Air Europa 738 at Katowice?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just my last comment:
most of the attacks on my person are from PPRuNers
registered this week, with just 2-4 posts, almost all
on this topic.
I am here since 3 years, mostly lurking, and trying to help,
where my local knowledge is needed.
If I failed, sorry for that again.
Just my (last) $0.02 .....
most of the attacks on my person are from PPRuNers
registered this week, with just 2-4 posts, almost all
on this topic.
I am here since 3 years, mostly lurking, and trying to help,
where my local knowledge is needed.
If I failed, sorry for that again.
Just my (last) $0.02 .....
In Germany where I am a 737 captain our regulations do not give any credit for an enhanced crew unless separate (from cockpit and cabin) rest facilities are provided.
How much real benefit rostering an additional pilot provides is an interesting question. We certainly operate similar sectors overnight with two crew. Three crew spending ten plus hours in a cramped cockpit could even be argued to reduce safety. I do not say this is definitely the case, but it is a point of view. However unquestionably such flights are very tiring.
My company does not encourage autolands onto non CAT 2 or 3 runways and my experience is that without protection (e.g. LVPs) the autopilot disconnects a significant amount of the time when I do practice autolands for currency purposes. A low disconnect definitely brings its own risks.
Having said all that I can see advantages to carrying out an autoland in marginal conditions onto a runway with which I am familiar and where I have had a go previously in good conditions. Certainly food for thought and the type of debate (shed of national emotions) for which I find PPRuNe most interesting.
How much real benefit rostering an additional pilot provides is an interesting question. We certainly operate similar sectors overnight with two crew. Three crew spending ten plus hours in a cramped cockpit could even be argued to reduce safety. I do not say this is definitely the case, but it is a point of view. However unquestionably such flights are very tiring.
My company does not encourage autolands onto non CAT 2 or 3 runways and my experience is that without protection (e.g. LVPs) the autopilot disconnects a significant amount of the time when I do practice autolands for currency purposes. A low disconnect definitely brings its own risks.
Having said all that I can see advantages to carrying out an autoland in marginal conditions onto a runway with which I am familiar and where I have had a go previously in good conditions. Certainly food for thought and the type of debate (shed of national emotions) for which I find PPRuNe most interesting.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lederhosen,
1.Curtained off cabin seats count as being seperate from cabin and cockpit. So this then becomes a rest area.
2. Cat 1 autolands are perfectly normal. I never had an autopilot disconnect on one in 8 years of 737 flying. The 200 feet DH is there to cover for deviations at low altitude (no low vis procedures) that you can either correct by going manual or to go around. In fact our company strongly suggest to make autolands with vis below 2500m and cloudbase below 500 ft. (not mandatory though)
1.Curtained off cabin seats count as being seperate from cabin and cockpit. So this then becomes a rest area.
2. Cat 1 autolands are perfectly normal. I never had an autopilot disconnect on one in 8 years of 737 flying. The 200 feet DH is there to cover for deviations at low altitude (no low vis procedures) that you can either correct by going manual or to go around. In fact our company strongly suggest to make autolands with vis below 2500m and cloudbase below 500 ft. (not mandatory though)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm in agreement with you there sleeper. No disconnects in 19 years, and a lot of uneventful arrivals that might have finished in G/A if I'd chosen manual. LEDERHOSEN, I work for an Airline that some on here would accuse of lower standards, and I can assure you I have not, and never would attempt an Autoland without reading the appropriate notam or Jeppy sidenote. Maybe that is why I don't mind to Autoland and you do. Incidentally a previous poster said AEA encouraged crew to Autoland , so I think this is a likely scenario, contrary to what you have stated.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SW Europe
Age: 59
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks a lot for your complete info dear friend!.
And very useful too!.
Can I go far away ??
.
If were possible, I would like also to know the manufacturer and model of the equipment, and a couple of details:
1.- Number of antennas in the LOC array ( maybe 8 )
2.- Same as in GP. ( Maybe two or three in the same mast)
Many thanks again in advance for your help and patience.
By the way, seems that an Autoland with an ILS CAT I can be performed too!. That's new for me (remember, I'm not a proffesional pilot, only amateur ). I was only aware that it can be used in CAT II/III operations.
During my job I've seen lot of navaids reports from flight inspections, including ILS, of course.
In some cases, those graphics shows a good "LOC/GP signal structure" ... but until intercepting the DH for an ILS CAT I minimums. From here to touchdown graphic is so full of reflections and extrange patterns, that it can't be flown. So that ILS can be used as CAT I but no more. I've seen also many ILS CAT I that can be flown until almost touchdown without problem too !!.
So, dou yo have a database of this facilities?. Or, why are you absolutely sure that the signal you're receiving ( from an ILS CAT I ) is so good that yon can make an approach and landing in "autoland" mode?.
Maybe I'm asking a nosense, but as I told you I'm not a proffesional pilot, I'm only working to giving you the best and safer navigation guidance, and supporting ATM services.
And very useful too!.
Can I go far away ??
.If were possible, I would like also to know the manufacturer and model of the equipment, and a couple of details:
1.- Number of antennas in the LOC array ( maybe 8 )
2.- Same as in GP. ( Maybe two or three in the same mast)
Many thanks again in advance for your help and patience.
By the way, seems that an Autoland with an ILS CAT I can be performed too!. That's new for me (remember, I'm not a proffesional pilot, only amateur ). I was only aware that it can be used in CAT II/III operations.
During my job I've seen lot of navaids reports from flight inspections, including ILS, of course.
In some cases, those graphics shows a good "LOC/GP signal structure" ... but until intercepting the DH for an ILS CAT I minimums. From here to touchdown graphic is so full of reflections and extrange patterns, that it can't be flown. So that ILS can be used as CAT I but no more. I've seen also many ILS CAT I that can be flown until almost touchdown without problem too !!.
So, dou yo have a database of this facilities?. Or, why are you absolutely sure that the signal you're receiving ( from an ILS CAT I ) is so good that yon can make an approach and landing in "autoland" mode?.
Maybe I'm asking a nosense, but as I told you I'm not a proffesional pilot, I'm only working to giving you the best and safer navigation guidance, and supporting ATM services.
Last edited by Ferrobus; 2nd Nov 2007 at 15:22.
Bit snide there Captplaystation
never would attempt an Autoland without reading the appropriate notam or Jeppy sidenote. Maybe that is why I don't mind to Autoland and you do
Seems like the robust charm of your emerald isle management is rubbing off on you.
Actually up to your last post you were doing a pretty good job of persuading me that autolanding off a CAT 1 approach made sense in certain circumstances.
Where your logic starts to break down is how this example of an unfortunate crew wiping out half the approach lights in Katowice, whilst you suggest probably trying to autoland, helps your argument.
PPRuNe at its best encourages an exchange of views and experiences amongst professionals. You guys must be very, very lucky in a combined 27 years of autolanding never to have had a disconnect. Some airports are much more prone to this, Munich as an example. It seems to happen most often when a previous aircraft lines up or vacates the runway, which I guess makes sense. Feel free to accept or reject this information as you wish.
never would attempt an Autoland without reading the appropriate notam or Jeppy sidenote. Maybe that is why I don't mind to Autoland and you do
Seems like the robust charm of your emerald isle management is rubbing off on you.
Actually up to your last post you were doing a pretty good job of persuading me that autolanding off a CAT 1 approach made sense in certain circumstances.
Where your logic starts to break down is how this example of an unfortunate crew wiping out half the approach lights in Katowice, whilst you suggest probably trying to autoland, helps your argument.
PPRuNe at its best encourages an exchange of views and experiences amongst professionals. You guys must be very, very lucky in a combined 27 years of autolanding never to have had a disconnect. Some airports are much more prone to this, Munich as an example. It seems to happen most often when a previous aircraft lines up or vacates the runway, which I guess makes sense. Feel free to accept or reject this information as you wish.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote 'BYALPHAINDIA'
"Ptkay, Wouldn't it be a good idea if in 'future' - The polish transport their own people, in their own machines, In their own country?
Maybe if this was done instead, We may not be talking now?
Surely they have their own transport?"
It would seem to be the most straightforward solution, but with all the complexities of the EU / UN , subchartering resources available at the time would seem more appropriate.
This probably happens all the time, and we shouldn't forget the terrible accident that befell the 62 spanish peacekeeping troops returning from duty in 2003, travelling on a Ukranian registered aircraft
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2937584.stm
(Have the findings from this accident yet been released?)
It would seem that you take which country has an a/c to offer regardless of nationality, but something obviously went very wrong on this occasion - thank goodness they got off alive/uninjured.....
"Ptkay, Wouldn't it be a good idea if in 'future' - The polish transport their own people, in their own machines, In their own country?
Maybe if this was done instead, We may not be talking now?
Surely they have their own transport?"
It would seem to be the most straightforward solution, but with all the complexities of the EU / UN , subchartering resources available at the time would seem more appropriate.
This probably happens all the time, and we shouldn't forget the terrible accident that befell the 62 spanish peacekeeping troops returning from duty in 2003, travelling on a Ukranian registered aircraft
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2937584.stm
(Have the findings from this accident yet been released?)
It would seem that you take which country has an a/c to offer regardless of nationality, but something obviously went very wrong on this occasion - thank goodness they got off alive/uninjured.....
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lederhosen,
Correct. You must use common sense. If you land at a very busy airport, ie a landing every 2 minutes with departures in between, it is not prudent to do an autoland. London also comes to mind. However with lower visibilities the separation between landing and or departing aircraft has to be increased. Furthermore, if you land at night at a small airport the chance is you are the only one landing.
And once again it is a cat one ILS, so the time between 200 ft and landing is to asses wether stable landing is likely. If not, manual, or goaround.
ps,
The 8 yrs was on the 737. I have been doing autolands at cat I ILSes for 20 years. No problems, just keep in mind when and when not to do it.
Correct. You must use common sense. If you land at a very busy airport, ie a landing every 2 minutes with departures in between, it is not prudent to do an autoland. London also comes to mind. However with lower visibilities the separation between landing and or departing aircraft has to be increased. Furthermore, if you land at night at a small airport the chance is you are the only one landing.
And once again it is a cat one ILS, so the time between 200 ft and landing is to asses wether stable landing is likely. If not, manual, or goaround.
ps,
The 8 yrs was on the 737. I have been doing autolands at cat I ILSes for 20 years. No problems, just keep in mind when and when not to do it.
Well we are all in agreement about the need for common sense.
Sleeper and Captplaystation claim never to have had a disconnect in what is now jointly 39 years of doing autolands. But they are regularly doing them on unprotected CAT 1 runways. Frankly this is getting a bit improbable.
I have witnessed aircraft going around because other aircraft infringed the protected area by crossingthe CAT 2 hold, which they are perfectly entitled to do in non LVP conditions. Other vehicles can have the same effect.
TNT came even closer to writing off a 737 not so long ago at East Midlands on an autoland. I believe it was actually written off after the go around and later landing in Birmingham. Completely different I hear you say. Maybe it was not so very different. Let us see what the report says.
One of my favourites in the sim is the engine failure on a dual channel approach below CAT 1 decision height. O.K. not very likely I hear you say, but the back trim combined with reduced visual cues is a handfull.
Airmanship in my book is not assuming the automatics are going to do a better job of it. We all know that you can do an autoland on some CAT 1 runways, some companies apparently recommend it and most of us probably have had or would have a go in good conditions.
In my book 1500 metres vis and 200' cloudbase are relatively good conditions. Cloudbase 100' and RVR hovering around absolute CAT 1 minimums would not be. Length of runway also plays a role. The question is if it is safer to carry out an autoland at an unfamiliar airfield in the middle of the night in extremely marginal conditions.
This is not speculation about what AEA did or did not do on that fateful evening. But I would be genuinely interested to learn what other 737 pilots think about doing autolands under these circumstances.
Sleeper and Captplaystation claim never to have had a disconnect in what is now jointly 39 years of doing autolands. But they are regularly doing them on unprotected CAT 1 runways. Frankly this is getting a bit improbable.
I have witnessed aircraft going around because other aircraft infringed the protected area by crossingthe CAT 2 hold, which they are perfectly entitled to do in non LVP conditions. Other vehicles can have the same effect.
TNT came even closer to writing off a 737 not so long ago at East Midlands on an autoland. I believe it was actually written off after the go around and later landing in Birmingham. Completely different I hear you say. Maybe it was not so very different. Let us see what the report says.
One of my favourites in the sim is the engine failure on a dual channel approach below CAT 1 decision height. O.K. not very likely I hear you say, but the back trim combined with reduced visual cues is a handfull.
Airmanship in my book is not assuming the automatics are going to do a better job of it. We all know that you can do an autoland on some CAT 1 runways, some companies apparently recommend it and most of us probably have had or would have a go in good conditions.
In my book 1500 metres vis and 200' cloudbase are relatively good conditions. Cloudbase 100' and RVR hovering around absolute CAT 1 minimums would not be. Length of runway also plays a role. The question is if it is safer to carry out an autoland at an unfamiliar airfield in the middle of the night in extremely marginal conditions.
This is not speculation about what AEA did or did not do on that fateful evening. But I would be genuinely interested to learn what other 737 pilots think about doing autolands under these circumstances.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not all pilots use sound judgment. Bitching to TWR about huge variations during autoland on a CAT1-ish ILS.... After the rather confused reply from TWR, discover the notation on the chart about the LLZ being offset two degrees with a RDH of -25ft.
Autoland on sub standard ILS is perhaps not to smart, at least not if it's your first time to the airfield.
CAT1 is CAT1. I've worked at another airfield, where we discovered that running runway sweepers parked at the CAT1 hold gave violent-ish effects for autolands below 100ft. (performed in VMC for training)
Gave a couple of SAS crews a jolt
Autoland on sub standard ILS is perhaps not to smart, at least not if it's your first time to the airfield.
CAT1 is CAT1. I've worked at another airfield, where we discovered that running runway sweepers parked at the CAT1 hold gave violent-ish effects for autolands below 100ft. (performed in VMC for training)
Gave a couple of SAS crews a jolt
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lederhosen,
One last time. Any cat I is suitable for autoland, unless it is notified as such, that is by notam, "no autoland" , offset localizer etc. You use judgement as when to use it on busy airports. However even then it can be used. The fact that the protection area might not be clear is covered by the visual segment below 200 feet. If the needles (or the aircraft) jump, then go manual or go around. I agree that with lowering vis the go around option is probably more prudent.
Look, we can all (or should be) manually fly an ils cat I down to minimums. But on the 5th day, fourth stretch, midnight, lousy weather, I definitely state that flying that autoland is more safe.
And yes, never had a low altitude disconnect (autoland) on all Boeing types.
One last time. Any cat I is suitable for autoland, unless it is notified as such, that is by notam, "no autoland" , offset localizer etc. You use judgement as when to use it on busy airports. However even then it can be used. The fact that the protection area might not be clear is covered by the visual segment below 200 feet. If the needles (or the aircraft) jump, then go manual or go around. I agree that with lowering vis the go around option is probably more prudent.
Look, we can all (or should be) manually fly an ils cat I down to minimums. But on the 5th day, fourth stretch, midnight, lousy weather, I definitely state that flying that autoland is more safe.
And yes, never had a low altitude disconnect (autoland) on all Boeing types.
Airport Requirements for Autoland in CAT 1 or Better
FWIW: The Automatic Landing System perofrmance has been demonstrated during type certification with CAT 11 or CAT 111 ILS qualify beam, nevertheless automatic landing on CAT 1 ILS quality beam is possible provided the Airline has checked that the guidance below 200ft is satisfactory.
Operators should ask the airport authorities on ILS ground equipment quality and also check that specific restrictions do not apply with CAT 1 only.
Terrain profile before the runway threshold has to be considered since it can significanlty affect the automatic landing system performance. Also Automatic landing can only be performed on runways listed in the airlines operations manual.
Operators should ask the airport authorities on ILS ground equipment quality and also check that specific restrictions do not apply with CAT 1 only.
Terrain profile before the runway threshold has to be considered since it can significanlty affect the automatic landing system performance. Also Automatic landing can only be performed on runways listed in the airlines operations manual.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lederhosen, first off, my apologies. . . . .maybe it is not their charm affecting me, but their rostered demands sometimes do. Perhaps sleeper and I have been lucky, but as of yet I have never had a disconnect. What I have had is a few wobbly moments below 200', and indeed the other night I sat and watched the LOC at GSE with more than a little interest as it wobbled from 1000' down, but still it landed OK. In spite of that I am firmly in the Autoland camp, but I agree wholeheartedly with your caution, it is very possible to end up with other probs, particularly when LVP's are not in force, or dare I say not understood or respected by another crew. I believe TNT @ EMA "may" have been due to someone suffering finger trouble and disconnecting instead of replying to a late RVR check ? ? and then trying to mistakenly resel dual chann (or not) below min engage height, which of course opens up the fatigue aspect, which I fear we may have to revisit in the AEA "incident" (to pacify our Spanish colleagues). Sorry again for my caustic nature lederhosen, us Scot's normally have less Gallic charm than the one's on the other side of the Irish Sea, I am obviously in need of visiting home to top up my charm school.As Ferrobus and LYKA have said, we only see a very small part of the picture as regards quality of signal at or below 200', I wonder how dodgy it has to be before a Warning to not use below 200' is notified ? or indeed is there any requirment to generate such a warning on the part of the airfield operator ?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SW Europe
Age: 59
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don`t know if airfield operators must notify the state of the signal radiated by an ILS... below CAT I minimums, for example.
After a new installation, a big modification/repairment, or periodically, an in-flight inspection of the ILS system shoud be performed.
The company who carry out the flight test ( Flight Precision Ltd. for example ) should issue a certificate of availability of the navaid, and the subsequent report, including those "famous" graphics showing the behaviour of the beam along all of its nominal coverage, between others.
This documents should be preserved by the National Air Navigation Service Provider, wich is the company who is responsible of providing navigation services ( between others ) under several requirements ( In Europe, under "Single European Sky" certification requirements ).
Another copy of the report must be sent also to the Regulator Authority ( CAA in UK, for example ), for the archive files, as far as I know.
That's all I know about it.
As I told you before, I've seen CAT III ILS graphics that appeared very "critical", with a lot of "noise" in the beam received ... and CAT I ones, that could be used until touchdown. Even I've seen lot of problems concerning terrain profile in CAT III ones.
But I've never heard nothing about any official report or warning about beam quality, comung from Airport authorities. Apart from operations airlines manual, of course.
Why ?.
Pay attention to this, please.
If the enviromental conditions change ( buildings, trees, system ageing ) the signal quality can be affected, and we ( ATSEP's ) will not aware of it, because our monitors are reading "near field" signals. Far fierld monitors are used only in CAT III ( And they aren't not so far.
So, the signal structure may be affected but our ILS can be Ok for CAT I, according our monitors. Monitors are adjusted, of course in each flight test.
This is, of course apart from any violation of the protection area. We only will know something about this changes in the next periodical flight test, not before.
The first one to see the "real one" beam, can be anyone of you at the arrival. If you are performing an Autoland landing in this CAT I ILS, please take care !
This is why I think that real information about beam quality below CAT I minimums... In my humble opinion it's a risk suppose that!.
Anyway, if during your trips are witness of any problem in the air navigation signal provided, please make a sort of complaint in your OPS office, or best of all, simply tell the problem encountered to the ATCo. They will know what to do. And local ATSEP's will correct it, for sure !.
After a new installation, a big modification/repairment, or periodically, an in-flight inspection of the ILS system shoud be performed.
The company who carry out the flight test ( Flight Precision Ltd. for example ) should issue a certificate of availability of the navaid, and the subsequent report, including those "famous" graphics showing the behaviour of the beam along all of its nominal coverage, between others.
This documents should be preserved by the National Air Navigation Service Provider, wich is the company who is responsible of providing navigation services ( between others ) under several requirements ( In Europe, under "Single European Sky" certification requirements ).
Another copy of the report must be sent also to the Regulator Authority ( CAA in UK, for example ), for the archive files, as far as I know.
That's all I know about it.
As I told you before, I've seen CAT III ILS graphics that appeared very "critical", with a lot of "noise" in the beam received ... and CAT I ones, that could be used until touchdown. Even I've seen lot of problems concerning terrain profile in CAT III ones.
But I've never heard nothing about any official report or warning about beam quality, comung from Airport authorities. Apart from operations airlines manual, of course.
Why ?.
Pay attention to this, please.
If the enviromental conditions change ( buildings, trees, system ageing ) the signal quality can be affected, and we ( ATSEP's ) will not aware of it, because our monitors are reading "near field" signals. Far fierld monitors are used only in CAT III ( And they aren't not so far.
So, the signal structure may be affected but our ILS can be Ok for CAT I, according our monitors. Monitors are adjusted, of course in each flight test.
This is, of course apart from any violation of the protection area. We only will know something about this changes in the next periodical flight test, not before.
The first one to see the "real one" beam, can be anyone of you at the arrival. If you are performing an Autoland landing in this CAT I ILS, please take care !
This is why I think that real information about beam quality below CAT I minimums... In my humble opinion it's a risk suppose that!.
Anyway, if during your trips are witness of any problem in the air navigation signal provided, please make a sort of complaint in your OPS office, or best of all, simply tell the problem encountered to the ATCo. They will know what to do. And local ATSEP's will correct it, for sure !.
Last edited by Ferrobus; 7th Nov 2007 at 21:48.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferrobus, thanks for that comprehensive reply. Occasionaly it as frustrating on here to have a discussion "dumbed down" because of non "professional pilot" participation, and other times, like this, it is very valuable to have contributions from someone with different skills and specialities. Thanks again.
It has taken me a while to respond as I got called out for a trip to the eastern Med. and then a succession of earlies, so I know about rostering demands. Talking of fatigue, I have in the past experienced six leg days with 25 minute turnarounds, starting and finishing in the dark.
Thanks for you response Captplaystation and we all seem to be pretty much in agreement. My recollection of the TNT business is much as you described it. To paraphrase Sleeper you can always autoland off a CAT 1 except when you can't, or maybe when it is not a good idea.
Perhaps we differ in the degree of our preference or need for autolanding. But the debate has certainly flushed out some interesting points and given food for thought.
Incidentally are your autopilots fail operational? Ours are not. But the Boeing flight crew training manual says that for fail operational airplanes, the AFDS includes a monitor to detect significant ILS signal interference. The autopilot disregards erroneous ILS signals and remains engaged in an attitude stabilizing mode based on inertial data. No immediate crew action is required unless erratic or inappropriate autopilot activity is observed.
Thanks for you response Captplaystation and we all seem to be pretty much in agreement. My recollection of the TNT business is much as you described it. To paraphrase Sleeper you can always autoland off a CAT 1 except when you can't, or maybe when it is not a good idea.
Perhaps we differ in the degree of our preference or need for autolanding. But the debate has certainly flushed out some interesting points and given food for thought.
Incidentally are your autopilots fail operational? Ours are not. But the Boeing flight crew training manual says that for fail operational airplanes, the AFDS includes a monitor to detect significant ILS signal interference. The autopilot disregards erroneous ILS signals and remains engaged in an attitude stabilizing mode based on inertial data. No immediate crew action is required unless erratic or inappropriate autopilot activity is observed.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm deeply embarassed to tell you I have no idea . . . . that would account (at least partially) for our different experiences, re disconnects, maybe mine is dumbly following last good signal, I'm on 800, and you ? If it was a customer option mind you, I can't imagine MY employer paying extra for it. I'm in the Sim soon, so I am going to try and find someone who might know better than me. There was a long thread on here a while back (in Tech Log) about whether the aircraft would autoland (NG that is, Classic not if I remember) single channel, don't think I finished reading it, must make the time. Enjoy those precious Day's Off.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again, many thanks to Ferrobus for the informed technical advice, and to Lyka who introduced the terrain issue.
In response to the posts encouraging us to use autoland on a cat1 ils, my own feelings are that you would have to use caution for 2 reasons:
Firstly, if the facility is graded as cat1, there is possibly a good reason. For instance, if the terrain close to the threshold is particularly steep (up or down) then the abnormaly fast ramping of the Radalt may affect the trimming of the autopilot(s). Cork, Knock and Leeds spring to mind.
Secondly, your company limitations may specifically prohibit this.
As for a low-level disconnect, on the Fluff at least, against autoland trim, in disorientating viz, I would rather just have another go...
In response to the posts encouraging us to use autoland on a cat1 ils, my own feelings are that you would have to use caution for 2 reasons:
Firstly, if the facility is graded as cat1, there is possibly a good reason. For instance, if the terrain close to the threshold is particularly steep (up or down) then the abnormaly fast ramping of the Radalt may affect the trimming of the autopilot(s). Cork, Knock and Leeds spring to mind.
Secondly, your company limitations may specifically prohibit this.
As for a low-level disconnect, on the Fluff at least, against autoland trim, in disorientating viz, I would rather just have another go...
Good point 16024 makes about terrain. In fact I remember a big airways tristar going off the end at Leeds many moons ago after an autoland went wrong. The report mentioned a bump in the runway confusing the autothrottle. The aircraft was stuck there for weeks.
Thanks for your kind wishes Captplaystation, unfortunately days off has turned into 36 hours and a fun 15 hour day tomorrow!
Flying classics and NGs I haven't seen fail operational autopilots. If you don't see the annunciation Land 2 or Land 3 then you are fail passive.
Thanks for your kind wishes Captplaystation, unfortunately days off has turned into 36 hours and a fun 15 hour day tomorrow!
Flying classics and NGs I haven't seen fail operational autopilots. If you don't see the annunciation Land 2 or Land 3 then you are fail passive.