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.
an engine washing by a fancy new truck rig designed by P&W ("EcoPower") has been said to improve fuel consumption etc on the order of 1% by removing grime and stuff from the blades. My question is, look at the photo of the setup, a couple of high pressure nozzles I guess, positioned just before the intake fan -- how does the water reach anything but the outer largest fan blades and do its job without any chemicals/cleaning agents? And how is this any different than just flying through a rain cloud? OK, I accept that it works based on the cup of dirty fluid caught streaming out of the engine, but I wish I could understand how it's doing it!
an engine washing by a fancy new truck rig designed by P&W ("EcoPower") has been said to improve fuel consumption etc on the order of 1% by removing grime and stuff from the blades. My question is, look at the photo of the setup, a couple of high pressure nozzles I guess, positioned just before the intake fan -- how does the water reach anything but the outer largest fan blades and do its job without any chemicals/cleaning agents? And how is this any different than just flying through a rain cloud? OK, I accept that it works based on the cup of dirty fluid caught streaming out of the engine, but I wish I could understand how it's doing it!
Well, first of all we try to avoid the heavy rain showers, so we don't normally fly through a large rain shower to clean the engines.
Secondly, I have no idea how this contraption works or if it works well. I know engines do get an engine wash at certain hours, but not sure how it helps the performance since anything having to do with grime and fuel coking would be in the combustion chamber which this wouldn't reach. So, sorry, I can't really expound on how this helps that much, although I'm sure in some ways it does.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
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.
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.
Different carriers address low-visibility approaches differently. There are three different approach categories, Cat I, II, and III, and some subcategories. Which type of approach and landing depends on all of these, and more. It depends on the visibility, equipment available on the airplane and landing runway, and a host of other things. United requires the use of the auto-land system, which on the 757/767 consists of:
3 autopilots
2 operating generators
1 autothrottle system
2 radio (not radar, sonar, or laser-beam) altimeters
certain flight instrumentation that is supplied by independent symbol generators
3 hydraulic systems
3 Inertial Reference Systems
2 thrust reversers, an operative anti-skid system
2 windshield wipers
rollout guidance on the forward instrument panel
2 autoland status annunciators
The list of operative ground equipment is similarly comprehensive.
Oh, yeah, and runway condition, length, surface type, and wind componentry must meet certain criteria, too.
Certain components of both airborne equipment and ground equipment may be inoperative depending on the approach category, with precious little for Cat III, where a Cat I doesn't require as much.
As was mentioned in this thread, very few landings are autolanded because
a) the reported visibility must be less than about ⅜ statute mile before we are required to use the autoland system, and
b) it's a lot less work and more fun to hand-fly an approach and landing.
Probably half of autolands are done in better than required weather because the airplanes need to be autolanded within a certain timeframe to remain legal and current.
All United flight crews are recertified on low-viz approaches and a few other attention-getting tasks every 9 months during our little visit to our training center for a fun-filled episode of "You Bet Your Job".
Sometimes, a law degree would be nice to help sort out all the legalities and criteria that must be met to do these, as well as all the other stuff we are required to know.
Not all airlines are certifies for Cat III operations. Not all Cat III airlines use an autoland system. Some use a Heads Up Display for very precise hand-flying to a landing.
Minimum visibility, even for Cat III approaches, is different among the airlines. United, for example, and I'm leaving a lot out for brevity, can actually land with ZERO visibility legally and safely. some unique conditions have to be met for this but I've done it on the line, and we've all done it in the Sims.
What I've described here is by no means a complete accounting of all the requirements, conditions, legalities, and variations of the low-visibility approach and landing.
When I am preparing for that one in a hundred autoland, I make a cabin announcement that we will be making a very "electronics-intensive" approach and landing, and if anyone has "forgotten" to turn off their electronic devices or phones, now is a good time. When you were last told is even better.
As far as "nice" landings vs "crappy" landings, I'll cop to it right now: I slammed one on about 2 years ago in DEN. It was in an A-320. Weather was great, no unusual circumstances, no vicious winds or anything, density altitude not a player, nothin', just a case where the runway was about 2 feet higher than I thought.
My copilot was laughing so hard he couldn't even talk to ground control. I was reliving my past and feelin' the pain in my back. On a scale of 1 to 10, that was a ⅝. Now, not too long ago, I did one in IAD that was almost good enough to fool the air-ground sensors on the landing gear. That, my passengers told me, was a 35.
I'm averaging 8.
Once, many moons ago, as a cope in the 737-200, my captain did a great landing, and as he was standing at the door saying goodbye, a cute young lady told him, "That was the nicest landing I've ever had!". He said thanks, and thanks for coming. She said, "It wasn't THAT nice!".
That's NOT urban legend, I was there!
Freshairborne
__________________
These are my own observations and/or opinions, and not necessarily those of the Air Line Pilots Association or UAL Corp.
Programs: UA-1P, HH Silver, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & now a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 10,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by aluminumdriver
......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........
so my question is.....
last saturday while on approach to iad with ch9 on...... fog and an rvr of iirc 500. we are on final to 19 or 1 (i forget which) and the captain pulls a missed approach ("tower, united 44 heavy-we're going around as we didn't break out where we should have) . we pull up and enter the pattern for runway 30 and then ch9 goes off. we landed on the next approach and when we did break out just before landing, i will say that the fog was as close to the deck as i have seen in a very long while (maybe 300')
so with all of that (and i hope i got the runways listed correctly)-it sounded like we were on an auto land approach where the capt and/or f/o decided to abort the auto land and go around
__________________
just my humble opinion but i used to try and stop hockey pucks so what do i know . Nighthawks fans are everywhere
last saturday while on approach to iad with ch9 on...... fog and an rvr of iirc 500. we are on final to 19 or 1 (i forget which) and the captain pulls a missed approach ("tower, united 44 heavy-we're going around as we didn't break out where we should have) . we pull up and enter the pattern for runway 30 and then ch9 goes off. we landed on the next approach and when we did break out just before landing, i will say that the fog was as close to the deck as i have seen in a very long while (maybe 300')
so with all of that (and i hope i got the runways listed correctly)-it sounded like we were on an auto land approach where the capt and/or f/o decided to abort the auto land and go around
Since I don't know the specifics, I can only guess. They might have had a mechanical irregularity pop up that prevented the autoland, so they went around. They were then able to fix it and try and again and landing.
Another scenario is they briefed a Cat II autoland, but on the approach it went to Cat III and they hadn't pre-briefed it and went around to set it up. I usually brief a CAT III auto-land anyways, just in case it goes down below Cat II on the approach.
Not being there, I really don't know. There are many reasons an approach can be broken off for on a coupled-approach.
__________________
These views are my own and do not represent the views of United Airlines or the ALPA.
...United requires the use of the auto-land system, which on the 757/767 consists of:...
...
2 radio (not radar, sonar, or laser-beam) altimeters
...
thanks for such a detailed and informative post! That is really interesting.
the radio altimeters, though, are based on radar, isn't that correct? I've noticed this a few times near airports where a plane on approach flies directly overhead, and sets off car radar detectors like crazy...
but found some passengers got nervous thinking of the auto-pilot landing the plane. So, I forgo that announcement now.
