flyinTLow From Germany, joined Oct 2004, 488 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2847 times:
Problem with autoland is, that there are requirements on two sides, aircraft and on ground. Taking care of the airborne side is less complicated, but certain areas have to be kept clear on ground and increased seperation between aircraft are necessary. Airports are not too keen on doing that if not required... So i doubt it.
Fly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2751 times:
Quoting Shany (Thread starter): Are there any airlines out there, that recommend autoland in their standard operating procedures, even in CAT I weather?
No airline in their right mind would ever advocate using autolands exclusively. They are only used in situations when extreme conditions require it. Not to mention it's not cheap to have airports certified, aircraft equipped, and pilots trained for such procedures.
PapaChuck From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 112 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (3 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2698 times:
Keep in mind that there aren't that many runways with ILS approaches approved for a full autoland. I highly doubt that there are any airlines out there that exclusively fly to airports with autoland capabilities. Sure, cat III approaches are common at busy airports, but they are still far from the norm. If an airline required autoland every time, the list of possible destinations would be quite limited.
Keep in mind that there aren't that many runways with ILS approaches approved for a full autoland. I highly doubt that there are any airlines out there that exclusively fly to airports with autoland capabilities. Sure, cat III approaches are common at busy airports, but they are still far from the norm. If an airline required autoland every time, the list of possible destinations would be quite limited.
As long as you have greater than CAT 1 Minimums you can do an autoland to any runway with an ILS, you just have to be aware that 'performance is not guaranteed' and be prepared to take over manually instantly (as you would, even on a CAT 111 Approach)
That addresses the technical issue, OTOH an operator that required it's Pilots to do nothing but autolands would have some serious competency issues as soon as an ILS was not available !
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 11032 posts, RR: 72 Reply 5, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2397 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 4): That addresses the technical issue, OTOH an operator that required it's Pilots to do nothing but autolands would have some serious competency issues as soon as an ILS was not available !
Although getting the approaches certified is a major deal, the most recent generation will happily fly an RNAV all the way to landing. No outside navaids required (other than normal GPS)...you'd only want to try that in VFR though.
Fabo From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 826 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2334 times:
Well in that case, I still dont see the difference in say CAT I conditions to VMC. You can still safely go around from CAT I if you feel it is going funny.
France 1789, Eastern Europe 1989, Northern Africa 2011
Shany From Germany, joined Jul 2008, 92 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2300 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 4): As long as you have greater than CAT 1 Minimums you can do an autoland to any runway with an ILS, you just have to be aware that 'performance is not guaranteed' and be prepared to take over manually instantly
That's exactly it.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 4): That addresses the technical issue, OTOH an operator that required it's Pilots to do nothing but autolands would have some serious competency issues as soon as an ILS was not available !
True, but unlikely at larger airports.
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5): Although getting the approaches certified is a major deal, the most recent generation will happily fly an RNAV all the way to landing. No outside navaids required (other than normal GPS)...you'd only want to try that in VFR though.
At least our 757/767 can only couple the autoland modes to an ILS.
The reason why I started this topic was the SQ incident/accident at Munich last winter. They had CAT I weather, nevertheless used autoland. I was now puzzled if they maybe have an all autoland (recommended) policy. And maybe also others.
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2045 posts, RR: 18 Reply 10, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2275 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 4): As long as you have greater than CAT 1 Minimums you can do an autoland to any runway with an ILS, you just have to be aware that 'performance is not guaranteed' and be prepared to take over manually instantly (as you would, even on a CAT 111 Approach)
I glad someone put it right here. you can do an auto land to any ILS you wish, it's only CATIII that requires all the clear areas etc. When we have a jet in check status we do it all the time including down to CATI. We cannot do an auto land to any RNAV app.
slz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2255 times:
I don't think any airline has that policy, but as pointed out, pilots can do it to ANY ILS, not just a catIII, so what is unquestionably the case is that at some airlines, pilots are stimulated more than at other airlines to use the auto land function at the end of a very long flight...
I have no statistical data to back this up, but I'd assume that at said airlines, the auto land rate after a 12h non-stop flight will be quite a bit higher than after just a 4h hop, for instance.
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1375 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2206 times:
Quoting slz396 (Reply 11): I don't think any airline has that policy, but as pointed out, pilots can do it to ANY ILS, not just a catIII, so what is unquestionably the case is that at some airlines, pilots are stimulated more than at other airlines to use the auto land function at the end of a very long flight...
I have no statistical data to back this up, but I'd assume that at said airlines, the auto land rate after a 12h non-stop flight will be quite a bit higher than after just a 4h hop, for instance.
I'm not doubting it, but that really, really shouldn't be the case. Autolands are not safe, especially if the airport doesn't follow CAT III procedures. Reading pilots forums, there seem to be quite a number of instances where the ILS is unreliable or affected by aircraft taxiing on the ground etc. A manual landing is, visual conditions permitting, the safest way to get on the ground, and I'm kind of shocked that the SQ pilots did use autoland in CAT I conditions, which was appearantly even due to their regulations.
Also, autolands are harder landing by design, which means generally more wear on the equipment.
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2045 posts, RR: 18 Reply 13, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2189 times:
Quoting Rara (Reply 12): Autolands are not safe, especially if the airport doesn't follow CAT III procedures.
That's a little of a stretch to say they're not safe. my goodness every ILS app you make will not be protected unless it's really CATIII. Do you shoot a coupled app down to mins in CATI/II wx? You're going to be visual below mins anyway so what's the big deal about the auto land? If it deviates just click it off and land.
Quoting Rara (Reply 12): Also, autolands are harder landing by design, which means generally more wear on the equipment.
i haven't found auto lands to be harder at all. Most hard landings are pilot induced. The auto lands I've experienced are as good as I can do with the exception of my absolutely "grease job rollers" and they're not often!
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2045 posts, RR: 18 Reply 15, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2151 times:
Sorry don't know the story of SQ 327 but you can always find something that is an exception. As I move into my 29th yr with one airline I could probably find an argument for every policy in place. Of all the auto lands I've done and most were for a CAT status chks and not down to CATIII mins I can remember one incident where the jet nosed over close to the ground and I did exactly what I posted earlier. I was getting a line chk as well.
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2045 posts, RR: 18 Reply 16, posted (3 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2146 times:
OK so I looked up this flight and did you know that the CATIII protected area was being observed, all jets holding were behind the CATII/III hold short line. There was no reason given for the loc deviation and wasn't it good it wasn't really CATIII. I certainly won't second guess this crew but the F/O usually calls any deviations and the capt. lands with hands on the yoke(and A/P discon )and throttles. I'm sure they were caught by surprise.
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1375 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2117 times:
Sorry, I should have mentioned that SQ327 is the runway incursion at MUC, the reason for this topic to be brought up.
The article actually says that the airport was following CAT I procedures (as they well should, because visibility was actually quite alright at 2200 meters and improving). It says "a number of aircraft" was holding at the CAT II/III position, but we don't know whether they did so voluntarily, and in any case the departing Avro seems to be the more likely "culprit".
Of course autoland needs to be practiced regularly, but from my understanding the crew performed the autoland due to visibility at the airport, presumably to enhance security, yet the incident would not have occured if the landing had been hand-flown as usual.
It may be a bit of a stretch, but TK1951 would also not have crashed if the pilots hadn't set up the plane for an autoland, in misty, yet CAT I conditions.
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2045 posts, RR: 18 Reply 18, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2100 times:
According to what I read they elected an auto land due to the F/Os mins which doesn't make a lot of sense.
Either way you could also site crashes that wouldn't have happened if the crew had made an auto land. The bottom line is that it's not dangerous as posted.
Shany From Germany, joined Jul 2008, 92 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2063 times:
So, is it an assumption or a fact now, that some airlines recommend autoland even when not necessary due to weather? I don't quite get it, still.
Sorry, I didn't want to discuss if autoland was less safe than manual landing or not. Just wanted to know if there are airlines around that recommend autoland in CAT I or better weather explicitly (respecting wind speed limits, of course).
mmedford From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 417 posts, RR: 8 Reply 20, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2033 times:
No offense here; but how do we know the ILS was at significant fault?
I can only speak for the US, but current maintenance of CAT-II/III systems fall inline with ICAO with regards to ICAO Continuity of Service performance goals.
With reduced reliability of systems, downgrade in category can happen and has happened. If a CAT-III fails so many times within a certain time period, it get downgraded to a CAT-II... if the failures continue, it gets downgraded to a CAT-I. After it's repaired it will have to maintain active service for a time period inorder to regain category status.
Also if an incident like this occurs, the system is flown by a FlightCheck plane to confirm operation.
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 2616 posts, RR: 19 Reply 21, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2011 times:
Quoting slz396 (Reply 11):
I have no statistical data to back this up, but I'd assume that at said airlines, the auto land rate after a 12h non-stop flight will be quite a bit higher than after just a 4h hop, for instance.
Well that is certainly not the case at my Airline. The very nature of long haul flying means that not many landings are available.
With very rare exceptions Pilots will land manually, unless conditions call for it, because: a) most Pilots enjoy the challenge of landing (yours truly included) not watching it fly itself for 15 hours.
b) You need a minimum of three landings every 90 days to stay current.
In fact, it is more likely that crews flying short haul will autoland when they don't need to to give themselves a 'break'
when you are flying 4-6 legs a day you need it !
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 11032 posts, RR: 72 Reply 22, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1968 times:
Quoting Fabo (Reply 6): Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):
.you'd only want to try that in VFR though.
I'd be perfectly happy to fly a certified RNP approach down to the minimums...
I think most would...but flying it all the way to the ground is a different matter. Most, but not all, aircraft won't couple into autoland if they're not on an ILS.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 7): I think Tom is talking about Rnav approaches, updated by GPS with Autoland using no ILS signal.
'GLS' I believe ?
Yes, although GLS currently includes WAAS or LAAS signal with the approach information and differential corrections. It definitely doesn't care at all about an ILS. Without the increased accuracy of the differential corrections from the WAAS/LAAS signal I'm not sure there are any certified GLS approaches.
Quoting Shany (Reply 9): Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):
Although getting the approaches certified is a major deal, the most recent generation will happily fly an RNAV all the way to landing. No outside navaids required (other than normal GPS)...you'd only want to try that in VFR though.
At least our 757/767 can only couple the autoland modes to an ILS.
Do you have GLS at all, or you just can't get FLARE/ROLLOUT armed on a GLS?
ThrottleHold From South Africa, joined Jul 2006, 611 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (3 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1928 times:
Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 16): OK so I looked up this flight and did you know that the CATIII protected area was being observed, all jets holding were behind the CATII/III hold short line. There was no reason given for the loc deviation
From reading the factual report, I think they were alluding to LOC interference being caused by the preceeding Avro RJ that was climbing out after take-off.
Shany From Germany, joined Jul 2008, 92 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1808 times:
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 22): Do you have GLS at all, or you just can't get FLARE/ROLLOUT armed on a GLS?
Last thing.
Quoting mmedford (Reply 20): No offense here; but how do we know the ILS was at significant fault?
Who said the ILS was faulty? I think the ILS was bent by the Avro as said by:
Quoting ThrottleHold (Reply 23):
From reading the factual report, I think they were alluding to LOC interference being caused by the preceeding Avro RJ that was climbing out after take-off.
tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 11032 posts, RR: 72 Reply 25, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1771 times:
Quoting Shany (Reply 24): Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 22):
Do you have GLS at all, or you just can't get FLARE/ROLLOUT armed on a GLS?
Last thing.
If you arm APP on a GLS (i.e. you get FAC & G/P on the FMA), what happens if you just don't disconnect the autopilot? Some aircraft have an autoflare function and will just hold the FAC...this is functionally an autoland (although, in NO WAY, is this certified).
There are well over two dozen airports worldwide with GBAS equipment already installed. However in the US, EWR is the only airport Ive found that actually has any GLS IAPs published already, they're quite new procedures.
They are all still pretty basic straight in procedures, and, aside from equipment required, not much different from a typical LPV approach. Eventually though GLS IAPs should be capable of curved approaches and CAT II/III minima.
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 3302 posts, RR: 25 Reply 29, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1674 times:
At my airline, there is no SOP to always use the auto-land on aircraft so equipped. However, there is a requirement from Maintenance Control where each aircraft must do at least one auto-land within a prescribed time. Sometimes we will get either a data-link requesting it, or a note in the Journey log asking for it. (subject to the capabilities of the destination airport)
We then make a logbook entry on the success or failure of the auto-land. (haven't seen a failure yet)
But ... we get so few landings as it is on the B767, that it comes down to a Rock/Paper/Scissors battle on who has to give up the landing to the autopilot.
Two more swords and I am queen of the Monkey People!
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 30166 posts, RR: 61 Reply 30, posted (3 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1330 times:
Considering Autoland requires Airport/Airline/Aircraft/Crew to be qualified.....Not All airports may have these facilities,hence doubtfull that it would be part of SOP.rather its an option to be utilized when situations arise.
Quoting longhauler (Reply 29): However, there is a requirement from Maintenance Control where each aircraft must do at least one auto-land within a prescribed time.
This is a requirement to ensure Autoland capability is serviceable in times of need.
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Jul 2008, 92 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 11032 posts, 
From Slovakia, joined Aug 2005, 826 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From South Africa, joined Jul 2006, 611 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 30166 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
