Why would pilots use auto-land?

[Guest JeffHepburn]

Just because the approach requires the use of two autopilots doesn't mean you have to autoland. Just hit the disco bar if you are visual at minimums. :)

[Tabs 2,790]

Cat II does not mean autoland, nor does it mean multiple autopilots. The designation refers to the visibility (1200 feet) and decision height minima (100 feet) of the approach and the accuracy of the runway's LOC and GS signals, not to presence of autoland or multiple autopilots in the aircraft. You could theoretically fly a Cat II approach in a Cessna 172.

[Chaos81 110]

EDIT: I see others beat me to it.

[Chaos81 110]

>Currently the B-747 is the only aircraft that must have>autoland capability to conduct standard CAT II operations (DH>100 and RVR 1200).You beat me to it Michael. Exactly where I was and what I was getting ready to post. ;)Ted,I will also add, that if you read that link Michael provided, it also states, that a even in a 747, CAT II landing CAN be manually conducted as long as there are "higher then standard operating minimums".Oh, and Michael. Nice name. ;)

[michal 44]

By the way I retract what I said above about the Gulfstream G550. G550 with HUD/EVS (Enhanced Vision System) is certfied for CAT II approach, not CAT III. So this aircraft is a perfect example of a GA aircraft with no autoland capable of CAT II. I don't think G550 has even two autopilots but this should be verified.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

[Datalink 26]

OK thanks for clearing that up :-) should have guessed that really with the 4 engines :-)

[jon b 2,041]

>. Cat>II dates back to 1964 and nobody was doing autolands in 1964.November 4 1964 a trident aircraft operated by BEA(now part of BA) was the first commercial aircraft to make an autoland,landing at LHR in 50 yards of fog.The autoland of today was first developed by RAE's (royal aircraft establishment) Blind Landing Experimental Unit (BLEU) in the 1950`s at Farnborough,England.We brits used to lead the world in aircraft and avionic development you know! Now sadly,we only make wings for plastic airplanes:-(regardsJon

[michal 44]

>November 4 1964 a trident aircraft operated by BEA(now part of>BA) was the first commercial aircraft to make an>autoland,landing at LHR in 50 yards of fog.>Thanks Jon for this piece of information. I was wondering myself when the first autoland was demonstrated in practice.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

[Guest Hawkeyeted]

>Currently the B-747 is the only aircraft that must have>autoland capability to conduct standard CAT II operations (DH>100 and RVR 1200).Mike,Perhaps I should have prefaced my posts with "CAT II minimums or less" Your statement above is *partially* true. The B-747 is the only that is authorized to START a CAT II from the beginning. If a B757/767 starts at CAT III, but one A/P fails, it can continue under CAT II requirements, providing CAT II was pre-briefed. B-747 is not the ONLY aircraft authorized to autoland, as your statement would lead one to believe.That said, less than CAT I Still requires autoland. You can't get around it. There is nothing stating that a CAT II or less ILS is a single A/P function. Anything less than CAT I minimums requires at least two autopilots.You are entitled to believe and proliferate what you like.....

[Guest Hawkeyeted]

>Ted,I will also add, that if you read that link Michael>provided, it also states, that a even in a 747, CAT II landing>CAN be manually conducted as long as there are "higher then>standard operating minimums".Mike No. 2,True, providing the pilot can see the runway at the DH. I didn't say that a pilot had to autoland if he could see the runway prior to DH.......

[michal 44]

>You are entitled to believe and proliferate what you>like.....and so are you. You can even correct FAA if it tickles your fancy. You should also put Gulfstream on notice that they dare to sell CAT II certified aircraft that doesn't meet your rules. And even worse - Dassault is selling Falcon 2000 aircarft equipped with the HGS-2850 Head-up guidance system (Rockwell Collins), which allows manually flown CAT III approaches with a decision height as low as 50 ft and runway visual range of only 600 ft. Now this really should not be permitted to continue :-lolMichael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/pmdg_744F.jpghttp://www.hifisim.com/images/asv_beta_member.jpg

[Guest Hawkeyeted]

In your Dassault Falcon, when the pilot is on a CAT III and reaches the AH of 50 ft and doesn't see the runway, what must he do? I'm pretty sure he has to go around. Had Autoland been armed, he could still land even without seeing the runway.The problem here is that you're not L-I-S-T-I-N-I-N-G to me. I didn't say it was an FAA requirement now did I? Autoland is a mode that is armed without the pilots choice when two A/P are monitoring the ILS signal. You can help but be in that mode....in a Boeing jet anyway. Nowhere in this conversation did I say anything about the FAA being wrong either. I'm well aware of the FAA rules, thank you. Please don't try to be a smarta$$. I didn't treat you with disrespect. Don't do it to me.

[Guest Hawkeyeted]

>I'm quite positive my father has flown Cat II approaches>without autoland. Autoland is a very rare thing for him, he>only does it when weather dictates it or if the plane requires>one in normal weather as a currency check on the systems. Cat>II does not mean autoland, nor does it mean multiple>autopilots. The designation refers to the visibility (1200>feet) and decision height minima (100 feet) of the approach>and the accuracy of the runway's LOC and GS signals, not to>presence of autoland or multiple autopilots in the aircraft. >You could theoretically fly a Cat II approach in a Cessna>172.No you can't. There are MEL requirements that the aircraft must meet in order to be certified for CAT II/CAT III landings. CAT II aircraft requirments:

[Chaos81 110]

>>Perhaps I should have prefaced my posts with "CAT II minimums>or less" Your statement above is *partially* true. The B-747>is the only that is authorized to START a CAT II from the>beginning. If a B757/767 starts at CAT III, but one A/P>fails, it can continue under CAT II requirements, providing>CAT II was pre-briefed. B-747 is not the ONLY aircraft>authorized to autoland, as your statement would lead one to>believe.You miss understood that statement. It doesn't say that, "B-747 is not the ONLY aircraft authorized to autoland". It states that the 747 is the only aircraft that MUST have autoland capability, (a working autopilot with autoland ability), to fly a CAT II approach. I take that to mean that other aircraft don't have to have autoland ability, and therefore don't need the autopilot as you have stated.>That said, less than CAT I Still requires autoland. You can't>get around it. There is nothing stating that a CAT II or less>ILS is a single A/P function. Anything less than CAT I>minimums requires at least two autopilots.If you don't believe the FAA documents, hey, more power to you.

[Guest D17S]

The pilot group I work with recently received a communication that 'suggested ' that they needed to hand fly the airplanes more. This automation can get a little too tempting. Do you guys fly on-line? In the sim, especially in a busy VATSIM environment, I very rarely manually fly the airplane. It's just too much to keep track of. When the controller says turn right to 220, I need the airplane to do that so I can stay even one more step ahead of my progressing procedure. It's hard . . but that's the job of a RL pilot. Even watching them do this in RL; Even though I might be sitting in the jump seat hanging right over the pedestal, there's nothing like having to do it yourself to build a real appreciation of what is really going on. The sim has given me an appreciation of workload. I can easily see that it can be real tempting to just spin a knob. It's all I can manage to do. I think this is why the letter to the pilots. It's tempting to them too. We all need to fly the airplane more . . I know I sure do.