Visual Approaches

[michal 44]

>I was talking about real ATC :)Yes, real ATC can give you visual approach even if you did not ask for it. On a good weather day in the San Francisco Bay Area, Bay Area Approach have everyone set up for the 'published' (say "Quiet Bridge") visual approach to runway 28L. ATC likes to handle everything based on a standard "flow" and on a given date perhaps they set up such flow based on a particular visual approach. Yes, pilot can turn it down but that would be rather very rare - by turning it down you pretty much deviate from their standard practice at the moment and this no doubt will cost you delay. You are probably confusing visual approach with contact approach. It is also important to remember that there are "visual" approaches and also "published" visual approaches.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

[Guest]

But if you are busy hand flying the approach, aren't you not able to have good situational awareness? Doesn't Lufthansa require auto pilot and southwest auto thorttle to keep the pilots aware of other traffic, etc?Personally I think many pilots put their ego infront of safety, they would rather get the rush of a manual landing.

[XWRed5 0]

Precisely Big Al,Most airlines will specify that the autopilot is in for every approach down to minimums (so the autopilot can fly the go around) or to when the pilots are comfortably visual and a landing is assured. Only then will pilots disconnect the autopilot and hand fly the last 1000 or so feet to touchdown. On rare occasions, when the situation is right (i.e. the weather is good, the traffic light and other type/airport specific issues) a fully manual approach may be flown, even then, pilots may elect to hand fly the aircraft but use the flight director (with the other pilot making the selections on the FCU/MCP as required).On even rarer occasions, pilots will manually fly the approach completely (raw data ILS). This increases the workload of the other guy to the point where his ability to monitor the accuracy of the handling pilot is reduced. Situational awareness is reduced, this is not a good thing.Lufthansa will not be the only airline to insist that the autopilot be used for most of the time. It is great at reducing the workload on the pilots (at an already busy time) and allowing them the capacity to get the bigger picture.From my experience, most of the guys I fly with, we disengage the autopilot at about 1000ft radio (or when we're visual if that's later). It makes life easier for all of us and reduces our susceptability to untrapped errors (either ours or someone elses).I do disagree about the ego before safety, it's perfectly safe to perform a manual landing and there's no "rush" from it, just a bit more control. I think you'll find most *airline pilots* are happy to let the autopilot take the strain most of the time.Let's not forget that many airfields aren't properly equiped for autolands so pilots *have* to go manual at some point. Equally the autoland system does funny things sometimes and we need to be able to take over quickly (I had one Captain have to take over from an autoland in the flare (it suddenly threw on about 5-10 degrees of bank at about 30 feet).I think we may all be talking at cross purposes, Reggie nicely summed up the differences between FS and real life *GA* flying. Airline flying is another game altogether, let's not mix up the two.Airliners don't tend to crash because the pilots can't *fly* them, they crash when they are not *operated* correctly. To operate an airliner requires a great deal more than one steely eyed, 3 million hour, super pilot with Ray Bans and muscles. There's a bigger picture at stake.IMHO not using all the aircraft systems effectively at any stage of the flight is not only unsafe but verging on criminal negligence.To sum up, in the airliner world most approaches are automatic ILS, most landings manual.Hope this makes sense,Ian

[Guest]

>>Flying an approach on auto-pilot is never safer than a>manual>>approach unless:>>1. The minimums are so low that automation is required.>>2. The pilot can't fly the plane on a stabilized approach->in>>which case he/she shouldn't be flying it in IFR :)>...>>You're kidding right? >>Or are you just talking about GA?No he's not kidding. Never trust a machine to do what you cannot do yourself at least as well.That's true for any profession btw.

[XWRed5 0]

I think you need to re read what was written, in fact, cos I'm nice, I'll repeat the bit that worried me."Flying an approach on auto-pilot is *never* safer than a manual approach unless....." (my emphasis)So what you're saying is that it's safer for the pilots to wrestle manfully with the controls to fight the aircraft down the approach and land than it is to let the autopilot take the strain and for the pilot to monitor the autopilot and keep the big picture in view.Sorry, don't buy that.....I completely agree with your comments but that's not what we're talking about, it's not a case of "let's plug in the autopilot because I can't fly a manual approach" it's more ... "Let's use the autopilot because the wind is shifting about and it's turbulent, it's quite busy and I want to keep abreast of the traffic situation (particularly those on the runway and those closest to me), that dicky generator on the number two engine needs to be kept in mind and I want to ensure the glidepath and localiser get checked against another nav source (or indeed by looking out of the window). I also want to ensure I've got the spare capacity coming down the approach to handle something unexpected (pop up traffic/TCAS RA or something like that) in an intellegent way."As I said in my previous (but lower down) post, not using all the aircraft systems available to you is dangerous verging on criminal negligence. I'm being fairly specific to airline flying (hence my referal to GA in my post).To clarify my position, I'm not saying never fly manually, just that it should be....Flying an approach *manually* is never safer than an automatic approach unless the approach aids/autopilot is not capable (approved or functioning) for the approach you are making.Hope that makes sense,Ian

[Guest UKPilot]

Hi all, I fly the 737-800 in the 'real world' for a UK carrier (narrows it down!). Just thought I'd add my two pence, in accordance with our SOP's the way we fly a visual in the NG is first requsting one from the tower, once cleared for the visual they usually let you descend to traffic pattern altitude which for us is 1500ft QNH. I always disconnect the autopilot to fly a visual, because thats really the whole point! I fly ILS and VOR approaches almost every day its quite rare to get a visual, only usually in Spain, Portugal or the smaller Greek airports, I've never been given one in the UK, its always too busy. Anyhow, I digress, so AP disconnect, then we re-cycle the FD's this is to enable the FD to be in 'pop up mode' in case of a Go Around, at this point the missed approach altitude is also set. We actually leave the A/T in this is because it provides Alpha Floor protection and is just anounciated as 'ARM' in the PFD, so we just de-select speed. The only time I leave the A/T in is if its a calm day because you really don't need to touch the power and it will retard itself at 27ft RA anyway. I'll take it out is if its windy, because I can react much quicker by adding power and taking it off, if you leave it in when its windy sometimes you get a bit of lag and also you have to be ready for the pitch change, which can be a lot especially whe you select Flap40 and the power comes on! Plus you can give it some in the case of a bit of windshear which is usually the case at Gatwick landing on 26L as it comes over the hangars!! sometimes you even need to keep a bit of power on in the flare to stop high rates of sink. Thats about it really, hope I haven't bored you all. Might help next time you can see the field from 50 miles out and think I'll have go..... and why not!!!If you have anymore questions fire away, hopefully can give you an insight into the way the NG is flown in 'real life'.Regards UKP

[Guest]

Have a DVD here about Dutchbird airlines A320 operations (they're gone now).On several occasions they talk about a "standard approach" by which they mean no autopilot, no autothrottle, just FD.And that's in an A320, even more automated than the 738 :)

[XWRed5 0]

Hey UKP,I've had a visual approach from Newcastle and I hear of guys getting them in Edinburgh but most of the time you're right, vectors for the ILS.I didn't know the NG had Alpha Floor protection, I thought that was only an Airbus autothrottle mode.737-800 from the UK, I can think of two (or have I mixed up my NG types?)Take care,Ian

[Guest]

I made a mistake, Southwest has no auto-throttle, I stated they use it.Anyway, I think pilots just don't trust computers, but haven't come to grips with the fact that the AP can fly the airplane more percisely and within whatever limits you give it. It allows you to monitor the airplane rather than be swept up in flying it while your copilot is busy talking to the ATC. I believe it is much more safe when you have the AP engaged for almost all situations. Now in the sim, I rarely use it, and never use autoland, because I get more enjoyment out of doing it myself. But that is in a sim, not real life with peoples lives in my hand.

[Guest griffinflying]

Ian, So, what you are saying is that an airline pilot, or any pilot for that matter is criminally stupid for doing something that he has been doing for thousands of hours in various aircraft? Let us not forget that there is at least two people in the cockpit, one watching the gauges and one doing the rest of the workload in some of the most modern aircraft with state of the art avionics. That is Criminal???? Geesh I guess that the times I flew my Skyhawk on an NDB approach into KSCH in the muck I was "criminally neglegent that I should have been shot on sight for possibly endangering the people below! Oh MY...how did we ever survive before the advent of TCAS, autoland and HUDs? Guess aviators had to something called...fly the airplane, not push buttons and "manage". What a concept! I do know a few things about flying RW and sim. I work for an airline in maintenance, and I am also a private pilot who is instrument rated.

[XWRed5 0]

Close but no cigar. Read what I said again, I thought quite carefully about the words and phrases I used.Do you recognise :"I'm being fairly specific to airline flying" - so that's your comment about "or any pilot for that matter" out. It also gets rid of your bit about flying the Skyhawk. So on to the rest of it...You are correct, there are two pilots in the cockpit, one to fly the aircraft, the other to monitor *and do everything else*. When you fly a manual approach you have one hand flying and one monitoring *and doing everything else*. The everything else bit that the other guy is doing can, in some situations, overload him to the point at which he stops monitoring (or at least monitoring properly) leaving the other guy doing the really important bit (flying the aircraft) pretty much working on his own. You've just taken away all monitoring of the flight path at a critical phase of flight. This is not generally considered a good thing.If the autopilot is in, one guy is monitoring the autopilot (so he's not totally absorbed with the physical flying, more the management of the flight path) and the other guy is doing everything else. If the other guy is overloaded and doesn't monitor the monitoring pilot then it's less of a problem. Both pilots will be checking changes to the autopilot flight modes and other inputs (as a matter of course) so the likelihood of the autopilot being programmed wrong is less and there's a guy whose sole purpose it is to check the autopilot is correctly flying what was programmed anyway so problems with the autopilot are pretty well looked after too. This is a much safer and redundant way of operating the aircraft. More errors will be trapped by this way of "flying" the approach than the previous."Oh MY...how did we ever survive before the advent of TCAS, autoland" in blissful ignorance actually. TCAS is a great situational awareness tool, would you like me to list some of the accidents it could have avoided? The US mandates that all airliners (or possibly aircraft used for commercial reasons, I don't know the rule exactly) have TCAS fitted. Is that because all US pilots can't fly? Of course not, it's because they have recognised the massive situational awareness advantages in having such a system. It's not the be all and end all of traffic collision avoidance (see DHL vs Russian airliner) but it's a step in the right direction. Autolands now allow operations into airfields in truly awful weather without scaring or over stressing the pilots (an autoland is still a pretty stressful event). It sounds like you're saying that pilots shouldn't use technology to make their lives easier and flights safer. For AIRLINE FLYING most operators will do anything to make flights safer, ego's notwithstanding."Guess aviators had to something called...fly the airplane, not push buttons and "manage". What a concept!"I liked this one, it made me smile. In GA you are correct, autopilots are rare and those that are fitted are usually quirky and unreliable, they also tend to be somewhat unintuitive to use and can cause more trouble than they are worth. However - FOR AIRLINE FLYING - modern day autopilots are so good and reliable, not using them during critical part of the flight is only considered when the workload is low (good weather, low traffic density and a whole host of other issues).As an example, one of the biggest killers in AIRLINE FLYING is CFIT (controlled flight into terrain). If the pilot was hand flying it, would it have still happened? Of course it would. CFIT occurs when people are flying the aircraft and not managing the flight. AIRLINE FLYING is much more about managing (or maybe operating) the flight than it is about flying. Accidents rarely occur because the pilots can't fly the aircraft, they occur when the pilots make the wrong decision about something. Therefore, to help reduce accidents, give the pilots as much time and free capacity as possible to make good decisions. If that involves using the autopilot, then do it, they won't criticise a pilot and call him a a namby pamby girl for using the autopilot in a high workload situation. They will however, prosecute him and smear his reputation and memory if he's a macho, steely eyed fighter ace with the right stuff - but dead.As a private pilot, you have been taught how to fly the aircraft in many different situations. For AIRLINE FLYING, flying the aircraft is just as important but where it is available - use the autopilot, it frees up the pilots to worry about the bigger picture. Even in the engine failure after take off case, on the airbus you can plug the autopilot in at 100ft and then start handling the emergency.What I'm saying (not very well judging from some of the responses I've had) is that the autopilot (and autothrottle) is a reliable and easy way of reducing pilots workloads during critical portions of the flight. The approach phase of a flight can be high workload for many different reasons and as such the autopilot *should* be used most of the time. If, for whatever reason, the workload is low then it is perfectly acceptable to take out some or all of the automatics and hand fly the approach for practise but this should only be after careful consideration of the big picture and due thought of how the approach will unfold. You don't get points for style, manliness or macho in airline flying, only for keeping the aircraft safe.I hope this clears up the point I'm trying to make,IanP.S. "I do know a few things about flying RW and sim. I work for an airline in maintenance, and I am also a private pilot who is instrument rated" I wouldn't advise you start willy waving here, you never know the qualifications/profession of the people you're talking to.P.P.S. I'm going to be away until Tuesday so I'll check back then to see how this topic is getting on.

[mnmon 0]

This whole discussion reminds of the thread that came up earlier this week about the visual approach to Rwy 13R at JFK. There was even an article about it in the latest issue of Flying magazine by an ATP. It's a totally hand flown affair into one of the largest and busiest airports in the world. I'm not a real world pilot (currently), though many years ago I did fly C150's and C172's. I also deal with computers and complex machinery in my professional life (experimental physics). From both experiences I can say that always relying on techonology will surely bite you in the a**; usually at the most inopportune times. My old CFI would always tell me to spend the cruise portion of the flight thinking about how to handle different scenarios when things start breaking in the plane. In my current real life I have to continually deal with students who claim that because the "computer gave them a number, it must be right". I wouldn't want any of them to be in the left seat of a flight I'm on. Mike

[Guest bobsk8]

>>>Flying an approach on auto-pilot is never safer than a>>manual>>>approach unless:>>>1. The minimums are so low that automation is required.>>>2. The pilot can't fly the plane on a stabilized approach->>in>>>which case he/she shouldn't be flying it in IFR :)>>...>>>>You're kidding right? >>>>Or are you just talking about GA?>>No he's not kidding. Never trust a machine to do what you>cannot do yourself at least as well.>>That's true for any profession btw.The A/P on commercial and some military jets does a much better job of flying the ILS than hand flying it. The decks on aircraft carriers had to be reinforced when making frequent auto landings in carrier aircraft, since they kept coming down on the exact same spot on the deck, vs hand flying it where the touchdown spot would vary.

[Guest bobsk8]

>> Also, you are supposed to have the autothrottle>disconnected by the time you disconnect the autopilot.>>So you must control the pitch, roll and the throttle manually?> You can't leave autothrottle on when disconnecting the>autopilot?>>John.An 767 instructor and check pilot with a major airline told me when I was flying the full motion 767-400 Sim, at their training headquarters, that the recommended procedure in hand flying an approach was to leave the auto throttle on. He said that the pilot should spend more time looking out the window for traffic, rather than staring at the airspeed gauge.