Agreed and it annoyed me to the point where I bought a Razer Basilisk V3 so I had a button on the mouse that switched the wheel into "freewheeling" mode. I just hit the button and flick the wheel and the wheel keeps spinning so I don't have to keep scrolling and scrolling and scrolling until tea time.

 

17 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Just  use  Radio altitude instead of Baro altitude.  That way you will only have to set a couple of hundred feet depending on the MDA. 

RA is only used on Cat II/III approaches where the TERPS criteria requires the approach designer to take the terrain off the approach end of the runway into account to determine the DH.  The RA is obtained by bouncing a radar signal off the ground directly under the acft...if the terrain on short final is significantly lower than the runway, then using the RA will put you in the weeds.

Try that in IMC where the runway sits on a plateau (e.g. Telluride) or at the edge of a cliff (e.g. Andersen AFB, Guam) and you'll be a candidate for a Virtual Darwin Award.

11 minutes ago, Bob Scott said:

RA is only used on Cat II/III approaches where the TERPS criteria requires the approach designer to take the terrain off the approach end of the runway into account to determine the DH.  The RA is obtained by bouncing a radar signal off the ground directly under the acft...if the terrain on short final is significantly lower than the runway, then using the RA will put you in the weeds.

Try that in IMC where the runway sits on a plateau (e.g. Telluride) or at the edge of a cliff (e.g. Andersen AFB, Guam) and you'll be a candidate for a Virtual Darwin Award.

I was just wondering why pilots don't use RA all the time. You answered my question. 

1 hour ago, Bob Scott said:

RA is only used on Cat II/III approaches where the TERPS criteria requires the approach designer to take the terrain off the approach end of the runway into account to determine the DH.  The RA is obtained by bouncing a radar signal off the ground directly under the acft...if the terrain on short final is significantly lower than the runway, then using the RA will put you in the weeds.

Try that in IMC where the runway sits on a plateau (e.g. Telluride) or at the edge of a cliff (e.g. Andersen AFB, Guam) and you'll be a candidate for a Virtual Darwin Award.

Interesting, I had assumed that since DH is quoted on the approach plates that it was adjusted for ground elevation, obviously not .. ..

 

G

Edited November 26, 20232 yr by Gazzareth

1 hour ago, Gazzareth said:

Interesting, I had assumed that since RA is quoted on the approach plates that it was adjusted for ground elevation.

When you see something like DA(H) 232 (200) on a plate, that 200 isn't radar altitude--it's the height above the runway touchdown zone elevation when at the decision altitude. 

On a Cat II you'll also see radar altimeter minimums expressed as "RA xxx", which is the height above the terrain directly below the acft when on the published glidepath at the missed approach point.  On a Cat III there are no decision height minimums, only RVR visibility minimums.

5 hours ago, Bob Scott said:

On a Cat III there are no decision height minimums, only RVR visibility minimums.

That's only true in aircraft with a 3 axis autopilot.  In the 737 for instance, our ops specs dictate that a Cat III using either autoland or handflown AIII has a decision height of 50ft RA, and 30ft RA if flown as an autoland monitored with AIII.

Edited November 26, 20232 yr by Stearmandriver

10 hours ago, fakeflyer737 said:

Ooo nice ! I wonder if fs2crew can do that ?

Worth a try, but unless it's changed since I tried it, probably not as all it seemed able to do was follow a script.  That's one of the reasons I like MCE; I can decide what I want done in the cockpit and he just does as he's told ;).

2 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

That's only true in aircraft with a 3 axis autopilot.  In the 737 for instance, our ops specs dictate that a Cat III using either autoland or handflown AIII has a decision height of 50ft RA, and 30ft RA if flown as an autoland monitored with AIII.

OK, but those are operator and/or acft manufacturer polices/procedures, which can be more (but not less) restrictive...the approach itself does not have published DH minima.

48 minutes ago, Bob Scott said:

OK, but those are operator and/or acft manufacturer polices/procedures, which can be more (but not less) restrictive...the approach itself does not have published DH minima.

It does though, unless you're talking about cat IIIc.  Cat IIIa and b do have published mins.  Our ops specs have us disregarding a, b, or c mins and applying the same across the board to any cat III so they're actually less restrictive in many cases.  But yeah, lots of cat III approaches do have published mins, and if an operator does not have ops specced relief from them, they're bound by them.

(A, b, and c are the old classifications but still used in documentation; these days I think the only difference is a cat III with a DH of 30m, or no DH.  Same differences apply though - a cat III may have a published DH, which ops specs may alter either way.)

Edited November 27, 20232 yr by Stearmandriver

On 11/25/2023 at 11:17 AM, Konterhalbe said:

Don't know if I'm doing it wrong but holding left shift doesn't make it quicker on my 737.

@Boeing_Driver place your cursor where you would dial with your mouse wheel but instead of "mouse wheeling" it, just click and hold and then move your mouse to the left of your screen to decrease minimums and to the right to increase.

My mouse wheel thanked me for not abusing it anymore..

This works really well. And I've found if I move the mouse slower, it works even better.

44 minutes ago, Boeing_Driver said:

This works really well. And I've found if I move the mouse slower, it works even better.

Glad that I could help 👍

Edited November 27, 20232 yr by Konterhalbe