AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

[pelmet]

Non-fake news flash Pelmet, regulators and individual inspectors get things wrong sometimes. So do manufacturers.

Folks......I think we have seen and heard all we need to hear. If the regulators/manufacturers publications back up Rockie's opinion then they are right. But if they contradict Rockie's opinion, the regulators/manufacturers are wrong.

I don't have anything alse to add.

As an "internet guy with little to no operational experience", I can only say that when it comes to landing performance and auto land use, somehow, I know more than Rockie. Which is not bad because he feels he knows more than the FAA and manufacturers.

Beware of who you take your advice from.

[altiplano]

No I'm exaggerating your ridiculous claims.

What ridiculous claims am I exaggerating? If you doubt my take on CAT I runways look it up, I've provided the references. If you doubt what I say on the precautions necessary to use autoland on a CAT I runway, ask your chief pilot. If you doubt when I say I'm supposed to be able to fly a manual raw data approach, ask next time you're in the sim. If you are ever in that position Altiplano you aren't supposed to just throw your hands in the air and give up...you have to do it. It's what we're hired for and paid to do.

@#$! pal. None of that is what I said. Learn to read and try to comprehend other people.

[altiplano]

No I'm exaggerating your ridiculous claims.

What ridiculous claims am I exaggerating? If you doubt my take on CAT I runways look it up, I've provided the references. If you doubt what I say on the precautions necessary to use autoland on a CAT I runway, ask your chief pilot. If you doubt when I say I'm supposed to be able to fly a manual raw data approach, ask next time you're in the sim. If you are ever in that position Altiplano you aren't supposed to just throw your hands in the air and give up...you have to do it. It's what we're hired for and paid to do.

Further. I said I WAS exaggerating YOUR ridiculous claims... ie. Using an autoland is a crutch for anything but a Cat 3 approach.

What about a Cat 2 approach? Still a visual requirement and DH to land. We don't require using autoland. Is it a crutch then?

What about a HUD?

Autopilot past the DA on a Cat 1?

Autopilot at all in the approach?

FD?

No. They're all tools.

You feel Autopilot below mins to 50' or whatever isn't a crutch... but autoland in some circumstances is. Why don't you feel Autopilot below minimums is a crutch? I mean you're supposed to visual then... Or autopilot at all in approach? Why not switch off the FD... that's just a crutch too, right? I can fly a raw data approach just fine thanks...

That's my point... you draw your line. I perfectly understand mine, and it's limitations... it's certified by the manufacturer and in our SOP. I'm not saying that I autoland Cat 1 approaches to minimums as a rule, I've done it once, I've considered it more than once, I would consider it again too.

[complexintentions]

I'm not talking about absolute need but about considering using the tools available to enhance situational awareness appropriate to circumstance. By your logic we shouldn't use flight directors or autopilots on a Cat 1 approach either, or god forbid a HUD... just a crutch, right?!

Not a correct analogy whatsoever. The risk profile of autolanding off an unprotected signal bears no resemblance to that of using a flight director or HUD. The autopilot, FD and HUD all have their own requirements for use different from an autoland approach. The autopilot, for example, is certified for use to the published aircraft limitation. If that's lower than minimums then you're legal to use it below minimums. No one said anything about "leaving it in until 50ft or whatever". But leaving it engaged longer is not the same thing at all as leaving it on until landing, and I'm surprised you need that explained to you. Same goes for the other tools you mention.

Nonsense statements to try and make a point, but are actually weakening your argument.

And no one other than yourself a couple times, said anything about flying on raw data. Irrelevant rhetoric does not strengthen your case either.


pelmet,

It's no secret your aviation experience is 99% theoretical and 1% practical, there's no shame in that. What IS shameful is your passing yourself off as something you're so blatantly, obviously not, as you may end up influencing those with even less experience than yourself.

Rockie is correct. Debating regulations and procedures is fine, you're a whiz at pulling non-contextual snippets of things to try and support your theories. Fine. But there is no debate in the real world as to the increased risks of performing autolands from unprotected ILS signals.

So far I have seen arguments put forward to use them to mitigate the risk of fatigue, or to "enhance situational awareness". I submit:

- If you are fatigued to the point of being concerned that you will not be able to safely manually land the airplane, then you best hope you are not too fatigued to take over at low level if/when the autopilot disconnects due to interference, or worse, stays connected and decides to take you off the runway.

- If you are lacking situational awareness in Cat 1 conditions to the point that you feel an autoland is necessary, well...what can I say to that?

I operate the automation exactly as Rockie mentioned, I'll leave it engaged longer even in Cat 1 conditions if the visibility is lower, or I'm tired and don't want to increase cockpit workload for the both of us unnecessarily. That's just good risk management. Using a system in way it is not intended or certified - that isn't. If it's Cat 1, it's going to be a manual landing unless the situation and a risk assessment deems an autoland LESS risky: ie, other pilot is incapacitated. But THAT would be informed to ATC already.

A previous employer had a requirement to conduct autolands at set intervals to maintain the a/c Cat 3B certification. This mandated occasional autolands in Cat 1 conditions. On one such occasion I had the autopilot disconnect at 80ft AGL (RWY 25C FRA). I was expecting it due to the close spacing of the departing traffic ahead, and sure enough when it flew over the localiser transmitter the interference dropped the signal. Even completely ready for it, it wasn't much fun to have to make a go/no-go decision at that point at the end of a 14 hour flight. So much for fatigue mitigation.

Do whatever you want depending on how you choose to interpret the regs and your company policies. But just consider that the risk of mixing and matching procedures introduces new risk that can outweigh the ones you think you're mitigating.

[Rockie]

Using an autoland is a crutch for anything but a Cat 3 approach.

Nowhere did I say that. Show me where if you can.

Still a visual requirement and DH to land. We don't require using autoland. Is it a crutch then?

It's company policy if equipped with autoland, not required if you aren't, or some failure precludes it. But you knew that right?

What about a HUD?

Same, company policy dictates.

Autopilot past the DA on a Cat 1?

Yup, if at all possible. I'm happy to use it below minimums as the runway environment develops.

FD? Again, company policy dictates. Are you saying you would violate company policy?

I'm not saying that I autoland Cat 1 approaches to minimums as a rule, I've done it once, I've considered it more than once, I would consider it again given the conditions.

I guess that means I have a lot more experience with this than you do. I've seen them begin to go sideways and had to disconnect in the flare. Not the best time, and I'd rather not have to do that again especially in minimums weather. I use it on runways that it is certified for.

[altiplano]

Maybe I didn't make my point that well with the raw data analogy, I thought it was clear enough what I was trying to get at... tools available to us... sure, some we use all the time, some we don't...

FD's off is violating company policy? Is that how you read it?

Violating company policy/aom is NOT what I said.

Sure I've seen Cat 3 not turn out the way I like it short short final and disconnected. I've seen it do a piss poor job holding centerline on roll out and had to intervene too.

There are limits with autoland, and risks associated with it, I thought it was understood that was an accepted part of our discussion. But the bottom line is, given those limitations and awareness of them, is it approved by the manufacturer, the company, and the regulator, the answer is yes. With the noted cautions...

I have heard that some A380 operators are ONLY auto landing... I can't recall where, or maybe it was just rumour... CI was that the case at Emirates? Or maybe it was an Asian carrier... I wonder if they need CAT 3 protected areas everytime they come in?

[pelmet]

A previous employer had a requirement to conduct autolands at set intervals to maintain the a/c Cat 3B certification. This mandated occasional autolands in Cat 1 conditions. On one such occasion I had the autopilot disconnect at 80ft AGL (RWY 25C FRA). I was expecting it due to the close spacing of the departing traffic ahead, and sure enough when it flew over the localiser transmitter the interference dropped the signal. Even completely ready for it, it wasn't much fun to have to make a go/no-go decision at that point at the end of a 14 hour flight. So much for fatigue mitigation.

Rockie is correct. Debating regulations and procedures is fine, you're a whiz at pulling non-contextual snippets of things to try and support your theories. Fine. But there is no debate in the real world as to the increased risks of performing autolands from unprotected ILS signals.

Thanks for your opinion.....

Runway 25C at EDDF is a CAT III runway. It appears that you decided to do an autoland in good weather with no protections provided at all. An aircraft was seen to be rolling down the runway while you were on short final and distortions caused an incident.

Choosing to do a good weather autoland with likely distortions is different than having enhanced protections which are provided when the weather goes below 800-2(in the US) or 1000-2 (in Canada) or as requested. Not sure about Europe. But if it appears that there could be a potential for a beam distprtion, why not disconnect, manually land and let the next crew get the aircraft current for CAT III on the return leg. Our company requires a line report if the autoland couldn't be done within 7 days of its expiry(and the CAT II is valid for 6 months). Concern about a possible beam distortion based on an aircraft rolling down the runway would seem to me to be a valid reason for not performing the desired autoland.

Still, the FAA has published what is quoted below. As you mention, one needs to be ready to disconnect the autopilot at the first sign of an issue on any Autoland.....or perhaps anticipate and do it in advance.

"Use of Autoland at U.S. CAT I Facilities or Equivalent. For CAT I, autoland may be used at runways with facilities other than those with published CAT II or III IAPs if the precautions discussed in subparagraph 4-282C are followed. This is to aid pilots in achieving stabilized approaches and reliable touchdown performance to improve landing safety in adverse weather.....".

"All operators approved to use autoland- or HUD-equipped aircraft should be encouraged to routinely use these systems at suitably equipped runways during operations in VFR and in CAT I IFR conditions."

"Use of this capability may be particularly important for pilot workload relief in stressful conditions of fatigue after long international flights; night approaches; crosswinds or turbulence; when there may be other aircraft non-normal conditions being addressed; or to aid safe landing performance in otherwise adverse weather, restricted visibility, or with cluttered runways. This is true even though reported visibility may be well above minimums (e.g., heavy rain distorting view out the windshield, snow-covered runways where markings are not easily visible)."


http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v04%2 ... 02_005.htm

[Old fella]

I thought applicable Canadian standards criteria like TP-308 and TP-312 to single out a few , apply to Canadian certified airports and Canadian air carriers who operate in and out of such. Not sure what the FAA has to do with Canadian standards, perhaps nothing but I am willing to be enlightened.

[pelmet]

Thanks Old Fella for the comment and thank you Rockie and Complex Intentions for your input. It has all been valuable and appreciated about the concerns of doing autolands on CAT I runways. All three have considerable experience and their line of thinking is something to consider.

Along with their input is FAA documentation about autolands on CAT I runways that is interesting to read.

My company's procedure is written similarly to what the Delta Airlines procedure says with the usual cautions but is not prohibited, which appears to be the same as what Altiplano has mentioned for his company type.

[pelmet]

I thought applicable Canadian standards criteria like TP-308 and TP-312 to single out a few , apply to Canadian certified airports and Canadian air carriers who operate in and out of such. Not sure what the FAA has to do with Canadian standards, perhaps nothing but I am willing to be enlightened.

From NavCanada...

"Glide Path Signal Protection Procedures
A controller will protect the glide path signal when:
1. The ceiling is less than 1,000 feet or visibility is less than 3 miles, or both; and
2. The arriving aircraft is inside the final approach fix (FAF) on an ILS approach."

"Auto-Land or Practice Low Visibility Approaches
In situations where protection of the ILS signal is not required and pilots wish to conduct auto-land or practice low visibility approach procedures, advise the controller of your intentions early enough so that they can either protect the ILS critical area or advise you that, due to traffic, ILS critical area protection is not possible. If ILS critical area protection is not possible, the controller will use the phrase “ILS CRITICAL AREA NOT PROTECTED.” It then becomes the pilot’s responsibility to continue or discontinue in the particular approach mode."

http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/products-and ... 01.pdf#top