Cirrus Auto Land Questions

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, Bryan said:

No, Cirrus didn't develop the auto land, Garmin did. 

The demonstration video showed the autoland feature on a Piper M600 turboprop.  Yes, the SF50 (Cirrus Jet) is also another airframe expected to be certified for its release as well.

Yes I understand Garmin developed it.  But then each OEM would announce that they plan to include the new technology in their upcoming offerings.  So I ask again, has Cirrus announced that they plan to include the Garmin developed concept to engineer their airplanes to include this technology in new Cirrus?

[Marauder]

47 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

Yes I understand Garmin developed it.  But then each OEM would announce that they plan to include the new technology in their upcoming offerings.  So I ask again, has Cirrus announced that they plan to include the Garmin developed concept to engineer their airplanes to include this technology in new Cirrus?

If you are talking about the piston fleet, then I think it comes down to how much are they willing to spend on certification to modify their piston fleet to have the auto throttles, mixture controls, flaps, etc. to make it work. In addition, you also need the G3000 in the plane to drive it. That package I don't even think is offered in the piston fleet. And if it is, add another zero or two to what you would expect to pay.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cirrus-vision-jet-autoland-safe-return-garmin-photos-2019-11

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2019-11-07/cirrus-certifying-autoland-g2-vision-jet 

The Cirrus Jet makes sense from a cost perspective. And from what I read, is not offer on the G1 series, only G2. So, trade in your 2 year old G1 for that new G2. The same for the Piper turboprop.

[StevenL757]

On 12/15/2019 at 11:56 AM, cliffy said:

1) With triple redundant autoflight systems in CATIII approved aircraft (for Autoland capability) I wonder how the "complexity" of the Cirrus Autoland system will change from the early (now) design until the 3rd or 4th rendition for full certification?

2) With the current 737 MAX situation and the black eye the FAA took with it I wonder how complex the testing and system will eventually be for Cirrus to get it approved EVEN for emergency only use? 

3) With the "Autoland" capability for emergencies, how far of a stretch is it to Normal Full Autoland capability in every day operations for Pt 91 operations?  600 foot RVRs? 

I think you partially nailed it with your first point.  Besides airman qualifications on a per-company basis, aren't some of the aircraft qualifications in our larger transport-category aircraft supposed to include at least two autopilots and a HUD to go down to IIIA, B, or C?  In the Part 91 world, to meet the "airman qualification" equivalents as in the 121/135 world, only an Instrument Rating would be required for now.  Someone more knowledgeable may correct and guide me here, as I'd love to know the answers better as well.

[aviatoreb]

48 minutes ago, Marauder said:

If you are talking about the piston fleet, then I think it comes down to how much are they willing to spend on certification to modify their piston fleet to have the auto throttles, mixture controls, flaps, etc. to make it work. In addition, you also need the G3000 in the plane to drive it. That package I don't even think is offered in the piston fleet. And if it is, add another zero or two to what you would expect to pay.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cirrus-vision-jet-autoland-safe-return-garmin-photos-2019-11

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2019-11-07/cirrus-certifying-autoland-g2-vision-jet 

The Cirrus Jet makes sense from a cost perspective. And from what I read, is not offer on the G1 series, only G2. So, trade in your 2 year old G1 for that new G2. The same for the Piper turboprop.

Right - but I mean in principle the idea of it could trickle down to cheaper installs.  E.g. how about a G3X (G4x?) auto land concept?

[Marauder]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

Right - but I mean in principle the idea of it could trickle down to cheaper installs.  E.g. how about a G3X (G4x?) auto land concept?

Looking at the G3000 and the required airframe changes, it's plausible but highly unlikely. Even on the Cirrus Jet, it isn't currently a retrofit for the G1 series. I think for it to be part of an offering for a piston plane, it would probably be required to be certified that way. I think of all manufacturers to watch, Cirrus makes the most sense. If they begin introducing it on their SR series, then we will know it is possible. I think the price point will become a sticky point for most GA owners.

[Gagarin]

A well polished windshield and good eyeglasses will give you a better view than any of these gadgets. CATIII runways are ground radar monitored to avoid runway collisions with other aircraft taxing through. Trying to land on zero-zero visibility on a non CATIII runway imposes a high risk. The tower controller can not detect airport activity without a ground radar. 

[cliffy]

Well now with ADSB no RADAR is required. All vehicles on major airports have to have ADSB also. SO all that is needed is an ADSB receiver to see where planes and vehicles are. Remember 15 ft accuracy with WAAS.

Like I postulated, going to have to be a new way of thinking in the near future.  

IIRC one didn't need an AP for a HUD CAT III   I believe SouthWest used HUDs for CAT III hand flown at least when I had training in a HUD equipped sim I flew a hand flown CAT III   Actually it was pretty easy but then again in my line flying I flew every 3rd ILS by hand and usually to 50 feet (even CAT Is) just to stay in shape in case I ever had to do it for real. 

Edited December 16, 2019 by cliffy