I had read that there are various reasons a landing might be reasonably done firmly on purpose, for example if there are gusty winds, bad runway conditions, etc. where you don't want to be floating around and running out of runway, just to touch down softly. Is that right?
Exactly right. Many different variables. Examples might be short runway, wet/icy runway, bad weather, gusty winds, etc..
There are many times when we land and the pilots look at each other saying nice landing (Blizzard in ORD comes to mind) and we hear snickers from pax as they get off due to the firm touchdown. Just makes us smile knowing you all don't understand how hard that was, it means we didn't scare you.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
my hardest landing on 747 resulted in about 1/2 of the oxygen masks being released in the economy section. Weather/runway conditions appeared to be fine. not sure if that happens too often
As others have said, it is very unusual to have an auto-land. 99% of all landings are hand flown
As we were pulling into the gate in Chicago last week, our captain announced that they'd just done an auto-land because of the very low visibility. Given the announcement, I was assuming they must be fairly rare--or maybe he was just trying to reassure people who were wondering how they could land the plane in those conditions. I didn't notice anything different, other than the fact that the first time I could see any lights out the window, we were already over the runway.
As we were pulling into the gate in Chicago last week, our captain announced that they'd just done an auto-land because of the very low visibility. Given the announcement, I was assuming they must be fairly rare--or maybe he was just trying to reassure people who were wondering how they could land the plane in those conditions. I didn't notice anything different, other than the fact that the first time I could see any lights out the window, we were already over the runway.
I usually announce we did an auto-land after the fact as well. I used to do it beforehand so I wouldn't get blamed for the rough landing but found some passengers got nervous thinking of the auto-pilot landing the plane. So, I forgo that announcement now.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
I usually announce we did an auto-land after the fact as well. I used to do it beforehand so I wouldn't get blamed for the rough landing but found some passengers got nervous thinking of the auto-pilot landing the plane. So, I forgo that announcement now.
Good call. I have been in IT for nearly 20 years, last thing I want to hear before we land... "Bill Gates will perform this landing..."
It's funny, I always thought computer auto-land was for easy landings and pilots flew the hard landings.
__________________
"..and that is why I prefer WN"
"Yea. Try flying WN to PVG."
Maybe you could make a technically phrased announcement that would satisfy those in the know (and your desire to share the interesting fact), while keeping in the dark (and not causing any concern) for those who have no idea what it means. Maybe something like "for those who are curious, that was a category 3a ILS landing".
When we were in line for take-off from MSP today, approaching planes were told that conditions starting at about 2/3rds down the runway were poor due to rain.
Two CRJ's were stating that they were hydroplaning down the runway. They stressed that it was hydroplaning, and not a brake-issue.
Would comments like this ever want to make you abort landing, or would ATC make the decision to make you go-around if the conditions deteriorate further?
If the OP was in visual conditions, the landing might have been an autolanding soley for the purpose of maintaining the airplane currency. I'm fairly certain a/c certified for autolandings have to perform one at a minimum once every 90 (?) days. Quite often during quiet times you'll hear a/c requesting an autolanding (which means greater spacing requirements, stable flight parameters, no a/c in the ILS critical zone, etc.) even though it is severe clear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaeMaker
Good call. I have been in IT for nearly 20 years, last thing I want to hear before we land... "Bill Gates will perform this landing..."
I have an article saved somewhere detailing the operating systems of General Aviation GPS's and some of them do run on embedded Windows. Then again, the 'for use' cases is very limited compared to the standard desktop windows personal computer.
It's funny, I always thought computer auto-land was for easy landings and pilots flew the hard landings.
In airline flying, it's normally easier to do a manual landing than to set up the autopilot for an autoland. To satisfy the parameters for an autoland, you have to be slowed and on profile sooner. There is also a lot more to monitor and a lot more callouts to make. I would always perform a manual landing if the option is available - besides it being more fun, I find it simpler as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimramon
When we were in line for take-off from MSP today, approaching planes were told that conditions starting at about 2/3rds down the runway were poor due to rain.
Two CRJ's were stating that they were hydroplaning down the runway. They stressed that it was hydroplaning, and not a brake-issue.
Would comments like this ever want to make you abort landing, or would ATC make the decision to make you go-around if the conditions deteriorate further?
Reports of braking action poor and hydroplaning could very well prompt a decision to go around, divert, or at least select a higher autobrake setting and more ambitious use of reverse thrust. It all depends on the conditions present and the aircraft state (length of runway, weight of aircraft, flap setting, etc.).
For those reasons, it's almost always the crew (not ATC) that makes the determination as to whether the approach and landing are safe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12172003
If the OP was in visual conditions, the landing might have been an autolanding soley for the purpose of maintaining the airplane currency. I'm fairly certain a/c certified for autolandings have to perform one at a minimum once every 90 (?) days. Quite often during quiet times you'll hear a/c requesting an autolanding (which means greater spacing requirements, stable flight parameters, no a/c in the ILS critical zone, etc.) even though it is severe clear.
To remain current for CAT III weather, the aircraft has to autoland every 30 days (50 days for CAT II).
Whether we autoland for currency depends greatly on the aircraft fleet, however. We used to do it occasionally in the 737 and A320, but I've never seen it done for airplane currency in the 777. We all need landings (I go back to Denver in just over a week to get landings), so the pilots are given the landings instead of the autopilot. The autopilot can be brought to currency via a short ground check by maintenance - pilots have to go back to Denver and into the simulator.
Last edited by iluv2fly; Jun 12, 08 at 4:35 am.
Reason: merge
I heard ATC tell a F9 plane that they had lost radar contact with the plane. They called the plane multiple times and then Ch 9 was unavailable for maybe 10-15 mins.
Except for the unimaginable, are there software or hardware related issues that would make a plane disappear from radar?
Maybe you could make a technically phrased announcement that would satisfy those in the know (and your desire to share the interesting fact), while keeping in the dark (and not causing any concern) for those who have no idea what it means. Maybe something like "for those who are curious, that was a category 3a ILS landing".
I have no problem mentioning we did an autoland approach after the fact, for those that care. Most don't. I just don't do it beforehand anymore so as to keep the nervous flyers from being more nervous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HaeMaker
It's funny, I always thought computer auto-land was for easy landings and pilots flew the hard landings.
That is partially correct. Auto-lands are just for low ceiling/visibility approaches. Not for high gusty winds, thunderstorms, rain, snow, etc...in fact we are more limited in the weather we can fly with an autoland when it comes to winds versus hand-flying. So, pilots do hand-fly the more challenging approaches.
We have to auto-land the aircraft once weather goes below a normal Category 1 ILS approach (1800 RVR for United). If you hear on CH 9 that weather is below 1/2 mile or 1800 RVR, then expect an auto-land then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimramon
When we were in line for take-off from MSP today, approaching planes were told that conditions starting at about 2/3rds down the runway were poor due to rain.
Two CRJ's were stating that they were hydroplaning down the runway. They stressed that it was hydroplaning, and not a brake-issue.
Would comments like this ever want to make you abort landing, or would ATC make the decision to make you go-around if the conditions deteriorate further?
Depends on where you are. If it was at Dulles with a long runway, probably not unless it was hydroplaning due to snow or ice. If it was SAN, I might ask more questions about the hydroplanning and how long it lasted. Each case is specific. What a regional jet pilot considers hydroplanning and what I might consider slippery conditions could be different.
Tower won't send us around unless the runway is closed for some reason. Whether to land or not is the Captain's call. The SWA jet going off the runway at Midway is a good example of that. Numerous calls of bad braking action reports, heavy snow, and he made the call to continue. Tower can only advise of the conditions, but doesn't usually shut down the runway unless they are busy trying to clean it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimramon
I heard ATC tell a F9 plane that they had lost radar contact with the plane. They called the plane multiple times and then Ch 9 was unavailable for maybe 10-15 mins.
Except for the unimaginable, are there software or hardware related issues that would make a plane disappear from radar?
Sure, you are visable to the controllers through a transponder on the aircraft, with a specific code given to each aircraft. Usually you have 2 transponders onboard, so if one breaks, you flip on the other. In this case, the Frontier jet's transponder could have malfunctioned, or he might have put in the wrong code and was not showing up. If they called him multiple times and he wasn't answering, my guess is that he was transitioning from one ATC sector to another and had not come over to that sector yet. They might have wanted to change his code when he checked in, but until he did he might have been not showing up to the current controller you were listening to.
It's pretty rare for us to be out of contact with ATC. Sometimes we get lost in radio changes, but worse case they make a call over guard frequency for us, or the Company contacts us via our ACARS to contact ATC on so and so frequency.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
but found some passengers got nervous thinking of the auto-pilot landing the plane. So, I forgo that announcement now.
