A321 NEO autoland prohibition

[tubby linton]

There is a temporary prohibition in the FCOM limitations section prohibiting autolands in CFM powered A321 NEO aircraft.
Does anybody happen to know why?

[atakacs]

Do you have a source for that ?

[tubby linton]

"CAT 2, CAT 3 (single or dual) automatic approaches and Autoland are not authorized. This restriction applies and superseeds all limitations concerning CAT 2, CAT 3 and Autoland in the following sections of the FCOM. The flight crews must apply CAT 1 minima for ILS /GLS approaches, and must not use the Autoland function."

It is an FCOM Tdu
This limitation is issued to inform neo Operators of an operational limitation that restricts the aircraft approach capability and Autoland capability. The release of a new FG standard will remove this limitation.

[atakacs]

Hmm

Only the 321? Interresting

[tubby linton]

I was wondering if has something to do with the rigging angles of the flaps as the A321Neo has been altered to make the heavyweight ones approach CAT C again. Rumour at one A321 neo operator was that it was to do with clearance of the exhaust cone on touchdown

[gearlever]

Originally Posted by tubby linton

"CAT 2, CAT 3 (single or dual) automatic approaches and Autoland are not authorized.

So it's not only about Autoland.
CAT 2 auto approaches "are not authorized" also.

[tubby linton]

Read it again. The autoland function is not to be used. Airbus expect the autoland function to be used in typical line ops though some operators on partcularly windy norhern islands seem keen to fly a Cat 2 and then perform a manual landing, often up to the max crosswind capability of the aircraft.

[gearlever]

I simply don't get it.

The flight crews must apply CAT 1 minima for ILS /GLS approaches, and must not use the Autoland function."

For me it says CAT 2 not authorized.

Stand to be corrected.

[tubby linton]

Airbus expect a Cat 2 to utilise the autoland function.

[gearlever]

Originally Posted by tubby linton

Airbus expect a Cat 2 to utilise the autoland function.

In this case the FCOM Tdu IMHO should simply say "NO AUTOLAND".

[tubby linton]

Originally Posted by gearlever

In this case the FCOM Tdu IMHO should simply say "NO AUTOLAND".

It does, with a bit of explanation!

[Pugilistic Animus]

Are they under an AD of some sort? Just curious

[ESQU]

The company I work for recently introduced the 321 and the fcom has the above Autoland limitations. But a very recent notice to crew describing the differences has cancelled the fcom autoland limitation.

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by tubby linton

Read it again.

I had to several times to get the sense. Pity those non-lawyers for whom English is not their first language.

I was wondering if has something to do with the rigging angles of the flaps

Does anyone recall another A321 (but not others) landing issue back in the earlier days of the type, that prevented its use on shorter runways for a while, as full flaps were temporarily not permitted. BMI (as it was then) into Belfast City had to substitute it. I gathered that was a flaps configuration issue as well.

[Major Cleve Saville]

Originally Posted by tubby linton

Airbus expect a Cat 2 to utilise the autoland function.

The certification process for CAT II is for/assumes a manual landing.

[tubby linton]

Originally Posted by Major Cleve Saville

The certification process for CAT II is for/assumes a manual landing.

From the FCTM

“The automatic landing is the preferred landing technique in CAT II conditions”

[gearlever]

Originally Posted by WHBM

I had to several times to get the sense. Pity those non-lawyers for whom English is not their first language.

Not a lawyer, non English native speaker, but yes it's typical Airbus twaddle.

[wiedehopf]

The question really is what is an automatic approach. Don't you need the autopilot to minima even with a CATII manual landing?

Also the wording regarding minima clearly states no approaches to CATII minima. Even if it appends not autoland, it is clear regarding the other point.

If it really excludes manually landed CATII approaches i would be very surprised.

[LW20]

Originally Posted by tubby linton

" The flight crews must apply CAT 1 minima for ILS /GLS approaches, and must not use the Autoland function."

It's very clear: No approach if weather is below CAT1. And also no autoland in all conditions incl. CAT 1 weather.

[Major Cleve Saville]

Originally Posted by tubby linton

From the FCTM

“The automatic landing is the preferred landing technique in CAT II conditions”

Preferred is not mandatory. In CAT II you have a choice which is why at the certification stage it is done with a manual landing.