No offence intended, Rob. I would have thought that ATC instructions should be followed to the letter, but I am quite happy to be proved wrong.

Ok, thx.

I just get a little irritated, when I have the feeling someone is going "oh dont listen to him he has no idea what he is talking about"

 

Like I said, it is ok to question everything I say and we will talk about it.

(I am not saying I cant be wrong. I have been wrong and will be again, that is a promise)

 

As to ATC.

Yes, even if ATC gives you an altitude restriction at a certain waypoint....if you cant do it you let them know...with "unable"

(that does not mean you can level off at FL110 if you have been cleared to climb to FL 120 of course!)

ATC might not like it, it might even complicate things for them, but if you cant make it...what else can you do?

 

 

ATC might not like it, it might even complicate things for them, but if you cant make it...what else can you do?

 

Exactly.  Sometimes you'll get a late handoff or a late instruction and there's really nothing you can do.  It's better to let ATC know and have them sort it out than to try and keep it quiet...until a conflict alert goes off in the TRACON and they see you're 1000-2000 feet higher than the restriction.

 

They might grumble about it, but all it takes is a vector off the route to kill some altitude, and then "direct [FIX], resume the [NAME] arrival."

 

 

 

I think initial reports regarding Asiana 777 incident stated that A/T was off?

 

I think it was disengaged, yes, but even so, the plane didn't go down because the AT was off.  Having it on would have helped prevent it, but having it off would not have caused it.  If you can't land a plane without AT off then you have no business being up front.

 

I'm getting the feeling that a lot of people think being a pilot means sitting up front and getting a pretty view, while making sure the plane is doing what it's supposed to.  It's quite the opposite, really.  We're up there to be able step in when things go wrong.  Often, that requires taking direct control of the aircraft.

Hi Kyle,

 

In the real world, crews are helped over the mountains of training documentation by the provision of classroom courses and simulator sessions.

 

In our simming world, many of our pilots are unwilling to devote much of their hobby time to reading documents. I have to admit they can look quite daunting! This then perhaps leads to an attitude that leans towards flying the thing for simple pleasures of achievement rather than of mastering the techniques of masterful flying.

 

I am lucky in now being retired and having both the time and level of interest to read a great deal about many flying subjects.

 

The only way round this reluctance to read more would be for someone to devise flying 'courses' online to logically go through each of the competences required for efficient line flying. But I don't know how this could be provided.

 

Any ideas?

The B777 even has a 'throttle wake up mode' with A/T only armed (that is, disengaged).

 

So, in order to "really" turn off the A/T, don't just disengage, but also disarm it (or put in FLCH on the MCP instead    ).

 

 

 

BTW, I'm pretty sure that RW T7 accidents still are not supposed to be discussed here at the PMDG forums. (Not criticizing anybody, but mentioning of Asiana gets us rather close to that situation ...)

Richard:

 

While I am not a customer of theirs, isn't this kind of what Angle Of Attack does?

 

 

In our simming world, many of our pilots are unwilling to devote much of their hobby time to reading documents. I have to admit they can look quite daunting! This then perhaps leads to an attitude that leans towards flying the thing for simple pleasures of achievement rather than of mastering the techniques of masterful flying.

 

If you were referring to my comment:

"We're up there to be able step in when things go wrong.  Often, that requires taking direct control of the aircraft."

 

I wasn't trying to say everyone in the simming hobby needs to be at this level of proficiency.  I was addressing the comment where someone nearly inferred that, since the AT was off in the Asiana crash, that it was a cause of that accident.  The exact reason he mentioned it was unclear, however.  In any case, regardless of what level they choose to simulate on their own, people should know that the pilot's job requires a lot more knowledge and skill than some put across here (and even in the real world - the assertions of the PAPI and GS being out and causing the crash from real world sources sent me into a rant I'm sure some here would've loved to see.)

 

 

 

As an aside:

One thing I'm always struggling with in interacting with this hobby is the disconnect between the logic and actions of simmers.

 

I use Flight Sim to learn new things and fly aircraft or routes that I cannot currently fly.  As such, I utilize a lot of information from the real world in how I sim.  One would think that a lot of this information came from my real world knowledge carried into the sim, but a lot of it also came from me simply reading to find more information about the operation I'm conducting in the sim (I don't fly in the Part 121 world in reality, so most of my questions stemmed from simming).  I utilize it in a way I don't expect from others.

 

What I don't understand, however, is the idea that someone would buy an $80-ish study simulation and not want to spend the time to correctly operate it.  It's not like it doesn't come with a tutorial (in some cases, multiple) to at least give you cursory knowledge.  Those have neither a ton of reading, nor a large time commitment.  If that is too much, then there are several other products out there at a lower level of time commitment, for generally a lot less money, too.

I dont know what your credentials are, but this thread is doing pretty well, I can assure you!

In every thread I read there are mistakes and unaccuracies, you want to close all of them down?

This is a hobby here and most are not profecionals and as long as everyone has an open mind, I think most discussions are fun and interesting.

I am impressed by the overal knowledge here and all other 777 threads by the way!

If you are going to say, things are not correct, then at least name them so we can discuss things further and correct them if necessary.

How should a hobby simmer identify what is correct and not from your (pro?) comment?

So far pretty much everybody has agreed that company procedures and BOEING recommendations are two different things.

Various examples of SOP have been mentioned that confirm that you CAN fly the 777 manual with the AT off or engaged (up to the pilot) but that BOEING recommends it to be engaged.

If ATC gives you instructions that are not considered save by SOP or not considered save by you (the pilot) under the present circumstances than YES you can and should tell ATC "unable"!

This could lead to you getting a delay vector or so, but you dont have to do anything against SOP.

ATC is not a one way street, they are also there to help you!

Also SOP of course take ATC requirements into consideration, so they will not contradict onanother very often.

What you can not do is accept an ATC clearance and then do the opposite.

But I did not say that, did I.

I dont fly for Emirates, so I dont know if they have an SOP that sais max 250kt below FL100, I only heard such a rumour.

One question mark and one less smart remark would have been enough.

I would have explained the same as above.

Scepticism and questioning things is fine.

And everybody can and should do that.

To say something is totaly wrong/not factional you'd better know what you are talking about.

Thank You

Calm down I am not asking for any thread to be shut down, am now back at the hotel & was typing in a rush earlier, re-reading your post I do agree with pretty much most of what you say, was a little confused by an airline SOP banning 250kts below 10000, have never come across an airline trying to force that, they want you at ECON speed as quickly as possible if available on departure.

 

Now of course the flight crew have the final say over what is safe or not, have a read of the topic I participated in over on the MD11 forum if you want to get a headache! From my initial read of your post it felt like you we're saying Airlines can come up with any SOP they choose and ATC just have to deal with it.

 

If you want to know my credentials, who I have been working for the last 15+ years etc than feel free to send me a PM, or perhaps if you are ever in Bahrain I'll get you a beer and you can see for yourself.

 

Cheers

Ok, I am calm again :-)

 

Never had a Bahrainy beer, sounds like a deal, if I ever go there.

 

Not to be nitpicking or to irritate, ECON is cost index based.

If you punch in ECON 25 or so you will see the aircraft descending at close to 250kt (Vnav on path descent).

 

 

Now of course the flight crew have the final say over what is safe or not, have a read of the topic I participated in over on the MD11 forum if you want to get a headache!

 

...ugh...I was wondering why my head hurt just now.

Ok, I am calm again :-)

Never had a Bahrainy beer, sounds like a deal, if I ever go there.

Not to be nitpicking or to irritate, ECON is cost index based.

If you punch in ECON 25 or so you will see the aircraft descending at close to 250kt (Vnav on path descent).

Yes I am fully aware, and yes you are nit picking

...ugh...I was wondering why my head hurt just now.

Ok, I am curious now, can you give me link to it?

It is the top non pinned post on the PMDG md11 forum.

Took a look at that MD11 thread, but gave up after page 1

 

I can only say "oh my God" to that, and I understand why you jumped on what I wrote now, haha

. I would have thought that ATC instructions should be followed to the letter, but I am quite happy to be proved wrong.

 

There is a saying,, "If the Pilot makes a mistake, the Pilot dies...if the ATC makes a mistake, the Pilot dies" so the Pilot gets the Veto and final decision. But of course, the ATC can demand an explanation for the Pilot deviating and the Pilot has to give an explanation within 24 or 48 hrs if requested (I forget which). The onus is on the ATC  to prove that the pilot was egregious in his deviation. All the pilot has to do is show he felt and thought he was in danger for deviating. He/She doesn't have to be in danger.. just the perception is good enough.

 

I think I am right.  :smile:

 

If you have seen any of those aviation disaster shows you would see some cases where the Pilot has not used his authority to speak up and do his thing.. like that New York disaster where they ran out of fuel and crashed.  The ATC kept putting the aircraft in various holds until they ran out of fuel...

 

Then there was another you tube video someone posted where a Pilot used his authority and went for the runway to land basically telling ATC to pipe up.  He was commended for using his final authority. 

Karl,

You wrote -

 

"I use Flight Sim to learn new things and fly aircraft or routes that I cannot currently fly.  As such, I utilize a lot of information from the real world in how I sim.  One would think that a lot of this information came from my real world knowledge carried into the sim, but a lot of it also came from me simply reading to find more information about the operation I'm conducting in the sim"

 

That was exactly my point. Totally agree. :mellow: