auto landing

[walterp]

Actually many airliners cant land without an auto land. To tell you the truth airliners land more often with auto land than manuel
land. Its
very hard to manuel land a plane. Just because in FS all you do in aim the plane for the runway, in real world they have to keep checking
their panels make sure they have a good air speed. They cant do that with them having to worry about manuel landing a plane. Thats why
most of them use auto land.

The total opposite is true.
Most landings are done manual.
Autoland is only used in cruddy conditions and (i may be wrong with the exact time) once every 28 days to maintain currency and to check
the systems.

[Joshuah A. Wetzel]

Can't we all just get along?

I like landing the PMDG 747-400 on auto-land because it is a bigger plane, and it's harder to handle then a Cessna. I don't use auto-land
every single time I fly. I usually always manually land the other planes I use. For me, using auto-land relieves the pressure of "Am I going
to land okay, with satisfied passengers and not miss the runway?" I hate trying to land and flipping through panels at the same time. It's
not that easy. So whether you like using auto-land or landing manually, it doesn't matter. It's called "personal preference."

[alphaone]

hmdomingos wrote:

alphaone wrote:
Yeah I know what you're saying. Perhaps most was too strong of a word. Many airlines don't use it, but they will someday. I still think flat
out
hand landing is better to do. After all, if we just let the computer do everything all the time there wouldn't be much of a reason for us to
exist,
would there be?

Yes, it would! We had to exist, to build, program and operate computers, wouldn't we?

If you read my post I was talking about "we flyboys", not the computer engineers.

Actually many airliners cant land without an auto land. To tell you the truth airliners land more often with auto land than manuel land. Its
very hard to manuel land a plane. Just because in FS all you do in aim the plane for the runway, in real world they have to keep checking
their panels make sure they have a good air speed. They cant do that with them having to worry about manuel landing a plane. Thats why
most of them use auto land.

Completely wrong. All airliners MUST be able to land without autoland. Pilots nearly always do manual landings. especially here in the US. What do you do when you're landing a cessna or a piper in real life? They don't have autoland. You have to keep holding your airspeed all the way down. Come on man use your head



Post Edited ( 08-13-06 20:28 )

[ivo]

alphaone wrote:
Yeah I know what you're saying. Perhaps most was too strong of a word. Many airlines don't use it, but they will someday. I still think flat out
hand landing is better to do. After all, if we just let the computer do everything all the time there wouldn't be much of a reason for us to exist,
would there be?

I'm not trying to say that we should be using autoland all of the time. I love hand flying the approach because when you land manually, you get the
feeling like you accomplished something. What I want to say is that its OK to use autoland sometimes. Just to keep up to date. Or sometimes in very
low visibility. Lets face it, the autopilot tracks the localized and glideslope far more accurately than the pilot.

People aren't perfect, while machines are(for the most case). More accidents happen due to pilot error, then mechenical failure+weather combined.
Actually, around 45% of the crashes are due to pilot error. Which goes to show we're not perfect. How many times have pilot crashed their airplane on
landing(or approach)? Too many to count. Now how many times has autoaland(or the autopilot in general) crashed the airplane? Very few if not any at
all.

The fact is that they are there to help us. Thats why autoland was designed. The autopilot was designed to reduce workload. Its there to make flying
safer. Think about it- a modern airliner vurses a classic. Lets take the 737 and 727. The newer models of the 737 are state of the art, while in the
727 everything is done manually(well, almost everything) How many crashes are there in 727's? Now how many crashes are there in 737's? Now half as
many even though there are twice as many 737's flying.

Sorry to go off topic(this was originally about autoland), but the autopilot is manditory in some situations. Like an emergency descent. The
autopilot would fly that 100 times better than a pilot who is getting overcome by hypoxia.

[alphaone]

You have very valid points ivo. Doesn't mean I like the thought of a computer landing my plane in real life

[walterp]

How many crashes are there in 727's? Now how many crashes are there in 737's? Now half as
many even though there are twice as many 737's flying.

Not true.

[walterp]

Have a look at this. Very interesting website.
http://www.airsafe.com/

[ivo]

OK, I was wrong about that. I just found out that the 727 had 85 hull loses with a total of 3698 fatalities. The 737 had 114 hull loses with a total
of 3182 fatalities. But there are 5000+ 737's flying while there are only 1832 727's built. With more planes flying, the 737 experienced only 29
more hull loses. In fact, the 737 has one of the best aviation safety records so far.

But the point I was trying to prove is that a more sophisticated airplane(with state of the art technology) is safer than an older airplane.


A safe pilot is one who knows his limitations. He doesn't try to do things that might be dangerous or not practical. On the other hand, pilot who
think they are superman, can do barrel rolls in their 747, and land in a 100X wind are usually the ones who crash.

[alphaone]

I thought that the 737-200 was approaching (or maybe passed already) its 200th hull loss.

[ivo]

hmm, I don't know. I got this from wikipedia and thats what it said.

[alphaone]

And you trust wikipedia?

Here's what I came up with for the 737

737-100: 1 hull loss
737-200: 101 hull losses (I was just 100 off )
737-300: 14 hull losses
737-400: 7 hull losses
737-500: 3 hull losses
737-600: 0 hull losses
737-700: 0 hull losses
737-800: 0 hull losses
737-900: 0 hull losses


Nice that none of the NG's have had any losses yet.



Post Edited ( 08-14-06 01:50 )

[andy14]

737 experience has a auto land

And yes it is freeware