On Feb 13, 9:45*am, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:11:10 -0400, "Don White"

wrote:
I'm sure the pilot had perfect visibility in the rain, fog and snow,
he was just scared....right, dummy?

The pilot is the necessary backup for the autopilot, which can land
the plane, and which does not use visible light and does not need
visibility. Rain and fog do not affect it. The pilot might have taken
the risk had there been a medical emergency or something.

Casady

An autopilot system can't make decisions based on deteriorating
weather conditions. A pilot can, and therefore did.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:15:49 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 13, 9:45*am, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:11:10 -0400, "Don White"

wrote:
I'm sure the pilot had perfect visibility in the rain, fog and snow,
he was just scared....right, dummy?

The pilot is the necessary backup for the autopilot, which can land
the plane, and which does not use visible light and does not need
visibility. Rain and fog do not affect it. The pilot might have taken
the risk had there been a medical emergency or something.

Casady

An autopilot system can't make decisions based on deteriorating
weather conditions. A pilot can, and therefore did.

What makes you think it can't, for that matter. Computers can beat
nearly anyone at chess, and have been able to for a long time.

As far back as 1947 an autopilot on a DC-3 crossed the Atlantic and
landed with a pilot watching, hands off. The radio glide slope
instrument had been invented by then. There is even a book about it.

You missed the part about the autopilot being immune to weather. If
you trust the autopilot, there is no decision to make, you land every
time. They don't trust the autopilot. which is what I said. Pilots are
not failure proof either. They occasionally die on the job. That is
one of the reasons there are two. The Shuttle is totally unlandable
without the computer, so they have four of them. Two can fail in
succession and be outvoted. I happen to hold, since the seventies, a
commercial license with an instrument rating, and I can assure you
that neither approaches nor landings have to be perfect.

Casady

On Feb 13, 4:52*pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:15:49 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Feb 13, 9:45*am, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:11:10 -0400, "Don White"

wrote:
I'm sure the pilot had perfect visibility in the rain, fog and snow,
he was just scared....right, dummy?

The pilot is the necessary backup for the autopilot, which can land
the plane, and which does not use visible light and does not need
visibility. Rain and fog do not affect it. The pilot might have taken
the risk had there been a medical emergency or something.

Casady

An autopilot system can't make decisions based on deteriorating
weather conditions. A pilot can, and therefore did.

What makes you think it can't, for that matter. Computers can beat
nearly anyone at chess, and have been able to for a long time.

As far back as 1947 an autopilot on a DC-3 crossed the Atlantic and
landed with a pilot watching, hands off. The radio glide slope
instrument had been invented by then. There is even a book about it.

You missed the part about the autopilot being immune to weather. If
you trust the autopilot, there is no decision to make, you land every
time. They don't trust the autopilot. which is what I said. Pilots are
not failure proof either. They occasionally die on the job. That is
one of the reasons there are two. The Shuttle is totally unlandable
without the computer, so they have four of them. Two can fail in
succession and be outvoted. I happen to hold, since the seventies, a
commercial license with an instrument rating, and I can assure you
that neither approaches nor landings have to be perfect.

Casady- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So this autopilot, when it's over the weather knows what the weather
below is like? It knows windshear values at the runway apron? It knows
runway conditions? It knows the tower's recommendations? Answers NO.
Hell an airport can be completely closed and if left to it's own, the
autopilot will still try to land there.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:26:02 -0800 (PST), wrote:

So this autopilot, when it's over the weather knows what the weather
below is like? The conditions are continuously broadcast on the radio

No reason why an autopilot can't listen. I have been flying for almost
fifty years, and I can assure you it is not that difficult, even in
nearly all weather. Icing is the killer. Airline plane crashed and
burned today, killed one victim on the ground. It was ice coated. If
the plane makes it to the airport there are usually survivors, even if
it burns, but not this time.

That Hudson river landing was something. Those guys do not practice
power off approaches and landings, and with any glider, you only get
one chance, and the jets are moving fast, with a high sink rate when
they land. Power off is very difficult to judge. Only good thing about
the river was it was effectively infinitely long. Power off is not
even on the airline transport rating check ride. One engine out on a
multi is what they test for. One guy did get a single engine ATR. For
an emergency they steadily reduced the power, to simulate accumulating
ice. Stay in the air ten minutes., think fast. With ships, things take
place with glacial slowness, although occasionally they explode.

Casady.

On Feb 13, 11:40*pm, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:26:02 -0800 (PST), wrote:
So this autopilot, when it's over the weather knows what the weather
below is like? The conditions are continuously broadcast on the radio

No reason why an autopilot can't listen. I have been flying for almost
fifty years, and I can assure you it is not that difficult, even in
nearly all weather. Icing is the killer. Airline plane crashed and
burned today, killed one victim on the ground. It was ice coated. If
the plane makes it to the airport there are usually survivors, even if
it burns, but not this time.

That Hudson river landing was something. Those guys do not practice
power off approaches and landings, and with any glider, you only get
one chance, and the jets are moving fast, with a high sink rate when
they land. Power off is very difficult to judge. Only good thing about
the river was it was effectively infinitely long. Power off is not
even on the airline transport rating check ride. One engine out on a
multi is what they test for. One guy did get a single engine ATR. For
an emergency they steadily reduced the power, to simulate accumulating
ice. Stay in the air ten minutes., think fast. With ships, things take
place with glacial slowness, although occasionally they explode.

Casady.

In western NY, icing is a problem a lot of the year. Then you have to
figure out whether to try to climb above the conditions, or descend
below or at least down to higher temps. If you do that, then theirs
these things called hills that can ruin your day!

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:15:49 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 13, 9:45 am, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:11:10 -0400, "Don White"

wrote:
I'm sure the pilot had perfect visibility in the rain, fog and snow,
he was just scared....right, dummy?

The pilot is the necessary backup for the autopilot, which can land
the plane, and which does not use visible light and does not need
visibility. Rain and fog do not affect it. The pilot might have taken
the risk had there been a medical emergency or something.

Casady

An autopilot system can't make decisions based on deteriorating
weather conditions. A pilot can, and therefore did.

What makes you think it can't, for that matter. Computers can beat
nearly anyone at chess, and have been able to for a long time.

As far back as 1947 an autopilot on a DC-3 crossed the Atlantic and
landed with a pilot watching, hands off. The radio glide slope
instrument had been invented by then. There is even a book about it.

You missed the part about the autopilot being immune to weather. If
you trust the autopilot, there is no decision to make, you land every
time. They don't trust the autopilot. which is what I said. Pilots are
not failure proof either. They occasionally die on the job. That is
one of the reasons there are two. The Shuttle is totally unlandable
without the computer, so they have four of them. Two can fail in
succession and be outvoted. I happen to hold, since the seventies, a
commercial license with an instrument rating, and I can assure you
that neither approaches nor landings have to be perfect.

Casady

The reason they do not allow the autopilot to land all the way to touchdown
is because of the ILS system. You cannot always trust it is in perfect
alignment. It can be a little off, but not far enough to trigger the
alarms. Maybe now, but when I was an ILS guy in the airforce, you could
still be off a tiny bit.

"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:15:49 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 13, 9:45 am, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:11:10 -0400, "Don White"

wrote:
I'm sure the pilot had perfect visibility in the rain, fog and snow,
he was just scared....right, dummy?

The pilot is the necessary backup for the autopilot, which can land
the plane, and which does not use visible light and does not need
visibility. Rain and fog do not affect it. The pilot might have taken
the risk had there been a medical emergency or something.

Casady

An autopilot system can't make decisions based on deteriorating
weather conditions. A pilot can, and therefore did.

What makes you think it can't, for that matter. Computers can beat
nearly anyone at chess, and have been able to for a long time.

As far back as 1947 an autopilot on a DC-3 crossed the Atlantic and
landed with a pilot watching, hands off. The radio glide slope
instrument had been invented by then. There is even a book about it.

You missed the part about the autopilot being immune to weather. If
you trust the autopilot, there is no decision to make, you land every
time. They don't trust the autopilot. which is what I said. Pilots are
not failure proof either. They occasionally die on the job. That is
one of the reasons there are two. The Shuttle is totally unlandable
without the computer, so they have four of them. Two can fail in
succession and be outvoted. I happen to hold, since the seventies, a
commercial license with an instrument rating, and I can assure you
that neither approaches nor landings have to be perfect.

Casady

The reason they do not allow the autopilot to land all the way to
touchdown is because of the ILS system. You cannot always trust it is in
perfect alignment. It can be a little off, but not far enough to trigger
the alarms. Maybe now, but when I was an ILS guy in the airforce, you
could still be off a tiny bit.


Actually Bill, if the plane (with qualified crew), and the airport are
equipped properly, the autopilot can complete a fully automated landing all
the way thru roll-out. It's called a CAT-III C approach, and of many
reports I've heard, is smoother than many pilot's landings. SFO is capable
of handling such approaches. Maybe scary, but true.

--Mike

"Mike" wrote in message
...

"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:15:49 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 13, 9:45 am, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:11:10 -0400, "Don White"

wrote:
I'm sure the pilot had perfect visibility in the rain, fog and snow,
he was just scared....right, dummy?

The pilot is the necessary backup for the autopilot, which can land
the plane, and which does not use visible light and does not need
visibility. Rain and fog do not affect it. The pilot might have taken
the risk had there been a medical emergency or something.

Casady

An autopilot system can't make decisions based on deteriorating
weather conditions. A pilot can, and therefore did.

What makes you think it can't, for that matter. Computers can beat
nearly anyone at chess, and have been able to for a long time.

As far back as 1947 an autopilot on a DC-3 crossed the Atlantic and
landed with a pilot watching, hands off. The radio glide slope
instrument had been invented by then. There is even a book about it.

You missed the part about the autopilot being immune to weather. If
you trust the autopilot, there is no decision to make, you land every
time. They don't trust the autopilot. which is what I said. Pilots are
not failure proof either. They occasionally die on the job. That is
one of the reasons there are two. The Shuttle is totally unlandable
without the computer, so they have four of them. Two can fail in
succession and be outvoted. I happen to hold, since the seventies, a
commercial license with an instrument rating, and I can assure you
that neither approaches nor landings have to be perfect.

Casady

The reason they do not allow the autopilot to land all the way to
touchdown is because of the ILS system. You cannot always trust it is in
perfect alignment. It can be a little off, but not far enough to trigger
the alarms. Maybe now, but when I was an ILS guy in the airforce, you
could still be off a tiny bit.


Actually Bill, if the plane (with qualified crew), and the airport are
equipped properly, the autopilot can complete a fully automated landing
all the way thru roll-out. It's called a CAT-III C approach, and of many
reports I've heard, is smoother than many pilot's landings. SFO is capable
of handling such approaches. Maybe scary, but true.

--Mike


But I got out in 1971, so things have definitely changed technology wise.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...

"Mike" wrote in message
...

"CalifBill" wrote in message
m...

"Richard Casady" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:15:49 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Feb 13, 9:45 am, (Richard Casady)
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:11:10 -0400, "Don White"

wrote:
I'm sure the pilot had perfect visibility in the rain, fog and snow,
he was just scared....right, dummy?

The pilot is the necessary backup for the autopilot, which can land
the plane, and which does not use visible light and does not need
visibility. Rain and fog do not affect it. The pilot might have taken
the risk had there been a medical emergency or something.

Casady

An autopilot system can't make decisions based on deteriorating
weather conditions. A pilot can, and therefore did.

What makes you think it can't, for that matter. Computers can beat
nearly anyone at chess, and have been able to for a long time.

As far back as 1947 an autopilot on a DC-3 crossed the Atlantic and
landed with a pilot watching, hands off. The radio glide slope
instrument had been invented by then. There is even a book about it.

You missed the part about the autopilot being immune to weather. If
you trust the autopilot, there is no decision to make, you land every
time. They don't trust the autopilot. which is what I said. Pilots are
not failure proof either. They occasionally die on the job. That is
one of the reasons there are two. The Shuttle is totally unlandable
without the computer, so they have four of them. Two can fail in
succession and be outvoted. I happen to hold, since the seventies, a
commercial license with an instrument rating, and I can assure you
that neither approaches nor landings have to be perfect.

Casady

The reason they do not allow the autopilot to land all the way to
touchdown is because of the ILS system. You cannot always trust it is
in perfect alignment. It can be a little off, but not far enough to
trigger the alarms. Maybe now, but when I was an ILS guy in the
airforce, you could still be off a tiny bit.


Actually Bill, if the plane (with qualified crew), and the airport are
equipped properly, the autopilot can complete a fully automated landing
all the way thru roll-out. It's called a CAT-III C approach, and of many
reports I've heard, is smoother than many pilot's landings. SFO is
capable of handling such approaches. Maybe scary, but true.

--Mike


But I got out in 1971, so things have definitely changed technology wise.


LOL! OK, it's safe to say that approach was not available in 1971.

--Mike