auto landing

[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.