OK, but given that I don't yet own 737 yoke or throttle, those are the buttons we're talking about? CMD and A/T? Would FDs need to be disengaged as well?

 

 

-Marko.

 

You can make keyboard shortcuts via NGX CDU. There is no need to disengage FDs, you can disengage AP via MCP (cmd button, or disengage bar), but the only way to disengage AT (not disarm it) is to click AT throttle lever button.

 

OK, but given that I don't yet own 737 yoke or throttle, those are the buttons we're talking about? CMD and A/T? Would FDs need to be disengaged as well?

 

 

-Marko.

 

No need to touch the CMD button(s) or disengage bar. In real life the crew would use the yoke and throttle mounted switches, so assign those.  Assign keys to the AP and A/T disconnect switches (the PMDG assignments are set in the FMC CDU). I use CTRL+Z and CTRL+X as they are conveniently located. I leave the FD on.

Thanks. It didn't cross my mind to look at those key assignments. I do have couple unassigned buttons on my controller.

 

Thanks!

 

 

just as futile as my wish to reclaim the term FOD to mean damage and not the stuff that causes damage

 

The reason we don't use FOD to mean damage is because aircraft damage could have been caused by an internal failure or by an act of nature such has a lightning strike, so all damage is simply referred to as "aircraft damage" and not FOD. The beauty of acronyms is that they can be used for different things by different companies. 

The reason we don't use FOD to mean damage is because aircraft damage could have been caused by an internal failure or by an act of nature such has a lightning strike, so all damage is simply referred to as "aircraft damage" and not FOD. The beauty of acronyms is that they can be used for different things by different companies.

I wasn't trying to restart the FOD debate here, just pointing out how futile it is trying to push personal pet hates onto other people. However I will say that different people using the same acronyms for entirely opposite purposes is not beautiful in any way. It's totally confusing and contradictory.

 

 

You need to get a sense of perspective about this.  Annoying as it may be, the use of the term manual landing has absolutely no impact on the health of the sim hobby, nor on what real world aviators think and say.

 

I don't recall all of this autoland discussion (much less even the thought to use the term "manual landing") back with FS98 (or earlier, but I didn't pay attention to internet discussion prior to that sim).  Moreover, "ILS landing" is a relatively recent addition as well.  Granted, it's not as new, but it's definitely something that's crept in.  Because of the increased use of the terms, it's clear that - yes - it has affected the health of the sim hobby.

 

We (or at least I) spend more time now notifying people that autolands are not normal; and an ILS is a type of approach, while the landing is a separate matter altogether.  It's not just a phraseology thing; rather, it's much more.  It just goes to show the intense level of assumed automation dependence.  You can even see it in other threads, like when people ask how they can get the FMC to do something they could easily accomplish with HDG SEL, or another AP mode.

 

While I agree it doesn't really affect the health of the hobby too much, consider the fact that there are many here who may actually step into the real world realm.  Ever sit with a new real world pilot who grew up flying with FS?  I have.  It's quite a task to get them out of the habit of staring at the instruments all day in PPL training (something that truly helps the IR, however.)

 

Maybe it's because I often have to battle (aviation) misinformation in my meetings that makes it get me so ramped up.  The very fact that I have to battle misinformation simply to help future concepts in the NAS move forward is proof in and of itself that it has an effect on the industry.  What if someone wasn't in that meeting to make the correction so that members knew that the concept was actually in line with the regs, unlike a few people claimed?  If nobody addressed the misinformation, something particularly useful to the future of aviation could have been shot down and never implemented.  I'd consider that to be unhealthy to the NAS, quite honestly.

 

Similarly, people here may well end up being airline execs, pilots, rampies, and so on.  If they walk in with misinformation that was allowed to perpetuate here, it could actually have negative affects in the real world.  Sure, it's a stretch, but I'll be [darned] if I'm just going to sit idly by and potentially have a ton of misinformed future aviators.

 

 

 

...and you're right, the FOD discussion really is futile, as apparently even ICAO and Eurocontrol have adopted the additional 'debris' version as well:

The "Damage" term was prevalent in military circles, but has since been pre-empted by a definition of FOD that looks at the "debris". This shift was made "official" in the latest FAA Advisory Circulars FAA A/C 150/5220-24 'Airport Foreign Object Debris (FOD) Detection Equipment' (2009) and FAA A/C 150/5210-24 'Airport Foreign Object Debris (FOD) Management'. Eurocontrol, ECAC, and the ICAO have all rallied behind this new definition. As Iain McCreary of Insight SRI put it in a presentation to NAPFI (August 2010), "You can have debris present without damage, but never damage without debris." Likewise, FOD prevention systems work by sensing and detecting not the damage but the actual debris. Thus FOD is now taken to mean the debris itself, and the resulting damage is referred to as "FOD damage".

 

 

...if only they'd been educated sooner.

Yeah...what he said

I did a manual landing just now.  There I said it.  The world hasn't ended.  Your "manual landing" campaign is just as futile as my wish to reclaim the term FOD to mean damage and not the stuff that causes damage.  You need to get a sense of perspective about this.  Annoying as it may be, the use of the term manual landing has absolutely no impact on the health of the sim hobby, nor on what real world aviators think and say.

Stop trolling.  You know as well as I and any other real pilot out there that there is no such term as manual landing.  People in this community do think that autolands are the norm because that is all that they do...mainly because it's easier to set up for an autoland and stare at your computer monitor than it is to grab the controls and actually FLY the airplane.  So in that regards, a hand flown (better term) landing is abnormal for them.  I bet you those same people are the ones reaching for the autopilot switch before the gear is even all the way up.  I'd wager that less than 5% of NGX owners have flown 1 pattern by hand.  What I want to know is what those people do when they fly into an airport without an ILS?  Or do they just avoid them?  

To the OP:  You don't need the ILS data to land the 737.  Find the runway, line it up, and point the nose towards it.  Follow the PAPI/VASI and watch your airspeed.  You will be amazed how forgiving and easy the 737NG is when flying by hand.  If you're not stable by 1000 feet or so, go around and try again.

 

 

Stop trolling.

 

For what it's worth, Kevin and I normally have a go at each other about certain topics from time to time, and I have a feeling he meant it more to give me a mental check than to troll.

 

Despite getting me a little riled up from time to time, it keeps me on my toes.  Beyond that, I appreciate a good debate, and he normally covers his bases pretty well, so it's a good mental challenge.

For what it's worth, Kevin and I normally have a go at each other about certain topics from time to time, and I have a feeling he meant it more to give me a mental check than to troll.

 

Despite getting me a little riled up from time to time, it keeps me on my toes.  Beyond that, I appreciate a good debate, and he normally covers his bases pretty well, so it's a good mental challenge.

Thanks Kyle, I knew you wouldn't see it as trolling.  It was a challenge, but not intended to stir up an argument.  We all have our pet hates but we can't impose those on others. We can however try to change habits by persuasion and education. The thing is though, manual landing may be redundant but it isn't actually wrong or misleading.

 

As for FOD, "Foreign Object Debris" is just as redundant as "Manual Landing", but even worse it's a tautology  What was wrong with "Debris"?  So now the damage caused by foreign objects is not FOD, but FOD Damage.  The D already stood for "Damage", so that makes it Foreign Object Damage Damage. I'm not at all surprised your quote shows the FAA was primarily responsible for formalising this 180 deg shift in meaning. B)

My advice on learning to hand fly would be to just get out there and practice flying around...maintain altitude and vary speed. Set pitch, power and flaps and practice descending at a controlled rate. Then when you can make the aircraft fly a controlled descent profile add a runway and try to hit it. Once you can consistently hit the touchdown zone on the VASI/PAPI, work on perfecting your flare and touchdown. Don't even bother setting the ILS etc. until you've mastered flying by pitch/power/view out the windscreen, it's just a distraction.

 

 

Thanks Kyle, I knew you wouldn't see it as trolling.  It was a challenge, but not intended to stir up an argument.  We all have our pet hates but we can't impose those on others. We can however try to change habits by persuasion and education. The thing is though, manual landing may be redundant but it isn't actually wrong or misleading.

 

Welcome.  Despite getting worked up in defense of my ideas from time to time, I actually appreciate having to go make sure I'm correctly presenting my argument (to the best of my knowledge).  In the end, I've learned a lot from it.

 

I get that manual landing isn't actually wrong or misleading.  I still believe, however, that it could indicate to others (those less knowledgeable) that 'manual' is being used to clarify that it is outside the norm, and that an 'automated/automatic' landing is therefore the norm.  I see it as a slippery slope, personally.

 

...and thanks for using "pet hate."  I absolutely despise the term "pet peeve."  Any time people ask me what my "pet peeves" are, I generally respond with "the phrase pet peeve...no, seriously."

 

 

 

As for FOD, "Foreign Object Debris" is just as redundant as "Manual Landing", but even worse it's a tautology.

 

You know, having defended the "new" definition before, I'm finding that I don't quite like it for the reason you brought up.

 

I'm guessing the "new" version came from the mil (and "correct") version, and somewhat morphed in their "walks to pick up items to prevent FOD," which then became known as "FOD walks" to simplify.  From there, I'm guessing people just associated the objects they picked up with the term FOD, and then they backronymed it.

 

You've converted me on that.

 

 

 

I'm not at all surprised your quote shows the FAA was primarily responsible for formalising this 180 deg shift in meaning.

 

Nor am I, sir.  Nor am I.

 

I'm working on a program to incentivise the equipping aircraft with PBN-capable equipment.  It's been worked up to a point where they're trying to incentivise jumping over a 24' fence with razor wire at the top, where I'd argue (and have argued) that the effort would be better spent lowering the fence, and removing the razor wire (making it less cost-prohibitive from the training of crews and certification of the airline/aircraft/etc.)

 

Typical.

Everyone in the sim community have their own goals and expectations when it comes to realism. While some may see success as simply not crashing the aircraft on landing, others (myself included) want to mimic real world operations as much as possible. Most advanced simmers, many of them real pilots, have their pet peeves when it comes to terms and concepts being incorrectly disseminated in these forums. I remember getting into a lengthy debate regarding turboprops and autothrottles. I try not to wade into these debates unless I feel reasonably knowledgeable about the topic in question. Regarding previous posts about autolands, I'm always amused when it is discussed as if it were an everyday common procedure. In reality, its almost never used in real world commercial flying. Most approaches are hand flown to touchdown once the field is in sight and the aircraft is established on final approach. I understand that its a sim and there's no harm in doing autolands every time if one wishes. I appreciate people's efforts on these forums to separate facts from "simisms" . in the end it benefits us all, whether or not you take this great hobby seriously or not. Regards

...and thanks for using "pet hate." I absolutely despise the term "pet peeve." Any time people ask me what my "pet peeves" are, I generally respond with "the phrase pet peeve...no, seriously."

 

Yes, that phrase would probably test the patience of a care bear.

 

 

I'm guessing the "new" version came from the mil (and "correct") version, and somewhat morphed in their "walks to pick up items to prevent FOD," which then became known as "FOD walks" to simplify. From there, I'm guessing people just associated the objects they picked up with the term FOD, and then they backronymed it.

 

Funnily enough that's exactly how I assumed this happened.