[Tall_Guy_In_a_PA28]

...
Incidentally, first time I went onto the Screwfix website I inadvertantly left out the 'r' and got Scewfix; it came up with photos of scantily clad Russian females who were 'waiting to hear' from me!!

That's annoying, because when I was looking for a scantily clad Russian female to marry, I inadvertantly added an 'r' and got Screwfix instead. It cost me far more in the long run and now I need a bigger shed.

[PaulSS]

Handling pilot pulls back on the sidestick then takes their hands off all controls

The stick is not let go (Airbus or Boeing) unless the autopilot is engaged.

...at 80% thrust he took his right hand off the thrust levers

Hands are taken off the thrust levers at V1, not 80%. The reason for that is after V1 you're going, so hands off to stop you being tempted to close the thrust levers.

....didn't touch thrust levers or sidestick again (just A/P inputs) until we heard 'retard' etc.

It has always been SOP in the airlines that I've flown for (including Air 2000) that hands are kept lightly on the controls (including thrust levers) even when the autopilot(s) are engaged during the approach/landing. Your hands need to be somewhere near the thrust levers (not on your lap) for when something goes wrong and you need to initiate a go-around. Likewise, your hands will be on the control column/sidestick so if the autopilot does something stupid then you press the disconnect button.

Is it the same on a Boeing?

It's the same on the Boeing; as in you don't sit there with you hands on your lap during an approach and don't take you hands off the control column after rotate

[NigelC]

On the 747 Classic you couldn’t put the autopilot in until the flaps were fully retracted and originally the auto thrust could only be engaged on approach below 250 knots, the rest of the time thrust control ran on scotch and fags

[Rob P]

Incidentally, first time I went onto the Screwfix website I inadvertantly left out the 'r' and got Scewfix; it came up with photos of scantily clad Russian females who were 'waiting to hear' from me!!

You must use a better search engine than me

Scewfix exchanged dead Erbauer saw for Bosch GSB 1800

This looked quite promising until I found out Makita isn't a Russian female's name.

Heads Up - Makita for £120 until Monday at Scewfix

That's only sixty quid a day. Well below the going rate.

I'm told

Rob P

[Sir Morley Steven]

Blimey. The first one even told the pilot the time at the end.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Will it work on glassy water, which might be translucent to a laser at some wavelengths ? If so, potentially really useful; the effect on a floatplane of rounding out beautifully but 10' too high can be rather nasty ..

A lot less than 10' too low.....

[Josh]

So it's basically a laser radalt. Why not.

But it kicking in at 70ft seems a bit low, around the 200ft of a precision approach minimum would make more sense - and on some terrain it could be actively misleading

If you treat it as just another aid, shouldn't be a problem. Common issue in my lot where we base our stable approach criteria off the Radalt 1000' call, but at some places you could be only 3-400' aal (Dubrovnik comes to mind). Off topic, but the terrain profile is a big consideration for whether you can autoland to a runway.

One thing that I do find odd is the slightly "random" nature of the callouts. I never understood why Big Airways went 50, 30, 20, 10 as the other jet operators I have come across go for 50/40/30/20/10 and you can get an an extra cue for the aircraft's sink rate from the cadence of the calls in the background that isn't always obvious looking out the window. It may all be programmable but certainly from 50' down what intervals are appropriate for what rate of descent?

[A4 Pacific]

If you treat it as just another aid, shouldn't be a problem. Common issue in my lot where we base our stable approach criteria off the Radalt 1000' call, but at some places you could be only 3-400' aal (Dubrovnik comes to mind).

I agree that’s clearly totally ridiculous and utterly pointless.

(That’s not a criticism of SAC. Just a criticism of choosing to reference it to RA.)

[Human Factor]

In locations like that, we’re expected to brief an exception. Stable by something appropriate - effectively 1000ft above threshold elevation.

Interesting comment about the terrain profile requirements for low visibility approaches. A Cat 2 approach isn’t available on 05L at Manchester for that reason due to the cutting with the road, Cat 3 is.

[Josh]

Like HF says it works if you know it’s coming. One of the benefits of a formal operation is everywhere you go has an airfield brief where odd things like this are highlighted.

The other issue with any audio system is prioritisation. If you for example have an odd profile or steep ramp up, which audio warning gets priority? Does it skip some callouts? Personally, I have v limited SEP night experience but I suspect this is where this system is of most use, particularly as an extra safeguard if you are going to somewhere that’s a bit of a black hole.

In contrast, having flown SEPs down to CAT I day IMC I have never found depth perception or below minima conditions sufficiently poor given the time available to judge the final path to feel uncomfortable. I suspect this is the kind of thing that will be really helpful to N reg 135 operators and the private IFR crowd there.

[G-BLEW]

Like HF says it works if you know it’s coming. One of the benefits of a formal operation is everywhere you go has an airfield brief where odd things like this are highlighted.

The other issue with any audio system is prioritisation. If you for example have an odd profile or steep ramp up, which audio warning gets priority? Does it skip some callouts? Personally, I have v limited SEP night experience but I suspect this is where this system is of most use, particularly as an extra safeguard if you are going to somewhere that’s a bit of a black hole.

In contrast, having flown SEPs down to CAT I day IMC I have never found depth perception or below minima conditions sufficiently poor given the time available to judge the final path to feel uncomfortable. I suspect this is the kind of thing that will be really helpful to N reg 135 operators and the private IFR crowd there.

I'm a big technology fan, I fly with countless screens and various gadgets. Before Covid came along I was flying VFR, IFR, night, day and even some water landings. Try as I might, I can't get excited by this. Must be regressing, it'll be paper chart and north up* next if I'm not careful.

Ian
*joke - even though it is not the true way, I am very happy for people to self identify as north up pilots.

[kanga]

..Common issue in my lot where we base our stable approach criteria off the Radalt 1000' call, but at some places you could be only 3-400' aal (Dubrovnik comes to mind). Off topic, but the terrain profile is a big consideration for whether you can autoland to a runway.

..

I wonder if the USAF CT-43 (B737) which crashed on approach to Dubrovnik in 1996 had a Radalt. It had only 1 ADF, rather than the necessary 2 for the then Approach. But as a 'Navigation Trainer' (adapted for VIP transport) I'd have thought it might have at least one example of most then commonplace technologies, as Radalt then was in ISTR both military and civilian world. Tridents had had them as part of Autoland since early '60s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Croa ... T-43_crash

[Equally, I recall being at Finningley when Dominie Nav trainers were based there. Pilots being trained on the type had to be trained on civil procedures, including NDB/DME Approaches at civil airports. The problem was that there was no DME display in the cockpit (at least on the one assigned), only at the students' and instructor displays in the cabin! I was asked to go on a new pilot's check flight which included a NDB/DME Approach at Newcastle, to sit at the Nav Instructor station, and to call out over the intercom certain DME values, and others if asked]

[SteveX]

Yep total toys for boys nonsense and for those wanting to sadly pretend to be sat in a Boeing cockpit. Tragic.

So if I have this right, only of use in latter stages of landing eg almost a blind landing, but then even system minima for a PPL IR of 200ft one would see the runway before this thing was needed anyway. By that I mean it's easy to check the altimeter quickly at 500, 400, 300 then go around. But how many occasions is the runway not in view by 400 in reality? Also applicable equally to IRR where the alt/height is no less despite what some think, it's the viz that is more restricted.

[BoeingBoy]

Interestingly when I started out on the 737-200 in the early eighties Rad-Alts hadn't been invented. You judged and flew the landing in just the same way as any other aircraft. The landing technique was different but the principle of when to initiate it remained the same.

As years went by and the 'man in the roof' called out your height people became more reliant on it and by the time I retired some people were well reliant on them as to when to start the flare. Frankly on the odd occasion it failed the result was usually a bone cruncher for the pax.

For me it was 30' on the 767. 20' on the 757 and on the 'Twa' of 20' on the 737-800.

It's use on a GA aircraft is very limited and frankly is likely to produce over reliance in anyone taught to fly with that system fitted.

[Lefty]

To me any device that doesn’t start to help you well before minimums is absolutely useless. Even on a full IFR approach if you aren’t visual with the runway at minimums, then you go around. Warning you at 70’ is too late to be of any use.