Tristar L-1011 FMS & Autopilot
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh great - maybe I shall see her gear doors raised once again. There is still pressure in the tyres too.
I have pictures taken today if they are of interest....
And I can get more close ups if you need.
I have pictures taken today if they are of interest....
And I can get more close ups if you need.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The autoland could be beaten.....Lockheed brought a L-1011 with a smile on its nose to demonstrate to Gulf Air in 1974, perhaps '75 or so. It had CCTV fitted - for the demo flights only - so that passengers could see the view through the windshield as well as the top of the panel on the IFE screens.
The purpose was that the demo crew would put their hands on the top of the panel during the approach and landing so that guests/potential buyers could see that it really was done "no-hands".
The first demo flight was from Bahrain, to Doha, on to Abu Dhabi, then Dubai showing off the automatics each time. But at Doha a vast new hangar had just been built in the wrong place by the military, resulting in a terrible kink in the localiser at about 300 feet on the GS.
We flew sedately down the approach from 2000 ft or so, watching the hands calmly resting on top of the panel as the runway got closer and closer, while those of us who know about the kink wondered what would happen.
What happened was a sudden violent oscillation as 4 hands disappeared off the panel coaming so fast you couldn't even see the blur. That landing was completed manually.
The purpose was that the demo crew would put their hands on the top of the panel during the approach and landing so that guests/potential buyers could see that it really was done "no-hands".
The first demo flight was from Bahrain, to Doha, on to Abu Dhabi, then Dubai showing off the automatics each time. But at Doha a vast new hangar had just been built in the wrong place by the military, resulting in a terrible kink in the localiser at about 300 feet on the GS.
We flew sedately down the approach from 2000 ft or so, watching the hands calmly resting on top of the panel as the runway got closer and closer, while those of us who know about the kink wondered what would happen.
What happened was a sudden violent oscillation as 4 hands disappeared off the panel coaming so fast you couldn't even see the blur. That landing was completed manually.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ascot berks uk
Age: 93
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A a slightly "offthread " Question, you have brought back many memories of the L1011 auto pilot one last memory jogger, did it have a type of system of "Distance to go " on touchdown to the end of the runway as the Trident? we used Cat 3 B/C Autoland in low visability at L.H.R. and we had a gauge which the lengh of the runway was dialed in and through sensors on the main u/c wheels run down the distance to go but Cat3c was discontinued because of taxying in fog to the stands but was still used for Cat3B . I'm afraid though we worked on it a great deal as I've said before old age has somewhat dimmed the memory Thank you.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some L-1011-500's were equipped with Collins FCS-240 Digital Autopilots.
It took many years, but prior to their removal from service BA was able to up-grade their Tridents for CAT IIIa landings. The original Trident system was a CAT II system.
BA TriStars were ther first aircraft certified for CAT IIIb landings. With a BA L-1011-500 making the first ever in-service CAT IIIb landing a LHR in 1981.
It took many years, but prior to their removal from service BA was able to up-grade their Tridents for CAT IIIa landings. The original Trident system was a CAT II system.
BA TriStars were ther first aircraft certified for CAT IIIb landings. With a BA L-1011-500 making the first ever in-service CAT IIIb landing a LHR in 1981.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: East Anglia
Age: 83
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall the GRM was fitted to Gulf Air Tristars and BA trained GF crews for hours how to taxi and also land using it...also its use on low vis takeoffs.
The GRM had two features...a ground speed read out for taxi speed monitoring and taxi distances in low vis under surface radar guidance.
The surface radar was not up to it... there was too much clutter... and the idea was dropped in favour at LHR of an Indian gentleman standing up in the back of a mini truck shinning a high power pencil beam light on the lower area of the L1011 nose cone to follow to the stands.
The GRM was set to the landing distance available for the landing runway during the approach checks.
After the auto land the auto pilot would remain engaged and the flight engineer would call out the distance to go on the ground run monitor and if at the 100meters call I as Captain saw more than 100kts IAS on my airspeed indicator I would apply the brakes also the flight engineer would be calling more brakes!..the general idea was he called 90meters if I saw less than 90 IAS OK if more I increased the braking and he was calling ever loudly for More brakes etc etc...this was never a factor.
If the auto pilot disconnected on landing the armed PVD would unshutter and provide visual streaming guidance to follow to stay on the runway centre line via the ILS loc. signal...The Flight engineer calls remaining.
We were trained to stay on the centreline on low vis take offs and used the PVD display and runway ILS signal for this..the visual reference was initially two centre line lights and generally more in practice however as you accelerated the centre line lights tended to have a streaming effect.
If visibility fell on the takeoff roll your scan and visual clues shifted from centreline down to centre line lights and if you lost them naturally down to the PVD indications...if for any reason the takeoff was abandoned the scan was performed in the reverse order...that was the general idea as you sort to also do all the good things to get it stopped as soon as possible.
The GRM on takeoffs was set the appropriate takeoff chart and set according to the landing chart for landing.
On a rejected takeoff the GRM call outs were as per the landing call outs.
The GRM had two features...a ground speed read out for taxi speed monitoring and taxi distances in low vis under surface radar guidance.
The surface radar was not up to it... there was too much clutter... and the idea was dropped in favour at LHR of an Indian gentleman standing up in the back of a mini truck shinning a high power pencil beam light on the lower area of the L1011 nose cone to follow to the stands.
The GRM was set to the landing distance available for the landing runway during the approach checks.
After the auto land the auto pilot would remain engaged and the flight engineer would call out the distance to go on the ground run monitor and if at the 100meters call I as Captain saw more than 100kts IAS on my airspeed indicator I would apply the brakes also the flight engineer would be calling more brakes!..the general idea was he called 90meters if I saw less than 90 IAS OK if more I increased the braking and he was calling ever loudly for More brakes etc etc...this was never a factor.
If the auto pilot disconnected on landing the armed PVD would unshutter and provide visual streaming guidance to follow to stay on the runway centre line via the ILS loc. signal...The Flight engineer calls remaining.
We were trained to stay on the centreline on low vis take offs and used the PVD display and runway ILS signal for this..the visual reference was initially two centre line lights and generally more in practice however as you accelerated the centre line lights tended to have a streaming effect.
If visibility fell on the takeoff roll your scan and visual clues shifted from centreline down to centre line lights and if you lost them naturally down to the PVD indications...if for any reason the takeoff was abandoned the scan was performed in the reverse order...that was the general idea as you sort to also do all the good things to get it stopped as soon as possible.
The GRM on takeoffs was set the appropriate takeoff chart and set according to the landing chart for landing.
On a rejected takeoff the GRM call outs were as per the landing call outs.
Last edited by 40&80; 9th Mar 2010 at 11:44.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Lat..x Long..y
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L1011 The Uncle of modern autolands...and the vision of future AUTO Take Offs!
I have had the pleasure of flying an L1011 simulator at GF un-aided in both normal and engine failure configuration...and that was before I enrolled for my PPL, admittedly I was qualified in but still never practiced Avionics(in which we did peruse Tristars' AFCS).This is a great credit to a marvelously complex airplane yet so simple that a layman(as I was then) could feel at home flying it.
My first landing was done manually and was a greaser(without conscientious effort-perhaps due to the flare attitude and efficient response of the All moving tail plane)- and mimicking the autoland,mild thrust burst at 30ft radio height always rewarded me with a humbling grrrrrreeeeeaaser it made me feel the plane just had to baby sit you on the ground...you didn't quite get the feel you did it all by yourself!I applaude and salute the genius engineers ,scientists an all who contributed to her inception.Incidently its initial prototype design ranged from a 727 to 737 on testosterone (or 777) look alike but the three holer of the latter form won the marketing show.The only thing that sometimes spoilt the otherwise sensual moment of an L1011 touch down paint job was the rattling uphpolstery of the overhead bins!or ws it mainly a -200 affair?
Did the -500 incorporate the first Fly -By-Wire system?...active ailerons?
Inspite of all the compliments we accolade the Majestic Tristar..it had to be from lessons learn't from the predecessors like Trident,VC-10(lets not forget this super whale tail had the most sophisticated triplex Autoland at that time) and of course the queen of the skies ... her ladyship...Concorde!I am of firm belief that modern Airbus Fly by wire tech plane designers held these old birds at awe for the inspiration they had imparted.I hope I hadn't missed any compliments due for Big ol Fat Al (747)...what contributions to AFCS and Auto Land did the jumbo bring...or did s/he just inspire mammoth proportions on fuselage designs?Give her credit for the way she handles...like a well behaved lady...with the might of an iron fist lady should the wrong moment dictate!
I wonder what more refinements we are going to see in our future generations? Auto take-offs(which I recall reading that the Tristar was capable of but wasn't certified)... or at least auto rejected take-offs?!...well its just food for thought...am sure you ppruners will dart back with all kinda philosophical answers that might kickstart a whole new thread!
My saddest period was(prior to my flying career taking off-most definitely inspired by Tristar but not without admiration of the Trident and VC10) my involvement in engineering the phase out of Tristars to replace them with 767s...and as mistakes were learn't to reconsider instead the A330/340 and MD11 as the only competition that could offer true widebodied feel(the 767 and 310S JUST GOT IN THE WAY SO TO SPEAK!
.
It was from the tristar that STARTED THINKING DIGITALLY AND ACCORDED THE TITLE THE MOST INTELLIGENT PLANE IN THE SKIES!
we started thinking fly by wire, comfort-wide-bodied feel in the air...with sexy stews in micro skirts and hot pants!The true Golden and lavish years of Aviation abruptly came to an end...when the open skies politics landed us buses and drivers the likes of Tom, Dick ...and Harry!Thanks to LCC carriers....the fuselage is just gonna shrink further...hopefully not to extinctinction though!
My first landing was done manually and was a greaser(without conscientious effort-perhaps due to the flare attitude and efficient response of the All moving tail plane)- and mimicking the autoland,mild thrust burst at 30ft radio height always rewarded me with a humbling grrrrrreeeeeaaser it made me feel the plane just had to baby sit you on the ground...you didn't quite get the feel you did it all by yourself!I applaude and salute the genius engineers ,scientists an all who contributed to her inception.Incidently its initial prototype design ranged from a 727 to 737 on testosterone (or 777) look alike but the three holer of the latter form won the marketing show.The only thing that sometimes spoilt the otherwise sensual moment of an L1011 touch down paint job was the rattling uphpolstery of the overhead bins!or ws it mainly a -200 affair?
Did the -500 incorporate the first Fly -By-Wire system?...active ailerons?
Inspite of all the compliments we accolade the Majestic Tristar..it had to be from lessons learn't from the predecessors like Trident,VC-10(lets not forget this super whale tail had the most sophisticated triplex Autoland at that time) and of course the queen of the skies ... her ladyship...Concorde!I am of firm belief that modern Airbus Fly by wire tech plane designers held these old birds at awe for the inspiration they had imparted.I hope I hadn't missed any compliments due for Big ol Fat Al (747)...what contributions to AFCS and Auto Land did the jumbo bring...or did s/he just inspire mammoth proportions on fuselage designs?Give her credit for the way she handles...like a well behaved lady...with the might of an iron fist lady should the wrong moment dictate!
I wonder what more refinements we are going to see in our future generations? Auto take-offs(which I recall reading that the Tristar was capable of but wasn't certified)... or at least auto rejected take-offs?!...well its just food for thought...am sure you ppruners will dart back with all kinda philosophical answers that might kickstart a whole new thread!
My saddest period was(prior to my flying career taking off-most definitely inspired by Tristar but not without admiration of the Trident and VC10) my involvement in engineering the phase out of Tristars to replace them with 767s...and as mistakes were learn't to reconsider instead the A330/340 and MD11 as the only competition that could offer true widebodied feel(the 767 and 310S JUST GOT IN THE WAY SO TO SPEAK!
.It was from the tristar that STARTED THINKING DIGITALLY AND ACCORDED THE TITLE THE MOST INTELLIGENT PLANE IN THE SKIES!
we started thinking fly by wire, comfort-wide-bodied feel in the air...with sexy stews in micro skirts and hot pants!The true Golden and lavish years of Aviation abruptly came to an end...when the open skies politics landed us buses and drivers the likes of Tom, Dick ...and Harry!Thanks to LCC carriers....the fuselage is just gonna shrink further...hopefully not to extinctinction though!
Last edited by Vc10Tail; 9th Mar 2010 at 03:31.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In the library
Age: 85
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cat 3B autopilot
I do not wish to start any arguments BUT Trident 1 & 2 were not Cat3b on delivery but were upgraded later on. My Best Ever Airline book says that by January 1966G-ARPB had made over 1000 auto test landings. By 1969 Tridents were cleared for Cat 2 landings in normal service. Trident 3`s were delivered with Cat 3B & the first one in anger was made on 30 December 1972.
If I remember correctly, as part of the ongoing development of autoland the BEA/BA TriStars were delivered with Cat 3B capability straight from the factory.
Sorry for the partial thread drift!!
tristar 500
If I remember correctly, as part of the ongoing development of autoland the BEA/BA TriStars were delivered with Cat 3B capability straight from the factory.
Sorry for the partial thread drift!!
tristar 500
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I remember correctly, as part of the ongoing development of autoland the BEA/BA TriStars were delivered with Cat 3B capability straight from the factory.
Designed in Burbank, built at Palmdale...TriStar, in a class of its own...yes (at the time).
I must admit...the Rollers were great engines, too.
And...they still are.
Full marks for RollsRoyce.
In thirty years (going on...thirty one) of flying the beast, not one engine failed...only three were shut down, as a precaution.
Three shafts...work good
Quiet, too.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: East Anglia
Age: 83
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A L1011 trap the pilot feature BA trained against was the "Failure of the auto throttle drive motor".
When this silent failure occurred no warning was generated...they advised
always monitoring closely and knowing your ADI pitch attitudes.
Have you come across this one 411A....it can catch the "younger guys out!
Not a problem to the "older guys" with always one hand on the stick and the other on the throttles and a scan scan scan like a **** house rat!
May you live for ever.
When this silent failure occurred no warning was generated...they advised
always monitoring closely and knowing your ADI pitch attitudes.
Have you come across this one 411A....it can catch the "younger guys out!
Not a problem to the "older guys" with always one hand on the stick and the other on the throttles and a scan scan scan like a **** house rat!
May you live for ever.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry if this came up before; don't remember.
ALCS, Automatic Lift Control System (Load Alleviation System?) was used in the -500 to let them lengthen the wing for more efficiency without beefing up its structure.
GB
ALCS, Automatic Lift Control System (Load Alleviation System?) was used in the -500 to let them lengthen the wing for more efficiency without beefing up its structure.
GB
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALCS, Automatic Lift Control System (Load Alleviation System?) was used in the -500 to let them lengthen the wing for more efficiency without beefing up its structure.
The -500 could be dispatched with the ACS inoperative. The input rod to the outboard ailerons servo could be lengthened by removing two bolts, extending the rod and replacing the bolts into two new holes. Complete instructions for the procedure were on a plastic lamaniated card carried in the F.E. desk drawer.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The -500 could be dispatched with the ACS inoperative. The input rod to the outboard ailerons servo could be lengthened by removing two bolts, extending the rod and replacing the bolts into two new holes. Complete instructions for the procedure were on a plastic lamaniated card carried in the F.E. desk drawer.
Having said this...never had the system fail.
Worked to perfection.
Ahhhh, Lockheed
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: East Anglia
Age: 83
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ref Post 138
Guess I should tell this to someone who is really interested!
It seems nobody except me thinks this is a big deal and potential silent killer... and nobody has actually had the L1011 Auto throttle drive motor fail on them.
It sure caused me to wake up and react when I saw the pitch indication steadily increasing locked spot on the glide path two miles out on an actual Cat 3 for real auto land.
The value of pre exposure in the BA simulator via Captain Ray Piercy to this failure was proven at 6.00am that foggy morning.
Guess I should tell this to someone who is really interested!
It seems nobody except me thinks this is a big deal and potential silent killer... and nobody has actually had the L1011 Auto throttle drive motor fail on them.
It sure caused me to wake up and react when I saw the pitch indication steadily increasing locked spot on the glide path two miles out on an actual Cat 3 for real auto land.
The value of pre exposure in the BA simulator via Captain Ray Piercy to this failure was proven at 6.00am that foggy morning.
Last edited by 40&80; 11th Mar 2010 at 18:06.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....and nobody has actually had the L1011 Auto throttle drive motor fail on them.
To keep the scan going and find these failures, unlike (apparently) with some new(er) folks who just seem to couple up the automatics, and then sit back, blissfully unaware that failures can and do occur...the recernt B737 accident at AMS is a perfect example.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: East Anglia
Age: 83
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sure is part of a basic flying scan...however with this failure you do not need to goof off on your scan or be distracted for many seconds before you silently and with no warnings you get into potential tail strike attitude territory..and if you are really out to lunch the stick shaker quickly follows.
It is also dangerous if it occurs with the aircraft in ALTITUDE capture mode a couple of minutes prior to intercepting the ILS glide slope.
May be... try it in the simulator in a high workload environment....present it to the crew as training and do not brief them for it.. realistic training... and see how it goes... if the pitch gets to 11 degrees...follow with an autopilot disconnect...ask for a man land and see how pitch aware the crew are in avoiding a tail strike. Or ask for a missed approach and observe how pitch aware they are with tons of power coming on in high pitch with a low airspeed.
Both situations have acquired quite a lot more than normal back trim due this failure... if it is not picked up very quickly.
For average L1011 pilots like me it paid off being exposed in the above way to this failure.
A continuous scan and an awareness what you were looking for plus always a hand on the auto throttles to feel they are still alive... is the way to go.
I think the fact is especially on a two man crew it is actually quite difficult to stay scanning 100% of the time and think straight with all the other interruptions and demands piling in on the HP.
The L1011 with the flight engineer I found was much the safer operation at the end of a 12hour duty night compared to a two pilot B767.
It is also dangerous if it occurs with the aircraft in ALTITUDE capture mode a couple of minutes prior to intercepting the ILS glide slope.
May be... try it in the simulator in a high workload environment....present it to the crew as training and do not brief them for it.. realistic training... and see how it goes... if the pitch gets to 11 degrees...follow with an autopilot disconnect...ask for a man land and see how pitch aware the crew are in avoiding a tail strike. Or ask for a missed approach and observe how pitch aware they are with tons of power coming on in high pitch with a low airspeed.
Both situations have acquired quite a lot more than normal back trim due this failure... if it is not picked up very quickly.
For average L1011 pilots like me it paid off being exposed in the above way to this failure.
A continuous scan and an awareness what you were looking for plus always a hand on the auto throttles to feel they are still alive... is the way to go.
I think the fact is especially on a two man crew it is actually quite difficult to stay scanning 100% of the time and think straight with all the other interruptions and demands piling in on the HP.
The L1011 with the flight engineer I found was much the safer operation at the end of a 12hour duty night compared to a two pilot B767.