
Piper Announces First GA Aircraft with Autoland Capability - ghgr
https://www.piper.com/press-releases/piper-announces-new-m600-sls/
======
eternalny1
This is a seriously impressive bit of software engineering. It seems as simple
as "push a button" to the layman but what happens when:

    
    
        There is a thunderstorm between the airport and the runway
        The nearest runway is closed due to a blizzard
        There is a mountain between the normal 3-degree glide-slope and the runway, an "offset approach"
        There is a 40-knot crosswind
        You have an engine out
    

That's just a few, I'm a commercial pilot and software engineer, and I find
this insanely impressive.

~~~
nabla9
It's to be used only in the event that the pilot is incapacitated.

Because it's an emergency feature engaged by a passenger or automatically, it
probably can't manage all complex situations. It may be just good weather
emergency landing. Check fuel and wind, steer to nearest emergency airport and
land. Best effort is better than no effort and dying.

> There is a mountain between the normal 3-degree glide-slope and the runway,
> an "offset approach"

I think it can land only to those airports that are it's database with landing
approaches programmed it.

Cruise missiles have had similar technology for a long time.

~~~
Daviey
> Cruise missiles have had similar technology for a long time.

I try to make my landings a little less eventful.

~~~
AWildC182
A "good" landing is one which people can walk away from and a "great" landing
is one where you can use the cruise missile again so by definition, a cruise
missile can complete neither a "good" nor a "great" landing by design.

~~~
bstrong
"One unusual capability of the Snark missile was its ability to fly away from
its launch point for up to 11 hours, and then return for a landing. If its
warhead did not detach from its body, then the Snark could be flown
repeatedly."

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-62_Snark](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-62_Snark)

~~~
AWildC182
Of course cold war shenanigans would prove me wrong.... I stand corrected

------
throw0101a
This is a feature of the Garmin G3000:

* [https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/garmin-announces-emergen...](https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/garmin-announces-emergency-autoland/)

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-ruFmgTpqA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-ruFmgTpqA)

* [https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/general-aviation/201...](https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/general-aviation/2019-10-30/autoland-garmins-newest-safety-feature)

Also Cirrus:

* [https://cirrusaircraft.com/totalsafety/#safereturn](https://cirrusaircraft.com/totalsafety/#safereturn)

* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiGkzgfR_c0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiGkzgfR_c0)

~~~
campfireveteran
YT urls can be shortened like this:

[https://youtu.be/d-ruFmgTpqA](https://youtu.be/d-ruFmgTpqA)

^ I saw this in my feed before this HN article.

~~~
throw0101a
Yes. Or I can just copy-paste what's in my browser's URL bar by pressing
<ctrl-l><ctrl-c>. :)

------
cyberferret
Maybe a coincidence, but Cirrus Aircraft announced their SafeReturn Emergency
Autoland on their Vision Jet series today as well [0]. Looks pretty
impressive. A passenger can just press one button on the roof behind the
pilot, and the aircraft will send a distress signal, re-route and autoland the
aircraft at the nearest airport (including terrain and weather avoidance) and
also convert all screens on board to inform the passengers how to use the
radio for comms etc.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiGkzgfR_c0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiGkzgfR_c0)

~~~
ianhawes
FWIW Cirrus also has a Cirrus Airframe Parachute System that is standard in
all models.

~~~
crooked-v
The autoland system will even give passengers instructions on how to activate
CAPS if there are no airports in range it knows how to land at.

------
jillesvangurp
Sounds very similar to something Austin Meyer (creator of x-plane) implemented
a few years ago called Xavion: [http://xavion.com/](http://xavion.com/)

This is an ipad app that calculates a best glidepath to the best runway and
guides you to the runway safely. It's intended for emergency situations when
you lose an engine and quickly have to decide on an airport/runway. However,
it sort of snowballed into an app with a lot of situational awareness
features.

But he actually experimented with hooking that up to a plane at some point to
create a self landing system: [https://www.x-plane.com/2014/07/xavion-brings-
a-real-world-a...](https://www.x-plane.com/2014/07/xavion-brings-a-real-world-
airplane-down-to-10-feet-above-the-ground/). Not sure if he ever shipped that
feature. I imagine there might be some certification hassle :-).

~~~
rexaliquid
Similar, but also kind of the opposite. Xavion is for when you have a
functioning pilot, but a malfunctioning plane. Emergency Autoland is for when
you have a functioning plane, but not a functioning pilot.

~~~
jsmith45
Austin Meyer did help on an actual autoland device that was based on the same
concept: the VP-400 by Vertical Power. But I'm not sure it ever went anywhere.
In theory with that system, you could push the "oh-shit" button if you lose
your engine, and it would take over the autopilot to try to automatically fly
the calculated path.

Of course I don't think it was as fully integrated, so no automatic radio
callouts or anything.

I'm not sure if the product actually ever became available.

HOWEVER: If you have a TruTrak autopilot, and an an iLevil ADS-B receiver,
then Xavion has a super experimental "auto" button that will actually control
the autopilot, to attempt to automatically fly the calculated course.

------
nabla9
Garmin Autoland is emergency only autoland.

Not to be confused with CAT II/III autoland used in normal operations.

~~~
cj
For anyone else wondering what "emergency only autoland" means:

From Wikipedia: "The feature is activated by a guarded red button on Garmin
G3000 NX avionics, evaluating winds, weather and fuel reserves to select a
suitable diversion airport and taking over the aircraft controls to land, it
advises the ATC and displays instructions to occupants."

From the Garmin marketing site [1]: "Garmin Autoland. It takes complete
control of the flight to land the airplane in an emergency where the pilot is
unable to fly1."

I'm not exactly sure if this is the correct reference for CAT II/III autoland,
but seems like the purpose of CAT II/III autoland is to land and aircraft when
the pilot would otherwise have a hard time manually landing due to weather
conditions (ie. limited visibility) [2]. But if someone has a more accurate
description, please correct me!

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland#Emergency_autoland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoland#Emergency_autoland)

[1] [https://www.garmin.com/en-US/autonomi/](https://www.garmin.com/en-
US/autonomi/)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system#ILS_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system#ILS_categories)

Edit: Just to clarify the reason for posting this versus just relying on the
text in the press release, I was under the impression the announcement was for
some fully-automated flight control system (ie. take off and landing without a
pilot on board, a la self-driving cars) based on the press release not
mentioning why the system would be activated.

~~~
throw0101a
Cat II/III use ILS which send out signals on the runway(s) in question. IIRC,
those signals need to be monitored to make sure they're with-in certain
tolerances because II/III is used in minimal visibility conditions, so there's
very little time to correct things at the last minute. It's about trusting a
whole bunch of equipment to work properly because you're basically flying with
a blind fold on otherwise.

This Garmin G3000-based system primary uses GPS/WAAS (and perhaps VORs) to get
location data, so accuracy may not be with-in necessary tolerances for day-to-
day use, but it's better than nothing for emergencies.

~~~
kejaed
The marketing videos say the airport needs to have a published GPS approach.

~~~
sokoloff
GPS WAAS is good only down to 200 and 1/2 (200’ above ground cloud base and
1/2 mile visibility underneath)

Cat II ILS can go down to 100 and 1200RVR (100’ bases and 1200’ of runway
visual range)

Cat IIIc can go down to 0/0.

200 and 1/2 is perfectly usable for most day to day weather and is certainly
good enough for unexpectedly incapacitated pilot.

------
tzm
Cirrus' Vision Jet also has autolanding called "Safe Return"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiGkzgfR_c0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiGkzgfR_c0)

~~~
rexaliquid
Yes, both are implementing Garmin's new emergency autoland feature.

------
heelix
Very cool option. The rocket propelled parashoot ^h^h parachute essentially
totals the aircraft when used. Even a crash at post touchdown landing speeds
is likely easier on those on board.

The autopilot features available to GA and experimental aircraft are quite
impressive for holding things at a specific ask in various weather conditions.
Not uncommon to have the autopilot active when flying in IFR conditions to
help with some of the workload.

Assuming the plane has GPS, a correct altimeter setting, and airspeed -
between the instruments you get a reasonable amount of cross checking for
accuracy and enough information to calculate your vector. If you actually
fly/land at the speeds recommended, most of the time landing will be pretty
uneventful.

Many of the tablet/phone based GPS only solutions will give a pretty solid
estimation of engine out glide distance too. You (should) pitch for 'best
glide' speeds and in combination with the airport data bank with the GPS unit,
know where you can get to. I'll push the 'direct to' nearest button and try
for it were it in glide range. This sounds like it just connected all the
automation dots.

A good landing is where everyone leaves the plane safely. A great landing
allows the plane to be used again. I suspect this is going for a good
landing... which is fantastic news for the passenger.

~~~
dghughes
>...parashoot

A typo but that slip created a great brand name for a rocket-propelled
parachute the "ParaShoot".

~~~
heelix
ah god damn it. I was just coming back to make an edit as enough coffee
registered the mistake.

------
mothsonasloth
Interesting to use the word HALO, seeing as its already used as an acronym in
aviation for High Altitude Low Opening.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-
altitude_military_parachu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-
altitude_military_parachuting)

There is also TALO, which stands for Tactical Air Landing Operation

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjJdISjq8Wg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjJdISjq8Wg)

~~~
TheRealPomax
Yes, but in a very different context. While both are "aviation", military
aviation and commercial aviation are pretty isolated from each other.

------
dweekly
Cirrus announced their version of this yesterday for their Cirrus Jet, they
are calling the feature Safe Return. Also incorporates 7700, TAWS escape, wind
check, pax 121.5 simplified radio controls, everything.

[https://cirrusaircraft.com/cirrus-aircraft-revolutionizes-
pa...](https://cirrusaircraft.com/cirrus-aircraft-revolutionizes-passenger-
safety-through-autonomous-flight-with-safe-return-emergency-autoland/)

------
bmurphy1976
Man the headline borderline is incomprehensible. Here's the actual article
headline: Piper Announces New M600 SLS. First GA Aircraft to be Standard
Equipped with HALO™ Safety System and Autoland Capability

I'm assuming GA means generally available?

~~~
reaperducer
GA is General Aviation, I believe. I've been to EAA, but I'm not an airplane
person so I could be wrong.

------
code4tee
This is impressive. Use case is for an incapacitated pilot. It won’t work well
or at all if the aircraft itself is having issues or in other emergency
scenarios. As such it doesn’t replace the need for qualified pilots at the
controls.

~~~
asdfadsfgfdda
I suspect they are marketing this for incapacitated pilots (an extremely rare
situation), but it also seems like an alternative for overwhelmed pilots. They
don't want to call their potential customers idiots, but this is another
feature to help pilots avoid loss of control.

And I definitely see a future version that could handle engine failures. If
you can count on auto land to flawlessly glide to the nearest airport, who
needs a twin engine airplane? Single engine airplanes are significantly
cheaper to operate than twins.

------
Stevvo
Title is innaccurate, as the m600 is not the first, it will be simultaneously
made available accross several different aircraft with Garmin avionics. The
system can be also be retrofitted in older aircraft.

~~~
rexaliquid
Aircraft still have to certify the feature, now that it exists. The title is
accurate in that the m600 will be the first to certify with Autoland. Other
aircraft will follow.

------
jonplackett
Question: A private jet is obviously bad for the environment, but how does a
propeller plane compare carbon-wise to driving a car the same distance?

~~~
carleverett
Not good. A Cessna 172 cruises at 140 mph and burns 8.5 gph of 100LL fuel, the
equivalent of 16.5 mpg, and this is at cruise speed, not accounting for taxi,
run-up, and flying the pattern during a normal flight.

Not to mention we're still burning lead in most propeller aircraft as well.

Fortunately this isn't a very popular way of getting around.

~~~
jonplackett
It’s interesting that it’s not insanely bad. I assumed it would be maybe 2-10X
worse but it’s in a similar ballpark.

Would a full on private jet be way worse?

Would these planes carry a fair few people than a car? If so what’s it like
taking passenger numbers into account?

I guess super-rich folk probably would be happy to fly just themselves in a
big private jet and also be travelling waaaay further than they ever would in
a car so it’s probably a silly comparison anyway

~~~
asdfadsfgfdda
There's actually a huge range in private planes. This M600 plane does about 7
mpg, 250 knots at 45 gph. A typical light jet might do 400 knots at 125 gph (3
mpg). But a light jet cannot not fly nonstop to a different continent. For
these trips, a large business jet might do 450 knots at 300 gph (1.5 mpg), but
only the very super rich can actually afford these. Even most celebrities will
be flying the airlines for long international trips.

~~~
jonplackett
Thanks for the calculations! It’s weird how a more advance technology like a
jet can be so successful yet an order of magnitude less economical. Usually
it’s the reverse. But when you’re rich it’s time that’s money

~~~
capekwasright
The short answer is that higher speeds come at a steep price. The relationship
between velocity and the power required to overcome drag at that velocity is
cubic, so that large business jet requires on the order of 50x more power to
fly at 450 kts than it would flying at 120 kts, like the little Cessna might.

------
heyflyguy
Pretty neat tech, and an interesting alternate ending from the "pinch hitter"
courses being taught by CFIs across the country.

------
ChicagoBoy11
The tech is still interesting, even if similar things that are used even in
non-emergency scenarios have existed in large jets for a few decades. The one
thing I don't understand is if it always just relies on WAAS and GPS no matter
what, or, if depending on the runway it chooses to land, it may use something
like an ILS.

~~~
tialaramex
It won't try to do ILS. I think the issue is that where GPS is available it
can definitely put that plane down. Maybe it's not the world's greatest
landing due to GPS inaccuracy, not right on the centre line, tries to put the
gear through the floor - maybe the airframe ends up totalled, but if every
passenger on the plane walks away it's a huge success given the pilot was
incapacitated. Whereas for ILS that gets you down under clouds in mediocre
weather, all lined up properly, but (except in airports with Cat III ILS) it
doesn't actually put you on the ground. With a trained pilot in the seat
that's not an issue, once they can see the runway they can do the rest, but
this is for emergencies.

As I mentioned in a previous HN item about ILS, these autoland systems don't
get you off the runway. For a grave emergency (pilot dropped dead in flight
with their spouse and two kids onboard) that's forgiveable, and this mentions
that the product begins broadcasting that the runway chosen is now unusable
(because your plane is now parked on it) but this is why Cat IIIc doesn't
magically allow JFK to function normally in a blizzard. When the pilots still
can't see the runway even after their plane lands on it, that's not useful for
routine passenger flights.

~~~
throw0101a
> _I think the issue is that where GPS is available it can definitely put that
> plane down. Maybe it 's not the world's greatest landing due to GPS
> inaccuracy, not right on the centre line,_ ...

I wonder how this will change when the L2, L5, and L1C signals start becoming
used from the GPS III satellites.

Also, in the US, non-GPS/Navstar signals cannot officially be used for
anything, though I think Galileo was recently (finally) approved by the FCC:

* [https://www.gsa.europa.eu/newsroom/news/fcc-approves-use-gal...](https://www.gsa.europa.eu/newsroom/news/fcc-approves-use-galileo-us)

(The issue was something like: once officially approved, the frequencies in
questions cannot be used for anything else, and are protected.)

------
redis_mlc
Not sure what HN is getting all excited about ... the Piper M600 is $3
million, and since Mexico is humid, they've had composite delamination
problems ...

Or you can just pull the throttle to idle, and trim for Vx, which is the
"descend through clouds" emergency procedure.

------
mtw
Does this aircraft have LIDAR or cameras? Wondering how it works with other
air traffic and potential collisions. This is one of the biggest challenges
for self-driving cars and I can't see any details about this in the Garmin
G3000

~~~
Stevvo
The G3000 has ADBS in/out, and from January 1st ADSB out will be mandatory in
the US, so it will know where other traffic is. Additionally, the autoland
talks to ATC, and ATC can tell other traffic to get out of the way.

~~~
lm28469
Even without that the chances of two planes colliding is nowhere near what
autonomous vehicle are facing. + a lidar wouldn't do much in the air, it can't
see very far, that's why we have radars.

------
sansnomme
How does it communicate with ground station? Voice recognition and speech
synthesis?

~~~
jimktrains2
I have 100% no familiarity, but I'd assume it's not processing voice from the
ground. It is probably only announcing that this is an emergency and its
intended course of action.

I would love to know if that's not true because that would be a huge leap in
off-line speech processing and recognition.

------
owlninja
>digital technology that safely lands the aircraft at the nearest suitable
airport in the event that the pilot is incapacitated.

How does it know? Also a weird submission to be at the top of HN

~~~
lucideer
> _weird submission to be at the top of HN_

Seems like the usual HN fare. Autonomous control of vehicles is a very common
topic here.

~~~
beerandt
A self-driving car article makes the front page seemingly several times per
week, but an article on a self-landing GA plane is weird?

------
Robotbeat
Sounds like something that, once it becomes perfected, could reduce the
required number of pilots on commercial passenger aircraft from 2 to 1 (at
least for smaller planes).

------
antoineMoPa
$2.994M. Guess I'll just ride my bike then.

~~~
Stevvo
They mentioned it can be retrofitted in older aircraft. So it might be an
option in the future if you are doing $100k panel upgrade in your 1950s tin
can airplane.

~~~
tialaramex
As the plane gets older and less sophisticated it gets harder to put all the
pieces of the puzzle together without ripping the whole aircraft to pieces and
starting over.

Even after touching down, the aircraft this is built for have computer control
for the brakes and full rudder authority, so it can do a pretty good
approximation of a proper short field landing based on GPS and wheel speed
sensors. Do you want to add computer controlled brakes and wheel speed sensors
to your tin can? No? Then we have to assume the plan is to just roll to a halt
and that cuts our list of viable landing sites and hurts survivability
considerably.

------
briandear
And Cirrus announced the same thing. This isn’t type specific but a
characteristic of the new Garmin G3000.

------
caseyf7
Why do they cost $3M?

~~~
supernova87a
The labor, insurance, and safety / regulatory certifications required of a low
volume production aircraft.

~~~
FabHK
Only about 1000 single-engine piston aircraft are sold every year worldwide,
and only about 500 single-engine turboprop.

It's a market with higher certification requirements, but much smaller unit
volume than boats and cars, so much more certification, R&D, admin cost has to
be covered by each unit sold.

See eg.
[https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/wordpress/2019/02/26/2...](https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/wordpress/2019/02/26/2018-world-
general-aviation-aircraft-shipments-up-5/)

------
anonu
Not to be a philistine about new technology: but somehow I think this would
make people in the air and in the ground less safe.

It's probably like having a parachute on the plane: just a great marketing
sales point.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
If this system doesn't alert the outside world that it's been used more than a
few intoxicated people are gonna use it to land at uncontrolled airports. Just
get close and press the magic button.

Net safety will probably increase because most people will never have that use
case though.

~~~
technofiend
Funny, but no. It definitely alerts people and those kind of alerts come with
consequences. Declaring an emergency will trigger a later review by the FAA
with potential action from them ranging from nothing at all to removing the
pilot's license.

