Observation regarding Cat-3 ILS (low visibility approaches), from just above:
"I have been thinking ... Cat 3 Autoland and Cat 3 Autoland with rollout are separate things. It is perfectly possible to do a Cat 3 Autoland (or Cat 2 Autoland) and disconnect the autopilot after nosewheel touchdown!"
The Ops Group Rpt cites the various conflicting restrictions [see docket, Ops Gpt Rpt, pgs 37 & 38] facing those mishap-pilots, when considering a low-visibility ILS approach, with a fail-passive autoland system, to a rwy without rollout guidance. The conflicting rules are mind boggling.
This statement sort of gets to the PROBLEM: neither the mishap-pilots, nor the investigators, seemed capable of sorting-out the various contradictions,
cobbled together, to get CERTIFICATION of an
MD80-style "fail passive" autoland system.
This CAT-3 evolution since the late 1970's, regarding very low visibility landings, has now is become foggy. The MD80 was certificated during 1980. By 1980, the L1011 had almost a decade of low-vis autoland history. At Boeing, in 1980, one customer had order ten B747SPs, but they wanted full Cat-3 autoland on that new "model" SP [new because of the Autoland cert'].
That test program (B747SP w/Autoland) proved to be a show-stopper: That test-version red&white B747SP stayed-on at the Test Center for about 10 months extra, with the customer getting late-fee payments, from the manufacturer, for every day-late.
Meanwhile, down south at Long Beach, the MD80 Cert' seemed to get some sort of odd certification for a Cat-3 ILS landing system, employing a human's Decision Height (rather than the usual Cat-3 Alert Height), with only a Fail-Passive Autoland System: Something goofy was happening!!! This
stretching of the Cat-3 philosophy, just to get that "Fail Passive" product certified, was leading us to the sort of COMPLEXITY that neither pilots nor investigators would comprehend. And this "fail-passive" Cat-3 Certification WEAKNESS (complexity), is NOT mentioned anywhere in the NTSB's P.C.