ILS Landings. Wow.

[vololiberista]

If you want a heart in the mouth type of landing then you can't beat autoland in zero visability! It's not until the wheels make contact with the ground that you know whether or not it worked!

In the early days of autoland in the 60's a VC10 crew were training BOAC pilots at Heathrow when it was closed to all other traffic. On one run in the training captain set up the approach, reached over for his flight case and got out his sandwiches offering them to the BOAC crew who were by now a little nervous. Only the thud of the undercarriage contacting the rwy confirmed that the landing had been successful. On a second run in with a different crew the same training captain this time got out a crossword puzzle asking everyone on the flight deck answers to the clues.
Remember also that this was in the days of INS!!!!!
Vololiberista

[ashaman]

Volo, you make it seems so... carefree. Either you are in the dark of the potential problems of a complete autoland outside the sim (and I don't want to believe it) or you should really change your nick in Autoatterraggioliberista.


You know what they say, it's only humane to err, but to really fu*k up you need a computer. That's oh so true everywhere, aviation first and foremost.


That and... well... in a simulated flight the most beautiful moments are the take off and the landing. If you burn that away with an autoland...


Make a SIH (Stick In Hand) landing. It's SO much more rewarding.

[vololiberista]

Volo, you make it seems so... carefree. Either you are in the dark of the potential problems of a complete autoland outside the sim (and I don't want to believe it) or you should really change your nick in Autoatterraggioliberista.


You know what they say, it's only humane to err, but to really fu*k up you need a computer. That's oh so true everywhere, aviation first and foremost.


That and... well... in a simulated flight the most beautiful moments are the take off and the landing. If you burn that away with an autoland...


Make a SIH (Stick In Hand) landing. It's SO much more rewarding.

Doing an autoland in the sim doesn't in any way equate with experiencing it for real!!! most simmers will have to guess the sense of "blind faith" in the instruments, the INS and autopilot. Yet, these guys had such faith in their system they dared to make light of the sittuation in the manner only the English can do!!!
Vololiberista

[ashaman]

I wasn't speaking about the Sim, and neither were you.

Blind faith is far from a good idea even in everyday traffic. I can't help but ask myself how sure were those flights, if in a delicate moment like the landing the captain distributed sandwiches.

[vololiberista]

I wasn't speaking about the Sim, and neither were you.

Blind faith is far from a good idea even in everyday traffic. I can't help but ask myself how sure were those flights, if in a delicate moment like the landing the captain distributed sandwiches.

If you're a good pilot it is quite easy to appear to be casual whilst at the same time being very attentive to the job in hand. This crew obviously played these games with trainees in order to demonstrate the 100% reliability of the autoland system.
Vololiberista

[ashaman]

If you're a good pilot it is quite easy to appear to be casual whilst at the same time being very attentive to the job in hand. This crew obviously played these games with trainees in order to demonstrate the 100% reliability of the autoland system.
Vololiberista

I know. Far from me to impugn the reliability of professional, still... excessive sureness in yourself or your feet/bike/car/boat/plane/starship is never a nice thing to transmit down to trainees. I'm not saying to second guess yourself, as it would be far more dangerous, only to keep sharp attention on the delicate matters at hand. In this case the landing.

Landing is one of the two most delicate matters in a plane's flight (the other being takeoff), as you must operate near the hard, unforgiving ground and negotiate the changing of status from flying to rolling (or the other way around). And the majority of aviation accidents (beside the ones due to structural failures in flight [thing you can't control] or impact to another flying object [thing you can control only to a degree]) have statistically happened a little too much near ground, if not on ground.

You may say they were attentive without being showy of it, and you may be correct, but transmitting that "oh so easy, I don't know why I'm not taking a nap" outlook of things to an inexperienced trainee could be acceptable in cruise, but in landing it might fill him/her/it of excessive trust in the autopilot, and excessive trust in a automatism is never a good idea.

Trust you must, but always controlling the blasted thing with your eyes. In a real plane you're not in a simulator, like in a real car you're not in a driving game, where if you mess up you can start again at the pressure of a key.

I do not criticize the tech, I criticize the way those people you say made it look a little too... I don't know how to express it in english... perhaps: meaningless routine to put the lives of so many in the plane (and their own lives) in the metaphorical hands of a reliable maybe, but still always non absolutely fail-proof electromechanical system with next to no supervision on the workings of said system?

Nothing is fail-proof, not even the pilots themselves, that's why it's a good idea to keep always a sharp eye out and cross-check what you and the others do and everything that happens around (of course in the boundaries of the possible). Making it look to a trainee that leaving everything into Otto's hands is alright, because Otto knows what to do and it's so perfect, it can't be wrong...

Well... :-/

[vololiberista]

If you're a good pilot it is quite easy to appear to be casual whilst at the same time being very attentive to the job in hand. This crew obviously played these games with trainees in order to demonstrate the 100% reliability of the autoland system.
Vololiberista

I know. Far from me to impugn the reliability of professional, still... excessive sureness in yourself or your feet/bike/car/boat/plane/starship is never a nice thing to transmit down to trainees. I'm not saying to second guess yourself, as it would be far more dangerous, only to keep sharp attention on the delicate matters at hand. In this case the landing.

Landing is one of the two most delicate matters in a plane's flight (the other being takeoff), as you must operate near the hard, unforgiving ground and negotiate the changing of status from flying to rolling (or the other way around). And the majority of aviation accidents (beside the ones due to structural failures in flight [thing you can't control] or impact to another flying object [thing you can control only to a degree]) have statistically happened a little too much near ground, if not on ground.

You may say they were attentive without being showy of it, and you may be correct, but transmitting that "oh so easy, I don't know why I'm not taking a nap" outlook of things to an inexperienced trainee could be acceptable in cruise, but in landing it might fill him/her/it of excessive trust in the autopilot, and excessive trust in a automatism is never a good idea.

Trust you must, but always controlling the blasted thing with your eyes. In a real plane you're not in a simulator, like in a real car you're not in a driving game, where if you mess up you can start again at the pressure of a key.

I do not criticize the tech, I criticize the way those people you say made it look a little too... I don't know how to express it in english... perhaps: meaningless routine to put the lives of so many in the plane (and their own lives) in the metaphorical hands of a reliable maybe, but still always non absolutely fail-proof electromechanical system with next to no supervision on the workings of said system?

Nothing is fail-proof, not even the pilots themselves, that's why it's a good idea to keep always a sharp eye out and cross-check what you and the others do and everything that happens around (of course in the boundaries of the possible). Making it look to a trainee that leaving everything into Otto's hands is alright, because Otto knows what to do and it's so perfect, it can't be wrong...

Well... :-/

The trainees were not greenhorns they were fully qualified line pilots learning an additional facility of the autopilot system. Nor was it the first time they had experience of the autoland system ie they had had full ground training and the demonstration flights were part of that process. They were all fully conversant with operating the INS (which is no mean feat!!!) It is the English way to make light of a potentially serious sittuation and this is frequently misinterpreted by other nationalities as being lax!!  Which of these public addresses to the pax would you actually choose

!. Ladies and Gentlemen we are about to make a crash landing and when i call "Brace Brace Brace" this means the i am expecting the a/c to be spread all over  the aerodrome. So I hope you have all had a pleasant flgiht and maybe with luck one or two of us may meet in hospital"

2.  Ladies and Gentlemen (cough cough due to dense acrid smoke) we seem to have a small problem which may lead to an interesting landing. Please assume the brace possition. Thank you!

Vololiberista

[ashaman]

It is the English way to make light of a potentially serious sittuation and this is frequently misinterpreted by other nationalities as being lax!!

Hmmm... I guess.


To quote an anime I saw last week (more or less): I fear I've asked strange questions. Your way of doing things is simply so far from everything I ever experienced.

[concordepilot]

I don't need ILS or use it. I prefer the more challenging way.

[Nexus]

I don't need ILS or use it. I prefer the more challenging way.

I dont think many "needs" ILS, but you're not flying very realisticly by not using it.
And If the WX is IMC, how on earth do you know where to line up?
Guessing?

[vololiberista]

I don't need ILS or use it. I prefer the more challenging way.

Do you really think you can hand fly Concorde without the use of ILS. Remember that the pax are mostly somewhat wealthy and would sue you for an uncomfortable ride. Not forgetting the airport authorities who would also sue you for setting off all the trembler alarms as you "go around!"
Buon Volo
Vololiberista

[beaky]

I don't need ILS or use it. I prefer the more challenging way.

So you only land in VMC, then... ?

[ashaman]

I don't need ILS or use it. I prefer the more challenging way.

You must have one heck of a luck to find always perfect visual conditions then.

[concordepilot]

It's called pratice pratice pratice. If people could be bovvered to turn up to my flight lesson they could learn some new stuff.

[ashaman]

It's called pratice pratice pratice. If people could be bovvered to turn up to my flight lesson they could learn some new stuff.

You're winging it, that you are.


You might be good in not using the autopilot to follow the ILS beams, and that only adds to your skill level. I myself can do it, but only with a good HUD gauge. But ILS, the system, the radio-assistance (not the autopilot function), is and remains fundamental in low visibility.


In good visibility, it's SIH landing for me too. Too much fun to leave it to Otto.