AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

[pelmet]

Aircraft I fly are certified for autoland on an ILS. Of course required visual reference for the category of approach you are doing. It's an option available within the autopilot limitations.

I don't know what "other" pilots are doing.... I speak for myself.

Thanks for the reply. Just out of curiousity, I assume that the certification is for CAT II/III but that there is a statement for your type saying to be cautious with CAT I ILS/runways but no restriction. Do you see autolands on CAT I runways, perhaps in the past in situations where you might expect poor visibility in the flare(with appropriate precautions taken, of course)?



Updated three days later: I knew you would not answer this question based on the tone of the discussion from your fellow worker and I understand that. But I know the obvious answer based on your previous statements and no reply here. Pilots at your company are doing what I recommend using appropriate caution. And I am sure it has prevented other excursions.

If it looks like the vis will be poor but still legal for the landing, consider an Autoland. As the report states in this incident, these pilots did consider it as well but the restriction that applies only to Airbus aircraft possibly kept them from doing it.


Be ready to disconnect and to go-around(as these guys should have done).

[Rockie]

Aircraft I fly are certified for autoland on an ILS. Of course required visual reference for the category of approach you are doing. It's an option available within the autopilot limitations.

I don't know what "other" pilots are doing.... I speak for myself.

Do you see autolands on CAT I runways, perhaps in the past?

I have, I'm surprised you didn't ask me. They work well...until they don't for all the reasons I've been bombarding you with to no effect. That's why it's not to be trusted and definitely not to be used as a crutch every time the weather hits minimums on a CAT I.

As for using the autopilot below minimums during any kind of approach (precision or not) in minimums weather, I'm a big fan and do that habitually until the runway environment is unquestionably visual or the limit I am allowed by manufacturer limitations, whichever is higher. Autoland however is another animal altogether which relies on a CAT II/III "protected" localizer rollout to be used with any confidence or manufacturer assurances. CAT II/III localizer and glideslope protections are more stringent than CAT I for certification, and are flight checked regularly by NavCanada, the FAA and other relevant agencies for rollout. CAT I runways are not.

Appendix "A" of this manual gives some detail as to the differences, for the FAA check out rule 6750.16

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... u-2861.htm

[pelmet]

Autolands are designed and intended for use in low visibility conditions with minimums below what a pilot can safely land in visually. Normal aircraft environmental and operational limitations (and therefore the pilot's) far exceed what the autoland can do, so If you need it as a crutch to land in conditions other than what it was designed for you should find another line of work.

That's why it's not to be trusted and definitely not to be used as a crutch every time the weather hits minimums on a CAT I.

The FAA agrees with me once again.....

"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)."

Yes, there are some precautions mentioned but my idea is definitely supported by the FAA. The AC incident report specifically talks about windshield distortion which is what my original post was all about. Thanks FAA.
http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v04%2 ... 02_005.htm

[pelmet]

Here is Delta Airlines policy for one particular type..... "Except for facilities that have a restrictive note, autoland approaches are permissible to all [instrument landing system (ILS)] facilities. When a restrictive note regarding the localizer or glide slope appears on [an approach chart], autoland is not authorized."

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.avia ... 1318&key=1

[Rockie]

Here is Delta Airlines policy for one particular type..... "Except for facilities that have a restrictive note, autoland approaches are permissible to all [instrument landing system (ILS)] facilities. When a restrictive note regarding the localizer or glide slope appears on [an approach chart], autoland is not authorized."

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.avia ... 1318&key=1

Same as all the companies I've been involved with either as a pilot or training, although you're conveniently leaving out the cautions that go with it. You also keep refusing to acknowledge the differences between CAT I and CAT II/III runways and their effects that I keep posting here. Why?

I'll ask the same kind of question I asked regarding landing distance calculations and give you a chance to not answer it too. What kind of airplane do you fly, and what is your company's policy regarding autolands with it on a CAT I runway?

[pelmet]

Here is Delta Airlines policy for one particular type..... "Except for facilities that have a restrictive note, autoland approaches are permissible to all [instrument landing system (ILS)] facilities. When a restrictive note regarding the localizer or glide slope appears on [an approach chart], autoland is not authorized."

https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.avia ... 1318&key=1

Same as all the companies I've been involved with either as a pilot or training, although you're conveniently leaving out the cautions that go with it. You also keep refusing to acknowledge the differences between CAT I and CAT II/III runways and their effects that I keep posting here. Why?

I'll ask the same kind of question I asked regarding landing distance calculations and give you a chance to not answer it too. What kind of airplane do you fly, and what is your company's policy regarding autolands with it on a CAT I runway?

What kind of aircraft I fly is irrelevent. What matters is whether what you or I are saying is correct. I am backed up by the FAA which well knows that there are differences between CAT I and CAT II/III runways(just like I do). I have already posted the policy for a major airline, the largest airline in the world.

I could make up anything about airline policy and how would you know if it is true(so why don't you just assume that I work for Delta), but we have a credible source(NTSB) stating a named airline and their policy. We also have the FAA backing up what I say. Yes there are cautions but the idea you posted of NOT to do autolands on CAT I runways because they are not certified is WRONG. The blanket statement that one should get another career because they are using an autoland in CAT I conditions under conditions that could lead to higher risk is WRONG and directly contradicted by the FAA.

You did post some useful Airbus info and I thank you for that but......

Maybe you should contact the FAA this time. They seem to back me up a lot.

"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)."

[Rockie]

Yes there are cautions but the idea you posted of NOT to do autolands on CAT I runways because they are not certified is WRONG.

Show me where I said not to do autolands on CAT I runways. I've done them myself and said so. I said they are not to be used in regular operations to do something the pilot cannot. I'll post the quote if you insist. I've said they are not to be used as a crutch when the weather is near minimums on a CAT I many times. Again I'll post the quote if you want.

You keep misrepresenting some of what I say and ignoring the rest. It does matter not only what airplane you fly, but for how long and in what seat. It speaks to credibility. It also matters what your company policy is on both those issues because you either are following them making your arguments bullshit, or you are not. That latter is more serious than the former.

[pelmet]

Yes there are cautions but the idea you posted of NOT to do autolands on CAT I runways because they are not certified is WRONG.

Show me where I said not to do autolands on CAT I runways.......I said they are not to be used in regular operations to do something the pilot cannot. ........ I've said they are not to be used as a crutch when the weather is near minimums on a CAT I many times.

You can use the term crutch if you want but the real credibility is you vs. the FAA which uses the term Adverse Weather in the info I provided. And they recommend ALL operators APPROVED for autolands to routinely do autolands in CAT I IFR Conditions....the conditions AC encountered in YYZ. Maybe the non-restricted Boeings, Douglas, Embraers, etc landing before and after these guys did exactly that...maybe not. It appears that the FAA considers it a safety-enhancement tool for CAT I runways(with conditions such as careful monitoring).

"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."

Thanks for the Airbus info at your company. It gives some insight into this incident.

[Rockie]

I don't know what you're quoting Pelmet but here are a few points.

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.

They use the word "may", which has been discussed is an option, not a recommendation.

What are the precautions in subparagraph 4-282C?

This is to aid pilots in achieving stabilized approaches and reliable touchdown performance to improve landing safety in adverse weather....."

Crutch.

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

Many operators recommend that for familiarity reasons since actual CAT II/III autolands are relatively rare. It can also reveal problems with the system in benign conditions where they are not required.

You still have given no information on your airplane or company policy. What are you afraid of Pelmet?

[pelmet]

I don't know what you're quoting Pelmet but here are a few points.

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.

They use the word "may", which has been discussed is an option, not a recommendation.

What are the precautions in subparagraph 4-282C?

This is to aid pilots in achieving stabilized approaches and reliable touchdown performance to improve landing safety in adverse weather....."

Crutch.

You may not know what I am quoting(no surprise) but it is right in the document I provided the link to.

Call it a crutch or whatever what you like, the FAA has spoken. I suspect they would call you an old school type of pilot unwilling to consider using your automation to enhance safety when approved. Sadly, you are wrong again and can't admit when you are wrong. A significant weakness as a pilot. Anybody reading your earlier quotes can no doubt come to the conclusion that idea of anybody using autoland in the conditions encountered the day of the accident was highly criticized by you with emphasis on the reason being that it was not certified. If that is not what you meant, you need to significantly improve your writing skills.

You wanted to know airline policy....you now have Delta Airlines policy(and their FOM would be FAA approved by the way) and I suspect that you will find a more large airlines have similar policies(I can think of at least one). At Delta, CAT I autolands are approved unless specifically rerstricted. Changing the subject is a frequent tactic of those who have lost the argument. It once again appears that I know more about this stuff than you.

I could call the appropriate FAA inspector to back up their written word but when I did that recently on another thread where you were wrong, you had the gall to badmouth the relevant FAA inspector who had confirmed my position. However, feel free to call the FAA, if you have any more questions. I admit that it would be nice if TC gave as much detailed info as the regulatory authority that actually mostly influences this sort of stuff....the FAA.

Beware of what advice you take.

[altiplano]

Crutch? It's a tool Rockie, nothing else.

In marginal Cat 1 conditions I often consider it, of course with required visual reference. It isn't a statement of my flying skills, but enhancing situational awareness by using the tools available to me.

Not certified? You are using the wrong statement here. It is certified on ILS approaches to the appropriate visual reference (at least on my aircraft). It isn't certified to RVR 600 approaches on Cat 1 beams, but it is certified on Cat 1 installations, of course the pilot needs to be aware of the need to take control as previously mentioned...

Anyway... good luck...

[Rockie]

Yes a crutch. If you need it to land the airplane in 1800 RVR on a CAT I runway after becoming visual you are using it as a crutch. If you want to use it for any reason you do so knowing the runway has none of the mandated features or protections required to support auto land and you take that uncertainty on as an additional factor. I’ve done it myself as I’ve said many times, but if safety is a concern for any reason I do not. It’s a visual landing, and if the visibility is not good enough the only proper response is a go-around.

Pelmet. Still nothing on what airplane you fly, or on what your company policy is regarding this issue or the landing distance one. What I see is an internet guy with little to no experience of his own dispensing bad operational advise to pilots, and all you do to justify it is cherry pick select sentences that seem to support your argument but ignore those that don’t. You offer nothing in the way of personal experience, only the experience of others often cherry picked and regurgitated from safety reports.

Non-fake news flash Pelmet, regulators and individual inspectors get things wrong sometimes. So do manufacturers. If that were not the case procedures would never change, regulations would never change, aircraft would never need modifications and programming would never need updating.

Theory often doesn’t survive contact with the real world intact. You offer nothing but very selective theory,

[altiplano]

First of all I'm not talking about not having required/adequate visual reference for the landing. I said so clearly above I think.

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?!

I mean do you need those tools to land the plane? Sure I can hand fly a raw data approach, but I am a more effective pilot in some, even most circumstances using the appropriate tools available, and suited to the circumstance.

but if safety is a concern for any reason I do not.

Pretty wide open statement... what does that mean exactly? I think all of us want a safe operation.

What about a RVR 1200 Cat 1 landing at the end of a long duty day? Yeah we only go to 1800 now, but 1200 is legal on a Cat 1 in Canada, so it's possible for some and was for us not that long ago...
What if you use autoland then to enhance your awareness?
Monitoring it's performance throughout the flare, landing, and rollout, with visual reference.

I'm sure you would be disconnecting AP/AT at top of descent, FDs off, and driving in err in to prove to everyone your superior skills... "Look Ma' no hands!"...

Give me a break...

[Rockie]

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?!

I have mentioned before that I use the AP below minimums in marginal weather until the runway picture becomes clear. That is using the tools available. I don't see how doing an autoland in visual conditions enhances situational awareness beyond what you already have. Landing in conditions within the wind limits of autoland should present no problem for a suitably qualified pilot, so what is being enhanced? All you've done is introduce the uncertainty and necessity of monitoring the aircraft while it does something it's not certified to do, and the possibility of having to take over manually at an inopportune time or execute an automatic or manual go-around that wasn't necessary. Yes, autoland is within the aircraft "limitations" provided CAT II/II is annunciated, but it's not within the runway's so the manufacturer will wash their hands of it if anything goes wrong. I don't recommend you testing that theory.

I've also been tempted to use autoland when fatigued but that isn't what it's there for is it? Now you're using it as a crutch. If you're landing fatigued there's been a breakdown in the system somewhere and you shouldn't be in the seat in the first place.

[altiplano]

Rockie uses autopilot as a crutch. You should be able to handfly that approach with raw data.

[Rockie]

Rockie uses autopilot as a crutch. You should be able to handfly that approach with raw data.

If necessary, but first a bunch of our other procedures would have to be shed for no good reason, and you know company policy on that I'm sure. Got anything serious to add?

[altiplano]

Seriously, you don't see much sometimes Rockie.

My AOM says specifically that Category 1 approaches to autolands may be conducted. There is no grey area.

It doesn't make me any less of a pilot if, in my judgement, I decide to use the automation available on an occasion.

Just like I don't think less of you for not hand flying every approach and landing despite your bravado.

Good luck...

[Rockie]

Seriously, you don't see much sometimes Rockie.

My AOM says specifically that Category 1 approaches to autolands may be conducted. There is no grey area.

By all means don't take my word for it, ask your chief pilot. See if they don't issue the same caveats I've repeatedly mentioned.

One more thing Altiplano, it isn't bravado to say that if necessary I can hand fly an approach on raw data. It is expected of me...and you. Are you saying you can't?

[altiplano]

No I'm exaggerating your ridiculous claims.

Learn to read instead of talking (writing) so much!

[Rockie]

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.

[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.