Scudrunners

[quote author=Liquid Charlie link=topic=4717.msg12264#msg12264 date=1478092451]A GA is the most difficult exercise, especially in heavy metal. That is why there is a reluctance to do so and that is why people try and hang on and hope a long landing works out.[/quote]

I don't agree - it's not that different from a normal take-off except that you start from a point above the ground.

I won't hesitate to make a go-around if required. I was averaging 1 a year at my former employer - never heard a word about any of them.

Every employer I've worked for has had a "no fault" go-around policy. At my present employer this is in bold text in our Airline Policy:-
[b]
A clearance for an approach is also a clearance for a go-around.[/b]

[quote author=Slick Goodlin link=topic=4717.msg12266#msg12266 date=1478100906]
I have basically zero time with Otto doing the work, let alone landing, but my assumption is that auto land would just use my favourite short field technique: just klomp it on.  With wheels on the ground you can do such things as apply brakes, use reverse, and reduce speed below Vs, many of which are typically required to exit at the most convenient taxiway rather than through the lights and fence.

In any case, the person responsible for the airplane has to have a series of targets to meet and plans in place in case a target gets missed that they are willing to execute without hesitation.  Come to think of it, this *might* be one of those defining points of what a pilot has to do, regardless of type.

I do reserve the right to be wrong on this one.  Anyone care to set me straight on the machine's process and logic that it applies to an auto landing?
[/quote]

When doing a landing calculation for the airbus an autoland requires us to [b]add[/b] extra distance for the calculation. It is not a short field technique of any kind. The aircraft may float slightly depending on conditions.

In addition we have the following autoland limits

Headwind 25 knots
Tailwind  10 knots
Crosswind 20 knots

Normally the only time we do an autoland is if we have weather conditions below Cat 1 limits.

[quote author=Eric Janson link=topic=4717.msg12270#msg12270 date=1478104840]
When doing a landing calculation for the airbus an autoland requires us to [b]add[/b] extra distance for the calculation. It is not a short field technique of any kind. The aircraft may float slightly depending on conditions.
[/quote]
I see now I could have communicated that one better.  What I meant was that I have a hard time picturing the machine burning up thousands of feet of runway fishing for a greaser.  Maybe it sometimes does, I don't know.

[quote author=Eric Janson link=topic=4717.msg12270#msg12270 date=1478104840]
Normally the only time we do an autoland is if we have weather conditions below Cat 1 limits.
[/quote]
Makes enough sense.  Thanks for your answer on all this.

I guess I should of qualified my statement and said low level (less than 50') or on the ground. Of course a GA is a normal part of the day done from a missed approach point or mda.

Was under impression " 50' " was further along (with reference to YYZ overrun) than normal, but I could be wrong; what was laid out in the report was the stronger component change to negative also on the runway after the delayed touchdown from already high groundspeed out of severe shear earlier on short final. This affected the early roll a lot (things happening faster); then with or without the "autoland" a goaround may have become too risky for them just at the point of touchdown ... if the only other option was a take-off back up into the nasty storm (rapidly developing wx change for the worse) that started encroaching the airport area near the end of their appoach.

[quote][font=verdana][size=1em]Was under impression " 50' " was further along (with reference to YYZ overrun) than normal, but I could be wrong; what was laid out in the report was the stronger component change to negative also on the runway after the delayed touchdown from already high groundspeed out of severe shear earlier on short final. This affected the early roll a lot (things happening faster); then with or without the "autoland" a goaround may have become too risky for them just at the point of touchdown ... if the only other option was a take-off back up into the nasty storm (rapidly developing wx change for the worse) that started encroaching the airport area near the end of their appoach.[/size][/font][/quote]


I agree and that's why they pay us the big bucks. When the shit hits the fan the options are presented with very little time to react. Cranbrook was mentioned. They obviously should have stayed on the ground. Interesting fact about that accident. Boeing immediately went to the simulator, bodies still warm to prove the aircraft could be flown with a reverser deployed. This was just to cover their ass in litigation. Cold bastards.


I have always gone by "if you are on the ground, you stay there and take your lumps" but to continue a fucked up approach and not be stabilized and to overshoot your touch down point (badly) is in all a different story. In this particular case. He did the right thing by staying on the ground but that was likely the first correct decision made from threshold on. An old ww2 instructor once said to me "runway behind you and altitude above are the 2 most useless things in the world" Just plant the fucker and be done with it. I see it every day, guys floating forever. damn

[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=4717.msg12261#msg12261 date=1478067391]
Anyone remember the Boeing that plugged up
the fuel system with ice (due to a design flaw)
and crashed at LHR a few years back?

The pilot was crucified and hung out to dry, I
might add.  He committed the terrible sin of
decreasing the flaps slightly on final, which
horror of horrors, wasn't anywhere in the paper.

After months of calculations, the accident board
grudgingly admitted that his unauthorized reduction
in flap on final after double engine failure allowed
the aircraft to clear the obstacles and likely saved
lives.

So, he brilliantly did the right thing under great
pressure and time constraints, but because it was
"against the book", he was villified.

What a great industry.
[/quote]

I don't think this is correct. I certainly don't remember the Captain being vilified. I do remember him being praised for reducing the flap allowing the aircraft to make it to the airport. That was acknowledged very early on if I recall.

The Captain did resign but BA subsequently hired him back as Captain and he retained his seniority.

It was soon realized he was being falsely opposed on the "brilliant" idea about the 'flap reduction for distance' (fast thinking to save lives), .. which i remember took about as long as it was to first hear of how " ice crystals reduced fuel supply".


That's sort of how Sully might have thought his career was over ... and suddenly there's the mayor handing over keys to the city,    ??? .