A320 Autoland
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Third sand dune on the left
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A320 Autoland
Hello all,
Quick question, can you perform an autoland with a A320 when the aircraft is in overweight conditions?
Thanks for the response guys!
Quick question, can you perform an autoland with a A320 when the aircraft is in overweight conditions?
Thanks for the response guys!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
2 Posts
A319, slightly orange in tint from the FCOM 3.1.22 (MTOM 68000kg, MLM 61,000kg)
AUTOMATIC LANDING
CAT II and CAT III autoland are approved in CONF 3 and CONF FULL.
Automatic landing is demonstrated :
With CAT II and CAT III ILS beam.
With slope angle within (– 2.5°, – 3.15°) range.
For airport altitude at or below 9200 feet.
At or below the maximum landing weight.
At approach speed (VAPP) = VLS + wind correction.
Minimum wind correction 5 knots ; maximum wind correction 15 knots.
Automatic rollout performance has been approved on dry and wet runways, but performance on snow–covered or icy runways has not been demonstrated.
Note : Depending on the situation (e.g. emergency or other) and provided that the runway is approved for automatic landing, the flight crew can decide to perform an autoland up to 69 tons (152 117 lb).
The added emphasis is mine. Says you can't then says you can. Clear as ever.
AUTOMATIC LANDING
CAT II and CAT III autoland are approved in CONF 3 and CONF FULL.
Automatic landing is demonstrated :
With CAT II and CAT III ILS beam.
With slope angle within (– 2.5°, – 3.15°) range.
For airport altitude at or below 9200 feet.
At or below the maximum landing weight.
At approach speed (VAPP) = VLS + wind correction.
Minimum wind correction 5 knots ; maximum wind correction 15 knots.
Automatic rollout performance has been approved on dry and wet runways, but performance on snow–covered or icy runways has not been demonstrated.
Note : Depending on the situation (e.g. emergency or other) and provided that the runway is approved for automatic landing, the flight crew can decide to perform an autoland up to 69 tons (152 117 lb).
The added emphasis is mine. Says you can't then says you can. Clear as ever.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Glorious West Sussex
Age: 76
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Says you can't then says you can.
Your manual also says, in the limitations chapter ..
it is not recommended to take off or to land with a crosswind component higher than:
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Third sand dune on the left
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello again,
As I already went through the limitations section on FCOM 3 section 3.01.22 Page 3 to 4, and nothing mentioned about the weight limitation.
As I already went through the limitations section on FCOM 3 section 3.01.22 Page 3 to 4, and nothing mentioned about the weight limitation.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Muppet in the sky,
My Bolding
From FCOM for A319:
ENGINE OUT
CAT II and CAT III fail passive autoland are only approved in configuration 3 and FULL, and if engine-out procedures are completed before reaching 1000 feet in approach.
Note : Depending on the situation (e.g. emergency or other) and provided that the runway is approved for automatic landing, the flight crew can decide to perform an autoland up to 69 tons (152 117 lb).
But from FCOM A320:
ENGINE OUT
CAT II and CAT III fail passive autoland are only approved in configuration FULL, and if engine-out procedures are completed before reaching 1000 feet in approach.
So it depends if your flying 319 or 320.
I think it's because the A320 approval was given about 20 years ago and hasn't been changed since. The A319 approval was given more recently and Airbus included the F3 engine out & overweight demonstration. Despite approval for the 319 - it's not approved on 320s because it wasn't demonstrated at certification.
My Bolding
From FCOM for A319:
ENGINE OUT
CAT II and CAT III fail passive autoland are only approved in configuration 3 and FULL, and if engine-out procedures are completed before reaching 1000 feet in approach.
Note : Depending on the situation (e.g. emergency or other) and provided that the runway is approved for automatic landing, the flight crew can decide to perform an autoland up to 69 tons (152 117 lb).
But from FCOM A320:
ENGINE OUT
CAT II and CAT III fail passive autoland are only approved in configuration FULL, and if engine-out procedures are completed before reaching 1000 feet in approach.
So it depends if your flying 319 or 320.
I think it's because the A320 approval was given about 20 years ago and hasn't been changed since. The A319 approval was given more recently and Airbus included the F3 engine out & overweight demonstration. Despite approval for the 319 - it's not approved on 320s because it wasn't demonstrated at certification.
Last edited by rudderrudderrat; 26th Aug 2010 at 09:41. Reason: punctuation
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: NE of LON VOR
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've already given a straight forward answer and now people are trying to confuse the original poster.
Under normal operations, you are not allowed to autoland when the aircraft is overweight.
Why would one use an autoland in an emergency is my question to the original poster?
Under normal operations, you are not allowed to autoland when the aircraft is overweight.
Why would one use an autoland in an emergency is my question to the original poster?
Uncontained cabin fire, seriously ill pax or crew, bomb threat, etc...
Its a command decision. A captain should know the capabilities of his or her aircraft, wether approved to do it or not.
Its a command decision. A captain should know the capabilities of his or her aircraft, wether approved to do it or not.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Glorious West Sussex
Age: 76
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jonty
Cough
Irrespective of weather conditions, or only if worse than CAT1 ?
Uncontained cabin fire, seriously ill pax or crew, bomb threat, etc...
I would use auto land with smoke in the cockpit for one, when overweight.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my opinion, you are never allowed to land above maximum landing weight. That's why it says max...
You only deviate from that under certain circumstances.
Dani
You only deviate from that under certain circumstances.
Dani
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Glorious West Sussex
Age: 76
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviophage
But the question is about the A320, not the A33/40 (whatever that is....)
I've already given a straight forward answer and now people are trying to confuse the original poster.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Glorious West Sussex
Age: 76
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must have my pedant's hat on today...
Dani, does the word "never" not implicitly exclude the phrase
?
Dani, does the word "never" not implicitly exclude the phrase
You only deviate from that under certain circumstances.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: NE of LON VOR
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A33/40 is a short hand method for referring to the Airbus A330 and A340.
So would you autoland in VMC in an emergency? You lot seem to rely on autopilot too much.
So would you autoland in VMC in an emergency? You lot seem to rely on autopilot too much.
Why would one use an autoland in an emergency is my question to the original poster
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Barcelona,Spain
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i've looked the FCOM for A318 and A320 and it does not have the NOTE that the A319 has.
so the A319 with a MLW of 62.5 tons, AIRBUS SAYS, that the crew may perform an autoland up to 69 tons. Why would they say 69 tons ? i'd say they've probably tested it, and that's why they say UP TO 69 tons.
A318 and A320 do not have that note. Do not know about the A321
so the A319 with a MLW of 62.5 tons, AIRBUS SAYS, that the crew may perform an autoland up to 69 tons. Why would they say 69 tons ? i'd say they've probably tested it, and that's why they say UP TO 69 tons.
A318 and A320 do not have that note. Do not know about the A321
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Third sand dune on the left
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the response guys,
Aviophage, I think right way up has answered your question posted towards me about why would I use an autoland in an emergency situation.
As the part of the world where I operate, we do have some pretty bad sand storms in summer, and those early morning fog in the winter.
DeltaGolf, and again everybody else thanks for your efforts much appreciated. I have already passed on my question to the airbus technical representitive and he says he would get back to me.
Once I get his response, I would gladly share this with you guys asap.
Aviophage, I think right way up has answered your question posted towards me about why would I use an autoland in an emergency situation.
As the part of the world where I operate, we do have some pretty bad sand storms in summer, and those early morning fog in the winter.
DeltaGolf, and again everybody else thanks for your efforts much appreciated. I have already passed on my question to the airbus technical representitive and he says he would get back to me.
Once I get his response, I would gladly share this with you guys asap.
Try and keep it simple 
1. Do not use autoland under NORMAL circumstances when overweight for NORMAL operations. Use down to 500' aal and then amaze youself with your advanced flying ability to land the aircraft MANUALLY.
2. In an ABNORMAL situation all bets are off. Use the aircraft systems to your advantage as you see fit to achieve a SAFE result using best CRM and crew technical knowledge.
3. Know which limits apply to the particular Airbus you fly. Comparing A330/340 FCOM with early FMS1 A320 is apples and oranges. Just because a brand new Renault Megane has active lane control and intelligent airbags doesnt mean a 25 year old one will have!!
1. Do not use autoland under NORMAL circumstances when overweight for NORMAL operations. Use down to 500' aal and then amaze youself with your advanced flying ability to land the aircraft MANUALLY.
2. In an ABNORMAL situation all bets are off. Use the aircraft systems to your advantage as you see fit to achieve a SAFE result using best CRM and crew technical knowledge.
3. Know which limits apply to the particular Airbus you fly. Comparing A330/340 FCOM with early FMS1 A320 is apples and oranges. Just because a brand new Renault Megane has active lane control and intelligent airbags doesnt mean a 25 year old one will have!!
Last edited by charlies angel; 26th Aug 2010 at 02:36.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Between Vedex and Murag!
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about we keep it simple and most importantly right:
1. An overweight landing is an abnormal operation by definition. So there is no such thing like an overweight landing in normal ops...
2. RRR clearly correctly explained why some newer Airbus aircraft had the provision for overweight autolands and others did not.
C's Angel: if it is one of those days when I start evaluating the benefit of an overweight autoland, it clearly means that amazing myself for some manual flying was not an option.
Are you really a professional pilot? 
You got irritated when other posters gave detailed and referenced answers while your first reply was erroneous and a vague guess.
Please refer to point 1.
1. An overweight landing is an abnormal operation by definition. So there is no such thing like an overweight landing in normal ops...
2. RRR clearly correctly explained why some newer Airbus aircraft had the provision for overweight autolands and others did not.
C's Angel: if it is one of those days when I start evaluating the benefit of an overweight autoland, it clearly means that amazing myself for some manual flying was not an option.
Originally Posted by Aviophage
So would you autoland in VMC in an emergency? You lot seem to rely on autopilot too much.
You got irritated when other posters gave detailed and referenced answers while your first reply was erroneous and a vague guess.
Please refer to point 1.