A320 can you do auto-land overweight?
A320 can you do auto-land overweight?
I know Im not the only one confused by this so was wondering if anyone here can help? I've been looking in the Airbus FCOM and can see in the overweight QRH checklist for a A319 it mentions auto lands have been demonstrated upto 69tons and certified up to MLW. In the A320 overweight landing check it mentions nothing about weight restrictions in relation to autolands.
My question is can you do an autoland in an A320 over MLW or are you essentially a CAT 1 aircraft? I've gone through FCOM and can't find anything definitive.
Many thanks.
My question is can you do an autoland in an A320 over MLW or are you essentially a CAT 1 aircraft? I've gone through FCOM and can't find anything definitive.
Many thanks.
Thanks dream747.
Had a look again and yes it's there in black and white. Can't believe I missed. So it's FCOM LIM 22-20 automatic approach, landing and roll out.
Still think it would be nice for them to mention it in the overweight landing QRH. Can't understand why they mention it in the QRH for 319 but not the 320.
Had a look again and yes it's there in black and white. Can't believe I missed. So it's FCOM LIM 22-20 automatic approach, landing and roll out.
Still think it would be nice for them to mention it in the overweight landing QRH. Can't understand why they mention it in the QRH for 319 but not the 320.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Singapore
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FCOM limitations says that it has been demonstrated at or below maximum landing weight.
Doesn't prohibit.
My company permits overweight autoland in case of an emergency requiring an immediate landing.
Doesn't prohibit.
My company permits overweight autoland in case of an emergency requiring an immediate landing.
Yes I agree it says demonstrated so yes in case of uncontrollable fire/smoke and no other options yes you would go for autoland.
But eng fail(land Asap Amber)/sick pax you would be looking at other cat 1 altn.
But eng fail(land Asap Amber)/sick pax you would be looking at other cat 1 altn.
Yes it mentions it in the overweight landing checklist.
I've also tried putting in overweight and autoland in our landing performance module and it says 'check FCOM the possible combination Autoland+Overweight'. Interestingly it still says this when you select say 67T autoland with the A319.
I've also tried putting in overweight and autoland in our landing performance module and it says 'check FCOM the possible combination Autoland+Overweight'. Interestingly it still says this when you select say 67T autoland with the A319.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Europe
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you want to use the aircraft again?
It's an interesting question.
Autoland will not and is not designed to to flare and govern a RoD at touchdown of 360' pm, from the QRH.
In the final approach stages:
TARGET SPEED VLS
Reduce the selected speed on the FCU to reach VLS at runway threshold.
Touch down as smoothly as possible (Maximum V/S at touchdown 360 ft/min).
However you might get consider using Autoland in certain circumstances such as pilot incapacitation.
Autoland will not and is not designed to to flare and govern a RoD at touchdown of 360' pm, from the QRH.
In the final approach stages:
TARGET SPEED VLS
Reduce the selected speed on the FCU to reach VLS at runway threshold.
Touch down as smoothly as possible (Maximum V/S at touchdown 360 ft/min).
However you might get consider using Autoland in certain circumstances such as pilot incapacitation.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Airbus has not demonstrated then line pilot shouldn't become a test pilot. Rather than doing something non standard by an opinion poll on PP why not your company seeks clarification from the manufacturer?
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What would you consider a normal "good" every day acceptable V/S in ft/min touchdown compared with a Autoland V/S in ft/min in the A320. I imagine the autoland by design is not for comfort but to get the aircraft to be firmly connected with the runway with doing no damage to the aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@vilas
"why not your company seeks clarification from the manufacturer?"
They don't want to do some request they didn't discovered themselves!
I had such a very bad experience after I discovered a wrong N2 (MD83) in our FCOM, to use in case of UAS : missing 13% , Landing configuration, MLW, 3000ft... After two months of correction procedure question, using the appropriate form, without feedback from my company, our engineer sent a fax from his own, and quickly the manufacturer answered with thanks and congratulations. It was a storm for me, accused (!) to contact the manufacturer myself... At that time more than 60 airlines "used" the wrong figure since 13 years. Happily no plane had such an UAS!
The company is afraid too to explain to the DGAC why they didn't see the mistake
"why not your company seeks clarification from the manufacturer?"
They don't want to do some request they didn't discovered themselves!
I had such a very bad experience after I discovered a wrong N2 (MD83) in our FCOM, to use in case of UAS : missing 13% , Landing configuration, MLW, 3000ft... After two months of correction procedure question, using the appropriate form, without feedback from my company, our engineer sent a fax from his own, and quickly the manufacturer answered with thanks and congratulations. It was a storm for me, accused (!) to contact the manufacturer myself... At that time more than 60 airlines "used" the wrong figure since 13 years. Happily no plane had such an UAS!
The company is afraid too to explain to the DGAC why they didn't see the mistake
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That may be an exception but I have personally got many clarifications from them and as a customer they cannot deny their advice. On the present topic what a pilot can do in emergency? Well! virtually anything that he thinks will save his life.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recently asked a senior trainer about this, in the scenario of having very low fuel. I was told that the autoland over mlw was the way to go if the weather was marginal. At the end of the day, a slightly bent aeroplane is better than a hole in the ground.
Slightly unrelated, but I also had a demo of autoland at max demonstrated (manual) cross wind limits in the sim. Worked well.
Slightly unrelated, but I also had a demo of autoland at max demonstrated (manual) cross wind limits in the sim. Worked well.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi macdo,
Can't really see how you would end up above MLW with very low fuel on an A320. You would only attempt an auto land above MLW if you have weather below CAT II and a very time limiting situation (aka undetermined fire, smoke). Typical example could be takeoff close to MRTOW in LVTO and you're lucky enough on that day to have heavy smoke shortly after takeoff.
Can't really see how you would end up above MLW with very low fuel on an A320. You would only attempt an auto land above MLW if you have weather below CAT II and a very time limiting situation (aka undetermined fire, smoke). Typical example could be takeoff close to MRTOW in LVTO and you're lucky enough on that day to have heavy smoke shortly after takeoff.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The serious fuel leak immediately after t/o (punctured tank from tyre burst and losing fuel rapidly) was the scenario discussed. Admittedly a freak occurrence but it lead to the thought of doing an autoland if the weather at the departure airfield was marginal and the a/c was still above mlw. I should think serious smoke on the flight deck would be another good reason.
The point was really that the a/c was capable of doing more than just what the FCOM indicates in an extreme situation.
The point was really that the a/c was capable of doing more than just what the FCOM indicates in an extreme situation.