dog can you tell me how many meters you can see outside those windows cause it's def not anywhere close to 200. I doubt they could see the aircrafts nose.
Well, the pilots will see a lot more than this camera position and when the nose is lowered you see plenty of runway lights. You can definitely see a total of 3, pretty much about 4 runway edge lights. Runway edge lights are spaced 60 meters apart. So 3 lights visible is roughly 180m visibility with 4 at 240m.
Ladies and gentleman this is your captain speaking. After a thorough assesment we can now confirm that we indeed landed on the runway. Thank you for your attention.
While CAT-IIIc (no decision height and no required visibility) exists, in practice, CAT-IIIb is the limit. There isnât a solution right now for taxiing in zero visibility, so the floor is generally the 150 ft/50 m limit of CAT-IIIb.
That is not true. Every instrument clearance has obstacle clearance requirements. You have to be able to able to climb at a certain gradient. Sometimes it is steep.
Planes have to remain extra clear of the ILS transmitters (to not disrupt their signals), so there are special hold lines further back from the runway.
Takeoff minimums are more constraining than ILS minimums, you need 1 mile of visibility for takeoff and less than that for most ILS approaches
Takeoff minimums are more constraining than ILS minimums, you need 1 mile of visibility for takeoff and less than that for most ILS approaches
That's not really true.
With some simulator training, we only need 125m RVR for takeoff on most runways that have suitable lights (15m centerline spacing) without any special equipment on the aircraft, and if we have a HUD and the runways has an ILS (for localizer guidance), this goes down to 75m, which is the equivalent to lowest possible Cat 3 minimums.
Autoland on modern airliner is more capable than the HUD, and assuming the airport+aircraft+airline have the appropriate equipment and certification, you donât need to see anything at all outside before touchdown.
Every runway that supports low visibility operation will have an ILS (or some GLS, but let's leave that aside to not complicate it further) installation, which means that at the end of the runway there is an antenna, which shows the pilot (or the autopilot) how the aircraft is positioned in respect of the runway (extended) centerline. Then near the touchdown point there is a glideslope antenna, which shows the (auto)pilot how well the aircraft is positioned in the vertical plane compared to a (usually) 3 degree glide path.
So this gets you reliably down to 200ft without any special magic. Below 200ft, you also need to know how very accurately how high you are above the ground. The barometric altimeter is not accurate enough for this, so aircraft have two radio altimeters, which send signals from antenna on the bottom of the fuselage to the ground, wait for the reflection from the ground, and they can measure actual height above the ground in real time.
Once you have that (so lateral+vertical path + accurate height info), it's just a matter of putting it all together with software and a lot of redundancy, and linking it all up to the autopilot and autothrust.
It is calibrated to show zero when the aircraft touches down in the landing attitude, so when the aircraft is actually on the ground (e.g. taxiing or parked), it will read a negative value.
If you look at how aircraft land, you will see they have quite a nose up attitude. This increases the distance from fuselage to the runway, and you want radio altimeter to read zero when the gear touch the ground, not when the fuselage is level with the runway.
You're not getting me on this one! I've seen enough Green Dot Aviation videos about bad weather+low fuel crashes that include the phrase: "When they arrived at the backup airport, the ILS was broken".
Such a huge part of it is setting up the approach miles away. With the aircraft dialed in to the 3° glide slope and decelerating according to plan, youâre 95.% there when you get to the last half mile to dial it in.
Makes a lot of sense but it is hard to imagine this was well received at first - âoh no worries mate all under control, you donât need to see no fancy diagram or anything that confirms itâ.
Unless I am missing an indication somewhere that theyâre within the required glideslope etc?
The main benefit of having a HUD on the 737 for low visibility operations, is that you can still fly a Cat 3 approach with an engine failure. If you don't have a HUD, you're limited to Cat 1 in that case.
You are missing all the indicators on the PFD. There's a glideslope and a localizer (essentially left/right indications). There's also a lot of monitoring systems that throw warnings if something is wrong. They aren't just blindly letting the computer fly.
Thats the OANS Map. Basically a live map of the current airport with your aircraft as symbol. Like google maps. Useful for the brake-to-vacate feature of the newer Airbus and for navigation, while taxiing.
Well, autoland was well tested in good weather conditions before it started to be used in low visibility.
There's a lot of training involved in getting pilots certified to land in low visibility, including simulator training for all the possible failures, as well as doing at least one autoland during line training before you can start flying in real low visibility.
I thought this wasn't allowed, even with ILS? Im just a hobbyist, and a newbie at that. But I thought you needed sight confirmation at 600-800 feet no matter approach method. Is this a simulator or emergency situation then?
As a passenger who experienced this in a blizzard, it's the most unsettling thing ive ever been a part of. Tag that with the fact that it was Chicago-Midway where you basically land in a neighborhood full of 2-3 story apartments, let's just say I'm glad I had 6 Jack & Cokes in me.
They are probably doing a Cat III autoland. It is literally an Alert height before landing, as long as all system functional, the pilots dont need to see anything. Crazy but works as it should
So in this circumstance what is the real contribution of the minimums call? I mean visually the pilots aren't going to be able to confirm much at that point anyway right.
Or when that calls do they just look at their instruments and as long as everything inside the cockpit looks ok they go ahead?
For Cat 3, alert height is to âalertâ the crew at 100â. The copilot would have already verified the autoland system at 400â, and âflareâ at 50â. The copilot main job is to call out any system malfunctions and calls for Go Around if needed. The Capt of course needs to cross check inside and outside.
For cat 2, the crew do need to see runway environment at minimum.
Very good question, if they set a minimum they will have to see approach lights at the minimum which they probably did from their perspective.
Usually system availability for cat III approach without a minimum can be a little more strict than an autoland with a low minimum.
By using a low minimum you can continue the approach even if certain systems fail and you get downgraded to maybe a cat III a or cat II approach.
Considering we can see up to 3 runway edge lights which should be 60m spaced we have a visibility of >120m - in these conditions you can expect to see something at 50ft.
If they set a minimum then the pf will be looking outside trying to see the approach lights (and initiate go around if no lights at minimum) while the pm monitors the systems
You can still start a go-around, and a touchdown during a go-around at or below minimums on a Cat 3 approach is a perfectly normal thing, and part of the certification process for the aircraft.
That's very helpful, and interesting. But why have minimums on cat 3 then? or is it likely the pilot has established visual that we can't see on the video?
Sometimes Cat 3 approaches don't have a minimum at all, but it depends on airline/aircraft certification and any possible defect that limit the autoland capabilities.
Usually you have a decision height (50ft) on a Cat 3 approach, if the aircraft isn't capable of an automatic rollout, so you need to have some visibility before you continue the approach until landing.
Damn, so many down votes! In no way I was judging the pilots. I was just curious cause I definitely heard a sound when the thrust lever was pulled back.Â
Thatâs normal on the Airbus. Since autothrust is still engaged, the thrust levers determine the maximum amount of thrust the autothrust can command, so the first part half of the thrust lever movement pretty much doesnât do anything to the actual thrust in this situation.
It should be less dramatic in real life than in the video. Cameras don't have a very good dynamic range. If you are filming from a relatively dim area like the cockpit, the outside will always oversaturate.
Itâs situations like this that make me respect pilots so much. You have to have complete faith in the instruments and not get lost in what you canât see. To all of you who pilot, this passenger appreciates you. đŤĄ
Imagine being right seat in that plane, zero visibility, then out of nowhere the pilot looks at you and says "what if.. what if all of this *gestures towards the instruments* is a LIE?"
a_n_d_r_e_@reddit
I can't see the 'near' part. đ¤
I'd just say 'zero visibility', just to be a little more precise.
Bon-Bon-Boo@reddit
Itâs more than 200m visibility, definitely not âzeroâ
Azurehue22@reddit
dog can you tell me how many meters you can see outside those windows cause it's def not anywhere close to 200. I doubt they could see the aircrafts nose.
Bon-Bon-Boo@reddit
Well, the pilots will see a lot more than this camera position and when the nose is lowered you see plenty of runway lights. You can definitely see a total of 3, pretty much about 4 runway edge lights. Runway edge lights are spaced 60 meters apart. So 3 lights visible is roughly 180m visibility with 4 at 240m.
SayerofNothing@reddit
They really should open the curtains before landing next time.
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
You still see lights after touch down, it could be worse :)
Cafeine@reddit
Ladies and gentleman this is your captain speaking. After a thorough assesment we can now confirm that we indeed landed on the runway. Thank you for your attention.
viroseo7@reddit
Everyone on that plane probably needed a drink after hearing ' we can now confirm'
sailingtoescape@reddit
Yes, ~after~ landing. Still barely see anything once landed.
Rook8811@reddit (OP)
Fair point u make
maddoxnysi@reddit
Those light came up real quick
flyguy60000@reddit
Nice Cat lll landing. Didnât even see the runway lights until they were on the ground. Definitely have to have a lot faith in your equipment.Â
Doubleyoupee@reddit
I wonder if there are extra rules regarding cat3, especially regarding runway clearance (vehicles etc, do aircraft even take off in 0 visibility? )Â
NFLDolphinsGuy@reddit
While CAT-IIIc (no decision height and no required visibility) exists, in practice, CAT-IIIb is the limit. There isnât a solution right now for taxiing in zero visibility, so the floor is generally the 150 ft/50 m limit of CAT-IIIb.
Virian@reddit
Fun fact. Private planes can legally take off with 0 visibility.
AYE-BO@reddit
They can also land at least once with 0 visibility
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
Private airplanes also don't need to demonstrate they can actually climb away or clear any obstacles, if an engine fails :)
MightyTribble@reddit
Woo! That means I'm a private plane!
mobileJay77@reddit
I imagine buying a take-off slot at a major airport. And then I run down the runway, flapping my arms!
B4rberblacksheep@reddit
Damnit Diogenes
bitemy@reddit
That is not true. Every instrument clearance has obstacle clearance requirements. You have to be able to able to climb at a certain gradient. Sometimes it is steep.
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
Sure, that's with all engines operating.
Most piston twins won't maintain that with a failed engine, and let's not even talk about single engine aircraft.
CotswoldP@reddit
What is it they say about most twins? On one engine you can just about fly to the crash site.
If I ever win big I'll go for a Diamond DA-62. Quite happily cruises and climbs on one engine.
ghjm@reddit
This goes double for the single engine ones
Antique-Kitchen-1896@reddit
Not in every countryâŚ
kytulu@reddit
We had a CFI do that one foggy morning. He and his student then spent 4 hours on the ground at a different airport while waiting for the fog to clear.
Management was not happy.
flyguy60000@reddit
True. If your stupid enough to attempt it.Â
basilect@reddit
Planes have to remain extra clear of the ILS transmitters (to not disrupt their signals), so there are special hold lines further back from the runway.
Takeoff minimums are more constraining than ILS minimums, you need 1 mile of visibility for takeoff and less than that for most ILS approaches
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
That's not really true.
With some simulator training, we only need 125m RVR for takeoff on most runways that have suitable lights (15m centerline spacing) without any special equipment on the aircraft, and if we have a HUD and the runways has an ILS (for localizer guidance), this goes down to 75m, which is the equivalent to lowest possible Cat 3 minimums.
Regular Cat 1 minimums are 550m, for reference.
LearningDumbThings@reddit
No HUD on A350?
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
Autoland on modern airliner is more capable than the HUD, and assuming the airport+aircraft+airline have the appropriate equipment and certification, you donât need to see anything at all outside before touchdown.
vrtak@reddit
That sounds impressive and scary (as i dont understand how it works) at the same time :)
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
It's actually fairly straightforward.
Every runway that supports low visibility operation will have an ILS (or some GLS, but let's leave that aside to not complicate it further) installation, which means that at the end of the runway there is an antenna, which shows the pilot (or the autopilot) how the aircraft is positioned in respect of the runway (extended) centerline. Then near the touchdown point there is a glideslope antenna, which shows the (auto)pilot how well the aircraft is positioned in the vertical plane compared to a (usually) 3 degree glide path.
So this gets you reliably down to 200ft without any special magic. Below 200ft, you also need to know how very accurately how high you are above the ground. The barometric altimeter is not accurate enough for this, so aircraft have two radio altimeters, which send signals from antenna on the bottom of the fuselage to the ground, wait for the reflection from the ground, and they can measure actual height above the ground in real time.
Once you have that (so lateral+vertical path + accurate height info), it's just a matter of putting it all together with software and a lot of redundancy, and linking it all up to the autopilot and autothrust.
Big_OOOO@reddit
Is the radio altimeter calibrated to show altitude from the bottom of the main landing gear?
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
It is calibrated to show zero when the aircraft touches down in the landing attitude, so when the aircraft is actually on the ground (e.g. taxiing or parked), it will read a negative value.
Big_OOOO@reddit
Is that is that because the gear is compressed, or terrain unevenness?
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
If you look at how aircraft land, you will see they have quite a nose up attitude. This increases the distance from fuselage to the runway, and you want radio altimeter to read zero when the gear touch the ground, not when the fuselage is level with the runway.
enemawatson@reddit
You're not getting me on this one! I've seen enough Green Dot Aviation videos about bad weather+low fuel crashes that include the phrase: "When they arrived at the backup airport, the ILS was broken".
umibozu@reddit
Feynman test passed, great explanation
_Neoshade_@reddit
Such a huge part of it is setting up the approach miles away. With the aircraft dialed in to the 3° glide slope and decelerating according to plan, youâre 95.% there when you get to the last half mile to dial it in.
maniac6911@reddit
Sounds like what people call AI these days. Very impressive.
vrtak@reddit
Awesome. Thank you for the explanation!!!
dontevercallmeabully@reddit
Makes a lot of sense but it is hard to imagine this was well received at first - âoh no worries mate all under control, you donât need to see no fancy diagram or anything that confirms itâ.
Unless I am missing an indication somewhere that theyâre within the required glideslope etc?
eitilt@reddit
Airbusâ have always been Autoland without a HUD, every indication we need is on the PFD
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
Even the vast majority of Boeing aircraft don't use HUD, it's all on autoland alone.
mr_bots@reddit
Isnât it mainly just the 737 at this point that can come with autoland or a HUD where everything else is just autoland?
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
Even on the 737s, most airlines use autoland.
The main benefit of having a HUD on the 737 for low visibility operations, is that you can still fly a Cat 3 approach with an engine failure. If you don't have a HUD, you're limited to Cat 1 in that case.
Atom_Tom@reddit
It's especially impressive when you consider how long we've had this capability!
In the UK we built the HS121 Trident, which was doing Cat II approaches in 1968.
Then the French made the Caravelle which could do Cat IIIA approaches in 1969.
And then again in the UK we upgraded the Trident to do Cat IIIB approaches in 1975.
All done with analogue instrumentation. Check it out! https://youtu.be/flVcxfOnWi0?si=99WSc9ZH_DNh05zh
22Planeguy@reddit
You are missing all the indicators on the PFD. There's a glideslope and a localizer (essentially left/right indications). There's also a lot of monitoring systems that throw warnings if something is wrong. They aren't just blindly letting the computer fly.
dontevercallmeabully@reddit
I assumed it was mostly on account of my incompetence.
Whilst weâre here, whatâs the double crosshair they get once touching down? Is this a simplified map of the taxiway exit options ahead?
mycathasseenshit@reddit
Thats the OANS Map. Basically a live map of the current airport with your aircraft as symbol. Like google maps. Useful for the brake-to-vacate feature of the newer Airbus and for navigation, while taxiing.
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
Well, autoland was well tested in good weather conditions before it started to be used in low visibility.
There's a lot of training involved in getting pilots certified to land in low visibility, including simulator training for all the possible failures, as well as doing at least one autoland during line training before you can start flying in real low visibility.
anactualspacecadet@reddit
While this might be true, flying with a hud is so fun, losing that is the only thing i donât look forward to at the airlines
linkinpie97@reddit
Itâs optional
Lush_Linguistic@reddit
From the pilot's perspective he can see downwards from the nose so he can see the lights much earlier than we did
Mihnea2002@reddit
Why not Autoland?
Joshua528@reddit
As a Boeing pilot, itâs odd watching them rapidly close the thrust levers like that.
Frosty-Inspector-465@reddit
i still don't trust these things lol
Terodius@reddit
Even for a Cat 3 aren't you supposed to have the runway in sight at minimums?
Zaptryx@reddit
I thought this wasn't allowed, even with ILS? Im just a hobbyist, and a newbie at that. But I thought you needed sight confirmation at 600-800 feet no matter approach method. Is this a simulator or emergency situation then?
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
On a Cat 3 approach, in some cases, you don't have to see anything at all until touchdown.
Zaptryx@reddit
Thats cool to learn, thank you! And also slightly terrifying to watch lol
ProcyonHabilis@reddit
Not an expert here, but look up category 3 auto landing.
EconomicsDirect7490@reddit
Awesome. Scary as f*ck!
ikats116@reddit
As a passenger who experienced this in a blizzard, it's the most unsettling thing ive ever been a part of. Tag that with the fact that it was Chicago-Midway where you basically land in a neighborhood full of 2-3 story apartments, let's just say I'm glad I had 6 Jack & Cokes in me.
jayrdoos@reddit
Gotta fly that shit by hand in the Q with the hud
BobBartBarker@reddit
Does the airplane always insult the pilots?
FarFromTheCorner@reddit
They took the term IFR too seriously
Old_Communication960@reddit
They are probably doing a Cat III autoland. It is literally an Alert height before landing, as long as all system functional, the pilots dont need to see anything. Crazy but works as it should
BadahBingBadahBoom@reddit
So in this circumstance what is the real contribution of the minimums call? I mean visually the pilots aren't going to be able to confirm much at that point anyway right.
Or when that calls do they just look at their instruments and as long as everything inside the cockpit looks ok they go ahead?
Old_Communication960@reddit
For Cat 3, alert height is to âalertâ the crew at 100â. The copilot would have already verified the autoland system at 400â, and âflareâ at 50â. The copilot main job is to call out any system malfunctions and calls for Go Around if needed. The Capt of course needs to cross check inside and outside.
For cat 2, the crew do need to see runway environment at minimum.
L0ngcat55@reddit
Very good question, if they set a minimum they will have to see approach lights at the minimum which they probably did from their perspective. Usually system availability for cat III approach without a minimum can be a little more strict than an autoland with a low minimum. By using a low minimum you can continue the approach even if certain systems fail and you get downgraded to maybe a cat III a or cat II approach.
Considering we can see up to 3 runway edge lights which should be 60m spaced we have a visibility of >120m - in these conditions you can expect to see something at 50ft. If they set a minimum then the pf will be looking outside trying to see the approach lights (and initiate go around if no lights at minimum) while the pm monitors the systems
purepwnage85@reddit
They need to mentally prepare themselves for getting called retards
mrfluffy002@reddit
This isn't meant to be rude...
Couldn't an L1011 do this 50 years ago?
Sharp_Meat2721@reddit
Did that airplane just call them retards?
Justfunnames1234@reddit
CAT 2?
KG_advantage@reddit
I would think CAT III seems like less then 100 feet
bterrik@reddit
Hard to say, but at the previous gig we had to see something at 100 ft, disconnect, and hand fly the touchdown. 100 ft comes up real damn quick lol
Justfunnames1234@reddit
Fair enough. But cat 3 can have no decision height, so could it be cat 3 single?
blueb0g@reddit
Cat 3 single just means only on AP is coupled, has nothing to do with the minimums. This is a CATIIIb approach since the minimums are under 50 ft.
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
Minimums call is around 50 feet, so looks like Cat 3.
Lowest decision height for a Cat 2 approach is 100ft.
Tremendous_Dump@reddit
What's the point of the minimums call when there is no time to react before the veined tube pierces the brown crown?
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
You can still start a go-around, and a touchdown during a go-around at or below minimums on a Cat 3 approach is a perfectly normal thing, and part of the certification process for the aircraft.
Tremendous_Dump@reddit
That's very helpful, and interesting. But why have minimums on cat 3 then? or is it likely the pilot has established visual that we can't see on the video?
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
Sometimes Cat 3 approaches don't have a minimum at all, but it depends on airline/aircraft certification and any possible defect that limit the autoland capabilities.
Usually you have a decision height (50ft) on a Cat 3 approach, if the aircraft isn't capable of an automatic rollout, so you need to have some visibility before you continue the approach until landing.
Iflysims@reddit
Computer can land, finding the gate in the fog is a different matter đ
bterrik@reddit
Actually with the ANF function of the MFDs it's pretty close to doing that too lol
Auto TCAS, auto emergency descent, auto Windshear...shit I might need to diversify my skillset lol
iwillbepilut@reddit
"JFK ground, Skyhawk N1CE requesting progressive taxi instructions"Â
Blamblooze@reddit
Thats easy! Just select the gate you want and the OANS will quide you like a navigator.
Dracogame@reddit
The biggest "trust me bro"
thunder_shart@reddit
Pull Up. Pull Up. Terrain. Terrain.
nighthawke75@reddit
I think they were using AUTOLAND the way the pilots were handling the top controls.
ProcyonHabilis@reddit
You can't legally land in these conditions without it
nighthawke75@reddit
Or precision approach radar at older or military locations.
I think the position of PAR controller has to be right behind doing night landings on carriers when it comes to stress levels.
Vintari89@reddit
Whoa, landing an A350 in zero visibility? Pilots are wizards.
wggn@reddit
pretty sure the plane is doing everything
Healthy-Confusion119@reddit
That's a wild experience I'm sure.Â
chemtrailer21@reddit
Taxing in that visibility has more of a pucker factor.
wggn@reddit
how about backtracking the runway
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
Pretty standard for a trained crew. We do a lot of those in the winter months, nothing spectacular once you've done a few.
airpab1@reddit
Isnât minimum 900 feet? Regardless of airplane sophistication!
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
Cat 3 goes down to 75m or whatever that is in US equivalent.
airpab1@reddit
246 ftâŚ.wowâŚ.amazing
Strat7855@reddit
I thought the whole point of the minimums call was to initiate a go-around if you can't see the runway. Am I misunderstanding?
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
It is, and on a Cat 3 approach all you need to see at the decision height (if you have one) is one or three consecutive lights.
dwillpower@reddit
Looks like an Airbus landing itself.
Maruan-007@reddit
Itâs called ILS CAT III for a reason
mpg111@reddit
isn't that specifically CAT III C?
III B requires 150+ ft visibility, III A 700+ ft
and afaik CAT III C is not operational anywhere
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
Cat 3C is a theoretical concept only, it's not really viable in practice.
Due_Acanthaceae_3567@reddit
Il scat??
Psychological-Scar53@reddit
Yes.. Most IL are shit...
areonautic_ace@reddit
Is it just me or others also noticed that, captain pulled back on the throttle real hard as soon as the system announced retard.Â
ProcyonHabilis@reddit
Retard means "slow down", so pulling back on the throttle makes sense, right?
areonautic_ace@reddit
Damn, so many down votes! In no way I was judging the pilots. I was just curious cause I definitely heard a sound when the thrust lever was pulled back.Â
substandard-tech@reddit
Look up def 2 of that word
thesuperunknown@reddit
Thatâs literally what the âretardâ advisory in an Airbus means: âpull the thrust levers back to the idle position nowâ.
Apprehensive_Cost937@reddit
Thatâs normal on the Airbus. Since autothrust is still engaged, the thrust levers determine the maximum amount of thrust the autothrust can command, so the first part half of the thrust lever movement pretty much doesnât do anything to the actual thrust in this situation.
wileysegovia@reddit
Can u imagine hitting a random light pole or similar because you thought it would be cool to land in the fog like that
Chaxterium@reddit
ÂżQue?
wileysegovia@reddit
Well, they couldn't see anything. So if their plane was coming down short or wide of the runway ... SPLAT
ProcyonHabilis@reddit
You understand that they have sensors and computers that make sure they're positioned correctly, right? They're not just guessing.
AreWeThereYetNo@reddit
Computer says no
Any-Vehicle4418@reddit
It should be less dramatic in real life than in the video. Cameras don't have a very good dynamic range. If you are filming from a relatively dim area like the cockpit, the outside will always oversaturate.
Free-Vehicle2957@reddit
Damn. I felt serious anxiety watching that
Az1234er@reddit
Remind me of the rafale landing on a carrier of the other day. It's kind of crazy that you can land on a moving object with no visibility
MobileMenace420@reddit
Thank you for linking that! Never seen it before
obalovatyk@reddit
Itâs like flying in a blender full of milkshakes.
qadratic@reddit
The Computer is right. Retard!
pinchhitter4number1@reddit
Was that an airport diagram that pops up on the MFD?
Vince_IRL@reddit
That's an ILS CAT II (aka "Autoland"). you can see the indicators for Flight Director, both Autopilots and Auto Thrust are on until touch down.
damscomp@reddit
What did the plane call him?
Oneill5491@reddit
Minimums?
(â˘_â˘)
( â˘_â˘)>ââ -â
(ââ _â )
IDGAF
Bane8080@reddit
Don't show this to the guys from the other day that were arguing that wipers are the best we can do in low visibility...
LimeSlurpeeDude@reddit
Nice, which airport?
d_repz@reddit
Amazing.
eurfun@reddit
Damn, you really need to be pro for this kind of thing
snarkle_and_shine@reddit
Itâs situations like this that make me respect pilots so much. You have to have complete faith in the instruments and not get lost in what you canât see. To all of you who pilot, this passenger appreciates you. đŤĄ
Hank_moody71@reddit
A350 lands itself in low viz- fixed the title for you
rkba260@reddit
In the sim
NewHope13@reddit
Wow, technology is amazing
strtbobber@reddit
I'm sure they could see more from their perspective than ours, but still!!! đŻ
Guardsred70@reddit
That's why I just keep reading my book during landings.
candylandmine@reddit
Imagine being right seat in that plane, zero visibility, then out of nowhere the pilot looks at you and says "what if.. what if all of this *gestures towards the instruments* is a LIE?"
Hot-Minute8782@reddit
Did it once as a passenger - scary shit