Engage auto-land.
Engage auto-land.
Auto-land is a bit rough in the ‘kota...Engage auto-land.
Just as a frame of reference, at 120 knots, a 3-degree glide slope will require roughly 600 ft/minute descent.
The glideslope, according to the AIM, is 1.4 degrees wide...I assume that's top to bottom, not from center, which makes half deflection below about 2.6 degrees, or roughly 10% flatter--about 540 ft/minute would keep it there. If you leveled off, the glideslope would center very quickly, but if you simply reduce your rate by 100-150 ft/minute, you'll get a controlled recovery back to center.
Hope that's useful...math is better done on the ground than in the air.
Just as a frame of reference, at 120 knots, a 3-degree glide slope will require roughly 600 ft/minute descent.
The glideslope, according to the AIM, is 1.4 degrees wide...I assume that's top to bottom, not from center, which makes half deflection below about 2.6 degrees, or roughly 10% flatter--about 540 ft/minute would keep it there. If you leveled off, the glideslope would center very quickly, but if you simply reduce your rate by 100-150 ft/minute, you'll get a controlled recovery back to center.
Hope that's useful...math is better done on the ground than in the air.
I have to admit that's a brand new one to me in the silly pitch vs power debate: Pitch and power is "way too much work" but power and pitch isn't? More than 20 years in online forums hearing these arguments and never heard this one before
I have to admit that's a brand new one to me in the silly pitch vs power debate: Pitch and power is "way too much work" but power and pitch isn't? More than 20 years in online forums hearing these arguments and never heard this one before
Lol!! Just curious.... did you mean the AP?Engage auto-land.
I use Larry’s technique when I fly GA and when I fly the jet at work.
Try your technique and note the pitch attitude both before and after the power change. You'll find that it changes. It just takes longer when you adjust the power for your G/S then let the airplane find its own pitch. Then try it my way and you'll get a faster response and will track the G/S more accurately.
I find the opposite to be true. It is much more difficult to make small adjustments in power than in pitch, the power technique is also a slower method, there is a delay, also this isn't technique typically taught in textbooks or by instructors.
I learned to fly 'your way' in the early 1980s. I learned 'my way' while a working CFI in the late 1980s. I found it worked better in the small GA airplanes I was flying then and it is the only method that works in the transport jets that I fly today.
Plenty "similar." The oldest post of mine I can find on the topic was September, 2000 and it looks like it wasn't my first exposure to the arguments on both sides. Just not your specific comparison of one as "way too much work" and the other barely any work at all. Personally, I haven't found a difference between them, other than personal preference, among singles from 172s and Warriors to A36 Bonanzas and Mooney OvationsIf that's the first time you've seen a similar thing, you need to get around online more often
It depends on what you're flying, I'd imagine. How pitch sensitive is a 182 vs. an RV (for example)? That makes a huge difference.
I don't know what you fly but in the Cirrus that I fly tiny power adjustments are difficult, the throttle is a bit 'sticky', there is no way to adjust throttle smoothness like say in the Skyhawk, trying to make a tiny power adjustment I have to grab the throttle from below trying to finesse its position but overshooting is routine, and it is slow process. If I were to use your technique I would be flying yo-yo across the GS.
Which means that you probably don't need to ask about the best way to correct when you are too low on the glideslope. A new instrument pilot, or an instrument student, does need to ask and telling him "just do it" wouldn't be particularly helpful.
Yes, and then some.
Okay... because there’s no way in the Bus to engage auto land. One just never disengages the AP.
Easy fix...don't change anything, just pitch level briefly and you'll fly right back into the glideslope.
I don't know anything about the "Bus." Do you mean there is no auto land or there is auto land, but the auto-flight system decides when auto land should be used? I flew ancient auto land airplanes; L1011 and B767. Auto land was selectable.
The 767 would autoland from any coupled ILS if the autopilots were not disconnected. The two additional APs would automatically engage in CMD mode in approach mode.
That was a change from the early model I flew, or perhaps it was a TWA spec. We would not get auto land unless we pushed the second autopilot switch light above some agl altitude, which I don't recall. It was a minimum of 1,100 feet agl for the L1011.
The Airbus does have autoland. Perhaps I wasn’t clear, but what I was trying to say is there is no “turning on” the autoland. Just keep the AP engaged and it will autoland.
You would have to push the second and third or just a second autopilot? That sounds like the 737 procedure.
Seemed like a second, but my last airplane was the L1011, so I tended to "bulk erase" the 767.
Never flew the 1011, but have been in the cockpit.
It comes back to me, after looking at a 767 MCP on the Internet.
