Yeah I remember us talking about that BT. Normally we don't advise ATC when we do an autoland, and depending on a companies SOP's it is unlikely you would hear when it is happening.
For others benefit since you may already be aware, Calgary doesn't currently have a cat 2 or 3 ils, which allows you to get lower before needing visual contact (on all approaches visual contact is eventually needed, even if an autoland). While some airlines may do autolands to a non cat 2 or 3 runway, most of the time it is not used to cat 1 like in Calgary.
Westjet would only do autolands typically on a cat 2 or 3 approach.
Yeah that was his position, that all landings except the really hard ones are auto, I was pretty sure it was the opposite, that machine landings are only when it's so bad the pilot can't even see the runway.
Though I am surprised at how close to the plane actually touching down the planes are on automatic, most times below 1000' I would not have guessed.
Then I said that control of the margarita machine is fully manual for the entire flight
There is no landing if the pilot doesn't see the runway at minimums (decision height). Pilot is mandated to go-around if runway not in sight.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flacker For This Useful Post:
There is no landing if the pilot doesn't see the runway at minimums (decision height). Pilot is mandated to go-around if runway not in sight.
Category 3c allows no decision landings, whenever it actually comes online and can be used. Best we have in operation is 3b, decision height of 15 metres. The other problem with this is legally getting the plane off the runway and to the gate when the visibility is zero.
Have you guys heard of “The Black Box, Dead Pilots Don’t Talk,” by Capt. Terrance W. MacDonald? Seems interesting. I find safety in the avation industry fascinating (not sure why). I once wrote a paper on SMS and it's downfalls, it doesn't really shield is from problems with smaller operators.
Perhaps when the time comes for new jets, but I don't see them rushing out just because.
Also the range on the current plane is 9,600kms, whereas the C-Series has a range of just shy of 5,500 kms.
So is imagine they'd stick with the Airbus.
Well, the A310 is 9600km range.
But if we have a jet just for the Prime Minister, and not be used as a military transport (which is technically what we have right now), I can see them going with a C-series. 5500km range, but replace parts of the cargo hold with fuel tanks, I would imagine that range could be boosted a fair amount.
Between this thread, a buddy whose into it and my retired father getting way into airplanes I made a couple trips up to the Calgary airport recently to check things out.
Saw a couple interesting ones this afternoon but neither I'm sure are that great to people in this thread but I enjoyed it. I missed a plane by about two minutes, it was flying out to the west just as I arrived. It was this plane... and despite not knowing it existed five minutes ago I was upset I had just missed it. This was.. around 5:30? A guy who had pulled up beside me was beside his self with joy.
