum members there is aviation outside North America.

 

This is why my signature on another forum outright states that I'm only talking about the US - haha.

[FLEX1978 373]

In the Real World let's assume you have made a autoland that conforms to all regulations and the visibilty is zero and the ceiling is zero. Now what? How can you see to get off the runway much less to the gate?

 

Most airlines do not bother with CATIIIC certification for exactly the reason you have stated.

[kevinh 409]

 

 

Granted, I wouldn't use FSX to fine tune how to land, or fine tune PPL maneuvers, but to downplay its validity just because it came from a store for $25-50 is a little bit of an overstatement.

That isn't really what Jim said. He said a Level D sim would behave rather differently and he'd be right. The NGX is fantastic for it's depth of systems simulation and steady state flight performance, but dynamically it's a bit suspect and that's mainly due to the limitations of FSX.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

That isn't really what Jim said. He said a Level D sim would behave rather differently and he'd be right. The NGX is fantastic for it's depth of systems simulation and steady state flight performance, but dynamically it's a bit suspect and that's mainly due to the limitations of FSX.

 

Is it really so different, though?  The word used being "vastly" would imply that it is nowhere near, where I'd argue, sure, you're not going to stick a crew on it to perfect their landings, or run through recurrent, but it's close enough to give them an idea.