Originally Posted by
Chiefttp
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.
Thanks,
Assuming this is correct, my takeaway from this is that as soon as the weather goes below CAT I limits in the US, pilots allowed to do CATII/III approaches can assume that they have protection and just do their low vis approaches.
But something doesn’t make sense to me. Imagine a busy airport where the weather is VFR and there is a lineup of aircraft for departure at the CAT I hold point on a CAT III capable runway along with some maintenance vehicles inside what would be the protected zone for low vis approaches. A CAT III capable aircraft is on final and have briefed a CAT III approach as a precaution. While on final, a fog bank rolls in and the weather quickly goes to 1/8 mile while several aircraft and vehicles are still in the protected zone.
Based on the quoted response above, the pilots on final do not need a clearance for a CAT II or III approach yet they don’t have protection. In reality, it could take a significant amount of time to ensure that maintenance vehicles and aircraft are clear of the protected zone.
That is why I like an actual clearance for a CAT II or III approach. Otherwise, there actually is ambiguity, despite what some might say.
In my few encounters with CATII/III approaches, which were outside the U S, we were always cleared specifically for such an approach.