Just some additional info. I was just reading some official Airbus Instructor notes and it has the statement " Autoland has been demonstrated up to MTOW".

Until there is weight on wheels/squat switch compressed, HOW does airplane KNOW that it is landing above MLW? As far as I know, only the attentive pilot knows this; the airplane does not unless you tell it so. And, once there is weight on wheels, you're down anyway - all that matters is stopping w/o burning up the brakes. Am I missing something?

Hello all,

Since I started this thread there has been a relatively big overhaul in the FCOM.

I'm basically asking the same question. Where does it say in the FCOM what the MLW for a A320 autoland?

I've checked FCOM LIM and there is now no mention. The QRH overweight checklist for both 319 and 320 now mention nothing about autoland overweight. In the FCTM PR-AEP-MISC overweight landing for the 319 it mentions autoland certified to MLW demonstrated to MTOW. For the 320 again autoland isn't mentioned.

Anyone any ideas?

Many thanks,

Mooneyboy

If I recall it correctly, there was an improvement in Yaw damper and rudder travel limiters on the later aircraft that then allowed auto land OEI up to MTOW, I believe they have retro fitted it to some of the earlier ones too

Hopefully that's the case for the 319 and 320 as it would certainly be handy to have the option to autoland up to MTOW. As I read it that's the case for the 319 but no written mention in FCOM for the 320.

My A319 FCOM says this:

No such note on the A320's.

I'm sure before the FCOM overhaul FCTM mentioned autoland 320 upto MLW but I find there is now no mention.

I would have thought if that previous restriction was lifted for the 320 then in my company at least a NTC would have been generated.

The first thing to be said is that rules are there for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools - to some extent the same applies to SOPs and aircraft limitations. Most limitations which appear in the Flight Manual are 'set back' a little from what has been demonstrated during the test flying (cross wind limits for example) and most structural limits have fairly substantial margins. Thus, under extreme conditions, it is usually safe to exceed them. But NOT in normal operations and some - not at all. This is where you need to know your aircraft.

For example, at max altitude in coffin corner. In totally calm conditions it is possible to fly exactly at the point where the high speed buffet meets the low speed buffet (I have done it on a test flight). BUT you need to know the stall characteristics of your aircraft and its controllability at high Mach numbers. I would NEVER recommend doing this on the line.

However, if you have an emergency and it is necessary to land above the cross wind limit, it is possible provided you consider the effects of the failure that has caused the emergency and the effect it might have on the controllability of your aicraft. Equally, if it is absolutely necessary to land overweight and the only option is an autoland, then do it. This is what airmanship and command is all about. As a previous poster has written it is better to have a slightly bent aircraft than a hole in the ground.

My second point, any company that objects to pilots seeking more information about their aircraft, either from the manufacturer or the relevant CAA, needs its collective head examined. The need for accuracy and truth is paramount.

Airbus safety first magazine issue12 July 2011 had an article Automatic landings in Daily Operations.
The relevant portion for our topic was as below:
2. Operational Advantages of Autoland Low Visibility Operations (LVO) is the most commonly used (and known) reason for the performance of an automatic landing. But there are many other situations where the use of Autoland provides operational advantages, and where the decision to perform an Autoland is a smart flight crew decision. Although Autoland is commonly associated with bad-weather (Low Visibility Operations – LVO), there is a wider range of benefits applicable to the performance of automatic landings, even in good weather. This article will illustrate cases where Autoland provides such safety advantages, and will indicate the prerequisites required to ensure that the procedure is safely conducted.
Here are some examples of the cases for which an Autoland can prove beneficial: q Flight crew fatigue (e.g. an early-morning landing after a long and tiring night flight). q Unfavorable operational conditions (e.g. Overweight landings. Autoland has been demonstrated with weights much above “Max Landing Weight”, as specified in the FCOM). q Poor visual conditions (e.g. even if the reported weather conditions are VMC, a landing that faces a low-rising or a setting sun, aligned on the runway axis, can seriously affect and reduce the flight crew’s vision). q Crew Incapacitation (e.g. the unaffected pilot could decide to exercise their emergency authority and use the Autoland function in order to benefit from the potential assistance and relief).

Airbus’ Stance