jd2000

If you think they can change arrival time by 30 minutes on LGA-ORD by flying at a different cruise Mach, you're just misinformed. The difference from max to min cost index is about 15 minutes if you can change altitude also (in which case the fuel difference is substantial -- something like 15%). If you're comparing min and max cost index at constant altitude, it's well under 10 minutes.

If you go to a site that shows actual recorded data for flight times, you'll see that UA's flight (not block) times LGA-ORD over the last week have been consistently 2-5 minutes faster than AA's.

aluminumdriver

Well, never say never. As we posted, we have to have all systems working for the autolands. If a twin engine cessna collided with the cockpit, sucking out the FO and leaving a gaping hole in the jet, my guess is there would be inoperative systems in the jet, thus not allowing an autoland. You would be stuck with Karen Black the FA flying the jet again.

LarryJ

For those who wish to run some numbers... Mach 1.0 is roughly 700mph/610kts at typical cruise altitude temperatures. That makes each 0.01 Mach a change in speed of 7mph. Spend two hours in cruise and each 0.01 Mach is about 72 seconds of flight time. Fly 0.76 instead of 0.80 and you'll spend less than five extra minutes in cruise.

In the movie, the autopilot's turn function was inop. It would only hold a heading and altitude. That would make it a bit difficult to get an approach capture, never mind a [Land 3].

Did the 747-100, the aircraft used in the film, ever have autoland?

12172003

From what I've heard from other airline pilots, the airplane has to be configured (ie, airspeed, flaps/slats, landing gear, autopilots engaged, ILS's tuned in, etc.) further out than a visual approach. This slows down the rate at which an airport can accept incoming aircraft. As such, you will only get a CAT III approach if it requires it or the airport and ATC are really quiet and the pilots request it for certification purposes. This happens on a regular basis typically on the late arriving flights. Autolandings can also impact outgoing flights. The outbound a/c typically hold short of the runway in ILS Critical Areas and their presence can affect the glide slope (vertical guidance part of the ILS). In visual conditions, not a factor for landing a/c but for autolands, the tower needs to have the holding a/c outside of this critical area. BTW, the Glide slope is typically located by the runway aiming point (the two big solid white markings on the runway) and about 200 feet off the centerline.

SFO 1K

Just a comment about autolands. My most vivid memory of one was SFO-BOS in a UA 762 a number of years ago. We were in dense fog and ATC had warned all incoming aircraft of "tall ships" in the harbor for approaches. It was pea soup out there and somewhere close to landing we executed a go around. The captain asked ATC for an alternate approach and one was given. After setting up for it, he radioed he would be performing an autoland. I watched out that window the whole time, our headlamps were on, it was 2300 EST at the time, and you couldn't see a thing until 5 seconds before touch down. Then all we could see were some faint lights immediately under us on the runway. I didn't even see any terminal buildings until we had left the active runway. It was a really impressive landing and from a layman's perspective, it must have been CAT III.

I'll never forget hearing about the "tall ships" warning... ever hear of that before?

wmc_06

The "tall ships" warning probably refers to large sailing ships. Their masts are considerably taller than normal obstructions in the harbor.

SFO 1K

Aye, that's what I assumed... I wondered how common that is and just how high the masts are and how low the planes are that it is even a concern.

28isGreat

http://museum.gov.ns.ca/mma/atoz/talltop.html reveals mast heights up to 182 feet.

Looking at a satellite picture, only runways 27 and 33L have their thresholds right next to the water, and 33L has some kind of structure holding approach lights quite a distance into the water.

In my extremely unprofessional and uninformed opinion, likely not much of a problem!

aluminumdriver

Spacing is further during any instrument approach versus a visual approach. Even if we are flying a basic Cat I ILS, approach will give us the same spacing as a CAT III ILS, standard IFR separation, unless we request to slow down earlier. We run into more problems having to slow down early and configure on a non-precision approach in the weather, than a standard ILS.

As for the ILS Critical area, that has no affect on delays or spacing. Usually the critical area is only a couple hundred feet prior to the normal hold short line, so planes just hold behind that line for takeoff. Adds 30 sec to a taxi out to the runway maybe, so no issue overall.

At Boston, you can have tall masted ships intruding upon the normal TERPS obstacle criteria for runways 4 and 27. We are instructed to ask if any tall masted ships are in the area prior to shooting a no kidding instrument approach if we can't clear the area. Most of the time it's no factor, but every now and then we have to change up an approach for a tall masted ship.

Some autolands can be down to less than 1/16 of a mile vis, so you won't even see the runway when you land, you just land. Taxiing in that weather is the hard part, using what's called the Surface Movement Ground Guidance system to taxi around the airport. It is a series of lights and ground checkpoints to tell everyone where you are, or so that Ground can use their radar to follow you to specific points. It can take along time to taxi using SMGS to the gate.

LarryJ

Here's a video of what a CAT III autoland approach looks like from the cockpit of a B767.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgeT-F9-1KI

You'll hear a few calls...

"200, Land 3" That's 200' above touchdown. Land 3 is the autopilot/autoland status.

"100, Land 3" 100' above touchdown.

"50" 50 feet above touchdown

"30" 30 feet above touchdown

You can hear the touchdown.

goalie

very cool and thanks ^ tho a little nerve wracking as one doesn't really see the runway (save a quick glimpse of the lights) until they actually touch down (yeah, i know, for you it's just a walk in the pahk <--boston accent )

JALlover

Not sure if this is the right place, but it would be related
anyone knows the 26 words that pilots use (or the industry use) to represent the alphabet?
Like C for Charlie (thats the one I can remember)

thanks

UAX_Brasilia

Let's see how I do... (it's called the phonetic alphabet)

Alpha
Bravo
Charlie
Delta (Dixie in ATL for obvious reasons)
Echo
Foxtrot
Golf
Hotel
India
Juliet
Kilo
Lima
Mike
November
Oscar
Papa
Qubec
Romeo
Sierra
Tengo
Uniform
Victor
Whiskey
X-Ray
Red Sox
Zulu

JALlover

Thanks!!
but why Red Sox for Y? wouldnt Yankee be more better

UAX_Brasilia

I was joking...it is Yankee.