Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CAT III Missed Approach  
User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10036 posts, RR: 26
Posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5381 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So I was flying from LAX to BOS on the AA redeye last night. Originally, the weather in BOS was reported as mist, but as we were descending through 21,000 feet, the captain came on and said, basically, "Well, Logan is fogged in....Luckily for you, we have CAT III landing capability, so we'll get you on down there."

(By the way, it's pretty crazy having the landing flaps out, the gear down, and still being above the clouds.)

So the first thing I see on the ground is Runway 14-32 directly below us, as we are on final for Runway 4R (being the only BOS runway with more than CAT I ILS). So if you know BOS, we're probably at ~100 feet above the field. We cross the piano keys, and between the 500 foot and 1000 foot landing area markers, the engines spool up, the flaps go in, and we're back up into the fog.

After a few minutes, the captain comes on again, and says, "Well folks, sorry about that. We couldn't land because we didn't receive our landing clearance from the tower. Our controller was talking to a whole bunch of other planes too...We'll try and circle around and get you back down." (as it happened, weather dropped below minima, and we had to hold for about a half hour before we could shoot another approach - this time successfully)

My question is: is it normal (typical, acceptable, ordinary, whatever) to continue an approach to within ~50 feet of the runway in low-vis, before going missed due to not receiving clearance? I don't know if it could happen, but if there were another airliner on the runway, the pilots wouldn't be able to see it, and seems that we'd stand a decent chance of clipping its tail.

Anyway, it was, overall, a cool experience - first low-vis CAT III approach, first go-around/missed approach. Sorry for the long post.

~Vik


"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10036 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5374 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Sorry for the 2nd post, but for those who may be interested, this is what it looked like outside just after we landed:

Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 768 File size: 123kb


Big version: Width: 1024 Height: 768 File size: 80kb



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9107 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5372 times:

Quoting Vikkyvik (Thread starter):
My question is: is it normal (typical, acceptable, ordinary, whatever) to continue an approach to within ~50 feet of the runway in low-vis, before going missed due to not receiving clearance? I don't know if it could happen, but if there were another airliner on the runway, the pilots wouldn't be able to see it, and seems that we'd stand a decent chance of clipping its tail.

Can go around even below 50', usually with low vis people need to report clear of the runway as TWR cannot see them either, but the vis can reduce during the rollout making it impossible to see the exits, usually the spacing for low vis is bigger to allow for this, it is unusual to get a late landing clearance low vis.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offline113312 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 572 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5366 times:

It would be highly unusual for the flight to not receive it's landing clearance that late in the approach. It is more likely that there was a technical reason to abandon the landing which didn't need to be explained to the passengers. Easier simply to say what the Captain reported. A Category III landing is a highly precise and technical maneuver requiring multiple autopilots, sensors and servos and lots of built in and procedural checks and cross checks. Any single item out of very narrow defined tolerance mandates abandoning the landing. Since Cat III does not require seeing the runway to land, in most cases, it has to be spot on.

User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6388 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5348 times:

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 1):
Sorry for the 2nd post, but for those who may be interested, this is what it looked like outside just after we landed:

That thar's some low vis Big grin I don't need the ATIS, AWOS, or ASOS report to determine that  Wink

I landed once without a clearance (the controller cleared me for the visual approach, but not for the actual landing at SLE.) It was at night, and we were the only aircraft. I got chewed out by the tower controller for that, and rightly so...  ashamed  I'm really glad she didn't decide to report it to the FSDO.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Thread starter):
My question is: is it normal (typical, acceptable, ordinary, whatever) to continue an approach to within ~50 feet of the runway in low-vis, before going missed due to not receiving clearance? I don't know if it could happen, but if there were another airliner on the runway, the pilots wouldn't be able to see it, and seems that we'd stand a decent chance of clipping its tail.

I understand that on a Cat IIIb or Cat IIIc approach, you can actually expect the wheels to touch the ground and might have to execute the missed approach...

Of course, Cat I, what I'm familiar with as a GA pilot, generally only gets you down to ~200 feet above field elevation  Smile



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineBellerophon From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 583 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5282 times:

Vikkyvik

If we look at the question you actually asked:

...is it normal (typical, acceptable, ordinary, whatever) to continue an approach to within ~50 feet of the runway in low-vis, before going missed due to not receiving clearance?...

It depends on what the pilot can see.

If you can't see the runway, the answer is NO, and the prime reason is exactly as you suspected.

If you are below around, say, 100ft, cannot see the runway, and have not been cleared to land, you do not know what is waiting for you on or near the runway threshold that you might hit during a low go-around. You have no assurance that your flight path during a low go-around, during which the main wheels may brush the runway, will be safe and unobstructed.

The fact that most modern aircraft are quite capable of going around from just before touchdown is comforting, but won't save you if a B747 is still sat on the threshold of the runway awaiting take-off clearance, perhaps because the tower have gone NORAD. That, or something like it, may be why ATC haven't given you landing clearance.

If you can see the runway, and can assess that the flight path of any late go-around will be safe, then delaying your go-around, in order to give ATC time as much time as possible to issue a landing clearance, may be perfectly safe, and is quite possibly what actually happened to you. AA are a very professional airline, and I doubt they did anything rash!

Nevertheless, for the reasons given, in my airline, in Cat III conditions, our SOPs require me to have landing clearance by 200 ft, or fly a go-around.

Regards

Bellerophon


User currently offlineSpruit From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 375 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 5274 times:

Hi,

Never having experienced a Go Around in person on board an aircraft, my question for the knowledgeable ones out there is!

In this situation when the PIC calls "Go Around" and hits the TOGA button, does the AP fly the Go around or is it manually flown?

I'm guessing manual but would love to know the details!

Thanks,

Spru!



E=Mc2
User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4458 posts, RR: 76
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5213 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Spruit (Reply 6):
In this situation when the PIC calls "Go Around" and hits the TOGA button, does the AP fly the Go around or is it manually flown?

The procedure is automatic on the 'Buses.
-Throttles in the TOGA detent.
-The airplane pitches up to the GA attitude, maintaining either the approach speed - Vapp - or the speed at the Go-around time, whichever is higher (announced by " SRS" ) and the initial track (announced by " GA TRK".
-In order to follow the published missed approach route, the captain will then select "NAV" and confirm the level-off altitude.
Flaps and gear retraction are of course manual.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineFuturecaptain From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5184 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 4):
That thar's some low vis I don't need the ATIS, AWOS, or ASOS report to determine that

Of course you do...

Not sure when your flight landed but here is the worst one for BOS I could quickly see...

KBOS 102333Z 07006KT 1/8SM R04R/0800V6000FT FG VV001 17/17 A2992 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4


User currently onlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3474 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5168 times:

Quoting Vikkyvik (Thread starter):
My question is: is it normal (typical, acceptable, ordinary, whatever) to continue an approach to within ~50 feet of the runway in low-vis, before going missed due to not receiving clearance? I don't know if it could happen, but if there were another airliner on the runway, the pilots wouldn't be able to see it, and seems that we'd stand a decent chance of clipping its tail.

Yes, it is normal. If everything is within parameters you fly to the Decision Height/Alert Height and if no clearance received, you fly the published missed approach procedure.

Quoting 113312 (Reply 3):
It would be highly unusual for the flight to not receive it's landing clearance that late in the approach.

At very active USA airports this happens more often than some think. With the newer ATC procedures many airports are no longer authorized to have more than one aircraft "cleared to land" at a time so landing clearances come later than previously issued.

Quoting 113312 (Reply 3):
A Category III landing is a highly precise and technical maneuver requiring multiple autopilots, sensors and servos and lots of built in and procedural checks and cross checks. Any single item out of very narrow defined tolerance mandates abandoning the landing.

Correct. Which makes the claim that the go-around was due to "technical" reasons less likely than the described lack of landing clearance --try listening to BOS tower on just about any early morning.... very busy radio freq... VERY BUSY.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 4):
I understand that on a Cat IIIb or Cat IIIc approach, you can actually expect the wheels to touch the ground and might have to execute the missed approach...

If flown properly (i.e. _exactly_ as proscribed) the wheels should not touch anything; however, one should not be "unprepared" for the unintentional touching of tires-to-pavement.  Wink

Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 5):
If you can't see the runway, the answer is NO, and the prime reason is exactly as you suspected.

CAT-III does not require seeing the runway... only parameters within limits and "adaquate visibility" --which might mean only a couple of runway lights (but not the runway surface).

Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 5):
but won't save you if a B747 is still sat on the threshold of the runway awaiting take-off clearance,

In that case the aircraft on approach would have performed a missed approach long before getting anywhere near the runway due to deviations in the localizer/glidepath caused by the large amount of metal inside the protected area... which is why the protected area is so much larger during CAT-II/III approaches than CAT-I approaches (and even more so than VFR approaches).

Quoting Spruit (Reply 6):
In this situation when the PIC calls "Go Around" and hits the TOGA button, does the AP fly the Go around or is it manually flown?

Depends upon the aircraft/airline approved procedures; but for _most_ CAT-III capable aircraft the AP can fly the missed approach procedure.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineSpruit From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 375 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 5143 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 7):
and the initial track (announced by " GA TRK".

Thanks Pihero for the run down  Smile

Is the GA Track programmed into the AP pre-flight?

Spru!



E=Mc2
User currently offlineBellerophon From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 583 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5129 times:

AAR90

...CAT-III does not require seeing the runway... only parameters within limits and "adaquate visibility" --which might mean only a couple of runway lights (but not the runway surface)...

Yes, but you appear to have misunderstood the question I was replying to and may have taken my statement out of the context in which it was written.

It was not a reply to someone questioning whether you need to see the runway for a Cat III landing for which you have received landing clearance, because, as you say, you don't.

It was reply to someone questioning whether it was acceptable to fly a very late go-around in Cat III weather from an approach for which you have not received landing clearance. If you go below around 100 ft, without landing clearance from ATC, in low visibility conditions where you can't see the runway, then you can't be certain that your go-around flight path is unobstructed.

My answer, and the reasons behind it, still stands.


...In that case the aircraft on approach would have performed a missed approach long before getting anywhere near the runway due to deviations in the localizer/glidepath caused by the large amount of metal inside the protected area...

Yes, very probably, but it would be foolhardy to rely on those deviations being present, to warn of an obstructed runway, there is no certainty they will be. It was just such an incident, many years ago, that led to my company adopting its present SOPs in low visibilities.


..._exactly_ as proscribed...

Typo or a Freudian slip?    

I suspect you meant prescribed, and not proscribed, which would mean the exact opposite!


Best regards

Bellerophon

[Edited 2007-07-11 17:37:31]

User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5122 times:

Quoting Spruit (Reply 10):
Is the GA Track programmed into the AP pre-flight?

The Missed Approach Procedure is part of the instrument approach be it precision or non-prec.
When you load the approach into the FMS it includes the miss. As a side piece of trivia in LIDO, which we use now, the holding pattern is NOT considered part of the miss though it IS part of the FMS dataload.


User currently offlineSpruit From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 375 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 5110 times:

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 12):
holding pattern is NOT considered part of the miss

That's interesting, I would have assumed that with the holding "Racetrack" on the approach charts it would be classed as part of the missed approach?

Spru!



E=Mc2
User currently offlineSilverComet From Mauritius, joined Apr 2007, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5079 times:

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 12):
Quoting Spruit (Reply 10):
Is the GA Track programmed into the AP pre-flight?

The Missed Approach Procedure is part of the instrument approach be it precision or non-prec.

The 'GA TRK' mentioned by Pihero refers to a guidance mode specific to airbus whereby the FD bars maintain the track the aircraft was flying at the moment go around was initiated, until such time as the pilot chooses a different lateral guidance mode (HDG, TRK or NAV).


User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5071 times:

Quoting Spruit (Reply 13):
I would have assumed that with the holding "Racetrack" on the approach charts it would be classed as part of the missed approach?

It seems that Jepp does consider it part of the MAP but LIDO doesn't. If you think about it rarely do you go to a hold after a miss. Usually you are vectored back for another try or go to to the alt. I actually like the LIDO charts alot.

Quoting SilverComet (Reply 14):
The 'GA TRK' mentioned by Pihero refers to a guidance mode specific to airbus whereby the FD bars maintain the track the aircraft was flying at the moment go around was initiated, until such time as the pilot chooses a different lateral guidance mode (HDG, TRK or NAV).

The MD-11 is the same.


User currently offlineTornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5056 times:

Quoting Spruit (Reply 13):
I would have assumed that with the holding "Racetrack" on the approach charts it would be classed as part of the missed approach?

I could be wrong but aren't those "racetracks" more or less for missed approaches at untowered/non radar fields until the radar facility responsible for vectoring you can get you back onto a vector course? I'm no instrument pilot, yet, but that was always what I thought the "racetracks" were for.


User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5026 times:

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 9):
If flown properly (i.e. _exactly_ as proscribed) the wheels should not touch anything; however, one should not be "unprepared" for the unintentional touching of tires-to-pavement.

Hold on, I assume you know nothing of the 744! Our alert height is 20', if you don't have the runway environment insight then, you do a missed. You will touchdown!

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 12):
Quoting Spruit (Reply 10):
Is the GA Track programmed into the AP pre-flight?


[quote=CosmicCruiser,reply=12]As a side piece of trivia in LIDO, which we use now, the holding pattern is NOT considered part of the miss though it IS part of the FMS dataload

At my airline it is. The entire missed with the hold is in the FMS. It really depends on the carrier and just what they have decided to put in their Nav Database.


User currently onlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3474 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4990 times:

Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 11):
It was reply to someone questioning whether it was acceptable to fly a very late go-around in Cat III weather from an approach for which you have not received landing clearance. If you go below around 100 ft, without landing clearance from ATC, in low visibility conditions where you can't see the runway, then you can't be certain that your go-around flight path is unobstructed.

I disagree because at 100'agl (a couple of seconds from end of runway) virtually ANY metal inside the protected area will cause LARGE deviations REQUIRING a go-around. Anything larger than a bicycle will cause full-scale deflections. Listening to the radio will let you know when the acft in front of you exits the runway. So what obstruction are you concerned about?

Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 11):
Yes, very probably, but it would be foolhardy to rely on those deviations being present, to warn of an obstructed runway, there is no certainty they will be. It was just such an incident, many years ago, that led to my company adopting its present SOPs in low visibilities.

I don't think I'd go as far as to say "foolhardy", but "not prudent" comes to mind. I think in general we are in agreement, it is just that in USA one often gets "late landing clearance" at high density airports so most USA airlines with CAT-III operations tend to fly procedurally all the way to DH/AH awaiting such clearance. It just goes with the territory.

Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 11):
Typo or a Freudian slip?

Typo... was a long day.  Wink

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
Hold on, I assume you know nothing of the 744! Our alert height is 20', if you don't have the runway environment insight then, you do a missed. You will touchdown!

You are correct --I don't know -400 ops (and have forgotten PA's -200 OpSpecs). There's always at least one "exception to every rule."  Wink



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4963 times:

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 17):
The entire missed with the hold is in the FMS. It really depends on the carrier and just what they have decided to put in their Nav Database.

Reread my post. I did say that the holding pattern is in the FMS database but as far as LIDO is concerned it isn't part of the proced. If you brief the missed app/ proced. you will find no mention of a hold. If you look at the chart the common holding fixes are depicted but the miss doesn't end at one.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Thread starter):
Runway 4R (being the only BOS runway with more than CAT I ILS).



Quoting Vikkyvik (Thread starter):
Our controller was talking to a whole bunch of other planes too...

with only 1 rnwy in use and it's CATIII I can't imagine the tower controller was talking to that many planes. separation is greater and usually it's less congested. At least for us, and I'm guessing it's the same for most others, any below mins RVR once established is a mandatory go-around. That's my guess as to the miss and as you say it was below mins for another try.


User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10036 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4929 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 19):
with only 1 rnwy in use and it's CATIII I can't imagine the tower controller was talking to that many planes. separation is greater and usually it's less congested. At least for us, and I'm guessing it's the same for most others, any below mins RVR once established is a mandatory go-around. That's my guess as to the miss and as you say it was below mins for another try.

Interesting - I thought I remember reading, on this forum, that as long as the RVR is above minima when you commence the approach, they can technically drop below minima during the approach, and you can still continue the landing. Would that vary from airline to airline? Or am I just completely wrong?

Just for a bit of further info on what I saw out my little window:

- I said the first thing I could see out the window was runway 14-32. This would be a bit over 1000 feet short of the 4R displaced threshold - hence me saying we were probably around 100 feet above the field.

- When we taxied back to the terminal across runway 15R-33L, I could see the runway lights to about 800 feet away (4 edge lights, around 16 centerline lights).

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 19):

with only 1 rnwy in use and it's CATIII I can't imagine the tower controller was talking to that many planes. separation is greater and usually it's less congested. At least for us, and I'm guessing it's the same for most others, any below mins RVR once established is a mandatory go-around. That's my guess as to the miss and as you say it was below mins for another try.

Well, we actually had to stop short of crossing 15R-33L because an airplane was taking off from it - so I'd say there were 2 runways in use, but only 1 for landing.

I'd assume that Boston Approach was quite busy....but I guess it is a little difficult to imagine the tower being that busy.

Thanks for all the answers - quite helpful!

~Vik



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4918 times:

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 20):
I thought I remember reading, on this forum, that as long as the RVR is above minima when you commence the approach, they can technically drop below minima during the approach, and you can still continue the landing.

I only will say what I know to fact for us and that is yes you are correct EXCEPT for a CATIII app which requires a GA no later than D/H any time the RVR goes below mins.


User currently offlineCalCaptRet From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4883 times:

Quoting 113312 (Reply 3):

Boeing 737800s have a CatIII DH of 50', thus are required to see the landing area to complete the approach.


User currently onlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4458 posts, RR: 76
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4877 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Vikkyvik,
That overshoot procedure could have been caused by a number of reasons. Not having been in the cockpit at that moment, it's difficult to comment on any BUT :
A CAT III approach involves the application of LVP - low visibility procedures - which imply the protection of the approaching airplane from obstacles AND from any form of ILS signal disturbance -especially by a preceding aircraft vacating the runway (in that condition,. the localiser has a very nasty habit of going to full deflection...).
That means that in most cases, the separation between two landings is 2 minutes or more, implying that the landing clearance has been given long before AH/DH.
A good example is Heathrow where in good visibility you'd be lucky to have your landing clearance before 300 ft AGL, but a CAT III clearance at 1500 ft.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineSilverComet From Mauritius, joined Apr 2007, 85 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4863 times:

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 20):
Interesting - I thought I remember reading, on this forum, that as long as the RVR is above minima when you commence the approach, they can technically drop below minima during the approach, and you can still continue the landing. Would that vary from airline to airline? Or am I just completely wrong?

At my airline the concept of approach ban applies (I think it's also in JAR AWOPS). That means that even if RVR is below minimums, you can still commence the approach but you cannot go beyond the outer marker or equivalent position (usually a DME distance, shown on the briefing strip of the Jepps). If the RVR is below minimums when you reach that point, it's a mandatory go around. But if the RVR drops below minumums after you've passed that point, you may continue to your DH.


25 Tornado82 : They allow LAHSO during Cat III's?
26 Post contains images Starlionblue : I know CosmicCruiser and Pihero described automatic variations, but this ain't so on a lot of aircraft. On the DC-9, with no autothrottles, the TOGA
27 Vikkyvik : Whoops, sorry, badly worded - this was while taxiing back to the terminal after landing (on taxiway N), NOT during the landing itself.
28 CosmicCruiser : True assuming that you miss at D/H; I posted that a below mins RVR requires a miss at least by AH (sorry I posted DH earlier) after established on th
29 Pihero : The DC-9 is not certified for cat III ops, AFAIK. On all our fleet, no ATHR is a mandatory reversion to cat II. Again, AFAIK, you need your minimums
30 SailorOrion : Just to answer this question: No. No LAHSO at all during CAT whatever. SailorOrion
31 Post contains images Spruit : Obviously this is the manual way of doing things and on older airliners the only way to do things but my question now becomes, what is the current pr
32 Bellerophon : Vickyvik ...I thought I remember reading, on this forum, that as long as the RVR is above minima when you commence the approach, they can technically
33 Pihero : Just keep things simple : Stay with the one flying the airplane, be it the F/O, the Captain or George. A change of tasks in a Go-around situation -wh
34 Starlionblue : I knew that. I was just pointing out that on the steam aircraft there the organic adaptive controlling entities do the whole thing.
35 Pihero : Apologies, I was stuck on the Cat III environment . Old age, you know ! Cheers.
36 Post contains images KELPkid : So what would that ultimate pilot's airplane, the one certified for Cat. III, the Lockheed Tri-Star do in such a situation [going missed] Did you hit
37 CosmicCruiser : [] Well it did happen and the ATCO did exactly that. It was a big deal even giving the crew a drug test! I know this is a complicated question to answ
38 Vikkyvik : Thanks again everyone for the responses. Couple more questions: Does this say that the visibility is 1/8 statute mile? And the time is 5:23 AM EST? We
39 CosmicCruiser : No actually I was referring to a possible bending in the last segment of the app. taking you off centerline. For those who have done it you know too
40 Tornado82 : Yes on the vis. The 10 in that string is the date. It's saying 23:33Z on the 10th of the month. In this case at BOS that would be 7:33pm on the 10th.
41 Barney Captain : FWIW, WN's CATIII's are all hand flown using the HUD. Additionally, we now train that successful go arounds can be accomplished up to trust reverser
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic CAT III Missed Approach
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Cat II /Cat III Questions posted Fri Feb 9 2007 03:07:34 by Murf
CAT III Navigation posted Mon Feb 20 2006 22:38:58 by GentFromAlaska
What Is A Cat I CatII And Cat III? posted Tue Oct 4 2005 21:16:13 by Jamesbuk
The Psychological Effect Of ILS CAT III Landings posted Thu Mar 24 2005 17:08:13 by TripleDelta
Is The Standard MD80 CAT II Or CAT III ( A / B ) posted Mon Feb 28 2005 21:51:31 by PW2040
What Constitutes A Cat III Check For A Runway/ILS? posted Sat Dec 25 2004 21:10:54 by VxG
Another Missed Approach! posted Mon Jun 21 2004 17:22:21 by N62NA
CAT III ILS Approaches posted Sun Jun 13 2004 01:46:48 by Cba
Missed Approach posted Fri Jun 4 2004 04:22:58 by KitchellSnow
How Much Does CAT III Training Cost? posted Thu May 13 2004 10:27:43 by Scan340

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format