vikkyvik
Posts: 11799
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

CAT III Missed Approach

Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:23 am

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
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11799
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:35 am

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
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9845
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:37 am

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
 
113312
Posts: 583
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:09 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:48 am

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.
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:22 pm

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 :-)
 
Bellerophon
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 10:12 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:12 pm

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
 
Spruit
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:34 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:41 pm

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
 
Pihero
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:39 pm

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
 
futurecaptain
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 1:54 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:35 pm

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
AirSO. ASpaceO. ASOnline. ASO.com ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO. ASO.
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:04 pm

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!
 
Spruit
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:34 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:53 pm

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
 
Bellerophon
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 10:12 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:33 am

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]
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:44 am

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.
 
Spruit
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:34 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:53 am

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
 
SilverComet
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:04 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:44 am

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).
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:58 am

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.
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:26 am

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.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 3:10 am

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.
Fly fast, live slow
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:07 am

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!
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 5:48 am

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.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11799
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:23 am

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
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:46 am

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.
 
CalCaptRet
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:00 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:04 am

Quoting 113312 (Reply 3):

Boeing 737800s have a CatIII DH of 50', thus are required to see the landing area to complete the approach.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:25 am

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
 
SilverComet
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:04 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:07 am

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.
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:34 am

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 20):

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.

They allow LAHSO during Cat III's?
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17080
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:38 am

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?

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 button will just move the horizontal bar on the artificial horizon to the correct pitch for going around. The organic adaptive controlling entities then need to operate throttles and yoke. No computers doing the work for you. Big grin
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11799
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:53 am

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 25):
Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 20):

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.

They allow LAHSO during Cat III's?

Whoops, sorry, badly worded - this was while taxiing back to the terminal after landing (on taxiway N), NOT during the landing itself.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:45 am

Quoting SilverComet (Reply 24):
But if the RVR drops below minumums after you've passed that point, you may continue to your DH.

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 the final app. seg. I would say that the ability to continue in Europe on a CATIII app is not true and can sight a fairly recent incident where a crew was given above mins RVR for a CATII and made the app and landed. After ldg the tower said the RVR was below mins and the crew was violated.
 
Pihero
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 4:44 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 26):
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 button will just move the horizontal bar on the artificial horizon to the correct pitch for going around.

The DC-9 is not certified for cat III ops, AFAIK. On all our fleet, no ATHR is a mandatory reversion to cat II.

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 28):
I would say that the ability to continue in Europe on a CATIII app is not true

Again, AFAIK, you need your minimums before you are allowed to start your approach.
The "look-see" is allowed only on cat I approaches and non-precision ones. To extend that -legal- possibility to a Cat III approach is a gross interpretation of the regulations.
Contrail designer
 
SailorOrion
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2001 5:56 pm

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 6:18 pm

Quoting Tornado82 (Reply 25):
They allow LAHSO during Cat III's?

Just to answer this question: No. No LAHSO at all during CAT whatever.

SailorOrion
 
Spruit
Posts: 367
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:34 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 7:41 pm

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 26):
The organic adaptive controlling entities then need to operate throttles and yoke

Obviously this is the manual way of doing things and on older airliners the only way to do things  Smile but my question now becomes, what is the current preferred method of performing the "Go Around" and in different scenarios i.e. CATIII etc and normal ILS/Visual approaches?

Or is this defined by Airline SOP?

Thanks in advance for your replies and ones already given.

Spru!
E=Mc2
 
Bellerophon
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 10:12 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:08 pm

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 drop below minima during the approach, and you can still continue the landing...

Under JAR-OPS, and also in the USA, referring to Cat II and Cat III ILS approaches, that is broadly correct.


..Would that vary from airline to airline?...

It might, as any JAR-OPS compliant airline is free to impose its own, more restrictive, SOPs on its crews. There is nothing to stop an individual airline requiring its crews to perform a go-around, but what you can't do is have less restrictive SOPs or limits than those laid down by JAR-OPS.



CosmicCruiser

...I only will say what I know to fact for us...for a CATIII app which requires a GA no later than D/H any time the RVR goes below mins...

I’m not sure quite what you mean by us, whether you are saying that you are required to do this under your company SOPs.

However, it is not a fact for most of us and is specifically permitted under JAR-OPS

To paraphrase somewhat for shortness, on Cat II and Cat III ILS approaches, in both the USA, UK and also under JAR-OPS, any drop in any required RVR, below the required minimum for that approach, after the Final Approach Fix / 1,000 AAL has been passed is advisory information only, and does not require a go-around.


...can sight (sic) a fairly recent incident where a crew was given above mins RVR for a CATII and made the app and landed. After ldg the tower said the RVR was below mins and the crew was violated....

The facts, as you have given them, do not indicate that the crew committed any reportable error, and there is nothing that would warrant any ATC report to a regulatory authority.

Depending on just how the remark was phrased over the RT, the ATCO making that remark might be the one with some explaining to do!


Best regards to both

Bellerophon
 
Pihero
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:52 am

Quoting Spruit (Reply 31):
what is the current preferred method of performing the "Go Around" and in different scenarios i.e. CATIII etc and normal ILS/Visual approaches?

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 -where everything goes awfully fast - is conducive to mistakes and misunderstandings. Even with a thorough briefing prior to the approach (..."I will execute the missed approach..." ), there still is a component of surprise from both pilots -trim situation (not on 'Buses), drastic change of strategy (you were concentrated on a landing and a missed approach, as the name implies has an element of personal failure in it ), other pilot behind the procedure...etc...-.
Contrail designer
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17080
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:10 am

Quoting Pihero (Reply 29):

The DC-9 is not certified for cat III ops, AFAIK. On all our fleet, no ATHR is a mandatory reversion to cat II.

I knew that. I was just pointing out that on the steam aircraft there the organic adaptive controlling entities do the whole thing.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
Pihero
Posts: 4196
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:11 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:21 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 34):
I knew that.

Apologies, I was stuck on the Cat III environment . Old age, you know !

Cheers.
Contrail designer
 
KELPkid
Posts: 5247
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 5:33 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:25 am

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 34):

I knew that. I was just pointing out that on the steam aircraft there the organic adaptive controlling entities do the whole thing.

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]  Wink Did you hit the TOGA buttons and go in the L-1011? Or was there more to it than that?
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:27 pm

[]

Quoting Bellerophon (Reply 32):
The facts, as you have given them, do not indicate that the crew committed any reportable error, and there is nothing that would warrant any ATC report to a regulatory authority.

Depending on just how the remark was phrased over the RT, the ATCO making that remark might be the one with some explaining to do!

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 answer because we all see so many different rules and interpretations. I even had a local airline pilot in a foreign country tell me that we (meaning me) had violated our app to their airport because the ceiling was below mins. When I told him ceiling was not required he insisted that it was STATE (country) law. Our app plates showed the contrary and as it turned out it WAS required for THEM but not us!!
Here's what I've found out about the CATIII question:
FAA Advisory Circular
6.2.7. Continuing Category III Approaches in Deteriorating Weather Conditions. The
following procedures are considered acceptable in the event that weather conditions are reported to
drop below the applicable Category III minima after an aircraft has passed the final approach point or
final approach fix, as applicable. (Reference section 121.651.)
•Operations based on a DA(H) may continue to the DA(H) and then land, if the specified visual
reference is subsequently established by the pilot no later than the DA(H).
•Operations based on an Alert Height (AH) may continue to the AH and then land, if weather is
reported to be at or above minima before passing the AH, or if suitable visual reference has
been established by the pilot.
•Operations based on an AH may continue to land regardless of reported weather conditions if
equipped with a fail operational rollout system which did not indicate a malfunction prior to
passing alert height, and the pilot considers continuation a safe course of action.
Operators requesting amended operations specifications reflecting the procedures described above may
have their current operations specifications amended by making application in accordance with
paragraph 10.16.

Referring to the 2nd note based on an A/H says you must have the mins to continue below A/H OR visual ref. Then it follows with OR you can just continue if you consider it safe. We do use A/H and have fail operational w/ R/O but considering that in a CATIII environment you may not see much at all a drop in RVR, lets say to 0, and the potential for a possible LOC anomally or after ldg rollout or taxi problem that would really compromise safety we impose the miss if a CATIII goes below mins. Not so for the CATI & CATII. Obviously, using a DA/H visual ref is required anyway so it's not quite the player it is with A/H & R/O.
Interestingly, many operators must use this same policy because I sat at the runway entrance one night a few months ago in OMDB and "watched" (heard) numerous airliners missing their CATIIIs because the wx kept going up and around mins. Probably 60% of all app that night missed. It was low! Whew!
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11799
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:51 am

Thanks again everyone for the responses.

Couple more questions:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 8):

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

Does this say that the visibility is 1/8 statute mile? And the time is 5:23 AM EST?

We landed at somewhere just before 8 AM, I think.

Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 37):
and the potential for a possible LOC anomally or after ldg rollout or taxi problem that would really compromise safety we impose the miss if a CATIII goes below mins.

Do you mean if there were a localizer anomaly while the rollout was in progress (potentially taking the airplane off of the runway)? I assume this means that in this situation, the rollout is automatic?

Thanks...

~Vik
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
CosmicCruiser
Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 3:01 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:33 am

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 38):
Do you mean if there were a localizer anomaly while the rollout was in progress

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 well that a rnwy edge light can be mistaken for a centerline light in very low vis situations if you are off left or right. IIRC rollout steering uses more info than just the loc signal, I would have to dig into the books for a better answer. I'm off to rest and can't offer any more info, sorry...later
 
Tornado82
Posts: 4662
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 10:19 am

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:51 am

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 38):
Does this say that the visibility is 1/8 statute mile? And the time is 5:23 AM EST?

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. Also relevant to this dicussion, is that the RVR on Runway 4R was varying from 800 to 6000ft.
 
barney captain
Posts: 1399
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

RE: CAT III Missed Approach

Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:36 pm

Quoting 113312 (Reply 3):
A Category III landing is a highly precise and technical maneuver requiring multiple autopilots

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 deployment.
Southeast Of Disorder

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests