PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - RAF Stanley
Thread: RAF Stanley
View Single Post
Old 13th Oct 2013, 11:58
  #98 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 53
Posts: 767
Maybe someone could at least explain why given that Autoland is older than I am, why we cant land in pea soup however thick it is?
Being in charge of an engineering team that maintains an airfield's Radars, radios, navigation beacons and landing aids, I can answer that one.

The precision of the ILS system required to do full autoland is massively affected by what bits of metal are kicking about the airfield from minute to minute thus it massively restricts ground movement of aircraft and support vehicles (the radio beams don't propagate as they should due to reflections). To put it in perspective, I was on an airfield with a contractor in close proximity to an ILS Glideslope tower and was told over the radio from ATC to get away from the equipment ASAP because the two vehicles we were in where having an adverse effect on the equipment as an aircraft was making its approach on ILS. The classic example of what can go wrong was a tri engined jet that tried to do full autoland on airfield with a non autoland calibrated ILS. The aircraft did a very heavy landing which resulted in major damage to the wing spar(s). Also the infringement regulations for radio site clearances for a full autoland compatible ILS system are extremely restrictive (off airfield to a specific range) and they have to be flight calibrated on a much more regular basis than a non autoland capable ILS.

In fact most of what you ask about is covered in this thread from a few years back http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ert-chile.html.

Last edited by MAINJAFAD; 13th Oct 2013 at 13:02.
MAINJAFAD is offline