Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Landing In Heavy Fog At LHR  
User currently offlineCardiffairtaxi From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 303 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 7740 times:

Check this video out.
Full autoland i guess!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5f0_1183152276

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7667 times:

The guy who uploaded the video described it as "scary" but it looks rather routine. They have the approach lights in sight at 200 feet AGL and the approach lights and runway end in sight at 100 feet AGL.

Don't believe it was an autoland, as in CAT-IIIc approach, since there is no decision height (DH) for those and the robo-voice clearly states "100 above", "Minimum", and "100", the "100 above" meaning they were at 200 feet AGL or 100 feet above their 100-foot AGL minimum.

At my outfit, we have HUDS and hand-fly CAT-IIIa approaches down to RVR 700, so I've seen these on jumpseat rides, and it doesn't take away the PFM (pure freaking magic) of being able to land in such conditions. Great video!


User currently offlineBA777 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2173 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7667 times:

Nice video, though it isnt a 737 as the videographer claims.

User currently offlineCardiffairtaxi From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7653 times:

I suppose you like these landings,just for a bit of a challenge,from the everyday normal conditions.?

User currently offlineMcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1448 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7617 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 1):
Don't believe it was an autoland, as in CAT-IIIc approach, since there is no decision height (DH) for those and the robo-voice clearly states "100 above", "Minimum", and "100", the "100 above" meaning they were at 200 feet AGL or 100 feet above their 100-foot AGL minimum.

Sorry OPNLY but the world is different out side of a 737 and SWA. If you listen to the video you hear "100 Above" and "minimums" immediately afterwards. That was a 100' above TDZE approach handflown as the Dual A/P engaged lights were not illuminated. The only light on the MCP was the Auto-Thrust light engaged. One interesting fact about the bus is it calls "retard", "retard" whether the Autothrust is engaged or not. It is a real pain when hand


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7550 times:

Quoting Mcdu (Reply 4):
Sorry OPNLY but the world is different out side of a 737 and SWA.

Thanks, but I'd already long since figured that one out for myself...  Wink

Quoting Mcdu (Reply 4):
If you listen to the video you hear "100 Above" and "minimums" immediately afterwards.

I went back and listened to it again a couple of times and used the video's time counter as a reference. It's not "100 above" and "minimums" that are heard immediately afterwards, but rather "minimum" and "100" that are 1 second apart:

"500" callout at :08
"400" callout at :18
"300" callout at :26
"100 above" callout at :35
"Minimum" callout at :43
"100" callout at :44

Since their descent seems to be (based on the callouts) about 8-9 seconds for each 100 feet, the "100 above" callout would appear to be 9 seconds after the "300" callout, thus suggesting an altitude of 200-feet AGL, and thus 100 feet above their minimum. The "100" callout at :44 seconds is 9 seconds after the "100 above" callout, which, time-wise, also suggests it was 100 feet after the 200-foot point.

Accordingly, and with all due respect, I stand by my original statement..  Wink


User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 759 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7294 times:

Just to clear up a few things, OPNLguy is correct, it is not a CATIIIc approach. That would require autoland with rollout guidance and the weather was well above requiring that. Also, as he pointed out "Minimums" is called out above 100' AGL. In any CATIII approach the minimums are below 100' (50'). It could have been an autoland, I don't fly the bus so I have no idea what the configuration looks like or how the annuciations may differ. You can however, autoland out of any catagory of ILS approach (CATI, II, or III). My guess is they set up for a CAT II approach. Those have decision altitudes above 100' (which was annunciated) but below 200'. Given the time between "Minimums" and "100" that is my guess. I have devoted too many brain cells to this already.

User currently offlineMcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1448 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7128 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 5):
Accordingly, and with all due respect, I stand by my original statement.. Wink

Still disagree. The mins and 100 being one second apart are because the machine has to process the words. If you look at the lights and the glow of the lights they are in sight at around 200'. As an operator and not a jumpseat driver I stand by my original post. Hand flown CAT I with 100' set in the Perf page for landing.


User currently offlineDeC From Greece, joined Aug 2005, 616 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7128 times:

Nice video, thanks for sharing! Isn't that an A320?


DEC
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 7116 times:

Quoting Mcdu (Reply 7):
As an operator and not a jumpseat driver I stand by my original post.

Roger that...


User currently offlineBALandorLivery From UK - England, joined Jan 2005, 360 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5709 times:

It had to be an autoland as there was no sound or visual alert to show that the autopilot was disconnected.

That is, if it were engaged prior to the video commencing.......

[Edited 2007-07-01 10:53:09]

User currently offlineBALandorLivery From UK - England, joined Jan 2005, 360 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5659 times:

Quoting Mcdu (Reply 7):
Hand flown CAT I with 100' set in the Perf page for landing.

Sounds about right but with a Cat I DH is normally 200 feet. Cat II DH is 100 feet but CAT II has to be an auto approach.

At least, thats the way we do it.

Something does not quite add up I think..............

[Edited 2007-07-01 11:02:07]

User currently offlineLXA340 From Switzerland, joined Nov 2006, 2122 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5130 times:

Didn't LHR experience a simmilar situation at some point last year I think it was just about before Christmas and the Airport was almost completely shut down for days or at least only partially operating. I though if you make the landing with thr Autopilot you could always land no matter how thick the fog is?

User currently offlineVir744 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 5113 times:

With regard to the "Minimums" and "100" calls, I thought that if the decision height was set at a round hundred feet figure it would override the hundred foot callout so if the decision height was set to 100' it would not have called "100'". If the DH was set at 110' then it would call "Minimums" and "100'". The other alternative is that minimums may have been set to MDA referenced to baro altitude.

I believe this is how the GPWC is set in terns of auto callout priorities.

Not flying these for a living a don't get a first hand experience of it, but from a maintenance experience I'm sure that's what it says in the books.


User currently offlineBigJimFX From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 321 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4923 times:

OK.... well considering there wasn't an alarm for the disconnected A/P after touchdown... Not to mention someone calls "in sight"... I'm betting it's hand flown. Pilots flying single engine planes with an instrument tickets are right there...Plus there is actually like 7 seconds from the "100 above" and "minimums" Call out... Am I watching the same video?.... I clicked on the link... Maybe my net's on the fritz.

I'm not gonna argue with differing regs between UK and US because the similarities are 8 letters. But once a member of the flight crew calls "In sight" it's all good. The key to most Precision/Non-Precision approaches is the fact that you need to see the airport environment to continue below minimums.



I'd like to thank me for flying Me Airways...
User currently offlineFlyLKU From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 800 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4273 times:

That approach looked rather routine to me with the runway environment in sight at the "100" call out. I was a passenger on a UA 767-300 going into BRU and made it a point to look for the runway when we touched down. I felt the mains touch as the runway came into view. I went up on the flight deck later and the pilots confessed that it was the lowest any of them had gone outside the simulator. They said it was of course a CAT III approach and that at the "40 feet Auto Flair Engaged" call out and they could not see anything.

They also pointed out that their biggest concern was not getting the plane on the ground safely but getting it to the gate without incident. We may have had a "follow me" car for the taxi. I don't remember.



...are we there yet?
User currently offlineFlyLKU From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 800 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4197 times:

I wonder if Mcdu and OPNLguy disagree as much as they think? It looks like CAT I conditions (though barely) on an airplane setup for a CAT II approach.


...are we there yet?
User currently offlineJamesbaldwyn From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4183 times:

For the first 10 seconds it looks as if they could be thousands of feet in the air!

Thanks for sharing  Smile


User currently offlineIrobertson From Canada, joined Apr 2006, 601 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3749 times:

Quoting Jamesbaldwyn (Reply 17):
For the first 10 seconds it looks as if they could be thousands of feet in the air!

Exactly my thoughts! I thought the video was going to be longer because when I saw the tops of the clouds I thought, oh we're just starting our descent. Then the computer said "500" and I thought WHAT!? What a great landing and great video. Kinda makes me wanna go to flight school.


User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3517 times:

CAT II and CAT III approaches are "autoland" normally, even though there are some exceptions (like LH's CRJs with HUDs).

CAT IIIc is afaik not certified at any airport in the world for commercial operations. IIIb is at good as it gets (no DH, 150ft RVR)

SailorOrion


User currently offlineSkyweasy82 From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 50 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3324 times:

Correct me if I am wrong by heard on of the crew members say runway in sight just before 100 feet.

User currently offlineFlyLKU From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 800 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3239 times:

Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 19):
CAT IIIc is afaik not certified at any airport in the world for commercial operations. IIIb is at good as it gets (no DH, 150ft RVR)

SailorOrion:

Please take a look at the following link which is a PDF of the approaches at JFK and scroll down to page 12 which shows the ILS 22L CAT III approaches. There is a Cat IIIc listed at the bottom of the plate and I believe the NA means "Not Applicable" and not "Not Authorized".

I stand corrected. I checked the abbreviations section of the Terminal Procedures: N/A is Not Applicable and NA is Not Authorized.

JFK/IAP/all/pdf" target=_blank>http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/JFK/IAP/all/pdf

[Edited 2007-07-01 18:33:47]

[Edited 2007-07-01 18:34:22]


...are we there yet?
User currently offlineMcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1448 posts, RR: 17
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3232 times:

Quoting BALandorLivery (Reply 10):
It had to be an autoland as there was no sound or visual alert to show that the autopilot was disconnected.

No, AP was not engaged. On the MCP you can clearly see the A/T light illuminated. Had it been coupled you would be able to see both the A/P lights just above the A/T light. That is the reason for no "chirp chirp" of the A/P disconnect. The bus is really easy to fly and doing a handflown CATII is not legal at my company I am guessing this was an approach that was pretty close to CAT I limits and they were legal to hand fly. Besides, that is more fun than watching!


User currently offlineSailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 22 hours ago) and read 2925 times:

Quoting FlyLKU (Reply 21):
Please take a look at the following link which is a PDF of the approaches at JFK and scroll down to page 12 which shows the ILS 22L CAT III approaches. There is a Cat IIIc listed at the bottom of the plate and I believe the NA means "Not Applicable" and not "Not Authorized".

I stand corrected. I checked the abbreviations section of the Terminal Procedures: N/A is Not Applicable and NA is Not Authorized.

Good. I'm not the only one who gets confused by NA and N/A  Smile
What would be the point of CAT IIIc anyway? Unless someone finally gives airlines a way to find their gate in zero visibility, you can do exactly N CAT IIIc approaches at a given airport, with N being the number of CAT IIIc-read runways.

SailorOrion


User currently offlineIrobertson From Canada, joined Apr 2006, 601 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 15 hours ago) and read 2809 times:

Quoting Skyweasy82 (Reply 20):
Correct me if I am wrong by heard on of the crew members say runway in sight just before 100 feet.

That's because you CAN see the runway at 100 feet. It's impressive but I'm guessing poor video camera quality or YouTube conversion made it harder to see than it actually was.


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...
BMI Check In Closing Times At LHR.. posted Thu Jul 14 2005 21:32:52 by Richardw
Landing On 'wrong' Runway At LHR? posted Fri Feb 18 2005 12:36:13 by Vanguard
Landing And Taking Off At LHR 4 May 1455 posted Tue May 4 2004 15:57:08 by Starlionblue
Packing Them In At LHR posted Sun Aug 20 2006 22:01:45 by Glom
BA Aborted Landing At LHR 9pm 5th May posted Sat May 6 2006 08:50:26 by Londonlady71
Observation Deck Included In T5 At LHR? posted Sat Apr 22 2006 00:56:39 by Springbok295
First 747 Landing At LHR posted Sun Jan 22 2006 16:08:24 by Trekster
Landing Runways At LHR posted Thu Jan 19 2006 12:47:06 by Madairdrie
Designated Check In And Departure Lounge At LHR posted Sat Jan 7 2006 08:25:29 by AirCanada014
Spotting At LHR In Year 2025. posted Fri Nov 4 2005 23:03:19 by Speedmarque