A321 NEO autoland prohibition
Thread Starter
A321 NEO autoland prohibition
There is a temporary prohibition in the FCOM limitations section prohibiting autolands in CFM powered A321 NEO aircraft.
Does anybody happen to know why?
Does anybody happen to know why?
Thread Starter
"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.
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.
Thread Starter
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
Thread Starter
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.
I simply don't get it.
For me it says CAT 2 not authorized.
Stand to be corrected.
The flight crews must apply CAT 1 minima for ILS /GLS approaches, and must not use the Autoland function."
Stand to be corrected.
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.
I had to several times to get the sense. Pity those non-lawyers for whom English is not their first language.
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.
I was wondering if has something to do with the rigging angles of the flaps
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: N/A
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: U K
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts