Sfrgttk

Why does RAM (any type) access time decrease so slowly?

How to not forget my phone in the bathroom?

A dragon's soul trapped in a ring of mind shielding wants a new body; what magic could enable her to do so?

How to know if I am a 'Real Developer'

Badly designed reimbursement form. What does that say about the company?

How should I ship cards?

Why is autolanding ILS a thing, but not autotakeoffing ITS?

What prevents people from lying about where they live in order to reduce state income taxes?

Substitute ./ and ../ directories by actual names

Why does finding small effects in large studies indicate publication bias?

Headless horseman claims new head

Apparently I’m calling random numbers but there's nothing in the call log

Why Third 'Reich'? Why is 'reich' not translated when 'third' is? What is the English synonym of reich?

How bad is a Computer Science course that doesn't teach Design Patterns?

Is candidate anonymity at all practical?

Does an increasing sequence of reals converge if the difference of consecutive terms approaches zero?

What have we got?

Negotiating 1-year delay to my Assistant Professor Offer

Is there a technology capable of disabling the whole of Earth's satellitle network?

Someone wants me to use my credit card at a card-only gas/petrol pump in return for cash

Why is it a problem for Freddie if the guys from Munich did what he wanted?

How to play song that contains one guitar when we have two guitarists (or more)?

What is the Guild Die for?

Identical projects by students at two different colleges: still plagiarism?

Why is autolanding ILS a thing, but not autotakeoffing ITS?

Why can a plane land in zero visibility conditions but not take off in zero visibility?Could aircraft already do a safe auto-takeoff with todays equipment?Why is there a disparity in the conversion from runway visual range (RVR) to statute miles?How does a HUD track a runway?How can landing in zero visibility be safe?What does “S-ILS” signify in an FAA NOTAM?Why are aircraft external lights round, not tear-drop shaped?Which airports have ILS Cat IIIC?Why is this VDP not authorized?Why do double-ended ILS runway share the same frequency from both sides?Why is my Garmin GFC 700 wandering a lot laterally on an ILS approach?Why can a plane land in zero visibility conditions but not take off in zero visibility?Why some US STAR fixes/waypoints are included in FAA's legacy files but not in FAA's published STAR procedures?Why is there no instrument taxi system for low-visibility operations?

2

$begingroup$

In this answer to the question of why zero-visibility landings are legal and routine but not zero-visibility takeoffs, the poster makes the following point:

When an aircraft lands in near zero visibility, it is a fully automated process that is actually done without input from the pilot. The pilots are only needed to taxi off the runway and park the aircraft. It is called "Autoland" and many of today's aircraft have it.

As of today no manufacturer has designed an aircraft with "Auto Takeoff" but I suppose it is not impossible.

(Emphasis added.)

Which seems odd, given that autolanding with an ILS is a mature technique using mature technology, and autotakeoffing with an ITS (instrument takeoff system) wouldn’t need much more on top of that (just some additional antennae on the aircraft’s tail and a couple new routines for the autopilot) - it’d mostly be pretty much an ILS running in reverse, something like this:

What’s the dealbreaker for an autotakeoff-supporting instrument takeoff system?

takeoff autopilot instrument-procedures visibility

share|improve this question

asked 3 hours ago

SeanSean

4,68322459

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  A failure, like a tire blowing or engine fire requires pilot intervention immediately. It would be better if the pilot as at the controls when it happened rather than having to disengage the automatic systems and play "catch up" with flying the plane. I'm sure this will get there at some point, but right now it's just better to have your hands on the controls and mind in the game during this critical phase.
  $endgroup$
  – Ron Beyer
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @RonBeyer: Couldn't an autopilot be programmed to react to a failure like an flaming engine or exploding tyre, and do so more quickly than a human pilot could ever hope to do (like how we already have autospeedbrakedeployment for rejected takeoffs)?
  $endgroup$
  – Sean
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Possible duplicate of Could aircraft already do a safe auto-takeoff with todays equipment?
  $endgroup$
  – Pondlife
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

2

$begingroup$

In this answer to the question of why zero-visibility landings are legal and routine but not zero-visibility takeoffs, the poster makes the following point:

When an aircraft lands in near zero visibility, it is a fully automated process that is actually done without input from the pilot. The pilots are only needed to taxi off the runway and park the aircraft. It is called "Autoland" and many of today's aircraft have it.

As of today no manufacturer has designed an aircraft with "Auto Takeoff" but I suppose it is not impossible.

(Emphasis added.)

Which seems odd, given that autolanding with an ILS is a mature technique using mature technology, and autotakeoffing with an ITS (instrument takeoff system) wouldn’t need much more on top of that (just some additional antennae on the aircraft’s tail and a couple new routines for the autopilot) - it’d mostly be pretty much an ILS running in reverse, something like this:

What’s the dealbreaker for an autotakeoff-supporting instrument takeoff system?

takeoff autopilot instrument-procedures visibility

share|improve this question

asked 3 hours ago

SeanSean

4,68322459

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  A failure, like a tire blowing or engine fire requires pilot intervention immediately. It would be better if the pilot as at the controls when it happened rather than having to disengage the automatic systems and play "catch up" with flying the plane. I'm sure this will get there at some point, but right now it's just better to have your hands on the controls and mind in the game during this critical phase.
  $endgroup$
  – Ron Beyer
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  @RonBeyer: Couldn't an autopilot be programmed to react to a failure like an flaming engine or exploding tyre, and do so more quickly than a human pilot could ever hope to do (like how we already have autospeedbrakedeployment for rejected takeoffs)?
  $endgroup$
  – Sean
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Possible duplicate of Could aircraft already do a safe auto-takeoff with todays equipment?
  $endgroup$
  – Pondlife
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

In this answer to the question of why zero-visibility landings are legal and routine but not zero-visibility takeoffs, the poster makes the following point:

When an aircraft lands in near zero visibility, it is a fully automated process that is actually done without input from the pilot. The pilots are only needed to taxi off the runway and park the aircraft. It is called "Autoland" and many of today's aircraft have it.

As of today no manufacturer has designed an aircraft with "Auto Takeoff" but I suppose it is not impossible.

(Emphasis added.)

Which seems odd, given that autolanding with an ILS is a mature technique using mature technology, and autotakeoffing with an ITS (instrument takeoff system) wouldn’t need much more on top of that (just some additional antennae on the aircraft’s tail and a couple new routines for the autopilot) - it’d mostly be pretty much an ILS running in reverse, something like this:

What’s the dealbreaker for an autotakeoff-supporting instrument takeoff system?

takeoff autopilot instrument-procedures visibility

share|improve this question

asked 3 hours ago

SeanSean

4,68322459

$endgroup$

share|improve this question

asked 3 hours ago

SeanSean

4,68322459

share|improve this question

asked 3 hours ago

SeanSean

4,68322459

asked 3 hours ago

SeanSean

4,68322459

asked 3 hours ago

SeanSean

4,68322459

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

3

$begingroup$

You don't need the radar altimeter / reverse glide slope system, at all. The energy management required and the trimming are not easy and are in fact unsafe (you need to keep climbing at the best climb rate, in case of say birds). All you need is lateral guidance. Once you are wheels off, you are wheels off, continue the climb via the SID, for example, and be on your way (IFR flying).

Auto land category III B requires a minimum RVR (runway visual range) of 50/75-200 m (depending on the jurisdiction).

What if I told you LVTO (low visibility take-off) is a thing, and can go as low as 75 m RVR – as good as many CAT III B installations.

Here's a nice table from ICAO's Doc 9365 (Manual of All-Weather Operations):

Same as auto land, if you (the carrier and crew) and the plane are certified and current, and the right airport equipment (e.g., RVR transmissometers, runway lights, etc.) and procedures exist, you're good to go – only difference is that it'll be manual flying.

For the lateral guidance, localizers (or GLS) are in fact used for LVTO. (See: How does a HUD track a runway?)

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

ymb1ymb1

65.6k6210348

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The RVR/VIS numbers are a bit surprising. Usually the RVR and visibility are equal (300m ≅ 1,000ft, 150m ≅ 500ft) or almost so (500m ≅ 1,640ft, 400m ≅ 1300ft, 200m ≅ 660ft, 125m ≅ 410ft) with the visibility even rounded down, but for the lowest case the visibility is more as 300ft ≅ 90m.
  $endgroup$
  – Jan Hudec
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Good observation @JanHudec - see here: aviation.stackexchange.com/q/30476/14897
  $endgroup$
  – ymb1
  50 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

2

$begingroup$

Autoland exists at least in part because a pilot can't safely hit (the right part of) the runway (at the right speed and attitude) without visual references, so a lot of precision electronic guidance equipment is needed, and then even more equipment to ensure the first equipment is working correctly.

In contrast, the sky is much bigger than the runway. It's comparatively easy for the pilot to hit the sky even without visual references (provided vis is good enough to taxi out). So none of that fancy stuff is necessary.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

pericynthionpericynthion

2,2311017

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f60353%2fwhy-is-autolanding-ils-a-thing-but-not-autotakeoffing-its%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

3

$begingroup$

You don't need the radar altimeter / reverse glide slope system, at all. The energy management required and the trimming are not easy and are in fact unsafe (you need to keep climbing at the best climb rate, in case of say birds). All you need is lateral guidance. Once you are wheels off, you are wheels off, continue the climb via the SID, for example, and be on your way (IFR flying).

Auto land category III B requires a minimum RVR (runway visual range) of 50/75-200 m (depending on the jurisdiction).

What if I told you LVTO (low visibility take-off) is a thing, and can go as low as 75 m RVR – as good as many CAT III B installations.

Here's a nice table from ICAO's Doc 9365 (Manual of All-Weather Operations):

Same as auto land, if you (the carrier and crew) and the plane are certified and current, and the right airport equipment (e.g., RVR transmissometers, runway lights, etc.) and procedures exist, you're good to go – only difference is that it'll be manual flying.

For the lateral guidance, localizers (or GLS) are in fact used for LVTO. (See: How does a HUD track a runway?)

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

ymb1ymb1

65.6k6210348

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The RVR/VIS numbers are a bit surprising. Usually the RVR and visibility are equal (300m ≅ 1,000ft, 150m ≅ 500ft) or almost so (500m ≅ 1,640ft, 400m ≅ 1300ft, 200m ≅ 660ft, 125m ≅ 410ft) with the visibility even rounded down, but for the lowest case the visibility is more as 300ft ≅ 90m.
  $endgroup$
  – Jan Hudec
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Good observation @JanHudec - see here: aviation.stackexchange.com/q/30476/14897
  $endgroup$
  – ymb1
  50 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

3

$begingroup$

You don't need the radar altimeter / reverse glide slope system, at all. The energy management required and the trimming are not easy and are in fact unsafe (you need to keep climbing at the best climb rate, in case of say birds). All you need is lateral guidance. Once you are wheels off, you are wheels off, continue the climb via the SID, for example, and be on your way (IFR flying).

Auto land category III B requires a minimum RVR (runway visual range) of 50/75-200 m (depending on the jurisdiction).

What if I told you LVTO (low visibility take-off) is a thing, and can go as low as 75 m RVR – as good as many CAT III B installations.

Here's a nice table from ICAO's Doc 9365 (Manual of All-Weather Operations):

Same as auto land, if you (the carrier and crew) and the plane are certified and current, and the right airport equipment (e.g., RVR transmissometers, runway lights, etc.) and procedures exist, you're good to go – only difference is that it'll be manual flying.

For the lateral guidance, localizers (or GLS) are in fact used for LVTO. (See: How does a HUD track a runway?)

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

ymb1ymb1

65.6k6210348

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  The RVR/VIS numbers are a bit surprising. Usually the RVR and visibility are equal (300m ≅ 1,000ft, 150m ≅ 500ft) or almost so (500m ≅ 1,640ft, 400m ≅ 1300ft, 200m ≅ 660ft, 125m ≅ 410ft) with the visibility even rounded down, but for the lowest case the visibility is more as 300ft ≅ 90m.
  $endgroup$
  – Jan Hudec
  1 hour ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  Good observation @JanHudec - see here: aviation.stackexchange.com/q/30476/14897
  $endgroup$
  – ymb1
  50 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

You don't need the radar altimeter / reverse glide slope system, at all. The energy management required and the trimming are not easy and are in fact unsafe (you need to keep climbing at the best climb rate, in case of say birds). All you need is lateral guidance. Once you are wheels off, you are wheels off, continue the climb via the SID, for example, and be on your way (IFR flying).

Auto land category III B requires a minimum RVR (runway visual range) of 50/75-200 m (depending on the jurisdiction).

What if I told you LVTO (low visibility take-off) is a thing, and can go as low as 75 m RVR – as good as many CAT III B installations.

Here's a nice table from ICAO's Doc 9365 (Manual of All-Weather Operations):

Same as auto land, if you (the carrier and crew) and the plane are certified and current, and the right airport equipment (e.g., RVR transmissometers, runway lights, etc.) and procedures exist, you're good to go – only difference is that it'll be manual flying.

For the lateral guidance, localizers (or GLS) are in fact used for LVTO. (See: How does a HUD track a runway?)

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

ymb1ymb1

65.6k6210348

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

ymb1ymb1

65.6k6210348

answered 2 hours ago

ymb1ymb1

65.6k6210348

answered 2 hours ago

ymb1ymb1

65.6k6210348

2

$begingroup$

Autoland exists at least in part because a pilot can't safely hit (the right part of) the runway (at the right speed and attitude) without visual references, so a lot of precision electronic guidance equipment is needed, and then even more equipment to ensure the first equipment is working correctly.

In contrast, the sky is much bigger than the runway. It's comparatively easy for the pilot to hit the sky even without visual references (provided vis is good enough to taxi out). So none of that fancy stuff is necessary.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

pericynthionpericynthion

2,2311017

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

2

$begingroup$

Autoland exists at least in part because a pilot can't safely hit (the right part of) the runway (at the right speed and attitude) without visual references, so a lot of precision electronic guidance equipment is needed, and then even more equipment to ensure the first equipment is working correctly.

In contrast, the sky is much bigger than the runway. It's comparatively easy for the pilot to hit the sky even without visual references (provided vis is good enough to taxi out). So none of that fancy stuff is necessary.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

pericynthionpericynthion

2,2311017

$endgroup$

add a comment | 

$begingroup$

Autoland exists at least in part because a pilot can't safely hit (the right part of) the runway (at the right speed and attitude) without visual references, so a lot of precision electronic guidance equipment is needed, and then even more equipment to ensure the first equipment is working correctly.

In contrast, the sky is much bigger than the runway. It's comparatively easy for the pilot to hit the sky even without visual references (provided vis is good enough to taxi out). So none of that fancy stuff is necessary.

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

pericynthionpericynthion

2,2311017

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

pericynthionpericynthion

2,2311017

answered 2 hours ago

pericynthionpericynthion

2,2311017

answered 2 hours ago

pericynthionpericynthion

2,2311017