Originally Posted by USMCFLYR

Yep!
Of course something beside ‘ oh our contract sucks’ or ‘is the schedule 7/7 or 8/6’ certainly out of place on this board!

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR

Yep!
Of course something beside ‘ oh our contract sucks’ or ‘is the schedule 7/7 or 8/6’ certainly out of place on this board!

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR

If anyone is truly interested......

Originally Posted by ReadOnly7

Stopped reading after that.

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR

That’s OK ReadOnly.
The pilot shortage and automated cockpit angle is much more interesting anyways :-).

Originally Posted by ReadOnly7

The actual AVIATION threads aren’t why people come to these forums. We want to argue about the merits of feminine sports cars and spout off about epidemiology.

Originally Posted by Flugkapitan

I keep seeing the automation topic come up. I think most folks don't realize that the lunar lander, with Neil Armstrong, operated one of the first autopilots using essentially similar logic as modern automation (and, or, nor, etc.) It is also a well known example of an autopilot becoming incapable of execution--Neil manually overrode the autopilot and landed. The attempts to make flying automated go back at least that far. Computers are really good at "learning" repetitive tasks given enough iterations to perform it at an acceptable tiny margin of error. However, when one factors in those pesky non-normal events of low occurrence, the computer is going to fail in those scenarios at a rate of 100%--only the human brain at this point has the ability to think outside the box when something different happens. I think of examples including UA 232 where it was "impossible" to loose all hydraulics, US Air 1549 with CA Sullenberger and WN 1380 CA Shults. How steep is that autopilot going to execute an emergency descent with its "default" response? Maybe I don't want an ultra rapid descent because there is a hole the size of Aloha Airlines 243 and the rest of the plane could break up...

$h!t happens...passengers want human pilots to deal with it.

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer

USMCflyer:

This diagram shows the multiple glideslopes that are normally generated. I also found technical discussions that said “false courses” are also normally generated by the localizer. As I remember from USAF instrument courses, these false courses are attenuated by shielding the transmitter antenna to favor propagation only towards the service volume. As mentioned earlier, snow drifts can bend these signals by reflection.

I thought the Air Force Instrument Manual at one time showed these multiple “localizer beams.” I thought they were at predictable angles/degrees from the main beam, just like the false glideslopes.

Do I have that right?