Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:01 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Lot of charts there, exactly where’s your question? Lucknow has radar, so it would be assumed vectors were given to intercept the final course somewhere around the 12.0 miles fix from LKN. Possibly your were given the DME arc at 12 miles and flew that to intercept the final. What was your departure point which would tell us direction approaching Lucknow.


The Chart No.7 to be specific because I was trying to match it with my own flight path where we had 4 patterns at 11K feet before heading towards east and then turned south and finally to west for final approach into RWY 27 at around 2350 feet.

By departure point I assume you mean the origin...I flew in from BOM.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20804
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:07 am

Chart No 7? Could you please use the reference number to right, e.g. "2-1".

By "patterns" do you mean holding patterns? the published hold for ILS27 is over BOKOR, right hand turns. The way the hold is constructed, you could just have exited at BOKOR and continued west on the final approach headiing.


As GalaxyFlyer says, you rarely fly the full procedures. ATC tries to get things done efficiently, so they'll tweak the separation to get you into one nice, evenly spaced conga line. One way to do that is to put incoming traffic on a DME arc and have them depart direct final fix at evenly spaced times.
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:45 am

Starlionblue wrote:
Chart No 7? Could you please use the reference number to right, e.g. "2-1".

By "patterns" do you mean holding patterns? the published hold for ILS27 is over BOKOR, right hand turns. The way the hold is constructed, you could just have exited at BOKOR and continued west on the final approach headiing.


As GalaxyFlyer says, you rarely fly the full procedures. ATC tries to get things done efficiently, so they'll tweak the separation to get you into one nice, evenly spaced conga line. One way to do that is to put incoming traffic on a DME arc and have them depart direct final fix at evenly spaced times.


Yeh Mr starlion ..I think they were holding patterns and I have the recording of the whole flight path...but I don't don't understand whether it was for traffic congestion or it was just the way its done during these conditions...because I think while we were hovering at 11K feet there was no other aircraft around..Dunno nothing about this.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20804
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:50 am

In low viz conditions, holding is very common. Not as many aircraft can land in a given period, and separation is greater.

Other aircraft are pretty hard to see typically, even if you know more or less where they are.
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:13 am

Starlionblue wrote:
In low viz conditions, holding is very common. Not as many aircraft can land in a given period, and separation is greater.

Other aircraft are pretty hard to see typically, even if you know more or less where they are.


Oh okiez Mr Starlion !
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:28 am

Hi,So I came across this line at the last point of Airport control procedures of the last document and I'm trying to understand the reference to "BACKTRACK REUQIREMENTS ARE MET" ..I think I'm getting what they are trying to say but I guess if I get your point of view on this, I'd be confirmed of my understanding of this phrase because from my experience I know that we did not vacate right away via TAXIWAY C but went all the way to the end and backtracked the RWY only to vacate via C ..so I think probably its a normal Standard Operating procedure to use the whole RWY and thats what they are referring to here...But I could be wrong

During CAT II/CAT IIIA and CAT IIIB operations, Approach Control/Tower shall ensure that subsequent arrival is cleared for CAT II or CAT IIIA or CAT IIIB ILS approach only after preceding arriving aircraft has landed and vacated the runway or has carried out missed approach. This is to ensure that the Critical and Sensitive area of ILS are not infringed and
back track requirements are met


Thanks
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8332
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:13 pm

The full length of the runway is planned by ATC for the use of the landing crew and until confirmed vacated or missed, the following aircraft will be in a hold or vectors and not cleared until confirmation of the landing traffic. If the landing plane is able to clear short, that’s okay, not required to use full length.
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:19 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The full length of the runway is planned by ATC for the use of the landing crew and until confirmed vacated or missed, the following aircraft will be in a hold or vectors and not cleared until confirmation of the landing traffic. If the landing plane is able to clear short, that’s okay, not required to use full length.


Thanks for that Mr Galaxy...I appreciate it !
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 4401
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:44 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The full length of the runway is planned by ATC for the use of the landing crew and until confirmed vacated or missed, the following aircraft will be in a hold or vectors and not cleared until confirmation of the landing traffic. If the landing plane is able to clear short, that’s okay, not required to use full length.


Sure glad that is not the case here in the U.S., we'd have delays upon delays upon delays and be lucky to get 25% of the normal airport acceptance rate on the ground in an hour.
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:53 pm

IAHFLYR wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The full length of the runway is planned by ATC for the use of the landing crew and until confirmed vacated or missed, the following aircraft will be in a hold or vectors and not cleared until confirmation of the landing traffic. If the landing plane is able to clear short, that’s okay, not required to use full length.


Sure glad that is not the case here in the U.S., we'd have delays upon delays upon delays and be lucky to get 25% of the normal airport acceptance rate on the ground in an hour.


I think the reason why my home airport has such regulations is due to infrastructural constraints as at the moment we just have one taxiway among five and four parking bays among fourteen which are equipped with lighting system apt for CAT III conditions..however,there are plans to upgrade the rest of the parking bays and taxiways with the lighting system as well in the next phase of upgradation...I mean as of now we don't even have a parallel taxiway.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8332
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:24 pm

IAHFLYR wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The full length of the runway is planned by ATC for the use of the landing crew and until confirmed vacated or missed, the following aircraft will be in a hold or vectors and not cleared until confirmation of the landing traffic. If the landing plane is able to clear short, that’s okay, not required to use full length.


Sure glad that is not the case here in the U.S., we'd have delays upon delays upon delays and be lucky to get 25% of the normal airport acceptance rate on the ground in an hour.


BOM is essentially a one runway operation with only two mid-field taxiway exits (it’s been awhile since I’ve been there), so the acceptance rate isn’t great and, if a heavy went to the end, it had to 180 and back track. One night, held for 40 minutes, then vectored around for another 45 minutes before landing. Another monsoon arrival, half-mile from the OM, fully configured, a 747 went to the end. Instantly instructed to hold at the OM, asked right seater, “Left or Right turn?” Starting cleaning up, come out of inbound, “cleared ILS 27”. Quickly flaps 16, gear down”. It was a zoo, but I don’t think the new BOM is open yet.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8332
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Wed Feb 24, 2021 6:14 pm

I just looked at the BOM JEPP’s and there’s been a big improvement in taxiways there, so that’s an improvement!
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:07 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I just looked at the BOM JEPP’s and there’s been a big improvement in taxiways there, so that’s an improvement!


I was in BOM recently and I liked their new terminal building its one of the most beautifully designed terminals which has also increased their parking space I guess...I hope they clear the slums around the airport then it could be a really huge space for more expansion.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20804
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:25 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I just looked at the BOM JEPP’s and there’s been a big improvement in taxiways there, so that’s an improvement!


It's fairly slick as I recall. If memory serves, they have a sort of roundabout system between Papa and Tango. If you've landed on 27, you'll cross 14/32 on Echo 5, then hold on Papa until they can take you. Then right turn on Link One and to the gate. Outbound traffic from that side of the terminal goes Tango, then left on Hotel.

Charts for reference: http://www.kuwaitairways-va.org/images/charts/VABB.pdf

Edit: Actually included the chart link this time.
Last edited by Starlionblue on Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:44 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8332
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Thu Feb 25, 2021 3:31 am

Starlionblue wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I just looked at the BOM JEPP’s and there’s been a big improvement in taxiways there, so that’s an improvement!


It's fairly slick as I recall. If memory serves, they have a sort of roundabout system between Papa and Tango. If you've landed on 27, you'll cross 14/32 on Echo 5, then hold on Papa until they can take you. Then right turn on Link One and to the gate. Outbound traffic from that side of the terminal goes Tango, then left on Hotel.

Charts for reference.


I’ve got the Jepps, they have done a lot of work on the airport.
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Fri Feb 26, 2021 3:09 am

Hey all,
So I was going through the METAR again for the purpose of editing one of my videos and I realized that I hadn't really paid attention to the preceeding observation and I know BCMG means "BECOMING" however,I wanna know does this "0150 FG=" means Becoming past this digit or at this digit ? and whats that referred to,I guess Horizontal Visibility..is it ?

BECMG 0150 FG=

Oh I forgot this is the whole METAR -:

SA 02/02/2021 03:30->
METAR VILK 020330Z 00000KT 0100 R27/0750 FG NSC 11/08 Q1020
BECMG 0150 FG=
SA 02/02/2021 03:00->
METAR VILK 020300Z 00000KT 0000 R27/0100 FG VV/// 08/07 Q1019
NOSIG=

Thanks
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20804
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Fri Feb 26, 2021 4:29 am

BECMG in a METAR means "next two hours gradually".

In this case, "BECMG 0150 FG", meaning next two hours gradually 150m visibility and fog. This is a change from 100m visibility, fog and no (operationally) significant cloud.

Decoding the first part of the METAR, "020330Z 00000KT 0100 R27/0750 FG NSC 11/08 Q1020". Time 0330Z on second of the month, nil wind, visibility 100m, Runway 27, 750 metres RVR, fog, no (operationally) significant cloud, temperature 11, dew point 8, QNH 1020hPa. With those conditions, no wonder there's fog. :D

There are a number of good METAR/TAF decoders online btw. Here's one: https://www.skystef.be/metar-decoder.htm


Side note: NSC should not be confused with SKC (sky clear). Classic line check question. ;)
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Fri Feb 26, 2021 4:49 am

Starlionblue wrote:
BECMG in a METAR means "next two hours gradually".

In this case, "BECMG 0150 FG", meaning next two hours gradually 150m visibility and fog. This is a change from 100m visibility, fog and no (operationally) significant cloud.

Decoding the first part of the METAR, "020330Z 00000KT 0100 R27/0750 FG NSC 11/08 Q1020". Time 0330Z on second of the month, nil wind, visibility 100m, Runway 27, 750 metres RVR, fog, no (operationally) significant cloud, temperature 11, dew point 8, QNH 1020hPa. With those conditions, no wonder there's fog. :D

There are a number of good METAR/TAF decoders online btw. Here's one: https://www.skystef.be/metar-decoder.htm


Side note: NSC should not be confused with SKC (sky clear). Classic line check question. ;)


Thanks Mr Starlion...Because of you and Mr Galaxy I have learnt a lot about METAR report decoding...BTW I was wondering does Horizontal and vertical visibility define the ILS Conditions too ? I mean I know the different RVR limitations for operations of different ILS categories but I'm wondering does the Horizontal visibility and veritical visibility play a role in defining that ? Like on the preceeding reading it shows RVR 750 Meters which is way above Low visibility conditions but the Horizontal visibility is 100 meters..So would it still be an Instrument Landing ?
 
Woodreau
Posts: 2154
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2001 6:44 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Fri Feb 26, 2021 5:47 am

The RVR is horizontal visibility.

We don’t care about vertical visibility unless the approach procedure specifies “Ceiling Required.”

Landing is landing. Either the pilot landed it or the airplane auto landed.
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Fri Feb 26, 2021 7:37 am

Woodreau wrote:
The RVR is horizontal visibility.

We don’t care about vertical visibility unless the approach procedure specifies “Ceiling Required.”

Landing is landing. Either the pilot landed it or the airplane auto landed.


Oh ! all this while I thought Horizontal visibility is the visibility of the given area of the airport whereas the RVR is the visibility range that's only related to the Runway.
 
VMCA787
Posts: 255
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:31 pm

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:14 am

FligtReporter wrote:

Oh ! all this while I thought Horizontal visibility is the visibility of the given area of the airport whereas the RVR is the visibility range that's only related to the Runway.

The RVR is the visibility associated with the runway. For example, R27/0750 FG means the RVR for Runway 27 is 750 meters in fog. If RVR is given the RVR becomes the controlling visibility.
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:20 am

VMCA787 wrote:
FligtReporter wrote:

Oh ! all this while I thought Horizontal visibility is the visibility of the given area of the airport whereas the RVR is the visibility range that's only related to the Runway.

The RVR is the visibility associated with the runway. For example, R27/0750 FG means the RVR for Runway 27 is 750 meters in fog. If RVR is given the RVR becomes the controlling visibility.


Aah...Got it..Thanks Mr 787 !
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Fri Feb 26, 2021 12:20 pm

Mr Starlion...If I can remember it correctly I think you told me that normally pilots start the preparations to land,including whatever approach type they plan to make into the airport,about 30-60 minutes prior to touchdown, right ?

And If Im not mistaken I also remember you mentioning ATIS,SPECI for updates if there are any significant changes from the last METAR.

So I believe in that case if there are no significant changes then they will carry out the approach as per the last metar or weather report..Right ?
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 4401
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:07 pm

FligtReporter wrote:
Woodreau wrote:
The RVR is horizontal visibility.

We don’t care about vertical visibility unless the approach procedure specifies “Ceiling Required.”

Landing is landing. Either the pilot landed it or the airplane auto landed.


Oh ! all this while I thought Horizontal visibility is the visibility of the given area of the airport whereas the RVR is the visibility range that's only related to the Runway.


Try not to confuse prevailing visibility as we discussed earlier with RVR values. Once the RVR is a reported value then that becomes the controlling minima for a straight-in approach and the prevailing visibility has little to no meaning in most cases. When you mention horizontal visibility in conjunction with the RVR then yes, it is related to the runway. When you do not have low visibility such as RVR reported in the METAR then you'll be seeing the prevailing visibility. I hope I explained that correctly, if not someone please correct me as it's been quite a while since I've been in the ole books on weather.

As Woodreau put it, "We don't care about the vertical visibility unless the approach specifies". For almost every straight-in landing the ceiling has no impact on the landing minima, just the forward visibility, be it prevailing vis or RVR. The ceiling in the METAR may give the pilot an idea that if their Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) or Decision Height/Altitude (DH/DA) is above what the ceiling is showing then they may still be IMC and won't be able to see forward enough for getting the runway environment insight. For circling approaches or side-step maneuver to a parallel runway if charted the ceiling minima then comes into play for the approach. Again, hope I put that out correctly.

Aviation weather as it relates to landing minima has many variables as you've seen here in this thread. It is not simple to translate even to some in the industry such as some very seasoned controllers I used to work with. When we'd have the foggy weather often times they'd be in the 7110.65 reviewing our requirements for operating runway lights and/or approach lights, how and when to issue RVR, when the ceiling was or was not applicable to the weather minima for the approach and the list goes on and on.
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Fri Feb 26, 2021 1:18 pm

IAHFLYR wrote:
FligtReporter wrote:
Woodreau wrote:
The RVR is horizontal visibility.

We don’t care about vertical visibility unless the approach procedure specifies “Ceiling Required.”

Landing is landing. Either the pilot landed it or the airplane auto landed.


Oh ! all this while I thought Horizontal visibility is the visibility of the given area of the airport whereas the RVR is the visibility range that's only related to the Runway.


Try not to confuse prevailing visibility as we discussed earlier with RVR values. Once the RVR is a reported value then that becomes the controlling minima for a straight-in approach and the prevailing visibility has little to no meaning in most cases. When you mention horizontal visibility in conjunction with the RVR then yes, it is related to the runway. When you do not have low visibility such as RVR reported in the METAR then you'll be seeing the prevailing visibility. I hope I explained that correctly, if not someone please correct me as it's been quite a while since I've been in the ole books on weather.

As Woodreau put it, "We don't care about the vertical visibility unless the approach specifies". For almost every straight-in landing the ceiling has no impact on the landing minima, just the forward visibility, be it prevailing vis or RVR. The ceiling in the METAR may give the pilot an idea that if their Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) or Decision Height/Altitude (DH/DA) is above what the ceiling is showing then they may still be IMC and won't be able to see forward enough for getting the runway environment insight. For circling approaches or side-step maneuver to a parallel runway if charted the ceiling minima then comes into play for the approach. Again, hope I put that out correctly.

Aviation weather as it relates to landing minima has many variables as you've seen here in this thread. It is not simple to translate even to some in the industry such as some very seasoned controllers I used to work with. When we'd have the foggy weather often times they'd be in the 7110.65 reviewing our requirements for operating runway lights and/or approach lights, how and when to issue RVR, when the ceiling was or was not applicable to the weather minima for the approach and the list goes on and on.


Thank you Mr IAH for elaborating it for me..I truly appreciate your time and patience with me !
 
Woodreau
Posts: 2154
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2001 6:44 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:15 pm

Even in VMC weather every approach and landing is an “instrument” approach.


When cleared for the visual approach. I’ll fly the plane to intercept the course guidance

And fly the instruments all the way down to minimums especially at night. I peek up and look outside every now and then coming down the final approach.

But it’s mainly to prevent being blinded by potential laser strikes nowadays
 
IAHFLYR
Posts: 4401
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:56 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:26 pm

Woodreau wrote:
Even in VMC weather every approach and landing is an “instrument” approach.


When cleared for the visual approach. I’ll fly the plane to intercept the course guidance

And fly the instruments all the way down to minimums especially at night. I peek up and look outside every now and then coming down the final approach.

But it’s mainly to prevent being blinded by potential laser strikes nowadays


Smart man. If I am correct most operators (corporate, airline, cargo) require the crew to use lateral/vertical guidance when available on visuals.
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:35 pm

Woodreau wrote:
Even in VMC weather every approach and landing is an “instrument” approach.


When cleared for the visual approach. I’ll fly the plane to intercept the course guidance

And fly the instruments all the way down to minimums especially at night. I peek up and look outside every now and then coming down the final approach.

But it’s mainly to prevent being blinded by potential laser strikes nowadays


I had an enteraction with Mr Starlion based on this approach issue and I was told that usually pilots decide 30 to 60 minutes prior to landing of what type of approach and all the settings related to that are gonna be in place..I'm guessing for Visual approaches it must be way much easier right ? like when compared to other low visibility ones.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20804
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Fri Feb 26, 2021 2:54 pm

FligtReporter wrote:
Woodreau wrote:
Even in VMC weather every approach and landing is an “instrument” approach.


When cleared for the visual approach. I’ll fly the plane to intercept the course guidance

And fly the instruments all the way down to minimums especially at night. I peek up and look outside every now and then coming down the final approach.

But it’s mainly to prevent being blinded by potential laser strikes nowadays


I had an enteraction with Mr Starlion based on this approach issue and I was told that usually pilots decide 30 to 60 minutes prior to landing of what type of approach and all the settings related to that are gonna be in place..I'm guessing for Visual approaches it must be way much easier right ? like when compared to other low visibility ones.


We don't really "decide" like that. My post said we "brief" 30-60 minutes before, not decide. ;)

The ATIS tells us what approach is in use, and that's typically what we will do. We can also request something else. E.g. the ILS is in use we could request an RNAV RNP.

Particularly in North America, you'll often be cleared an ILS, but later in the approach asked if you can do a visual. It makes for less separation work for ATC, I guess. In Europe, Asia, and Australasia, this seems to happen more rarely. You'll just be on the ILS all the way.

Visual approaches are less work than low viz. I don't know if they're really "easier", but certainly less stuff to check systems wise.
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Fri Feb 26, 2021 3:14 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
FligtReporter wrote:
Woodreau wrote:
Even in VMC weather every approach and landing is an “instrument” approach.


When cleared for the visual approach. I’ll fly the plane to intercept the course guidance

And fly the instruments all the way down to minimums especially at night. I peek up and look outside every now and then coming down the final approach.

But it’s mainly to prevent being blinded by potential laser strikes nowadays


I had an enteraction with Mr Starlion based on this approach issue and I was told that usually pilots decide 30 to 60 minutes prior to landing of what type of approach and all the settings related to that are gonna be in place..I'm guessing for Visual approaches it must be way much easier right ? like when compared to other low visibility ones.


We don't really "decide" like that. My post said we "brief" 30-60 minutes before, not decide. ;)

The ATIS tells us what approach is in use, and that's typically what we will do. We can also request something else. E.g. the ILS is in use we could request an RNAV RNP.

Particularly in North America, you'll often be cleared an ILS, but later in the approach asked if you can do a visual. It makes for less separation work for ATC, I guess. In Europe, Asia, and Australasia, this seems to happen more rarely. You'll just be on the ILS all the way.

Visual approaches are less work than low viz. I don't know if they're really "easier", but certainly less stuff to check systems wise.


Oh yeah Mr Starlion..I remember that post but vaguely..I'll go and check that out again...and yeah that's what I meant by Visual approaches being "Easier"like easier stuff to persistently having on check.

Thanks for the response Mr Starlion.
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Fri Feb 26, 2021 4:03 pm

FligtReporter wrote:

I had an enteraction with Mr Starlion based on this approach issue and I was told that usually pilots decide 30 to 60 minutes prior to landing of what type of approach and all the settings related to that are gonna be in place..I'm guessing for Visual approaches it must be way much easier right ? like when compared to other low visibility ones.


Easier is relative. For a proficient commercial airline crew, doing a bog standard hand flown ILS is so routine as to be nearly automatic. In visual conditions, you might be actively approaching with lots of variables (approaching with reference to traffic in sight, converging runways, very gusty conditions, runway changes at the last minute for traffic, etc.) The "standard" approach to which we train is a CATI ILS to 1800RVR. Our visual call outs/procedures and GPS/LOC/ILS CATII/III call outs/procedures are derived from that standard CAT I.

At my employer, we can do a pretty truncated briefing for a CAT1 ILS, GPS or visual approach, but we do a far more scripted brief for CATII/III due to the general rarity of doing them and the wide variety of variables that effect the approach in question (visibility, runway, wind, aircraft condition/MEL to name the big ones.)
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Fri Feb 26, 2021 4:31 pm

acecrackshot wrote:
FligtReporter wrote:

I had an enteraction with Mr Starlion based on this approach issue and I was told that usually pilots decide 30 to 60 minutes prior to landing of what type of approach and all the settings related to that are gonna be in place..I'm guessing for Visual approaches it must be way much easier right ? like when compared to other low visibility ones.


Easier is relative. For a proficient commercial airline crew, doing a bog standard hand flown ILS is so routine as to be nearly automatic. In visual conditions, you might be actively approaching with lots of variables (approaching with reference to traffic in sight, converging runways, very gusty conditions, runway changes at the last minute for traffic, etc.) The "standard" approach to which we train is a CATI ILS to 1800RVR. Our visual call outs/procedures and GPS/LOC/ILS CATII/III call outs/procedures are derived from that standard CAT I.

At my employer, we can do a pretty truncated briefing for a CAT1 ILS, GPS or visual approach, but we do a far more scripted brief for CATII/III due to the general rarity of doing them and the wide variety of variables that effect the approach in question (visibility, runway, wind, aircraft condition/MEL to name the big ones.)


Thanks for that Mr Rackshot !
 
acecrackshot
Posts: 215
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 4:22 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Fri Feb 26, 2021 4:42 pm

FligtReporter wrote:
acecrackshot wrote:
FligtReporter wrote:

I had an enteraction with Mr Starlion based on this approach issue and I was told that usually pilots decide 30 to 60 minutes prior to landing of what type of approach and all the settings related to that are gonna be in place..I'm guessing for Visual approaches it must be way much easier right ? like when compared to other low visibility ones.


Easier is relative. For a proficient commercial airline crew, doing a bog standard hand flown ILS is so routine as to be nearly automatic. In visual conditions, you might be actively approaching with lots of variables (approaching with reference to traffic in sight, converging runways, very gusty conditions, runway changes at the last minute for traffic, etc.) The "standard" approach to which we train is a CATI ILS to 1800RVR. Our visual call outs/procedures and GPS/LOC/ILS CATII/III call outs/procedures are derived from that standard CAT I.

At my employer, we can do a pretty truncated briefing for a CAT1 ILS, GPS or visual approach, but we do a far more scripted brief for CATII/III due to the general rarity of doing them and the wide variety of variables that effect the approach in question (visibility, runway, wind, aircraft condition/MEL to name the big ones.)


Thanks for that Mr Rackshot !


"Ms." But no worries!
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Fri Feb 26, 2021 4:56 pm

acecrackshot wrote:
FligtReporter wrote:
acecrackshot wrote:

Easier is relative. For a proficient commercial airline crew, doing a bog standard hand flown ILS is so routine as to be nearly automatic. In visual conditions, you might be actively approaching with lots of variables (approaching with reference to traffic in sight, converging runways, very gusty conditions, runway changes at the last minute for traffic, etc.) The "standard" approach to which we train is a CATI ILS to 1800RVR. Our visual call outs/procedures and GPS/LOC/ILS CATII/III call outs/procedures are derived from that standard CAT I.

At my employer, we can do a pretty truncated briefing for a CAT1 ILS, GPS or visual approach, but we do a far more scripted brief for CATII/III due to the general rarity of doing them and the wide variety of variables that effect the approach in question (visibility, runway, wind, aircraft condition/MEL to name the big ones.)


Thanks for that Mr Rackshot !


"Ms." But no worries!


Oh I'm sorry Miss Rackshot
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20804
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Fri Feb 26, 2021 11:39 pm

acecrackshot wrote:
FligtReporter wrote:

I had an enteraction with Mr Starlion based on this approach issue and I was told that usually pilots decide 30 to 60 minutes prior to landing of what type of approach and all the settings related to that are gonna be in place..I'm guessing for Visual approaches it must be way much easier right ? like when compared to other low visibility ones.


Easier is relative. For a proficient commercial airline crew, doing a bog standard hand flown ILS is so routine as to be nearly automatic. In visual conditions, you might be actively approaching with lots of variables (approaching with reference to traffic in sight, converging runways, very gusty conditions, runway changes at the last minute for traffic, etc.) The "standard" approach to which we train is a CATI ILS to 1800RVR. Our visual call outs/procedures and GPS/LOC/ILS CATII/III call outs/procedures are derived from that standard CAT I.

At my employer, we can do a pretty truncated briefing for a CAT1 ILS, GPS or visual approach, but we do a far more scripted brief for CATII/III due to the general rarity of doing them and the wide variety of variables that effect the approach in question (visibility, runway, wind, aircraft condition/MEL to name the big ones.)


Same with us. The briefing for a normal ILS can be very, ahem, brief. However, as soon as we have to do an RNAV or a VOR approach, we'll crack open the QRH and go through the information under "Approaches", plus include the relevant parts in the briefing. Low vis approaches are even more involved.

At my operator, we don't actually do many visual approaches. One of the threats with visual approaches is that you have to watch your energy state more carefully. On an ILS you'll have several points at which you will know if your energy state is appropriate, e.g. final fix and intercepting the glideslope. Visual approaches, on the other hand, don't have that laid out path, so you have to make your own mental gates. For example, if you're doing a full downwind, you can aim to arrive abeam the departing end at 1500 feet and 180 knots.
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Sat Feb 27, 2021 3:29 am

Hi,Everyone...I got an intresting video of an Incident involving Airbus A320N of Goair at BLR and this was in 2019 when BLR didnt have CAT IIIB (They just got it operational this january)

https://youtu.be/3Wj6hZenK00

So in this video you can see a Goair A320Neo veering off to the left of the RWY 09 and it ends up rolling on the grass before taking off again and diverting to HYD...below is the website that has details related to this incident

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/230676

Weather reported about the incident time (0151Z):

VOBL 110100Z VRB02KT 0800 R09/2000 FG BKN006 19/19 Q1015 NOSIG

VOBL 110200Z 07004KT 0050 R09/125 R27/175 FG BKN002 19/19 Q1016 NOSIG (9 Minutes After the Incident)

VOBL 110300Z 09007KT 060V120 0500 R09/500 R027/700 FG BKN003 SCT012 19/19 Q1017 BECMG 800 FG

Now Here are my questions related to this incident -:

1.Why didnt a big airport like BLR have Half hourly METAR observations like my comparatively small airport has ?

2.Even if not for the METARS didnt they have updates on ATIS and why did they choose to go ahead with the approach when they knew it was not in their capacity ?

3.While watching the video just at the start you hear the Autopilot disengaging which is shocking given they should have autolanded and dc it after the landing roll..so why you think they did so ?

4.What do you think they could have done to avoid this incident ?


Thank you !
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 8332
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Sat Feb 27, 2021 3:47 am

1/ METAR are issued hourly or, as needed, in Special Ob (SPECI).

2/ Before the crew were cleared for the approach, they should have been given the current RVR and not started the approach, if it was below minimums. Not sure was Go Air minimums at BLR,but commercial carriers must have the RVR. With the 02Z METAR, it’s pretty good bet, they didn’t have the required visibility.

3/ If BLR didn’t have a CAT III approach, the crew cannot autoland, so disengaging the autopilot is required. I don’t see what they had for approaches, I’m assuming CAT II. The mins are 300m for CAT II and 550m for CAT I.

4/ Go around at minimums, if flying CAT II or CAT I, it looks like they pressed a bit too low. Question being, what RVR was the crew given?
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Sat Feb 27, 2021 3:58 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
1/ METAR are issued hourly or, as needed, in Special Ob (SPECI).

2/ Before the crew were cleared for the approach, they should have been given the current RVR and not started the approach, if it was below minimums. Not sure was Go Air minimums at BLR,but commercial carriers must have the RVR. With the 02Z METAR, it’s pretty good bet, they didn’t have the required visibility.

3/ If BLR didn’t have a CAT III approach, the crew cannot autoland, so disengaging the autopilot is required. I don’t see what they had for approaches, I’m assuming CAT II. The mins are 300m for CAT II and 550m for CAT I.

4/ Go around at minimums, if flying CAT II or CAT I, it looks like they pressed a bit too low. Question being, what RVR was the crew given?


So basically its the human error and I'm wondering the same thing whether they were updated about the visibility or not before clearing them to land and given they could clearly see the visibility had deteriorated they should have aborted the landing and gone around anyways...so error on both parts I guess...but I don't know what did the investigation find out about this incident...Will see if I could find any reports regarding this one.

Oh and BTW METARS are issued half hourly at my airport as far as what I can see and I believe now even BLR has half hourly issuance.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20804
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:32 am

The METAR interval doesn't really matter as long as the METAR/SPECI is representative of the current conditions. At some airports the ATIS isn't updated for long periods, for example on calm nights.

Given the conditions, it seems likely they would have been given RVR by voice from approach and tower anyway.
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:53 am

Starlionblue wrote:
The METAR interval doesn't really matter as long as the METAR/SPECI is representative of the current conditions. At some airports the ATIS isn't updated for long periods, for example on calm nights.

Given the conditions, it seems likely they would have been given RVR by voice from approach and tower anyway.


And yet they continued the approach which they weren't trained for...Hope they are suspended.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20804
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:10 am

FligtReporter wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
The METAR interval doesn't really matter as long as the METAR/SPECI is representative of the current conditions. At some airports the ATIS isn't updated for long periods, for example on calm nights.

Given the conditions, it seems likely they would have been given RVR by voice from approach and tower anyway.


And yet they continued the approach which they weren't trained for...Hope they are suspended.


There is no way to draw any firm conclusions like that from the video.

One thing to mention is that you can see better from the pointy end. And those approach lights are pretty darned bright when tower turns them up to eleven. Granted, they deviated quite a bit from centreline.


In a wider context, a punitive culture tends to lead to a deterioration in safety. If you just punish people for errors, they won't report them in the first place, with the result that fleet management will not know what is happening in the operation. You'll have pilots who, instead of being proudly professional, are simply doing the least they can in order not to get yelled at.

As I mentioned earlier, no pilot goes to work intending to make a mistake. I'm sure these guys didn't either.

In order to improve safety in the future, understanding why this happened is key. Why did they disconnect the autopilot at that point? Why did the aircraft deviate? Why didn't they go around? The answers can be deeply rooted in training, culture, company culture, CRM. Fatigue can play a role.
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:19 am

Starlionblue wrote:
FligtReporter wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
The METAR interval doesn't really matter as long as the METAR/SPECI is representative of the current conditions. At some airports the ATIS isn't updated for long periods, for example on calm nights.

Given the conditions, it seems likely they would have been given RVR by voice from approach and tower anyway.


And yet they continued the approach which they weren't trained for...Hope they are suspended.


There is no way to draw any firm conclusions like that from the video.

One thing to mention is that you can see better from the pointy end. And those approach lights are pretty darned bright when tower turns them up to eleven. Granted, they deviated quite a bit from centreline.


In a wider context, a punitive culture tends to lead to a deterioration in safety. If you just punish people for errors, they won't report them in the first place, with the result that fleet management will not know what is happening in the operation. You'll have pilots who, instead of being proudly professional, are simply doing the least they can in order not to get yelled at.

As I mentioned earlier, no pilot goes to work intending to make a mistake. I'm sure these guys didn't either.

In order to improve safety in the future, understanding why this happened is key. Why did they disconnect the autopilot at that point? Why did the aircraft deviate? Why didn't they go around? The answers can be deeply rooted in training, culture, company culture, CRM. Fatigue can play a role.


Yeah I agree...but then there are cases of pilots taking out their frustrations for the company at passengers...I remember watching one of the crash documentaries where the captain was a hot head b'tard as how they showed in the documentary I think it was some north link airline crash if I can remember it correctly...Hooe companies treat them right !
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20804
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:38 am

FligtReporter wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
FligtReporter wrote:

And yet they continued the approach which they weren't trained for...Hope they are suspended.


There is no way to draw any firm conclusions like that from the video.

One thing to mention is that you can see better from the pointy end. And those approach lights are pretty darned bright when tower turns them up to eleven. Granted, they deviated quite a bit from centreline.


In a wider context, a punitive culture tends to lead to a deterioration in safety. If you just punish people for errors, they won't report them in the first place, with the result that fleet management will not know what is happening in the operation. You'll have pilots who, instead of being proudly professional, are simply doing the least they can in order not to get yelled at.

As I mentioned earlier, no pilot goes to work intending to make a mistake. I'm sure these guys didn't either.

In order to improve safety in the future, understanding why this happened is key. Why did they disconnect the autopilot at that point? Why did the aircraft deviate? Why didn't they go around? The answers can be deeply rooted in training, culture, company culture, CRM. Fatigue can play a role.


Yeah I agree...but then there are cases of pilots taking out their frustrations for the company at passengers...I remember watching one of the crash documentaries where the captain was a hot head b'tard as how they showed in the documentary I think it was some north link airline crash if I can remember it correctly...Hooe companies treat them right !


That situation is a bit different. As pilots, we are expected to behave professionally. Mistakes can still happen, but that's the nature of the job.

If you're argumentative and purposefully rough on the flight controls like the CN of Northwest Airlink 5719, you're creating an unsafe environment yourself.
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:44 am

Starlionblue wrote:
FligtReporter wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:

There is no way to draw any firm conclusions like that from the video.

One thing to mention is that you can see better from the pointy end. And those approach lights are pretty darned bright when tower turns them up to eleven. Granted, they deviated quite a bit from centreline.


In a wider context, a punitive culture tends to lead to a deterioration in safety. If you just punish people for errors, they won't report them in the first place, with the result that fleet management will not know what is happening in the operation. You'll have pilots who, instead of being proudly professional, are simply doing the least they can in order not to get yelled at.

As I mentioned earlier, no pilot goes to work intending to make a mistake. I'm sure these guys didn't either.

In order to improve safety in the future, understanding why this happened is key. Why did they disconnect the autopilot at that point? Why did the aircraft deviate? Why didn't they go around? The answers can be deeply rooted in training, culture, company culture, CRM. Fatigue can play a role.


Yeah I agree...but then there are cases of pilots taking out their frustrations for the company at passengers...I remember watching one of the crash documentaries where the captain was a hot head b'tard as how they showed in the documentary I think it was some north link airline crash if I can remember it correctly...Hooe companies treat them right !


That situation is a bit different. As pilots, we are expected to behave professionally. Mistakes can still happen, but that's the nature of the job.

If you're argumentative and purposefully rough on the flight controls like the CN of Northwest Airlink 5719, you're creating an unsafe environment yourself.


Yeah....its irresponsible and unsafe not only for them but for all the pax and everyone involved.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20804
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:48 am

FligtReporter wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
FligtReporter wrote:

Yeah I agree...but then there are cases of pilots taking out their frustrations for the company at passengers...I remember watching one of the crash documentaries where the captain was a hot head b'tard as how they showed in the documentary I think it was some north link airline crash if I can remember it correctly...Hooe companies treat them right !


That situation is a bit different. As pilots, we are expected to behave professionally. Mistakes can still happen, but that's the nature of the job.

If you're argumentative and purposefully rough on the flight controls like the CN of Northwest Airlink 5719, you're creating an unsafe environment yourself.


Yeah....its irresponsible and unsafe not only for them but for all the pax and everyone involved.


Indeed. However, it still holds true that those pilots didn't go to work that day intending to make a mistake.
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Sat Feb 27, 2021 6:27 am

Starlionblue wrote:
FligtReporter wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:

That situation is a bit different. As pilots, we are expected to behave professionally. Mistakes can still happen, but that's the nature of the job.

If you're argumentative and purposefully rough on the flight controls like the CN of Northwest Airlink 5719, you're creating an unsafe environment yourself.


Yeah....its irresponsible and unsafe not only for them but for all the pax and everyone involved.


Indeed. However, it still holds true that those pilots didn't go to work that day intending to make a mistake.


Yeah...this line of yours is now in my head..lol I get it they didn't intend to commit this mistake..thats why its an incident because it happened without intention...the only case I can remember of INTENTIONAL MISTAKE or something like that is of that terrorist who locked the cockpit and smashed the 320 German wings into the alps some years ago.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20804
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:17 am

FligtReporter wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
FligtReporter wrote:

Yeah....its irresponsible and unsafe not only for them but for all the pax and everyone involved.


Indeed. However, it still holds true that those pilots didn't go to work that day intending to make a mistake.


Yeah...this line of yours is now in my head..lol I get it they didn't intend to commit this mistake..thats why its an incident because it happened without intention...the only case I can remember of INTENTIONAL MISTAKE or something like that is of that terrorist who locked the cockpit and smashed the 320 German wings into the alps some years ago.


There is no such thing as an "intentional mistake".

The Germanwings pilot intentionally crashed the plane, and sadly didn't make any mistakes doing so.

Also, please don't call him a terrorist. Terrorists have political aims, which he did not. The pilot in question had documented mental health issues.
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Sat Feb 27, 2021 9:32 am

Starlionblue wrote:
FligtReporter wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:

Indeed. However, it still holds true that those pilots didn't go to work that day intending to make a mistake.


Yeah...this line of yours is now in my head..lol I get it they didn't intend to commit this mistake..thats why its an incident because it happened without intention...the only case I can remember of INTENTIONAL MISTAKE or something like that is of that terrorist who locked the cockpit and smashed the 320 German wings into the alps some years ago.


There is no such thing as an "intentional mistake".

The Germanwings pilot intentionally crashed the plane, and sadly didn't make any mistakes doing so.

Also, please don't call him a terrorist. Terrorists have political aims, which he did not. The pilot in question had documented mental health issues.


Ok Mr Starlion...He wasn't a terrorist just a plain straight murderer..I reckon this word is perfect for him.
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 20804
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Sat Feb 27, 2021 1:13 pm

FligtReporter wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:
FligtReporter wrote:

Yeah...this line of yours is now in my head..lol I get it they didn't intend to commit this mistake..thats why its an incident because it happened without intention...the only case I can remember of INTENTIONAL MISTAKE or something like that is of that terrorist who locked the cockpit and smashed the 320 German wings into the alps some years ago.


There is no such thing as an "intentional mistake".

The Germanwings pilot intentionally crashed the plane, and sadly didn't make any mistakes doing so.

Also, please don't call him a terrorist. Terrorists have political aims, which he did not. The pilot in question had documented mental health issues.


Ok Mr Starlion...He wasn't a terrorist just a plain straight murderer..I reckon this word is perfect for him.


Murderer, yes. But in my opinion not necessarily an evil person. What is known is that he was a sick person, as in he had a diagnosable illness that influenced his behaviour.

I have strong feelings on this matter, so please bear with me. ;)

I don't think labels like "murderer" get us to the core of the issue. More importantly, they don't help with making aviation safer in the future.

Again, we must ask "why". Why was this man's illness not "caught" before it could do damage? Why was he not removed from a position where he could hurt himself and others? Why did he not receive the help that he so badly needed? The man had seen many doctors. For better or worse, German labour laws did not allow medical information to be shared with the employer.

Some people have illnesses. This is not something that they choose. There was a breakdown here, in that a mentally ill person was being allowed to have control of an airliner.

The accident was horrific. But we cannot blame the pilot for an illness that he did not choose to have. And thus, in my opinion, we cannot entirely blame him for the actions he took under the influence of his illness.

Again, the question becomes, what safeguards can be put in place to prevent a recurrence? The obvious one is not to leave a pilot alone in the cockpit, a policy that many airlines have had in place for decades. Going deeper, the accessibility of non-judgemental assistance for various ailments is important. If this pilot had received help early, this accident might never have happened.
 
FligtReporter
Topic Author
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: The Magic of "CAT IIIB"

Sat Feb 27, 2021 1:31 pm

Starlionblue wrote:
FligtReporter wrote:
Starlionblue wrote:

There is no such thing as an "intentional mistake".

The Germanwings pilot intentionally crashed the plane, and sadly didn't make any mistakes doing so.

Also, please don't call him a terrorist. Terrorists have political aims, which he did not. The pilot in question had documented mental health issues.


Ok Mr Starlion...He wasn't a terrorist just a plain straight murderer..I reckon this word is perfect for him.


Murderer, yes. But in my opinion not necessarily an evil person. What is known is that he was a sick person, as in he had a diagnosable illness that influenced his behaviour.

I have strong feelings on this matter, so please bear with me. ;)

I don't think labels like "murderer" get us to the core of the issue. More importantly, they don't help with making aviation safer in the future.

Again, we must ask "why". Why was this man's illness not "caught" before it could do damage? Why was he not removed from a position where he could hurt himself and others? Why did he not receive the help that he so badly needed? The man had seen many doctors. For better or worse, German labour laws did not allow medical information to be shared with the employer.

Some people have illnesses. This is not something that they choose. There was a breakdown here, in that a mentally ill person was being allowed to have control of an airliner.

The accident was horrific. But we cannot blame the pilot for an illness that he did not choose to have. And thus, in my opinion, we cannot entirely blame him for the actions he took under the influence of his illness.

Again, the question becomes, what safeguards can be put in place to prevent a recurrence? The obvious one is not to leave a pilot alone in the cockpit, a policy that many airlines have had in place for decades. Going deeper, the accessibility of non-judgemental assistance for various ailments is important. If this pilot had received help early, this accident might never have happened.


I understand Mr Starlion..I know he had "D" (Im not gonna name it for I believe naming it gives it power) and was going through suicidal thoughts and even though I'm not a type of person to share a lot of my personal stuff online but I was going through similar stuff back in 2015 but I have somehow learnt to put it at bay..The D thing can be controlled by no medicines but ourselves and our own will to control our mind and tell it that "I run you YOU DONT RUN ME" ...There are myriads of cases and I know it can be triggered by any childhood incident or PTSD or even medical treatment...I can't share much but All I wanna say is that despite all the mess so many of us go through we fight it..we defeat it and come out stronger !!

I feel sorry for him but not for what he did..I wish he had just jumped off the cliff or something than taking all those along with him.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rootsman and 15 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos