Do they? Well then, I stand corrected... I guess now most operators DO have the HGS installed. I commuted almost exclusively on United and Alaska for quite a while there (and now finally live in base) so I guess I lost track of how behind the rest of the industry I am!

Pilots start out landing planes that don't even have hydraulics, radar, anti-ice, autopilot, and sometimes even without GPS. Heck, I started flying in a plane what had LORAN (had what??? yeah, exactly),

 

Myself, I sure was glad to see LORAN vacate the 160m ham band.   

For many years, you could only run low power on 160m. How much varied to location

in the country, and whether day or night. As I recall, around the coasts were the most

restricted, as they also used LORAN for maritime too. I think..  That's been a few years

now..  And LORAN made an awful racket to listen to if you dialed it up on a radio.

Since they runnoft, we have been able to have a clear 160m band, and also had our

power levels pumped back up to the normal legal limit.  B)

How about American?

At AA we do have the HGS and we hand fly AIII approaches but we don't do autolands.

Thankyou for that information Joe. I like to configure my PMDG aircraft  close to the company I'm flying at the time and American is one of my favorites for their Latin American routes.

Hope this helps, United SubCO 737 inflight

 

I also have noticed UA SubCO 737's-738's use the Honeywell and the 737-900/ER use the Collins MCP

OMG. Not the CI fixation again.

 

Guys, it's really not important. It changes. Don't dwell on it. Some of you guys act like its hard-set and integral to the operations. It's just an easy way of setting climb, cruise and descent speeds.

OMG. Not the CI fixation again.

 

Guys, it's really not important. It changes. Don't dwell on it. Some of you guys act like its hard-set and integral to the operations. It's just an easy way of setting climb, cruise and descent speeds.

+1.

 

CI isn't that big a deal in FSX. In real life, crew are having to constantly adjust speeds etc to meet time constraints which throw the FMC/CI generated speed schedules out the window anyway. It's nice to have, but it really isn't a deal breaker.

 

At AA we do have the HGS and we hand fly AIII approaches but we don't do autolands.

All that equipment and no Autoland? Why?

All that equipment and no Autoland? Why?

 

No need to.  The HGS gets you down to the same CAT III minimums as autoland.  There are recurring flight confidence checks and tracking requirements associated with autoland that are not required for the HGS so it's the less expensive system to maintain.

 

 

it's the less expensive system to maintain.

 

My desk is a few down from a guy who's seemingly on the phone all day with operators about equipage, and I can certainly verify this.

 

While his group is mainly concerned about tailored approaches, it indirectly deals with equipage as equipage determines the mins available.

This is very interesting.  What a nice unintended consequence of investing in the HGS system.

 

My preference is always be a pilot and hand fly the approach, unless I have pax not used to light twins.  For their benefit, I will fly the coupled approach to provide a smoother ride down the chute but that's in a light twin.  Which reminds me of a back seat ride in a Beech Sierra watching an old Air Force guy hand fly an approach on a windy day at Gulfport MS... my goodness, those needles were glued to the center dot!  My instrument rating was still months away and I could never imagine how that was even possible. Good pilotage is something earned.

No need to. The HGS gets you down to the same CAT III minimums as autoland. There are recurring flight confidence checks and tracking requirements associated with autoland that are not required for the HGS so it's the less expensive system to maintain.

My assumption this is ops-spec dependent. For us, a hybrid approach (autoland monitored with AIII) buys us another 200 RVR and 20 ft, vs either a handflown AIII or autoland without HGS. It may not be relevant enough to be worth maintaining the extra equipment for most operators, but there are days on the northwest coast where it helps.

 

And btw, as an FO, let me just say how much I appreciate PMDGs modeling of the HGS. I spend real AIII/autoland approaches staring at the HGS status panel, watching the CA stare at out the HGS like a zombie. Flying a few of these in the NGX gives me an idea of what they're doing lol.

We can go down to 600/400/300 with the HGS.  Autoland would probably get it down to 300/300/300 (basing that on our numbers from the 777 as we don't have published autoland mins for our 737 fleet).  Seeing as only a handful of airports in the states support 300 RVR approaches for all practical purposes the HGS will get us in anywhere we are trying to go just as well as autoland would.

 

 

 

And btw, as an FO, let me just say how much I appreciate PMDGs modeling of the HGS. I spend real AIII/autoland approaches staring at the HGS status panel, watching the CA stare at out the HGS like a zombie. Flying a few of these in the NGX gives me an idea of what they're doing lol.

 

I had to do a couple CAT III approaches in the sim when I got the type rating.  While it was pretty intuitive and fun to fly with the HUD I was happy to go back to just watching for red or yellow lights.

No need to. The HGS gets you down to the same CAT III minimums as autoland. There are recurring flight confidence checks and tracking requirements associated with autoland that are not required for the HGS so it's the less expensive system to maintain.

Low minima without the automation?! Sounds bizarre to me... but then, I'm no pilot

AS can do 50' with autoland or HUD but 30' with both. Apparently some bean counters somewhere looked at the saves vs the cost and decided it's worth it. I suspect AS has a higher percent of saves than AA based on route structure so AA said the increased training and certification isn't worth it.

 

 

Low minima without the automation?! Sounds bizarre to me...

 

Low minima has been around longer than the automation.... USAF was using GCA (Ground Controlled Approach) for near zero-zero approaches as early as the late-1950's.  I got to do a few a these to give controllers no-gyro approach practice when I was getting my instrument rating in a Piper Arrow at Offutt AFB. Lots of fun landing under the hood.