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.

The point is it's not close enough to train on. Nowhere near good enough, so vastly is justified. It's more than good enough for a hobby and for practicing procedures however. The FSX flight model is very basic and has little subtlety. Dynamics due to flap and gear transitions for example may be way off or even non existent. The NGX isn't particularly good at that, and its handling in ground effect has also been questioned (though that thread was trampled on unjustly IMO). It's actually harder to land than a 737 FFS. In fact, sims in FSX in general are harder to fly than full flight sims, which in turn are harder to fly than the real thing.

The point is it's not close enough to train on. Nowhere near good enough, so vastly is justified. It's more than good enough for a hobby and for practicing procedures however. The FSX flight model is very basic and has little subtlety. Dynamics due to flap and gear transitions for example may be way off or even non existent. The NGX isn't particularly good at that, and its handling in ground effect has also been questioned (though that thread was trampled on unjustly IMO). It's actually harder to land than a 737 FFS. In fact, sims in FSX in general are harder to fly than full flight sims, which in turn are harder to fly than the real thing.

It is close enough to train on. That is why commercial organisations can and do use it to train paying customers to commerical standards. It is not the only tool, and it is not the final tool, but to say it is not close enough is to ignore reality.

It is close enough to train on. That is why commercial organisations can and do use it to train paying customers to commerical standards. It is not the only tool, and it is not the final tool, but to say it is not close enough is to ignore reality.

It isn't close enough to train landings, which is the point of this thread. No FSX based sim has that qualification. You could use it to train certain procedures, but that isn't the same thing at all. The higher the level of simulator the more training can be done on it. FSX and X plane based sims are at the bottom end of the scale, Level D being the top.

Make your mind up. "The point is it's not close enough to train on." is not the same as "It isn't close enough to train landings" (by which I presume you actually it is not close enough to certify landing training.

Interesting thread, I had a great experience in Lufthansas MD-11 "level D" full motion sim in Frankfurt. Landing the MD at Cologne once and 3-4 times at Frankfurt was, ahem... Let me say, a dynamic experience. Of course were my 300 hours in FSX valuable, but the landing I learnt there...

I always liked this little documentary about the ILS (documentary for professional pilots mind you).

 

 

Even if the ILS (in this case) is totally wrong due to malfunction, the Autopilot/Autoland logic will still follow the glideslope/localizer and keep the needles centred. In this case an unmonitored malfunction caused the glideslope to display "on slope" everywhere.

 

This unmonitored malfunction exceeded tolerances even for a Cat I ILS signal, but as the radio transmitter for the Glideslope was still emitting signal (incorrect signal mind you), the ILS on the aircraft was happy to continue on Land3 mode and would have followed that (incorrect) Glideslope indication all the way to 50ft and then would have entered Flare mode. (and presumably landed short of the runway as a result).

 

The aircraft sees localizer+glideslope indications, modifies it's pitch and bank to keep the needles centred, and continues down to 800ft Radio altitude and enters Land3 mode. At 400ft the Flare mode arms, and at 50ft activates, arresting the descent rate from 750ft/min or so on the 3° glidepath for touchdown.

 

The autopilot doesn't care that the ILS is a cat 1 2 3 or even (in the NZ60 incident case) just plain malfunctioning. As long as it recieves a glidepath signal, localizer signal, and shows a reasonable descent rate (~800ft/min) it will follow the electronic signals all the way down to the flare.

 

The flare logic does not follow Glideslope, it just rounds out the descent while following localizer.

 

In the incident case in the videos, the Glideslope would have led the aircraft to touchdown in the sea several nm short of the runway... possibly. (I suspect the Glideslope signal would have been lost at some point, but by then it may have been lower than 50ft, and in the late stages of flare mode, the glideslope is irrelevant to the autopilot.

Make your mind up. "The point is it's not close enough to train on." is not the same as "It isn't close enough to train landings" (by which I presume you actually it is not close enough to certify landing training.

I've been clear and consistent. It's not good enough for any handling training. The thread subject was landings. There would be no landing training to certify on such a device. I don't know where you get the idea you could train such manoeuvres on a sim based on the NGX.

 

 

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

 

Which is why you so readily jumped with your "I worked for FAA" into a quarrel about a European airline?

 

I am with Kevin, you are FAA-centric, at times almost to the point of denying validity of any other regulatory agency that happens to have a different view to the FAA (and it is not only you).

 

FWIW, about this specific discussion, it seems to me that I argue A and you argue Not B, where A and B are some different things, so I am leaving it at that.

Disregard. Accidentally wrote in wrong topic.

 

Here are some good free courses showing landing training.  Also check out Angle of Attack Aviator 90 training.

 

On the NGX, one thing that helped me is to be sure that your throttles are located approx. where they show in the VC of the NGX (this was said earlier).  Start the landing with the autopilot, when you disengage the autopilot, the aircraft should be trimmed for landing, so little correction is needed.  Keep the corrections very small and anticipate the needed corrections, don't end up trying to catch an off-course and out of control landing.

Start out using the autopilot to 500 ft., then disengage.  Later practice using the autopilot to 1000ft. then disengage.  Later practice disengaging the autopilot at the FAP and control the landing. 

Later you can add wind, etc.

Which is why you so readily jumped with your "I worked for FAA" into a quarrel about a European airline?

 

What?

...moreover, that shouldn't be "for;" rather "with."

 

 

 

I am with Kevin, you are FAA-centric, at times almost to the point of denying validity of any other regulatory agency that happens to have a different view to the FAA (and it is not only you).

 

How can I not be?  I live here, work with the FAA and US Airlines.  Am I supposed to be a walking book of every other country's knowledge, too?  Sorry, but no.  And if you wouldn't mind pointing me to a post where I denied the validity of any other regulatory agency, you can feel free to assert that.  Until then, don't running me through the mud for it.

 

Just because I don't address every single regulatory agency doesn't mean I'm discrediting them.  I'm leaving them out of the discussion.  If it's so important to you, then I suggest you bring that expertise into the discussion, because I don't know a lot of it, and honestly don't care to - they don't affect me.

 

 

 

FWIW, about this specific discussion, it seems to me that I argue A and you argue Not B, where A and B are some different things, so I am leaving it at that.

 

No.  I really didn't.

You made a statement (that I'd already brought up), and I picked at it.  You made the assertion that CAT I and CAT III equipment might be less precise, and that is wholly false.  The equipment is the same.  You brought up interference as an example, which can be true, but when it comes down to it, the aircraft is going to follow it, right or wrong, CAT I or III.  Approval has nothing to do with it.

 

I get your point debating approval, or that it may not be safe.

 

The manner in which your argument was stated could lead others to infer other things, however (specific to the post I quoted).  For this reason, I took a different angle in addressing your post.  To say that you were fully incorrect would be trying to prove a falsehood on my part.  Sorry if that seemed like Point B instead of your Point A, but I'm trying to head off some person seeing your post and thinking the equipment itself is different, the design tolerances are different, or the site location tolerances are different.

And just to state. This topic was about tips for landing without autopilot.

 

 

Sent from my Apple communications device.

William - I started a different thread about that topic when this one went into regulatory direction.

 

A lot of useful info there. It's called "Landings (unautomated)" or something along those lines.

How to land the NGX without the autopilot running the show in CMD?

Well the 737-800 is a very fast, very heavy cessna with 2 jet engines.

 

To succesfully land it, you need to have a good instrument scan which includes at least 2 things.

 

1: Knowing what the runway should look like as you approach on the 3° glidepath

2: The ability to react to the speed indicator and see trends (stable, accelerating, decelerating) 

 

Other things you need are what you get taught on the very first (second after TIF) flight you ever do at a flight school. Effects of Controls.

 

Adding engine thrust makes you go faster, slightly pitches you up, makes you climb.

Pushing forward makes the nose pitch down slightly, makes you descend faster, and makes you accelerate.

 

One action always causes several reactions, some of them instantaneous (pushing forward makes the nose pitch down) and some of them gradually (acceleration).

 

You are wanting to stay stable, so move several things at once. If you find yourself slighly low but at a stable speed, you can't 'just' pull the stick back. That will slow you down as much as reduce your decent.

 

Engine power lags slighly behind the thrust lever position. This is normal, because the spinny things in the engine take energy and time to spin faster.

 

Go up = Push power forward "A LITTLE" and "AT THE SAME TIME" ease back on the yoke.

If you find you have to hold the yoke back to maintain pitch - this is what Trim is for.

 

Always keep darting your eyes between looking at the runway and looking at relevant instruments. Speed being the big one. Glideslope/Localizer if you are flying an ILS. NOT glideslope/localizer if you are NOT flying an ILS .

 

If you have been looking at the speed indicator for long enough for your brain to think "hmm, that's not moving anywhere", it's time to look somewhere else. Probably the runway.

 

You want the runway to look like the proper approach picture and not move. No silly tricks with "The runway should be located 1/10th of an inch to the left of that screw". That stops working when the wind is blowing from a different direction. Just look for the right runway 'shape' as per perspective, and make sure it doesn't move.

 

Look at the point you want to land on. Is it moving? up? down? left? right? Not moving at all and just getting bigger? That's what you want. bigger.

 

Keep your speed constant. Little smooth movements of throttle. 

 

This technique should get you there WITH PRACTICE. ie do it lots.

It should work with any aircraft too.

Then you can start playing around with short circling stuff

 

Well OP you can't have a much better reply in a thread then the above....great post