Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 66

Thread: At about 50 feet AGL you'll receive some clips around the ears...

  1. #41
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    But here is an absolute statement: No ILS, no autoland. So why are we still talking about autoland here?
    Ummmm, no, Evan, this is a modern digital air plane and absolute is a strong word.

    It might be a small pain, but a glideslope and course can be generated via GPS, RTK, RADALT, and who knows what other cues.

    Just rewrite some rules and some computer code.

    The beauty of the system isn't what artificial navigation acronym it reads, it's the real reading of course deviations and real control inputs.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Ummmm, no, Evan, this is a modern digital air plane and absolute is a strong word.
    Umm no, 3WE, this is a 1960's airplane with some modern-ish digital avionics tacked on. It requires ILS for a precision approach and a precision approach for autoland. Absolutely.

    But you have now gone into the future, so, yes, in the future we will have precise, error-corrected LAAS (GBAS) for these rinky-dink airport circle-in back-course approaches, and that alone will most likely allow for autoland. LAAS will require both new avionics AND precisely surveyed ground installations.

    Still, placing blind trust in guidance down to the ground requires a virtually infallible technology and that bar is set very high. The beauty of the glideslope signal is that (assuming you catch it in the proper range from the threshold and cross-check your instruments) it is virtually infallible (unless you are a gang of techno-villians in a Hollywood movie). I can't say the same for RADALT.
    We will have to wait and see when that level of trust can be earned by LAAS, and that's going to be a while... maybe the B797 will one day autoland on Salzburg's runway 33 circling approach...

  3. #43
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    ***Absolutely.***
    Absolutely, my tractors drive down rows with sub-inch accuracy and no ILS.

    Absolutely, VOR/ILS is 1950s analog technology.

    Absolutely, Radar altitude is required for most auto land.

    Absolutely, terrain databases and real time radar vision exists.

    Absolutely, you see no beauty beyond procedures...
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  4. #44
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Absolutely, Absolutely, Absolutely, Absolutely, Absolutely...
    Read all about it:

    https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...ces/gnss/laas/

    It's probably just a matter of time (and funding, i.e. political will) but it's coming. Until then, this thread has nothing to do with autoland.

  5. #45
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Read all about it:

    https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...ces/gnss/laas/

    It's probably just a matter of time (and funding, i.e. political will) but it's coming. Until then, this thread has nothing to do with autoland.
    I thought this thread was about how to do a crosswind landing and a very slight diversion on whether humans or machines are better at doing them.

    And I absolutely love crosswind landings.

    But never mind, I will always recall seeing a Lufthansa 747-400 operating in dense fog at 5:00 AM local time in Düsseldorf.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  6. #46
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    I thought this thread was about how to do a crosswind landing and a very slight diversion on whether humans or machines are better at doing them.
    This thread is about the wisdom of even attempting them beyond a vague line of wisdom and caution (and an example of a rather well-executed go-around). Up to their limitations, I think machines are better at doing them because they aren't prone to overcontrol, but then again, maybe they still don't have enough of a predictive feel for them over a span of time. I know that autothrust can be a real bitch in gusting conditions.

    I just landed in JFK in a pretty good crosswind on a Lufthansa A330. The IFE has a crude synthetic vision, and it was pretty cool to watch the runway approaching on final well to the right of the heading, and lining up a moment before touchdown.

    But never mind, I will always recall seeing a Lufthansa 747-400 operating in dense fog at 5:00 AM local time in Düsseldorf.
    Or is is called a 747-4? (goodbye, thread)

  7. #47
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,039

    Default

    [QUOTE=Evan;656173 Or is is called a 747-4? [/QUOTE]



    Unfortunately (or maybe not) for you, is that YOU never got to fly a real 747. Those of us that were and are lucky enough, and I consider myself to have been very lucky in my aviation career, got to fly many of the old "Classic's". And I am not just talking about the 747-200. The 707, 720, DC-8, 727, CV-880, these were all "Classic as well. However, the DC-3 of jet's, the "Queen" of the sky will always be the 747. Again I have been lucky and flown almost every variant except the military and water bomber ones. Every Boeing 747 model is given it's designation by Boeing. Us "purists" tend to go what the company that manufactured it seemed to like to call it.


    Happy Thanksgiving to EVERYONE!

  8. #48
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    ***Us "purists" tend to go what the company that manufactured it seemed to like to call it.***
    ...does that rule extend to Mad Dogs and Mighty Dogs and Jungle Jets?
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    ...does that rule extend to Mad Dogs and Mighty Dogs?
    And to TORA TODA ASDA LADA

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  10. #50
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    And to TORA TODA ASDA LADA
    What aircraft are those?
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  11. #51
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    What aircraft are those?
    Disregard. Misread the previous comments.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  12. #52
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Disregard. Misread the previous comments.
    But...do you agree that the 787 is a 1960's design?

    I guess it sort of resembles a 737-100...at least the number and general location of the engines (and wings and tail and cockpit and yoke and rudder pedals and power levers are indeed similar.)
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  13. #53
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,361

    Default

    Below I quote the actual original post with slight modification...

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Almost there... alllmost there... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BoZAd8z0L0
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  14. #54
    Senior Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    1,120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    But...do you agree that the 787 is a 1960's design?

    I guess it sort of resembles a 737-100...at least the number and general location of the engines (and wings and tail and cockpit and yoke and rudder pedals and power levers are indeed similar.)
    Wow. Now I know who I only a few weeks ago tried to defend against (younger?) jp members who sometimes don't know yet how to properly behave on a platform which is read between Ezeiza, Suvarnabhumi and SFO (and DUS).

    1967. That's a year when I definitely have not (yet) been an aviation enthusiast. And I need a minute, do I have the comparison between a B737-100 and a 787, here on my home airport? Here we have (had) all a/c types which have ever been available on this planet. That's what I always say. And I think that still is true for DUS.

    But 737-100 and 787 at the same time? I'm not sure. The B731 had those very narrow lengthy engines, which, as some of the really experienced aviation enthusiasts say, were louder than a DC-8 with full throttle...
    Back in those days when not only jet engines were allowed to smoke...
    LH also has a intercontinental history, the Hamburg - Düsseldorf - Shannon - NYC route, open since June 1st, 1955.
    A/C type: Lockheed Super Constellation.

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years. Almost a decade here on this platform.

  15. #55
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,039

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    But...do you agree that the 787 is a 1960's design?

    I guess it sort of resembles a 737-100...at least the number and general location of the engines (and wings and tail and cockpit and yoke and rudder pedals and power levers are indeed similar.)
    I have a hard time sometimes figuring out if you are joking or not! I flew many flights in the Dreamlifter carrying parts from Japan, Italy and Canada to Seattle and Charleston. I can tell you for a fact that it is not a 1960's design.


    http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787...ign/#/featured

  16. #56
    Senior Member TeeVee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    I have a hard time sometimes figuring out if you are joking or not! I flew many flights in the Dreamlifter carrying parts from Japan, Italy and Canada to Seattle and Charleston. I can tell you for a fact that it is not a 1960's design.
    he was being sarcastic, as in both aircraft have two wings, two engines, a tail etc etc.

    3Dub, get back to using blue!

  17. #57
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    I have a hard time sometimes figuring out if you are joking or not! I flew many flights in the Dreamlifter carrying parts from Japan, Italy and Canada to Seattle and Charleston. I can tell you for a fact that it is not a 1960's design.


    http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787...ign/#/featured
    Yes, sarcasm is involved [Hint: It USUALLY is when I am posting] BUT to be clear, those words (a 1960's design) were spoken by Evan. (Read several posts up).

    Being 100% serious (a rarity for me), I tend to disagree with him, other than my statement: Two wing mounted jet engines, swept wing, swept tail, rudders, elevators, ailerons, spoilers, yoke, rudder pedals, throttle levers were all used in the 1960s' so I guess we literally have not progressed from that...

    A totally accurate statement, yet one which contains some ironing and sarcasm...

    Finally getting to the bottom line. It struck me as one of those irritating Evan comments that somehow a 787 is a POS airplane...maybe the 1960's design is that it has two seats up front with steering wheels and a click clack button......it is indeed an ignorant design if it allows for human control inputs... (Remove blue font if you think like Evan).
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  18. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    745

    Default

    Not to nitpick too much but most jets flying in the 1960's had *four* wing-mounted engines. Or 3 near the tail...
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

  19. #59
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elaw View Post
    Not to nitpick too much but most jets flying in the 1960's had *four* wing-mounted engines. Or 3 near the tail...
    I indeed struggled with that, until I remembered the little econo fireplug 737...

    I decided to so some searching on a strange Internet website: https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8293030

    I need to go review history...as to how the DC-9 and 737 came about...definitely seemed to be a need for a little jet, instead of the Jumbo 707/DC-8...Did the 737 come as a response to the DC-9 or vice versa or in parallel...

    Then the realization that that went too far- gotta have 3 engines to go over the water- then we have the 727 'jeep' you allude to...and let's put some crazy big ass flaps on it so it can land 'anywhere' the baby planes can...
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  20. #60
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    745

    Default

    Well the 3-holer's first flight was in 1963, the DC-9's in '65, and the 737's in '66. To me that's close enough together that probably none was a "response" to any other, they just resulted from the manufacturers perceiving (or imagining) the needs of the airlines.

    But given those dates, it doesn't seem like there would have been "a lot" of 737s flying in the 1960s... it would mostly have been DC-8s, 707s, some 727s, and the odd Trident, Caravelle, and Comet. And while some of those had 2 engines, and some had the engines on the wings, none had 2 engines on the wings.
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •