Originally Posted by
punkalouver
I know that having the weather below 800-2 automatically initiated enhanced protection at certain American airports, but doesn’t CATIII require an even higher level of protection on the ground?
I ask this because as far as I can tell, the only clearance for a CATIII approach appears to have been given by the FedEx crew to themselves(which I am not sure is legal). By stating that they were doing a CATIII approach, they were stating that if they encountered no visual contact(or almost no visual contact), they would continue with an auto land, basically relying on the autopilot to land and under the belief that no interference to the ILS signal would happen based on CATIII protection. This includes vehicles and perhaps increased aircraft spacing.
If a higher level of protection is required for CATIII than 800-2, how does one ensure that it is being provided. I would think that would be by hearing the controller say that you are cleared for a CATIII ILS(which apparently was not the case).
For the 4th or 5th time in this thread I will explain how it works in the U.S. We fly the aircraft, and check the weather/ATIS like pilots do in any other country, if the airport or ATIS is reporting weather that is below CAT 1 mins (200-1/2) then we as pilots will check the approaches available at that airport. If the airport has a CAT2 or CAT3 approach, that is what we’ll fly. No announcements are made. No special procedures are required, except that the ground control and Tower will insure the clear zone is clear. The “ clear zone is the area that insures the ILS/Localizer signal is not interfered with by another aircraft. The ladder symbols on the taxiways are where we are expected to hold short before being cleared for takeoff by Tower. We know this and comply with these procedures. Again, no special announcements needed. Normally if I’m flying an actual CAT2/3 approach, as a reminder to tower, I will ask if the clear zone is clear? And also remind them to turn up the brightness of the approach lighting system. The FedEx pilots call to tower that they were flying a CAT 3 approach was his way of reminding Tower that he was flying a CAT 3 approach, but given the visibility at the time, it was the only legal approach he could fly. Tower and Ground control responsibility's is to make sure nobody taxi’s into the clear zone while another jet is on final. I’m not sure what criteria Tower uses as far as spacing between aircraft while performing CAT 2/3 approaches, that’s his job, and we assume he knows. At some airports, if the vis is very low and they have the proper equipment and lighting systems, they will ANNOUNCE “SMGCS” procedures are in effect. SMGCS procedures concern taxi routings and traffic control lighting, that only affects aircraft on the ground as they taxi to and from the runway.
So in a nutshell, we fly whatever approach available to land, given the visibility conditions. We rely on Tower and Ground control to do their jobs, and we will do ours by safely landing the jet.
This ground controller in Austin screwed up monumentally, by clearing Southwest to takeoff, while FedEx was on short final. The Southwest crew should have known better than to accept the takeoff clearance. Mistakes were made, but it’s not a systemic problem.