Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Weird Situation At MIA Today.  
User currently offline797 From Venezuela, joined Aug 2005, 1892 posts, RR: 27
Posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3236 times:

Hey Guys,

Today I went to MIA to pick up some friends. I saw something particular that caught my attention.

Weather in south Florida has been awfull. Visibility was very low, especially around MIA this morning.

When I turned my frequency scanner on, I noticed pilots were using normal ILS to land in all 4 runways (8L, 8R, 12 and 9). After I picked up my friends and came out of the airport, I heard "Going Around". I thought it was something normal, but after that first time, four more aircrafts did the same (2 757s, 1 738 and 1 767). Then (the ironic part), a Bahamasair 732 landed, and after that, a 757, 767 and A320, went back to go-around!

I know visibility was very low, but how did a 732 land easily and a 738 didn't! Pretty ironic, huh?

This weather is scaring me! Not normal at all here in MIA. It got a bit dangerous at the highway due to the fog! (SOUTH FLORIDA!!!)

Cheers!  santahat 


Flying isn't dangerous. Crashing is what's dangerous!
18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMD90fan From Bahamas, joined Jul 2005, 2931 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3209 times:

A Chalk's Ocean seaplane crashed nearby today


http://www.devanwells.blogspot.com/
User currently offlineTPAnx From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1021 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3193 times:

We've had that same sort of low ceiling, drizzle,etc for the past couple of days. Ecch! Not a pilot, but could the fog/clouds lifted enough to allow the 732 to land, then closed in again? Just a thought.
TPAnx



I read the news today..oh boy
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3126 times:

Quoting 797 (Thread starter):
I know visibility was very low, but how did a 732 land easily and a 738 didn't! Pretty ironic, huh?

I know this is going to sound simplistic, but sometimes weather (specifically, the RVR reading for a particular runway/approach) flucuates right at minimums. If one needs, say, an RVR of 1800 for the approach, and the weather is at 2000, you're fine. If the RVR decreases to 1600, you're hosed and may have to either hold or go around and hope the RVR is above 1800 for your next try. If the RVR is flucuating between 1600 and 2000, some will make it in and some won't. Other variables are if the runway has CAT-II or CAT-III equipment, and what a specific aircraft/crew are certified for.


User currently offlineMIASkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1347 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3100 times:

Um...are we in San Fran or Miami?

Fog like this is quite rare in these parts!



Nothing better than making love at 35K Feet!
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3072 times:

I thought that you could continue an instrument approach which was commenced when RVR was above the minimum by the time you reached the IAF even if the RVR fell below minimum once you were inside the IAF. However, if you were going to land, the RVR had to be above minimums by the time the wheels touched the ground/or possibly the DH (I'm not sure). The rule was enacted to deal with rolling fog banks and passing storms.

User currently offline797 From Venezuela, joined Aug 2005, 1892 posts, RR: 27
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3050 times:

Quoting MIASkies (Reply 4):
Fog like this is quite rare in these parts!

Tell me about it!

I just came for X-mas vacations! Usually MIA has blue skies (ofcourse whith normal clouding) and today I see 6 aircraft go around due to fog! Very weird indeed...

Cheers!



Flying isn't dangerous. Crashing is what's dangerous!
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2988 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 5):
I thought that you could continue an instrument approach which was commenced when RVR was above the minimum by the time you reached the IAF even if the RVR fell below minimum once you were inside the IAF. However, if you were going to land, the RVR had to be above minimums by the time the wheels touched the ground/or possibly the DH (I'm not sure). The rule was enacted to deal with rolling fog banks and passing storms.

The point remains that RVR can vary from literally minute to minute.

In 20-something years, I've lost count of the number of times where 2 or 3 would make it, then the RVR goes below and there's holding, then the RVR is up again, then down, then back up, and then down again.

Some morning when it's really foggy somewhere (SEA, PDX, GEG, or SMF would be good prospects), go to http://rvr.fly.faa.gov/rvr/index.html and set it for 10-second updates and watch how this stuff changes sometimes...


User currently offline797 From Venezuela, joined Aug 2005, 1892 posts, RR: 27
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2949 times:

Hey guys, sorry for my ignorance, but what does RVR stand for?

Anyways, the 732 landed seconds after a 757 aborted, and the 738 coming after the 732, didn't make it. It was matter of seconds...

I remember a flight I took, MIA-MXP on a AZ 777, we landed probably in CATII or III and many jets were landing normally as well....

Cheers!



Flying isn't dangerous. Crashing is what's dangerous!
User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2864 times:

Quoting 797 (Reply 8):
but what does RVR stand for?

Runway Visual Range


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2864 times:

Quoting 797 (Reply 8):
Hey guys, sorry for my ignorance, but what does RVR stand for?

It stands for Runway Visual Range. Without getting too much into the technical end, it's a system of measurement to more accurately assess visibility when it's below 1sm. Not all runways at an airport are equipped with an RVR, but when it is, RVR is controlling for the approach.

[Edited 2005-12-19 22:43:29]

User currently offline797 From Venezuela, joined Aug 2005, 1892 posts, RR: 27
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2805 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 10):

Oh I get it now! Thanks for that.

I believe MIA is equiped with RVR right? Even though it's not common used!



Flying isn't dangerous. Crashing is what's dangerous!
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2764 times:

Quoting 797 (Reply 11):

I believe MIA is equiped with RVR right? Even though it's not common used!

Yes they are, and no, it doesn't get used all that much there.

I spent almost 2 years at Air Florida back in the early 1980s, and I only recall MIA getting really foggy once or twice...


User currently offlineBBJII From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 850 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2621 times:

It may be 732 thing????

Not Long ago, the same thing at STN in the UK.

RVR was poor...TUI/FR/EZY all over the place....Go-around's like it crazy day at the circus....only thing that landed for about 1 hour was a FR732.




 wave 

Then again...there not worth much if there is an incident.....JOKE


Merry Xmas and Season's Greeting's


 wave 



Remember: The Bird Hit You, You Didn't Hit The Bird.....
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2372 times:

Quoting 797 (Thread starter):
When I turned my frequency scanner on, I noticed pilots were using normal ILS to land in all 4 runways (8L, 8R, 12 and 9). After I picked up my friends and came out of the airport, I heard "Going Around". I thought it was something normal, but after that first time, four more aircrafts did the same (2 757s, 1 738 and 1 767). Then (the ironic part), a Bahamasair 732 landed, and after that, a 757, 767 and A320, went back to go-around!

Not to dispute what you are saying however I doubt they were landing on all 4 runways at the same time.....the ATIS might have advertised 4 landing runways to prep the crews for any one of them if in fact the vsby was very low because then an arrival may get changed to the runway with the highest RVR. As for the "go arounds", with low RVR's how did you see who went around as far as they aircraft type is concerned?



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineMIAMIx707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2338 times:

I have never seen fog at MIA. However during the summer visibilities are sometimes not so great with either thunderstorms or hazy conditions.

The weather has been less than ideal at least from the Orlando area southward over the past few days.


User currently offlineLamedianaranja From Venezuela, joined Nov 2004, 1246 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2309 times:

Maybe the Bahamasair B732 had been in a holding pattern and declared fuel emergency? It just had to land maybe and the others were still OK to try again.

Fog also limits the number of aircraft an airport can handle even if RVR, ILS, CATIII conditions are perfect.

The interesting thing would have been to listen in to the tower frequency!



I wish that all skies were orange and blue!!
User currently offlineVEEREF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2266 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 5):
I thought that you could continue an instrument approach which was commenced when RVR was above the minimum by the time you reached the IAF even if the RVR fell below minimum once you were inside the IAF. However, if you were going to land, the RVR had to be above minimums by the time the wheels touched the ground/or possibly the DH (I'm not sure). The rule was enacted to deal with rolling fog banks and passing storms.

Mostly correct. Once you are inside the FAF, regardles of RVR, if you have the required inflight visibility, you may land. Adequate inflight visibility is determined by the flightcrew upon reaching DH. If RVR is below minimums prior to reaching the FAF, discontinuation of the approach is mandatory. And it can vary quite dramatically between aircraft attempts, so one will get in while others go around. With the number of go arounds taking place, it seems the Bahamasair flight happened to get lucky at the right time.


User currently offline797 From Venezuela, joined Aug 2005, 1892 posts, RR: 27
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2035 times:

Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 14):
Not to dispute what you are saying however I doubt they were landing on all 4 runways at the same time.....the ATIS might have advertised 4 landing runways to prep the crews for any one of them if in fact the vsby was very low because then an arrival may get changed to the runway with the highest RVR. As for the "go arounds", with low RVR's how did you see who went around as far as they aircraft type is concerned?

Well, I know they were using all four runways (8R, 8L, 12 and 9) simply because I heard through the frequency airplanes trying to land in those runways.

I got to see the aborting airplanes when they were over me, since I was next to the airport. The aborting airplanes I saw passed over rwy. 12 and 9.

Quoting Lamedianaranja (Reply 16):
Maybe the Bahamasair B732 had been in a holding pattern and declared fuel emergency?

Hmm, I don't think so... I was in the frequency much before he showed up. He made the normal procedures and landed.

Very weird situation though!

Cheers  santahat 



Flying isn't dangerous. Crashing is what's dangerous!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Saudia Bird At MIA Today posted Mon Aug 7 2006 03:23:35 by Ualcsr
Weird Things At YVR Today....... Many! posted Sat Oct 2 2004 00:29:29 by Ktachiya
8/26 Ceremony At MIA Today posted Wed Aug 27 2003 03:05:58 by Mia777
DL MD-11 At MIA Today? posted Sun Jun 22 2003 00:09:01 by Mia777
3 AF Jets At MIA Today posted Mon Dec 2 2002 05:40:59 by MAH4546
What Happened At MIA Today? posted Tue Nov 26 2002 01:13:13 by GARUDAROD
The El Al Situation At MIA posted Wed Dec 26 2001 08:47:28 by Mah4546
Today's Situation At LGW posted Thu Aug 10 2006 13:52:55 by Sam1987
Interesting Sights Today At MIA posted Thu May 11 2006 22:58:22 by Coyoteguy
Today's Situation At YYZ posted Fri Jul 2 2004 16:29:29 by Ushermittwoch