Somewhat off-topic question from SLF: Do I read this right that in a CAT3 auto-land, another airplane lining up distorts the signal enough that it can become exciting? I am not 100% clear how the system works once on the ground - is the sender at the touch down end of the runway and therefore, a hunk of metal lining up is essentially the equivalent of a truck right in front of my favorite radio station?

Thanks

@FC,

Yes, you see the loc-signal swing from left to right and back. Most of the time you see it when somebody crosses the signal before you (when you are on final) but it can happen when you are on the ground as well.

To operate under Cat3 you still use the same ILS as with Cat1, but with many more requirements:
-redundancies in aircraft systems (a.o. multiple autopilots; multiple and separate electrics and hydraulics)
-redundancies in ground based systems (o.a. backup power; failure monitoring)
-last but not least: LVP (low visibility procedures) for ground movements. Somebody crossing the LOCantenae can easily disturb the signal; runway incursions by vehicles occur more easily. Therefore there are a.o. restrictions on the amount of movements and extra protection areas around antennae
LVP have several phases and as vis goes down, the requirements go up.
I'm just a pilot, perhaps a controller can give you accurate info

Now the tricky point: while modern aircraft can land in almost any vis, the airports effectively lock up during low vis; capacity is decimated. Hence airports very quickly phase back their lvp when weather improves and there you are: doing auto lands under marginal weather without the protections, but with the risk for a swinging loc-signal.
For me these are the most risky autolands, especially the auto-rollout.

From a previous post:
"For modern autoflight systems, as on the B777, with filtered path definition, even if some type of transient LOC multipath interference should occur (e.g., with no LVP in place, or failed LVPs), and even if at low speed, that magnitude of apparent lateral displacement would not typically be expected. We'll likely just need to wait for the incident review findings to learn more about this one. ...as we continue to hope for early and widespread implemmentation of GLS, where multipath and related LVPs are largely irrelevant."

That means the airplane is essentially buffered against wild swings back and forth.

But let's not let that bother anybody - let the games begin.

Of course, if no one is doing what they are trained to do, like watching, then the game is anyone's call.

In CAT3 conditions the Captain does the landing. FOs have to be encouraged to do a practice autoland, they prefer manual as it counts towards their overall experience, measured in sectors,hours and landings.

If there was another crew on board, AND they were sat on the flight deck, then they will be asked to report what they saw.

"Practice" autolands are illegal for FOs. Who is minding the store? Think about this! Where does training permit this?

"practice auto lands" are from the times the simulators were not capable enough and a pilot had to keep himself current - and CAT3 approved - with couple (three?) of "practice auto lands" en route every year.
Nowadays the FFS sims are good enough to keep the pilots current with the minimum required number of auto lands per year in the sim. The training dept will assure the minimum nr is met.

Tech log entry #01.

Autoland unsatisfactory.

so when they do, who is monitoring what? Think any program considering FO autolands needs to be at least conversant with the certification basis of the autoflight system, and how that impacts monitoring requirements of the crews. If you need the references, feel free to PM, or contact your friendly ACO :}.

re filtering, absolutely correct for the B777. The flightpath will not be affected by transients of the LLZ at the latter stages of the approach, at higher altitudes, it will be... Somewhat different to the B757/767 and even the B744.

Fact: SQ FOs do not do auto lands as PF, either in actual or practice. ALL auto lands are done with Captain as PF.

Tech log response #01.

Autoland not fitted to this aircraft. :E

Really ETOPS 777???? Are you starting to fabricate incidents to prove your point??? Yes agreed every airline has its shares of incidents, but I must admit, SIA is well known for brushing incidents under the carpet.

it is true.

Dear Mr CargoJock,

It is clearly stated that the FO flying sector is at the sole discretion of the commander. Whatever stated are only guidelines.

If the captain is confident that the FO is able to handle the weather condition, he can actually allows the FO the fly in conditions above the recommended guidelines.

If you look at it more carefully, the initial SO training stated very clearly that it is a LIMIT and not guidelines. Once they attain sufficient experience, it will solely be at the training captain's discretion, that is back to the FO flying guidelines.

We are given ample opportunities to hone our manual flying skills and in my opinion, whatever was stated above is not a true representation of the SQ culture.

Do correct me if I am wrong.

Flap 10.

not to mentioned about a tailstrike on CX..

Cathay Pacific Airways - Hong Kong's de facto flag carrier and largest air transportation company - has grounded a Captain and First Officer pending an investigation into an Airbus Industrie A340-300 tailstrike incident at Auckland Airport.

The plane, carrying 145 passengers (59.6% load factor), left the ground too steeply as it took off. Passengers alerted the cabin crew about a shudder that they all felt after takeoff. Cabin crew alerted the junior Captain - one of the airline's first Chinese captains to be promoted to such a rank.

The Captain decided to radio to the air transportation company's headquarters to enquire about what to do and it was decided that the aircraft should continue as normal to its destination - Hong Kong.

A pilot interviewed by The Dominion Post of New Zealand said, "With something as serious as a tail strike, you would normally go straight back to the airport. It is standard procedure."

It was only until CX108 landed at its destination that the damage was discovered.

The above was found on airliners.net

Don't get me wrong. What I want to say was it does happens to anyone and any company.

The LOC Antenna and the transmitted signal would have been in front of the landing 777. Not behind.

Actually ETOPS 777 you're just re-posting an old news article that is full of misinformation of an incident that happened many, many years ago :ugh: What exactly was your point??? I thought I clearly stated in my previous post that no airline is immune to incidents. But if you're here to compare incidents between SIA and other airlines, I am afraid it would be no competition.

And it's not only other aircraft that can distort the LOC signal. Even a vehicle on a perimeter road can have an effect. That is why it is so important to understand that a 'practice' autoland, when LVP is not in force, carries with it a far greater risk than when the approach is protected. The risk during rollout can be somewhat mitigated by briefing and disconnecting the autopilot very soon after touchdown.

Where to begin
 

Not sure the LOC GS signal stabilization works on the ground roll as it reverts to ATT and TRK/HDG .

Etops777 you are coming across as disingenuous. You are obviously upset at your airline being slandered but you then slander another. Not too cool.

When has the media ever understood pilots and flying airplanes ?

All I can hope is that we as an industry figure out what went wrong so we can all learn from this unfortunate incident.

Why is it that people who don't work for SIA claim to know so much about what goes on in SIA? Every carrier will try to keep incidents 'in house', including CX. I very much doubt if the incident rate in SIA is any worse than most major carriers. Jealousy is a dreadful thing.

Regarding FOs doing practice autolands, don't confuse this with doing a practice CatII/III approach, it is only an autoland carried out in Cat I or better. In the event of captain incapacitation an autoland may well be the best way for the now over worked, single crew FO to go. If SIA have stopped even practice autolands for FOs then they have changed their policy.

MISUNDERSTOOD
 

no aviator wishes harm or incident on a fellow aviator, and certainly not on the company that provides the job. but in this case stubbornness is the root cause on the part of the company.

my argument was the fundamental/base of training at SIA is flawed. you take F/O with a total of 200(we all started at this level) no sectors/handling for the fellas, then you impose limitations for their landings and then expect them to have the required experience when they become captains.

a checked out green horn should be able to land the aircraft in CAT1 min weather of 550m. trust me many of them cannot do this and keep looking at you when it is their sector.

as i mentioned earlier the command course is 9-12 months shows the poor standard of the training program and the candidate.

so all this BS about LOC/GS bending and duff is not an issue if these lads have the confidence to disconnect the AP and fly her manually or even GA.

if LVP conditions had prevailed then the airport would have had LVP procedures in effect and protections in place.

however if there was a CAT1 minimum weathe rprevailing, and the crew opted to do an autoland which is no issue,however the crew should have be aware that the protections will NOT be in place and that the LOC/GS bending and all interference could be expected and AP disconnection at some stage should have been expected.

in the absence of a report at this early stage of time it appears that the autoland was attempted(as informed by the company) and interference took place and the crew sat on it fat dum and happy, and the aircraft just followed the signals.
when she wobbled down the runway the crew disconnected the AP and over corrected and the end result was on the green.

these are the facts that will haunt SIA training.

make sure on your watch basics prevail.............

Miss-understanding.
 

Dear CargoJock.

Misunderstanding can lead to more senseless arguments.

Please share with everyone here, your words of wisdom so that
no other fare passengers have to endure such harrowing experience.

Be it that SQ training can be weak is certain places, every big and old
organisation has this problem.

Let us all learn from each other, just like the good old days of aviation,
Over a nice bottle of Scotch.

Cargojock:
Then help the FO out rather than feel disgust for him. What's wrong with you?

Flap 10

It was an old story but what I want to illustrate here is that it happens to every airline and not a competition to see who has less or more mishaps.

Five green..

You're totally wrong. You can slander anyone/airlines all you want. Again, my point was just to highlight that we can all make mistakes, even Chuck Yeager.

NO IDEA
 

"in the absence of a report at this early stage of time it appears that the autoland was attempted(as informed by the company) and interference took place and the crew sat on it fat dum and happy, and the aircraft just followed the signals.
when she wobbled down the runway the crew disconnected the AP and over corrected and the end result was on the green."



Cargo Jock- YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALIKING ABOUT.

The Crew is a very experienced and capable Intsructor. He has had years of Flying and for you to pre judge them is un professional and childish.
Obviously flying all the boxes and horses around have not done much for your EQ and character development.

view from a different angle .....
 

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3646159/2964...3657854810.jpg
http://avherald.com/img/singapore_b7...111103_map.jpg


images taken from imageshack and avherald

YOU GET THE IDEA
 

rain5, i guess you get the idea now, after seeing freightdogs photo from above.
quite a sharp turn, and experienced too that is SIA experience, stubborn AH with SIA.

the picture sums it all.

rest my case........

What is it thats lying on the runway, almost on the centre line, in between the skid marks?

It's a car.

Oh..thanks

Sad to see, and sad to read people knocking SQ, they were a good outfit when I flew for them and I've no reason to think otherwise now, If I had to start again I know which airline I'd work for considering the way my previous "Legacy Flag Carrier" is now treating their 'oldies'. SQ made us feel part of the team - might have been BS - but it worked ! ( They still do, just read the latest Staff magazine that they still send me, over dinner - my previous airline now want me to pay for theirs, Fat Chance )

SQ were not too proud to appoint some of us Ex-pats to their training section, but nevertheless one of my colleagues remarked that the wheel had turned full circle, do you remember, he said, when we started, some of the old WWII Captains that we flew with couldn't fly a decent instrument let-down to save their lives, but pop out of cloud too high, not lined up, not configured, and say - the runways' over there, Sir ( never forgetting the Sir ) and they would straighten up and fly an immaculate visual approach to a perfect touchdown, whereas now the young guys we are training, brought up on a diet of Space Invaders and Flight Sim. can fly a let-down to minima far better than we ever could, or will, but break out and have to connect the real aeroplane to the real earth and they have problems.

Not a new scenario and getting worse in todays' automated world regardless of the logo. on the tail. I always thought that handling the auto-land was much harder than flying the beast ! Flying the thing was the easy bit.

Commiserations to all concerned, I hope that any action towards the crew is not just 'pour encourager les autres' and everyone can learn from it.

Best of luck.

can you tell the experience level from the sharp turn? :rolleyes:

So true ...

Question: What is the Company procedure in case of a NO ROLL OUT?

C-J is just another typical SQ basher while working for very same outfit that he loves to bad-mouth about. Why dont they just --- L E A V E Singapore altogether. Undesirable Employee.

Yes, in the airlines where I've flown from the Gulf to India and SE Asia, I have seen FOs with "low" training standards, knowing the book by heart be barely able to fly or to have good airmanship; however at 3000 hrs they are sure they can be captain! In these airlines the number of incidents is huge! Due to poor training and lack of serioussness in the state oversight; :(

However for the 777 in MUC I don't know, let's see...

wannabe
 

Yes from the comments made by CJ- he fits into the "Wannabe" mainline Cargo boys-.
If you think so lowly of the Airline that pays you- please leave. I am sure you dont need the Job, being the "ACE" that you are.

Pretty good parallel parking :ok:

I must say I'm thoroughly astounded by some things I read here.

Any F/O MUST be able to manually fly a stabilized ILS approach down to CAT I minimum in any wind conditions the airplane is certified for. Otherwise he/she has no business sitting in a cockpit at all! :=

Just my 2cents,
DL

DL, I agree 100%! And I can assure you that in some countries, some percentage of FOs CAN'T; yes, they shouldn't be in that cockpit!

It's not a surprise if these countries have a high rate of incidents and accidents.:ouch:

FBW 390

rain5-I'm sure Cargo Jock is big enough and old enough to support himself, but your remark that he is "flying boxes and horses" gives away your own arrogance and contempt (how about your own EQ?).

My own experience at SIA, flying with both mainline and Cargo pilots, was that the LVP training was scant in demonstrating "gotchas" -like the one discussed here (whether or not it is found to be the case that the AP has caused this incident). Previous airlines have been far more thorough in my experience and on the line pilots in other airlines were always expecting that the AP may not perform as expected.

O'Neill