Youtube Audio: Passenger lands plane, pilot dies (King Air)

[D1gger]

Interesting. I don't think this is in use in Canada, so I've never heard of it.

Yes it is used in Canada, or something similar. I have been on a few flights that landed in Vancouver where the pilot announced that the landing had been entirely automatic.

 

[ViviTheMage]

Piece of cake!!

Not that hard, just lots of gauges

 

[Scouzer]

Yes it is used in Canada, or something similar. I have been on a few flights that landed in Vancouver where the pilot announced that the landing had been entirely automatic.

Well I don't have a clue how that works. The CAT III ILS in Vancouver is approved for use down to a Decision Height of 100' AGL. Beyond that I don't know how the technology works. The Wiki article doesn't clarify much.

 

[Mateo]

Well I don't have a clue how that works. The CAT III ILS in Vancouver is approved for use down to a Decision Height of 100' AGL. Beyond that I don't know how the technology works. The Wiki article doesn't clarify much.

Check out the CAT III ILS 35R approach into KDEN. No decision height and the only landing requirement is a runway visual range of 0 - 700 feet. Granted you need special equipment and training to fly this approach. http://www.fltplan.com/AwDisplayApp...&TYPECHART=09077I35RC3.PDF&END=END&WINDOW=YES

It is actually very unusual to allow autopilot to actually land the plane. Usually the autopilot is off at 200 feet minimum and hand flown from there. And...nobody calls it "autoland" BTW.

There are stories of 747's landing on this type of approach in poor visibility and then not being able to see the runway or ground because of the height of the cockpit from the ground. I cant imagine how disorienting that would feel to know that you are on the ground but be unable to see it.

 

[Scouzer]

Check out the CAT III ILS 35R approach into KDEN. No decision height and the only landing requirement is a runway visual range of 0 - 700 feet. Granted you need special equipment and training to fly this approach. http://www.fltplan.com/AwDisplayApp...&TYPECHART=09077I35RC3.PDF&END=END&WINDOW=YES

It is actually very unusual to allow autopilot to actually land the plane. Usually the autopilot is off at 200 feet minimum and hand flown from there. And...nobody calls it "autoland" BTW.

There are stories of 747's landing on this type of approach in poor visibility and then not being able to see the runway or ground because of the height of the cockpit from the ground. I cant imagine how disorienting that would feel to know that you are on the ground but be unable to see it.

That was my understanding as well. Guess I'm not totally crazy.

That's wild about the 747... I hadn't given it much thought. I've definitely seen fog thick enough to understand how that could happen, though.

 

[ProfJohn]

Out of all the horrendous situations the world can throw at a person, being a competent single-engine pilot suddenly at the controls of a mechanically sound and fully-fueled twin-turboprop meeting US government regulations for airworthiness, in good weather, with a 12,000 foot runway in the vicinity, and with radar-guided radio aid, stands out in your mind?

He was in pretty darned good shape the whole way. That 18 mile final would have taken out the major difference between a single and a twin turboprop -- the speed at which things happen.

I drive a car every day, but that doesn't mean that jumping into a stock car and going 200mph would be easy. It would probably be scary as hell.

The speed at which this plane lands is probably faster than he has ever flown in his little one engine plane.

Now given the kind of help he got most of us who have played with FSX enough probably could have landed the plane too. But it still would have been scary as hell.

BTW flying is easy, landing is the hard part.

 

[Oceanas]

It is actually very unusual to allow autopilot to actually land the plane. Usually the autopilot is off at 200 feet minimum and hand flown from there. And...nobody calls it "autoland" BTW.

To remain CAT III certified, planes must be use autoland (or whatever you want to call it) at least once a month. And although it's unusual to use outside of CAT III conditions, it can be used in CAT I-III, so long as ILS is equipped at the airport. You may already know that though. So on any day there are planes landing all over the place using autoland just for certification reqs.

 

[brblx]

BTW flying is easy, landing is the hard part.

stick 'n rudder!

i mean, the mythbusters did land either a 737 or 747 in like a NASA simulator or some shit. although i think their coach was a hell of a lot more useful, i believe he went as far as to instruct them to the location of individual gauges and controls.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I drive a car every day, but that doesn't mean that jumping into a stock car and going 200mph would be easy. It would probably be scary as hell.

I've got a mile straightaway before my exit and I hit 160 there all the time. There's really nothing to it.

The speed at which this plane lands is probably faster than he has ever flown in his little one engine plane.

Taking your points from the article?

Look, it's obvious you have no experience here. I've landed a single-engine plane at both small and medium-sized airports and been a passenger in the right-seat of light twins and a Cheyenne 400LS landing at airports large and small.
Landing at a large airport is nothing like a small one. Speed is about time and distance -- at a large airport you have tons more distance, which slows things down tremendously. EVERYTHING is up-sized at a big airport -- hell, you could probably land some small planes within the length of a single dash of the centerline marking at a major airport.
This is an airliner landing at LAX, and it's so much slower than landing even a Piper Cub at a small airport that it isn't funny. (And that's a 10,285ft runway. The one at Ft Myers is 1715ft LONGER.)

A major airport dwarfs a GA twin turboprop. (And what it does to even smaller planes is downright funny. Light singles and twins won't land on the numbers -- they'll fly along down the runway until they're closer to their turn-off. Otherwise you're tying up the runway forever taxiing down it. [a mile is a looong way when your taxi speed is ~25mph])

He was on an 18 mile final to a 12,000 foot runway. The speeds involved are nothing in comparison to those distances.

 

[ProfJohn]

I've got a mile straightaway before my exit and I hit 160 there all the time. There's really nothing to it.

Trying doing 200 in traffic with corners and people passing you... nothing it to it...



And I get what you are saying...

but drop you in a plane you have never flown before and kill the pilot and see if you don't get a little bit worried.