To Autoland or not to Autoland

[kjevans]

Hi,
searching around the other day for bits and pieces and I came across an autoland gauge and decided to put it in my 737-400 for a little play.

Made things a little bit stale but it did seem to work, so for a laugh I thought I would do a flight with FSP and use the autoland feature to, well,
autoland.
Great, all seemed to be going as normal, got the ILS signal, hit the autoland button and the plane took over.

However, when the plane touched down the co-pilot said it was a rough landing, I had nearly 50% scared passengers.

The end report stated the passengers were irritated by excess G-Force of +2.83.

Touchdown rate was -680.77 ft/min

and I got docked 400 points for damage sustained to the tyres.


Now seen as I was only messing around with this gauge as a bit of fun, I was wondering if anyone else had had similar problems with either the gauge
or using one in FSP?

I suppose in theory even though this time was classed by FSP as an exceptional flight, I should have got full marks if you like.

Is this maybe a fault of fs9 and the terrain data or something being slightly off?

I don't know, I'll stick to the hands on approach I think.

Kirk

[michael]

id use auto APPROACH then manually land!

i do that all the time unless at a airport without an ILS

[JanniCash]

Is this about a "Flight Simulator" or and "Autopilot Simulator" ?


Jan

[xhado13]

JanniCash wrote:
Is this about a "Flight Simulator" or and "Autopilot Simulator" ?


Jan

Is there a difference?

[Canada_Boy]

Is this about a "Flight Simulator" or and "Autopilot Simulator" ?

I always use autopilot on flights longer then around 40 minutes.
Their is no way I can sit in front of a computer screen and watch a cockpit panel for hours without getting up and doing something, or surfing the
net

[michael]

i use time acceleration, 16x speed!

[Edam]

Don't autoland. In my opinion the most intense part of the flight, unless you are taking a sight-seeing flight , is take off and landing, especially
landing.

[Canada_Boy]

michael wrote:
I use time acceleration, 16x speed!

I never use time acceleration, because at that point FS becomes more of a game, then a simulator.
No realism to me, but autopilot...Yes

[kjevans]

Lots of differing opions here.

I have not stated that I wish to use autoland on a continual basis,as I think that this does take some of the edge away from fs9.

I do normally use autopilot on long flights as Canada_Boy states and then normally use APP then manually land as michael states.

As a response to Jan, is not the whole idea of simming to make the environment as real as it can possibly be?

Therefore, autopilot, Approach hold and autoland are features from the real world aircraft. I cannot visualize someone sat infront of their PC making a
transatlantic crossing in a 747 totally manually. This is not done in the real world. You have probably seen yourself, either the Pilot or Co-Pilot,
up walking around the aircraft during flight with one or the other just sat in the cockpit keeping an eye on things.

If you want true seat of your pants flying then using modern airliners is not the way to go.

Fly the Spirit of St Louis across the atlantic and then see if you prefer autopliot or not.

Anyway, my original question was, if anyone has tried to use Autoland just for the hell of it and found similar findings to me, that basically it
produces a worst result than if you manually land and is this a fault of FS9 or FSP?

I only ask this out of pure interest.

Thanks

Kirk..,



Post Edited ( 09-15-07 14:05 )

[JanniCash]

Canada_Boy wrote:
I always use autopilot on flights longer then around 40 minutes.

Me too, but usually not below 10,000'.


Jan

[Atlantic Airways]

i do exacltly the same things as Michael!

[Anastasios]

kjevans wrote:
Lots of differing opions here.

I have not stated that I wish to use autoland on a continual basis,as I think that this does take some of the edge away from fs9.

I do normally use autopilot on long flights as Canada_Boy states and then normally use APP then manually land as michael states.

As a response to Jan, is not the whole idea of simming to make the environment as real as it can possibly be?

Therefore, autopilot, Approach hold and autoland are features from the real world aircraft. I cannot visualize someone sat infront of their PC making a
transatlantic crossing in a 747 totally manually. This is not done in the real world. You have probably seen yourself, either the Pilot or Co-Pilot,
up walking around the aircraft during flight with one or the other just sat in the cockpit keeping an eye on things.

If you want true seat of your pants flying then using modern airliners is not the way to go.

Fly the Spirit of St Louis across the atlantic and then see if you prefer autopliot or not.

Anyway, my original question was, if anyone has tried to use Autoland just for the hell of it and found similar findings to me, that basically it
produces a worst result than if you manually land and is this a fault of FS9 or FSP?

I only ask this out of pure interest.

Thanks

Kirk..,

As far as I know, autoland is always a bit rough. I believe every pilot must perform an autoland every now and then to keep a certain license or
something.
However, -600 is REALLY rough. Something wrong in that configuration I suppose.

Anastasios.

[kjevans]

Anastasios wrote:

kjevans wrote:
Lots of differing opions here.

I have not stated that I wish to use autoland on a continual basis,as I think that this does take some of the edge away from fs9.

I do normally use autopilot on long flights as Canada_Boy states and then normally use APP then manually land as michael states.

As a response to Jan, is not the whole idea of simming to make the environment as real as it can possibly be?

Therefore, autopilot, Approach hold and autoland are features from the real world aircraft. I cannot visualize someone sat infront of their PC making a
transatlantic crossing in a 747 totally manually. This is not done in the real world. You have probably seen yourself, either the Pilot or Co-Pilot,
up walking around the aircraft during flight with one or the other just sat in the cockpit keeping an eye on things.

If you want true seat of your pants flying then using modern airliners is not the way to go.

Fly the Spirit of St Louis across the atlantic and then see if you prefer autopliot or not.

Anyway, my original question was, if anyone has tried to use Autoland just for the hell of it and found similar findings to me, that basically it
produces a worst result than if you manually land and is this a fault of FS9 or FSP?

I only ask this out of pure interest.

Thanks

Kirk..,

As far as I know, autoland is always a bit rough. I believe every pilot must perform an autoland every now and then to keep a certain license or
something.
However, -600 is REALLY rough. Something wrong in that configuration I suppose.

Anastasios.

Yeah, that's right, -600 and odd is a bit rough.
I have since found another autoland feature built into a souped up 737-400 panel and for a laugh I am trying it out at the moment.
Will post results. he, he.

[kjevans]

michael wrote:
i use time acceleration, 16x speed!

Wow, in the all the time I have been using MS flight sims I have never altered the sim rate.
After reading your post I thought I would try it out.
Well watching the terrain go by is fun for about 30 seconds but michael, how do you cope with radio comms, I have never heard the ATC speaking such
gobble-de-gook.
I am afraid I had to reset back to normal speed, interesting though!

Kirk

[gronji2004]

michael wrote:
id use auto APPROACH then manually land!

i do that all the time unless at a airport without an ILS

I only thought you use ILS in bad weather?