Ask The Pilot

  • Thread starter Thread starter NM
  • Start date Start date
  • Featured
Thanks jb.

Another question which popped up in my mind about an autoland. Is it a manufacturer or company requirement that you have your hands on the relevant controls when undertaking an autoland? Or does only obvious common sense come in to play.

Thanks again, I hope you have as good a Christmas in London away from family as you can while flying so many others to their own. :)
 
Another question which popped up in my mind about an autoland. Is it a manufacturer or company requirement that you have your hands on the relevant controls when undertaking an autoland? Or does only obvious common sense come in to play.

I should think it's everyone, from the makers, through the regulators, to the companies. And then us.

They don't lose the plot often, but when they do it will be without warning, and very near to the ground.

This is a video of what happens when you don't take control back quickly enough (or at all).
MISSED LANDING Singapore Airlines B777-312ER Munich Airport - YouTube
 
Ask The Pilot

Hi JB,

What are the 'transgressions' that could potentially lead to a pilot's licence cancellation / suspension ?

Would that SQ missed landing in Munich be sufficient for a cancellation to occur ?

How about landing in a wrong (much smaller) airport (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel...s-at-wrong-kansas-airport-20131122-2xz87.html) ?

In that event, does the pilot have any avenue for appeal or the management has the final say ?

Thank you
 
What are the 'transgressions' that could potentially lead to a pilot's licence cancellation / suspension ?

That's really for CASA to say, but I'd suggest that it would be intentionally breaching the aviation laws, and in particular, intentionally operating an aircraft in a dangerous manner.

Would that SQ missed landing in Munich be sufficient for a cancellation to occur ?

No. Nothing intentional. Some retraining is most likely in order. And perhaps a look at the overall airline's SOP.


I don't think that would be all that hard, particularly in such an airport rich environment as the USA. I think a C17 managed it about a year ago. But again, nothing intentional, so whilst the company might have something to say, I don't think the FAA would pull a licence.

In that event, does the pilot have any avenue for appeal or the management has the final say ?

You have to work out who you are talking about. Licences are issued by the regulating authority, i.e. CASA. Their behaviour is much the same as the traffic people with regard to your drivers licence. Break the rules enough times and your licence disappears...

On the other hand, the aircraft are owned by the airlines. They also have to answer to the regulators. So, after any event they will have to show the regulator that they have taken action to reduce the chance of it happening again. Whilst sacking pilots who have made errors is certainly the 'way' of many airlines (i.e. get rid of the culprit and your problem is solved), it does nothing to enhance the overall safety of their operations. But, for many, the appearance of being safe is more than enough.

There is a big difference between making an error, and intentionally breaking the rules. One is an accident going somewhere to happen. The other is everyone.
 
MISSED LANDING Singapore Airlines B777-312ER Munich Airport - YouTube
Hey JB,
What actually happened to the SQ777-312ER? Did it slide off the side or end of the runway?

Markis has given a good reference to the report.

He's basically gone off both sides of the runway.

The reason I mentioned it at all is because it is an example of an autoland gone wrong, that has also been mishandled.

He's done the landing in conditions of Cat I (or better), which means that ATC aren't expecting people to be doing automatic landings, and so are not protecting the ILS areas. That would mean keeping aircraft further back from the runways, and also increasing spacing between aircraft.

A preceding aircraft has passed through the beam as he's arrived in the flare, resulting in the beam bending slightly. The aircraft has done its best, and has turned to follow the beam. At that point he should have instantly pressed the autopilot disconnect and landed the aircraft himself. He supposedly pressed the TO/GA switches after the aircraft has landed (they are disabled at that point)...if he wanted to go around he only needs to push the levers to the firewall...and realistically that option expired as soon as he departed the runway anyway. Basically he seems to have been an automation passenger, perhaps not all that different to Asiana.

Wing drops in the flare happen every day. Crosswinds and wake make for a dynamic environment. A 3º wing drop should have simply been handled....
 
It's worth following Markis10's link, people - the photos of the tyre tracks weaving across the runway are more spectacular then the YouTube suggests...

You're not wrong.

When you pointed to the YT video I watched it and went, "yeah, and??"

It wasn't til later in the video where the guy zoomed in onto the aircraft that you could see the tyres in the dirt. And that surprised me given how much these aircraft weigh, why it didn't turn into a bulldozer of sorts...

Why did he autoland it? Was it a normal routine requirement which happened to coincide on the day or something else?
 
Why did he autoland it? Was it a normal routine requirement which happened to coincide on the day or something else?

Who knows? It certainly wasn't required by the conditions. Doing them in good conditions is done for practice. Given that you can see the runway (and you might not in a Cat III) it's supposed to be easy to correct any faults. If you haven't told ATC, then you'll need to be aware that divergence is not only possible, but quite likely.....
 
Who knows? It certainly wasn't required by the conditions. Doing them in good conditions is done for practice.

Yes, I recall one of your approaches into LHR was under cat 3 conditions (I think it was) and you got good visuals closer to the runway but continued the autoland. Looked quite smooth in the video...
 
Is this the norm (inboards only) re reverse thrust at LAX or fairly common at most airports for landing, I would imagine its to reduce the chance of FOD ingestion ?
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    81.5 KB · Views: 406
Is this the norm (inboards only) re reverse thrust at LAX or fairly common at most airports for landing, I would imagine its to reduce the chance of FOD ingestion ?
I believe the A380 only has reverse thrusters on its inboard engines.
 
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Hi JB and everyone,

So i've got what I think is a dumb question, but it's been niggling at me. You've mentioned airbus (and i'm guessing others) controls essentially dissengage when autopilot is active, ie they don't move with inputs from the autopilot. So what happens when you turn off autopilot? Is the position of the controls matched to the postion of the control surfaces in some way? I'm thinking with the talk before about autothrust, if you essentially had the controls at idle but autothrust was set at 50% (not sure if this is possible) if autothrust disengaged how would you be able to throttle back manually? Similarly if the plane was banking right and you disengaged autopilot given your controls would be centred would the plane right itself rather than continuing the bank? I really hope that question makes enough sense.
Cheers
 
So i've got what I think is a dumb question, but it's been niggling at me. You've mentioned airbus (and i'm guessing others) controls essentially dissengage when autopilot is active, ie they don't move with inputs from the autopilot. So what happens when you turn off autopilot? Is the position of the controls matched to the postion of the control surfaces in some way? I'm thinking with the talk before about autothrust, if you essentially had the controls at idle but autothrust was set at 50% (not sure if this is possible) if autothrust disengaged how would you be able to throttle back manually? Similarly if the plane was banking right and you disengaged autopilot given your controls would be centred would the plane right itself rather than continuing the bank? I really hope that question makes enough sense.

Firstly, no question is dumb. I've regularly had to go back into the manuals to answer what has been asked here....

Airbus and Boeing have a basic disagreement here. In a Boeing, the controls all continue to move with both the autopilot and the autothrust, whilst in the 'bus the joystick just sits there, and the thrust levers sit in a gate and don't move.

When the time comes to disconnect, the Boeings' controls will always be in the right place, so just disconnect and hold them wherever they happen to be, and the transition will be smooth.

The Airbus...well you should make sure that it's not actually 'doing' anything when you disconnect the autopilot. 99% of the time the disconnects occur when wings are level on an approach. Its basic rules are a bit different to a non FBW aircraft...if the aircraft condition is stable (i.e. a level 20º turn) then the joystick would actually be centred anyway. As long as it's not in the process of changing anything, then again, there is literally no transition. Press the A/P disconnect, and don't move the joystick...nothing changes.

Autothrust is different, and it is a gotcha. In a Boeing, the levers are always matched to the power output. There are no gates. When you select TO/GA, the levers motor to the end of their travel. The 'bus, on the other hand, has a couple of gates. From 'IDLE' to 'CLB' is about 95% of the travel, and only comes into play when using manual thrust. Above climb is 'MCT/FLEX' and then 'TO/GA'. If the lever is at TOGA, then the autothrust has no control of the system. If it's at MCT/FLEX, the autothrust only has control if you have an engine out, otherwise it gives you the FMC generated FLEX power. At CLB and below, the autothrust has control, with the lever position limiting its ultimate power. There is little to no reason to use less than CLB with the autothrust still engaged, but that's how it behaves.

Now, to disconnect the autothrust Airbus have installed some nice little red buttons, which happen to be right under your throttle thumb. These are called the 'instinctive' disconnect buttons...but, don't press them. If you do, the power will immediately go to wherever the levers happen to be (99% of the time in the CLB gate). First, you must always pull the levers out of the gate, to match the power with what you're actually using...and then you press the buttons.
 
Airbus and Boeing have a basic disagreement here. In a Boeing, the controls all continue to move with both the autopilot and the autothrust, whilst in the 'bus the joystick just sits there, and the thrust levers sit in a gate and don't move.

When the time comes to disconnect, the Boeings' controls will always be in the right place, so just disconnect and hold them wherever they happen to be, and the transition will be smooth.

The Airbus...well you should make sure that it's not actually 'doing' anything when you disconnect the autopilot. 99% of the time the disconnects occur when wings are level on an approach. Its basic rules are a bit different to a non FBW aircraft...if the aircraft condition is stable (i.e. a level 20º turn) then the joystick would actually be centred anyway. As long as it's not in the process of changing anything, then again, there is literally no transition. Press the A/P disconnect, and don't move the joystick...nothing changes.

JB - As a layman I can't understand the benefit of the Airbus methodology - surely having more information than less is beneficial (ie. feedback through the column, throttles representing actual power output). From reading your comments it seems there's more downside than upside? Given a number of pilots on the 380 would have had a transition such as yours is there a generally-accepted view amongst the pilot community on which manufacturer has the right methodology? Thanks again.
 
JB - As a layman I can't understand the benefit of the Airbus methodology - surely having more information than less is beneficial (ie. feedback through the column, throttles representing actual power output). From reading your comments it seems there's more downside than upside? Given a number of pilots on the 380 would have had a transition such as yours is there a generally-accepted view amongst the pilot community on which manufacturer has the right methodology? Thanks again.

Remember the 380 is really the same as the 320/330/340 and 350.

I actually think the gated thrust levers, and non interlinked joysticks is very poor design. I guess it saved the weight of the servos required to make them move (back when the 320 was designed), and so they've simply stuck with the design ever since. There is no doubt that many pilots, when exposed to this long enough, or as their first airliner, actually think it's a good idea, but I know of nobody who has flown both makes who agrees with it. I expect that AB only ask for input from pilots who have already gone native.

Airbus totally discount the value of feedback, and in their introductory blurb, go to some lengths to point out that thrust lever position is not as good a source of information as the actual gauges. The upshot is that ultimately thrust levers and power settings can become an almost forgotten part of flying, as we've seen in a number of incidents.

Actually I like the overall engineering of the 'bus, but I think the point at which they interface with the pilots (i.e. the coughpit) is the weakest part of their designs. On the other hand, they've been smart enough not to use lithium batteries.....
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.
Back
Top