Sign in to follow this  
cooperwarner8

Non-ils autoland

Recommended Posts

Hi,

A lot of airports aren't equipped with an ils runway and you have to manual land but is there a way to let the plane follow a glideslope and manual land the last couple hindered feet, or is there a way to bet close to the runway or line up with the runway and manual land the rest of the way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

The first of those would be an RNAV approach, the second would be a VOR, NDB, or LOC approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes in this situation I will use a rnav approach. On the arrivals page when selecting a runway it will say if there are any rnav runways you can use. This should get you lined up pretty well. I was using it at tncm last night for practice landings where they don't have ils. I don't claim to be an expert though and I am still learning.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Let's clarify a thing: autoland is permitted only in aiports equpped with an ILS (apart others requirement i.e. crew training etc) autoland on RNAV, NPA (non precision approaches, of any kind) or any kind of other approach is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN - NOT AUTHORIZED.Or , more simpler to understand: Autopilot is NOT certified to make these kinds of auto-approaches (in fact you can engage dual channel autopilots just for ILS autoland).

 

Best Regards

 

Andrea Buono

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to add to Andrea's post, not all ILSs are created equal. The sim might allow auto land at all of them. Real life... not so much.

 

But Daniel is right. The RNAV is your next best bet. On a couple of random approaches I looked up, they get you down to a minimum of 500' above the airfield.*

 

Mike

 

* yes, I know the mins are given as AMSL. But for the purposes of the exercise, the example will do... ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


not all ILSs are created equal

 

Common misconception, actually.

 

The equipment is predominantly all the same.  The backups, monitoring, clearances, and certification of the installation are what determine the CAT.  That might have been what you were getting at, in general, but I wanted to be sure people wouldn't mis-read what you'd written.

 

 

 

As an example, KBCB could easily throw a glideslope antenna in to make their LOC/DME an ILS, in theory, but the actual restrictive factor is the clearways around the runway.  No difference at all in the LOC array between an ILS and a straight LOC approach, or even the category of ILS.

 

Ever see the "[navaid] unmonitored when airport unattended," or "...ATCT closed?"

 

That's there because that's a critical factor in navaids.  Navaids are no good if they lead you astray.  Monitoring helps to prevent that, and the fault tolerances decrease (become more restrictive) as the CAT increases.

 

Same equipment, though...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Often - but not neccessarilly.

 

Right...

 

The point that I keep trying to drive home, though, is that it's not like people sell the components at a single category.  It's the same thing as Boeing selling a 737.  It's sold as CAT-III capable.  Whether or not you choose to have the agency certify it to that level is up to you, but it's the same plane as the operator who only has it certed to CAT-I, and the other operator who has it certed to CAT-II.

 

People have this idea that there are fundamental differences between these arrays, and there really aren't.  In fact, most manufacturers have a selling point that the units are field-upgradeable to change CATs.  The same arrays can be certed anywhere from CAT-I to CAT-III.

 

...and the kicker?  The plane doesn't know the difference between any of the CATs.

 

 

 

 

...and I love how when people disagree with me, despite my provision of facts, I get a negative rating on my post.  Makes me feel a little like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, ok.... Not all ILSs are certified equal.

 

Better? ;-)

 

I was using the theory that a little inaccuracy (which was still the truth, from a certain point of view) saves a whole lot of explaining. But since you explained it...

 

I can see the need for another disclaimer at the bottom of my posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LPV (localizer performance with vertical guidance) approaches utilizing the Wide Area Augmentation System are designed to be used for CAT IIIC autolands in the future and are completely independent of any ground equipment. The measured accuracy of a WAAS GPS system is less than 1m vertically and horizontally if I'm not wrong. I know Flight1 simulates WAAS approaches in a few of their planes, but i dont think any of them have autoland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've flown (okay, the Korean Captain flew) several CAT I autolands. The SOP was to have both A/P engaged, regardless of whether you were planning an autoland or CAT. I was more comfortable with landing the plane myself, so I usually only did autolands at the CA's request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this