AirBear

https://livefromalounge.com/airbus-a...ot-operations/

Now this isn't just one pilot on the entire jet, they want to have just one pilot in the cockpit during cruise. That will reduce the total number of pilots required for a trip.

Camel's nose is sniffing around the tent.

Joachim

Don't worry. The FAA will never sign off after they see my skills on hour eight after a 90 minute nap at 2 am.

FXLAX

The FAA had you at, “after they see my skills…” couldn’t help it. Jk

opt0712

FAA:

"Pilots need to handfly more, there's too much reliance on automation!"

​​​​​Also FAA:

"Pilots can't handfly! We need more automation to help with their dwindling abilities!"

*MCAS HAS ENTERED THE CHAT*
​

Hawkerdriver1

Autonomous operations are already a reality to space & back. The more expensive single & multi engine private aircraft can now land themselves just with the push of a button. Redundancy is getting so good that it can’t be ignored.

Ironically, the exclusion of available technology, when It matters most, shouldn’t be overlooked. . The 747-400 overrun into Halifax, a while back, would never have occurred had the captain chosen to utilize the auto land 3 capability of the aircraft when it commenced an ILS approach to a shorter runway.

HPIC

I assume you’re referring to the Skylease 747-400 in Nov 2018. Had the crew used auto land, the landing distance would have likely been increased by 1,000ft…per the autoland performance calculation requirements. How would this have helped?

The problem was that after touchdown, the #1 thrust lever was advanced to a position that disabled the auto brakes and auto speed brakes and the thrust reversers were not utilized correctly. The end result was a severe lack of deceleration that caused them to run off the end of the runway. Of course, the lateral drift on touchdown and rollout didn’t help the situation…and perhaps autoland would have remedied that…but I seriously doubt it would have prevented the overrun.

There were a lot of poor choices made…but I don’t think that utilizing an autoland would have resulted in a better outcome. The thrust levers are still controlled solely by the PF after touchdown and would likely have resulted in a similar end result.

opt0712

Autoland landing distances are calculated with an INCREASED performance penalty. Maybe stick to the biz jets.

maxjet

I agree with your general premise as it factors an additional 1000-1500 for touchdown float. However if the runway was contaminated adding the thrust reversers would more than make up for the penalty. Reversers only take away 100 feet or so on a dry runway. They get way better as braking actions become worse.

In their case the 11 knot tailwind may have exceeded their op spec for auto landing and 23 had no ILS. As you know, unlike some biz jets,
you cannot build an approach and auto land. So yes, I again agree he should stick to biz jets (:

AYLflyer

Space travel has always had autonomy, since the days of Gemini/Apollo. That doesn't mean that just because we can operate 2 or 3 space craft at one time autonomously, that we can suddenly, and should start operating thousands and thousands of airliners autonomously on Earth over populated areas.

I honestly do not understand this obsession people have with single pilot ops or no pilots ops. We have fully staffed/crewed container ships criss-crossing literally thousands of miles of wide open oceans. I see nothing on the near horizon where those will be "Single sailor" operated, yet for some reason (money) single pilot ops is constantly pushed so we can operate a more crowded sky with less oversight from a crew.

cougar

The increase in landing distance using autoland for the 747-400 is due to the AFM statement that when using auto brakes with autoland operations, touchdown should be assumed to occur at 2500 feet from the runway threshold. The 747-400 was certified under 25-7 when the flare distance was 4 seconds, or approximately 1000 feet and the associated advisory landing distances in the FCOM were based on the 1000' touchdown. After TALPA-ARC, the FCOM now includes the 1500' touchdown recommendation. As such, the autoland distances add 1000' or 1500', depending on whether the advisory distances are non-TALPA (unfactored) or TALPA. Western Global was not using the TALPA distances (factored). An amendment to Part 25 around 2011 changed the way AFM air distance is calculated. As such, later Boeing models use a flare time rather than a fixed distance. For the 747-8, the landing distances assume a 7 second flare distance. Thus the heavier the landing weight, the longer the flare distance. Due to this, the AFM doesn't include any additive for autoland distances.