|
Yep. https://youtu.be/v6Hs4ll93Ms?si=D-Mw6qDh7llipe86 About 09:30 for instrument only takeoff.
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 09:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
Take off, sure, but landing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 09:44
|
|
|
Radio-based instrument landing systems were in common use even before World War 2 - basically the airport fires out a highly-directional radio signal (called the localizer) in such a way that the airplane receives a solid tone if it's tracking down the runway center, and something else if it's drifting off. Essentially the same system is still used today for instrument landings - though there's more cockpit modernization rather than requiring the pilot to listen out for the solid tone. It's being phased out in favour of satellite-based approaches though, because if the plane knows exactly where it is without the airport having to install and maintain expensive hardware, why not just save that cost?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 11:49
|
|
|
Kwolok posted:Take off, sure, but landing? That starts at 18:56. Kwolok posted:seems... odd to me, and not exactly practical for the instruments they had back then... ILS - still the most precise landing guidance available today, although augmented GPS gets close - was developed in the '40s and was basically everywhere but small airports by the '60s. There is no information displayed in a modern glass cockpit that is required for an instrument landing that would not have been available in the cockpit of a military trainer in the '60s, it just would have been displayed on analog instruments instead of an LCD or CRT. There are shitloads of planes flying today - and conducting instrument landings - with the same instruments as your friend's dad's T-34. I suspect this might be a terminology thing since you mentioned autoland, which can take a plane down to the runway and rollout even in absolute 0 visibility. A hand flown instrument approach only takes you down to a minimum altitude (usually between 100-400 feet above the runway) at which point you have to be able to see the runway and conduct the very last part of the approach visually. You might not consider that "landing on instruments" since some (very small) portion of the approach is visual, but if you try to tell a pilot who hand flew an ILS approach down to minimums without being able to see anything outside until those minimums that they didn't "land on instruments," they'd look at you like your head was on backwards. Theris fucked around with this message at 12:39 on Dec 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 12:23
|
|
|
Kwolok posted:Are there any aircraft or training that involves landing an aircraft using instruments only? I was under the impression that only super duper mega advanced jet liners had auto land, but I am not actually sure how that goes but my friends dad was saying how he had to land aircraft using only instruments back during the vietnam era (T-28/T-34 were what he trained on). That seems... odd to me, and not exactly practical for the instruments they had back then... There was an "automatic carrier landing system" using some precision radars back in the day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 13:34
|
|
|
Kwolok posted:Take off, sure, but landing? Probably the closest you can get to that is what's known as a hand flown CAT III approach, and even that requires some level of visual reference to actually land. Those approaches are almost always done via autoland, but I worked for one of the few airlines that hand-flew them, which was required because the autopilot on our airplanes wasn't sophisticated enough to do autoland. Our minimums were a 50' ceiling and 600 RVR (basically 600ft of horizontal visibility), which isn't a lot at 120kt, so we used a HUD for all of our cues for the landing flare and guidance on the first part of the landing rollout.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 14:48
|
|
|
Precision Approach RADAR (PAR) approaches used to be more available, especially on military aerodromes. It's basically like an ILS but instead of it just being radio beams received by the aircraft, its radar reflecting back to the ground operator who tells the aircraft if they're high/low and/or left/right of runway center. If the ground operator is in a position to be able to see the touchdown area they can talk the plane all the way down. I don't think any civilian airports operate them in Canada. Not sure about the US
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 15:12
|
|
|
St_Ides posted:I don't think any civilian airports operate them in Canada. Not sure about the US There's a handful of joint-use airports that have PAR's in the US, but I don't know if any strictly civilian airports do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 15:24
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:There was an "automatic carrier landing system" using some precision radars back in the day. Since people seemed to like my 5G trivia from a ways back: The Navy actually still has a chunk of prime EM spectrum reserved for it. I don’t think Ford class carriers are even equipped for it. The Navy was never going to give up EM spectrum but a spectrum sharing setup was created for 3.5GHz: https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/35-ghz-band/35-ghz-band-overview Each transmitter has to check in with a central server on the internet to see if the navy has said you can’t transmit. Then the UE has to listen before it can talk. The problem is that in practice the uptime on the spectrum sharing server has had issues which means base stations have to shut down until they get the connection back. One of the main implementations so far is for private cellular networks. In this implementation it’s band 48 and is supported by modern phones including recent iPhones and androids. It’s intended for large campuses like say hospitals, factories and so forth (a company I worked at even did a proof of concept with a sideline communication system at an NFL game) but is unlikely to take off if the spectrum access system isn’t perfect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 16:12
|
|
|
More specific installations for .mil are also some flavor of Microwave Landing System, which is like SUPER ILS for beam riding. New carrier approaches are JPALS (joint precision approach and landing system). It uses differential GPS and other sensor input on the ship side to let the airplane know exactly where to touch down. From what I remember of it, it worked so well that they had to detune the F-18s implementation because the hook would hit the same spot on deck every single time, causing extremely accelerated wear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 18:20
|
|
|
I've never flown a plane that can land itself, but the GFC-500 that just got installed in our Seneca can fly a loving mint ILS/LPV to 200 AGL, for sure. I love that autopilot so, so much, it's amazing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 19:17
|
|
|
Theris posted:That starts at 18:56. Right so maybe I should have been more clear, I know you can capture the ils and have it take you down but he is saying he had to fully land and bring the plane to a stop using only instruments. And mainly I'm curious about his claim of the old trainers during Vietnam and less about if any modern planes can. Kwolok fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Dec 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 19:41
|
|
|
Autolands are a little weird to see in action. On our E-175's, all we need to do to autoland is tell the airplane to use a higher approach speed, set both of the minimums switches to RA, dial in the correct minimums, and then push the APP button. Assuming we remember to extend the flaps and gear, somewhere between 1000' and 500', the autoland system kicks in and activates a dedicated yaw servo, after which, my job is just to watch and make sure it's not doing anything weird. At about 50ft, the airplane automatically flares itself and retards the power levers to land, but once it touches down, I still have to engage the thrust reversers and hit the autopilot disconnect button, since the AP kicks off automatically four seconds after touchdown, and keeps giving an "AUTOPILOT, AUTOPILOT, AUTOPILOT" aural warning until the disconnect is pressed to shut it up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 19:45
|
|
|
Southwest uses a HUD for all Cat III landings so you're manually flying the airplane to a minimum of 50 feet above the touchdown zone with a minimum forward visibility of about 500 feet. You then use outside visual references to land the airplane so not totally zero/zero but pretty drat close.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 19:55
|
|
|
Do they not do autoland? I'm pretty sure Alaska's 737's can autoland, so I'd just assumed that was what everyone else did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 20:02
|
|
|
Kwolok posted:Right so maybe I should have been more clear, I know you can capture the ils and have it take you down but he is saying he had to fully land and bring the plane to a stop using only instruments. Doolittle did the first takeoff, flight and landing relying solely on flight instruments in 1929. Not a huge stretch to consider that the military might have been doing something similar with a few additional decades of technology development.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 20:38
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:From what I remember of it, it worked so well that they had to detune the F-18s implementation because the hook would hit the same spot on deck every single time, causing extremely accelerated wear. rad. i wonder what "detuning" means in that situation. apply a little offset to the aim point that changes with every approach? deliberately add a bit of random noise to the flight controls? knock off the last digit in the calculations? Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Dec 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 21:59
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:rad. I'm also curious, but if I had to take a guess, they'd just set the aim point to a slightly different place every time. If it's that accurate, that would be the cleanest and safest solution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 22:11
|
|
|
cigaw posted:I thought the video covered that pretty well. It might sound ridiculous at first but we consistently disregard old technology as limited while forgetting that we went to the moon using wire coils to store computed information. Right I watched the video, maybe I missed something, but it seemed to only show the approach to landing, then go around procedure, then a visual full stop landing. Maybe I missed it but I don't think the video shows a full ifr landing with no visual element, only how you do the ifr approach. Edit: bearing in mind I'm an aviation baby so I could be missing several things
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 22:14
|
|
|
Oh sorry, I get what you're saying now. You're correct that the video didn't show an actual touchdown and landing. I'm fairly positive there's a video somewhere showing an instrument landing but I can't seem to find it now. The localizer by design will keep you aligned on the centerline as long as you keep the CDI centered. The glideslope will take you consistently to the same spot down the runway, so an actual touchdown is just a factor of reducing power and holding a proper landing attitude at some predetermined height above the runway. I'm not saying it's easy by any means, especially at those speeds, but it's perfectly doable. Also, military and civil aviation usually have vastly different thresholds for acceptable risk. Even so, I don't think they were taking a regular ILS to 0-0 conditions unless it was an emergency - this seems to have been a training exercise to develop confidence and skill in instrument flying where you had an instructor to take over if necessary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 22:42
|
|
|
Kwolok posted:Right I watched the video, maybe I missed something, but it seemed to only show the approach to landing, then go around procedure, then a visual full stop landing. Maybe I missed it but I don't think the video shows a full ifr landing with no visual element, only how you do the ifr approach. (I don't have an instrument rating fyi) As noted by many posters above, there are different categories of instrument approaches and landings. Most of the time you will be flying the approach by instruments until you have the airport and runway in sight, at which point you switch to flying visually. The category is defined by how close you can get to the airport/ground before this switchover happens. A "full IFR landing with no visual element," where I guess you're landing in a pea-soup fog and you never see the runway until the wheels hit the ground, would be CAT IIIc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system#ILS_categories These are very rare. On the other hand, at CAT I you might pop out of the clouds and have the runway in sight at 300 feet AGL and still a mile away, which is enough space (assuming you flew the approach well!) to correct any misalignment. The IFR landing is not very different from the IFR approach itself, because until the last few seconds, landing is really just flying the approach right down onto the ground. You're just keeping the needles centered (or the autopilot is) in the same manner all the way in, until you are able to see outside and you swap to flying visually, and sometimes that happens later and sometimes sooner. As the professional pilots have noted, for CAT III you'll have some additional cues to help you flare but it is also very rare that you get literally right onto the runway without ever seeing the ground. e: even for VFR pilots there are landing minimums. Where an IFR pilot on a CAT I approach might need to have the runway in sight by 300 feet AGL, a VFR pilot needs to have three miles of visibility all-around (1 mile in some circumstances) to land. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Dec 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 22:52
|
|
|
Good explanation, I endorse it as an instrument-rating instructor. I would just add, because I think it's interesting, there are some instrument approaches that essentially get you on a specific path down to flying VFR, at which point you are essentially VFR until you land, rather than providing a straight-in approach to a specific runway. This may happen if you have a reason to land on a runway not served by an instrument approach (as happens at my home airport where only 17/35 have instrument approaches, but we frequently get strong winds from the west that would necessitate landing on 26) or in mountainous areas, where you might only get down to 2000 or 2500 above ground on the instrument phase of the approach. For additional context, I'd also add that a big difference in categories of ILS approach is reliability. Your bog-standard Cat I ILS installation could probably be used to conduct an automatic landing safely 99% or the time or more, but Cat II and III have higher standards for error detection and reliability.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 23:10
|
|
|
Also another little distinction that I didn't quite realize until I started flying: "instrument landing" does not mean "autopilot landing." You can fly an instrument approach and landing -- instrument flight in general, for that matter -- entirely by hand, just tuning in the radios and watching the needles and gauges move around and steering the plane to keep them all centered. This takes a huge amount of focus, which is why the instruments are usually coupled to the autopilot, and single-pilot IFR without an autopilot is highly discouraged. But an autopilot is not required equipment (at least not for all approaches; again idk the regs exactly). This also really frustrated me when I was trying to get the Microsoft Flight Simulator achievement for flying an ILS approach "without assistance," so I took a Cessna 152 and successfully flew it from SCK to LVK totally socked in with only the steam gauge CDI, and I did it like four times and it never popped, so I looked it up and turns out "without assistance" just meant the fake virtual pilot thing and you had to fly it in a plane with an autopilot because the cheevo was linked to slaving the autopilot to the ILS. <  >
Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Dec 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2023 23:29
|
|
|
By Canadian regs, single pilot IFR in commercial service is only allowed with an autopilot (among other things). And if you're forbidden from doing something in commercial service but not privately, the implication is "we don't care if you kill yourself doing this dumb poo poo, but you aren't allowed to take paying passengers with you."
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2023 00:17
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:Do they not do autoland? They do not. The airplane can certainly auto land but swa loves to remove things from their airplanes that Boeing just puts in by default. Printers, sunshades, the left CDU for a while and auto land are all things swa decided were too expensive to maintain so they just yank them out when they take delivery of a new airplane. Its real dumb
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2023 01:18
|
|
|
Arson Daily posted:They do not. The airplane can certainly auto land but swa loves to remove things from their airplanes that Boeing just puts in by default. Printers, sunshades, the left CDU for a while and auto land are all things swa decided were too expensive to maintain so they just yank them out when they take delivery of a new airplane. Its real dumb Are you sure it isn’t because babyeatingpsychopath posted:From what I remember of it, it worked so well that they had to detune the F-18s implementation because the hook would hit the same spot on deck every single time, causing extremely accelerated wear. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2023 01:59
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Are you sure it isn’t because No I don't think it's that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2023 02:05
|
|
|
This is a good story about hand flying instruments right down to the ground. https://www.innerairmanship.com/blog/2017/05/11/zerozero-charles-d-svovoda/
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2023 03:11
|
|
|
PT6A posted:No I don't think it's that. I was thinking of their other carrier, the John Wayne
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2023 04:08
|
|
|
Oh yeah there was also that British Airways 747 that lost all engines due to volcanic ash inhalation, then restarted them, but their windscreen got blasted to poo poo in the process somehow so they had to do a LOC-DME landing completely blind (because the GS at their destination runway was out). That was surely a fun time for everybody involved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2023 04:12
|
|
|
 https://www.reddit.com/r/delta/s/5vYI7FcFQ7 How much artwork do you usually get done during cruise?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 21:57
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:
Thought I was in the cursed images thread for a minute there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 22:03
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I was thinking of their other carrier, the John Wayne You're thinking of Burbank in northern Los Angeles, not John Wayne in southern Los Angeles. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 23:15
|
|
|
Guys just the other day I saw Southwest go around, on their own volition, from being unstable. I know it sounds too far out, but I was there and I saw it and I swear it!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2023 23:34
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Guys just the other day I saw Southwest go around, on their own volition, from being unstable. Saw with your eyes, or heard on the radio? I suspect they put dudes in a truck with a radio to make those calls so other people believe in the myth of the Southwest go-around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 00:42
|
|
|
I saw a Southwest go around at SAN about 15 or 16 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 03:35
|
|
|
Didn’t realize this thread is full of liars
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2023 03:41
|
|
|
I was ON a Southwest flight that had to go around into Tucson last month. Then we diverted to Phoenix to get more gas because there was a storm sitting over the airport, before trying again. We made it the second time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2023 04:14
|
|
|
Arson Daily posted:Yo if we're talking about pilot gear it's new shoes time for me so what do yinz like for footwear that is From waaay back but my wife got me these for Xmas and they're super duper choice. Also I'm in HNL for new years so me=better than you
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 04:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
Wish I was back out in the islands rn but not til next month 😔
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2024 05:03
|
|