CAT II/III Autoland - who does what?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have an interesting sub-question:
Cat III approaches MUST ALWAYS culminate in an autoland.
However, what does your training department want you to do on a Cat II approach?
Do you keep the autopilot in for the landing if you have sufficient visual clues at the Cat II minima or does your company want you to actually disconnect and land the plane by hand?
At both Sabena and Air Lib we opt(ed) for the first solution, so that a Cat II approach is in no way different from a cat III approach (apart from the higher minima).
Cat III approaches MUST ALWAYS culminate in an autoland.
However, what does your training department want you to do on a Cat II approach?
Do you keep the autopilot in for the landing if you have sufficient visual clues at the Cat II minima or does your company want you to actually disconnect and land the plane by hand?
At both Sabena and Air Lib we opt(ed) for the first solution, so that a Cat II approach is in no way different from a cat III approach (apart from the higher minima).
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: min rest
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the autopilot disconnected at low altitude, ie in the flare, on a cat3 if the captain feels he has sufficient visual references he could legally continue with and conduct a manual landing.
We were required to practice this in the sim on cat2/3 rateing renewals and had been well trained to do this by BA during our original low vis. training.
M.Mouse, sorry if I confuse you, I generally reserve that for myself.
IMHO.. if the fo calls it and he actions it and it all goes wrong, the captains defence could be I did not call it, he did, and he did it, not me. I would have done differently, however it was all to late to correct, very sorry your aircraft is bent and passengers have died, and you are forced now to liquidate, etc.etc. I'll get my coat and ticket outa here. humm..Bye the way any chance of a reference?
Some years ago in the overrun area of RW28 Delhi I saw the remains of a brand new 747 which failed to stop on the runway after it was said the FO called and actioned a rejected takeoff.
The Fo it was said had observed a high EGT on an engine, called it and simultaniously carried out the rejected takeoff drills, all unasked for.
However he failed to hit the brakes hard enough to stop on the runway.
I imagine the captain sighed, and did a P.A. saying the French equivalent of Evacuate, and then "See you next thursday" to the hair trigger FO.
It is the responsibility without the authority that is the Catch 22. This is seen by some as very unfair to the captains.
Please correct me if I am wrong... but is not the designated flight Captain when asleep in his bunk still legally liable for the safety of the flight, and the actions of his cruise crew?
Legal but unfair?
IMHO Only when the captain calls it, and it is done on his command does it fully lock in his and the insurance companies liabilities beyond doubt.
There is then no defence, this thankfully only occurs when it all goes seriously legal, as money is involved.
If the captain calls missed approach, elects to hand fly himself, and flys it into the ground, a hill, or the sea, it locks in the insurance companies and the next of kin have a cast iron large claim against the captain and the company.
If pilots were fully aware of their full financial and legal liability if they made a serious mistake, and it involved damage or deaths they would demand many times their present saleries or simply never upgrade to captain without insurance cover for these liabilities.
Probably the more enlightened pilots aware of the above spend their hard earned cash on lots of lovely girls, loads of beer,party, smoke, and bet on the horses, the rest they basically waste.
We were required to practice this in the sim on cat2/3 rateing renewals and had been well trained to do this by BA during our original low vis. training.
M.Mouse, sorry if I confuse you, I generally reserve that for myself.
IMHO.. if the fo calls it and he actions it and it all goes wrong, the captains defence could be I did not call it, he did, and he did it, not me. I would have done differently, however it was all to late to correct, very sorry your aircraft is bent and passengers have died, and you are forced now to liquidate, etc.etc. I'll get my coat and ticket outa here. humm..Bye the way any chance of a reference?
Some years ago in the overrun area of RW28 Delhi I saw the remains of a brand new 747 which failed to stop on the runway after it was said the FO called and actioned a rejected takeoff.
The Fo it was said had observed a high EGT on an engine, called it and simultaniously carried out the rejected takeoff drills, all unasked for.
However he failed to hit the brakes hard enough to stop on the runway.
I imagine the captain sighed, and did a P.A. saying the French equivalent of Evacuate, and then "See you next thursday" to the hair trigger FO.
It is the responsibility without the authority that is the Catch 22. This is seen by some as very unfair to the captains.
Please correct me if I am wrong... but is not the designated flight Captain when asleep in his bunk still legally liable for the safety of the flight, and the actions of his cruise crew?
Legal but unfair?
IMHO Only when the captain calls it, and it is done on his command does it fully lock in his and the insurance companies liabilities beyond doubt.
There is then no defence, this thankfully only occurs when it all goes seriously legal, as money is involved.
If the captain calls missed approach, elects to hand fly himself, and flys it into the ground, a hill, or the sea, it locks in the insurance companies and the next of kin have a cast iron large claim against the captain and the company.
If pilots were fully aware of their full financial and legal liability if they made a serious mistake, and it involved damage or deaths they would demand many times their present saleries or simply never upgrade to captain without insurance cover for these liabilities.
Probably the more enlightened pilots aware of the above spend their hard earned cash on lots of lovely girls, loads of beer,party, smoke, and bet on the horses, the rest they basically waste.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Inside the M25
Posts: 2,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest, any way of doing something is probably fine, as long as it is practiced properly.
However, on the airbus operation we use, the RHS is allowed to do everything other than land in Cat III, command an aborted take off and park the aircraft. When the aircraft is due to be parked, the RHS (if PF) will get off the brakes and neutralise the tiller before handing over control - in other words, the LHS is given control of an aircraft that is not receiving control inputs.
With a monitored approach, at DH, PNF (having visual references) is expected to take over control of an aircraft that might have (at that moment) control inputs, might be out of trim, might be in a less than ideal position for the landing. On the airbus, with sidestick, there is no feedback as to any input that might be being made by PF (assuming he is flying the aircraft, and not the autopilot), which places the taking-over pilot at an additional disadvantage. Or if the autopilot is always left in until DH, and only taken out by the landing pilot, then how do the pilots get any practice of hand flying on the line?
Of course it would work if people are trained properly. It just seems a bit of a faff.
However, on the airbus operation we use, the RHS is allowed to do everything other than land in Cat III, command an aborted take off and park the aircraft. When the aircraft is due to be parked, the RHS (if PF) will get off the brakes and neutralise the tiller before handing over control - in other words, the LHS is given control of an aircraft that is not receiving control inputs.
With a monitored approach, at DH, PNF (having visual references) is expected to take over control of an aircraft that might have (at that moment) control inputs, might be out of trim, might be in a less than ideal position for the landing. On the airbus, with sidestick, there is no feedback as to any input that might be being made by PF (assuming he is flying the aircraft, and not the autopilot), which places the taking-over pilot at an additional disadvantage. Or if the autopilot is always left in until DH, and only taken out by the landing pilot, then how do the pilots get any practice of hand flying on the line?
Of course it would work if people are trained properly. It just seems a bit of a faff.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
scanscanscan
Thank you for your thought provoking clarification.
If the FO called stop in accordance with SOPs (my company's that is) the Captain is generally not in a position to countermand that call if for example the FO was PF and had closed the thrust levers already.
At the subsequent inquiry would I be responsible for my FO operating to SOPs but making a big mistake that led to an overrun and which I was in no position to stop, for example?
You also allude to financial liability. Are you aware of situations where a Captain has been found personally finacially liable for the consequences an accident/incident happening to an aeroplane under his command? I had always assumed that my employer's insurance would carry the can or am I being naive?
Thank you for your thought provoking clarification.
If the FO called stop in accordance with SOPs (my company's that is) the Captain is generally not in a position to countermand that call if for example the FO was PF and had closed the thrust levers already.
At the subsequent inquiry would I be responsible for my FO operating to SOPs but making a big mistake that led to an overrun and which I was in no position to stop, for example?
You also allude to financial liability. Are you aware of situations where a Captain has been found personally finacially liable for the consequences an accident/incident happening to an aeroplane under his command? I had always assumed that my employer's insurance would carry the can or am I being naive?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
autopilot flies, capt& f.o. monitor, approaching decision ht call, capt includes uotside in his/her scan...f.o. monitors..calls asa/or mode failures as applicable
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's what UAL does:
F/O minimums only allow for approach to CAT I minimums to be flown by F/Os.
On all autolands the Captain is the flying pilot, no matter what the actual weather/ visiblilty.
A little correction to what Young Paul said:
The A320 , during autoland, actually automatically reduces thrust to idle, but the pilot is required to move the throttle levers to the idle position, because the levers don't move automatically on the Airbus.
If you leave them in the CL detent( where they usually are in this situation) , you will get idle thrust but the spoilers won't extend and the autobrakes therefore won't work either.
F/O minimums only allow for approach to CAT I minimums to be flown by F/Os.
On all autolands the Captain is the flying pilot, no matter what the actual weather/ visiblilty.
A little correction to what Young Paul said:
The A320 , during autoland, actually automatically reduces thrust to idle, but the pilot is required to move the throttle levers to the idle position, because the levers don't move automatically on the Airbus.
If you leave them in the CL detent( where they usually are in this situation) , you will get idle thrust but the spoilers won't extend and the autobrakes therefore won't work either.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: -
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with 411a and Oscar Yanke on this one. To me it looks like most of us is makeing this into a very complicated thing, this low vis flying. The plane will fly in the exact same way in a catIII app, as in a catI. There is no magic "catIII button" that all of the sudden converts the plane in into a complicated machinery.
To me the "handling over controls" in DH
is a mixup of the pilots roles in a low altitude = not good.
To me the "handling over controls" in DH
is a mixup of the pilots roles in a low altitude = not good.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Inside the M25
Posts: 2,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but the difference is that it is a lot more critical and harder to recover if something goes wrong with the autopilot at 100' than at 300'. That's why lo-vis receives such a high level of special instruction in normal training and command training.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft Commander carries the ultimate responsibility...not the company. Lawyers however will go after the deep pockets every time.
Last edited by Checkboard; 13th May 2002 at 05:36.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Fountain Hills, Arizona
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on now xxxxxxxxxxxx...
The man asked a reasonable question. If you talk the talk, walk the walk. Let's have all the accident details please.
Edited by PPRuNe Dispatcher to remove what may be a user's real name. Revealing someone else's identity is grounds for banning.
The man asked a reasonable question. If you talk the talk, walk the walk. Let's have all the accident details please.
Edited by PPRuNe Dispatcher to remove what may be a user's real name. Revealing someone else's identity is grounds for banning.
Last edited by PPRuNe Dispatcher; 12th May 2002 at 16:16.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We used to to do this kind of approach ('monitored') at UAL on equipment like the Diesel 10 down to CAT II.
It worked for all those years it was done that way, but not anymore.
Seems weird to have the F/O flying down to mins and then have the Captain take over, but from the Captains perspective, there's probably not much difference in either taking over from the autopilot or the F/O or F/O being the 'flying' pilot until DH while on the A/P. What do you think ?!
It worked for all those years it was done that way, but not anymore.
Seems weird to have the F/O flying down to mins and then have the Captain take over, but from the Captains perspective, there's probably not much difference in either taking over from the autopilot or the F/O or F/O being the 'flying' pilot until DH while on the A/P. What do you think ?!
