upgrade procedure

[rerackit]

I would be interested to know if there are any differences between company procedures for the upgrade of autoland systems when a standard approach is requested. How does your company deal with this?

[Multi-X]

Most companies have a procedure for downgrading & upgrading Autoland status. This covers the what the AL should be downgraded to Cat 2 / Cat 3 single depending on the lru that has failed. It also covers what tests are required after lru replacement before requesting a standard AL.

I am sure they all vary but basically will be the same.

[Satis]

I have seen differences in procedures for upgrading and d/grading a/p's in different companies which I have worked. In BA I seem to remember that I could upgrade to 3B based on a satisfactory rampdown or 'autoland 40' or whichever test system a particular type may have used. However, where I am working now I have to d/grade and call for a standard app/landing for a nav light change (slight exagerration). We use an in-house all weather ops manual (AWO) written by engineering but stolen from another airline. The guy who stole/reprinted it is a bit of a plonker so it makes interpretation difficult (it was probably fine before he messed with it!!)

was there something specific which prompted your question??

[near enuf is good enuf]

No harm ever done in calling for a standard landing. If in doubt! Unless you can POSITIVELY identify defect and POSITIVELY ensure rectification.
Anyway, it might get "dem upfront" to do a little more work.

[rerackit]

Yes, there is something that has prompted my question. In our company, following a standard approach, the captain writes an open entry stating that the approach was satis. If he forgets, we phone him up, he tells us it was ok and we make the entry. This is then closed by stating that we have upgraded. This doesnt seem right to me, as the statement that the approach was ok is not in any way certified. So are there any company procedures that state that the captain has to sign for a succesful standard approach. It is, after all, probably the most important dynamic check that can be done. I`ve sat on the jump seat many times when doing a blind landing and it makes your **** twitch i can tell you.

[magnet]

a

[Multi-X]

Rerackit - You say the crews do a standard approach, this is not enough to upgrade, if a standard autoland is required. A standard autoland means approach, landing & roll out, if applicable.
The crews must make an entry in the log. I wonder how an entry in the log after a phone call from a Captain would stand up in court should on go off the runway or worse?

One of the biggest problems is getting a protected approach for the standard landing. Many crews write up that the autoland is still u/s or aircraft was off the centre line but fail to mention that the ILS was not protected, this results in a lot of trouble shooting of a defect that does not exist.

Having been in the flight deck several times for real Cat 3 approaches it, it makes you aware of what you are actually certifing the aircraft as capable to do.
If there is any doubt that the defect has not been rectified even after passing the Land 40 or other BITE tests call for a standard landing regardless of your company's procedures.

We had on 737 that kept passing all the tests but would pitch down for no obvious reason. Not very good if it happened at 50'!

[Satis]

rerackit,
if the captains writes in the tech log or not...it's not certified. The certification only occurs when the engineer signs the CRS. Whats the difference (legally) if the captain makes the entry or you making the entry but starting it with "capt verbal report....". At the end of the day it is up to the Lic engineer to satisfy himself that the system is suitable for upgrade and then certify it. The crew are carrying out a test for you and you have to believe them.

For the sake of discussion, lets say you ask a pilot to make a stand/app/ldg and he forgets. So as not to 'lose face' on return he writes up that it was c/out satis. He still signs for nothing. YOU do the upgrade. So if you are not satisfied after a repoted autoland.....don't upgrade it. If you want to leave the call for autoland there for another couple of flights....leave it. There are a few (just a few) pilots in my airline I would not trust to do this test. Sounds weird but I'm sure you'd feel the same way if you met them.

I agree with all you say multi-x (excellent point on ILS protection!!) except the bit about 'court'. I think legally it will not make a difference how the report was received, once the court was satisfied that the report was received. There should be no reason to accuse an LAME of lieing when it is standard practice to operate this way in their airline. In a court situation I believe they would be trying to establish was there reasonable grounds to certify an autopilot system in a particular case. If rerackit uses his normal procedures then this would be evident very quickly.

Rarekit....would you get pressure from mgmt if you did not upgrade at first opportunity?

[rerackit]

Satis- Would i get pressure from management? No. You confirm that your captains do not make any certification on the success of the autoland and i am sure this is the case with all companies. I suppose its the same as declaring the aircraft serviceable by not entering any defects. But the point i am trying to make is the fact that this situation is an exception. i.e. we are in a system which is obsessed with legal certification to the point of stating such things as `reading light filament replaced iaw 33-00`, but when it comes to checking the aircraft will land itself safely after a no fault found situation, the person who was there at the time can make a written statement that it was ok, but does not have to identify himself. A situation that if it ended up in an investigation, would surely not hold water. I`m not suggesting the captain accepts responsibility for upgrade, but if his statement were signed for, the engineers certification is then watertight in a legal context insofar as the statement that the landing was ok is legally qualified. And in the legal world, only a signature will do.

[Satis]

I see what you mean.

Well I've worked for four companies to date and none have had captains sign anything for an upgrade. I haven't given it much thought up to now because the system has been around for so long. I guess it's a good idea to have some sort of an autoland for the crew could fill out for us and then we could upgrade by referencing it. But as I said, I'm not aware of it in practice. Maybe suggest this to your fellow lineys and see what they think.

[JET SET SPARKY]

so let me get this straight fellow avionics chaps.....
IF YOU ARE GOING IN BLIND WITH NO PROTECTION YOU COULD LAND IN **** ?
so that's where i've been going wrong all these years!!!! ha ha ha ha
-------------------------------------------
a/c downgraded to 'no autoland' due to highly active solar flares

[Satis]

Hey sparkey, you gotta OVERSHOOT if that happens!! :)

[near enuf is good enuf]

I worked for large U.K. charter company and procedure was to call for standard landing, and then when FD signed tech log stating that std. ldg. was performed satis then and only then could a/c be upgraded.
My God, I've just realised that Monarch did something right. I have to sit down.