A320 Autoland

[muppet in the sky]

Hello all,

Quick question, can you perform an autoland with a A320 when the aircraft is in overweight conditions?

Thanks for the response guys!

[Aviophage]

Not allowed on the A33/40 under normal operations. I would guess that would apply to the younger Airbuses too.

[lurkio]

A319, slightly orange in tint from the FCOM 3.1.22 (MTOM 68000kg, MLM 61,000kg)

AUTOMATIC LANDING

CAT II and CAT III autoland are approved in CONF 3 and CONF FULL.

Automatic landing is demonstrated :

With CAT II and CAT III ILS beam.


With slope angle within (– 2.5°, – 3.15°) range.


For airport altitude at or below 9200 feet.


At or below the maximum landing weight.

At approach speed (VAPP) = VLS + wind correction.

Minimum wind correction 5 knots ; maximum wind correction 15 knots.


Automatic rollout performance has been approved on dry and wet runways, but performance on snow–covered or icy runways has not been demonstrated.


Note : Depending on the situation (e.g. emergency or other) and provided that the runway is approved for automatic landing, the flight crew can decide to perform an autoland up to 69 tons (152 117 lb).

The added emphasis is mine. Says you can't then says you can. Clear as ever.

[TyroPicard]

Says you can't then says you can.No it does not. It says that in an emergency you can autoland overweight, but the Airbus test pilots have not demonstrated that to the certificating authorities.

Your manual also says, in the limitations chapter ..
it is not recommended to take off or to land with a crosswind component higher than: So is that a limitation or a recommendation?

[Jonty]

Essentially Airbus is saying that the aircraft is capable of auto-landing while over weight, but if its damaged your on your own.

[muppet in the sky]

Hello again,

As I already went through the limitations section on FCOM 3 section 3.01.22 Page 3 to 4, and nothing mentioned about the weight limitation.

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi Muppet in the sky,

My Bolding

From FCOM for A319:
ENGINE OUT
CAT II and CAT III fail passive autoland are only approved in configuration 3 and FULL, and if engine-out procedures are completed before reaching 1000 feet in approach.
Note : Depending on the situation (e.g. emergency or other) and provided that the runway is approved for automatic landing, the flight crew can decide to perform an autoland up to 69 tons (152 117 lb).

But from FCOM A320:
ENGINE OUT
CAT II and CAT III fail passive autoland are only approved in configuration FULL, and if engine-out procedures are completed before reaching 1000 feet in approach.

So it depends if your flying 319 or 320.

I think it's because the A320 approval was given about 20 years ago and hasn't been changed since. The A319 approval was given more recently and Airbus included the F3 engine out & overweight demonstration. Despite approval for the 319 - it's not approved on 320s because it wasn't demonstrated at certification.

[Aviophage]

I've already given a straight forward answer and now people are trying to confuse the original poster.

Under normal operations, you are not allowed to autoland when the aircraft is overweight.

Why would one use an autoland in an emergency is my question to the original poster?

[Cough]

I would use auto land with smoke in the cockpit for one, when overweight.

[Jonty]

Uncontained cabin fire, seriously ill pax or crew, bomb threat, etc...

Its a command decision. A captain should know the capabilities of his or her aircraft, wether approved to do it or not.

[TyroPicard]

Jonty Uncontained cabin fire, seriously ill pax or crew, bomb threat, etc...Cough I would use auto land with smoke in the cockpit for one, when overweight. Irrespective of weather conditions, or only if worse than CAT1 ?

[Dani]

In my opinion, you are never allowed to land above maximum landing weight. That's why it says max...

You only deviate from that under certain circumstances.

Dani

[TyroPicard]

Aviophage
I've already given a straight forward answer and now people are trying to confuse the original poster.
But the question is about the A320, not the A33/40 (whatever that is....)

[TyroPicard]

I must have my pedant's hat on today...
Dani, does the word "never" not implicitly exclude the phrase
You only deviate from that under certain circumstances.?

[Aviophage]

A33/40 is a short hand method for referring to the Airbus A330 and A340.

So would you autoland in VMC in an emergency? You lot seem to rely on autopilot too much.

[Right Way Up]

Why would one use an autoland in an emergency is my question to the original poster

Departure in foggy conditions. Engine fire that won't go out, quick return overweight to autoland. Actual RVRs would be irrelevant.

[DeltaGolf]

i've looked the FCOM for A318 and A320 and it does not have the NOTE that the A319 has.

so the A319 with a MLW of 62.5 tons, AIRBUS SAYS, that the crew may perform an autoland up to 69 tons. Why would they say 69 tons ? i'd say they've probably tested it, and that's why they say UP TO 69 tons.


A318 and A320 do not have that note. Do not know about the A321

[muppet in the sky]

Thanks for the response guys,

Aviophage, I think right way up has answered your question posted towards me about why would I use an autoland in an emergency situation.
As the part of the world where I operate, we do have some pretty bad sand storms in summer, and those early morning fog in the winter.

DeltaGolf, and again everybody else thanks for your efforts much appreciated. I have already passed on my question to the airbus technical representitive and he says he would get back to me.

Once I get his response, I would gladly share this with you guys asap.

[charlies angel]

Try and keep it simple :\

1. Do not use autoland under NORMAL circumstances when overweight for NORMAL operations. Use down to 500' aal and then amaze youself with your advanced flying ability to land the aircraft MANUALLY.

2. In an ABNORMAL situation all bets are off. Use the aircraft systems to your advantage as you see fit to achieve a SAFE result using best CRM and crew technical knowledge.

3. Know which limits apply to the particular Airbus you fly. Comparing A330/340 FCOM with early FMS1 A320 is apples and oranges. Just because a brand new Renault Megane has active lane control and intelligent airbags doesnt mean a 25 year old one will have!!

[shortfuel]

How about we keep it simple and most importantly right:

1. An overweight landing is an abnormal operation by definition. So there is no such thing like an overweight landing in normal ops...

2. RRR clearly correctly explained why some newer Airbus aircraft had the provision for overweight autolands and others did not.

C's Angel: if it is one of those days when I start evaluating the benefit of an overweight autoland, it clearly means that amazing myself for some manual flying was not an option.

So would you autoland in VMC in an emergency? You lot seem to rely on autopilot too much.
Are you really a professional pilot? :ugh:
You got irritated when other posters gave detailed and referenced answers while your first reply was erroneous and a vague guess.
Please refer to point 1.

[charlies angel]

I think that this thread is a good example of why there is so much confusion over Airbus limits/performance/tech spec etc etc.
There are now so many different variants of the Airbus A320 family that comparison between any two is almost pointless.
The OP specifically referred to the A320 ( did they mean that one particular aircraft or the narrowbody family in general? who knows, except the OP?).
We have now had input from drivers of the A318 through to A340-600, the only technical similarity between which is that they begin with the letter A!
My para 1 reply is clearly a little ambiguous as somehow shortfuel seems to think that I believe an overweight landing is a NORMAL operation.
Reread it again shortfuel and you''ll see that I am trying to simplify the myriad of weight limits (certified,recommended,demonstated,nav charge weight limit,particular airport PCN limit etc) to NORMAL ops or ABNORMAL ops.
Incidentally in the sim (what level?:}) the aircraft carries out beautiful autolands way above MLM and well outside crosswind limits flap 3 or full.

[muppet in the sky]

Hello again,

I think we are all getting side tracked from the issue. To answer Charlie angel's post, my question was asked on the Airbus A320 ONLY not the A318, A319 and other Airbus series aircraft.

But the info provided by other posts was of great reference to me, so again thank you all.

Again the reason to my question is that the region I operate in, LVOPS is a common occurrence in the winter. Also we do have those medical emergencies or incase of unforeseen scenarios, such as an uncontrollable fire, where an immediate return to the field is required.

If you read my previous post, I asked Airbus technical representitives and as usual I got the standard airbus response.

"For A320 aircraft the automatic landing has been certified for weights up to the maximum landing weight.

However autoland studies and flight tests in overweight conditions have been conducted in order to make sure that there was no unexpected misbehaviour of the automatic landing system when the aircraft exceeds the certified maximum landing weight, and that an autoland in that condition was safe, although all certification criteria have not been met. Nevertheless, only average conditions have been flight tested.

Therefore, AIRBUS does not recommend to perform an autoland while in overweight."

In a nutshell, its your neck when poo hits the fan. Standard Airbus :ugh:

[Aviophage]

I would never autoland in an emergency.

Did United 232 autoland when they had an emergency? No.
Did Cactus 1549 autoland when they had an emergency? No.

If the wx conditions were below that for an ILS cat II approach, I would divert to the nearest suitable airport.

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi Aviophage,

Assume you've just taken off where RVRs are 200 m, sky obscured, LVPs in force etc:
What would you do with a cabin fire or smoke warning in the hold, or Engine Fire warning that doesn't extinguish or any ECAM warning which says "LAND ASAP"?

[763 jock]

Aviophage.

Could you do us all a favour and tell us who you work for please? That way I can avoid being in the back when you're up front and I'll give you plenty of room if we happen to be in the same FIR.

Thank you.

[shortfuel]

I would never autoland in an emergency.
Did United 232 autoland when they had an emergency? No.
Did Cactus 1549 autoland when they had an emergency? No.

Certainly the most stupid statements I've ever read on this forum. :D

[Jonty]

Aviophage,
What would you do if that emergency involved the complete distruction of the outer pain of your cockpit windows. Would you still try a manual landing while not being able to see out of the window.

"never" is a very big word, and not one that a pilot should be using.

[Max Angle]

Don't let him bother you, he is all over pprune like a rash at the moment spouting total rubbish. Hopefully he will get bored fairly quickly and go back to flightsim which I suspect is about as close as he has ever got to an airline flightdeck, in the meantime add him to your ignore list.

[charlies angel]

MITS
The books appear to be written in such a ( deliberate ) haphazard,contradictory way that I am sure Airbus Industries are happy that they can escape virtually any legal challenge to "blame the aircraft ". There is always a word or sentence that can be dissected to mean 2 or 5 things!
EU OPS is the same as was JAR ops and Pans OPS and individual States laws.
When the unwanted fickle finger of fate illuminates your flightdeck in an emergency its time to take a deep breath,stay calm and do your best using all available resources.
In the aftermath and enquiry sit in a quiet room and only pick out the bits from the FCOM that explains you and your teams decision making as to how you saved the day by using your superior skill and knowledge:O

[babotika]

Apologies for dredging up an old thread - my question is slightly different but still relates to autoland on the 320.

If landing in CAT1 (or better) conditions with a CAT1 MDA which is based on baro altimeter will the red autoland light come at MDA -100ft on if you attempt to do an autoland? No system / signal failures, just minima set as MDA rather than DH.

On the aircraft of the people I used to work for this would invariably happen, and SOP to carry out an automatic landing off a CAT1 approach was to delete the MDA and change it to DH100 when visual with the runway.

Just did an autoland with the new company on similarly aged/equipped 320s and we happily landed with the MDA set all the way.

Very confused now. Did the old operator fiddle with something in the software to bring up the light, do IAE and CFM busses (both Thales v3 equipped) behave differently or am I going mad?

S.

[shortfuel]

The AUTOLAND warning light activation conditions are pretty clear (FCOM 4.05.70 p15). This system does not take any input/entry information from the MCDU.

As long as CAT2 or more is displayed on your FMA, your aircraft is AUTOLAND capable whatever you have inserted in the MDA/DH field (for auto-callout purpose).

The only reasons I can think of is the poor ILS beam quality and/or the topography of the ground before the threshold that could lead to an AUTOLAND warning but not an MDA entry.

The RWY you used with your previous employer, was it a CAT2/3 RWY?

Furthermore, Airbus recommends to use CAT2/3 procedures even when carrying out an AUTOLAND in CAT1 conditions, i.e. setting the DH and visual references acquired by the CAT1 approach MDA.

Am not aware of any change on the AUTOLAND warning function, but it does not mean it has not evolved since 1988! :)

[Microburst2002]

With heavy smoke in the cockpit (other than Marlboro) nobody gives a damn for limitations nor cares about losing his licence. If one manages to set the FMGS to carry out an autoland, then one can just open the window (below 200 kt) and watch the airplane to what it is suposed to do.

It is an option anyone might choose, and would always be legitimate, since we are talking about a critical condition and a captain can depart from regulations for the sake of safety if he deems so.