Radio altimeter fault triggered Turkish Airlines crash

[Musicrab]

In the news everywhere
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2009/03/turkish-airlines-crash-evidenc.html

What's the Boeing 737-800 flight manual say about what to do when left and
right hand altimeters don't match?

[Mike Ash]

In article >,
"Musicrab" > wrote:

> In the news everywhere
> http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2009/03/turkish-airlines-cr
> ash-evidenc.html
>
> What's the Boeing 737-800 flight manual say about what to do when left and
> right hand altimeters don't match?

I think pilots should have their own version of the doctors' "primum non
nocere": first, fly the plane!

Of course this is a preliminary result and could well be wrong, but even
so I think there's a good lesson in it for us: always keep your mind on
what's important, and never let yourself be distracted by trivial things
when your mind is needed elsewhere. Of course we all know this already,
but a reminder never hurts.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 4, 5:37*am, "Musicrab" > wrote:
> In the news everywherehttp://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2009/03/turkish-ai...
>
> What's the Boeing 737-800 flight manual say about what to do when left and
> right hand altimeters don't match?

I'm right handed so I've not tried using a left hand altimeter.

[Darkwing]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 5:37 am, "Musicrab" > wrote:
> In the news
> everywherehttp://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2009/03/turkish-ai...
>
> What's the Boeing 737-800 flight manual say about what to do when left and
> right hand altimeters don't match?
>
>I'm right handed so I've not tried using a left hand altimeter.

I write left handed but I throw a baseball, bowl, shoot a basketball etc.
like a righty so which altimeter would I look at?

[Mxsmanic]

Musicrab writes:

> What's the Boeing 737-800 flight manual say about what to do when left and
> right hand altimeters don't match?

It surely points out that working altimeters are required for an automated
approach. The airline flew with broken altimeters, and after tempting fate
several times, it finally caught up with them.

Turkish Airlines has the worst safety record of all airlines in Europe and the
U.S. combined, in terms of flights with fatalities over total flights. And it
trails by quite a margin.

[John[_22_]]

If you can't answer the question why did you post a reply? ( Does this
sound at all familiar to you? )

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Musicrab writes:
>
>> What's the Boeing 737-800 flight manual say about what to do when left
>> and
>> right hand altimeters don't match?
>
> It surely points out that working altimeters are required for an automated
> approach. The airline flew with broken altimeters, and after tempting
> fate
> several times, it finally caught up with them.
>
> Turkish Airlines has the worst safety record of all airlines in Europe and
> the
> U.S. combined, in terms of flights with fatalities over total flights.
> And it
> trails by quite a margin.

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 4, 2:21*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Musicrab writes:
> > What's the Boeing 737-800 flight manual say about what to do when left and
> > right hand altimeters don't match?
>
> It surely points out that working altimeters are required for an automated
> approach. *The airline flew with broken altimeters, and after tempting fate
> several times, it finally caught up with them.
>
> Turkish Airlines has the worst safety record of all airlines in Europe and the
> U.S. combined, in terms of flights with fatalities over total flights. *And it
> trails by quite a margin.

I don't think (and could be wrong) that a coupled/automated approach
does in fact need a conventional altimeter.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Mar 4, 5:37 am, "Musicrab" > wrote:
> > In the news
> > everywherehttp://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2009/03/turkish
> > -ai...
> >
> > What's the Boeing 737-800 flight manual say about what to do when left and
> > right hand altimeters don't match?
> >
> >I'm right handed so I've not tried using a left hand altimeter.
>
> I write left handed but I throw a baseball, bowl, shoot a basketball etc.
> like a righty so which altimeter would I look at?

If you find out, let me know too.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 4, 11:21*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Musicrab writes:
> > What's the Boeing 737-800 flight manual say about what to do when left and
> > right hand altimeters don't match?
>
> It surely points out that working altimeters are required for an automated
> approach. *The airline flew with broken altimeters, and after tempting fate
> several times, it finally caught up with them.

You are talking about standard altitude altimeters or RAs? From
reading the it appears that the concern is about the RA's not the
altimeters. No plane is going to flare as a result of a reading from a
pressure altimeter.

-Robret

[DannyDot]

a wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2:21 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Musicrab writes:

snip

> I don't think (and could be wrong) that a coupled/automated approach
> does in fact need a conventional altimeter.

In my F-4 it did not. But that was back in the mid 80s with an analog
autopilot.

Also, can some explain what retard is?

Danny Deger

[Dan Camper]

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:19:55 -0800, Steve Hix wrote:

> In article >,
> "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On Mar 4, 5:37 am, "Musicrab" > wrote:
>>> In the news
>>> everywherehttp://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2009/03/turkish
>>> -ai...
>>>
>>> What's the Boeing 737-800 flight manual say about what to do when left and
>>> right hand altimeters don't match?
>>>
>>>I'm right handed so I've not tried using a left hand altimeter.
>>
>> I write left handed but I throw a baseball, bowl, shoot a basketball etc.
>> like a righty so which altimeter would I look at?
>
> If you find out, let me know too.

The one you're not using to beat your meat will work.
--
http://tr.im/1f9p

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Mar 4, 5:37 am, "Musicrab" > wrote:
>> In the news
>> everywherehttp://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/unusual-attitude/2009/03/turkish-ai...
>>
>> What's the Boeing 737-800 flight manual say about what to do when left
>> and
>> right hand altimeters don't match?
>>
>>I'm right handed so I've not tried using a left hand altimeter.
>
> I write left handed but I throw a baseball, bowl, shoot a basketball etc.
> like a righty so which altimeter would I look at?

Duh, huh,,, either!

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"DannyDot" > wrote in message
...
>a wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 2:21 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> Musicrab writes:
>
> snip
>
>> I don't think (and could be wrong) that a coupled/automated approach
>> does in fact need a conventional altimeter.
>
> In my F-4 it did not. But that was back in the mid 80s with an analog
> autopilot.
>
> Also, can some explain what retard is?
>
> Danny Deger

Mx=retard=Mx=retard=

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"-b-" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> says...
>>
>>
>>On Mar 4, 11:21 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> Musicrab writes:
>>> > What's the Boeing 737-800 flight manual say about what to do when left
>>> > and
>>> > right hand altimeters don't match?
>>>
>>> It surely points out that working altimeters are required for an
>>> automated
>>> approach. The airline flew with broken altimeters, and after tempting
>>> fate
>>> several times, it finally caught up with them.
>>
>>You are talking about standard altitude altimeters or RAs? From
>>reading the it appears that the concern is about the RA's not the
>>altimeters. No plane is going to flare as a result of a reading from a
>>pressure altimeter.
>>
>>-Robret
>
> Technicalities. MXS is talking about FATE - that's his explanation for the
> crash. If the NTSB disagrees, it simply means they are wrong, and their
> staff
> are dangerous pilots.
>

with poor attitudes and high testosterone levels.

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Musicrab writes:
>
>> What's the Boeing 737-800 flight manual say about what to do when left and
>> right hand altimeters don't match?
>
>It surely points out that working altimeters are required for an automated
>approach. The airline flew with broken altimeters, and after tempting fate
>several times, it finally caught up with them.

A bold and brazen statement, betraying unfortunately vast ignorance.
What, precisely, does the 737-800 manual say about automated apporaches and
about fate?
>
>Turkish Airlines has the worst safety record of all airlines in Europe and the
>U.S. combined, in terms of flights with fatalities over total flights. And it
>trails by quite a margin.

In statistical terms, can we clarify the bizarre statement "worst
record...Europe and US combined...?" How, in mathematical terms, do you propose
to "combine" them. What is the arithmetic significance of this statement, in
the extremely charitable hypothesis that such exists?

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Musicrab writes:
>
>> What's the Boeing 737-800 flight manual say about what to do when left and
>> right hand altimeters don't match?
>
>It surely points out that working altimeters are required for an automated
>approach. The airline flew with broken altimeters, and after tempting fate
>several times, it finally caught up with them.

Do airlines have altimiters? Knowledgeble pilots recognize that such
instruments are parts of airplanes, but corporations do not require them, as
they remain at stable altitudes.

It would be interesting to review the NTSB's view on the role of "fate" in this
incident. One might imagine they would take a relativly dim view of this
contributor's accident analysis.

[-b-]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>On Mar 4, 11:21*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Musicrab writes:
>> > What's the Boeing 737-800 flight manual say about what to do when left and
>> > right hand altimeters don't match?
>>
>> It surely points out that working altimeters are required for an automated
>> approach. *The airline flew with broken altimeters, and after tempting fate
>> several times, it finally caught up with them.
>
>You are talking about standard altitude altimeters or RAs? From
>reading the it appears that the concern is about the RA's not the
>altimeters. No plane is going to flare as a result of a reading from a
>pressure altimeter.
>
>-Robret

Technicalities. MXS is talking about FATE - that's his explanation for the
crash. If the NTSB disagrees, it simply means they are wrong, and their staff
are dangerous pilots.

[Just go look it up!]

On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:27:00 -0600, DannyDot >
wrote:

>a wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 2:21 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> Musicrab writes:
>
>snip
>
>> I don't think (and could be wrong) that a coupled/automated approach
>> does in fact need a conventional altimeter.
>
>In my F-4 it did not. But that was back in the mid 80s with an analog
>autopilot.
>
>Also, can some explain what retard is?

They must have been doing an autoland if the radio altimeter was
involved. It feeds the autopilots AGL for calculating when to reduce
thrust and begin the flare. Otherwise it would have just been
following the NAV inputs for GS and LOC down to whenever the airline
SOP dictated disconnection of AP/AT for a hand-flown landing.

IIUC, "retard" is a callout in an Airbus for idle thrust. Never flown
one so no idea.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> You are talking about standard altitude altimeters or RAs?

RAs. One of them had malfunctioned on several previous flights, according to
the flight data recorders. The airline had not bothered to fix it, even
though it is essential for autoland (perhaps the airline expected its pilots
to be alert and hard-working enough to fly landings by hand, although that's
not really an excuse).

> No plane is going to flare as a result of a reading from a
> pressure altimeter.

But it probably will if the RA says that it's 7 feet below the runway.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> You are talking about standard altitude altimeters or RAs?
>
> RAs. One of them had malfunctioned on several previous flights, according
> to
> the flight data recorders. The airline had not bothered to fix it, even
> though it is essential for autoland (perhaps the airline expected its
> pilots
> to be alert and hard-working enough to fly landings by hand, although
> that's
> not really an excuse).
>
>> No plane is going to flare as a result of a reading from a
>> pressure altimeter.
>
> But it probably will if the RA says that it's 7 feet below the runway.

What a dumb ass.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary writes:
>
>> You are talking about standard altitude altimeters or RAs?
>
> RAs. One of them had malfunctioned on several previous flights, according to
> the flight data recorders. The airline had not bothered to fix it, even
> though it is essential for autoland (perhaps the airline expected its pilots
> to be alert and hard-working enough to fly landings by hand, although that's
> not really an excuse).

Babble.

Where is your data on airline SOP with regard to doing an autoland all
the way to the ground?

Where is your data on the percentage of landings that do an autoland
all the way to the ground?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Where is your data on airline SOP with regard to doing an autoland all
> the way to the ground?

Every autoland is all the way to the ground.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Where is your data on airline SOP with regard to doing an autoland all
>> the way to the ground?
>
> Every autoland is all the way to the ground.

Where in the world did you come up with that rediculous statement?

What percentage of landings are done with autoland and what is your
source of information?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Where is your data on airline SOP with regard to doing an autoland all
>> the way to the ground?
>
> Every autoland is all the way to the ground.

Only when flying a desk, moron. The real world is quite different.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 4, 8:21*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> Turkish Airlines has the worst safety record of all airlines in Europe and the
> U.S. combined, in terms of flights with fatalities over total flights. *And it
> trails by quite a margin.

Wrong.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Where in the world did you come up with that rediculous statement?

If the autopilot isn't taking the aircraft to touchdown, it's not an autoland.
That's what autoland means: automatic landing. No control inputs required.
Autopilot engaged all the way up to touchdown and beyond.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Where in the world did you come up with that rediculous statement?
>
> If the autopilot isn't taking the aircraft to touchdown, it's not an autoland.
> That's what autoland means: automatic landing. No control inputs required.
> Autopilot engaged all the way up to touchdown and beyond.

Yeah, right.

The word "autoland" refers to a system in aircraft.

If you are going to post to real aviation groups, learn the language
of real aviation.

It is routine to turn on autoland during approach and turn it off just
before touchdown.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Robert Moore]

wrote
> The word "autoland" refers to a system in aircraft.
> It is routine to turn on autoland during approach and turn it off just
> before touchdown.

That's not how we did it in the B-727s that I flew at PanAm.
Autoland was a procedure during which the autopilot flew the
aircraft to touchdown.

Bob Moore
ATP B-727 B-707 L-188
CFII

[[email protected]]

Robert Moore > wrote:
> wrote
>> The word "autoland" refers to a system in aircraft.
>> It is routine to turn on autoland during approach and turn it off just
>> before touchdown.
>
> That's not how we did it in the B-727s that I flew at PanAm.
> Autoland was a procedure during which the autopilot flew the
> aircraft to touchdown.

The shuttle does an autoland approach and touches down manually.

And yes, "autoland" can refer to a procedure or a system.

The whole point is, contrary to MX's claim, not EVERY approach that
starts as "autoland" (however you want to define it) ends with the
A/C on the ground for EVERY airplane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> wrote
> > The word "autoland" refers to a system in aircraft.
> > It is routine to turn on autoland during approach and turn it off just
> > before touchdown.
>
> That's not how we did it in the B-727s that I flew at PanAm.
> Autoland was a procedure during which the autopilot flew the
> aircraft to touchdown.
>
> Bob Moore
> ATP B-727 B-707 L-188
> CFII

It was suggested (stated I spose) by another poster here that "most"
landings are autolands. I categorically disagreed with that statement.

Air New Zealand do about 1 in 7 autolands.

What ratio did you do?

--
Duncan

[Robert Moore]

wrote
> The shuttle does an autoland approach and touches down manually.

Not according to Wikipedia.....

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In aviation, autoland describes a system that fully automates the landing
phase of an aircraft's flight, with the human crew merely supervising the
process.

With 25 years of airline experience flying Boeing jetliners, I would
suggest that I know more about "autoland" operations and equipment than
either you or MX.

More from Wikipedia.....

Autoland requires the use of a radio altimeter to determine the aircraft's
height above the ground very precisely so as to initiate the landing flare
at the correct height (usually about 50 feet).
Autoland is highly accurate, and it lands the plane at the same spot on the
runway every time with very high accuracy. This is in contrast to manual
landings, where touch down points are relatively widely distributed within
the Touch Down Zone on the runway.

Bob Moore
PanAm (retired)

[Robert Moore]

Dave Doe > wrote
> It was suggested (stated I spose) by another poster here that "most"
> landings are autolands. I categorically disagreed with that statement.
>
> Air New Zealand do about 1 in 7 autolands.
>
> What ratio did you do?


Probably about 1 in 20. The company would have liked more, but that
took all of the fun out of flying. :)

Bob Moore

[[email protected]]

Robert Moore > wrote:
> wrote
>> The shuttle does an autoland approach and touches down manually.
>
> Not according to Wikipedia.....

Well, according to NASA, it does:

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/mission_profile.html

http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/landingaids.htm

http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/release/1992/1-92.htm


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Just go look it up!]

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:49:41 GMT, Robert Moore
> wrote:

wrote
>> The shuttle does an autoland approach and touches down manually.
>
>Not according to Wikipedia.....
>
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
>In aviation, autoland describes a system that fully automates the landing
>phase of an aircraft's flight, with the human crew merely supervising the
>process.
>
>With 25 years of airline experience flying Boeing jetliners, I would
>suggest that I know more about "autoland" operations and equipment than
>either you or MX.
>
>More from Wikipedia.....
>
>Autoland requires the use of a radio altimeter to determine the aircraft's
>height above the ground very precisely so as to initiate the landing flare
>at the correct height (usually about 50 feet).
>Autoland is highly accurate, and it lands the plane at the same spot on the
>runway every time with very high accuracy. This is in contrast to manual
>landings, where touch down points are relatively widely distributed within
>the Touch Down Zone on the runway.
>
>Bob Moore
>PanAm (retired)

the problem here seems to be the inappropriate substitution of
"coupled approach" with "autoland" by certain people.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Yeah, right.

I know, thanks.

> It is routine to turn on autoland during approach and turn it off just
> before touchdown.

If you turn it off, it's not autoland.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The shuttle does an autoland approach and touches down manually.

There's no such thing as an "autoland approach." You can automate the
approach, but if the automation doesn't take you to touchdown, it's not an
autoland.

> The whole point is, contrary to MX's claim, not EVERY approach that
> starts as "autoland" (however you want to define it) ends with the
> A/C on the ground for EVERY airplane.

The point is that you're reaching, like so many others here. It's so
important to you to contradict me that you become careless.

This can be dangerous for pilots, as they may feel so determined to prove that
they are right that they'll kill themselves in the process. And it applies in
other domains, such as driving, too.

[Robert Moore]

Just go look it up! wrote
> the problem here seems to be the inappropriate substitution of
> "coupled approach" with "autoland" by certain people.

Yep!

Bob

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> The shuttle does an autoland approach and touches down manually.
>
> There's no such thing as an "autoland approach." You can automate the
> approach, but if the automation doesn't take you to touchdown, it's not an
> autoland.

Funny, the FAA seems to think otherwise:

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/A.HTM

From the ink:

"AUTOLAND APPROACH- An autoland approach is a precision instrument
approach to touchdown and, ->IN SOME CASES<-, through the landing rollout."

Emphasis mine.

Wrong again.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Yeah, right.
>
> I know, thanks.
>
>> It is routine to turn on autoland during approach and turn it off just
>> before touchdown.
>
> If you turn it off, it's not autoland.

Nope, it is an autoland approach as defined by the FAA in:

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/A.HTM


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> writes:
>
> > Yeah, right.
>
> I know, thanks.
>
> > It is routine to turn on autoland during approach and turn it off just
> > before touchdown.
>
> If you turn it off, it's not autoland.

Like most landings eh?

--
Duncan

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe > wrote
> > It was suggested (stated I spose) by another poster here that "most"
> > landings are autolands. I categorically disagreed with that statement.
> >
> > Air New Zealand do about 1 in 7 autolands.
> >
> > What ratio did you do?
>
>
> Probably about 1 in 20. The company would have liked more, but that
> took all of the fun out of flying. :)

:) Agreed, ANZ *want* the pilots to do 1 in 7, the actual ratio is
probably far less. A mate flys a 777, I'll ask him what they do
(actually) :)

--
Duncan

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
> >
> >> The shuttle does an autoland approach and touches down manually.
> >
> > There's no such thing as an "autoland approach." You can automate the
> > approach, but if the automation doesn't take you to touchdown, it's not an
> > autoland.
>
> Funny, the FAA seems to think otherwise:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/A.HTM
>
> From the ink:
>
> "AUTOLAND APPROACH- An autoland approach is a precision instrument
> approach to touchdown and, ->IN SOME CASES<-, through the landing rollout."
>
> Emphasis mine.
>
> Wrong again.

The FAA agrees with me.

I didn't say anything about autoland including rollout. But it always
includes touchdown, just like the FAA says, otherwise it's just an approach.
And, inevitably, any autoland that includes rollout also includes touchdown,
since touchdown comes first. An autoland that does not include rollout still
includes touchdown.

What is your point, exactly?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
> >
> >> Yeah, right.
> >
> > I know, thanks.
> >
> >> It is routine to turn on autoland during approach and turn it off just
> >> before touchdown.
> >
> > If you turn it off, it's not autoland.
>
> Nope, it is an autoland approach as defined by the FAA in:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/A.HTM

"An autoland approach is a precision instrument approach to touchdown ..."

So if you turn it off before touchdown, it's not an autoland.

You are probably confusing autoland with a coupled approach, which is
something you would have encountered if you had continued to the letter "C"
before rushing to write your post. All autolands require a coupled approach,
but a coupled approach need not include an autoland.

Since tiny tin-can aircraft don't do autolands, it's understandable that
pilots thereof might become confused.

If you try MSFS sometime (with payware add-ons), it can help clarify the
difference.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> Like most landings eh?

Yup.

[Danny Deger[_2_]]

On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 07:13:12 -0500, Just go look it up! wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:27:00 -0600, DannyDot >
> wrote:
>
>>a wrote:
>>> On Mar 4, 2:21 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>> Musicrab writes:
>>
>>snip
>>
>>> I don't think (and could be wrong) that a coupled/automated approach
>>> does in fact need a conventional altimeter.
>>
>>In my F-4 it did not. But that was back in the mid 80s with an analog
>>autopilot.
>>
>>Also, can some explain what retard is?
>
> They must have been doing an autoland if the radio altimeter was
> involved. It feeds the autopilots AGL for calculating when to reduce
> thrust and begin the flare. Otherwise it would have just been
> following the NAV inputs for GS and LOC down to whenever the airline
> SOP dictated disconnection of AP/AT for a hand-flown landing.
>

We could have autolanded the F-4 without an radio altimeter because it was
carrier qualified. I was in the Air Force, but our F-4s could land without
a flare and without a throttle adjustment. Put in on airspeed and
glideslope and fly in into the ground :-)

Danny Deger

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > writes:
>> >
>> >> The shuttle does an autoland approach and touches down manually.
>> >
>> > There's no such thing as an "autoland approach." You can automate the
>> > approach, but if the automation doesn't take you to touchdown, it's not
>> > an
>> > autoland.
>>
>> Funny, the FAA seems to think otherwise:
>>
>> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/A.HTM
>>
>> From the ink:
>>
>> "AUTOLAND APPROACH- An autoland approach is a precision instrument
>> approach to touchdown and, ->IN SOME CASES<-, through the landing
>> rollout."
>>
>> Emphasis mine.
>>
>> Wrong again.
>
> The FAA agrees with me.
>
> I didn't say anything about autoland including rollout. But it always
> includes touchdown, just like the FAA says, otherwise it's just an
> approach.
> And, inevitably, any autoland that includes rollout also includes
> touchdown,
> since touchdown comes first. An autoland that does not include rollout
> still
> includes touchdown.
>
> What is your point, exactly?

The fact you are too stupid to realize just how infrequently it is actually
used, for openers.

Then the fact that you are just too stupid.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you try MSFS sometime (with payware add-ons), it can help clarify the
> difference.

Yeah, dumb ass, just like playing Monopoly can teach you the real estate
business.

Your head gets thicker every day. Is your illness progressive?

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > writes:
>> >
>> >> The shuttle does an autoland approach and touches down manually.
>> >
>> > There's no such thing as an "autoland approach." You can automate the
>> > approach, but if the automation doesn't take you to touchdown, it's not an
>> > autoland.
>>
>> Funny, the FAA seems to think otherwise:
>>
>> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/A.HTM
>>
>> From the ink:
>>
>> "AUTOLAND APPROACH- An autoland approach is a precision instrument
>> approach to touchdown and, ->IN SOME CASES<-, through the landing rollout."
>>
>> Emphasis mine.
>>
>> Wrong again.
>
> The FAA agrees with me.
>
> I didn't say anything about autoland including rollout. But it always
> includes touchdown, just like the FAA says, otherwise it's just an approach.
> And, inevitably, any autoland that includes rollout also includes touchdown,
> since touchdown comes first. An autoland that does not include rollout still
> includes touchdown.
>
> What is your point, exactly?

That you are an idiot?

From your above:

"There's no such thing as an "autoland approach.""

Funny that the FAA defines something you say doesn't exist.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > writes:
>> >
>> >> Yeah, right.
>> >
>> > I know, thanks.
>> >
>> >> It is routine to turn on autoland during approach and turn it off just
>> >> before touchdown.
>> >
>> > If you turn it off, it's not autoland.
>>
>> Nope, it is an autoland approach as defined by the FAA in:
>>
>> http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/A.HTM
>
> "An autoland approach is a precision instrument approach to touchdown ..."
>
> So if you turn it off before touchdown, it's not an autoland.

Right, it is an "autoland approach" as defined by the FAA and a term
you claim doesn't exist.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[VOR-DME]

Out of curiosity, and notwithstanding some contributions whose vehemence is
equaled only by their lack of information on the subject, is there an
underlying assumption here that the discussion of autoland proceedures is in
some way related to the THY accident in Amsterdam?

Can anyone point me to verifiable information indicating they were executing
a CAT-IIIc proceedure, and not, as I presently assume, a standard CAT-I ILS
with automatic pilot and autothrottles (as is standard)?