Autoland

[Barronflyer]

AUTOLAND

I'm wondering if someone can help me with the following

I understand the ability for a Boeing to AL requires certain criteria. Threshold crossing height, glidelsope limits, slope limits, inbound course etc. I also understand that an AL should be certified by the company operating the aircraft - (approval) at a particular airport and particular runway.

Just wondering if during an emergency, an AL could be Carried out without operators approval e.g in poor weather conditions, as long as it subscribes to the above criteria? Signal interference aside - what would the possible dangers be?

Thank you

[AerocatS2A]

In an emergency you do what you have to to get the aircraft on the ground safely. If that means an autoland with a non-approved crew into a non-approved aerodrome, then so be it.

[MCDU2]

You are a low houred new hire pilot on a training flight and the captain is incapacitated and needs urgent medical attention. The nearest airfield is on the nose but is covered in low cloud below minimums and a bit of a cross wind to boot. So you do the sensible thing and declare a mayday and let the thing land itself and request all the available emergency services. For a gold star you will advise atc that you intend to do an auto land and to protect the localiser area - if the airfield has one.

[Dufo]

It's always better to do your own papers than make others do it for you.
(mandatory report vs. accident report)

[Superpilot]

To add to that, just in case you're not aware. You can also perform a "practice" autoland using a CAT 1 ILS, into an unapproved airfield provided the aircraft is up for it, you are in VMC and are prepared and ready to take over. You do not need to request this from the tower or even announce a "Practice Autoland" (always a good idea to check the AIP/airport info charts to be certain).

Though, I did once hear a British charter request the "LOC area to be protected" (in bright VMC) because he was performing a practice autoland :{

[FE Hoppy]

Contrary to what Superpilot just posted, some AFM specifically require CAT 1 ILS to be approved before use for practice.

GENERAL
The following operations are prohibited:
− MLS;
− ILS beam not coincident with the central axis of the runway;
− Autoland for an ILS CAT I, unless operators interrogate the airport
authorities on ILS ground equipment quality and on experience with
other operators. The operators should check with the authorities
that specific restrictions do not apply at airports with CAT I only
capability. Terrain profile before the runway threshold has also to
be considered.

[Ollie Onion]

It happens, here is an excerpt from an ATSB report into a Qantas jet that had prepared for a 'ditching' before deciding to carryout an autoland into Perth where no such facility existed:

The successful third attempt at landing at Perth was made when the Airbus was very low on fuel following the previous two attempts, and the only other course of action would have been to attempt a ditching at sea.

While Qantas international pilots are trained in autoland procedures at some overseas airports, they are not approved for anything other than emergency use at Australian airports because none have ground based navigational aids that are certified as reliably generating signals of sufficient accuracy for such ultra low visibility landings.

The flight had departed from Singapore without enough fuel to make a last minute diversion from Perth to the nearest suitable big jet airport which was Learmonth, 1110 kilometres to the north.

[megan]

Another one from OzAs the aircraft approached runway 23 for landing, the crew observed a bank of fog drifting toward the aerodrome from the north-east. By the time the aircraft arrived at the aerodrome, the runway threshold was obscured by the fog. As a result, the crew elected to conduct a missed approach.

During the missed approach, the crew noticed that the threshold area of runway 05 was clear, so they requested an immediate visual approach to runway 05 before the fog drifted further to the south-west. Due to other instrument flight rules traffic, Air Traffic Control (ATC) could not issue an immediate clearance for the approach. By the time that clearance was available, the remainder of the runway was obscured by fog. A B737 aircraft had been able to land on runway 05 following a VOR/DME approach, so the A320 crew attempted to conduct a similar approach. However, that attempt resulted in a second missed approach. The aircraft tracked to the north-east of the aerodrome and the crew informed ATC that they would conduct an instrument landing system (ILS) approach to runway 23, and then land using the aircraft's autoland system. With 1,500 kg of fuel remaining, the aircraft landed without incident in the fog. Visibility was 250 to 350 m.

The aircraft was certificated for autoland approaches, but the ground equipment was not. The ILS transmitter was a Category 1 unit with a minimum visibility of 1,200 m required for landing. The crew decided to conduct an autopilot-coupled approach with automatic landing, as fog was also present at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, rendering that aerodrome unsuitable as an alternate. The crew considered that Whyalla, the nearest suitable aerodrome, was likely to have similar weather conditions to Adelaide.

Fog had not been forecast for Adelaide when the crew submitted their flight plan. Consequently, the aircraft did not carry fuel for holding at Adelaide or for diversion to an alternate.

However, fog had been forecast for both Edinburgh and Parafield. The Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) reported that this was not unusual, as records showed that in the past 20 years, fogs formed at both Adelaide and Edinburgh on about 50% of occasions, with Edinburgh proving to be the greater risk. On the day of the occurrence, moisture levels were higher to the north of Adelaide, with fog forming at Edinburgh at 0700 Central Standard Time. What was unusual about this event was that the advection of fog from the north took place at a greater speed than the surface wind and that the onset time of fog at Adelaide Airport was 40 minutes later than any recorded onset time at that location in the past 30 years.

BoM records showed that Adelaide Airport averaged 4.9 fog events per annum. The highest annual total for events was nine, recorded in both 1956 and 1983. At the time of the incident on 20 August, there had been 11 fog events recorded at Adelaide Airport during 1999.Maybe incorrect, but I have in the back of my mind that the crew had no formal training in doing autolands either.

[RAT 5]

The flight had departed from Singapore without enough fuel to make a last minute diversion from Perth to the nearest suitable big jet airport which was Learmonth, 1110 kilometres to the north.

That begs some questions. If true.

[DaveReidUK]

That begs some questions. If true.

Which were addressed, up to a point, in the investigation report:

"The forecasts used in planning the flight predicted fog would occur about 1.5 hours after the aircraft’s arrival at Perth. After the aircraft’s departure, however, the forecasters identified a trend towards an earlier onset and updated subsequent aerodrome forecasts (TAF) and trend type forecasts (TTF) accordingly. Enroute, the flight crew actively sought weather information or received it from the operator’s operational support. As a result, the crew maintained an awareness of the developing meteorological situation. Significantly, it was only at 2400, after the aircraft had passed the Designated Point All Engines Operating (DPA), that the TTF predicted fog onset before the arrival time. Once the crew commenced descent they were committed to a landing at Perth.

The forecasting of fog is necessarily a complex process and the exact timing of fog formation at a particular location was difficult to predict. Had there been a more extensive local meteorological observation network in place, the Bureau of Meteorology may have been able to produce an accurate prediction of fog onset at Perth Airport before the aircraft began its descent and was committed to a landing. Although the statistics for the years 2003 to 2006 showed only one unforecast fog event at Perth, the continuing work by the bureau to improve their forecasting models and share information should increase fog forecast assurance at Perth and other major airports.

At the time of the incident, the operator’s fuel policy did not discriminate between Perth, which was relatively isolated in terms of distance from airports suitable for the A330, and other Australian airports. That meant that, in the absence of any applicable operational requirements, flights to Perth did not routinely carry additional fuel for flight from the planned destination to a suitable airport. The operator was aware of the safety risk posed by unforseen events, meteorological or otherwise, at destination airports and managed the risk through their integrated operations centre. In this case, the flight crew demonstrated their awareness of the risk in their conservative decision to carry fuel out of Singapore that was additional to the minimum fuel policy requirement. However, that extra fuel was insufficient to assure a landing at a suitable airport.

In the circumstances, the crew’s action in attempting two approaches before committing to a landing below minima was sound. Crew selection of the runway 21 ILS as an operator-approved runway for autoland, and use of the A330 autoland capability reduced the risk inherent in landing in meteorological conditions that were below the specified minima."

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24331/aair200605473_001.pdf

[AerocatS2A]

While Qantas international pilots are trained in autoland procedures at some overseas airports, they are not approved for anything other than emergency use at Australian airports because none have ground based navigational aids that are certified as reliably generating signals of sufficient accuracy for such ultra low visibility landings.

Thankfully no longer true. Melbourne and Sydney both have had ILS upgrades.

[flyingchanges]

In the sim, 737-800 lands just fine on a cat1 runway with only one AP engaged.

We had a crew forced to autoland due to flight control issues.

[FE Hoppy]

In the sim, 737-800 lands just fine on a cat1 runway with only one AP engaged.

We had a crew forced to autoland due to flight control issues.

I would have thought that Flight control issues would be a great reason not to use the autopilot let alone try an auto land.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

...and it won't flare with one AP in!

[Ka8 Flyer]

Yes it will... It's just not approved and not documented.

[flyingchanges]

I would have thought that Flight control issues would be a great reason not to use the autopilot let alone try an auto land.


AP was the only thing they had available for pitch, what would you have done?

[screwdriver]

Yes KA8 Flyer is correct. It will even flare when using a single ap.

[Derfred]

While Qantas international pilots are trained in autoland procedures at some overseas airports, they are not approved for anything other than emergency use at Australian airports because none have ground based navigational aids that are certified as reliably generating signals of sufficient accuracy for such ultra low visibility landings.

This was not true even when it was written. I suspect what the author was trying to say was that there were no CAT II/III installations in Australia. Cat I autolands have always been approved at Australian airports for Qantas international pilots.

[Derfred]

It happens, here is an excerpt from an ATSB report into a Qantas jet that had prepared for a 'ditching' before deciding to carryout an autoland into Perth where no such facility existed:

FFS, the Qantas jet did not prepare for a 'ditching' before deciding to carryout an autoland. They were simply pointing out that since a ditching was the only alternative to an autoland, their decision to autoland below minima was fully justified.

They made two go-arounds, and on the third approach said "we're landing off this one". As you would.

[Willie Nelson]

Megan post indicated:

Crew selection of the runway 21 ILS as an operator-approved runway for auto land, and use of the A330 auto land capability reduced the risk inherent in landing in meteorological conditions that were below the specified minima

We are approved to do practice auto lands on many Cat 1 ILS systems within Australia. Many ILS' however are specifically not approved for auto land practice as indicated in company manuals.

An example that comes to mind off the top of my head is Sydney 25 and 07, so if there is a choice of ILS setup within reach of fuel, I would get some advice if it is not readily available in your company manuals before just assuming that an auto land is a great idea.

I know that Launceston 32L and Johannesburg are specifically not to be used for auto land under any circumstances.

Notwithstanding, it may still be the smarter course of action, in an emergency, to take the aircraft below the minima and then disconnect when you are visual.

[grounded27]

What has to be understood is that only one AP is actually landing the aircraft, in all aircraft I have experience with. The second and or third are passive and only monitoring. The current standard is triple redundancy, one dominant two comparing ILS and aircraft function.

[Denti]

Triple redundancy is not really the standard, considering that the most common types only use two (737, A320, both CAT IIIb approved).

On somewhat older 737s you could feel in the controls the second autopilot engaging after the self test around 1500ft AGL was passed. I don't think it is really passive. Even more interesting is the single channel autopilot hardover in the simulator compared between one autopilot engaged and two autopilot engaged.

[No Fly Zone]

@ barronflyer: There are countless wonderful responses to your question, yet may are off-topic by introducing criteria not within you simple question.
Your question was:

"...if during an emergency, an AL could be Carried out without operators approval e.g in poor weather conditions, as long as it subscribes to the above criteria?..."

A few got it. (Those who did get it, responded with far fewer words. You pose an important question, complicated for some, but with a simple answer... The key word in your question is 'emergency,' not 'practice' or 'certificated.' As you should know, in a genuine emergency you should fly first, navigate and when able, certainly declare your emergency. (Offering the nature of the emergency is a damn good idea and this is not the time to be cool and understated: give as much information as you reasonably can!)
Even if unable to transmit a Mayday, if you believe that your airplane is in serious danger, you may - and should - do anything reasonably to return it to earth with a safe landing. You Do Not Need ANY permission(s), from ATC, company operations procedure, CAA certificates or any of that balderdash to safely land your aircraft. Communicating with ATC and other aircraft is a very good idea, when possible, but it is NOT required.
In the example that you cited, if the aircraft and airport have Auto Landing capability, and you know how to use it, IMO, this is a no permission required situation: Use what you have and fuss about the details after you are safely on the ground.
Is ditching a better/safer choice? Some may legitimately differ here, but IMO, if you have some Auto Landing capacity, I think it is a better choice than ditching. In the instant, Only You can make that decision - and thank God pilots are rarely faced with such choices.
So what is the best, safest, functional response to your question? Use Every skill and facility that you, the aircraft and the runway has available and hope (pray) for the best. In the most simple terms, do you need 'company approval' to execute an unapproved Auto Landing procedure - in an emergency? Not only no, but Hell No!
If you are a pilot, you should already understand this very simple answer. If not a pilot, perhaps a curious civilian, now you know. Basic air laws have many different ways to express the concept, but in a genuine or perceived emergency you, as the pilot in command, may do virtually anything necessary to safely return your airplane to earth. The only serious qualification that I'd add might be, '...without seriously endangering another aircraft...' In even more simple terms, if your aircraft is in serious danger, you own the airspace. In after the-the-fact investigations nearly the only criteria examined is whether your action was reasonable.
Flight Safety 'Rules' are extremely important guidelines. If you violate one or more in the interest of preserving life, be prepared to justify your action(s) by describing the circumstances of the moment. If you do so, your event is over. And if you do not properly explain your extreme action(s), be prepared to walk, rather than fly.
Yet once more back to the basic of Auto Landing without the certificate: of course you may. If you are successful, you'll be the hero of they day. And if you screw it up, you'll be crucified.:ugh:
As you should also know, ,there are very few absolute rules when flying. (The only perfect rule that I know of is that if it goes up, it will come down. In all other cases, as dictated by government and company, you are expected to break them if the safety of your aircraft is at stake. I hope that is as clear as mud.;) The regulatory Gods will get me for this, but if you need the use the airspace or facilities in unconventional ways to assure a safe landing, please do so. How many redundant ways can I say it? :{

[EMIT]

Interesting to read about 2 relatively recent cases of use of autoland during fog in Australia.
More than 20 years ago, during interesting conversations with Australian pilots in our company, exactly this kind of "legality and wisdom" matters were the subject.
The Ozzies then already described a case of a crew being caught by fog at Sydney - and they were a crew not (yet) qualified for Low Visibility autoland. So, they considered themselves to be legally not allowed to land, only alternative was to ditch, perhaps in Syney harbour, were the fog did not reach. Some smartass suggested over the radio "how legal do you think that ditching would be?" The crew then decided after all to go ahead with the autoland.
Have never been sure whether it was a 100% real story, or more of a saga to teach airmanship - well, here is documented proof that it happened more than once in years since back then.

[RAT 5]

I'd rather be convicted alive than legally dead. I suspect the pax would be pleased to be innocently alive as well. Isn't the ability to make a critical decision, when you are between a rock and a hard place, what being a good captain/crew is all about? Heavenly powers forbid that in todays SOP monkey world that little not often used facet of captaincy should be forgotten, even ditched.