LEM, Alaskan,
Sorry for the misinterpretation.
Just a thought:
Even if there is no official alarm, obviously the system has a means of telling you that something screwed up. If it where a really minor thing than it may never show on the flight deck but would be limited to a read out for maintenance somewhere hidden in the gizmos behind your backs. So someone thought of it being at least so important to notify the pilots.
If unsure of a systems behaviour and at 400 feet (which I'd consider rather a safe altitude) would a go-around not be the safest way to cope with this "non-alarm" situation.
Not being 100 % sure about a systems behaviour when one parameter is missing i'd rather choose that option.
Maybe a continuation could be considered when absolutely sure that it won't affect the landing and you may even have played with that failure in the sim once or twice.
As for the OM or AFM - It's not the bible - so sometimes they do not think about every failure. The wording in LEM's OM might be interesting. Does it say something about "any" failure on a CAT III approach should lead to a go-around ... or is it fully specific with details on the various occurrences?
Last edited by error_401; 17th Jan 2005 at 09:40.