Re: Old, but interesting topic

[Mxsmanic]

Sammy writes:

> Not in the seat next to them they wouldn't.

He doesn't have to be in the seat next to them.

> The fact that it hasn't happened in all these years of aviation makes
> it more than just a little unlikely. It's definitely so unlikely it's
> silly.

The issue is not whether or not the scenario is silly, but what would actually
happen. In risk management, this type of thought experiment is common and
useful.

> Not certified for IIIc means a good chance of hitting the ground so
> hard you create a crater or stalling the plane at high speed a few
> feet above the ground.

Hardly. It's still a much better bet than having a non-pilot try to land by
hand.

> ...and runways world wide are STILL being extended to cope with the
> A380.

Those extensions may be premature.

> There are still notorious approaches around the place.

You don't direct an aircraft with an emergency to a notorious approach.

> The unrealistic perfect situation you mention is better called a
> fantasy.

Automation such as I have discussed is more the rule than the exception in
airliners.

> ATC can't reopen runways for you or make the weather go away.

It doesn't have to.

> How does this not apply in an emergency?

In this emergency, there's only one pilot.

> You have to do certain things
> at certain times and if you can't within the time limit something goes
> wrong.

Sometimes. Not all omissions will cause serious problems, though.

> If all these things are working perfectly AND if you can instruct the
> FMC and other automated systems correctly and in a timely manner.

They routinely work perfectly; they are very reliable (otherwise they would be
of no use). You can carry out the necessary operations easily with a bit of
help.

> Takeoff and landing are rarely automated at the moment.

Take-off is rarely automated; landing is from time to time (even in clear
weather). But these are only small parts of a flight. And the part of the
flight that begins when the pilots are incapacitated in this scenario can be
fully automated all the way to touchdown and rollout.

> No its not done every day by an untrained person.instructed over a
> radio.

That's why such a scenario would be considered an emergency.

> The fantasy is that everything goes right just because on this
> particular day you have incapacitated pilots and that some janitor can
> just be told to press a sequence of buttons to get the plane on the
> ground.

Everything would go right, just as it does just about every day. It's
unrealistic to assume that the aircraft would coincidentally fail at the same
time as the pilots are incapacitated.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sammy]

On Mar 30, 3:49 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Sammy writes:
> > Not in the seat next to them they wouldn't.
> He doesn't have to be in the seat next to them.

Show me your real world data.

> > The fact that it hasn't happened in all these years of aviation makes
> > it more than just a little unlikely. It's definitely so unlikely it's
> > silly.
>
> The issue is not whether or not the scenario is silly, but what would actually
> happen. In risk management, this type of thought experiment is common and
> useful.

The issue we were debating was indeed whether or not the scenario was
silly. I do wish you'd actually read what was written instead of
trying to change the target.

If this were considered a significant risk by the risk management
experts of the world, we'd have a standing procedure on what happens
if both pilots are incapacitated just as we have procedures for water
landings etc. I'm not about to ignore the experts and listen to you.


> > Not certified for IIIc means a good chance of hitting the ground so
> > hard you create a crater or stalling the plane at high speed a few
> > feet above the ground.
> Hardly. It's still a much better bet than having a non-pilot try to land by
> hand.

Again dead is dead. Crashed is crashed. How's it better if a non
certified ILS ploughs you into the ground. I think what you meant to
say is that your chances are better with the non-certified autoland
than with a human non-pilot manually landing. However even then you'd
be wrong because chances are almost 100% it wouldn't be calibrated
well enough. I wouldn't like your odds of survival in either
circumstance.


> > ...and runways world wide are STILL being extended to cope with the
> > A380.
> Those extensions may be premature.

Yes again, the experts are wrong and you're right. People are just
throwing away millions of dollars because they're stupid and you're
the one with all the solutions for the world. How old are you? 12?

> > There are still notorious approaches around the place.
> You don't direct an aircraft with an emergency to a notorious approach.

Ahhhhhh so now you are going to change that set in stone FMC
programming are you? I thought that would never be needed and that the
aircraft would magically continue to a full auto landing almost
unassisted!

> > The unrealistic perfect situation you mention is better called a
> > fantasy.
> Automation such as I have discussed is more the rule than the exception in
> airliners.

Another pathetic generalisation. In what part of the world are you
talking? Plenty of countries are running very old aircraft.

> > ATC can't reopen runways for you or make the weather go away.
> It doesn't have to.

Well it does if you don't want to reprogram your final approach.

> > How does this not apply in an emergency?
> In this emergency, there's only one pilot.
> > You have to do certain things
> > at certain times and if you can't within the time limit something goes
> > wrong.
> Sometimes. Not all omissions will cause serious problems, though.

Yes but it only takes one to kill everyone on board.

> > If all these things are working perfectly AND if you can instruct the
> > FMC and other automated systems correctly and in a timely manner.
> They routinely work perfectly; they are very reliable (otherwise they would be
> of no use). You can carry out the necessary operations easily with a bit of
> help.

Failures on aircraft aren't one in a million things. They happen every
day.

> > Takeoff and landing are rarely automated at the moment.
> Take-off is rarely automated; landing is from time to time (even in clear
> weather).

Yes, as I said rarely.

> But these are only small parts of a flight.

Too bad the small part of the flight we are talking about is landing.

> And the part of the
> flight that begins when the pilots are incapacitated in this scenario can be
> fully automated all the way to touchdown and rollout.

Only in some circumstances.

> > No its not done every day by an untrained person.instructed over a
> > radio.
> That's why such a scenario would be considered an emergency.

Yes, because many emergencies end in disaster.

> Everything would go right, just as it does just about every day. It's
> unrealistic to assume that the aircraft would coincidentally fail at the same
> time as the pilots are incapacitated.

Repeating yourself again? Have you turned blue yet? See above.

[Kev]

On Mar 30, 3:56 am, "Sammy" > wrote:
> If this were considered a significant risk by the risk management
> experts of the world, we'd have a standing procedure on what happens
> if both pilots are incapacitated just as we have procedures for water
> landings etc. I'm not about to ignore the experts and listen to you.

Hmm. Since indeed very recently an airplane over Greece (?) lost
both pilots, it's definitely not an impossiblie scenario. If there
isn't a procedure in place (and apparently there isn't, since that
plane crashed with a poor flight attendant in the cockpit), why the
heck not?

Even the least imaginative of risk managers should think to have
attendants trained on what to do. If that crash had happened in the
US, there'd have been lawyers all over the place asking the same
question.

Curious,
Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Sammy writes:

> The issue we were debating was indeed whether or not the scenario was
> silly.

No, we were debating whether or not it's possible. And it is possible.

Assessments of silliness are subjective and have no place here.

> If this were considered a significant risk by the risk management
> experts of the world, we'd have a standing procedure on what happens
> if both pilots are incapacitated just as we have procedures for water
> landings etc. I'm not about to ignore the experts and listen to you.

The absence of a procedure doesn't mean that a given procedure won't work.

> How's it better if a non certified ILS ploughs you into the ground.

It is unlikely to do that.

> However even then you'd
> be wrong because chances are almost 100% it wouldn't be calibrated
> well enough.

How great would the error be, exactly?

> Yes again, the experts are wrong and you're right.

No, they simply assume that the A380 will be a reality soon, whereas I do not.

> Ahhhhhh so now you are going to change that set in stone FMC
> programming are you?

The FMC is not programmed for a notorious approach to begin with.

> Another pathetic generalisation. In what part of the world are you
> talking?

All of the developed world now.

> Yes but it only takes one to kill everyone on board.

One of that gravity is statistically unlikely.

> Failures on aircraft aren't one in a million things. They happen every
> day.

Even engines can run several hundred thousand hours without a failure. And
jet engine cores run even longer than that.

> Too bad the small part of the flight we are talking about is landing.

Take-off is the only relevant part here, and it is already in the past when
the non-pilot takes over. Landing can be automated.

> Only in some circumstances.

In the majority of circumstances.

> Yes, because many emergencies end in disaster.

Most do not.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> Hmm. Since indeed very recently an airplane over Greece (?) lost
> both pilots, it's definitely not an impossiblie scenario. If there
> isn't a procedure in place (and apparently there isn't, since that
> plane crashed with a poor flight attendant in the cockpit), why the
> heck not?

The Helios accident raises the question of whether or not securing the cockpit
in such a paranoid way is worthwhile. Which is more likely: pilot
incapacitation or hijack? It's an interesting question. If you protect
against one, you leave yourself open to the other.

The Helios flight crashed because nobody could get into the cockpit until the
engines ran out of fuel (which shut down electrical power and unlocked the
cockpit door), by which time it was too late. The flight attendant probably
could have landed the aircraft with radio assistance.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Sammy]

On Mar 31, 12:19 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> The Helios accident raises the question of whether or not securing the cockpit
> in such a paranoid way is worthwhile. Which is more likely: pilot
> incapacitation or hijack? It's an interesting question. If you protect
> against one, you leave yourself open to the other.

Count the number of total crew incapacitations. Count the number of
terrorists hijacks. I think you'll find that there are far more
terrorist hijacks. Securing the cockpit in a paranoid way has other
drawbacks though. I tend to think a lot of the supposed security since
9/11 is "security theatre" - all for show but not hard for a
determined terrorist to get around.

> The Helios flight crashed because nobody could get into the cockpit until the
> engines ran out of fuel (which shut down electrical power and unlocked the
> cockpit door), by which time it was too late. The flight attendant probably
> could have landed the aircraft with radio assistance.

Nope I don't think they could have. If they were used doors that lock
electrically rather the mechanically sound rather like a bad choice to
ward off terrorists.

[Sammy]

On Mar 31, 12:17 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Sammy writes:
> > The issue we were debating was indeed whether or not the scenario was
> > silly.
>
> No, we were debating whether or not it's possible. And it is possible.
>
> Assessments of silliness are subjective and have no place here.

You're contradicting yourself again. You just argued the scenario
isn't silly, then argued the debate is subjective and has no place
here. Which is it?

> > If this were considered a significant risk by the risk management
> > experts of the world, we'd have a standing procedure on what happens
> > if both pilots are incapacitated just as we have procedures for water
> > landings etc. I'm not about to ignore the experts and listen to you.
>
> The absence of a procedure doesn't mean that a given procedure won't work.

A procedure by definition is a step by step recipe for what to do.
I'll leave you to look it up in the dictionary.

> > How's it better if a non certified ILS ploughs you into the ground.
> It is unlikely to do that.

Calibration off by a small tolerance will do that. That's why you have
certifiation for Cat IIIc
>
> > However even then you'd
> > be wrong because chances are almost 100% it wouldn't be calibrated
> > well enough.
>
> How great would the error be, exactly?

Great enough that it's considered an unacceptable risk to auto land
unless the equipment is certified.

> > Yes again, the experts are wrong and you're right.
> No, they simply assume that the A380 will be a reality soon, whereas I do not.

I'm sorry. The A380 has landed in Sydney airport. That landing
required the runway to be lengthened. I was unaware that it was a
fictitious aircraft and that everyone is hallucinating it.

> > Ahhhhhh so now you are going to change that set in stone FMC
> > programming are you?
>
> The FMC is not programmed for a notorious approach to begin with.

That's rubbish. You said the FMC is programmed from the start
(Incorrect, the approach is usually input en-route, but never mind).
Now we know that planes do use these notorious approaches. Explain how
the plane lands if the approach isn't programmed in.

> > Another pathetic generalisation. In what part of the world are you
> > talking?
> All of the developed world now.

Define developed world. What fraction of the world are you talking
about by population (or by number of flights). I think you'll find a
large portion of the world doesn't operate the way you think.

> > Yes but it only takes one to kill everyone on board.
> One of that gravity is statistically unlikely.

Absolute rubbish. Take a look at a few air crash reports some time.

> > Failures on aircraft aren't one in a million things. They happen every
> > day.
> Even engines can run several hundred thousand hours without a failure. And
> jet engine cores run even longer than that.

They still fail, particularly when you have many thousands of flights
every day and an aging fleet of aircraft.

> > Too bad the small part of the flight we are talking about is landing.
> Take-off is the only relevant part here, and it is already in the past when
> the non-pilot takes over. Landing can be automated.

Landing isn't usually automated. There is no reason to assume that an
autoland is programmed in if a pilot becomes incapacitated. The odds
are very slim that it is. Some portion of the approach may be but even
that's not likely as the pilot will await last minute instructions
from ATC.

> > Yes, because many emergencies end in disaster.
> Most do not.

Most? That's a statistical statement. Want to provide me with stats on
what proportion of declared emergencies end in loss of life for large
aircraft? Any idea at all what the number is?

Look you hold a bunch of truly bizzare opinions and once stated try to
tell people you've provided facts. They're not facts they're
unsubstantiated supposition. Your world view does not tally with the
majority of accepted evidence, or with what experts report. If you
want me to take you at all seriously you need to provide solid
reference material. You can't do that because many of your weird ideas
are pure and utter fanciful conjecture by someone that thinks if they
can read and form an opinion that replaces real world experience and a
body of solid evidence. Your education has failed you as evidenced by
your inability to argue in a rational manner, and your inability to
substantiate anything you say with any kind of reference. You have
severe issues that I'm not qualified to diagnose or deal with.
Seriously go and get yourself some help. Do you realise how cut snake
crazy you sound?

In the last few weeks you've argued that:
- Checklists are overrated
- Pilots are overqualified and under-skilled
- People with disabilities are an inconvenience, and should get no
special consideration to allow them to remain mobile
- Most people with allergies are just making it up to get attention
- It's possible to learn a complex skill without any practical
experience just by thinking about it. (You're not an ancient Greek by
any chance are you???)
- Any evidence you're shown to contradict your point of view is biased
and therefore wrong
- You don't need to provide evidence for anything you say as it's
simply true

The list goes on and on. All extreme and unconventional points of view
with no support. Honestly it's really sad. You wouldn't know how to
make an argument if one bit you on the behind.

[Peter Dohm]

> > The Helios accident raises the question of whether or not securing the
cockpit
> > in such a paranoid way is worthwhile. Which is more likely: pilot
> > incapacitation or hijack? It's an interesting question. If you protect
> > against one, you leave yourself open to the other.
>
> Count the number of total crew incapacitations. Count the number of
> terrorists hijacks. I think you'll find that there are far more
> terrorist hijacks. Securing the cockpit in a paranoid way has other
> drawbacks though. I tend to think a lot of the supposed security since
> 9/11 is "security theatre" - all for show but not hard for a
> determined terrorist to get around.
>
> > The Helios flight crashed because nobody could get into the cockpit
until the
> > engines ran out of fuel (which shut down electrical power and unlocked
the
> > cockpit door), by which time it was too late. The flight attendant
probably
> > could have landed the aircraft with radio assistance.
>
> Nope I don't think they could have. If they were used doors that lock
> electrically rather the mechanically sound rather like a bad choice to
> ward off terrorists.
>
I did not read anything to suggest that the cockpit door of the Helios 737
was ever locked. Admittedly, I did not see fit to research this incident at
length--and I also am not familiar with Helios procedures.

I do agree that a lot of the recent security initiatives are "security
theater" and I also believe that many have the net effect of reducing our
long term security by reducing our GDP.

The Helios case, however, seems much more interesting as an argument against
fully automated passenger carrying aircraft. Presuming that the report was
correct, regarding the outflow valve being left in manual/open; then there
is further reason to suppose that other flight crews may have found and
corrected similar errors before they became incidents or accidents.

Just a little "food for thought" ...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Sammy writes:
>
>> Not in the seat next to them they wouldn't.
>
> He doesn't have to be in the seat next to them.
>
>> The fact that it hasn't happened in all these years of aviation makes
>> it more than just a little unlikely. It's definitely so unlikely it's
>> silly.
>
> The issue is not whether or not the scenario is silly, but what would
> actually happen. In risk management, this type of thought experiment
> is common and useful.
>
>> Not certified for IIIc means a good chance of hitting the ground so
>> hard you create a crater or stalling the plane at high speed a few
>> feet above the ground.
>
> Hardly. It's still a much better bet than having a non-pilot try to
> land by hand.
>
>> ...and runways world wide are STILL being extended to cope with the
>> A380.
>
> Those extensions may be premature.
>
>> There are still notorious approaches around the place.
>
> You don't direct an aircraft with an emergency to a notorious
> approach.
>

How th efjuk woudl you know, ****?

>
> In this emergency, there's only one pilot.
>


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Kev writes:
>
>> Hmm. Since indeed very recently an airplane over Greece (?) lost
>> both pilots, it's definitely not an impossiblie scenario. If there
>> isn't a procedure in place (and apparently there isn't, since that
>> plane crashed with a poor flight attendant in the cockpit), why the
>> heck not?
>
> The Helios accident raises the question of whether or not securing the
> cockpit in such a paranoid way is worthwhile. Which is more likely:
> pilot incapacitation or hijack? It's an interesting question. If you
> protect against one, you leave yourself open to the other.
>
> The Helios flight crashed because nobody could get into the cockpit
> until the engines ran out of fuel

No, it didn't, moron..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Sammy writes:
>
>> The issue we were debating was indeed whether or not the scenario was
>> silly.
>
> No, we were debating whether or not it's possible. And it is
> possible.
>
> Assessments of silliness are subjective and have no place here.
>
>> If this were considered a significant risk by the risk management
>> experts of the world, we'd have a standing procedure on what happens
>> if both pilots are incapacitated just as we have procedures for water
>> landings etc. I'm not about to ignore the experts and listen to you.
>
> The absence of a procedure doesn't mean that a given procedure won't
> work.
>
>> How's it better if a non certified ILS ploughs you into the ground.
>
> It is unlikely to do that.
>
>> However even then you'd
>> be wrong because chances are almost 100% it wouldn't be calibrated
>> well enough.
>
> How great would the error be, exactly?
>
>> Yes again, the experts are wrong and you're right.
>
> No, they simply assume that the A380 will be a reality soon, whereas I
> do not.
>
>> Ahhhhhh so now you are going to change that set in stone FMC
>> programming are you?
>
> The FMC is not programmed for a notorious approach to begin with.
>
>> Another pathetic generalisation. In what part of the world are you
>> talking?
>
> All of the developed world now.
>
>> Yes but it only takes one to kill everyone on board.
>
> One of that gravity is statistically unlikely.
>
>> Failures on aircraft aren't one in a million things. They happen
>> every day.
>
> Even engines can run several hundred thousand hours without a failure.
> And jet engine cores run even longer than that.
>
>> Too bad the small part of the flight we are talking about is landing.
>
> Take-off is the only relevant part here, and it is already in the past
> when the non-pilot takes over. Landing can be automated.
>
>> Only in some circumstances.
>
> In the majority of circumstances.
>
>> Yes, because many emergencies end in disaster.
>
> Most do not.

and the cluelessness continues..


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Sammy writes:

> Nope I don't think they could have. If they were used doors that lock
> electrically rather the mechanically sound rather like a bad choice to
> ward off terrorists.

Not only would the methods I've described allow the flight attendant to land,
but in this case the flight attendant also had had pilot training.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Dohm writes:

> I did not read anything to suggest that the cockpit door of the Helios 737
> was ever locked. Admittedly, I did not see fit to research this incident at
> length--and I also am not familiar with Helios procedures.

In the detailed official report, the circumstances of the accident were
reproduced and recorded. It was possible to verify that sounds on the flight
deck included the sound of the cockpit door unlocking (after an electrical
power loss subsequent to flameout of the engines).

The flight deck was locked. The purser presumably had a code with which to
enter the flight deck, but he was unconscious. The people still conscious did
not have the code. They were unable to enter the flight deck until the
engines flamed out due to a lack of fuel, at which point the loss of
electrical power unlocked the cockpit door. By then, however, they were only
a few minutes away from a crash, and they had no power at all.

> The Helios case, however, seems much more interesting as an argument against
> fully automated passenger carrying aircraft. Presuming that the report was
> correct, regarding the outflow valve being left in manual/open; then there
> is further reason to suppose that other flight crews may have found and
> corrected similar errors before they became incidents or accidents.

As I recall, a leaky door caused gradual depressurization. The flight deck
confused the low pressure alarm with another alarm and ignored it. Soon
thereafter everyone had passed out from hypoxia, including the pilots. A lack
of automation would not have helped.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Sammy writes:

> Calibration off by a small tolerance will do that.

How much of a tolerance, exactly?

> Great enough that it's considered an unacceptable risk to auto land
> unless the equipment is certified.

How great is that, exactly?

> I'm sorry. The A380 has landed in Sydney airport. That landing
> required the runway to be lengthened. I was unaware that it was a
> fictitious aircraft and that everyone is hallucinating it.

It is not in regular service yet, nor has it been delivered in quantity.

> That's rubbish. You said the FMC is programmed from the start
> (Incorrect, the approach is usually input en-route, but never mind).

The approach can be entered into the FMC at any time. It is also optional.

> Now we know that planes do use these notorious approaches.

But notorious appraoches are rare, and it's unlikely one would be programmed
in the scenario under discussion. If it were, and if this risked being a
problem, another one could replace it.

> > > Yes but it only takes one to kill everyone on board.
> > One of that gravity is statistically unlikely.
>
> Absolute rubbish. Take a look at a few air crash reports some time.

The crash reports logically address only the cases in which it was enough to
kill everyone on board. The other cases in which it was not do not cause
crashes, and thus do not generate crash reports.

> They still fail, particularly when you have many thousands of flights
> every day and an aging fleet of aircraft.

They rarely fail.

> Landing isn't usually automated.

But it can be, in the scenario under discussion. It would be safer than a
landing flown by hand.

> There is no reason to assume that an autoland is programmed in
> if a pilot becomes incapacitated.

Since that cannot be done in advance, it certainly would not be programmed in,
but a few presses of a few buttons would fix that.

> Most? That's a statistical statement.

Yes. Good.

> Want to provide me with stats on
> what proportion of declared emergencies end in loss of life for large
> aircraft? Any idea at all what the number is?

There were 91 accidents investigated by the NTSB in February. Of these, 23
involved a loss of life. Only a very small fraction of declared emergencies
lead to an accident that is investigated by the NTSB, but essentially all
accidents resulting in loss of life are investigated. Therefore the
percentage of declared emergencies that result in loss of life is very small
indeed.

And when you consider that none of the fatalities occurred on airliners, the
percentage diminishes by at least another order of magnitude.

> Look you hold a bunch of truly bizzare opinions and once stated try to
> tell people you've provided facts. They're not facts they're
> unsubstantiated supposition.

Only if you consider the NTSB reports to be unsubstantiated.

> Your world view does not tally with the
> majority of accepted evidence, or with what experts report.

I got it from the experts.

> If you want me to take you at all seriously you need to provide solid
> reference material.

I don't care if you take me seriously or not. And others can look up the data
for themselves.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Iain Smith]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Even engines can run several hundred thousand hours without a failure.
> And
> jet engine cores run even longer than that.
>
Not true. One of the longest running jet engines in service on a commercial
airliner was a CFM56 attached to the port wing of an easyJet Boeing 737 a
couple of years ago which had clocked up about 86,000 hours and at that
point had never been removed from the wing. However, that was acknowledged
to be an exception by a large margin.

Iain

[Sammy]

According to you since the whole thing should have been automated, no
intervention should have been necessary. The flight should have
autolanded safely.

[Sammy]

On Mar 31, 4:21 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Sammy writes:
> > Nope I don't think they could have. If they were used doors that lock
> > electrically rather the mechanically sound rather like a bad choice to
> > ward off terrorists.
>
> Not only would the methods I've described allow the flight attendant to land,
> but in this case the flight attendant also had had pilot training.

You seem to have some detailed information about this incident. Please
cite your references so we can all argue based on the same facts.

[Sammy]

On Mar 31, 4:45 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Sammy writes:
> > Calibration off by a small tolerance will do that.
> How much of a tolerance, exactly?

You tell me. You're making the claim that it's good enough. If you're
wrong and people were to do what you say people would die. If I'm
wrong they're inconvenienced. So the burden of proof is on you.

> > Great enough that it's considered an unacceptable risk to auto land
> > unless the equipment is certified.
> How great is that, exactly?

You tell me. You're making the claim that it's good enough. Show me
proof that it's an acceptable risk. You might think you know better
than your local air safety regulators but you don't.

> > I'm sorry. The A380 has landed in Sydney airport. That landing
> > required the runway to be lengthened. I was unaware that it was a
> > fictitious aircraft and that everyone is hallucinating it.
> It is not in regular service yet, nor has it been delivered in quantity.

So what you're saying is that you don't believe it will ever be in
service or delivered in any quantity? Quite a bold claim you're
making. Care to tell me based on what evidence/knowledge you're making
that claim?

> > That's rubbish. You said the FMC is programmed from the start
> > (Incorrect, the approach is usually input en-route, but never mind).
> The approach can be entered into the FMC at any time. It is also optional.

....and since the approach changes due to conditions at the airport
including weather and traffic, there is no reason for a pilot to
program in an approach so far in advance.

> > Now we know that planes do use these notorious approaches.
> But notorious appraoches are rare, and it's unlikely one would be programmed
> in the scenario under discussion. If it were, and if this risked being a
> problem, another one could replace it.

As I've said there's no reason to believe any approach would have been
programmed in yet. Regardless you can just choose another approach.
Unfortunately that means programming it in, which completely
contradicts your little scenario that the entire flight to autoland
has been laid into the computer before takeoff. That just doesn't
happen.

> > > > Yes but it only takes one to kill everyone on board.
> > > One of that gravity is statistically unlikely.
> > Absolute rubbish. Take a look at a few air crash reports some time.
> The crash reports logically address only the cases in which it was enough to
> kill everyone on board. The other cases in which it was not do not cause
> crashes, and thus do not generate crash reports.

Yes they get filed as incidents. I seem to remember at least one well
documented case of takeoff thrust being calculated incorrectly and
causing a plane (a 747 freighter I think) to crash because the pilot
neglected to double check the weight entered into the FMC. It does
only take one mistake, and it has happened. That's what makes check
lists critical.

> > They still fail, particularly when you have many thousands of flights
> > every day and an aging fleet of aircraft.
> They rarely fail.

Rarely is enough when you're talking about tens thousands of flights a
day. That's an excellent argument for giving those pilots all that
extra training you seem to think is unnecessary.

> > Landing isn't usually automated.
> But it can be, in the scenario under discussion. It would be safer than a
> landing flown by hand.

Possibly but it wouldn't have been programmed in from before takeoff.
There's no reason to believe that it would have. Therefore your
inexperienced non-pilot has to learn to follow instructions to enter
the autolanding into the automated systems. Over a radio link there's
a good chance a mistake could be made.

> > There is no reason to assume that an autoland is programmed in
> > if a pilot becomes incapacitated.
> Since that cannot be done in advance, it certainly would not be programmed in,
> but a few presses of a few buttons would fix that.

How many presses and what buttons? Does your PMDG addon simulate
autolanding? How accurately does it claim to? How many button presses
are required to select a STAR and enter in an autolanding? What
assumptions must be made about what's already been entered?

> > Most? That's a statistical statement.
> Yes. Good.
>
> > Want to provide me with stats on
> > what proportion of declared emergencies end in loss of life for large
> > aircraft? Any idea at all what the number is?
> There were 91 accidents investigated by the NTSB in February. Of these, 23
> involved a loss of life. Only a very small fraction of declared emergencies
> lead to an accident that is investigated by the NTSB, but essentially all
> accidents resulting in loss of life are investigated. Therefore the
> percentage of declared emergencies that result in loss of life is very small
> indeed.

Wow your grasp of stats is even worse than your grasp of aviation.
Incidents in February may not have been fully investigated. One
month's data from one country isn't a large enough sample size to draw
any conclusion. Your data must include a lot of GA aircraft where you
keep harassing me to stick to a very specific scenario dealing only
with a large automated jet.

Your statement doesn't even attempt to answer the question, but
instead answers another. I asked how many declared emergencies ended
in loss of life (since you claim most don't end in anything
catastrophic). Instead of telling me you give me some statistic about
how few fatalities were caused when an emergency had been declared
which. This is a completely irrelevant statistic to our discussion. We
were not discussing anything about fatalities that occurred when no
emergency had been declared. Do you know anything about set theory?
You're dealing with two sets of data with the only overlap being
emergencies declared that did end in loss of life. This is typical of
your style of argument. Complete misdirection, and failure to actually
address questions or counter claims in any meaningful way.

> And when you consider that none of the fatalities occurred on airliners, the
> percentage diminishes by at least another order of magnitude.

An extrapolation based on a small data set not even relevant to the
discussion. Again typical of your severely flawed logic.

> > Look you hold a bunch of truly bizzare opinions and once stated try to
> > tell people you've provided facts. They're not facts they're
> > unsubstantiated supposition.
> Only if you consider the NTSB reports to be unsubstantiated.

Lets look at the facts shall we? You've taken a small incomplete (too
new to be complete) data set, presented a flawed argument that fails
to address the issue, and tried to force that into fitting your
argument because there is a lack of data. Your analysis is rubbish. If
you do this for a living in any capacity I wonder how many jobs you've
been sacked from.


> > Your world view does not tally with the
> > majority of accepted evidence, or with what experts report.
> I got it from the experts.

No, you've demonstrated that you can unconvincingly twist incomplete
data in a flawed an indefensible way to support a nonsense argument.
Pathetic really.

> > If you want me to take you at all seriously you need to provide solid
> > reference material.
> I don't care if you take me seriously or not. And others can look up the data
> for themselves.

Yes they can. Others will probably be more sensible about drawing
conclusions from it that you will. They'll probably take a more
complete less recent data set and actually make an analysis that's
logical and consistent. Something you seem incapable of.

[Darkwing]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Peter Dohm writes:
>>
>> > I did not read anything to suggest that the cockpit door of the Helios
> 737
>> > was ever locked. Admittedly, I did not see fit to research this
> incident at
>> > length--and I also am not familiar with Helios procedures.
>>
>> In the detailed official report, the circumstances of the accident were
>> reproduced and recorded. It was possible to verify that sounds on the
> flight
>> deck included the sound of the cockpit door unlocking (after an
>> electrical
>> power loss subsequent to flameout of the engines).
>>
>> The flight deck was locked. The purser presumably had a code with which
> to
>> enter the flight deck, but he was unconscious. The people still
>> conscious
> did
>> not have the code. They were unable to enter the flight deck until the
>> engines flamed out due to a lack of fuel, at which point the loss of
>> electrical power unlocked the cockpit door. By then, however, they were
> only
>> a few minutes away from a crash, and they had no power at all.
>>
>> > The Helios case, however, seems much more interesting as an argument
> against
>> > fully automated passenger carrying aircraft. Presuming that the report
> was
>> > correct, regarding the outflow valve being left in manual/open; then
> there
>> > is further reason to suppose that other flight crews may have found and
>> > corrected similar errors before they became incidents or accidents.
>>
>> As I recall, a leaky door caused gradual depressurization. The flight
> deck
>> confused the low pressure alarm with another alarm and ignored it. Soon
>> thereafter everyone had passed out from hypoxia, including the pilots. A
> lack
>> of automation would not have helped.
>>
>> --
>> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
>
> Google is your friend!
>
>

Not even Google will be MX's friend...

--------------------------------------------------
DW

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Sammy writes:
>
>> Nope I don't think they could have. If they were used doors that lock
>> electrically rather the mechanically sound rather like a bad choice
>> to ward off terrorists.
>
> Not only would the methods I've described allow the flight attendant
> to land, but in this case the flight attendant also had had pilot
> training.


You are an idiot.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Sammy writes:
>
>> Calibration off by a small tolerance will do that.
>
> How much of a tolerance, exactly?
>
>> Great enough that it's considered an unacceptable risk to auto land
>> unless the equipment is certified.
>
> How great is that, exactly?
>
>> I'm sorry. The A380 has landed in Sydney airport. That landing
>> required the runway to be lengthened. I was unaware that it was a
>> fictitious aircraft and that everyone is hallucinating it.
>
> It is not in regular service yet, nor has it been delivered in
> quantity.
>
>> That's rubbish. You said the FMC is programmed from the start
>> (Incorrect, the approach is usually input en-route, but never mind).
>
> The approach can be entered into the FMC at any time.

No, it can't, fjukktard


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Sammy writes:
>
>> The issue we were debating was indeed whether or not the scenario was
>> silly.
>
> No, we were debating whether or not it's possible. And it is
> possible.
>
> Assessments of silliness are subjective and have no place here.
>
>> If this were considered a significant risk by the risk management
>> experts of the world, we'd have a standing procedure on what happens
>> if both pilots are incapacitated just as we have procedures for water
>> landings etc. I'm not about to ignore the experts and listen to you.
>
> The absence of a procedure doesn't mean that a given procedure won't
> work.
>
>> How's it better if a non certified ILS ploughs you into the ground.
>
> It is unlikely to do that.
>
>> However even then you'd
>> be wrong because chances are almost 100% it wouldn't be calibrated
>> well enough.
>
> How great would the error be, exactly?
>
>> Yes again, the experts are wrong and you're right.
>
> No, they simply assume that the A380 will be a reality soon, whereas I
> do not.
>
>> Ahhhhhh so now you are going to change that set in stone FMC
>> programming are you?
>
> The FMC is not programmed for a notorious approach to begin with.

FMCs aren't programmed for approaches period, you moron


Bertie

[Peter Dohm]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Dohm writes:
>
> > I did not read anything to suggest that the cockpit door of the Helios
737
> > was ever locked. Admittedly, I did not see fit to research this
incident at
> > length--and I also am not familiar with Helios procedures.
>
> In the detailed official report, the circumstances of the accident were
> reproduced and recorded. It was possible to verify that sounds on the
flight
> deck included the sound of the cockpit door unlocking (after an electrical
> power loss subsequent to flameout of the engines).
>
> The flight deck was locked. The purser presumably had a code with which
to
> enter the flight deck, but he was unconscious. The people still conscious
did
> not have the code. They were unable to enter the flight deck until the
> engines flamed out due to a lack of fuel, at which point the loss of
> electrical power unlocked the cockpit door. By then, however, they were
only
> a few minutes away from a crash, and they had no power at all.
>
> > The Helios case, however, seems much more interesting as an argument
against
> > fully automated passenger carrying aircraft. Presuming that the report
was
> > correct, regarding the outflow valve being left in manual/open; then
there
> > is further reason to suppose that other flight crews may have found and
> > corrected similar errors before they became incidents or accidents.
>
> As I recall, a leaky door caused gradual depressurization. The flight
deck
> confused the low pressure alarm with another alarm and ignored it. Soon
> thereafter everyone had passed out from hypoxia, including the pilots. A
lack
> of automation would not have helped.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Google is your friend!

[Kev]

On Mar 30, 2:06 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
> > The Helios flight crashed because nobody could get into the cockpit
> > until the engines ran out of fuel
>
> No, it didn't, moron..

No, it didn't what, Bertie? Really, if you're going to argue, try to
state your case instead of just flapping your gums. Otherwise you
just look stupid, which is probably not your purpose.

A flight steward, a student pilot, got into the cockpit about one
minute before it ran out of fuel. If he'd gotten in there an hour
before, all sorts of possibilities open up... including perhaps
reviving the pilots (although I'm not clear if that's possible...
anyone know at 34,000' ?)

Kev

[Kev]

On Mar 30, 5:48 pm, "Sammy" > wrote:
> On Mar 31, 4:21 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Sammy writes:
> > > Nope I don't think they could have. If they were used doors that lock
> > > electrically rather the mechanically sound rather like a bad choice to
> > > ward off terrorists.
>
> > Not only would the methods I've described allow the flight attendant to land,
> > but in this case the flight attendant also had had pilot training.
>
> You seem to have some detailed information about this incident. Please
> cite your references so we can all argue based on the same facts.

Really, it's amazing that so many posters make fun of Mx for not using
Google, when you apparently fail to do the same. Google "Helios
crash" and you'll find everything from a Wikipedia article to safety
articles to whatever.

Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Sammy writes:

> According to you since the whole thing should have been automated, no
> intervention should have been necessary. The flight should have
> autolanded safely.

Anyone who knows how the automation works would know why the Helios flight
would not land safely on its own.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Sammy writes:

> You seem to have some detailed information about this incident. Please
> cite your references so we can all argue based on the same facts.

Actually, just about every news report gave most of the details that I've
already provided. However, I've also read much of the final report by the
AAIASB, which does contain more detail.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Sammy writes:

> You tell me. You're making the claim that it's good enough. If you're
> wrong and people were to do what you say people would die.

If a non-pilot attempts to fly by hand because he's afraid the ILS isn't
precise enough, the likelihood of a crash is much greater.

> So what you're saying is that you don't believe it will ever be in
> service or delivered in any quantity?

I have my doubts. It may be another Concorde in that respect, with only
airlines like BA and AF buying the aircraft, because they have to.

> ...and since the approach changes due to conditions at the airport
> including weather and traffic, there is no reason for a pilot to
> program in an approach so far in advance.

Yes, but you can add an approach at any time.

> Regardless you can just choose another approach.
> Unfortunately that means programming it in, which completely
> contradicts your little scenario that the entire flight to autoland
> has been laid into the computer before takeoff.

I don't recall ever saying that the entire flight was programmed in advance.
In any case, entering the approach is just a matter of pushing a few buttons.

> Yes they get filed as incidents.

Do they? By whom?

> Rarely is enough when you're talking about tens thousands of flights a
> day.

Rarely is rarely. No matter what the number of flights per day, the chances
of a given pilot encountering such a thing remain the same.

> Possibly but it wouldn't have been programmed in from before takeoff.

So it can be programmed in flight.

> Therefore your
> inexperienced non-pilot has to learn to follow instructions to enter
> the autolanding into the automated systems. Over a radio link there's
> a good chance a mistake could be made.

You don't enter an autoland, you configure and execute it. That requires
pressing a few buttons. You enter an approach, but that also requires only
pressing a few buttons.

> How many presses and what buttons?

It depends on the circumstances, the aircraft, etc. On a 747, once you have
an approach with an ILS runway selected, you need only press a single button
as you intercept the localizer and glide path. You can choose to capture the
localizer first and then the GS (my usual procedure). Once this is engaged,
you don't have to do anything else with the buttons. You should lower gear
and flaps at appropriate times, arm the spoilers, set your landing speed, and
a few other things, all of which are easy to explain over the radio.

> Does your PMDG addon simulate autolanding?

Absolutely. After all, the real aircraft has it, and it's a very accurate
simulation.

> How accurately does it claim to?

The principal developer used to be a pilot for Boeing Commercial Aircraft, as
I recall. I suppose he knows something about it.

> How many button presses are required to select a STAR and enter in an
> autolanding?

You don't enter autolandings, as I've said. It requires perhaps around six
button presses to select and activate a STAR.

> What assumptions must be made about what's already been entered?

None, except for autoland, which assumes that you've selected a runway with
ILS (although you can enter the ILS frequency manually), and assumes that your
route will intercept the ILS at some point. The details vary by aircraft;
sometimes they even vary by airline, since there are a number of options that
can be chosen by each individual airline for its own fleet.

> Wow your grasp of stats is even worse than your grasp of aviation.

What does that say about your grasp of autoland and FMC operations? If you
can comment on that, I can certainly comment on aviation and statistics.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Iain Smith writes:

> Not true. One of the longest running jet engines in service on a commercial
> airliner was a CFM56 attached to the port wing of an easyJet Boeing 737 a
> couple of years ago which had clocked up about 86,000 hours and at that
> point had never been removed from the wing. However, that was acknowledged
> to be an exception by a large margin.

What does that have to do with MTBF?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[ManhattanMan]

Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT wrote:
>
> Not even Google will be MX's friend...
>


Smart. Bet he don't have a dog either..........

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Sammy writes:
>
>> According to you since the whole thing should have been automated, no
>> intervention should have been necessary. The flight should have
>> autolanded safely.
>
> Anyone who knows how the automation works would know why the Helios
> flight would not land safely on its own.
>

I know how it works (I've flown 73's in the past, BTW) and I know why it
crashed and I alsop know you';re talking straight out of your ass.

You can dream about the fateful day when you save a flight all you want,
but the fact is you are the last person a pilot trying to talk down an
airliner with a stricken crew would want on the other end of the
headset.

But for comedy value, I'd just love to see you stand up whne the cabin
crew asks "Is there anyone on board who can fly a plane?"

Bwawhahwhhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhhahwha hwhahhwhahwhahhwhahwha
hwhhahwhahwhhahwhahwhhahwhahwhhahwhahhwhahwhahhwha hwhahwhhahwhahwhhahwha
hhwhahwhahwhhahwhahhwhahwhhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhha hwhahwhhahwhahhwhahwha
hwhahhwhahwhahhwhahwh!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

"Kev" > wrote in
oups.com:

> On Mar 30, 2:06 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>> > The Helios flight crashed because nobody could get into the cockpit
>> > until the engines ran out of fuel
>>
>> No, it didn't, moron..
>
> No, it didn't what, Bertie? Really, if you're going to argue, try to
> state your case instead of just flapping your gums.

That wasn't an argument fjukkhead.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Sammy writes:
>
>> You tell me. You're making the claim that it's good enough. If you're
>> wrong and people were to do what you say people would die.
>
> If a non-pilot attempts to fly by hand because he's afraid the ILS
> isn't precise enough, the likelihood of a crash is much greater.

A non pilot wouldn't know what an ils is djikkkwad.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Iain Smith writes:
>
>> Not true. One of the longest running jet engines in service on a
>> commercial airliner was a CFM56 attached to the port wing of an
>> easyJet Boeing 737 a couple of years ago which had clocked up about
>> 86,000 hours and at that point had never been removed from the wing.
>> However, that was acknowledged to be an exception by a large margin.
>
> What does that have to do with MTBF?
>

At least as much as anything you've ever said, wannabe boi.


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Sammy writes:
>
>> You seem to have some detailed information about this incident.
>> Please cite your references so we can all argue based on the same
>> facts.
>
> Actually, just about every news report gave most of the details that
> I've already provided. However, I've also read much of the final
> report by the AAIASB, which does contain more detail.

Not that oyu understood any of it.


Bertie

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>>
>>> That's rubbish. You said the FMC is programmed from the start
>>> (Incorrect, the approach is usually input en-route, but never mind).
>> The approach can be entered into the FMC at any time.
>
> No, it can't, fjukktard
>
>
> Bertie

Well actually it can, even before take off

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> FMCs aren't programmed for approaches period, you moron
>
>
> Bertie

Well yes they are.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> FMCs aren't programmed for approaches period, you moron
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Well yes they are.
>

Uh, no they're not. Only sids and stars, unless you mean an RNAV app.
Airplane still uses the navaids intended for the appp.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> That's rubbish. You said the FMC is programmed from the start
>>>> (Incorrect, the approach is usually input en-route, but never
mind).
>>> The approach can be entered into the FMC at any time.
>>
>> No, it can't, fjukktard
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Well actually it can, even before take off

Can't be entered at all. Now way anything flying will do an ILS all by
it's lonesomes from takeoff just by using the FMC.


Bertie

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Flydive > wrote in :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> FMCs aren't programmed for approaches period, you moron
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Well yes they are.
>>
>
> Uh, no they're not. Only sids and stars, unless you mean an RNAV app.
> Airplane still uses the navaids intended for the appp.
>
>
>
> Bertie

Or NDB, VOR, GPS.......(and both laterally and vertically)

Of course ILS are still flown using navaids, but all others no.

And above it was not specified you were talking only about ILS

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Flydive > wrote in :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>>>> That's rubbish. You said the FMC is programmed from the start
>>>>> (Incorrect, the approach is usually input en-route, but never
> mind).
>>>> The approach can be entered into the FMC at any time.
>>> No, it can't, fjukktard
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Well actually it can, even before take off
>
> Can't be entered at all. Now way anything flying will do an ILS all by
> it's lonesomes from takeoff just by using the FMC.
>
>
> Bertie

Sorry I have to disagree, an approach can be entered before T/O, in the
latest FMS it will autotune, and if approach is preselected on the panel
it will auto tranfer to "green data" and fly the ILS appch.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Flydive > wrote in :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> That's rubbish. You said the FMC is programmed from the start
>>>>>> (Incorrect, the approach is usually input en-route, but never
>> mind).
>>>>> The approach can be entered into the FMC at any time.
>>>> No, it can't, fjukktard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Well actually it can, even before take off
>>
>> Can't be entered at all. Now way anything flying will do an ILS all
by
>> it's lonesomes from takeoff just by using the FMC.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Sorry I have to disagree, an approach can be entered before T/O, in
the
> latest FMS it will autotune, and if approach is preselected on the
panel
> it will auto tranfer to "green data" and fly the ILS appch.


ILS freqs won't autotune on anything I know of..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Flydive > wrote in news:460e0a56$1_5
@news.bluewin.ch:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> FMCs aren't programmed for approaches period, you moron
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Well yes they are.
>>>
>>
>> Uh, no they're not. Only sids and stars, unless you mean an RNAV app.
>> Airplane still uses the navaids intended for the appp.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Or NDB, VOR, GPS.......(and both laterally and vertically)
>
> Of course ILS are still flown using navaids, but all others no.
>
> And above it was not specified you were talking only about ILS


But fjukktard was talking about an airplane making an approach and
landing all unaided.

Unless your outfit allows autolands off an ADF.....


Bertie

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Sorry I have to disagree, an approach can be entered before T/O, in
> the
>> latest FMS it will autotune, and if approach is preselected on the
> panel
>> it will auto tranfer to "green data" and fly the ILS appch.
>
>
> ILS freqs won't autotune on anything I know of..
>
>
> Bertie
>

The Honeywell primus 2000 can do that.

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Flydive > wrote in :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Flydive > wrote in news:460e0a56$1_5
> @news.bluewin.ch:
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> FMCs aren't programmed for approaches period, you moron
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Well yes they are.
>>>>
>>> Uh, no they're not. Only sids and stars, unless you mean an RNAV app.
>>> Airplane still uses the navaids intended for the appp.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Or NDB, VOR, GPS.......(and both laterally and vertically)
>>
>> Of course ILS are still flown using navaids, but all others no.
>>
>> And above it was not specified you were talking only about ILS
>
>
> But fjukktard was talking about an airplane making an approach and
> landing all unaided.
>
> Unless your outfit allows autolands off an ADF.....
>
>
> Bertie


Well, as I said it can follow the appch laterally and vertically down to
the runway, the landing is not going to be pretty for sure, more a crash
landing and would not like to be on it for sure.

And as I said in the other post the FMS can tune to the ILS and do the
appch using the navaids, again not a pretty landing but probably survivable.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> I know how it works (I've flown 73's in the past, BTW) and I know why it
> crashed and I alsop know you';re talking straight out of your ass.

I've flown SR-71s and F-16s.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> A flight steward, a student pilot, got into the cockpit about one
> minute before it ran out of fuel. If he'd gotten in there an hour
> before, all sorts of possibilities open up... including perhaps
> reviving the pilots (although I'm not clear if that's possible...
> anyone know at 34,000' ?)

Yes, they could be revived. However, with help from ATC, the flight attendant
might well have been able to fly the aircraft himself, using the automation.

The FMC was already programmed for the flight. It never descended because the
altitude on the MCP was never changed, and that altitude is a lower limit for
the automation (for safety reasons). He could have changed this altitude and
the aircraft would have descended and started its approach. A few more
buttons and dials and he could autoland (if there was a suitable runway at the
destination, otherwise he'd have to divert). Flying the aircraft by hand
would not be wise and should only be a last resort. Of course, if he can wake
up the pilots and they are lucid, none of this might be necessary.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> A non pilot wouldn't know what an ils is djikkkwad.

That isn't relevant here.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> No, it can't, fjukktard

Yes, it can.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Can't be entered at all. Now way anything flying will do an ILS all by
> it's lonesomes from takeoff just by using the FMC.

You're thinking of the runway approach. I believe others (including myself)
are thinking in the larger context of the arrival. The FMC doesn't handle the
final approach, but it does handle the STAR, which can be entered at any time.
There isn't really anything to enter for the approach to the runway; all you
need is the ILS frequency, which the FMC will know (depending on the aircraft)
from the arrival or runway you selected.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> ILS freqs won't autotune on anything I know of..

Then you don't know of all FMCs, because some FMCs will definitely autotune
the ILS. The 747-400 will do this (in fact, it autotunes all the navaids,
although you can override this).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Kev writes:
>
>> A flight steward, a student pilot, got into the cockpit about one
>> minute before it ran out of fuel. If he'd gotten in there an hour
>> before, all sorts of possibilities open up... including perhaps
>> reviving the pilots (although I'm not clear if that's possible...
>> anyone know at 34,000' ?)
>
> Yes, they could be revived. However, with help from ATC, the flight
> attendant might well have been able to fly the aircraft himself, using
> the automation.

ATC don';t know how to fly a 737 you moron.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Sorry I have to disagree, an approach can be entered before T/O, in
>> the
>>> latest FMS it will autotune, and if approach is preselected on the
>> panel
>>> it will auto tranfer to "green data" and fly the ILS appch.
>>
>>
>> ILS freqs won't autotune on anything I know of..
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> The Honeywell primus 2000 can do that.
>

And you'd let it?


Hmm.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> ILS freqs won't autotune on anything I know of..
>
> Then you don't know of all FMCs, because some FMCs will definitely
> autotune the ILS. The 747-400 will do this (in fact, it autotunes all
> the navaids, although you can override this).

All FMCs tune navaids fjukkktard, but none do autoapproaches, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Can't be entered at all. Now way anything flying will do an ILS all
>> by it's lonesomes from takeoff just by using the FMC.
>
> You're thinking of the runway approach.

Yes, fjukkwit.


That's what you land on.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> No, it can't, fjukktard
>
> Yes, it can.
>

No it can't, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Flydive > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Flydive > wrote in news:460e0a56$1_5
>> @news.bluewin.ch:
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> FMCs aren't programmed for approaches period, you moron
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Well yes they are.
>>>>>
>>>> Uh, no they're not. Only sids and stars, unless you mean an RNAV
>>>> app. Airplane still uses the navaids intended for the appp.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Or NDB, VOR, GPS.......(and both laterally and vertically)
>>>
>>> Of course ILS are still flown using navaids, but all others no.
>>>
>>> And above it was not specified you were talking only about ILS
>>
>>
>> But fjukktard was talking about an airplane making an approach and
>> landing all unaided.
>>
>> Unless your outfit allows autolands off an ADF.....
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> Well, as I said it can follow the appch laterally and vertically down
> to the runway, the landing is not going to be pretty for sure, more a
> crash landing and would not like to be on it for sure.

Well, they can all do that. in fact you could do it with even older stuff.
I know someone who did onc e, in fact. Case of having to. But what **** for
brains is talking about is pure holywood crap.
>
> And as I said in the other post the FMS can tune to the ILS and do the
> appch using the navaids, again not a pretty landing but probably
> survivable.

And what airplane, exactly, are you talking about that can do this?

Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> ATC don';t know how to fly a 737 you moron.

ATC can find an instructor who knows how to fly just about anything, if
required.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> And you'd let it?

Autotuning an ILS is just a matter of looking up the ILS frequency for the
selected runway in a database and tuning it. Why wouldn't a pilot allow the
FMC to do that for him? The pilot would just have to do exactly the same
thing himself, and with a greater probability of making a mistake.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> All FMCs tune navaids fjukkktard, but none do autoapproaches, fjukkwit.

You've used every one of them?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> A non pilot wouldn't know what an ils is djikkkwad.
>
> That isn't relevant here.
>

Yes it is.

Bertie

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Flydive > wrote in :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Sorry I have to disagree, an approach can be entered before T/O, in
>>> the
>>>> latest FMS it will autotune, and if approach is preselected on the
>>> panel
>>>> it will auto tranfer to "green data" and fly the ILS appch.
>>>
>>> ILS freqs won't autotune on anything I know of..
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> The Honeywell primus 2000 can do that.
>>
>
> And you'd let it?
>
>
> Hmm.
>
> Bertie


Why not?

It autotunes the frequency and selects the inbound course of the
approach you have selected, it does about 20 miles out.

You can override it anytime, you check it during your approach briefing.

It does not follow it unless you arm the approach on the panel.

I don't see any problem with it, as with anything on the aircraft you
have the ultimate control, I let the autopilot fly the aircraft most of
the time, but I always monitor what it does.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> ATC don';t know how to fly a 737 you moron.
>
> ATC can find an instructor who knows how to fly just about anything, if
> required.
>

Is that right? What instructor is that? Maybe you should leave them your
number, fjukkktard.



Berti e

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> All FMCs tune navaids fjukkktard, but none do autoapproaches, fjukkwit.
>
> You've used every one of them?

Used most of what's flying today..

Did four Cat 3 landings last week, in fact.

You've never even done one.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> And you'd let it?
>
> Autotuning an ILS is just a matter of looking up the ILS frequency for
> the selected runway in a database and tuning it. Why wouldn't a pilot
> allow the FMC to do that for him? The pilot would just have to do
> exactly the same thing himself, and with a greater probability of
> making a mistake.

Nope. Automatics **** up all the time, fjukktard. Something else you
don't know, obviously.



Bertie

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Flydive > wrote in :

>> And as I said in the other post the FMS can tune to the ILS and do the
>> appch using the navaids, again not a pretty landing but probably
>> survivable.
>
> And what airplane, exactly, are you talking about that can do this?
>
> Bertie
>

Global Express for one, and probably most the latest equipment.

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>
>>> ILS freqs won't autotune on anything I know of..
>> Then you don't know of all FMCs, because some FMCs will definitely
>> autotune the ILS. The 747-400 will do this (in fact, it autotunes all
>> the navaids, although you can override this).
>
> All FMCs tune navaids fjukkktard, but none do autoapproaches, fjukkwit.
>
>
> Bertie


Sorry to disagree again, but the latest FMS can tune the ILS frequency
and set the imbound track.

See other posts

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Flydive > wrote in news:460e2c24$1_1
@news.bluewin.ch:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Sorry I have to disagree, an approach can be entered before T/O,
in
>>>> the
>>>>> latest FMS it will autotune, and if approach is preselected on the
>>>> panel
>>>>> it will auto tranfer to "green data" and fly the ILS appch.
>>>>
>>>> ILS freqs won't autotune on anything I know of..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> The Honeywell primus 2000 can do that.
>>>
>>
>> And you'd let it?
>>
>>
>> Hmm.
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> Why not?
>
> It autotunes the frequency and selects the inbound course of the
> approach you have selected, it does about 20 miles out.
>
> You can override it anytime, you check it during your approach
briefing.
>
> It does not follow it unless you arm the approach on the panel.


>
> I don't see any problem with it, as with anything on the aircraft you
> have the ultimate control, I let the autopilot fly the aircraft most
of
> the time, but I always monitor what it does.

Well, you have to.. obviously. They do strange things from time to
time..

Didn't mean to suggest you didn't. But the way you said it sounded like
you would let it nav onto the ils and fly it off it's own bat not using
the ILS at all, just it's own input like an LNAV non precision.
We don't even allow LNAV intercepts of ILS's. We always intercept from
heading select, though we do allow a glidepath intercept from vnav from
below. I wouldn't trust the fjukkwit to do that, though. I wouldn't let
him use a toaster, in fact.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Flydive > wrote in news:460e2d81$1_3
@news.bluewin.ch:
>
>>> And as I said in the other post the FMS can tune to the ILS and do
the
>>> appch using the navaids, again not a pretty landing but probably
>>> survivable.
>>
>> And what airplane, exactly, are you talking about that can do this?
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Global Express for one, and probably most the latest equipment.


Global Express? Would that be th eGlobal Express X3000A2, or the Global
Express X3000C5? That's a modern derivit\ive of th eold Speedbird 500,
isn't it?





Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>>
>>>> ILS freqs won't autotune on anything I know of..
>>> Then you don't know of all FMCs, because some FMCs will definitely
>>> autotune the ILS. The 747-400 will do this (in fact, it autotunes all
>>> the navaids, although you can override this).
>>
>> All FMCs tune navaids fjukkktard, but none do autoapproaches, fjukkwit.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> Sorry to disagree again, but the latest FMS can tune the ILS frequency
> and set the imbound track.
>

RTFP. If you set up your FMC, clever as you like, punched your toga
switches and jumped out of the airplane, would it land at your
destination?

I'm guessing "no".


Bertie




Bertie

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Why not?
>>
>> It autotunes the frequency and selects the inbound course of the
>> approach you have selected, it does about 20 miles out.
>>
>> You can override it anytime, you check it during your approach
> briefing.
>> It does not follow it unless you arm the approach on the panel.
>
>
>> I don't see any problem with it, as with anything on the aircraft you
>> have the ultimate control, I let the autopilot fly the aircraft most
> of
>> the time, but I always monitor what it does.
>
> Well, you have to.. obviously. They do strange things from time to
> time..
>
> Didn't mean to suggest you didn't. But the way you said it sounded like
> you would let it nav onto the ils and fly it off it's own bat not using
> the ILS at all, just it's own input like an LNAV non precision.
> We don't even allow LNAV intercepts of ILS's. We always intercept from
> heading select, though we do allow a glidepath intercept from vnav from
> below. I wouldn't trust the fjukkwit to do that, though. I wouldn't let
> him use a toaster, in fact.
>
>
>
> Bertie

Well I agree not to trust it blindly, computers are computers.

True that most of the time you intercept using heading mode, most of the
time you are on radar vectors.

But when you are not on vectors and you are using the nav fuction to
follow the STAR, you can leave the panel on NAV, the FMS will autotune
the ILS frequency, set the imbound track, as the LOC comes alive the
flght director will switch to "green data" intercept the LOC and the
Glide path using the navaid. All that can be done on autopilot.
As I said, all the time the pilot will monitor it, and of course manual
intervention is still needed to configure the aircraft and ultimately to
land it.

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> Global Express? Would that be th eGlobal Express X3000A2, or the Global
> Express X3000C5? That's a modern derivit\ive of th eold Speedbird 500,
> isn't it?
>
>
>
>
>
> Bertie
>

That would be the Bombardier Global Express, long range business aircraft.

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/global/

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Flydive > wrote in :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>>>
>>>>> ILS freqs won't autotune on anything I know of..
>>>> Then you don't know of all FMCs, because some FMCs will definitely
>>>> autotune the ILS. The 747-400 will do this (in fact, it autotunes all
>>>> the navaids, although you can override this).
>>> All FMCs tune navaids fjukkktard, but none do autoapproaches, fjukkwit.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Sorry to disagree again, but the latest FMS can tune the ILS frequency
>> and set the imbound track.
>>
>
> RTFP. If you set up your FMC, clever as you like, punched your toga
> switches and jumped out of the airplane, would it land at your
> destination?
>
> I'm guessing "no".
>
>
> Bertie
>
>
>
>
> Bertie

Well I believe we were not talking about take off here.
But once airborne, lets say in cruise........if FMS programmed,
including RWY and APPCH, set on VNAV, APPCH preselected and altitude
selector set to RWY elevation..... well I guess pretty much yes.
Of course gear and flaps will not be set by the aircraft itself, so it
would be a pretty interesting landing ;-) but it would definetely hit
the runway at destination.

[Peter Dohm]

> > > > Nope I don't think they could have. If they were used doors that
lock
> > > > electrically rather the mechanically sound rather like a bad choice
to
> > > > ward off terrorists.
> >
> > > Not only would the methods I've described allow the flight attendant
to land,
> > > but in this case the flight attendant also had had pilot training.
> >
> > You seem to have some detailed information about this incident. Please
> > cite your references so we can all argue based on the same facts.
>
> Really, it's amazing that so many posters make fun of Mx for not using
> Google, when you apparently fail to do the same. Google "Helios
> crash" and you'll find everything from a Wikipedia article to safety
> articles to whatever.
>
> Kev
>
Precisely!

The probable beginning point of the chain of events leading to the Helios
crash was ridiculously easy to find, and the interim training
recommendations by the manufacturer (Boeing) appeared without any additional
research...

Mxsmanic is not the only offender, but he is the worst and also the most
consistent, and there is no sane reason for any of us to act as his personal
research assistant. That was my reason for simply inserting "Google is your
friend."

Peter

[Iain Smith]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> What does that have to do with MTBF?

Nothing because that wasn't what you said. You weren't talking about mean
time between failures (in case you thought I didn't understand), you stated
that jet engines (implicity individual units within the context of this
thread) could run for hundreds of thousands of hours without failure. This
is patently not true and has not happened yet.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> I know how it works (I've flown 73's in the past, BTW) and I know why it
>> crashed and I alsop know you';re talking straight out of your ass.
>
> I've flown SR-71s and F-16s.
>

No you haven't. You are a simmer, or gamer, you have never flown a damn
thing but your desk.

[Mxsmanic]

Iain Smith writes:

> Nothing because that wasn't what you said. You weren't talking about mean
> time between failures (in case you thought I didn't understand), you stated
> that jet engines (implicity individual units within the context of this
> thread) could run for hundreds of thousands of hours without failure. This
> is patently not true and has not happened yet.

The alleged fact that it hasn't happened doesn't prove that it cannot. And
how do you know it hasn't happened? Is someone keeping track of the worldwide
record for running time between failures?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> No you haven't. You are a simmer, or gamer, you have never flown a damn
> thing but your desk.

How do you know? All I see here is names on a screen, some of them making
extravagant claims. Historically, claims made on USENET have a very low
probability of being truthful.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> No you haven't. You are a simmer, or gamer, you have never flown a damn
>> thing but your desk.
>
> How do you know? All I see here is names on a screen, some of them making
> extravagant claims. Historically, claims made on USENET have a very low
> probability of being truthful.
>

Well then, by all means. Tell us what you have actually flown.

[Iain Smith]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Is someone keeping track of the worldwide record for running time between
> failures?
>
You bet they are! All engine manufacturers do.

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Well then, by all means. Tell us what you have actually flown.

Spaceships and nuclear submarines.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Iain Smith writes:

> You bet they are! All engine manufacturers do.

Where can I find this information?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> Global Express? Would that be th eGlobal Express X3000A2, or the
>> Global Express X3000C5? That's a modern derivit\ive of th eold
>> Speedbird 500, isn't it?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> That would be the Bombardier Global Express, long range business
> aircraft.


OOoW kewl. Pinstripes? Big boombox inside?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Flydive > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ILS freqs won't autotune on anything I know of..
>>>>> Then you don't know of all FMCs, because some FMCs will definitely
>>>>> autotune the ILS. The 747-400 will do this (in fact, it autotunes
>>>>> all the navaids, although you can override this).
>>>> All FMCs tune navaids fjukkktard, but none do autoapproaches,
>>>> fjukkwit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Sorry to disagree again, but the latest FMS can tune the ILS
>>> frequency and set the imbound track.
>>>
>>
>> RTFP. If you set up your FMC, clever as you like, punched your toga
>> switches and jumped out of the airplane, would it land at your
>> destination?
>>
>> I'm guessing "no".
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Well I believe we were not talking about take off here.
> But once airborne, lets say in cruise........if FMS programmed,
> including RWY and APPCH, set on VNAV, APPCH preselected and altitude
> selector set to RWY elevation..... well I guess pretty much yes.
> Of course gear and flaps will not be set by the aircraft itself, so it
> would be a pretty interesting landing ;-) but it would definetely hit
> the runway at destination.
>

Mm, don't think so. Haven't flown on of your fartboxes, but I've flown
'Busses and everythign but the very latest boeing (777) and haven't seen
anything that would do that even onm a good day without a lot of
assistance from a pilot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Why not?
>>>
>>> It autotunes the frequency and selects the inbound course of the
>>> approach you have selected, it does about 20 miles out.
>>>
>>> You can override it anytime, you check it during your approach
>> briefing.
>>> It does not follow it unless you arm the approach on the panel.
>>
>>
>>> I don't see any problem with it, as with anything on the aircraft
you
>>> have the ultimate control, I let the autopilot fly the aircraft most
>> of
>>> the time, but I always monitor what it does.
>>
>> Well, you have to.. obviously. They do strange things from time to
>> time..
>>
>> Didn't mean to suggest you didn't. But the way you said it sounded
like
>> you would let it nav onto the ils and fly it off it's own bat not
using
>> the ILS at all, just it's own input like an LNAV non precision.
>> We don't even allow LNAV intercepts of ILS's. We always intercept
from
>> heading select, though we do allow a glidepath intercept from vnav
from
>> below. I wouldn't trust the fjukkwit to do that, though. I wouldn't
let
>> him use a toaster, in fact.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Well I agree not to trust it blindly, computers are computers.
>
> True that most of the time you intercept using heading mode, most of
the
> time you are on radar vectors.
>
> But when you are not on vectors and you are using the nav fuction to
> follow the STAR, you can leave the panel on NAV, the FMS will autotune
> the ILS frequency, set the imbound track, as the LOC comes alive the
> flght director will switch to "green data" intercept the LOC and the
> Glide path using the navaid. All that can be done on autopilot.
> As I said, all the time the pilot will monitor it, and of course
manual
> intervention is still needed to configure the aircraft and ultimately
to
> land it.

No, I can't do that. For one thig, it's company policy we don't do it in
any of our airplanes, and for another, the possibility of a parralell
intercept due to even a minute amount of map shift is too great, so I
just wouldn't..

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> No you haven't. You are a simmer, or gamer, you have never flown a
>> damn thing but your desk.
>
> How do you know?

Because you said so.

All I see here is names on a screen, some of them
> making extravagant claims. Historically, claims made on USENET have a
> very low probability of being truthful.


Oh hear hear. Like most of what you say, for instance.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Well then, by all means. Tell us what you have actually flown.
>
> Spaceships and nuclear submarines.
>

Fjukkwit


bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Because you said so.

I said that I fly spacecraft and submarines, too.

> Oh hear hear. Like most of what you say, for instance.

Then how do you know what is true and what isn't?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Iain Smith writes:
>
>> You bet they are! All engine manufacturers do.
>
> Where can I find this information?
>

What's it to you, fjukkwit?


You don;t fly. The engines on your airplane don't exist because there is no
airplane, no flying and no real skill involved.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Because you said so.
>
> I said that I fly spacecraft and submarines, too.
>
>> Oh hear hear. Like most of what you say, for instance.
>
> Then how do you know what is true and what isn't?
>

How do you think?


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> You don;t fly. The engines on your airplane don't exist because there is no
> airplane, no flying and no real skill involved.

Are you familiar with Pavlov's work?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Flydive > wrote in :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Why not?
>>>> It autotunes the frequency and selects the inbound course of the
>>>> approach you have selected, it does about 20 miles out.
>>>>
>>>> You can override it anytime, you check it during your approach
>>> briefing.
>>>> It does not follow it unless you arm the approach on the panel.
>>>
>>>> I don't see any problem with it, as with anything on the aircraft
> you
>>>> have the ultimate control, I let the autopilot fly the aircraft most
>>> of
>>>> the time, but I always monitor what it does.
>>> Well, you have to.. obviously. They do strange things from time to
>>> time..
>>>
>>> Didn't mean to suggest you didn't. But the way you said it sounded
> like
>>> you would let it nav onto the ils and fly it off it's own bat not
> using
>>> the ILS at all, just it's own input like an LNAV non precision.
>>> We don't even allow LNAV intercepts of ILS's. We always intercept
> from
>>> heading select, though we do allow a glidepath intercept from vnav
> from
>>> below. I wouldn't trust the fjukkwit to do that, though. I wouldn't
> let
>>> him use a toaster, in fact.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Well I agree not to trust it blindly, computers are computers.
>>
>> True that most of the time you intercept using heading mode, most of
> the
>> time you are on radar vectors.
>>
>> But when you are not on vectors and you are using the nav fuction to
>> follow the STAR, you can leave the panel on NAV, the FMS will autotune
>> the ILS frequency, set the imbound track, as the LOC comes alive the
>> flght director will switch to "green data" intercept the LOC and the
>> Glide path using the navaid. All that can be done on autopilot.
>> As I said, all the time the pilot will monitor it, and of course
> manual
>> intervention is still needed to configure the aircraft and ultimately
> to
>> land it.
>
> No, I can't do that. For one thig, it's company policy we don't do it in
> any of our airplanes, and for another, the possibility of a parralell
> intercept due to even a minute amount of map shift is too great, so I
> just wouldn't..
>
> Bertie

Well, company policy is one thing, what the technology can do is another.
The map shift has nothing to do with it, the FD will intercept the
localizer signal and follow is just as it would if you would tune it
manually and intercept it on heading select.
As you intercept the LOC you will not be using the FMS commands anymore
but the navaid signal.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Flydive > wrote in :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Why not?
>>>>> It autotunes the frequency and selects the inbound course of the
>>>>> approach you have selected, it does about 20 miles out.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can override it anytime, you check it during your approach
>>>> briefing.
>>>>> It does not follow it unless you arm the approach on the panel.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't see any problem with it, as with anything on the aircraft
>> you
>>>>> have the ultimate control, I let the autopilot fly the aircraft
>>>>> most
>>>> of
>>>>> the time, but I always monitor what it does.
>>>> Well, you have to.. obviously. They do strange things from time to
>>>> time..
>>>>
>>>> Didn't mean to suggest you didn't. But the way you said it sounded
>> like
>>>> you would let it nav onto the ils and fly it off it's own bat not
>> using
>>>> the ILS at all, just it's own input like an LNAV non precision.
>>>> We don't even allow LNAV intercepts of ILS's. We always intercept
>> from
>>>> heading select, though we do allow a glidepath intercept from vnav
>> from
>>>> below. I wouldn't trust the fjukkwit to do that, though. I wouldn't
>> let
>>>> him use a toaster, in fact.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Well I agree not to trust it blindly, computers are computers.
>>>
>>> True that most of the time you intercept using heading mode, most of
>> the
>>> time you are on radar vectors.
>>>
>>> But when you are not on vectors and you are using the nav fuction to
>>> follow the STAR, you can leave the panel on NAV, the FMS will
>>> autotune the ILS frequency, set the imbound track, as the LOC comes
>>> alive the flght director will switch to "green data" intercept the
>>> LOC and the Glide path using the navaid. All that can be done on
>>> autopilot. As I said, all the time the pilot will monitor it, and of
>>> course
>> manual
>>> intervention is still needed to configure the aircraft and
>>> ultimately
>> to
>>> land it.
>>
>> No, I can't do that. For one thig, it's company policy we don't do it
>> in any of our airplanes, and for another, the possibility of a
>> parralell intercept due to even a minute amount of map shift is too
>> great, so I just wouldn't..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Well, company policy is one thing, what the technology can do is
> another. The map shift has nothing to do with it, the FD will
> intercept the localizer signal and follow is just as it would if you
> would tune it manually and intercept it on heading select.

no it won't, not if it intercepts the FMC track first and thats not in
the same place as the runway.


> As you intercept the LOC you will not be using the FMS commands
> anymore but the navaid signal.
>

IF you intercept it. That's the point and that's why we don't allow it.
We also consider it to be good practice re: pilot machine interface.
You're more in theh loop. Hdg sel only comes on when you're within a few
miles of interception if you're not already on it.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> You don;t fly. The engines on your airplane don't exist because there
>> is no airplane, no flying and no real skill involved.
>
> Are you familiar with Pavlov's work?

Obviously.

Bertie

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Flydive > wrote in :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Flydive > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ILS freqs won't autotune on anything I know of..
>>>>>> Then you don't know of all FMCs, because some FMCs will definitely
>>>>>> autotune the ILS. The 747-400 will do this (in fact, it autotunes
>>>>>> all the navaids, although you can override this).
>>>>> All FMCs tune navaids fjukkktard, but none do autoapproaches,
>>>>> fjukkwit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Sorry to disagree again, but the latest FMS can tune the ILS
>>>> frequency and set the imbound track.
>>>>
>>> RTFP. If you set up your FMC, clever as you like, punched your toga
>>> switches and jumped out of the airplane, would it land at your
>>> destination?
>>>
>>> I'm guessing "no".
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Well I believe we were not talking about take off here.
>> But once airborne, lets say in cruise........if FMS programmed,
>> including RWY and APPCH, set on VNAV, APPCH preselected and altitude
>> selector set to RWY elevation..... well I guess pretty much yes.
>> Of course gear and flaps will not be set by the aircraft itself, so it
>> would be a pretty interesting landing ;-) but it would definetely hit
>> the runway at destination.
>>
>
> Mm, don't think so. Haven't flown on of your fartboxes, but I've flown
> 'Busses and everythign but the very latest boeing (777) and haven't seen
> anything that would do that even onm a good day without a lot of
> assistance from a pilot.
>
>
> Bertie


Well I believed we were having a good technical and operational
conversation here, but if you are resorting on making fun of other
people equipment, getting into the big against smaller aircraft type of
talk, well I guess we won't go far.
I believe that any of the latest equipments can, if correctly
programmed, fly from cruise level, all the way down to intercecept the
ILS then crash land on the runway without any intervention.
From cruise program the FPL, the STAR, the appch, set RWY elevation,
VNAV and then just sit back and not touch the controls till over the RWY.
I'll of course have to configure flaps and gear, but other than that.
Of course this does not take into account request from ATC.

But should ATC clear me all the way from FL450 to landing then I could
do that.

I'm pretty sure the latest Airbus and Boeing can do that too.

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Flydive > wrote in :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Global Express? Would that be th eGlobal Express X3000A2, or the
>>> Global Express X3000C5? That's a modern derivit\ive of th eold
>>> Speedbird 500, isn't it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> That would be the Bombardier Global Express, long range business
>> aircraft.
>
>
> OOoW kewl. Pinstripes? Big boombox inside?
>
> Bertie

Well, again if you have to resort to this kind of behavior the
conversation will not go very far, too bad, I was enjoying it.

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Well, company policy is one thing, what the technology can do is
>> another. The map shift has nothing to do with it, the FD will
>> intercept the localizer signal and follow is just as it would if you
>> would tune it manually and intercept it on heading select.
>
> no it won't, not if it intercepts the FMC track first and thats not in
> the same place as the runway.


It will NOT, intercept, never, the FMC track, again as the LOC becomes
alive the FD will drop the FMC(switch from FMC guidance to navaids) and
intercept the LOC, the signal from the navaid, the FMC will again come
online only if you select it or if you select TOGA.
>
>
>> As you intercept the LOC you will not be using the FMS commands
>> anymore but the navaid signal.
>>
>
> IF you intercept it. That's the point and that's why we don't allow it.
> We also consider it to be good practice re: pilot machine interface.
> You're more in theh loop. Hdg sel only comes on when you're within a few
> miles of interception if you're not already on it.
>
>
> Bertie

If the ILS is working you will definetely intercept it, there is
absolutely no difference if you intercept following the FMC guidance or
if you are on heading, you will intercept the ILS signal fro the navaid
on the ground.

You are always monitoring the instruments and the FMC and autopilot, or
at least I am. I don't believe you fly with the autopilot on, in any
phase of the flight without monitoring it

[Just go look it up!]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:33:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> wrote:

>Flydive > wrote in :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Flydive > wrote in :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> That's rubbish. You said the FMC is programmed from the start
>>>>>>> (Incorrect, the approach is usually input en-route, but never
>>> mind).
>>>>>> The approach can be entered into the FMC at any time.
>>>>> No, it can't, fjukktard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Well actually it can, even before take off
>>>
>>> Can't be entered at all. Now way anything flying will do an ILS all
>by
>>> it's lonesomes from takeoff just by using the FMC.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Sorry I have to disagree, an approach can be entered before T/O, in
>the
>> latest FMS it will autotune, and if approach is preselected on the
>panel
>> it will auto tranfer to "green data" and fly the ILS appch.
>
>
>ILS freqs won't autotune on anything I know of..

FWIW, they can on a 74, 76, or 77 with that carrier-option enabled.
Course, someone still has to engage APR mode and the other 2
autopilots if that carrier option isn't enabled, but I digress.....

[Maxwell]

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in message
...
> Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT wrote:
>>
>> Not even Google will be MX's friend...
>>
>
>
> Smart. Bet he don't have a dog either..........
>

He probably ties a pork chop around his neck so he can simulate that
relationship too.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Iain Smith writes:
>
>> Nothing because that wasn't what you said. You weren't talking about mean
>> time between failures (in case you thought I didn't understand), you
>> stated
>> that jet engines (implicity individual units within the context of this
>> thread) could run for hundreds of thousands of hours without failure.
>> This
>> is patently not true and has not happened yet.
>
> The alleged fact that it hasn't happened doesn't prove that it cannot.
> And
> how do you know it hasn't happened? Is someone keeping track of the
> worldwide
> record for running time between failures?
>

Holy crap! Are you really that stupid? Do you have no idea how much data is
maintain or EVERY jet engine flying?

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> Do you have no idea how much data is maintain or EVERY jet engine flying?

Do you?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[John Mazor[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> You don;t fly. The engines on your airplane don't exist
>> because there is no
>> airplane, no flying and no real skill involved.
>
> Are you familiar with Pavlov's work?

Therein lies MaxManiac's agenda.

[scott s.]

Flydive > wrote in :

>
>
> Well I believed we were having a good technical and operational
> conversation here, but if you are resorting on making fun of other
> people equipment, getting into the big against smaller aircraft type
> of talk, well I guess we won't go far.
> I believe that any of the latest equipments can, if correctly
> programmed, fly from cruise level, all the way down to intercecept the
> ILS then crash land on the runway without any intervention.
> From cruise program the FPL, the STAR, the appch, set RWY elevation,
> VNAV and then just sit back and not touch the controls till over the
> RWY. I'll of course have to configure flaps and gear, but other than
> that. Of course this does not take into account request from ATC.
>
> But should ATC clear me all the way from FL450 to landing then I could
> do that.
>
> I'm pretty sure the latest Airbus and Boeing can do that too.

I don't believe there is any FMS that will do what you are describing:
namely, shift automatically from an RNAV approach to an ILS approach.
It could be with WAAS or other advanced GPS-based system you could fly
an RNAV approach all the way to touchdown. I suppose you could fly
through the DH and crash on an RNAV LNAV/VNAV approach.

scott s.
..

[Flydive]

scott s. wrote:
> Flydive > wrote in :
>
>>
>> Well I believed we were having a good technical and operational
>> conversation here, but if you are resorting on making fun of other
>> people equipment, getting into the big against smaller aircraft type
>> of talk, well I guess we won't go far.
>> I believe that any of the latest equipments can, if correctly
>> programmed, fly from cruise level, all the way down to intercecept the
>> ILS then crash land on the runway without any intervention.
>> From cruise program the FPL, the STAR, the appch, set RWY elevation,
>> VNAV and then just sit back and not touch the controls till over the
>> RWY. I'll of course have to configure flaps and gear, but other than
>> that. Of course this does not take into account request from ATC.
>>
>> But should ATC clear me all the way from FL450 to landing then I could
>> do that.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure the latest Airbus and Boeing can do that too.
>
> I don't believe there is any FMS that will do what you are describing:
> namely, shift automatically from an RNAV approach to an ILS approach.
> It could be with WAAS or other advanced GPS-based system you could fly
> an RNAV approach all the way to touchdown. I suppose you could fly
> through the DH and crash on an RNAV LNAV/VNAV approach.
>
> scott s.
> .
>
Well, the FMS on the Global Express, with the Batch 2 upgrade will do that.
For that to happen you must have NAV selected, the FMS must be your
source of navigation, you must have the ILS frequency tuned in (either
manually or autotuned) and you must have APCH preselected.
As the aircraft joins the LOC the FD will automatically switch from FMS
to ILS as source and intercept Localizer and flightpath.

[Sammy]

On Mar 31, 8:17 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> I've flown SR-71s and F-16s.

Zoooooom!!!! Look mummy I'm a plane!!!!

[Sammy]

On Apr 1, 1:01 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> How do you know? All I see here is names on a screen, some of them making
> extravagant claims. Historically, claims made on USENET have a very low
> probability of being truthful.

He knows because what you're saying is ridiculous and no real world
pilot would support your lunatic fringe ideas.

[Sammy]

On Apr 1, 2:03 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Maxwell writes:
> > Well then, by all means. Tell us what you have actually flown.
> Spaceships and nuclear submarines.

Mummy! I'm a space ship! Pow Pow Pow
Mummy! Mummy! Look I'm a submarine! Bing Bing BIng Bing

[Sammy]

On Mar 31, 11:04 am, "Kev" > wrote:
> Really, it's amazing that so many posters make fun of Mx for not using
> Google, when you apparently fail to do the same. Google "Helios
> crash" and you'll find everything from a Wikipedia article to safety
> articles to whatever.

Really it's amazing that anyone would defend Mx when he's making
asinine and childish claims. It's amazing that you have such a poor
understanding of how to debate a point. If I Google and Mx Googles we
could come up with totally different sources and be debating totally
different things. I've asked him to back up his claim with a source so
I can examine it critically. That's not unreasonable. Furthermore
since he's making the assertion the onus is on him to provide the
evidence.

Of course this is assuming you're not just Mx posting under a
different name.

[Sammy]

On Mar 31, 11:17 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Actually, just about every news report gave most of the details that I've
> already provided. However, I've also read much of the final report by the
> AAIASB, which does contain more detail.

Point me to the exact report, and the news reports you're talking
about. If you don't want to give me a web URL or detailed instructions
on how to find it at least give me a report number or some kind of ID
so i can examine the evidence you're talking about.

[Sammy]

On Mar 31, 9:24 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> ATC can find an instructor who knows how to fly just about anything, if
> required.

So what you're now claiming is that there's an instructor for any
given aircraft type near any given airport?

Now you need:
1) A pre-programmed FMC route that includes the approach
2) Good weather and traffic, otherwise time to reprogram the FMC
3) An instructor on call with ATC for that particular aircraft type
4) Another aircraft or simulator on the ground to run through the
procedure on (though I bet you think you could just do it with MSFS
and PMDG)
5) Autoland certified ILS
6) Enough time between the pilot becoming incapacitated and final
approach and/or running out of fuel to run the non-pilot through the
procedure

If this isn't Hollywood what is?

Honestly stop being so thick and try this. Bring a friend over who
doesn't fly. Sit them in front of the MSFS/PMDG with the plane in the
air WITHOUT the final approach programmed in. To be fair put them say
an hour out from the destination airport. Now find a way to talk to
them from another room. A phone or intercom or 2-way handheld radio
will do nicely. Try and talk them down. Let us know how you go.

[Mxsmanic]

Sammy writes:

> Point me to the exact report, and the news reports you're talking
> about. If you don't want to give me a web URL or detailed instructions
> on how to find it at least give me a report number or some kind of ID
> so i can examine the evidence you're talking about.

No.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Sammy writes:

> So what you're now claiming is that there's an instructor for any
> given aircraft type near any given airport?

Why would he have to be near the airport? That's what telephones are for.

ATC certainly isn't likely to be near the airport.

> Now you need:
> 1) A pre-programmed FMC route that includes the approach
> 2) Good weather and traffic, otherwise time to reprogram the FMC
> 3) An instructor on call with ATC for that particular aircraft type
> 4) Another aircraft or simulator on the ground to run through the
> procedure on (though I bet you think you could just do it with MSFS
> and PMDG)
> 5) Autoland certified ILS
> 6) Enough time between the pilot becoming incapacitated and final
> approach and/or running out of fuel to run the non-pilot through the
> procedure

No. All you need is (1) automated flight when the incident occurs, such as a
FMC or autopilot, (2) autoland capability in the aircraft and an airport with
an ILS approach, and (3) someone who knows the aircraft well to help on the
radio.

> Honestly stop being so thick and try this. Bring a friend over who
> doesn't fly. Sit them in front of the MSFS/PMDG with the plane in the
> air WITHOUT the final approach programmed in. To be fair put them say
> an hour out from the destination airport. Now find a way to talk to
> them from another room. A phone or intercom or 2-way handheld radio
> will do nicely. Try and talk them down. Let us know how you go.

That would be fun, at least for me (since I know it would work). I don't know
anyone nearby who likes aviation, though.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Not4wood]

Only a Sim, Desk Dog and I bet he dies anyway.

Not4wood

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in message
...
> Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT wrote:
>>
>> Not even Google will be MX's friend...
>>
>
>
> Smart. Bet he don't have a dog either..........
>

[Sammy]

On Apr 1, 10:28 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Sammy writes:
> > Point me to the exact report, and the news reports you're talking
> > about. If you don't want to give me a web URL or detailed instructions
> > on how to find it at least give me a report number or some kind of ID
> > so i can examine the evidence you're talking about.
> No.

Of course not because you know I'd shoot holes through your argument
and you know you're wrong. It's the same any time I ask you to prove
any wild and unconventional claim you make.

[Sammy]

On Apr 1, 10:31 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Sammy writes:
> > So what you're now claiming is that there's an instructor for any
> > given aircraft type near any given airport?
> Why would he have to be near the airport? That's what telephones are for.
> ATC certainly isn't likely to be near the airport.

Yes because every instructor pilot has a full motion sim sitting in
his back yard, and ATC regualrly patch phone calls through. Please
keep on pushing this argument, you're looking more foolish by the
minute.

> No. All you need is (1) automated flight when the incident occurs, such as a
> FMC or autopilot, (2) autoland capability in the aircraft and an airport with
> an ILS approach, and (3) someone who knows the aircraft well to help on the
> radio.

You need a lot more. The instructor isn't going to just think up the
instructions no matter how good his or her memory. In the above
scenario you also need to be able to patch the instructor through from
phone to radio. I couldn't tell you for sure if that's a standard
thing without looking it up. My point is though you need a lot more
than you think you need.

Your problem is this. You are using a simplified simulator (and that's
what it is no matter how closely some of the systems are modelled) and
it's lulled you into thinking that just because it's similar, the real
thing is no harder. It's an easy mistake to make if you've got no real
world experience of anything and think that thought experiments
replace real world experience as you've stated. I'll repeat what I
said earlier: Your education has failed you.

> > Honestly stop being so thick and try this. Bring a friend over who
> > doesn't fly. Sit them in front of the MSFS/PMDG with the plane in the
> > air WITHOUT the final approach programmed in. To be fair put them say
> > an hour out from the destination airport. Now find a way to talk to
> > them from another room. A phone or intercom or 2-way handheld radio
> > will do nicely. Try and talk them down. Let us know how you go.
>
> That would be fun, at least for me (since I know it would work). I don't know
> anyone nearby who likes aviation, though.

They don't have to like aviation. In fact it would be best if they
didn't. Bribe them with lunch. Heck bribe them with $20. You'll see
it's harder than you think.After all since flying real 747s is so easy
for you now, you must be getting bored. If you've got a video camera
set it up to record and you could put it up on the web for us so you
could gloat. Go on, give it a try. I dare ya.

[Mxsmanic]

Sammy writes:

> Of course not because you know I'd shoot holes through your argument
> and you know you're wrong. It's the same any time I ask you to prove
> any wild and unconventional claim you make.

No, it's not that. It's just that I know that lurkers will spend just a few
seconds to find what you're demanding from me, and they'll draw their own
conclusions about the topic, and about your position.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Sammy writes:

> Yes because every instructor pilot has a full motion sim sitting in
> his back yard, and ATC regualrly patch phone calls through.

He may not need a simulator sitting next to him. And connecting things by
telephone isn't difficult.

> You need a lot more. The instructor isn't going to just think up the
> instructions no matter how good his or her memory.

Why not?

> In the above scenario you also need to be able to patch the instructor
> through from phone to radio.

What a staggering technical feat that would be, eh?

> I couldn't tell you for sure if that's a standard
> thing without looking it up. My point is though you need a lot more
> than you think you need.

You don't know without looking it up, and yet you're sure of it? Hmm.

> Your problem is this. You are using a simplified simulator (and that's
> what it is no matter how closely some of the systems are modelled) and
> it's lulled you into thinking that just because it's similar, the real
> thing is no harder. It's an easy mistake to make if you've got no real
> world experience of anything and think that thought experiments
> replace real world experience as you've stated. I'll repeat what I
> said earlier: Your education has failed you.

Actually, I think the reality is almost certainly simpler than many people
believe or claim it to be. People like to exaggerate the complexity of things
in order to impress others.

> They don't have to like aviation. In fact it would be best if they
> didn't. Bribe them with lunch. Heck bribe them with $20.

I can't afford to bribe anyone, and all of my friends are completely
uninterested in aviation. I doubt if they'd come to my house just for a dopey
experiment like this.

> You'll see it's harder than you think.

I've spent most of my life explaining things to people; I'm quite good at it.

> After all since flying real 747s is so easy for you now, you
> must be getting bored.

Or comfortable.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Flydive > wrote in news:460e4bc0$1_1
@news.bluewin.ch:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Global Express? Would that be th eGlobal Express X3000A2, or the
>>>> Global Express X3000C5? That's a modern derivit\ive of th eold
>>>> Speedbird 500, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> That would be the Bombardier Global Express, long range business
>>> aircraft.
>>
>>
>> OOoW kewl. Pinstripes? Big boombox inside?
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Well, again if you have to resort to this kind of behavior the
> conversation will not go very far, too bad, I was enjoying it.

Ok bye.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Nope, I don't., just good old fashioned ribing. Tomorrow, in fact I'm going flying in several airplanes considerable smaller than your fartbox..
No FMC, no radios, in fact..

But if that's how ya feel,Bye bye and don't let the door hit ya on the ass.


Bertie
>
> Well I believed we were having a good technical and operational
> conversation here, but if you are resorting on making fun of other
> people equipment, getting into the big against smaller aircraft type
> of talk, well I guess we won't go far.
> I believe that any of the latest equipments can, if correctly
> programmed, fly from cruise level, all the way down to intercecept the
> ILS then crash land on the runway without any intervention.
> From cruise program the FPL, the STAR, the appch, set RWY elevation,
> VNAV and then just sit back and not touch the controls till over the
> RWY. I'll of course have to configure flaps and gear, but other than
> that. Of course this does not take into account request from ATC.
>
> But should ATC clear me all the way from FL450 to landing then I could
> do that.
>

I could do that in the 727 without touching the taps all the wat to 1,000 feet, no matter what ATC did to me on the way down. Could do in anything in fact.

Haven't seen an FMC that can do it every time..

And I mean zero thrust all the way down..

Every time..


> I'm pretty sure the latest Airbus and Boeing can do that too.
>

Well, maybe the 380 and the 777. the others can't. I'm sure.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Just go look it up! > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:33:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
> > wrote:
>
>>Flydive > wrote in news:460e2567$1_3
@news.bluewin.ch:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Flydive > wrote in news:460e0a0d_5
@news.bluewin.ch:
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's rubbish. You said the FMC is programmed from the start
>>>>>>>> (Incorrect, the approach is usually input en-route, but never
>>>> mind).
>>>>>>> The approach can be entered into the FMC at any time.
>>>>>> No, it can't, fjukktard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Well actually it can, even before take off
>>>>
>>>> Can't be entered at all. Now way anything flying will do an ILS all
>>by
>>>> it's lonesomes from takeoff just by using the FMC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Sorry I have to disagree, an approach can be entered before T/O, in
>>the
>>> latest FMS it will autotune, and if approach is preselected on the
>>panel
>>> it will auto tranfer to "green data" and fly the ILS appch.
>>
>>
>>ILS freqs won't autotune on anything I know of..
>
> FWIW, they can on a 74, 76, or 77 with that carrier-option enabled.
> Course, someone still has to engage APR mode and the other 2
> autopilots if that carrier option isn't enabled, but I digress.....

Not digression, kind of to the point, I'd say..

Bertie
>

[Sammy]

On Apr 1, 2:26 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Sammy writes:
> > Of course not because you know I'd shoot holes through your argument
> > and you know you're wrong. It's the same any time I ask you to prove
> > any wild and unconventional claim you make.
>
> No, it's not that. It's just that I know that lurkers will spend just a few
> seconds to find what you're demanding from me, and they'll draw their own
> conclusions about the topic, and about your position.

What a **** weak excuse. You're afraid you'll offend someone? Gimme a
break. You offend someone with almost every message you write! You
can't be bothered? If you're so well researched of course you'd just
cut and paste the URL or give me a reference. It takes almost no
effort. In case you haven't noticed most regulars, inlcuding real
world pilots think you're a joke. That speaks volumes for the quality
of your information and for your people skills. As for lurkers I won't
speak for them but I'd bet good money many regular lurkers don't even
read what you say anymore.

You're just plain afraid to present me with material that will
probably turn out to show that you've twisted it and worse support
what I'm saying.

You are completely incapable of having an evidence based debate.
Instead you just wave about crackpot ideas based on sitting in your
basement with MSFS and PMDG. That's not the way the world works.
Nothing you say based on this so called "study" has any relevance to
real world. No vague reference to some report you can't even cite
correctly makes you look any better.

In fact to my knowledge you have never ever substantiated anything
you've said because most of what you say can't be substantiated. It is
designed to upset people and is based on fantasy. If you won't put up
any evidence you're just talking BS.

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Flydive > wrote in :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Flydive > wrote in news:460e4bc0$1_1
> @news.bluewin.ch:
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Global Express? Would that be th eGlobal Express X3000A2, or the
>>>>> Global Express X3000C5? That's a modern derivit\ive of th eold
>>>>> Speedbird 500, isn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>
>>>> That would be the Bombardier Global Express, long range business
>>>> aircraft.
>>>
>>> OOoW kewl. Pinstripes? Big boombox inside?
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Well, again if you have to resort to this kind of behavior the
>> conversation will not go very far, too bad, I was enjoying it.
>
> Ok bye.
>
>
> Bertie


To bad you can discuss anything seriously, and you complain about
Mxsmanic......
Well guess is true what they say, just a troll

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Nope, I don't., just good old fashioned ribing. Tomorrow, in fact I'm going flying in several airplanes considerable smaller than your fartbox..
> No FMC, no radios, in fact..
>
> But if that's how ya feel,Bye bye and don't let the door hit ya on the ass.
>
>
> Bertie
>> Well I believed we were having a good technical and operational
>> conversation here, but if you are resorting on making fun of other
>> people equipment, getting into the big against smaller aircraft type
>> of talk, well I guess we won't go far.
>> I believe that any of the latest equipments can, if correctly
>> programmed, fly from cruise level, all the way down to intercecept the
>> ILS then crash land on the runway without any intervention.
>> From cruise program the FPL, the STAR, the appch, set RWY elevation,
>> VNAV and then just sit back and not touch the controls till over the
>> RWY. I'll of course have to configure flaps and gear, but other than
>> that. Of course this does not take into account request from ATC.
>>
>> But should ATC clear me all the way from FL450 to landing then I could
>> do that.
>>
>
> I could do that in the 727 without touching the taps all the wat to 1,000 feet, no matter what ATC did to me on the way down. Could do in anything in fact.
>
> Haven't seen an FMC that can do it every time..
>
> And I mean zero thrust all the way down..
>
> Every time..
>
>

Yes, but recent aircraft, recent avionics can take all the way to the
runway, including tuning the approach frequency and intercept and fly
the ILS, ILS using the navaid not FMS.
Of course they cannot configure flaps and gear, you will have to do that
yourself

>> I'm pretty sure the latest Airbus and Boeing can do that too.
>>
>
> Well, maybe the 380 and the 777. the others can't. I'm sure.
>
>
As I said modern aircraft with the latest avionics, I'm pretty sure the
Wright Flyer couldn't do it either ;-)


> Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Flydive writes:

> Of course they cannot configure flaps and gear, you will have to do that
> yourself

Only because they are designed that way. In theory, flaps and gear could be
automated, too--it just isn't done on current systems.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Flydive > wrote in :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Flydive > wrote in news:460e4bc0$1_1
>> @news.bluewin.ch:
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Global Express? Would that be th eGlobal Express X3000A2, or the
>>>>>> Global Express X3000C5? That's a modern derivit\ive of th eold
>>>>>> Speedbird 500, isn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>
>>>>> That would be the Bombardier Global Express, long range business
>>>>> aircraft.
>>>>
>>>> OOoW kewl. Pinstripes? Big boombox inside?
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Well, again if you have to resort to this kind of behavior the
>>> conversation will not go very far, too bad, I was enjoying it.
>>
>> Ok bye.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> To bad you can discuss anything seriously,


I can, but here? What the **** for? Don't you get enough of that to keep
you happy in the crewroom?


and you complain about
> Mxsmanic......

I never komplain abotu MXCManic or any other dufus I find on usenet! I
live for them! Your powers of obv\sdervation are severely lacking.



> Well guess is true what they say, just a troll



That's right. Never made any bones about it.Always been one, alwasy will
be.
Of course, you might have gotten a hint if you had read some of the
posts where I had stated " I am a troll, if you want a peaceful life
here, killfile me"
Of course, sometimes I do say something of interest but not often if I
can help it at all.

Don't like it? I don't care.







Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>>
> As I said modern aircraft with the latest avionics, I'm pretty sure
> the Wright Flyer couldn't do it either

Troll.


Bertie >

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Flydive writes:
>
>> Of course they cannot configure flaps and gear, you will have to do
>> that yourself
>
> Only because they are designed that way. In theory, flaps and gear
> could be automated, too--it just isn't done on current systems.

So waht?

Airplanes were made for people to fly, not fjukktards like you to jerk
off to.


Otherwise there's no point in having them.

So go jerk off to your computer . There's a good wannabe boi.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Well, company policy is one thing, what the technology can do is
>>> another. The map shift has nothing to do with it, the FD will
>>> intercept the localizer signal and follow is just as it would if you
>>> would tune it manually and intercept it on heading select.
>>
>> no it won't, not if it intercepts the FMC track first and thats not
>> in the same place as the runway.
>
>
> It will NOT, intercept, never, the FMC track, again as the LOC becomes
> alive the FD will drop the FMC(switch from FMC guidance to navaids)
> and intercept the LOC, the signal from the navaid, the FMC will again
> come online only if you select it or if you select TOGA.
>>

If the loc comes alive.


>>
>>> As you intercept the LOC you will not be using the FMS commands
>>> anymore but the navaid signal.
>>>
>>
>> IF you intercept it. That's the point and that's why we don't allow
>> it. We also consider it to be good practice re: pilot machine
>> interface. You're more in theh loop. Hdg sel only comes on when
>> you're within a few miles of interception if you're not already on
>> it.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> If the ILS is working you will definetely intercept it,

No I won't definitely intercept it.

Now be a good boi and **** off. I have trolling to do.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Sammy writes:
>
>> So what you're now claiming is that there's an instructor for any
>> given aircraft type near any given airport?
>
> Why would he have to be near the airport? That's what telephones are
> for.
>
> ATC certainly isn't likely to be near the airport.
>
>> Now you need:
>> 1) A pre-programmed FMC route that includes the approach
>> 2) Good weather and traffic, otherwise time to reprogram the FMC
>> 3) An instructor on call with ATC for that particular aircraft type
>> 4) Another aircraft or simulator on the ground to run through the
>> procedure on (though I bet you think you could just do it with MSFS
>> and PMDG)
>> 5) Autoland certified ILS
>> 6) Enough time between the pilot becoming incapacitated and final
>> approach and/or running out of fuel to run the non-pilot through the
>> procedure
>
> No. All you need is (1) automated flight when the incident occurs,
> such as a FMC or autopilot, (2) autoland capability in the aircraft
> and an airport with an ILS approach, and (3) someone who knows the
> aircraft well to help on the radio.
>
>> Honestly stop being so thick and try this. Bring a friend over who
>> doesn't fly. Sit them in front of the MSFS/PMDG with the plane in the
>> air WITHOUT the final approach programmed in. To be fair put them say
>> an hour out from the destination airport. Now find a way to talk to
>> them from another room. A phone or intercom or 2-way handheld radio
>> will do nicely. Try and talk them down. Let us know how you go.
>
> That would be fun, at least for me (since I know it would work). I
> don't know anyone nearby who likes aviation, though.
>

You're an idiot.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Sammy writes:
>
>> Yes because every instructor pilot has a full motion sim sitting in
>> his back yard, and ATC regualrly patch phone calls through.
>
> He may not need a simulator sitting next to him. And connecting
> things by telephone isn't difficult.
>
>> You need a lot more. The instructor isn't going to just think up the
>> instructions no matter how good his or her memory.
>
> Why not?
>
>> In the above scenario you also need to be able to patch the
>> instructor through from phone to radio.
>
> What a staggering technical feat that would be, eh?
>
>> I couldn't tell you for sure if that's a standard
>> thing without looking it up. My point is though you need a lot more
>> than you think you need.
>
> You don't know without looking it up, and yet you're sure of it? Hmm.
>
>> Your problem is this. You are using a simplified simulator (and
>> that's what it is no matter how closely some of the systems are
>> modelled) and it's lulled you into thinking that just because it's
>> similar, the real thing is no harder. It's an easy mistake to make if
>> you've got no real world experience of anything and think that
>> thought experiments replace real world experience as you've stated.
>> I'll repeat what I said earlier: Your education has failed you.
>
> Actually, I think the reality is almost certainly simpler than many
> people believe or claim it to be. People like to exaggerate the
> complexity of things in order to impress others.
>
>> They don't have to like aviation. In fact it would be best if they
>> didn't. Bribe them with lunch. Heck bribe them with $20.
>
> I can't afford to bribe anyone, and all of my friends are completely
> uninterested in aviation. I doubt if they'd come to my house just for
> a dopey experiment like this.
>
>> You'll see it's harder than you think.
>
> I've spent most of my life explaining things to people; I'm quite good
> at it.
>
>> After all since flying real 747s is so easy for you now, you
>> must be getting bored.
>
> Or comfortable.

If you think you're comfortable, you're a bigger idiot than I thought
you were.
Adn that makes you a monumentally big idiot.


Bertie

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Flydive > wrote in :
>
>
>> It will NOT, intercept, never, the FMC track, again as the LOC becomes
>> alive the FD will drop the FMC(switch from FMC guidance to navaids)
>> and intercept the LOC, the signal from the navaid, the FMC will again
>> come online only if you select it or if you select TOGA.
>
> If the loc comes alive.

Well if the LOC is off the air you won't be doing any approach, it will
not intercept it, but this also applies if you are flying manually
doesn't it.



>>>> As you intercept the LOC you will not be using the FMS commands
>>>> anymore but the navaid signal.
>>>>
>>> IF you intercept it. That's the point and that's why we don't allow
>>> it. We also consider it to be good practice re: pilot machine
>>> interface. You're more in theh loop. Hdg sel only comes on when
>>> you're within a few miles of interception if you're not already on
>>> it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> If the ILS is working you will definetely intercept it,
>
> No I won't definitely intercept it.
>
> Now be a good boi and **** off. I have trolling to do.
>
>
> Bertie

Of course it will if you have the approach preselected, in exactly the
same way it will intercept it if you are on heading and being vectored.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Flydive > wrote in :
>>
>>
>>> It will NOT, intercept, never, the FMC track, again as the LOC
becomes
>>> alive the FD will drop the FMC(switch from FMC guidance to navaids)
>>> and intercept the LOC, the signal from the navaid, the FMC will
again
>>> come online only if you select it or if you select TOGA.
>>
>> If the loc comes alive.
>
> Well if the LOC is off the air you won't be doing any approach, it
will
> not intercept it, but this also applies if you are flying manually
> doesn't it.
>
>
>
>>>>> As you intercept the LOC you will not be using the FMS commands
>>>>> anymore but the navaid signal.
>>>>>
>>>> IF you intercept it. That's the point and that's why we don't allow
>>>> it. We also consider it to be good practice re: pilot machine
>>>> interface. You're more in theh loop. Hdg sel only comes on when
>>>> you're within a few miles of interception if you're not already on
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> If the ILS is working you will definetely intercept it,
>>
>> No I won't definitely intercept it.
>>
>> Now be a good boi and **** off. I have trolling to do.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Of course it will if you have the approach preselected, in exactly the
> same way it will intercept it if you are on heading and being
vectored.

What part of **** off don';t you understand?


TRo11


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Sammy writes:
>
>> Of course not because you know I'd shoot holes through your argument
>> and you know you're wrong. It's the same any time I ask you to prove
>> any wild and unconventional claim you make.
>
> No, it's not that. It's just that I know that lurkers will spend just
> a few seconds to find what you're demanding from me, and they'll draw
> their own conclusions about the topic, and about your position.

Ooow, the old "Sekrit looorker army" ploy.



Bwawhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhhahwhahwh1




Bertie

[Flydive]

>
> What part of **** off don';t you understand?
>
>
> TRo11
>
>
> Bertie


Well I see, to bad you can't help being an ass.

Was an interesting discussion till it lasted.

You really a pilot with that attitude? If you are then good thing I'll
never fly with you, I would feel safer with Mxsmanic.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

>
>>
>> What part of **** off don';t you understand?
>>
>>
>> TRo11
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> Well I see, to bad you can't help being an ass.
>
> Was an interesting discussion till it lasted.

No it wasn't. You're as big a blockhead as MXSmanic.
>
> You really a pilot with that attitude? If you are then good thing I'll
> never fly with you, I would feel safer with Mxsmanic.

Yes, I believe you would feel that.

Think your mommy's calling!



Bertie
>

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Flydive > wrote in :
>
>>> What part of **** off don';t you understand?
>>>
>>>
>>> TRo11
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Well I see, to bad you can't help being an ass.
>>
>> Was an interesting discussion till it lasted.
>
> No it wasn't. You're as big a blockhead as MXSmanic.
>> You really a pilot with that attitude? If you are then good thing I'll
>> never fly with you, I would feel safer with Mxsmanic.
>
> Yes, I believe you would feel that.
>
> Think your mommy's calling!
>
>
>
> Bertie
>


What a poor man you are. Well I close here so you can feel a winner.

bye

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Flydive > wrote in news:461017ed$1_4
@news.bluewin.ch:
>>
>>>> What part of **** off don';t you understand?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TRo11
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> Well I see, to bad you can't help being an ass.
>>>
>>> Was an interesting discussion till it lasted.
>>
>> No it wasn't. You're as big a blockhead as MXSmanic.
>>> You really a pilot with that attitude? If you are then good thing
I'll
>>> never fly with you, I would feel safer with Mxsmanic.
>>
>> Yes, I believe you would feel that.
>>
>> Think your mommy's calling!
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
>
> What a poor man you are. Well I close here so you can feel a winner.

Oh thsanks you're a peach!


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Maxwell writes:
>
>> Do you have no idea how much data is maintain or EVERY jet engine
>> flying?
>
> Do you?
>

I do, send me 45$ and I'll tell you.


Bertie

[Maxwell]

"Sammy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Apr 1, 10:28 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Sammy writes:
>> > Point me to the exact report, and the news reports you're talking
>> > about. If you don't want to give me a web URL or detailed instructions
>> > on how to find it at least give me a report number or some kind of ID
>> > so i can examine the evidence you're talking about.
>> No.
>
> Of course not because you know I'd shoot holes through your argument
> and you know you're wrong. It's the same any time I ask you to prove
> any wild and unconventional claim you make.
>

He can't Sammy, it was undoubtedly just a simulated report he was reading.

[scott s.]

Flydive > wrote in :

>>
> Well, the FMS on the Global Express, with the Batch 2 upgrade will do
> that. For that to happen you must have NAV selected, the FMS must be
> your source of navigation, you must have the ILS frequency tuned in
> (either manually or autotuned) and you must have APCH preselected.
> As the aircraft joins the LOC the FD will automatically switch from
> FMS to ILS as source and intercept Localizer and flightpath.
>

Thanks. Didn't realize that honeywell unit could operate that way.

scott s.
..