altiplano wrote: ↑Thu Oct 04, 2018 8:17 am
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.
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.