Peter, what exactly are you talking about when you say "does not support an autoland"? Is this yet another FSX simism that keeps raising its head? I am going to take a guess and say you mean some of Ryanairs destinations are not CATIIIB equipped, what does that have to do with performing an Autoland if one so desired?

 

Lj I think we have been here before Not really what I expect on the PMDG forums!

Lj I think we have been here before Not really what I expect on the PMDG forums!

many times, unfortunately. :(

Rob - a langauge problem perhaps?

 

I am not saying it is impossible to make an autoland at these airports, I am saying it is not certified, guaranteed and it is potentially unsafe (for example, erratic RA readings due to terrain in immediate vicinity of threshold, or signal distortion for whatever reason).

 

Note the word potentially.

IMO if you've paid that much for an FSX setup you may as well land the aircraft.

The only approach I can remember where autoland could be deadly for RYR is LFMN ILS 04R because of localizer offset. Though here runway 04L is dedicated and mostly used for landings.

 

Most airports in Ryanair network cannot even support an autoland.

This answer in the quote was related to real aviation. Maybe not too clearly, but for me it sounded like: if it's not allowed, then real ryanair pilot wouldn't do it. And there is somewhat surprisingly much RYR destinations with no ILS at all.

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...

Let me be equally clear. ILS does not equal autoland. Having ILS does not even guarantee that an autoland is technically possible even for an appropriatly equipped aircraft with suitably certified crew under ideal conditions.

 

Simple fact. FSX will allow any aircraft to perform an autoland on any ILS signal.

Paul, I have been around here long enough to know your level of knowledge on most subjects aviation related. Cannot count the number of times myself and others have had to correct you in the past. Absolutely no point getting into a discussion with you..

Paul, I have been around here long enough to know your level of knowledge on most subjects aviation related. Cannot count the number of times myself and others have had to correct you in the past. Absolutely no point getting into a discussion with you..

 

Rob, if Paul is not correct in your opinion, please say where. For me it is an interesting discussion on what would be the (hypothetical) consequences of violating autoland legal requirements, especially those concerning airport certification (despite your dispute over terminology). Until now I didn't see any point where you two would really disagree (except the terminology, again).

 

And no point in making personal comments not based on arguments..

 

cheers,

Jakub

Lukemeister, et al. -

 

My first question is: can you land the Piper Cub, in a wind? If the answer is "no", there's a good place to start learning.

Yeah, you got me - you either autoland or not - no partial.

 

I still have no problems with "manual" landings as the word makes the contrast with the other kind of landing you can do in the 737: the autolanding.

 

I suppose with a high level of automation, words like "manual" and "hand fly" are going to be convenient.

 

In any case, the NGX remains a joy to fly by hand - particularly with the HUD/HUGS deployed.

 

Could you explain what a partial autoland is?  

lol try landing a GeeBee...I gave up on it. Good landings require practice. I don't have a tail dragger endorsement in real life, but I enjoy the challenge of landing a P-51, Spitfire, Waco, Cub...etc. Compared to a powerful taildragging warbird, I find the NGX fairly easy to land.

I want to clear up a few things (yes, even though it's off topic):

The signal of a CAT I ILS is the same signal as a CAT II ILS, is the same signal as a CAT III ILS.  The difference is that of paperwork (and a lot of it) in addition to the backup systems (e.g.: even CAT II requires transfer from primary to backup power in less than 1 second for approval) and constant monitoring.  Heck, look at most of the charts now and note how all of the CAT IIIs are listed as CAT II-III.  Why?  Besides the move to save writing a completely new chart, the equipment is still the same, but approved for lower tolerance in cases where the appropriate paper trail exists.

 

Same signal.

 

Autolands, while borne from the need to have automation track signals with more precision than a pilot would down to the ground, do not require the ILS to be certified for CAT III approaches.  As the signal is the exact same, regardless of CAT, the autopilot honestly has no clue what category is being flown because there's no physical difference.

 

The issue is one of yet another simism where dots were connected where dots should not have been connected.

A - CAT III approach allows for an approach to be flown to the ground on automation with a ceiling of zero.

B - In order to fly a CAT III approach, you must have an aircraft capable of autolanding.

If A and B are true, then C - autolands can only occur on CAT III ILSs - must also be true.  Right?

WRONG - non sequitur.

 

To head off another potential non sequitur, you could use Continuous Power Airports and CAT III approaches.

A - CAT III approaches require transfer of power from primary to backup within one second of failure.

B - Many CAT III approaches are at airports designated as Continuous Power Airports (CPAs.)

If A and B are true, then C - CAT III approaches are only approved for CPAs - must also be true.  Right?

Wrong again.  PDX is not a CPA but has a CAT III approach.

 

 

 

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.

Hi all,

 

I can fly the PMDG 737NGX fine. My only shortcoming is that I have to have an ILS CAT III landing or I can't land the plane. For instance if I disengage the autopilot at around 100ft agl, the plane just seems to have way too much lift and I just start gaining altitude, a bit like a feather in the wind!! so to be able to land on the main gear is nearly impossible as I have to pile the nose into the runway to even land the thing!

 

Does anyone know, or can anyone recommend how I can practise these landings and achieve them properly?

 

Thanks.

Are you using two autopilot for this kinda ops ?  Autoland function will start to trim your aircraft for nose up and start to pushing the yoke to fly the approach from about 400ft AGL, if you takeout the APs from there the aircraft will start to pitch up. 

 

 

The signal of a CAT I ILS is the same signal as a CAT II ILS, is the same signal as a CAT III ILS.

 

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)

 

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.

 

While Luke is getting used to hand flying the landing it's not very helpful to jump in and not allow him to use autothrottle to assist to begin with in the name of realism. Not only do Boeing not forbid this, some airlines have it as part of their SOP.

 

Another point is that in the sim the throttle control input is not kept aligned with the autothrottle input. So after A/T disconnect the first throttle movement will put the engines where they were when the autothrottle was last connected, potentially destabilizing the approach.