Autoland vs. Manual Landing
 

There has been much discussion in the Tech Log forum regarding automation and use there of. I am curious as to how often revenue service commercial transport operations utilize the following for final approach and landing:
1. Auto land
2. Manual landing following the flight director
3. Manual landing without flight director guidance

I suspect that the usage of automation during landings may be related to the range of the aircraft with pilots on longer haul models performing a higher percentage of manual landings in order to keep current vs. short haul operations with many segments per shift and thus lots of opportunity to get enough manual landings to stay current.

I am also interested in what suggestions or hard/fast rules operators may impose with regard to use of automation during final approach and landing.

My personal tally last year: about 570 flights, 6 practice autolands: 3 to get me qualified on new equipment, 3 to keep current. Haven't used autoland in anger once.

Flight directors do not provide flare guidance (with the rare exception of cat3a capable HGS) so all landings are made without FD guidance. I suppose you meant "approach".

During my around 15 years on the 737, 99,99% of the landings were manual, with around 50% without flight director, varying though, in the early years around 90% were without FD, lateron it reduced to around 50%. As usual manual landing means manual thrust as well, however we did and do use the ARM feature.

On the 320 i have done just one autoland during my LIFUS phase to tick the box, apart from that all landings were manual, most with autothrust off and a few without FD as well.

We are encouraged to keep our manual landing skills up by doing as many manual landings as possible and as many with FD off as well, depending on weather, traffic and crew composition. We don't need to do autolands on the line to keep current, every six months in the simulator is enough. However we are allowed to do practice autolands during CAT i+ weather, which is the only opportunity for FOs to "fly" them.

I could probably count my number of weather related auto lands on one hand. We had no currency requirement for pilots, but the airplanes did so occasionally we did them for the plane. I usually used the FD for approaches, but FDs are never used for landing.

Used to have to do 1 Autoland every 6 months, of which I suspect many were "sharp pencilled" :oh: No longer required. I last did an autoland over a year ago?

As Rick says:I am unaware of any type where you manually land "following the FD" :{

NB for a genuine autoland you require LVPs in force, which will only be in exceptionally low vis. If LVPs are not in force, then it is at the pilots' risk to carry out and monitor an autoland (SQ777 @ MUC).

Every one of our 737 low vis landings is hand flown following the FD in the HUD.

E195. CAT IIIa, hand flown.

Sorry to be pedantic but there is no FD on the B737 HUD.

There is a guidance cue, which gives FD information. In AIII mode it gives similar information to the FD but this information is not coming from the aircraft FD computer. But even this is not used for the landing.

For the landing, there is a flare guidance symbol which rises from below once below flare height (AIII mode only). Once the flare guidance symbol reaches the flight path vector, the flight path vector is raised to follow it by pitching up (flaring). This is not the only information available for the flare - there is also the relationship between the HUD horizon line and the flight path vector (which effectively gives a rate of descent in the flare), and a radio altitude within your field of vision. There is also a runway graphic that appears to assist with lateral position. It is possible to land very accurately in zero visibility with all this information. I just wish my country's regulator would hurry up and approve it's use!

Other Pilots Similar?
 

Thanks for the valuable feedback. As SLF I am re-assured to hear pilots saying they routinely practice their manual landing skills. I suspect that there may be a strong correlation between pilots who participate in these forums and those who would tend to maximize opportunities for manual landings.

Do you think that the majority of pilots flying for your airlines take a similar approach and land manually as much as possible?

In the airlines I have flown for yes.

Generally one only conducts an auto land when the weather is such that a Cat 1 approach would not be permitted.

Bear in mind though that there are many runways where you cannot auto land and also that max and crosswind limits for auto land are lower than that appropriate for a manual landing.

Some pilots still enjoy "flying" and some don't...simple as that.

Sadly, no..

Lack of manual flying skills is a industry known phenomenon.

The actual landing is a very small part of the flight. All pilots know how to land. Some better than others, but that's not where the problem lies. The basic stick'n rudder, seat of the pants, finger-tip feeling, handling through all corners of the flight envelope that's diminishing as a result of an approach towards flying based on maximum use of automation and strict adherence to SOPs. Manual flying training is reduced. Mistakes on the line are punished. Flight data monitoring is picking up any deviation from normal profiles. Manual flying is seen as a 'threat' as it reduces overall situation awareness, yet it remains the most fundamental part of operating an airplane.