If the A/P becomes inoperative...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the A/P becomes inoperative...
If just after takeoff for a long night transatlantic flight you realize that the A/P is inoperative and after all troubleshooting your single option is to fly the airplane manually what would you do (or what your company recommends)?
1- Make a fuel dump (in this case more than 50,000 kg) and return to the departure field for repair?
2- Fly the airplane to the destination... 11 hours ahead?
3- Other options...
1- Make a fuel dump (in this case more than 50,000 kg) and return to the departure field for repair?
2- Fly the airplane to the destination... 11 hours ahead?
3- Other options...
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With RVSM in effect virtually throughout the world now (with an altitude hold requirement), and if you were planned for RVSM altitudes, you may not have enough fuel to go at FL280 or below. The short answer is to go back and get it fixed.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not necessarily true. We had a lightning strike during a severe storm at Miami which damaged an electronic system meaning we were not RVSM capable. Having taken 2 1/2 tonnes extra, we were able to descend to 28,000 for the non-RVSM Atlantic crossing (US wasn't RVSM then). Flight Planning at London rerouted us the quickest rerouting at that level (over Liverpool instead of Lands End), and we made it back OK, admittedly with minimal fuel. Had the autopilot been not available, I see no reason to cancel out. It makes a lot of work, but you are a pilot to fly the aeroplane. The autopilot is an aid, just like any other, like a flight director. It is not the be all and end all of flying. I would have a lot of explaining to the Flight Manager why we threw 80 tonnes of fuel overboard because we couldn't handfly for 10 hours!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many years ago I had the pleasure of hand flying from UK to Corfu and back. At 0400 over the Alps on the return leg, we were both exhausted and vowed, never again! It just wasn't safe.
My comments might have little value "over there" (coming from the US....), but even for our short enroute legs, Captains sometimes refuse a plane with an inop autopilot (vertical gyro blah blah..). Considering that there might be one or two altitude restrictions at a large airport with the other pilot quite busy (no FE and no automation 
), even after 10,000 hours of flying (each), the flying pilot could bust an altitude or make a navigation error.
If the FO and I both agree that the weather everywhere is good and we are only flying one leg to a smaller airport with little traffic, then with an inop autopilot it usually is no big deal. But we can't both look away from the flight instruments in order to brief an approach, look at a bizarre runway/taxiway layout (Providence/ PVD or Cleveland/CLE?) to review where to hold short, or even unfold our enroute Jepp. charts etc. If the stabilizer trim motor ever overheats, then flying WOULD become awkward.
We can refuse for an inop autopilot, auto pressurization, or APU-especially where the enroute weather is not good, and no questions asked, by contract. Even with other inop systems, i.e. anti-skid or inop thrust reverser on slippery runways etc.
), even after 10,000 hours of flying (each), the flying pilot could bust an altitude or make a navigation error. If the FO and I both agree that the weather everywhere is good and we are only flying one leg to a smaller airport with little traffic, then with an inop autopilot it usually is no big deal. But we can't both look away from the flight instruments in order to brief an approach, look at a bizarre runway/taxiway layout (Providence/ PVD or Cleveland/CLE?) to review where to hold short, or even unfold our enroute Jepp. charts etc. If the stabilizer trim motor ever overheats, then flying WOULD become awkward.
We can refuse for an inop autopilot, auto pressurization, or APU-especially where the enroute weather is not good, and no questions asked, by contract. Even with other inop systems, i.e. anti-skid or inop thrust reverser on slippery runways etc.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignition Overide- I can understand the inop AP, antiskid,and even just about an inop thrust reverser, but why would you not take an inop APU?
Last edited by ifleeplanes; 29th Mar 2005 at 06:54.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -11`
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I could think of a couple of reasons:
-Have you ever been in a 747 in Bankok with 400 pax on board and 40 degrees C. outside with no APU available?
-On a 2 engined plane the APU is also the backup if one generator fails. If you`re headed for an area with bad weather, you might wanna have it fixed.
Just 2 not too far fetched scenario`s
-Have you ever been in a 747 in Bankok with 400 pax on board and 40 degrees C. outside with no APU available?
-On a 2 engined plane the APU is also the backup if one generator fails. If you`re headed for an area with bad weather, you might wanna have it fixed.
Just 2 not too far fetched scenario`s
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do they not have conditioning air available in Bankok?
I agree with the second point, but since all our routes are central Europe we are fine without an APU since there are plenty of airfields should we loose an engine. I have often dispatched with inop APU, it isnt a no go item in our MEL.
At the end of the day on a 2 engine aircraft, if you loose an engine you are going to be looking for an alternate airfield. Only having one operating generator and no APU wouldnt be my prime consideration at that stage.
I agree with the second point, but since all our routes are central Europe we are fine without an APU since there are plenty of airfields should we loose an engine. I have often dispatched with inop APU, it isnt a no go item in our MEL.
At the end of the day on a 2 engine aircraft, if you loose an engine you are going to be looking for an alternate airfield. Only having one operating generator and no APU wouldnt be my prime consideration at that stage.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not sure now
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As others have said, if you lose all your autopilots and were planned in RVSM airpace then you have a decision to make. Do you have enough fuel to continue to destination, or at least get closer to your destination while flying at a non-RVSM altitude ? Are you and your crew competent pilots who can hand fly an airplane ? What a scary question, huh?
My god, the first airline I worked for we didn't even have autopilots installed !! Six to eight legs per day with multiple approaches to minimums. Later at a major in the Unites States, nobody, but nobody, used the autopilot below FL180. This was on the east coast of the United States as well. Nowadays I fly with guys who push the autopilot button at 200' after takeoff and don't disconnect until less than 1000' on landing. Yes, in certain circumstances that is the smart thing to do, but we need to maintain some hand flying skills for the times that they are needed.
In your example, 11 hours is a long time to hand fly. It really would mean that two pilots need to be alert at all times, especially at night over water. If you have an augmented crew and they are willing you could set a pattern of rest breaks ( thats rest from hand flying ) and continue.
My two cents,
TP
TP
My god, the first airline I worked for we didn't even have autopilots installed !! Six to eight legs per day with multiple approaches to minimums. Later at a major in the Unites States, nobody, but nobody, used the autopilot below FL180. This was on the east coast of the United States as well. Nowadays I fly with guys who push the autopilot button at 200' after takeoff and don't disconnect until less than 1000' on landing. Yes, in certain circumstances that is the smart thing to do, but we need to maintain some hand flying skills for the times that they are needed.
In your example, 11 hours is a long time to hand fly. It really would mean that two pilots need to be alert at all times, especially at night over water. If you have an augmented crew and they are willing you could set a pattern of rest breaks ( thats rest from hand flying ) and continue.
My two cents,
TP
TP
One consideration I've not seen brought up is whether the A/P will be required to legally make a CAT2/3 approach at destination. If your ops specs/company procedures require it for the actual approach, not having it early in the flight might be another factor in the decision to go on/return.
No autopilot - and then you get smoke on the flight deck.....
Even on the ancient Vickers FunBus, we wouldn't launch with both APs u/s.
I've also returned before the oggsplosh with a double AP failure.
And bolleaux to whatever a Flight Manager might be!
Even on the ancient Vickers FunBus, we wouldn't launch with both APs u/s.
I've also returned before the oggsplosh with a double AP failure.
And bolleaux to whatever a Flight Manager might be!
Last edited by BEagle; 29th Mar 2005 at 19:15.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -11`
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ifleeplanes:
That last point explains it, then.
Bankok can be one very humid, warm, sticky place. Put a 747 loaded with 400 pax on the tarmac and there is no aircon unit on earth that would keep the plane anywhere near comfortable, or even acceptable. If you still have the choice, You shouldn`t go there without APU IMHO.
Sorry for the slight side-step from the thread.
Do they not have conditioning air available in Bankok?
since all our routes are central Europe
Bankok can be one very humid, warm, sticky place. Put a 747 loaded with 400 pax on the tarmac and there is no aircon unit on earth that would keep the plane anywhere near comfortable, or even acceptable. If you still have the choice, You shouldn`t go there without APU IMHO.
Sorry for the slight side-step from the thread.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Darwin! To my posting below:
Could you explain the basis for your comment of "Sad, very sad!"? Are you saying to me that handflying in cruise for 10 hours is so very onerous you should dump 80 tonnes and not continue? What a sad pair of pilots! Are we aware that many turboprop pilots work a whole day flying 6 or more sectors without even a single autopilot installed?
Perhaps if you are going to make such critical comments, you could specify a little more clearly your aviation background rather than the insane entries you have in your profile if you wish your comments to be taken seriously.
I would have a lot of explaining to the Flight Manager why we threw 80 tonnes of fuel overboard because we couldn't handfly for 10 hours!
Perhaps if you are going to make such critical comments, you could specify a little more clearly your aviation background rather than the insane entries you have in your profile if you wish your comments to be taken seriously.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed that 4-6 sector day without an A/p is fatiguing but the issue is more of having the capacity / time to brief rather than, in the original comment, of a Long Haul flight departing for a 10+h sector.
I have, and am sure will again, operated both short and long haul without A/p and undoubtedly the longer the flight the more fatigue becomes an issue, especially in weather and / or turbulence. That said if the A/p failed in flight I see no reason not to continue unless fuel becomes a factor in RVSM.
I have, and am sure will again, operated both short and long haul without A/p and undoubtedly the longer the flight the more fatigue becomes an issue, especially in weather and / or turbulence. That said if the A/p failed in flight I see no reason not to continue unless fuel becomes a factor in RVSM.
