A CAT IIIB Appriach in case you haven't seen one...

Mercy.
 
Things you don't want to hear from Bitchin' Betty on a CATII approach: "I'm sorry Dave, but I'm afraid I can't do that"
 
It's even scarier when you've previously watched it completely eff up during a confidence check. No time to fix the problem with the big red button when it's 300RVR!
 
It's just as impressive when you're sitting in the back watching out the side window.
 
Amazing stuff. No matter how many times you do it, it's still impressive.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Things you don't want to hear from Bitchin' Betty on a CATII approach: "I'm sorry Dave, but I'm afraid I can't do that"
Click to expand...
Won't happen. The CAT III auto-land system is very redundant. It's called "fail-operational." At least two auto-pilots operating in series and dual mode. Any single failure won't adversely affect the landing or roll-out. The ILS components are far better than the typical CAT I ILS. Very stable with lots of back up. Below 150 feet, or so, the GS is gradually replaced by the radar altimeters.

I've done them at LAX where we saw nothing until the nose came down. (L-1011). I also flew the 767, but never encounter CAT III weather during that time. Did a lot of auto-lands in both types, though, to maintain qualifications. These days I understand it is mandatory in some circumstances in CAT I weather conditions.
 
I still think about some of the air crash investigations and how when things went bad how some of the flights made it to the ground saving some or all aboard. Probably wouldn't turn out the same in near zero visibility. Everything has to work perfect.

Pretty awesome though!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I've done Cat II at a Regional and as aterpster wrote the operational equipment required and specific pilot SOPs and training are very strict. Cat II is 100' and we would land manually, while Cat III is zero zero and autoland if I understand correctly.
 
Whereupon they probably had to park on the high-speed turnoff and wait for visibility to improve so they could taxi to the gate.
 
It's just Scarebus saying what it thinks of pilots...
 
Gotta ask.......


If we have this capability, why do we need pilots? Serious question.


Seems to me technology is well on track to replace the fleet of aging ATPs. Pilot shortage? Not for long....
 
Unit74 said:
Gotta ask.......


If we have this capability, why do we need pilots? Serious question.
Click to expand...
Would YOU want to be a passenger on an airliner with no one on board who can take the controls when (not if) the A/P craps out?

No technology is failure-proof.

I can't see crewless passenger flights happening in my lifetime...
 
azure said:
Would YOU want to be a passenger on an airliner with no one on board who can take the controls when (not if) the A/P craps out?

No technology is failure-proof.

I can't see crewless passenger flights happening in my lifetime...
Click to expand...

That all depends on your age I guess. I think once automated automobiles take hold, automated, windowless freighters will be much more acceptable to the GP. We are already well tapped into hands off flying as it is.
 
azure said:
Would YOU want to be a passenger on an airliner with no one on board who can take the controls when (not if) the A/P craps out?

No technology is failure-proof.

I can't see crewless passenger flights happening in my lifetime...
Click to expand...
Unit74 said:
Gotta ask.......


If we have this capability, why do we need pilots? Serious question.


Seems to me technology is well on track to replace the fleet of aging ATPs. Pilot shortage? Not for long....
Click to expand...

A CAT III approach that doesn't have a Decision Altitude nonetheless has an Alert Height. If any auto-flight caution or warning appears above AH, a missed approach is usually mandatory. And, depending upon the nature of the failure, the PF may elect a manual go-around. Technology isn't even close to being able to handle such contingencies. And, the weather factor. A thunderstorm somewhere along the missed approach track.
 
Unit74 said:
If we have this capability, why do we need pilots? Serious question.
Click to expand...


Autoland has been around for a loooong time. Some of our airplanes that do this were designed in the 60s. The only thing that's new here is that someone has a GoPro (or whatever) to document it. There's a lot more to the job than flying an ILS down to the runway.
 
Unit74 said:
That all depends on your age I guess. I think once automated automobiles take hold, automated, windowless freighters will be much more acceptable to the GP. We are already well tapped into hands off flying as it is.
Click to expand...
What's age have to do with it? The automated automobile has yet to take hold. There is presently disagreement amongst the experts in that field about standards and target level of safety. I doubt autonomous motor vehicles will be able to achieve the target level of safety (E10-7) required of CAT III fail-active approach and landings in RVR 300 weather conditions.
 
kayoh190 said:
Autoland has been around for a loooong time. Some of our airplanes that do this were designed in the 60s. The only thing that's new here is that someone has a GoPro (or whatever) to document it. There's a lot more to the job than flying an ILS down to the runway.
Click to expand...
Indeed. The L-10ll came into service in 1971, or so. We were doing fail-active CAT III approaches to an AH of 50 feet and RVR of 600 in 1972. The airplane was certified for RVR 300, but the feds didn't have the ground equipment at that time. In fact, there are very few RVR 300 CAT III approaches today. A few, but most are still RVR 600 or 700.
 
Unit74 said:
If we have this capability, why do we need pilots? Serious question.
Click to expand...
All it does is land. Nothing else. The pilots have to set it all up, configure the airplane, ensure that the conditions are within the airplane's capability and all required systems are operational, deploy the reversers, disengage the autobrakes, taxi, etc.

On airplanes with fail-operational autoland the airplane will land and come to a stop on the runway (757/767). The pilots are the "backup system" to the automation for the entire approach down to 100' (Alert Height). It is only from 100' through landing rollout that the system continues the landing (fail-operational) with system failures.

On airplanes with fail-passive autoland (737) the autopilot is disconnected at touchdown and the pilot has to manage the entire landing roll. A 50' Decision Height is required to ensure sufficient visibility for the landing rollout. The pilots are the backup system for the entire approach and landing.

There is no auto taxi nor auto takeoff. No auto configuration. Current VNAV can not consistently make speed and altitude restrictions without pilot intervention. There are no systems to automatically handle system failures. Any of the dozens of warning lights or messages require pilot action. No system that can automatically decide whether to deviate or remain on course. The aircraft currently in service, and currently being built, will never fly pilotless.

These are all issues internal to the aircraft that must be overcome to have a pilotless airliner. There are just as many external issues with ATC, airports, weather, etc. that must be addressed. The infrastructure isn't keeping up with the demands of piloted airliners and hasn't even started to think about what would be required for pilotless ones.

The purpose of autoland is to be able to continue operations when the visibility is too low for pilots to accomplish the landing safely. Autoland doesn't reduce the pilot's workload, it increases it.
 
kayoh190 said:
Autoland has been around for a loooong time. Some of our airplanes that do this were designed in the 60s.
Click to expand...

I think the C-141 had autoland. I recall a 141 pilot telling me about how weird it was just sitting there, hands ready to grab the controls. Not sure what plane first had autoland.
 
mscard88 said:
I've done Cat II at a Regional and as aterpster wrote the operational equipment required and specific pilot SOPs and training are very strict. Cat II is 100' and we would land manually, while Cat III is zero zero and autoland if I understand correctly.
Click to expand...

It's always a rush flying Cat II approaches. I'm hair triggered to hit TOGA at 100' if the captain doesn't say anything. It surprised me the first time I did a "touch & go" during a missed Cat II.
 
Larry in TN said:
On airplanes with fail-operational autoland the airplane will land and come to a stop on the runway (757/767). The pilots are the "backup system" to the automation for the entire approach down to 100' (Alert Height). It is only from 100' through landing rollout that the system continues the landing (fail-operational) with system failures.
Click to expand...

That's about all that has been gained in the last 30 years: Alert Height of 100 instead of 50 feet.
 
The next step will be the single pilot cockpit with the PNF there to watch the automation do the flying. That will come sooner than you can blink.
Shortly after that will come automated cargo, probably either UPS or FedEx and only to selected airports with a remote pilot monitoring it.
The military is beginning to spit out well trained remote pilots as they either burn out or retire - that being noticed by the big players is a sure bet.
After that it will spread slowly, but inevitably to the self loading cargo.
Those of you with a 30 year horizon face the almost certainty that you will be laid off before you retire due to not needing as many pilots.
These are all predictable trends just by looking at the big picture.
Those of you with your heads up your, uuuh, check list probably can't see it ;)
 
Dr. O said:
The next step will be the single pilot cockpit with the PNF there to watch the automation do the flying. That will come sooner than you can blink.
Click to expand...
I've been having this discussion for over 25 years. Back then it was on the Travel Forum on Compuserve.

Navigation has improved over that time frame but little to no movement toward eliminating either of the two pilots. The trend has been just the opposite. We have improved the techniques for integrating the two-man crew with CRM, threat/error management, VVM, etc. which has resulted in the significantly improved safety record over the past few decades.

Airlines don't implement new, expensive technology unless they are required to do it or it saves them money. It is going to take quite a few more "blinks" before such an investment is either required (because it makes the operation significantly safer) or it saves money. Even then, the new airplanes that are flying now and being delivered for at least the next ten years will be two-pilot airplanes which will have a lifespan of at least twenty-five years. Neither a single-pilot nor pilotless airliner is on the drawing board today. The 787, the most recently certified new airliner, took nearly ten years from program launch to first commercial flight and was then promptly grounded due to battery fires. A single or no-pilot airliner will be a much bigger technological step than the 787 was and will also require significant infrastructure build-out external to the airplane itself. How long has Next Gen ATC been under development?

I think I'll be long retired by the time you're through blinking.
 
Larry in TN said:
I've been having this discussion for over 25 years. Back then it was on the Travel Forum on Compuserve.

Navigation has improved over that time frame but little to no movement toward eliminating either of the two pilots. The trend has been just the opposite. We have improved the techniques for integrating the two-man crew with CRM, threat/error management, VVM, etc. which has resulted in the significantly improved safety record over the past few decades.

Airlines don't implement new, expensive technology unless they are required to do it or it saves them money. It is going to take quite a few more "blinks" before such an investment is either required (because it makes the operation significantly safer) or it saves money. Even then, the new airplanes that are flying now and being delivered for at least the next ten years will be two-pilot airplanes which will have a lifespan of at least twenty-five years. Neither a single-pilot nor pilotless airliner is on the drawing board today. The 787, the most recently certified new airliner, took nearly ten years from program launch to first commercial flight and was then promptly grounded due to battery fires. A single or no-pilot airliner will be a much bigger technological step than the 787 was and will also require significant infrastructure build-out external to the airplane itself. How long has Next Gen ATC been under development?

I think I'll be long retired by the time you're through blinking.
Click to expand...

Correct on all counts.
 
I've done about five CAT 3B approaches in the real world in the 29 years. There are no 3C approaches approved for any carriers that I know of. I've done them in a 757 and 767 and now my present plane, the MD11. Minimums are a 100 foot radar Alert Height with several parameters that must be met or a go around is mandatory and even then a touchdown is probable. The last item is at 45 feet radar and the F/O is supposed to call out NO FLARE if annunciated and no rollout if that is shown (Captain takes overs manually for rollout). The vis requirement for a 3B approach is 300 RVR.
The approach is busy and you are on the edge because tolerances are very tight. The airplane has to be tested every thirty five days and we do a practice approach as part of that certification.
 
aterpster said:
A CAT III approach that doesn't have a Decision Altitude nonetheless has an Alert Height. If any auto-flight caution or warning appears above AH, a missed approach is usually mandatory. And, depending upon the nature of the failure, the PF may elect a manual go-around. Technology isn't even close to being able to handle such contingencies. And, the weather factor. A thunderstorm somewhere along the missed approach track.
Click to expand...
We practice this is the sim. Generally we slam into the runway as the engines spool.
 
MD11Pilot said:
I've done about five CAT 3B approaches in the real world in the 29 years. There are no 3C approaches approved for any carriers that I know of. I've done them in a 757 and 767 and now my present plane, the MD11. Minimums are a 100 foot radar Alert Height with several parameters that must be met or a go around is mandatory and even then a touchdown is probable. The last item is at 45 feet radar and the F/O is supposed to call out NO FLARE if annunciated and no rollout if that is shown (Captain takes overs manually for rollout). The vis requirement for a 3B approach is 300 RVR.
The approach is busy and you are on the edge because tolerances are very tight. The airplane has to be tested every thirty five days and we do a practice approach as part of that certification.
Click to expand...
Exactly correct, although our "no flare" call is at 40'. By the time you can react, and the PF push the levers, we hit the ground.
The hard part is that it's a "non annouciater" call. You need to wait until you DON'T see the "flare" announciation.
 
Unit74 said:
Gotta ask.......


If we have this capability, why do we need pilots? Serious question.


Seems to me technology is well on track to replace the fleet of aging ATPs. Pilot shortage? Not for long....
Click to expand...
It doesn't put the gear or flaps down. Nor does it know how to speed up or slow down when it's told to do something that's not in the box.

If a missed approach is ordered all it knows to do is the published missed - how many times have you actually done what's published ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top