ADF v. GPS
The last time I flew a non training NDB approach in actual IMC without following the GPS generated course to the MAP either as a raw data number, OBS selected track or HSI trackbar indication, was 1994. The NDB needle was only monitored to see that it pointed in more or less the right direction. The constant was unlike pure NDB approaches the aircraft track was always aligned with the runway centerline when I broke out. 
I often wonder what the view of the CAA certification folk would be in response to an avionics company who knocked on their door to announce:
"We've got 2 systems for you to think about today. One uses medium wave signals and is liable to co-channel interference (particularly at night), passing Cbs, coastal refraction and other errors. It doesn't give any information to the pilot except its identification using slow more code. To use it, the aeroplane will need an expensive radio receiver, a cumbersome antenna system and a cockpit display. Unless the aircraft also has a decent gyrocompass, the pilot then has to interpret the reading and compare it against a suction driven direction indicator.
The other system uses a constellation of transmitters with considerable redundancy and a ground agency constantly monitors the system's health. It requires a relatively simple aircraft installation and antenna; software can provide the pilot with precise position/height/groundspeed and location on a moving map, the pilot can construct way points of choice and fly safe, accurate routes anywhere in the world. It can even be an entirely hand held device which the pilot can also use when driving to and from the aerodrome or when out and about on foot."
Would the CAA then say "Yes, but we think that the medium wave, interference-ridden system with its expensive airborne installation is OK for descending to the aerodrome on an instrument approach, but the modern, constantly-monitored software-enhanced system is, we feel, far too risky to use for such a purpose".
There probably are some "It's not acceptable without an astrolabe, quadrant staff and lodestone" crusties of the RIN or wherever who still chunter about the 'Tool of Satan' which has made navigation so much easier nowadays..
They should certainly be ignored!!
And yes, My Beautiful Garmin is indeed a wonderful box of tricks. The best thing since offset TACAN, in fact. What goes in in its chips and circuits is utter magic involving the mysteries of doppler shift and high speed simultaneous equations with allowance for ephemeris and ionospheric corrections - or somesuch
. Not that anyone should ever really need to know 'how' it works, just accept that it 'does' work. And very well indeed! I bought 4 panel mounted systems for my old club's aircraft and the only failure we ever had was when one antenna (which hadn't been installed properly) allowed water ingress into the cable. Whereas we had constant problems with the King ADFs....
Checking my Garmin on the way home yesterday, I saw that it was receiving EGNOS signals from Inmarsat (ID 33) and Artemis (ID 37) at times - but the system accuracy didn't seem to be any better than when it wasn't receiving EGNOS. But 5 metre accuracy in a car doing 70 mph is still pretty amazing to me !!
"We've got 2 systems for you to think about today. One uses medium wave signals and is liable to co-channel interference (particularly at night), passing Cbs, coastal refraction and other errors. It doesn't give any information to the pilot except its identification using slow more code. To use it, the aeroplane will need an expensive radio receiver, a cumbersome antenna system and a cockpit display. Unless the aircraft also has a decent gyrocompass, the pilot then has to interpret the reading and compare it against a suction driven direction indicator.
The other system uses a constellation of transmitters with considerable redundancy and a ground agency constantly monitors the system's health. It requires a relatively simple aircraft installation and antenna; software can provide the pilot with precise position/height/groundspeed and location on a moving map, the pilot can construct way points of choice and fly safe, accurate routes anywhere in the world. It can even be an entirely hand held device which the pilot can also use when driving to and from the aerodrome or when out and about on foot."
Would the CAA then say "Yes, but we think that the medium wave, interference-ridden system with its expensive airborne installation is OK for descending to the aerodrome on an instrument approach, but the modern, constantly-monitored software-enhanced system is, we feel, far too risky to use for such a purpose".
There probably are some "It's not acceptable without an astrolabe, quadrant staff and lodestone" crusties of the RIN or wherever who still chunter about the 'Tool of Satan' which has made navigation so much easier nowadays..
They should certainly be ignored!!And yes, My Beautiful Garmin is indeed a wonderful box of tricks. The best thing since offset TACAN, in fact. What goes in in its chips and circuits is utter magic involving the mysteries of doppler shift and high speed simultaneous equations with allowance for ephemeris and ionospheric corrections - or somesuch
. Not that anyone should ever really need to know 'how' it works, just accept that it 'does' work. And very well indeed! I bought 4 panel mounted systems for my old club's aircraft and the only failure we ever had was when one antenna (which hadn't been installed properly) allowed water ingress into the cable. Whereas we had constant problems with the King ADFs....Checking my Garmin on the way home yesterday, I saw that it was receiving EGNOS signals from Inmarsat (ID 33) and Artemis (ID 37) at times - but the system accuracy didn't seem to be any better than when it wasn't receiving EGNOS. But 5 metre accuracy in a car doing 70 mph is still pretty amazing to me
!!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More than you think and more than enough to fly a 7 DME arc or an NDB procedure. Not enough to fly direct to a 6 DME center fix using the 1950s equipment of this hypothetical exercise. I'm of course handicapped by my limited in-flight mental arithmetic talents. Which is why I'm asking the question: I'm an avid student, eager to pick up nuggets of wisdom as they appear.
Have a mental model of where you are in relation to the airfield at all times as your capacity increases this model also includes traffic that you can hear as well. This will help because you will the know when to expect the next vector which can help you plan when you slowdown and when to configure (I know maybe not much a consideration when your doing 130knts but it is when your doing 230-250knts). So from my mental model I would be thinking 300 but would expect it to be tight. The actual point your aiming for is 1-1.5 miles out from the center fix to the north. Then see what the needles are telling me and adjust to get to 7 miles out with 10 degs on the NDB to the runway QDM.
Arith method
15miles out is a quarter of 60 so each degree is quarter of a mile so 40deg to the left currently your 10 miles laterially to the right of the airflield you want another 6 miles ontop of that which is another 24 round it up to 25 to give a bit of space so add that to your 40 you get 65 round. As for wind drift you can start with 5 And adjust. Once you get nearer then adjust keeping in mind you turn in distance which if you haven't been told is move two decimal places on your gound speed and half it to give your distance (same as joining an arc) per 90 degs but you need to adjust that for the wind always with a turning into a tail wind add a bit of extra. So ground speed of 150 knts is 1.5/2 = .75
20 miles out is a third of a mile to a degree
15 miles is a quarter
12 miles is a fith
10 miles is a sixth (or add 10% on to the 12 mile or double the twenty)
So arith method 360-65-5 = 290
So really there isn't that much arith involved.
60/15 = 4degs per mile
40/4 = 10 miles
6*4 = 24
40+25= 65
360-65-5 = 290 I would expect that to have plenty of room.
And because I haven't done a mental sensible check I would have done in the cockpit looking at the instruments I have turned the wrong way and set up for the wrong end and coming in from the north
Its alot easier with your beam bar set up on runway direction and referencing it to the ADF and aslo in the air you have your pilot head on and not running an abstract problem.
Anyway i will leave it as you can see the logic with the arith and also spot where i went wrong.
And for the proper question what I would do is turn 20 to the left and then when I was 5 deg off runway QDM turn for a 30deg intercept ad that will get you onto it at about 6 miles. Your about 10 miles away from the center line and you want to chop 4 miles off from the 11 that you would have if you had continued straight ahead. Which is about 25degs but you don't want a 90deg intercept. So knock 5 off and the wind will help you not get tight.
And I also do this in an aircraft designed by Handle Page which Beagle hates with a passion.
Last edited by mad_jock; 12th Feb 2012 at 11:59. Reason: Cause I mucked it up
Yes, m_j, it might originally have been designed by Sir Fred, but the BWoS version you fly (I presume the J41) is a vastly different beast to the wretched T Mk 1 which I had the misfortune to fly!
Are yours GPS-equipped yet?
Are yours GPS-equipped yet?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J31/J32 and J41.
J31/J32 G reg all have GPS, EGPWS and TCAS now as well. What flavour of GPS is dependent on what was fitted there are about 4 different common models that have been used to comply with it.
The most common installation is this
http://www.trimble.com/products/pdf/2101ap.pdf
From the ex mil types the engine change to Garretts made a huge improvement. But its still a bitch to land.
Agreed the J41 is a different beastie altogether.
J31/J32 G reg all have GPS, EGPWS and TCAS now as well. What flavour of GPS is dependent on what was fitted there are about 4 different common models that have been used to comply with it.
The most common installation is this
http://www.trimble.com/products/pdf/2101ap.pdf
From the ex mil types the engine change to Garretts made a huge improvement. But its still a bitch to land.
Agreed the J41 is a different beastie altogether.
Last edited by mad_jock; 13th Feb 2012 at 09:05.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Niort
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be interested to know as well - given that is probably about a dozen flights as SLF I've only had one landing which could be described as less than 'bone rattling' - but to be fair I did congratulate the crew!
Personally I considered that the Jetstream T Mk 1 had the worst control harmony of anything I'd ever flown. It seemed heavy but sensitive in pitch, light and unresponsive in roll. Another problem was that the airflow from relatively large diameter propellers over a small, high aspect wing would cause any asymmetric prop blade angles to generate roll.
Thus on landing you would work hard in gusty conditions to keep the things wings level, whilst making small pitch inputs. Then, if you brought the power levers back to idle just before the flare, it would lurch out of the sky as all the lift fairies buggered off, leading to an imprecise impact with terra firma. I learned to keep some power on through the flare to make things slightly more predictable - no problem on a V-bomber runway, but not a generally accepted technique!
We had to fly the things 'single pilot' - with just nagging and moaning from the QFI in the other seat. His only 'multi-pilot' activity would be to raise the landing gear after a touch-and-go - the PIC did radio, navigation and poled the brute. We rarely used the autopilot as it was horribly unreliable and could generate rapid short period pitch cycling....
The Astazou starting sequence was hilarious; a starting brief followed by lots of fingers pointing at various light and gauges, then the necessary switchery needed whilst the abortionate French engines wound up. There was one brief which always amused me "Co-pilot, you are to restrain the flight fine pitch mechanical lock lever!". Restrain it lest it rise up and smite thee, or what? It was more pleasant to fly on one engine than on two, because the performance wasn't much affected at the heights we used and it only made half the noise!
We were supposed to taxy the pig using nosewheel steering which was incredibly stiff and hard to move on cold days. Even though it taxyed very well using differential power and brake, thanks to the wide track undercarriage, that wasn't allowed by the CFS gurus.
As for systems, I recall that it had about as many different methods for producing electricity as could be imagined - short of the Wimshurst Machine and Van de Graaff generator. Batteries, starter generators, alternators, inverters.....
Awful sodding thing. As I commented to one QFI, "If it really is this hard to fly from Doncaster to Nottingham at little more than 2 miles per minute, I'd go by train!"
Oh and by the way, GPS is better than ADF.
Thus on landing you would work hard in gusty conditions to keep the things wings level, whilst making small pitch inputs. Then, if you brought the power levers back to idle just before the flare, it would lurch out of the sky as all the lift fairies buggered off, leading to an imprecise impact with terra firma. I learned to keep some power on through the flare to make things slightly more predictable - no problem on a V-bomber runway, but not a generally accepted technique!
We had to fly the things 'single pilot' - with just nagging and moaning from the QFI in the other seat. His only 'multi-pilot' activity would be to raise the landing gear after a touch-and-go - the PIC did radio, navigation and poled the brute. We rarely used the autopilot as it was horribly unreliable and could generate rapid short period pitch cycling....
The Astazou starting sequence was hilarious; a starting brief followed by lots of fingers pointing at various light and gauges, then the necessary switchery needed whilst the abortionate French engines wound up. There was one brief which always amused me "Co-pilot, you are to restrain the flight fine pitch mechanical lock lever!". Restrain it lest it rise up and smite thee, or what? It was more pleasant to fly on one engine than on two, because the performance wasn't much affected at the heights we used and it only made half the noise!
We were supposed to taxy the pig using nosewheel steering which was incredibly stiff and hard to move on cold days. Even though it taxyed very well using differential power and brake, thanks to the wide track undercarriage, that wasn't allowed by the CFS gurus.
As for systems, I recall that it had about as many different methods for producing electricity as could be imagined - short of the Wimshurst Machine and Van de Graaff generator. Batteries, starter generators, alternators, inverters.....
Awful sodding thing. As I commented to one QFI, "If it really is this hard to fly from Doncaster to Nottingham at little more than 2 miles per minute, I'd go by train!"
Oh and by the way, GPS is better than ADF.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a few theorys out there some of them ancedotal and others in the realls of engineering design.
Rumours out there.
1. When they produced the first 3 pre production machines they had a different landing gear design and were quite nice to land. The RAF took one look at it and said we would prefer the extra traffic load . And they replaced them with straight legged with about 4" of travel. Then the fun began.
2. The wing on full flap has a nonlinear responce (I didn't have clue either what that meant) but apparently the air dams up behind the flaps at high alphas in ground effect and then something technical happens and you suddenly loose quite a bit of lift. This might have a grain of truth because if you float its going to suddenly drop you.
3. Its a JSP something or other design spec which is a military spec not a civi one (I think thats crap because other transport military machines don't seem to have the same issues)
4. Because of only having 1 wheel on each main leg the plane gets pulled down to the ground when they touch the runway and the friction spins the wheel up. This in my experence has some merit as a smooth landing is more likely with about 10 knts of crosswind, the runway deiced, snow packed or wet. No wind dry day I have thumped in some peachers which you wouldn't be able to spot the differnce in what I am doing to when I have done a greaser.
In practise experence counts alot but even then some pilots out there never really get a consistant pleasant landing and even what we would count as pleasant is somewhat firm.
When you first start flying them you get alot of crunchers and then they get better then worse again. Some folk get the nack and get predominately normal landings but even then occassionally she will bite and dump you on the deck for no apparent reason.
Also the props are extremely draggie at flight idle depending on how they are set up. If they are set low and you are still a couple of feet off the deck and you bring them back to idle unless you time the flare perfectly as she stops flying that 4" of gear travel doesn't soak up much.
The controls if you don't keep her trimmed right can get extremely heavy especially in high crosswinds and most of them only have a manual trim wheel. And it has a stupid spring thing thats meant to coordinate turns but you have to fight against it for cross controls.
Everone has a play with falp 20 landings and in my experence it makes sod all difference and just makes the rollout more challanging because the flap 70 lift dump doesn't deploy.
The J41 has different gear only has flap 20 instead of flap 35 has much more air over the wing at flight idle. And is much much more predicatable if you get the numbers right.
Rumours out there.
1. When they produced the first 3 pre production machines they had a different landing gear design and were quite nice to land. The RAF took one look at it and said we would prefer the extra traffic load . And they replaced them with straight legged with about 4" of travel. Then the fun began.
2. The wing on full flap has a nonlinear responce (I didn't have clue either what that meant) but apparently the air dams up behind the flaps at high alphas in ground effect and then something technical happens and you suddenly loose quite a bit of lift. This might have a grain of truth because if you float its going to suddenly drop you.
3. Its a JSP something or other design spec which is a military spec not a civi one (I think thats crap because other transport military machines don't seem to have the same issues)
4. Because of only having 1 wheel on each main leg the plane gets pulled down to the ground when they touch the runway and the friction spins the wheel up. This in my experence has some merit as a smooth landing is more likely with about 10 knts of crosswind, the runway deiced, snow packed or wet. No wind dry day I have thumped in some peachers which you wouldn't be able to spot the differnce in what I am doing to when I have done a greaser.
In practise experence counts alot but even then some pilots out there never really get a consistant pleasant landing and even what we would count as pleasant is somewhat firm.
When you first start flying them you get alot of crunchers and then they get better then worse again. Some folk get the nack and get predominately normal landings but even then occassionally she will bite and dump you on the deck for no apparent reason.
Also the props are extremely draggie at flight idle depending on how they are set up. If they are set low and you are still a couple of feet off the deck and you bring them back to idle unless you time the flare perfectly as she stops flying that 4" of gear travel doesn't soak up much.
The controls if you don't keep her trimmed right can get extremely heavy especially in high crosswinds and most of them only have a manual trim wheel. And it has a stupid spring thing thats meant to coordinate turns but you have to fight against it for cross controls.
Everone has a play with falp 20 landings and in my experence it makes sod all difference and just makes the rollout more challanging because the flap 70 lift dump doesn't deploy.
The J41 has different gear only has flap 20 instead of flap 35 has much more air over the wing at flight idle. And is much much more predicatable if you get the numbers right.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to add to Beagles post the civi ones seem to have the roll sorted out but they still can be twitchie in pitch depending on the C of G.
Taxing you really need to use brakes,tiller and power coordinated to get it smooth. And then you have the different types of tiller one a star shape with a big arrow head sticking out or a handle type affair. If I was to brute force the steering on the star shapped one I would end up with RSI. Did one days worth of compass swing with one of them and I was in pain for a week afterwards.
And the Garretts are a bit of a pain to manage compared to a PT6 but are pretty good really considering the 25% fuel saving for having a direct shaft and they have a really high TBO. I have never heard anything good about the french engines.
And the AP's are still ****e. You just think its about to capture LOC then it runs out of servo trim and buggers off in the wrong direction usually decending rapidily approaching Vmo. Not that there are many AP machines out there I think only 20 were produced and they are heavy.
Keeps the day interesting though, not many aircraft out there though where you can cut your teeth flying everywhere manually IFR multi crew.
Taxing you really need to use brakes,tiller and power coordinated to get it smooth. And then you have the different types of tiller one a star shape with a big arrow head sticking out or a handle type affair. If I was to brute force the steering on the star shapped one I would end up with RSI. Did one days worth of compass swing with one of them and I was in pain for a week afterwards.
And the Garretts are a bit of a pain to manage compared to a PT6 but are pretty good really considering the 25% fuel saving for having a direct shaft and they have a really high TBO. I have never heard anything good about the french engines.
And the AP's are still ****e. You just think its about to capture LOC then it runs out of servo trim and buggers off in the wrong direction usually decending rapidily approaching Vmo. Not that there are many AP machines out there I think only 20 were produced and they are heavy.
Keeps the day interesting though, not many aircraft out there though where you can cut your teeth flying everywhere manually IFR multi crew.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the AP's are still ****e. You just think its about to capture LOC then it runs out of servo trim and buggers off in the wrong direction usually decending rapidily approaching Vmo. Not that there are many AP machines out there I think only 20 were produced and they are heavy.
To carry how many?
How can that be?
What country is this? The Belgian Congo?
I thought that the "CAA approved" Trislanders going to Jersey were totally outrageously unairworthy heaps of ****e, but it seems that the payment of an AOC approval fee is a fix for all the things which could not be fixed with duct tape.
If the bit I quoted is really true then there is something deeply perverted with aviation regulation in the UK. It might also help explain why there are so many "professional pilots" here on p p r u n e with perverse attitudes e.g. believing that the ATPL ground school is somehow relevant to flight. And it would explain a lot of other stuff which is deeply wrong with aviation here.
Any plane which does what MJ says should be grounded before further flight.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this is a mark 1
And this is a civi J31.
19 seats
G reg.
I think there is only 2 AP J31's left now on G reg BTXG and LUVB both of them are pretty good or were the last time I flew them.
The biggest heap of crap jetstream I have ever flown was a N reg one that heap really was a dog, two reds perm on the cap panel so restricted to below FL100 and nothing in the baggage bay and about 4 ambers. Didn't take that job and you wouldn't be allowed to fly it in the UK.
Why ground it? Enter it in the techlog, engineers defer it pull the CB's then fly it around manually which is what you do with the other 95% of J31/J32''s. The gingers do something to it and announce its working again and you use it again. To be honest if wasn't for the fact that pulling the AP out is a major mod and I was told would cost 20k plus for approval all of the AP's would have been pulled out years ago to get 50kg reduction in aircraft weight.
They are actually a very safe robust aircraft, there isn't alot that can go wrong on them that you can't sort out. They are cracking in rough crap wx and are built like a brick ****e house. There was one incident in the UK where one was landed with a recorded landing G of over 6g. The plane was a write off but all the punters walked away, in fact one of them said to the local newspaper that it felt like a normal landing.
And you are right the ATPL's have to cover everything from crappy turboprops and ****e twins up to the latest Q400's and Boeing/Airbus Models. I have operated Jetstreams from the Faroes to the west across to India in the East. And from the artic circle in the North down to Capetown in the South And I have found quite a bit of the stuff in the ATPL's quite useful.
And this is a civi J31.
19 seats
G reg.
I think there is only 2 AP J31's left now on G reg BTXG and LUVB both of them are pretty good or were the last time I flew them.
The biggest heap of crap jetstream I have ever flown was a N reg one that heap really was a dog, two reds perm on the cap panel so restricted to below FL100 and nothing in the baggage bay and about 4 ambers. Didn't take that job and you wouldn't be allowed to fly it in the UK.
Why ground it? Enter it in the techlog, engineers defer it pull the CB's then fly it around manually which is what you do with the other 95% of J31/J32''s. The gingers do something to it and announce its working again and you use it again. To be honest if wasn't for the fact that pulling the AP out is a major mod and I was told would cost 20k plus for approval all of the AP's would have been pulled out years ago to get 50kg reduction in aircraft weight.
They are actually a very safe robust aircraft, there isn't alot that can go wrong on them that you can't sort out. They are cracking in rough crap wx and are built like a brick ****e house. There was one incident in the UK where one was landed with a recorded landing G of over 6g. The plane was a write off but all the punters walked away, in fact one of them said to the local newspaper that it felt like a normal landing.
And you are right the ATPL's have to cover everything from crappy turboprops and ****e twins up to the latest Q400's and Boeing/Airbus Models. I have operated Jetstreams from the Faroes to the west across to India in the East. And from the artic circle in the North down to Capetown in the South And I have found quite a bit of the stuff in the ATPL's quite useful.
Last edited by mad_jock; 13th Feb 2012 at 15:01.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats not standard it has a trimble 2101.
It would be out in a second if I was flying it. Those posts are bad enough for blind spots with out that thing stuck there. It certainly isn't normal. But then again it might be in Estonia.
Its got TCAS but no EGPWS its ES-PJG cn 701.
It would be out in a second if I was flying it. Those posts are bad enough for blind spots with out that thing stuck there. It certainly isn't normal. But then again it might be in Estonia.
Its got TCAS but no EGPWS its ES-PJG cn 701.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was going to remark with incredulity on the lack of an autopilot but Peter beat me to it. (Reminiscent of the Cork (metroliner?) non AP crash.)
He evidently didn't know how close to the truth he was.
all the punters walked away, in fact one of them said to the local newspaper that it felt like a normal landing.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cork was nothing to do with the aircraft although it is of the same stable.
Cork was all to do with the operating culture and who was sitting on the flight deck.
The AP wouldn't have been in on the go-around anyway. They shouldn't have been there full stop.
AP's go tech and then its usually a 10 day fix on TP's.
Cork was all to do with the operating culture and who was sitting on the flight deck.
The AP wouldn't have been in on the go-around anyway. They shouldn't have been there full stop.
AP's go tech and then its usually a 10 day fix on TP's.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An AP doesn't decide to bust an approach ban.
An AP doesn't decide to make three attempts.
Jetstreams, Shorts 360's and HS 748's have been flying round the UK for years without AP's in all manner of ****e wx without crashing when it gets a bit foggy.
Then again there has more than likely been thousands of command decisions of "fark this for a game of solders, tell the boy we are diverting"
An AP doesn't decide to make three attempts.
Jetstreams, Shorts 360's and HS 748's have been flying round the UK for years without AP's in all manner of ****e wx without crashing when it gets a bit foggy.
Then again there has more than likely been thousands of command decisions of "fark this for a game of solders, tell the boy we are diverting"
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some on the Flyer forum thread thought the absence of an AP may have been a factor, but of course (as usual) this is all conjecture.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, much as the weathered old sea captains like to pretend otherwise, not using the autopilot does matter, simply because no matter how fantastic a sky god you are, having an AP (I mean a working one, not one of the rubbish ones which MJ has apparently been flying with in those barely airworthy scrap heaps) reduces cockpit workload by an order of magnitude.
That in turn means you have time to think and work out what to do. You are better placed to evaluate trivia like the missed approach procedure and the diversion options. The Irish crew where probably knackered through the hand flying in crap wx and were keen as hell to get on the ground.
That in turn means you have time to think and work out what to do. You are better placed to evaluate trivia like the missed approach procedure and the diversion options. The Irish crew where probably knackered through the hand flying in crap wx and were keen as hell to get on the ground.