Scudrunners

When I was working for Air France in the Aeropostale devision we had Huds in the 737.


Made low ceiling low vis landings real easy using PMA.

[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=7245.msg19785#msg19785 date=1507659477]
Are you now saying that my quote from the wiki was wrong?

You are such a moron.

And, who do you think designed the HUDs that you love so
much?  Yup, those stupid fucking engineers that you hate
so much, that you think can't do anything right.  According
to your logic, no one should use a HUD because it was
designed by an engineer instead of a brillant four bars.
[/quote]


Your quote of [b]"[font=verdana][size=11px]Pardon me if I am wrong, but aren't all CAT II/III approaches [/size][/font][font=verdana][size=11px]and landings fully automated?  The pilots just sit there and [/size][/font][/b][font=verdana][size=11px][b]watch the aircraft fly the approach and land, correct?"[/b]  is wrong. [/size][/font][font=verdana][size=11px]You have been corrected but [/size][/font][font=verdana][size=11px]now you refuse to admit being wrong. [/size][/font]

[font=verdana][size=11px]In addition, your personality seems to be to insult when proven wrong and start making bizarre statements. And you are an instructor?[/size][/font]

[font=verdana][size=11px]God help us.[/size][/font]

[font=verdana][size=11px]A competent instructor would simply say to their student that we all make mistakes and are all wrong sometimes and that it is a strength to admit this. You show the dangerous opposite.[/size][/font]

[font=verdana][size=11px]And by the way, your Wiki quote that you highlighted saying "[/size][/font][font=verdana][size=16px]Therefore, an automatic landing system is mandatory to perform Category III operations"[/size][/font][font=verdana][size=11px] is wrong because a Dash-8 does not have, and has never had an automatic landing system yet can be certified for CAT III approaches, as proven by me. [/size][/font]

[size=11px][font=verdana][url=http://www.bombardier.com/en/media/news ... ercom.html]http://www.bombardier.com/en/media/news ... ercom.html[/url][/font][/size]

[font=verdana][size=11px]Most of us non-engineers figured out long ago that wikipedia has mistakes in it and only a fool(and a moron) blindly believes in it.[/size][/font]

[size=11px]To anybody out there reading posts from Colonel Sanders, I would strongly suggest confirming anything that is said from a separate source before believing it.[/size]

[quote]To anybody out there reading posts from Colonel Sanders, I would strongly suggest confirming anything that is said from a separate source before believing it.[/quote]



Well I just happen to know the Colonel personally and in my opinion he is one of the best pilots I know and his knowledge of aviation is awesome, however like everyone he can not possibly be correct in everything every time.


If I had a question about aircraft mechanics or how to fly one he would be one of the first people I would ask.

Chuck,


For now, I am going to stick with my advice and possibly re-consider at a later date.

Trust me he is one of the nicest people you could want to meet.


But for some reason he tends to come across as a complete asshole sometimes when he posts on the internet.


Maybe he has a homotron problem.


Next time I see him I will try and find out if that diagnosis is correct.

JAZZ hand flies all the cat 3 approaches with a HUD. Their autopilots are not to standard for CAT 111 but with the HUD they can hand the approach. Ironically CAT 3 is usually only good for the couple first guys in line since expanded separation slows the process to the point where the rest of the aircraft have insufficient fuel and proceed to their alternate prior to even doing the approach. Planning for CAT 3 does not seem to be done very often.

[quote author=Liquid Charlie link=topic=7245.msg19794#msg19794 date=1507684440]
JAZZ hand flies all the cat 3 approaches with a HUD. Their autopilots are not to standard for CAT 111 but with the HUD they can hand the approach. Ironically CAT 3 is usually only good for the couple first guys in line since expanded separation slows the process to the point where the rest of the aircraft have insufficient fuel and proceed to their alternate prior to even doing the approach. Planning for CAT 3 does not seem to be done very often.
[/quote]


Wouldn't surprise me if the CRJ is another aircraft doing CAT III handflying because there has never been an autoland capability.

This would bea perfect time for me to refrain from commenting but I can't help myself.

The CRJ being hand flown close to stuff the pilots can't see sounds scary to me. Has anyone here flown them much?

In the back I certainly prefer the Dash 8, even if the gear makes landings seem harder than they actually are. Maybe the CRJ is nicer to fly though. Maybe my bias is partially because the CRJs I've been on are older but they are too small for me, also many of the Dash 8s I have been on are the extra nice Q-800s operated by Horizon. They are quite nice so far.

David:

Until I retired in 2002, we routinely and successfully flew approaches in visibilities down to 1200 RVR.  A bit more work when single-pilot, but a 'morceau de gateau' when flown 2-pilot using PMA.  The auto-pilot remained engaged until DH and then the PIC took over manually.

My home airport down east was plagued by fog and served by a Flight Service Station.  When arriving back on foggy nights, we'd be turned over to FSS by terminal about 10 miles on final.  Under the regulations of the day, if you were informed that the RVR was below 1200 and you were outside the FAF, you had to execute a missed approach.  If inside, you could continue.

So, under BAD conditions, when handed over to FSS, we didn't ask for the weather and they didn't volunteer.  When we called by the beacon inbound, then we'd be given the weather.

PS  Our aircraft were small biz jets...  No HUD; just standard flight directors.





 

I was talking mostly from limited experience riding in the back coupled with my vast imagination. They told me reading was just as good as doing when I was a kid so I ran with it... I digress.

Specifically I was wondering if the Canadian Regional Jet was kind of scary as a platform for flying close to minimums? My spider sense is tingling, and suggesting that it is pretty sporty yet capable in good hands.

I'm not ready to lump everyone in a uniform in as incompetent but, I'm not super confident in someone just because they're a sharp dresser either.

Anyone with 30 hours on type is probably a better stick than me, but there is likely guys with lots of time, I don't want looking for a runway 50' before they break decision height trying to get me to point B.

Obviously they are a decent plane or I would have heard/read more about them. Some of us don't like Airbus and they're great if I'm honest.