Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Take Off In Fog  
User currently offlineAFGMEL From Australia, joined Jul 2007, 744 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9165 times:

Didn't want to hijack this thread about landing in fog.

A few years ago, we were flying out of MXP with MK on an A343 and the fog was so dense you couldn't see the terminal from the aircraft. Just a blur of lights. The taxi was endless and eventually we waited and I saw what I thought was a "follow me" truck and then we carried on taxiing. I doubted that we were going to depart and I presumed we had got lost.

We did depart however. I wondered about that departure because I doubted we could easily have returned in was looked like cat IIIC conditions, but I am not an expert. What if we had to return? Presumably the pilots thought it was safe which is good enough for me.


B 727-44/200 732/3/4/8/9 767-3 742/3/4, 772/3, A319/20/21 332/333 342/3 , DC3/4/10, F28/50/100, ATR72
33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSandroZRH From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9135 times:

Quoting AFGMEL (Thread starter):
We did depart however. I wondered about that departure because I doubted we could easily have returned in was looked like cat IIIC conditions, but I am not an expert. What if we had to return? Presumably the pilots thought it was safe which is good enough for me.

That is why during low visibility conditions (if we're not legally able to return to our departure aerodrome due weather conditions, landing capability restrictions etc.) as you may have had on this day, we need to plan a take-off alternate with weather conditions sufficiently well for whatever approach we want to do there (plus certain "safety margins" in addition, i'm not going into detail here because I'm too lazy to explain  )

So if for whatever reason we'd need to turn back, we'll simply proceed to our take-off alternate aerodrome instead of returning to the departure aerodrome. (well its not that easy really, but that's the general idea).

Hope this helps.

[Edited 2009-09-17 17:42:24]

User currently offlineGxman From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9133 times:

I cannot comment on MXP, but on numerous flights at SFO we take off and land in what appears to be zero visibility. Many times I thought we were in the clouds and then bam! The landing gear hits the runway.

I guess technically we were in the clouds, the clouds were just on the ground.



Steve
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9072 times:



Quoting AFGMEL (Thread starter):
What if we had to return?

I can't speak for the regulatory set-up outside the USA, but here there's a reg that if the departure airport is below landing minimums but above takeoff minimums, the dispatcher must designate a takeoff alternate that meets the weather requirements for an alternate. The takeoff alternate can't be any more than 2 hrs flying time from the departure airport (for a 3- or 4-engined aircraft) or 1 hr flying time (for a twin-engined aircraft). This gives a departing aircraft someplace to land in the rare event they have a problem that necessitates a return.

I presume regs in other countries have something similar in place...


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19954 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9039 times:



Quoting Gxman (Reply 2):
I cannot comment on MXP, but on numerous flights at SFO we take off and land in what appears to be zero visibility.

at SFO you have OAK 3 miles away and SJC about 20 miles south (admittedly, not along either SFO departure track).

Also, the fog at SFO is interesting. North of the airport, you have what is essentially a perfectly predictable fog bank. It is always there during the summer and moves south towards the airport at about 3-4 PM.

It rarely covers the airport, but when it does, it is guaranteed to clear 1-2 miles south of the airport. And fog in SF starts and ends abruptly. Like, from one end of a city block to the other. So although it might look like pea soup on the ground, just 300 meters away, people might be standing in broad daylight marveling at a giant fog bank blowing past them and you'd never know it.

Definitely get an areal tour of SF if you ever visit.


User currently offlineCobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1020 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 8732 times:

Are there any specifical takeoff minums?
I think in US you can takeoff in zero visibility, but I find a little strange? Did anybody do it?
Takeoff with seeing the centerline?


User currently offlineBrains From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 8722 times:

There are standard t/o minimums per the FARs in the US. Standard T/O mins for a two engined aircraft is a visibility of 1 SM. 1/2 SM for an a/c with three or more engines (if I remember correctly from school). However rarely do scheduled operators use these standard T/O mins. More often than not their opspecs allow them to take off with substantially lower visibilities. In fact they are RVRs so low that there really is no comperable equivalent in statute miles. My airlines is authorized to depart with RVR 600ft, 600ft, 600ft and RVR 600ft, 600ft assuming runway centerline markings are in good condition and runway centerline lights are operative. High intensity runway lights are also required (without HIRL you cannot get RVR) At least two RVR transmissometers must also be operative. I believe DEN authorizes takeoff with even lower RVR, but dont quote me. I fyou have access to jeppesen charts, lido charts etc. you'll be able to find T/O mins for individual runways in the airport information pages.


Brains
User currently offlineWILCO737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 9077 posts, RR: 76
Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 8705 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR



Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 5):
Are there any specifical takeoff minums?
I think in US you can takeoff in zero visibility, but I find a little strange? Did anybody do it?
Takeoff with seeing the centerline?

Every airport published the applicaple minimum for their own airport. This is the lowest minimum weather possible. if the airplane or cannot reach that minimum, they take their own, higher minimum and then they know if they can take off or not.
I don't have my charts at hand, only one from BOG and the lowest permissible minimum for take off is 350m. But then the whole lighting system of the runway needs to be operational. Edge lights, centerline lights, touchdown zone lights, red centerline lights at the end, runway end lights etc etc...
In FRA even 125m is possible. So if you have 125m RVR for take off you can take off (if your airplane and crew is certified for it). But that means that you usally cannot land anymore. So you need a take off alternate.

wilco737



It it's not Boeing, I am not going.
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 8535 times:

Also keep in mind that this T/O min is only for the RVR for a given runway. The prevailing vis anywhere else on the airport may be better or worse. The RVR is controlling.

User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3476 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 8506 times:



Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 5):
Are there any specifical takeoff minums?
I think in US you can takeoff in zero visibility, but I find a little strange? Did anybody do it?
Takeoff with seeing the centerline?

As with landing runway minimums, there are takeoff minimums for each runway as well. Lowest visibility AA 738s are permitted to takeoff is 300' (75m)... IF the runway is rated to 300'. We regularly train to 300' vis in the simulators. Definitely a "tunnel vision" scenario.

AFAIK, the only "zero vis" takeoffs permitted in USA are military flights... and only if the pilot has a "special instrument" rating --that's a USN requirement, USAF probably has something very similar. I have done two (both at KNKX). Not fun!



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineDashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1538 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 8496 times:



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 9):
AFAIK, the only "zero vis" takeoffs permitted in USA are military flights

Zero viz takeoffs are legal under Part 91. Not the smartest thing to do, but still legal.


User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 8449 times:



Quoting DashTrash (Reply 10):
Not the smartest thing to do, but still legal.

You got that right. Some peoplre every year find out they can't do a 0 vis T/O or fly IFR when they aren't rated.


User currently offlineMeristem From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 8425 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 4):
It rarely covers the airport, but when it does, it is guaranteed to clear 1-2 miles south of the airport. And fog in SF starts and ends abruptly. Like, from one end of a city block to the other. So although it might look like pea soup on the ground, just 300 meters away, people might be standing in broad daylight marveling at a giant fog bank blowing past them and you'd never know it.

I live in that dratted fog line.
SFO is protected from fog by the Twin Peaks barrier within San Fran proper and smacked by the San Bruno and Golden Gate fog corridors.
Most of the fog behaviour is due to the interplay of maritime influence and the higher temp/lower pressures inland in the Sacramento delta and central CA. On and off you'll have fog covering the bay via the delta but that's thin in comparison.
Visitors are often shocked at the generally low temperature and lack of sunlight within the fog corridors (Golden Gate Bridge, San Bruno, San Mateo Gap) during summer. The fog speed and profile is very much like a cresting wave. If you visit in Jun-Aug, bring a fleece jacket (seriously).
As DocLighting mentioned, the fog line is so sharp and sudden that it is a common Real Estate topic of conversation ("Buy in street X between 23rd and 24th streets, stay away from 26th, and there is one block on 25th where the sun shines")
After a while, one gets versed on "high fog", "low fog", "tule fog" and other different fog proclivities based on time of year.



Curiosity killed that cat. I still have some lives left.
User currently offlineCorey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2528 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 8333 times:



Quoting DashTrash (Reply 10):
Zero viz takeoffs are legal under Part 91. Not the smartest thing to do, but still legal.

Yep, completely stupid. Many moons ago during my instrument training I had an instructor that would practice 0 vis takeoffs... basically you get the plane on centerline, put the hood on, then maintain runway heading using the DG. Glad when those were over


User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3150 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 8221 times:



Quoting Corey07850 (Reply 13):
Yep, completely stupid. Many moons ago during my instrument training I had an instructor that would practice 0 vis takeoffs... basically you get the plane on centerline, put the hood on, then maintain runway heading using the DG. Glad when those were over

Why? Not exactly like it's a "what happens if?" type scenario when it can easily be avoided by a prudent go/no go decision.



DMI
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3476 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 8213 times:



Quoting DashTrash (Reply 10):
Zero viz takeoffs are legal under Part 91. Not the smartest thing to do, but still legal.

Just goes to show you how little Part-91 I actually know. USN/AA training only. I think I've got about 50 hours of actual "civilian" experience.  covereyes  A USN "Special Instrument" rating meant you supposedly had enough experience (1000 hours minimum IIRC) to know NOT to use your "Special" rating.  gasp  Unfortunately, there can be missions that require the risk of plane/crew.  shhh  Thankfully, those are usually few and far between.  sigh 



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineDashTrash From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1538 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (5 years 1 month 1 week ago) and read 8202 times:



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 15):

No worries. A lot of oddities are legal under Part 91 that aren't under 121 or 135. Under 91, you can start an approach while it's below minimums as well.


User currently offlineThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1654 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (5 years 1 month 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8160 times:

Interesting that some of the first operational "zero-zero" takeoffs were accomplished by B-17 squadrons in England under orders from General Curtis LeMay.

As I understand it, the technique was to set the Directional Gyro to the precise runway heading and then to hold that heading on takeoff without a smidgen of variance. The skill required and the pure guts to attempt it are phenomenal, but it worked.


User currently offline737tdi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 7917 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

HGS: Join the modern world. Good grief! Takeoff is one of the most benign parts of the leg. Centerline is held by the ILS and pilot. It's know different then doing an approach in the clouds. Wouldn't advise landing that way but takeoff is awesome if you're Cat III. No danger whatsoever. JMO.

User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1261 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 7896 times:

737tdi

you care to let us know what airline has op specs allowing 0/0 takeoffs? I never heard of it.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineThirtyEcho From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 1654 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7891 times:

My great uncle, a WWII B-24 aircraft commander, has added the following to the technique.

The pilot would, upon being certain that the airplane was on the centerline of the runway, set the DG to "0" and hold that until safely off the runway.

Nonetheless, it was pure brass to do that in a British fog.


User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2834 posts, RR: 45
Reply 21, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7848 times:



Quoting 737tdi (Reply 18):
HGS: Join the modern world. Good grief! Takeoff is one of the most benign parts of the leg. Centerline is held by the ILS and pilot. It's know different then doing an approach in the clouds. Wouldn't advise landing that way but takeoff is awesome if you're Cat III. No danger whatsoever. JMO.

The lowest I have seen HGS approved for on takeoff is 300 RVR. Do you have a source that an operator is allowed to TO with zero visibility under FAR 121 or its non-US equivalent?

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 18):
737tdi

you care to let us know what airline has op specs allowing 0/0 takeoffs? I never heard of it.

Thank you, I am waiting as well.


User currently offlineMmedford From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 561 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7834 times:



Quoting Brains (Reply 6):
In fact they are RVRs so low that there really is no comperable equivalent in statute miles. My airlines is authorized to depart with RVR 600ft, 600ft, 600ft and RVR 600ft, 600ft assuming runway centerline markings are in good condition and runway centerline lights are operative. High intensity runway lights are also required (without HIRL you cannot get RVR) At least two RVR transmissometers must also be operative.

Thank you for giving the explanation...

I'm TIRED of everyone looking outside and saying it's CAT-IIIc....

It's all about RVR conditions at Touch-down point....

RVR 600 is CAT-IIIb iirc...and on a CAT-III runway you will have high intensity lighting, an ALSF-2 ALS and CCRs keeping everything kosher...



ILS = It'll Land Somewhere
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7832 times:



Quoting 737tdi (Reply 18):
Centerline is held by the ILS and pilot. It's know different then doing an approach in the clouds.

I've never been taught nor practiced tracking the loc on t/o. In a jet with a Vr of say 155kt you could find yourself all over the runway trying to track it!! Practically you would be better off just flying the rnwy hdg. We all did that in instrument training but more as an excercise of control than something you would really do. My original Instrument Instructor was an old WWII pilot and this may be where this excercise came from. It's not too difficult in a C-150!

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 18):
takeoff is awesome if you're Cat III.

CATIII has nothing to do with T/O. There's t/o mins for every arpt and every airline. As Wilco737 posted there's lighting requirements as well that can effect the mins.


User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3150 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (5 years 1 month 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7554 times:

You guys all beat me to it with 737tdi. Still waiting to hear what airline he flies for that does takeoffs with the ILS. I'd love to know what happens as you pass the localizer. Bet the passengers love the ride.

We're authorized for 6/6/6. Even then it's incredibly restrictive.



DMI
25 Tdscanuck : I'm not aware of what airline does it, but I know it's possible. HUD-equipped aircraft that provide runway centerline guidance are using back-course
26 Mmedford : Not all locs provide backcourse, especially with shared frequency equipment located on opposite ends of the runway.
27 Alias1024 : Alaska, Horizon, and Southwest are three that I know of. They have 300 RVR minimums out of SEA. I remember one day a couple of years back where the R
28 Pilotpip : Are they using LOC or utilizing an RNAV departure?
29 Alias1024 : LOC is displayed in the HGS to provide centerline guidance during the takeoff roll. Once you rotate it's just basic IFR flying. Any DP the aircraft i
30 AAR90 : "Yes" (I know) and "Yes" (300' RVR). LOC on the ground, weight off wheels = HDG SEL or LNAV initially.
31 Pilotpip : Cool, thanks. I fly one of the most advanced jets out there and they won't let us do any of the fun stuff it's capable of.
32 SCCutler : The lowest conditions under which I have ever taken off were 200' and RVR of 1800' or so - as Part 91, again, no legal issue, but a calculated risk on
33 CosmicCruiser : Well having just completed the 2nd phase of our HUD trg I've learned that yes the loc is used for t/o guidance. However it must be a CATIII rnwy and
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Take Off In Fog
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...
Taking Off (or Not) In Fog From BHX posted Sat Apr 14 2007 22:00:15 by EMAlad
Slowest Plane On Take-off Roll? posted Mon Sep 14 2009 07:44:37 by September11
No-slat/flaps Take-off Possible On M80? posted Tue Aug 4 2009 09:49:03 by Skedguy
MD-80 Take Off At 109 Degrees F posted Sat Jul 18 2009 17:43:20 by TAN FLYR
Take Off/landing Slots Change Of Use. posted Tue Jul 14 2009 09:04:55 by Readytotaxi
A300,take Off No Flaps? posted Tue Mar 31 2009 21:07:10 by Soon7x7
A340 Engine Angle During Take-off posted Tue Feb 3 2009 01:05:33 by Varig767
Fuel Consumption During Take-off And Landing posted Fri Nov 21 2008 02:36:08 by Panais
Reconfirming Take Off Clearence On Rwy posted Wed Nov 19 2008 23:50:51 by Baw2198
FA Jumpseat Blocking Aisle At Take-off? posted Thu Oct 2 2008 02:55:19 by CRJ900

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format