Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock, you’ve heard about Garmin’s new Autoland solution. Part of Garmin’s Autonomí Autonomous Flight Solutions line, Autoland will do exactly what the product’s name states. In case of an emergency, Autoland will autonomously land the aircraft.
The amount of media coverage following Autoland’s announcement was staggering.
I read through several articles and watched more than a few videos from those invited to fly with Autoland.
But without fail, my favorite part of just about any story are the reader comments. I’m constantly amazed at the wide variety of responses and perspectives people have.
And in the case of Autoland, I wasn’t disappointed.
AVweb’s story has nearly three dozen comments. Tom C. says, “I used to really like technology advancement specific to avionics. Not so sure anymore. I think we’re crossing a line. Not sure what the line is or exactly where it is, but I sense something happening here and I’m not so sure I’m liking it.”
In response to Tom C., Mark F. says, “I think Garmin is stepping into the same territory as Boeing’s MCAS; they have not yet figured out the failure modes that can happen because of maintenance, wear, and/or circumstance. The first time this system ‘lands’ a plane into a bridge that was not in its database or mistakenly bleeds off the cabin pressure, or….”
Which led to YARS responding with, “It’s advertised as being for emergency use only. You already were screwed BEFORE you pushed the button. Garmin’s lawyers are even smarter than its engineers.”
Kurt Malerich at Boldmethod was very succinct, “Oh great, I’m out of a job.”
And Vic Thiessen takes Autoland’s capabilities a step or two further: “Wow!! Perhaps the end of getting lost, disoriented, CFIT, etc.”
Over at Business & Commercial Aviation, those in favor range from “As a 40 year private pilot, all I have to say is: “About Time!!!” to “Hooray for Garmin!!” and “A blessing for GA.”
On a slightly humorous note, one person noted, “As a passenger in an aircraft where the pilot just passed out, what do you mean ‘no panic button?'”
A sceptic asked, “The designed purpose is obvious and appropriate. How long will it take low-time pilots pushing their own personal minimums too far to start using this to complete a planned flight in marginal conditions versus diverting to a VFR airport 100 miles away?”
Among Flying magazine readers, Woody Wood said, “It will be just be a matter of time (probably a short time) till Garmin or someone else takes this a step further and certifies a similar system for autoland under normal circumstances for GA. That will be a good thing. Just one more major safety feature trickling down.”
And ModerateND asks, “Any idea how the system would know if the airport or runway was NOTAMd closed?”
On our story Dave wonders, “I wonder what the cost will be!? I would have to see a significant number of successful flight hours before I put my neck on the line, let alone that of my family. I can think of a hundred questions I would need answered. It would be a significant technological feat if it works. Think about it.”
Meanwhile, Jerry King responds with, “Wondering how many fools will depart in very marginal conditions thinking they can depend on electronics to safely return them. Maybe Garmin should introduce something like: AUTO HAVE ENOUGH SENSE TO STAY ON THE GROUND.”
And don’t forget about social media.
On our Facebook page, Andy Cole said, “I didn’t think pilots losing consciousness or dying while flying was that big of an occurrence. Seems like a much better idea than having a passenger with zero training try to land a plane! I doubt it would work ‘well’ for the actual touchdown, but a mild crash onto a runway is much better than someone having no clue try it.”
Josh Youssef was a bit harsher, “Just one more trinket to market aviation to people who have no business flying.”
On Garmin’s Facebook page, Lloyd Herring predicts Garmin’s future features: “Next year they will release the Auto Hover button for helicopters.”
There is no shortage of opinions, both positive and negative, on Garmin’s Autoland. We are pilots, after all.
As for me, while truly impressive, until the owner of the 1946 J-3 Cub I fly installs this system (which it will never be certified for), I’ll do my best to remain healthy. 😉
I fail to see the controversy. If you want it, here it is. If not then don’t buy it or an aircraft with it.
Is it really so different from having an autopilot?
However until a system like this becomes affordable enough for the 172 pilot I really don’t see it going anywhere. But hey Garmin will obsolete it in a year anyway.
Sir Jeff and gbigs, …there is absolutely no reason why Cessna 172s couldn’t already have autoland capability today, or the equivalent AIII (HUD) mode, simply depicted on a flight director, on any Dynon, Garmin, Avidyne, Aspen, or equivalent. And that’s including my 1960s era Cessna 172 model, but for want of massively outdated FAA criteria and lack of vision at GA avionics companies. The autoland computation is now straightforward, needing about as much computer power as an iPhone. Virtually any modern GA reasonable quality AP is capable of implementing it. In fact a US drone manufacturer reportedly designed, installed, and successfully tested an autoland capability on a DA42, essentially over a weekend, designed and allegedly built by a couple of graduate students. The issue here is the massive need for FAA criteria overhaul. Faulty obsolete FAA criteria in many cases is now serving as the barrier to significant safety improvement in GA (as well as for air carriers). This is especially true for GA avionics manufacturers who are unwillingness to adopt air carrier’s innovations, and massively better capabilities, for bringing capabilities like Cat III, RNP, GLS/GBAS, and data links to GA. As an example of the need, just last night, the nearby airport I was counting on as an alternate, to stay accessible while I was getting my SIAP and night currency, went from clear and 5 miles visibility to 100 OVC with RVR falling to below 2400, in under 10 minutes. Even in a C172 it sure would have been be useful to have had either basic autoland capability as a backup, or at least an AIII capable flight director mode available through touchdown and rollout, on a PFD. There is simply no reason that capability isn’t already ECONOMICALLY possible now, even at CURRENT small GA aircraft avionics prices (or even less), …except for GA avionics companies typical near complete lack of vision (and wasting money on concepts like EVS), impeded by massively obsolete and safety counterproductive FAA criteria for Part 23 aircraft. Hopefully our new FAA Administrator will now also take on this criteria modernization issue to heart, as well as fixing a substantially broken, failing faulty FAA concept ADS-B 2020 fiasco (under 50% of the fleet is currently equipped, with zero hope of much % change in the next month), and overly expensive $40B failing NextGen.
As a tech guy getting into aviation relatively recently (about seven years ago) I found it disappointing the ‘old timers’ seemed tech ignorant and resistant to the more advanced aspects of glass and tablets. I bought a plane with all Dynon glass to train in…and have since upgraded to a fully equipped Cirrus with 12 inch panels. The Cirrus I fly already has 80% of what Autoland is going to offer largely because it is an all Garmin panel with the same autopilot core Autoland will use.
It seems some feel threatened by the sophistication and automated features of new tech. Well, too bad…tech is inevitable and affects every aspect of society. So for those that keep trying to pick apart and find fault with these technologies? Adapt or get out. You are being bypassed.
It’s only been 82 years since the First “Autoland” was done on Aug 23, 1937 in a Fokker C-14 – at Wright Field by Capt Carl J. Crane, Geo V. Holloman, and Ray Stout using a Sperry AP. That was followed by autolands in the B247, in WWII, and by a C54. With the first automated flight, automatic takeoff through landing on Sept 21/22, 1947 – in an AF C-54, the “R.E. Lee”, from Stephenville N.F. to Brize-Norton England with a Sperry A-12, a Radar Altimeter, and a Bendix AutoThrottle. ALL production Boeings and Airbusses, including some Lockheeds and Douglases have had autoland (and Cat III capability) for decades now. The X47B even did automatic landings on a moving carrier, designed for night, blind, Sea State 6, with a pitching and rolling deck, to trap the #3 wire within – 0/+8 feet longitudinal error, and +/- 3 ft laterally, all with modern computations about as complex as can be done in an iPhone or iPad. All this could have also been done in the past two decades in small aircraft too, for likely much less than has already been wasted overall on WAAS, EVS, and ADS-B (reliable reports indicate over $4B has already been wasted on now utterly obsolete and unnecessary WAAS/SBAS).
So remind me again why this Garmin “Autoland announcement” is even worth taking the time to read in the GA oriented press? It is apparently already long obsolete in its exceedingly limited capability and marginal performance, doesn’t yet use RNP or GBAS/GLS, can’t do Cat III (which every Boeing and Airbus has or can have) and is at least three decades overdue.
Many airline aircraft have been equipped with auto land for years. It’s used in CAT III ILS approaches in very low visibility conditions. The aircraft, such as the B-767 I flew, are required to have regular in flight tests of the system to remain authorized for CAT III autoland operations. The test is usually done on regular passenger carrying flights when landing at a CAT III runway in good weather. The crew sets up for the approach and monitors the landing just as in actual low vis conditions. The crew then makes an entry in the maintenance log, such as “CAT III autoland test completed satisfactorily.” I wonder what recurring tests will be required on the Garmin system. Interesting times.
It’s not surprising really – it’s clearly a hot topic. But really – it was and is inevitable. The technology will only get better…..