You're a SouthernJets International 767ER....

[ZUKO]

Originally Posted by DE727UPS

"Invite the Flight Attendants to take a turn at level flight"

Heck, if you're gonna go there. It's not any less illegal to ask the 13 year old WOW champ in the back to play the video game in the cockpit. I'm sure he could do it quite well.

That would have been my dream come true when I was 6 years younger.

[aloft]

Originally Posted by DE727UPS

I'd ask the company what they want me to do. The 767 hand flys really nice and it's legal to fly without an autopilot, so I wouldn't turn around just for that. .... As far as RSVM, I'd get the company to send me a new burn for whatever altitude I could work out with ATC.

I was under the impression that RVSM ops required a functioning, approved autopilot....?

[staplegun]

Originally Posted by aloft

I was under the impression that RVSM ops required a functioning, approved autopilot....?

RVSM doesn't apply under the NAT system so you could go at FL280 or below...

Kevin

[DE727UPS]

Plus, ATC can accept non-RVSM aircraft into their airspace at ATC's option.

[TonyC]

Originally Posted by DE727UPS

"Invite the Flight Attendants to take a turn at level flight"

Heck, if you're gonna go there. It's not any less illegal to ask the 13 year old WOW champ in the back to play the video game in the cockpit. I'm sure he could do it quite well.

Well, it is legal for the FA to be in the cockpit, so that's something they have over the 13 year old WOW champ.





.

[Doug Taylor]

True. I think we flew in RVSM airspace with an inop autopilot from SEA to SLC once. Ops Specs and the AM said it was kosher.

[staplegun]

Originally Posted by DE727UPS

Plus, ATC can accept non-RVSM aircraft into their airspace at ATC's option.

True, but you'll never get an oceanic clearance onto the NATS without it.

Keivn

[DE727UPS]

Could be. I'm not a NATS guy. UPS says I'm qualified for the Pac Rim based on doing ONT-HNL, which I think is a stretch. I'm hoping to go non-current international at the end of May. Then, I won't have to worry about it.

[thestaton]

Just a note, I just had something very similar to this happen. We where leaving Rota, Spain coming back to Dover, DE. After the pilots climbed to cruise, they realized that autopilot would not engage. Engineers ran there checks, and did everything they could. We had 3 pilots and I kid you not they beasted the whole 10 hour flight back to Dover.

While I was in the back sleeping away

Ah, the life as a Load.

[Toria]

Originally Posted by SteveC

I foresee an overnight in Bergamo or Lake Garda.

Unavoidable job hazard.

[calcapt]

Had the stubborn autopilot happen a few times in various Boeings. Here's a little trick: If your Boeing autopilot will not engage, turn off, then back on the autopilot electric trim switch - Usually fixes the problem. Got halfway from Cleveland to San Francisco before I discovered that. Tried it several times since, and it has always done the trick. Just FYI.

Sorry to throw some reality into this "just for fun" scenario.

[ryanmickG]

Couldnt you just trim it out and put the control lock in? Poor mans autopilot!!

[SpiraMirabilis]

Control lock? Those things cost money! When I sent my application into Mesa they told me part of the FO's duties included being the control lock! You mean that isn't normal on all airlines?

[AmazingPilot]

Originally Posted by Seggy

I do have to give credit to OldTownPilot who told me that this did happen. Thought it would make for a good post.

OldTownPilot = THE MAN










Don, yeah figured that three autopilots one would work, but who knows what gremlins the plane might have.

I think OldTownPilot mentioned that the aircraft had three autopilots because he was trying to make the point and benfit of triple redundency systems. There are no gremlins in a 767 that will cause all three independent autopilot systems to fail, we do know this.
You obviously have no expierence or understanding of advanced aircraft operating systems.
In addition to all this hand flying at the upper flight levels is and can be dangerous since the aircraft operating speed envelope is relatively small, sometimes less then a 10 knot of spread.
Reading a book occasionally might be more beneficial than making up farfetched, ridculous inflight situations.

[OldTownPilot]

It has happened before that a crew could not get whatever needed to be done (auto pilot wise) therefore hand flying across the pond was an option to get back.

You "i think" are a Colgan pilot. Where do you have systems knonwledge to ay this:

There are no gremlins in a 767 that will cause all three independent autopilot systems to fail, we do know this.

I know someone that has flown with the CA this happened to. Coming in and bashing the Colgan ALPA drive and then saying I am "....making up far fetched, ridiculous in flight situations." is a little ignorant to say the least.

The "OTP=The man" statement refered to me giving the idea to the Seggy durring a conversation at some point. I know a little bit about the plane, But I'll defer the in depth systems questions to someone that is in traing for the aircraft right now.

[AmazingPilot]

Good Point OldTownPilot, thanks for imparing your vast knowledge in this topic from way up on your pedestool.
Thanks for looking down at Colgan and all the 450 pilots who work here, because obiviously you assumed that because I or anyone who works at Colgan can't possibly have any expierence or understanding on bigger aircraft.
Sorry, if I don't feel the need to "Market Board" all my years of expierence in all the types of planes of flown.
Personally I find it very condicending to write the way you do.
Secondly I never attacked the union talks, I'm just trying to research it more. Maybe people who don't work at Colgan shouldn't comment or complain about the company because it is not their company.

[OldTownPilot]

There are no gremlins in a 767 that will cause all three independent autopilot systems to fail, we do know this.

When did your english teacher say it was ok to use absolutes when there is a chance of something happening?

There are Tens of millions of fleet hours flown on the 767. Strange stuff that has never happened before is bound to happen at some point. This auto pilot anomaly was one of those "that shouldn't happen" things, but guess what? It did.

And as far as coming up with crazy things, lets try this on.

......hand flying at the upper flight levels is and can be dangerous since the aircraft operating speed envelope is relatively small, sometimes less then a 10 knot of spread.

You really should stop reading the tale of Hoot Gibson and his 727 at "four-one-oh". At the weights that a 767 crosses the Atlantic, FL350 is a high altitude. Without the auto pilot you are normally restricted to FL280. 280 is nowhere near the upper flight levels. Heck, its in the bottom half that the airliners operate in. I'm sure the "coffin corner" charts were considered in their extensive discussions with dispatch and maintenance control. But since they were not in the "upper flight levels", they weren't a big deal. Flying your airplane you should know about trimming for airspeed, guess what it does a pretty good job at doing that.

[Seggy]

AP i am still waiting for a phone call if you want to talk about what ALPA could bring to Colgan.

[SteveC]

To all: Keep it civil please.

[AmazingPilot]

Originally Posted by OldTownPilot

When did your english teacher say it was ok to use absolutes when there is a chance of something happening?

There are Tens of millions of fleet hours flown on the 767. Strange stuff that has never happened before is bound to happen at some point. This auto pilot anomaly was one of those "that shouldn't happen" things, but guess what? It did.

And as far as coming up with crazy things, lets try this on.


You really should stop reading the tale of Hoot Gibson and his 727 at "four-one-oh". At the weights that a 767 crosses the Atlantic, FL350 is a high altitude. Without the auto pilot you are normally restricted to FL280. 280 is nowhere near the upper flight levels. Heck, its in the bottom half that the airliners operate in. I'm sure the "coffin corner" charts were considered in their extensive discussions with dispatch and maintenance control. But since they were not in the "upper flight levels", they weren't a big deal. Flying your airplane you should know about trimming for airspeed, guess what it does a pretty good job at doing that.

Okay, well last I checked the North Atlantic crossing tracks range between FL310 to FL400, these would constitute appropriate Atlantic Crossing Altitudes. So with a flight restriction of FL280, how do you plan on crossing the Atlantic, keeping in mind that you are still required to comply with ETOP procedures?
The only option would be a re-route, and that would require a revised fuel load all that needs to be coordinated by dispatch.
In my expierence, I have never heard of three independent autopilot systems failing independtly. A failure of all three is usually indicates a data failure which is feeding the autopilot system.

Also if you want to take a ding at me, nice try on the English. If that is all you can come up with than I am flattered as criticizing someone's english is usually a last resort, among other things childish.

[OldTownPilot]

As we all know crap happen when we fly. That and Tens of millions of fleet hours can explain an autopilot not engaging properly.

If you are so familiar about the track system you would also know that you can cross the atlantic outside the tracks in so called "random routings" Flights such as LAX-LHR and EWR-BCN use these as their optimum path is well outside the 6 pre-constructed paths separated by 1 degree of latitude. If you go below RVSM airspace you would be on a "random routing", a perfectly legal way to cross the Atlantic.

ETOPS is rally a non factor in this scenario. When you are doing your pre flight planning you draw circles about your ETOPS alternates. These are a fixed distance based on the time certification of your airplane. A circle from SNN and another from YYT will cover the entire atlantic for about 20 degrees of latitude. These circles do not change based on your altitude.

[Doug Taylor]

Originally Posted by AmazingPilot

In my expierence, I have never heard of three independent autopilot systems failing independtly. A failure of all three is usually indicates a data failure which is feeding the autopilot system.

Uhh, darned near anything can happen. My new plane's got three. I'll even be more than happy to ask about the scenario in ground school tomorrow if you'd like specifics.

Fire loops don't always work either! I know a mad dog driver who found out the hard way last year. Not me! I was on vacay!

Keep it civil in my living room. Remember you're a guest.

[AmazingPilot]

Originally Posted by OldTownPilot

As we all know crap happen when we fly. That and Tens of millions of fleet hours can explain an autopilot not engaging properly.

If you are so familiar about the track system you would also know that you can cross the atlantic outside the tracks in so called "random routings" Flights such as LAX-LHR and EWR-BCN use these as their optimum path is well outside the 6 pre-constructed paths separated by 1 degree of latitude. If you go below RVSM airspace you would be on a "random routing", a perfectly legal way to cross the Atlantic.

ETOPS is rally a non factor in this scenario. When you are doing your pre flight planning you draw circles about your ETOPS alternates. These are a fixed distance based on the time certification of your airplane. A circle from SNN and another from YYT will cover the entire atlantic for about 20 degrees of latitude. These circles do not change based on your altitude.

The circle may not change your altitude, but a healthy aircraft will be filed on these tracks, especially in Part 121/125 operations. The random route may be perfectly legal, but you will no longer be operating on the North Atlantic Track system. You will be operating below them on a random route, which will not be the same waypoints as outlined on the tracks. This will require a reroute, and may affect ETOP operations.
I agree the ETOP requirements will not vary much and shouldn't result in a huge change, but it will need a revised route.

Not to get off on a tangent here, my original posting was to address the situation of a triple redundent system failure ocuring. While I wholeheartly agree with the fact that an aircraft operating over hundreds of thousands of flight hours can have anything happen, my point is that they're is probably a bigger issue that is causing it. It's is rare that an aircraft can have a dual engine failure, but it does and has happened. The thing you need to look at is that what caused the resulted failure; loss of fuel, contaminated fuel, excessive debris in the air. Odds are two engines will just not randomly fail for no reason. Same thing with an autopilot system, which rarely fails, having all three fail needs to be indictive of something else going wrong. The bigger picture that is all I am talking about.

So when someone refers to it as a Gremlin in the system I find that a very uninformed, vague response to a rasied hypothetical situation. Diagnosing an aircarft's problem is very important before deciding which action to take. Calling it a "Gremlin" and deciding to deal with it is half-a$$-assesment of the failure.

[Seggy]

AmazingPilot, do you have anymore questions concerning bringing ALPA to Colgan?

[SteveC]

Originally Posted by Seggy

AmazingPilot, do you have anymore questions concerning bringing ALPA to Colgan?

How about a PM instead of going waaay off-topic?