Help with ILS Visabiltiy?? [Archive]

MyNameIsIs

28th Jun 2010, 13:51

No, not kidding.

I'm talking about the approach lighting, Icarus, which are very easy to recognise and judge.
Seeing as though they extend out to a known distance from the end of the runway (and depending on the type of approach lighting, the amount of perpendicular rows which are spaced at 150m), you can judge distance based off this. Look at ERSA AD to see the different types of approach lighting.
I expect that that is part of the purpose of the approach lighting.

For example if you are expecting that at the DA you will see all of the perpendicular rows of lights out your window but only seeing a couple, well you know instantly you do not have the required vis.

You wont be counting individual bloody bulbs on your fingers and toes!

The other 'measurements' people have mentioned here I presume are based off being on slope at the DA.

So, how do you do it Icarus? Got a good method to contribute?

puff

28th Jun 2010, 14:08

Imagine the discussions at 140kts at 300 feet at the minima - count the lights - I reakon it's 700 metres - ohh nah I reakon 900 - nah I reakon - ohh well doesn't matter now we've landed.

If anyone can with the naked eye tell the difference between 100 metres of vis at midnight at 300 feet at 140kts in pouring rain lit by landing lights their observation skills are wasted in flying an aircraft !

zanzibar

28th Jun 2010, 14:20

Agree with MNII, you count the bars - simple, and done in a millisecond, providing you know what you need to see (i.e. the number of bars) and not have to do calculations - e.g. 4 bars X 150 mtrs = etc,etc.

Fatalbert/Velikiye Luki, pretty much it.

compylot/icarus, best better think your replies before posting.

Icarus2001

28th Jun 2010, 14:45

Anything which involves counting at the DA at around 120 knots and 600 feet per minute rod is doomed to fail. Really.

Others have already contributed the best solution with no counting required.

Counting is good when staionary at the end of the runway about to commence a take-off roll and you need to work out if you have 500 metres visibility.

MyNameIsIs

28th Jun 2010, 16:08

Zanzibar, exactly.

If you know you need X crossbars when coming down the slope, you know whether or not you have the required vis. It is just one method.

The approach lighting goes out to 900 metres. The crossbars (depending on what type of approach lights) are at 150m intervals stopping at 750m. It is very easy to pre-plan what you need to see.

If you are coming down the slope and all you are seeing is one or two crossbars then you know you (potentially) wont have the required vis and thus at the DA you wont be thinking "is this enough or not?"

The other situations mentioned do not account for being off-slope. If for example seeing the PAPI/VASIS when at the DA is the required vis, if you are high on slope you will meet that DA closer to the runway. You might JUST see the PAPI but in reality you are closer than actual with less than the required vis as the intersection of the GP and DA (which is where you need the required vis) would occur a little behind where you broke visual.

puff, the purpose of the crossbar lights is more than likely to aid the eye in determining the distances in the dark and rain! Otherwise, why have them at all? If there was no need then there may as well only be centreline lead-in lighting.

Like I said before, its not concentrating and counting individual bulbs on your fingers and toes. Its not rocket science.
Forward planning- just like working out your planned ROD to hold slope.

"Anything that involves counting..." you say...
What about realising you are too slow or fast and have to compensate? That's counting in a way.... Are you doomed to fail? No.

The "Best" solution? There's more than 1 way to skin a cat. Using all methods/information available to you is an ability some people lack.
Have you contributed your method Icarus? No.

Chimbu chuckles

28th Jun 2010, 16:22

Counting lights?

I have been instrument rated for 23 years - flown the odd ILS to minimas - NEVER have I counted lights, never even occurred to me.

Maybe I need to spend more time in Flight Sim?

Before you fly an ILS you need to have an understanding of what you will likely see at the minima with min vis. That depends on the published minimum vis - it might be the threshold or it more likely be the first bit of the HIALS for Cat 1.

A standard ILS brings you down at 320'/nm. At a typical DA of 220' (BN 19ILS) you will be 1270m from the touchdown zone - min vis, 800m, you MIGHT see the runway end lights but no way the VASI - you will see the the HIALS. Remember too the reported vis is not reported through a windscreen doing 90-120kts. If they say 800m in rain you will likely have less REAL visibility at the minima - ****ty windscreen wipers not withstanding - doesn't mean you second guess them either - they say 800m you're good to go and use that command judgement you're payed so well to exercise from time to time.

Count lights - you gotta be kidding?

If you see anything vaguely resembling what you expect to see you're visual - you don't and you're not. You make an instant decision.

How much counting of lights you see happening here? This is the CNS Rwy 15 ILS - anyone know the minima, its been too long since I landed there.

WnguYtpZMUc

MyNameIsIs

28th Jun 2010, 16:39

A standard ILS brings you down at 320'/nm. At a typical DA of 220' (BN 19ILS) you will be 1270m from the touchdown zone - min vis, 800m, you MIGHT see the runway end lights but no way the VASI - you will see the the HIALS.

The HIALS is exactly what I'm talking about.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesnt the ILS/PAPI/VASI bring you down to the 1000ft markers? 1000ft is approx 300m into the runway- so from your figures at the 220' point you are 970m from the end of the runway. If you can see that you have 5 (4 is not quite enough) of the crossbars, you have over 800m vis from your current position.
If you only see 1 or 2 crossbars, well you don't have the required vis.

The above probably comes down to what you say here:

If you see anything vaguely resembling what you expect to see you're visual - you don't and you're not. You make an instant decision.

CNS is 320ft (311AGL)and 1.2k vis.
Which off your figures again would put them 1nm from the TDZ.
At the DA (1nm/1800m from the 1000ft markers; 1500m from the end of the runway) you would plan to be able to not see the runway end lights but to know you had the required vis you should see 4 of the crossbars. If not then you dont have the vis.

When I heard the minima call I can make out the approach lighting. Because the video quality is crap and the eyball has better clarity, I later paused the video at this point (yes I know you will tell us all that pausing cannot be done for a real approach!) and can definitively count at least 3 crossbars. Only half a second after the minima call I can make out the 4th crossbar.
Surely they wouldn't have continued the approach if they didn't have the required vis! And how do you propose they worked out that they had the vis? Can you hear someone calling "can you see the approach lights?" during the approach before they get to the minima?

NEVER have I counted lights, never even occurred to me.

Likewise.
Got it suggested from guys driving jets.

DirectAnywhere

28th Jun 2010, 17:17

I'm with Chimbu. At minima in minimum vis:

CAT 1: 200' - vis 800m (550m RVR) - HIALS - you will NOT see the threshold.
CAT 2: 100' - RVR 400m - Threshold.
CAT 3: 20' - RVR 200 -Touchdown zone or RWY centreline lights.

If you can see that much, no counting of lights, you're OK. BRIEF what you expect to see. At minima PIC is an approved observer (refer AIP). If PIC sees enough, they see enough.:ok:

MyNameIsIs

28th Jun 2010, 17:27

I'm with Chimbu. At minima in minimum vis:

CAT 1: 200' - vis 800m (550m RVR) - HIALS - you will NOT see the threshold.

If you can see that much, no counting of lights, you're OK

My interpretation of what you have just said is that you wont see the threshold at the DA and thats OK to continue.
So how do YOU judge whether YOUR visibility is enough or not in such a situation?
Do you just continue on down the slope the rest of the way because you see part of the HIALS?

DirectAnywhere

28th Jun 2010, 17:53

Can I look up and see the crossbars? Yes.

Can I see 2.5 or 3.5? Who knows? I look up at minima. I can see two cross bars - maybe the outline of a third. I'm back down on the ADI before I can count the exact number of lights at minimum RVR.

I use the F/D or ILS from 200' to 100'ish then I'm heads up. For CAT II or III - it's as discussed.

If you can fly an ILS to CAT 1 and at 200', manually flown, be head up long enough to count the cross bars plus other lights well done, you're a better pilot than me.:ok:

The Green Goblin

28th Jun 2010, 21:51

I don't know about you guys but I'm on the dials and approaching the DA while I'm waiting for the call "visual" or "not "visual go 'round"

I'm not counting lights doing 120 KIAS

zlin77

28th Jun 2010, 22:17

Possibly A.T.C. might give a VIS/RVR reading prior to the commencement of the approach, at the minima the P.I.C. will assess the visual environment and either continue or go-around depending if they have sufficient ground references i.e. approach lighting system or runway environment in sight, never counted lights myself in 30+ years of ILS ops........Cat 3B is easier!!

mustangranch

28th Jun 2010, 22:36

I feel for 888 who just wanted a rough answer.

Mate. In Aus we use HIALS that are called British Calvert. They are the ones with the bars. They are spaced evenly. The minima normally is past all the lead in bars and is overhead a point called the descion bars, were they turn all red and are 1000' from the threshold.

As most people here are talking. We don't COUNT the bars or edge lighting.
Just know some simple rules :
800 m - gota see at least the threshold green lights and a few white edge lights
1200m - gota see the papi/vasi lights
1500m - gota see the touchdown markings clearly plus a little more

There ya go.

Oh and not everyone does 120 knots either @ Vat. So bear that in mind.

Cheers

PS found this great little article just now. Not much on HOW to calculate vis, but gives a great insight to approach lighting. From this, you can develope your own methods.
Calvert Cross Bar Lighting System (http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Calvert%20cross%20bar%20lighting.htm)

MyNameIsIs

29th Jun 2010, 02:17

I get the distinct impression that this is going to go around in circles...
So I probably wont really bother much longer. Nobody seems open to discussion as such, more interested in disputing something without putting in much input themselves.
All I know is that it works and is just one method of helping determine your visibility

Seems like some seem to think the "count" is very literal- "oh, i can see now... lets see theres 1, theres 2...wait ive run out of fingers better use my other hand!".
It really isnt that hard to recognise something like the crossbars and to be able to determine how many there are. Even easier 2 crew as one of them looks out the window mostly!

I'm liking people saying "look for the HIALS" - Ok you might see it but what exactly are you looking for?
If you see half of it can you continue the approach or do you have to miss out because its not enough visibility?

Also, RVR is not visibility along the approach path.
RVR may not be representative of the visibility you are getting out of your window on approach.
However, it is another piece of information you can use to help make the decision at the DA- just like the crossbars! Yet nobody is knocking the RVR!
Also note that an RV assessment is not a substituite for a required RVR observation and cannot be used for precision approaches under certain conditions.
So if you have been basing your decision at the DA based on the RVR from the tower, what are you going to do when they cannot give one?

Maybe its not practical in all ops. Those rubbishing my method have not exactly said anything like "yeah I see where you are coming from, but that is actually a little impractical for us doing XXXXXX. We however use this......" All I see is "your kidding" "your joking"
We aren't all Maverick coming in at 120, 140 at the DA. Sounds more like some are trying to compare dick sizes.

MyNameIsIs

29th Jun 2010, 02:39

Can I look up and see the crossbars? Yes.

Can I see 2.5 or 3.5? Who knows? I look up at minima. I can see two cross bars - maybe the outline of a third. I'm back down on the ADI before I can count the exact number of lights at minimum RVR.

Using the figures from the CNS approach vid previously posted by chuckles for an example, I'd interpret your method above as not getting visual and continuing the approach below DA. :=

ForkTailedDrKiller

29th Jun 2010, 03:45

Oh come on girls! Its not that hard - is it?

I have held an IR for 25 yrs and have flown a few ILS in that time (maybe 25 a year). In that time I have never missed in anger off the minima - OK, so I do live in paradise!

There are many in here who do this stuff for a living every day, in all sorts of crappy weather that I don't need to get out of bed for.

I bring the Bo down the ILS at 120 kts (Let's see ya do that in the Retard Vehicle Jaba and not run off the end of the runway at YBBN!).

Below 300' I am not counting noth'in! I am just looking to plonk it on the runway in one piece or bug out for another go.

I am a simple kind of guy and work in the big picture - not a lawyer who revels in the detail and fine print.

Vis is an issue in any approach but I guess it is maybe more of an issue when you are close to the weeds on an ILS.

Forkair SOPs state that at the minima you must be able identify enough on the ground to fly the aeroplane to safe touch down - or else you bug out. Start of the HIAL (I thought that was the purpose of HIAL ??), lead-in lights, PAPI/VASIS, whatever.

The DA at Townsville puts the HIAL right in front of you - if I could see the start of that it would never have occurred to me that I might not be legal to land.

I would like to hear from a Big Bird pilot - do you "miss" if you can only see the start of the HIAL from the DA?

Dr :8

DirectAnywhere

29th Jun 2010, 04:30

Mynameisis:

Yes the Cairns plate is an exception with a higher DA and vis requirement than most CAT I installations. I accept your point. I didn't have the plate handy. However, on this approach at minima you're still not going to see the threshold or all the HIALS. Stick with me here!

We're agreed the ILS takes you to 1000' in to the runway. At the minima you'll be 1500m from the threshold. ((311'/Tan3 degrees) - 1000') converted into metres. The HIALS runs 900m from the threshold so you're still 600m short of the start of the HIALS and with only 1200m vis you will still only see the 600 metres to the start of the HIALS and then 600 metres beyond that which is the first three crossbars and part of the lights to the fourth.

OK so that's Cairns, which is a worst case scenario.

Compare with Sydney 16R or Melbourne. At the minima for Sydney 16R, you will be 4045' from where the glideslope intersects the runway. (212' @ 3 degrees). That puts you 930ish metres from the threshold. That's just short of the HIALS. You won't see the threshold in 800m. It's unlikely you'll see the first crossbar as it's going to be under the nose of whatever aircraft you're flying so that will leave you with the remaining 4 crossbars, and you may not quite see the 4th, closest to the runway, in 800m vis.

Typically I'm looking at 140-150 knots at minima. One pilot will have the ability to observe the developing visual segment. The other pilot will not. The other pilot will not have the time to count the crossbars, particularly if they're flying when they need to now deal with any crosswind and the tendency to turn towards the runway, and the tendency to duck low, both of which are best counteracted by a quick glance up to check the visual segment and then getting head down again.

Anyway, that's it from me. Hope the answers help the original poster. Like most of these things it's an interesting discussion.:)

witwiw

29th Jun 2010, 04:54

MyNameIsIs

29th Jun 2010, 05:41

You won't see the threshold in 800m. It's unlikely you'll see the first crossbar as it's going to be under the nose of whatever aircraft you're flying so that will leave you with the remaining 4 crossbars, and you may not quite see the 4th, closest to the runway, in 800m vis.

And thats basically what I've been on about.

Mentioned previously which I agreed with- "what you expect to see when visual".
If you are expecting to see what you describe above, and that's what you see, then you are ok.
But what happens if its blatantly obvious that you cannot see past only 1 or 2 bars? (You've 'counted' those bars havn't you?) Presumably one would deduce that they do not have the required vis and commence the missed approach.

Do any aircraft manuals state that you lose X metres of vis or that they hide a certain amount of approach lights under the nose for situations such as this?

The method of checking the crossbars is just one of the ways in assisting you in determining your visibility.
Don't know why I've copped so much flak about it. As seen in the "how to start a hot injected engine" thread there are many ways about going about things yet there doesn't appear to be any negativity such as this over there!

Forkair SOPs state that at the minima you must be able identify enough on the ground to fly the aeroplane to safe touch down - or else you bug out. Start of the HIAL (I thought that was the purpose of HIAL ??), lead-in lights, PAPI/VASIS, whatever.

I'm hoping that just because you see the start (and presumably not all) of the HIAL lights doesn't mean you think it's safe to continue.
Almost like saying "I can see a couple of edge lights, so i can take off" even though its actually below the takeoff minima.

The DA at Townsville puts the HIAL right in front of you - if I could see the start of that it would never have occurred to me that I might not be legal to land.

Herein lies my point with the amount of crossbars you can or cannot see!
If you only see 1 or 2 then thats not the required vis.

Its more recognition of what you are expected to and subsequently seeing that I'm on about, and recognising 3 or 4 rows of lights 150m apart is not difficult in a momentary half-second glance out the screen.
If you are looking out the window to identify something to to determine if you have the the required visibility (or not), be it the threshold lights PAPI/VASI or the 500/1000/1500ft markers, why is it inconcievable to some that the crossbar lights are also a valid way?

Direct, yes an interesting discussion and thanks for the input. The method I've mentioned might not be all that practical for you at your speeds, but I'm sure there are plenty of aircraft out there that can and do go slower, in which case they might find that the crossbar lights works for them.

I think the word "count" has brought about a bit of confusion to some, for which I apologise. But what other word can be used to describe recognising a numerical amount of things?

ForkTailedDrKiller

29th Jun 2010, 08:28

Yes, I can see the senario clearly now. After here we are in the Big Bird on the Rwy 16R ILS into Sydney after 14 hrs peddling from LA, Captain PF..........

Co-pilot: Visual (or whatever you guys say). :E (Happy now?)

Captain: Oh shoot! We only have 700 m vis, missed approach!

Yeah right!

Dr :8

zlin77

29th Jun 2010, 09:50

The BOTTOM LINE= at the minima make a "Command Decision", is it safe to continue or do I go for option B(Go-around), doing all this while maintaining a safe flight profile i.e. on slope/speed etc. Remember in marginal conditions at the minima it is easy when hand flying to deviate significantly from the approach profile due to visual illusions of often being too high which can result in a "duck-under"......scan inside/outside.

PA39

30th Jun 2010, 04:51

:\ Sh*t....who cares.....I ain't goin around......its scary up there!! Yep me too
25 odd renewals and REAL precision approaches ....only missed on some remote NDB's.

Tankengine

30th Jun 2010, 08:19

25+ years of ILS, I HAVE gone around on a number of occasions - due still in cloud. Visibility does not need to be assessed other than that you have an "expanding visual segment" and have enough vis for the approach. [for cat1]
Cat 2 see threshold, Cat3a see "something" Cat3b - land!:ok:

zanzibar

30th Jun 2010, 13:56

Yes, I can see the senario clearly now. After here we are in the Big Bird on the Rwy 16R ILS into Sydney after 14 hrs peddling from LA, Captain PF..........

Co-pilot: 220', I have the approach lights visible (or whatever you guys say).

Captain: Oh shoot! We only have 700 m vis, missed approach!

Yeah right!

Try:

PM: (at or approaching the minima) "visual" (or similar)
PF: "landing" (or similar)

Or

PM: (at the minima) "no contact" (or similar)
PF: "going around" (or similar)

Clinical, straightforward and simple. Not the rubbish otherwise suggested, there's not the time for that.

Bullethead

30th Jun 2010, 14:08

Bullethead

2nd Jul 2010, 06:35

G’day BL,

With the YMEN ILS DH at 351’ HAT and a 3deg G/S being 325’/nm I figure that on slope at DH you’ll be 1.08nm/1900yds/1740mtrs from the glideslope antenna. I think you used the DH altitude in your calculations instead of the HAT.

Now the glideslope antenna, or more specifically the glideslope ground intercept point, is usually around 300mtrs from the runway end so on slope at DH the runway end should be 1740-300 or 1440 mtrs in front of you in which case you should be able to clearly see the HIRL and threshold.

I hope this explains it and that I haven’t got my maths wrong.

Regards,
BH.

Pontius

2nd Jul 2010, 08:38

I'm confused by this thread's seeming obsession with assessing the visibility at DA.

The only time you're interested in the numbers, be they met vis, corrected met vis or RVR is BEFORE the meat of the ILS is commenced, i.e. is the visibility at or above the minima required to make the approach? Answer 'No' = different approach, different vis (if you can hang around that long) or different airport/runway. Answer 'Yes' = conduct approach.

Most countries now have the Approach Ban Point (ABP). This is variously, depending on where in the World you are, at the FAF, OM or 1000'. If the vis is below minima at or before the ABP, discontinue the approach. Vis above minima, then continue the approach. Vis decision made......no more discussion....no light counting.

At DA the only decision that needs to be made is 'can I see the elements required of this type of approach'? These have obviously been designed such that a safe landing can be carried out and I won't insult your collective intelligence by listing them (as well as can't be arsed to list the 10 options of a CAT 1 :)).

So, to the original question. At DA you don't decide if you have 800m etc visibility. That was done ages ago or you wouldn't have commenced the approach. At DA you either land or go-around.

(For the pedants; yes, I do realise there's no DA on a CAT IIIB/C, so no decision needs to be made :ok:)

Baldnfat

2nd Jul 2010, 09:18

Ever thought of doing a renewal in a different place/ship?

We never find out how many cobwebs we need to blow out until it is too late.:hmm:

remoak

2nd Jul 2010, 10:23

This is one of those "who cares" threads.

You get to DA, you are visual or you aren't. The prescribed visual reference is set out in the regs or your Ops Manual. If you have it and you are happy, you land. If you aren't, you go around. Simple. You don't need to know what the RVR/met vis actually is at that point.

RVR/met vis is only relevant before you commence the approach or when approaching FAF, whatever the rule is in Oz land. Our company minima for an approach ban was 1000' AGL in Europe.

MyNameIsIs

2nd Jul 2010, 11:07

It were me in the vid which was taken by the third pilot with a hand held pocket digital camera in the video mode hence the relatively poor quality. The actual video file is around 30 megs and I believe when you upload a file to any of the hosting sites they are compressed and so lose some quality.

This is what our low vis ops manual has to say about what you need to be able to see at DH

"CAT I Minima (and above)
At DH the pilot is required to see an adequate portion of the threshold or approach lighting system to identify and assess the aircraft position and approach path, it is not a requirement to see the threshold or TDZ at DH.

Note: It is assumed that below DH the visual segment will continue to expand,
providing adequate visual reference to manually flare and rollout."

There is no counting of anything that close to the ground in poor vis, you either see what you expect to see and land or otherwise buggeroff!

Thanks Bullethead for your reply. Good to hear it from the person in a supplied example, thanks for the input.

However, some questions for you.
With regards to "At DH the pilot is required to see an adequate portion of the threshold or approach lighting system...." WHAT is deemed adequate? HOW do you deem it adequate?
I did post earlier that the word "count" has probably brought in a lot of confusion. I accept that. But is it not fair to say that if you only saw bugger all of the approach lights, for example only the 1st or maybe the 2nd bar if you are lucky, that that would be deemed inadequate?

I know it is more recognition of what you expect to see at the DA, and it appears to me at least (and I wont flog a dead horse much longer) that people seem to think that you actually need to physically count bars one by one. Thats not the case. You'll recognise pretty much instantly on a glance if you've got most or next to nothing....
I should have re-phrased my initial response to "well, if you see bugger all of the approach lighting you probably wont have the required vis. but if you see most of it, then you probably do".
However I think some people out there (whether they actively contribute here or not) may have learnt from this post, even though some contributers may not want to admit it, that the approach lights can be used to help one identify distance. It is just another tool. Other than a bit of assistance with lateral adjustment etc when breaking vis, why the hell else would the lights be spaced evenly apart to a standard for? They ain't christmas lights!

I also find it interesting that your ops manual states that you do not require the chart-stipulated (adjusted for other things HIAL U/S etc) visibility, just what you deem "adequate" ! No need to discuss that though.

"Count" - probably the wrong word. Shame so many people thought it was so literal.

ForkTailedDrKiller

2nd Jul 2010, 11:23

FTDK

Ever thought of doing a renewal in a different place/ship?

I have done IR renewals at Paraparaumu (NZ), Archerfield, Mackay, Townsville and Innisfail, in PA28, C172, C210, Bonanza, Apache, Aztec, C310, C402, Duchess and Baron aircraft.

......... and your point is?

Dr :8

Pontius

2nd Jul 2010, 11:34

I also find it interesting that your ops manual states that you do not require the chart-stipulated (adjusted for other things HIAL U/S etc) visibility, just what you deem "adequate"

I know that wasn't directed at me but I thought it needed clarifying anyway. Re-read my bit above and you'll see that you don't need the visibility (adjusted for U/S equipment etc) at DA; you need it BEFORE you get to DA. If you don't have it before you get to the Approach Ban Point you cannot continue the approach, so you'll never get to DA.

The required elements required to be seen at DA depend on the type of ILS. CAT 1 has some fairly high requirements e.g. PAPIs OR Rwy markings OR edge lights OR Rwy end lights etc etc but has a high DA and, therefore, you are likely to see them. CAT 2 has a lesser requirement but includes a 'lateral element of the approach lighting system' to assist in your adjustment of line-up. CAT 3A has only a 'one light' requirement but you've got lots of back-up equipment being used now (fail operational etc) and there's no need for you to see much 'cos either the autopilot or HUD/Flight Directors are doing it for you and, almost certainly, you're going to autoland anyway. Cat 3B you're along for the ride and employed to make sure the kit behaves itself.

SO, in summary, you do have to allow for equipment being U/S and this will 'up' the visibility requirements. Not at DA but, more than likely, at the descent briefing.

remoak

2nd Jul 2010, 12:46

FTDK

I have done IR renewals at Paraparaumu (NZ)

The finest NDB approach on the planet... ;)

Alistair

3rd Jul 2010, 02:33

For the edification of the ignorant or the just plain curious.

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/4170/pic4roz.jpg

http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/7246/pic3p.jpg

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/9427/pic5vb.jpg

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/2126/pic6vp.jpg

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/3127/pic1py.jpg

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/5936/pic2pk.jpg

Chuck said it all about 3 pages ago.

edit: to get the 2 approaches in the correct flown sequence.

Bullethead

3rd Jul 2010, 05:04

G'day MyNameIsIs,

I think Pontious has provided the answer to your question.

For info when carrying out an approach in poor conditions we couple the aircraft/autopilot to the ILS and the Captain, being the PF, remains head up so he can get the earliest visual indication, the FO, being the PNF, remains head down and monitors the instruments and advises of any deviations.

So, simply put, the aircraft flies the approach, the Captain looks out the window and the FO makes sure the aricraft is doing what it's supposed to do and makes the required calls on the way down. There is cross cockpit patter to let each other know what is going on, not constant but enough.

We practice this every time we go to the sim with all manner of faults, failures and with vis well below the minimum.

That particular approach in CNS was autocoupled to an autoland although it could legally have been hand flown. An autoland is required for Cat II and Cat III approaches but not for Cat I.

The ATIS at the time indicated conditions well above the alternate minima but with passing showers and things didn't really get murky until around 2000' on approach. The aircraft in front of us went around and we were ready for that possibility but we got lucky with a lull in the weather and at minima had the required vis and so landed.

Interestingly, we turned the aircraft around in CNS and then departed for Narita and did it all again at night, in a snowstorm to a non-autoland runway, that's right the approach was hand flown to a manual landing.

Several beers ensued.

Regards,
BH.

remoak

3rd Jul 2010, 06:07

An autoland is required for Cat II and Cat III approaches but not for Cat I.

An autoland is NOT required for Cat II approaches.

I'm pretty sure autoland isn't required for Cat IIIa either. It is for Cat IIIb and Cat IIIc (if you can find one of those).

Capt Fathom

3rd Jul 2010, 12:16

An autoland is NOT required for Cat II approaches.

And based on the deviation off the centerline in some of those photos above, that statement may be true.

sagan

3rd Jul 2010, 22:52

FTDK said

''Forkair SOPs state that at the minima you must be able identify enough on the ground to fly the aeroplane to safe touch down - or else you bug out. Start of the HIAL (I thought that was the purpose of HIAL ??), lead-in lights, PAPI/VASIS, whatever.

The DA at Townsville puts the HIAL right in front of you - if I could see the start of that it would never have occurred to me that I might not be legal to land.

I have done IR renewals at Paraparaumu (NZ), Archerfield, Mackay, Townsville and Innisfail, in PA28, C172, C210, Bonanza, Apache, Aztec, C310, C402, Duchess and Baron aircraft.

......... and your point is?''

Clearly the quality of your renewals is questionable.

With the above level of understanding of the requirements you should not be flying under the IFR.

I would fail you instantly.

Kelly Slater

4th Jul 2010, 01:59

Bullethead, who flys the missed approach in your situation if you don't get visual? Does the Captain transfer to instruments at the minima as he is the flying pilot or does the non flying pilot take over and fly the missed approach. For my money, I'd rather have the pilot flying on instruments regardless of what the auto pilot is doing.

Bullethead

4th Jul 2010, 02:55

G'day Kelly,

For low vis ops the Captain is the PF for the approach and the missed approach if necessary although the autopilot is doing the flying. The lower minima are predicated on an auto missed approach capability.

It works quite well, on the thrust levers is a G/A switch which when pressed gives you the correct thrust and pitch attitude, you call for flap and gear as required and at the correct time engage your vertical and horizontal nav modes and sit there and watch it happen. It even handles it all engine out if needs be. Complicated missed approach tracking requirements are loaded in the FMC and the autopilot flies them well.

As I mentioned earlier we practice this during each sim session so the transfer from visual, or perhaps I should say not visual, back to instruments is seamless.

Remoak.

I am fully aware of the legalities of low vis ops and what I stated re autolands is company policy, my mistake.

Regards,
BH.

PA39

4th Jul 2010, 08:40

:ok: Alistair.....well done ! its as simple as that. U2 Chimbu....who worries about counting lights ??

ForkTailedDrKiller

4th Jul 2010, 09:08

Clearly the quality of your renewals is questionable.

With the above level of understanding of the requirements you should not be flying under the IFR.

I would fail you instantly.

Bugger!

........ and after 25 renewals I thought I was starting to get the hang of it! :E

Dr :8

Capn Bloggs

4th Jul 2010, 10:50

Bullethead, I'm with Kelly. That procedure sounds a bit sus to me.

Velikiye Luki

4th Jul 2010, 12:07

Bullethead, I'm with Kelly. That procedure sounds a bit sus to me

Ha! You guys are hilarious!?!?!

Clearly the quality of your renewals is questionable.

With the above level of understanding of the requirements you should not be flying under the IFR.

I would fail you instantly.

Well you better get onto all the major operators in Australia and fail all their crew then????? Because I would say all their SOPs say very similar things about assessment at the minima...

Capt Fathom

4th Jul 2010, 12:16

Bugger!
........ and after 25 renewals I thought I was starting to get the hang of it!

Complacency is a dangerous thing doc! One should never feel comfortable when you cannot see where you are going!

Capt Fathom

4th Jul 2010, 12:19

That procedure sounds a bit sus to me.

What a croc!

Pushing a button to go around! How easy can it be! :E

Bullethead

4th Jul 2010, 12:29

Bullethead, I'm with Kelly. That procedure sounds a bit sus to me.

Capn Blogs,

I transition from visual to instruments on every take off in an airliner so why not on a low vis missed approach? It's not as if I'm not accustomed to the procedure, in fact it is actually easier in the missed approach case as the aircraft is flying itself under my guidance whereas every takeoff is hand flown.

The more difficult transiton is from instruments to visual in poor conditions which is why we do it the way we do. It works well.

Regards,
BH.

remoak

4th Jul 2010, 14:24

It sounds like a typically Australian procedure to me (ie different to the rest of the world).

A normal monitored approach has the F/O as PF, Captain monitors and decides at DH (on the F/O's call), either takes over and lands, or says "go around" and the F/O initiates the go-around. As you rightly say, the transition from instruments to visual in poor vis and very low level is tricky, and you absolutely do not want to be "heads in" at that point, you need to be looking outside in anticipation of becoming visual.

Your procedure also seems to be a very poor example of CRM to me. Apparently, all the F/O does is raise flaps and gear.

Capn Bloggs

4th Jul 2010, 14:49

Keep it up, Luki. We'll learn a lot from you.:ok:

Bullet, the issue that struck me about your approach SOP is that the Captain is the PF when he isn't flying (or monitoring) the aeroplane; the FO is. To have the crew member that is eyes out looking for the runway then take over at the MAPt (going eyes-in) if not visual to execute the missed approach (even if it is only hitting the GA button) seems odd to me, but then again, I don't do Cat 2 or 3.

Who's got their hands on the controls/throttles during your approaches?

That particular approach in CNS was autocoupled to an autoland
Are you allowed to do Autolands onto Cat 1 ILS runways in anger?

Chimbu chuckles

5th Jul 2010, 22:41

The SOP Bullethead outlines is the norm for Cat 2/3a and 3b ND ILSs.

There is nothing wrong with the 'monitored approach' such as NJS uses for Cat 1 ILSs in marginal weather but NEITHER is there anything wrong with the SOP we are discussing here - I have done both and they both work a treat. Different, not better or worse.

Low Vis Procedures (the real variety not the Claytons LVPs that exist in Aus, are Captains only landings for obvious reasons. The PNF is VERY busy monitoring not just the LOC/GS/RA but also the Autoland Status Annunciator and the FMA for any ground based or aircraft based system faults that may make the autoland impossible or, more likely, only possible to a higher minima - typically 50' radalt/300m vis.

The captain goes eyes outside at the "100 above" call seeking visual reference and at the "Decide" call either says "Land" or " Go around, flaps blah". The captain 'guards' the controls.

The FO NEVER goes eyes outside - if the call is 'Land' he is watching that Flare and Rollout arm at the appropriate point, if the call is "Go around, flaps 20" he selects the flaps, ensures positive climb, calls it and selects gear up on command.

Autolands to Cat 1 minimas 'for real' are perfectly legal as long as the rwy is company approved for autolands and the crew remain alert for LOC/GS deviations caused by interference from aircraft/vehicles inside what would be a protected area if real LVPs were in force for Cat 2/3 ops.

remoak

6th Jul 2010, 01:18

The SOP Bullethead outlines is the norm for Cat 2/3a and 3b ND ILSs.

It may be the norm in your airline, but it isn't THE NORM (not in Europe, anyway).

Autolands to Cat 1 minimas 'for real' are perfectly legal as long as the rwy is company approved for autolands and the crew remain alert for LOC/GS deviations caused by interference from aircraft/vehicles inside what would be a protected area if real LVPs were in force for Cat 2/3 ops.

They may be "legal" but it's a really stupid idea, and most airlines ban it (again, in Europe at any rate). You really want to be messing with a sudden deviation say, during the approach to the flare? I've seen that happen once (during a training sortie), the aircraft very nearly left the runway. Not smart.

More to the point, Cat II/III approaches can only be made to Cat II/III runways (ie runways for which a Cat II/III approach is published), so no, you can't legally do an autoland to a Cat I (only) runway.

Capt Fathom

6th Jul 2010, 03:35

so no, you can't legally do an autoland to a Cat I (only) runway

..not in Europe, anyway!

Chimbu chuckles

6th Jul 2010, 04:50

Rubbish - they are done all the time - for crew recency, for re certifying autoland capability after maintenance etc.

I work for a company that functions under JAROPS and British CAA approvals. No where does it say I cant do an autoland to Cat 1 minimums, or in CAVOK for that matter, in fact we are expected to do them before sim recurrent if we have not done any Cat2/3 real ones since our last recurrent.

Just because LHR has Cat 3b ND approved ILSs means nothing unless LVPs are in force - its not the quality of the radiated LOC/GS signal as much as the protected zones that stop signal bending.

Has it occurred to you that it just may be your company that has different, not better or worse, SOPs rather than a statutory European wide practice - or have you worked for every airline in Europe?

Almost departed the runway - were they sitting there with their hands in their laps? I have seen the odd case of LOC bending/interference too - I just disconnected and landed.:rolleyes:

Artificial Horizon

6th Jul 2010, 08:06

What a load of rubbish. I have worked for a big carrier in the UK and both the Captain and First Officer could carry out CAT 1 autolands at ANY airport unless prohibited by flight crew notice, they did not have to be CAT II/III equiped. There were only a few that we couldn't do it at, from memory one end at Aberdeen, Jersey etc...

Now working in Oz and NZ we can also carry out CAT 1 autolands albeit a Captain only approach (for some reason) a numerous airports that aren't CAT II approved such as Christchurch, Brisbane, Sydney, Hobart etc....

ForkTailedDrKiller

7th Jul 2010, 13:24

I would fail you instantly

After having my confidence completely shattered by being "failed" on *******, I had decided to give the IFR stuff away, but I kinda got caught out tonight and had to peddle to Bo down the YBTL Rwy 01 ILS Z.

I counted 7 vertical lights and 10 horizontal lights on the HIAL, but couldn't figure out what that all meant - so I just landed anyway! :E

Dr :8

aKJTlTGPTco&amp

Oxidant

7th Jul 2010, 19:48

What a load of rubbish. I have worked for a big carrier (Big Airways)in the UK and both the Captain and First Officer could carry out CAT 1 autolands at ANY airport unless prohibited by flight crew notice, they did not have to be CAT II/III equiped. There were only a few that we couldn't do it at, from memory one end at Aberdeen, Jersey etc...

Now working in Oz and NZ we can also carry out CAT 1 autolands albeit a Captain only approach (for some reason) a numerous airports that aren't CAT II approved such as Christchurch, Brisbane, Sydney, Hobart etc....

Yup, all correct.
My, there is a lot of drivel being spouted by some!:hmm:

Capn Bloggs

7th Jul 2010, 23:40

in the UK and both the Captain and First Officer could carry out CAT 1 autolands at ANY airport unless prohibited by flight crew notice
So Oxidant, it would appear that in BA (nice addition to a different poster's quote, by the way) CAT 1 ILSs had to be approved for Autolands. Drivel indeed. :cool:

FTDK,
Nice video (obviously not a Cat 1 ILS so you need your glases checked if you saw 7 verticals:E) but pleeese, use the turbo next time. 4 minutes from 1500ft is a bit too long! I could have had my dinner and a cuppa in that time.

PS: Where was the camera mounted?

Oxidant

8th Jul 2010, 00:04

So Oxidant, it would appear that in BA (nice addition to a different poster's quote, by the way) CAT 1 ILSs had to be approved for Autolands. Drivel indeed

Well, yes & no.

Airports where you could perform an autoland were annotated in the company paperwork with "L", Land,(Cat 1, 2 or 3 instalations) & "E" , evaluate (normally a Cat 1 instalation, with caveat mentioned above in previous post) or "N", No!

ForkTailedDrKiller

8th Jul 2010, 01:17

FTDK,
Nice video (obviously not a Cat 1 ILS so you need your glases checked if you saw 7 verticalshttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif) but pleeese, use the turbo next time. 4 minutes from 1500ft is a bit too long! I could have had my dinner and a cuppa in that time.

Bloggsie, IAS was 120 kts until short final cause there was another aircraft on the ILS up my clacker!

What does a 737 do down the ILS?

PS: Where was the camera mounted?

That is the Mk 4 ForkMount (Patent Pending) - Mrs Dr sitting on the wing holding a video camera! :E

Dr :8

Jabawocky

8th Jul 2010, 01:27

Gooday Bloggs!

I keep tellin ya them V Tails are not that quick! :E

Nice video Forkie! That must be the new improved ForkMount hey! :ok:

Capn Bloggs

8th Jul 2010, 01:59

Forkie,
That is the Mk 4 ForkMount (Patent Pending) - Mrs Dr sitting on the wing holding a video camera!
May I suggest that, for the Mk 5 ForkMount, you put her on the starboard wing. That'll help with balancing up the FTDK. Also makes counting the number of approach light bars easier by not needing to fly sideways to counter the weight of you and your missus on one side. :}

Nice video Forkie! That must be the new improved ForkMount hey!
Where's the 720p? :confused:

"Get back on thread, Bloggs!" :=

Chimbu chuckles

8th Jul 2010, 04:13

I lost count of lights in the first 4 seconds of vid - am I doing something wrong?

Jabawocky

8th Jul 2010, 07:18

Another Instant FAIL.....:}

remoak

8th Jul 2010, 12:52

Hmmm seems I caused some confusion...

I work for a company that functions under JAROPS and British CAA approvals

No, you really don't. EU-OPS and EASA look after European aviation, have done for a while now. Your airline may function under British approvals (which is essentially meaningless as EU-OPS now looks after all that), but it isn't certified under EASA, is it? As in has an AOC issued by an EASA member state?

its not the quality of the radiated LOC/GS signal as much as the protected zones that stop signal bending.

... and the flat planes that exist at either end to ensure radalt accuracy, and the different integrity checks, different shutdown delays etc.

Has it occurred to you that it just may be your company that has different, not better or worse, SOPs rather than a statutory European wide practice - or have you worked for every airline in Europe?

No, but I have worked for eight different European airlines over 25 years (as opposed to one that is simply allowed to operate there), and they all had the same SOP, which is hardly surprising. I'm not surprised that BA has a different procedure though, as they tend to be a law unto themselves - their version of a Monitored Approach is pretty unique.

Almost departed the runway - were they sitting there with their hands in their laps? I have seen the odd case of LOC bending/interference too - I just disconnected and landed.

Hard to understand how you achieve recency or re-certification without using the system with all the protections and procedures in place - certainly for re-certitication, without the protections you have no idea whether a deviation was caused by aircraft systems or ground interference with the ILS signal.

There are also issues of aircraft type involved here, but that's another story...