Autoland King Air 200 Due to Pilot Incapacitation Broomfield, CO 12/20/25

Bell206 said:
Thats provided the disable system did not fail when the pilots activated it??
Click to expand...
I would imagine that there is more than one route to disabling it.
This was a retrofit; the company that did so said that the pilot was incapacitated, but they may have no more information that we do.
They did say that the pilot was OK, however. Which is ... weird.
 
Checkout avbrief.com. They say this was a test. “…We flew along in Garmin’s King Air for a demo of the Autoland and Autothrottles…”
 
luvflyin said:
Checkout avbrief.com. They say this was a test. “…We flew along in Garmin’s King Air for a demo of the Autoland and Autothrottles…”
Click to expand...
Sounds a lot like the reason the FAA isn’t allowed to do hijacking scenarios with charter operators anymore.
 
luvflyin said:
Checkout avbrief.com. They say this was a test. “…We flew along in Garmin’s King Air for a demo of the Autoland and Autothrottles…”
Click to expand...
I think that was a poorly written article conflating two events. Read it as,

"And since its introduction in 2019, we’ve been waiting for the first real-world Autoland activation and landing. The day finally came on Dec. 20, 2025, when Autoland was activated and a safe landing fully executed in a Beech King Air 200. In this video [from a long time ago that we're trying to get views on now], we [previously] flew along in Garmin’s King Air for a demo of the Autoland and Autothrottles [at a different time and place].

Check out this article:

avbrief.com

Autoland Saves King Air, Everyone Safe, FAA, NTSB Launch Probes (Updated) - AvBrief.com

Aircraft landed safely at Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport near Denver on Saturday afternoon.
avbrief.com avbrief.com
 
Lindberg said:
I think that was a poorly written article conflating two events. Read it as,

"And since its introduction in 2019, we’ve been waiting for the first real-world Autoland activation and landing. The day finally came on Dec. 20, 2025, when Autoland was activated and a safe landing fully executed in a Beech King Air 200. In this video [from a long time ago that we're trying to get views on now], we [previously] flew along in Garmin’s King Air for a demo of the Autoland and Autothrottles [at a different time and place].

Check out this article:

avbrief.com

Autoland Saves King Air, Everyone Safe, FAA, NTSB Launch Probes (Updated) - AvBrief.com

Aircraft landed safely at Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport near Denver on Saturday afternoon.
avbrief.com avbrief.com
Click to expand...
Yep. Not Garmin's KA.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Maybe the pilots didn’t watch the video, either.
Click to expand...
As I've been diving into the complexities of glass panel systems for our plane, and talking and reading about other pilots' experience with these systems, it has become pretty apparent that the in-depth systems knowledge needed to understand what is happening during "abnormal events" is lacking in a good number of pilots, not helped by a lack of training materials emphasizing how to handle various failure conditions. The problem with developing good training is that there are so many different systems, with boxes talking to each other in various ways, that there is no consistent way to deliver the training other than "you should really understand how your specific system is wired".
 
It will be interesting to find out what really happened.

On a related topic, the next generation of Auto Land for airliners will also include the "stop 20 feet short of the ramp and wait 30 minutes" and "lose your luggage" auto features.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
As I've been diving into the complexities of glass panel systems for our plane, and talking and reading about other pilots' experience with these systems, it has become pretty apparent that the in-depth systems knowledge needed to understand what is happening during "abnormal events" is lacking in a good number of pilots, not helped by a lack of training materials emphasizing how to handle various failure conditions. The problem with developing good training is that there are so many different systems, with boxes talking to each other in various ways, that there is no consistent way to deliver the training other than "you should really understand how your specific system is wired".
Click to expand...
That goes back to the basics of how avionic systems are taught to start with. A lot of pilots aren’t taught how to fly GPS, or even ILS, approaches, they’re taught how to push the buttons on their specific unit to fly an approach. The ability to learn a new system without specific instruction on specific tasks becomes pretty much zero.

If you understand the various boxes, what they do, and what redundancies are “normal” you can usually figure out “how your specific system is wired.” But you have to read the manuals, and that doesn’t normally happen, either.
 
MFE said:
What kind of sorcery is this? This is game-changing. Does it sense the incapacitation and automatically invoke action? If so, how does it sense incap? Does it query the pilot after sensing a period of inactivity or something?
Click to expand...
There are a few situations where due to pilot inaction or being in LVL mode for an extended period, it will automatically engage. It’s discussed in the Garmin video.
 
dans2992 said:
This will either be a major win for Garmin; or a major embarrassment for them and the pilots…

Click to expand...
I'm not sure why it would be embarrassing for Garmin as long as the system worked as designed. The pilot(s) certainly might have some explaining to do, like why there was no human attempt to communicate. And for ****s sake, if you were clowning around, at least have the sense to pretend to be incapacitated when the first responders show up.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes you have to think outside the box. The answer may be very close.
 
dans2992 said:
This will either be a major win for Garmin; or a major embarrassment for them and the pilots…

Click to expand...

How's it Garmin's fault that the pilots didn't know how to operate their product?

It's a win for Garmin either way. Incapacitated pilot, stupid pilot, airplane lands anyways. :)
 
Only thing would be if it activated when it shouldn't have or didn't deactivate when told to... no evidence of either at this time.
 
I saw an official statement from the operator this morning. They stated this was a repositioning flight with 2 pilots and no passengers. Once reaching FL230 they experienced a rapid decompression event and the emergency auto descent system activated. Given the circumstances, the pilots elected to allow the system to do its thing while monitoring the situation and its operation.

Edited to add the full statement for your reading pleasure:

"Below is our statement from Chris Townsley, our CEO. No additional interviews will be given at this time. Thank you, Kyle

Buffalo River Aviation Statement Regarding Colorado

Emergency Landing


Buffalo River Aviation confirms its Super King Air 200, N479BR, experienced an in-flight emergency on Saturday, December 20, after departing from Aspen, Colorado (KASE) on a FAR Part 91 reposition flight. No passengers were on board. Climbing through 23,000ft MSL, the aircraft experienced a rapid, uncommanded loss of pressurization. As per standard procedures, the two pilots immediately put on their oxygen masks.


The aircraft, equipped with Garmin Aviation’s latest Emergency Descent Mode (EDM) and Autoland systems, automatically engaged exactly as designed when the cabin altitude exceeded the prescribed safe levels. The system selected a suitable airport per Garmin criteria (KBJC, Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport), navigated to it, and communicated automatically along the way.


Due to the complexity of the specific situation, including instrument meteorological conditions, mountainous terrain, active icing conditions, unknown reasons for loss of pressure, and the binary (all-or-nothing) function of the Garmin emergency systems; the pilots, exercising conservative judgement under their emergency command authority (FAR 91.3) made the decision to leave the system engaged while monitoring its performance and attempting communications as able within the constraints of the system. While the system performed exactly as expected, the pilots were prepared to resume manual control of the aircraft should the system have malfunctioned in any way.


Reports of pilot incapacitation are incorrect and result solely from the Garmin emergency system's automated communication and reporting functions. In this case, the crew consciously elected to preserve and use all available tools and minimize additional variables in an unpredictable, emergent situation, prioritizing life and a safe outcome over all other factors, as they are trained to do. The aircraft returned home the following day without incident.


Buffalo River Aviation is grateful to the pilots for their exceptional judgment and execution of protocols, and to the Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport and Denver Center Tracon personnel for their assistance and support during this event.


Chris Townsley, CEO, Buffalo River Aviation"
 
midwestpa24 said:
I saw an official statement from the operator this morning. They stated this was a repositioning flight with 2 pilots and no passengers. Once reaching FL230 they experienced a rapid decompression event and the emergency auto descent system activated. Given the circumstances, the pilots elected to allow the system to do its thing while monitoring the situation and its operation.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I'd not be happy if I was the operator. Putting myself in their shoes: I'm paying two pilots....why exactly? They elect to let the plane land itself rather than fly it? Autoland is pretty impressive, but from what I've seen plants the plane pretty solidly. Chance for a hard landing? Tying up ATC/the airport? Getting my company's name and our airplane all over the news? These guys would be looking for a new job. Meanwhile I'd also be furiously updating my 135 certificate to eliminate the second pilot.

sddefault.jpg
 
Jim K said:
Interesting. I'd not be happy if I was the operator. Putting myself in their shoes: I'm paying two pilots....why exactly? They elect to let the plane land itself rather than fly it? Autoland is pretty impressive, but from what I've seen plants the plane pretty solidly. Chance for a hard landing? Tying up ATC/the airport? Getting my company's name and our airplane all over the news? These guys would be looking for a new job. Meanwhile I'd also be furiously updating my 135 certificate to eliminate the second pilot.
Click to expand...

I will respectfully disagree. As the statement says, they were IMC, over mountains, just had a rapid depressurization and were masked up, probably fighting the effects of adrenaline and helmet fire, and the airplane was flying itself just fine. That gave the pilots the ability to slow down, assess the situation, and not do anything stupid to make it worse. How many accidents were caused by the overreaction or mis-reaction of the pilots after some type of system failure that shouldn't have been a problem. I recall the King Air at Cape Girardeau years ago that the pilots did their best to pull the wings and tail off the airplane after a cabin depressurization event. I have to side with the pilots on this one, they are alive and the airplane is reusable. If that isn't manly enough for you, oh well.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I will respectfully disagree. As the statement says, they were IMC, over mountains, just had a rapid depressurization and were masked up, probably fighting the effects of adrenaline and helmet fire, and the airplane was flying itself just fine. That gave the pilots the ability to slow down, assess the situation, and not do anything stupid to make it worse. How many accidents were caused by the overreaction or mis-reaction of the pilots after some type of system failure that shouldn't have been a problem. I recall the King Air at Cape Girardeau years ago that the pilots did their best to pull the wings and tail off the airplane after a cabin depressurization event. I have to side with the pilots on this one, they are alive and the airplane is reusable. If that isn't manly enough for you, oh well.
Click to expand...
I don't fault them at all for letting it fly them down close to the airport. Plenty of time to wind their watches and run their checklists. I do fault them for letting it land itself.
 
Jim K said:
Meanwhile I'd also be furiously updating my 135 certificate to eliminate the second pilot.
Click to expand...
You'll find there are a number of operators who run 2 pilots. For example, there are companies who require 2 pilot crews in order for their executives to fly on. Or they simply have an internal policy for 2 pilots. I've even seen it at the small single engine helicopter side where the 2nd pilot had an effect on its the range and useability, but they still used 2 pilots.
 
Jim K said:
I don't fault them at all for letting it fly them down close to the airport. Plenty of time to wind their watches and run their checklists. I do fault them for letting it land itself.
Click to expand...
Meh. Plane did everything else so far. Why mess that up now?
 
Dave Theisen said:
Can you log that time as PIC? :)
Click to expand...
The Garmin Autoland can. Enough hours, and soon you'll see a DPE giving it a practical exam........

DPE: "HAL, you're doing just great"

Garmin: "Thank you human ballast"


A serious comment: Auto land Cat 3 (?) systems land airliners in zero visibility all the way to the runway, so this isn't that far away from what is currently allowed / no pilots are fired. And.... what's important is getting the plane from here to there as safely as possible, not so much how it is done. IF the auto land contributes to the objective of safely taking off, getting there, and landing, why not utilize it? Could argue that rejecting it because "pilots aren't doing it all by themselves" would actually degrade the probability of a good outcome. Why not use all technology possible?
 
Last edited:
Jim K said:
Getting my company's name and our airplane all over the news? These guys would be looking for a new job.
Click to expand...
Except we don't know if it wasn't one or two of the company founders that were flying it given they are active pilots and wanted to see what the system would do?
 
Jim K said:
….I do fault them for letting it land itself.
Click to expand...

Meh. CFI’s let students land planes all the time, no? It’s not like they were playing backgammon while the plane landed. I’m sure they were monitoring every step of the way and ready to take control if need be. Plus it’s not like it costs money per initiation of auto land. Well, unless auto land goobers up the landing :)
 
A PR person must have written the official statement and for the general public it works. There is more to the story.
 
I guess I'm in the minority.

If I was paying two pilots a good wage to operate my $4-5 million aircraft, I'd expect them to actually fly it, not leave the landing to a system that may or may not slam it onto the runway or have an excursion. In this case it worked out, but Autoland is designed to be an emergency system, and carries a risk of damage.

I'm certain my opinion is colored by my hatred of the relentless drive to take the human out of everything. Landing is the hard part. What's the point of having pilots at all?
 
Jim K said:
What's the point of having pilots at all?
Click to expand...
Increasingly I'm coming around to the notion of it being another layer of swiss cheese. Today the humans are mostly in control, and we're pretty effective at not crashing planes. But approach capable autopilots and autoland have been things for a long time and is also pretty effective at not crashing planes. As the years go by the specialized equipment needed for autoland becomes more widespread or unnecessary due to technology advances. Over time, machines will be mostly in control and remain pretty effective at not crashing planes.

So, back to the cheese. The point of having pilots at all is that the failure modes for machines and humans are pretty different. So by having both (I think regardless of which one is doing most of the work) we end up with two layers in the swiss cheese that rarely line-up in terms of failure modes. That seems like a pretty good reason to still have a human in the loop. Maybe just single pilot, maybe remote monitoring, but still in the loop.
 
bonefishpete said:
Grand Kids will be asking grandpa what did an airline pilot do?
Click to expand...

Jim K said:
I guess I'm in the minority.

If I was paying two pilots a good wage to operate my $4-5 million aircraft, I'd expect them to actually fly it, not leave the landing to a system that may or may not slam it onto the runway or have an excursion. In this case it worked out, but Autoland is designed to be an emergency system, and carries a risk of damage.

I'm certain my opinion is colored by my hatred of the relentless drive to take the human out of everything. Landing is the hard part. What's the point of having pilots at all?
Click to expand...
I agree. If the pilots were competent and in control of the situation, they could have resumed communications and flight duties at any point. Thus avoiding closing a busy feeder airport for however long ...and getting their company some very questionable publicity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top