PDA

View Full Version : Cat 1.5 Approaches?


OK4Wire
22nd Jan 2016, 04:28
Mentioned in today's Oz: Nocookies | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/new-aviation-rules-to-slash-weather-delays/news-story/7798c36cea937205e3cda990f950f9d3)

(Sorry, it might be behind a paywall).

Airlines and airports are set to slash flight delays caused by foggy and rainy weather as the aviation regulator introduces new rules to allow planes to land in low-visibility conditions.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has introduced the new rules as the use of technologies such as heads-up displays and automatic landing systems that allow aerodromes and pilots to cut through low-visibility conditions become more widespread.
From March 3, CASA will introduce two new “special” categories of landing rules that will allow aircraft to land safely in deteriorating and foggy weather conditions.
The new rules will apply to aircraft that possess advanced visual and landing technology systems typically found in larger modern jets such as Boeing’s 737s and Airbus’s A320s.
Runways with Category 2, Category 3 or SA Category 2 precision approach procedures will also be automatically eligible for the new operations.
CASA said the new rules would allow safety standards to be maintained during low visibility landings without the requirement for aerodromes to install additional runway and approach lighting normally required when landing aircraft in fog and heavy rain.
Under current regulations, *pilots are only permitted to land on Category 1 airstrips if they can see the runway from a height of no less than 200ft and a distance of no less than 800m.
If conditions are too poor to get a visual confirmation at those distances, pilots are required to abort the landing, try again or go to another airport. Pilots can also gain landing clearance for a better lit runway if airports possess them.
The new rules will introduce a halfway point between the landing requirements for Category 1 and Category 2 runways and allow pilots to land in poor weather when they can spot landing strips from a height of 150 feet and at a visible range of 450m.
The new rules will also mean airports will not have to spend the millions of dollars required to upgrade runways with new lighting systems to ensure they meet the higher visibility standards needed for landing in poor weather conditions.
Sydney airport, Melbourne airport and the nation’s top two carriers, Qantas and Virgin, welcomed the new standards, saying the rules represented best practice without compromising safety standards.
“Melbourne airport is already certified for low visibility operations for one of our runways and we look forward to implementing the new regulations on our second runway to make Melbourne airport more efficient for airlines and passengers.“ said Melbourne airport spokeswoman Anna *Gillett.
Qantas chief technical pilot Alex Passerini said the airline was delighted with the introduction of the new regulations.
“For customers, it means less chance of diversions due to bad weather and more on time arrivals,” Captain Passerini said.
“And from a business perspective, it increases the efficiency of our aircraft and ensures our schedules stay on track as it will reduce aircraft holding in the air or other delays.”
CASA has estimated the changes could lead to savings of more than $10 million a year for the aviation industry and community as fewer flights are *delayed.

CurtainTwitcher
22nd Jan 2016, 06:23
Yep behind a paywall. Perhaps you can cut and paste the most relevant information from the article in education & public interest under the "fair dealing" provision of Australian copyright law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Australia#Fair_dealing).

There isn't much point linking to paywall articles unless you are prepared to include the essence of the article.

no_one
22nd Jan 2016, 06:32
is this relevant?

Good news for flights in bad weather ·ETB Travel News Australia (http://australia.etbtravelnews.com/276834/good-news-for-flights-in-bad-weather/)

CurtainTwitcher
22nd Jan 2016, 07:36
No need to worry about copyright, there doesn't appear to be any journalistic input what so ever! Its all lifted straight out of a CASA media release (https://web.archive.org/web/20160122082556/https://www.casa.gov.au/about-casa/standard-page/good-news-flights-bad-weather):

[CASA MEDIA RELEASE] Good news for flights in bad weather

Australia’s airline passengers are set to face fewer flight delays and cancellations in the future due to poor weather.


Airports and airlines can introduce new special low visibility categories of operations that will allow aircraft to land safely in deteriorating weather conditions.


It has been estimated this could lead to savings of more than $10 million a year for the aviation industry and the community.


The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has developed the special low visibility categories of operations after consultation with the aviation industry and a review of international best practice.


These operations will take advantage of advanced technology in large passenger aircraft such as pilot head up displays and automatic landing systems.


Using this technology means safety standards can be maintained during low visibility landings without the requirement for aerodromes to install all of the additional runway and approach lighting normally required for these operations.


The aircraft technology and supporting flight procedures removes the need for a full array of airport lighting.


Aerodromes may still need to install some equipment, depending on the lighting and other equipment already in place.


While there is no requirement for airlines and airports to utilise the new special low visibility categories a number of major airports have expressed an interest in doing so. Australia’s major airlines and many foreign airlines already have aircraft fitted with suitable technology.


CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore, said the new low visibility categories are great news for passengers and the aviation industry.


“CASA has worked with the airlines and major aerodromes to develop standards that offer real benefits while maintaining the appropriate safety standards for flights in low visibility,” Mr Skidmore said.


“This is a win for the travelling public who face fewer delays, a win for the airlines who can use technology already in their aircraft and a win for the airports who face lower costs when introducing low visibility operations.
“Passengers can be confident there will be no reduction in safety as a result of the changes.”
The key phrases to me are:

These operations will take advantage of advanced technology in large passenger aircraft such as pilot head up displays and automatic landing systems
The aircraft technology and supporting flight procedures removes the need for a full array of airport lighting.



Aerodromes may still need to install some equipment, depending on the lighting and other equipment already in place.
Does this looks and smell like a low cost (to aerodrome operators) CAT II/III using HUD? Now, I wonder who has that installed?

Gate_15L
22nd Jan 2016, 08:01
Gulfstream have had approvals allowing pilots using their enhanced flight vision system under FAA regs to descend to 100 ft above Touchdown Zone Elevation, below DA / MDA regardless whether it was CAT 1 or 2.

The vision system is considered such a navigational advantage that the Federal Aviation Administration in a Part 91 rule change allows an EVS-trained pilot to descend to 100 feet/30 meters―lower than typical decision height―until a visual reference is established. That’s an advantage that reduces go arounds, putting aircraft and passengers on the ground faster and reducing the amount of fuel expended.

Gulfstream Aerospace - Product Support - Product Enhancements - Enhanced Vision System (http://www.gulfstream.com/product-support/product-enhancements/enhanced-vision-system)

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%2090-106.pdf


Having seen the system in action, it transmits a infrared image from the nose mounted camera and projects it on to the captains HUD..

Only took airlines about 15 years to catch up... Yeah yeah yeah, beancounters, lawyers, liability. You still can't deny that its still pretty cool... :ok:
I do wonder though which Boeings/Airbus aircraft have infrared installed? Would be handy at night picking your way through those dry tops in the Pacific at night....

neville_nobody
22nd Jan 2016, 11:49
Well good news if you are flying QF mainline. Don't think there will be to many high fives in any other airline office.

QF mainline have just been provided a enormous competitive advantage by CASA.

What's the retrofit cost of a HUD system?

swh
22nd Jan 2016, 15:40
One of the new issues with EVS is that new airport lighting is LED technology, that does not generate the heat of current lights. EVS is far less effective in such cases, and approach charts don't list the lighting technology employed at airports, they list the configuration.

TopBunk
22nd Jan 2016, 15:57
Australia, welcome to the 1960's - by 2100 you may have progressed to the 1990's!

Wizofoz
22nd Jan 2016, 17:18
Yep- LTS (lower then standard) minima- been a feature of ILS approaches in the rest of the world for decades.

For all the hype, they allow a 100-150m reduction in allowable RVR for landing off of a CatI approach.

How many hours a year will that mean landing rather than further holding or diverting?

Not none-but not many either.

Troo believer
22nd Jan 2016, 19:40
It's the first step in the incremental lowering of rvr for the ultimate goal of Cat III using a CatI ILS using the HUD in AIII mode. It's 6 times more sensitive than a standard ILS with flare guidance and rollout being hand flown using manual thrust to CAT III minima. Way ahead of any Airbus!

Snakecharma
22nd Jan 2016, 21:14
Bugger that! Who wants to hand fly an approach to cat 3 minimums! Not this little black duck....

The aeroplane can do a much better job than me under those circumstances and isn't dependent upon where I have put the seat, whether I am having a coffee induced tremor or it is the end of a long red eye and I am a bit behind the eight ball....

If you did those sort of approaches day after day maybe, but here you would do a cat 3 approach a couple of times a year, if that, so I don't think the adding of yet another recency component to the already busy sims is going to improve people's skill set..

I am sure I could if I needed to but doesn't mean I want to..

morno
22nd Jan 2016, 23:35
Awesome, so they've just approved a Qantas approach. Shame about any other operator in this country.

Qantas, Airservices and CASA, all one happy family.

If I had a dollar for every time that ATC favoured Qantas over others this week, I would have earnt more than I did from my flight pay! :rolleyes:

morno

CurtainTwitcher
22nd Jan 2016, 23:40
Troo Believer picked up the subtlety in my "Now, I wonder who has that installed?" comment.It wasn't ever about infra-red Enhanced Vision equipment.
The trick of the this media release is to be sufficiently vague & ambiguous with a dash of misdirection (large passenger aircraft), so as not appearing to favour any one operator. The practical reality however is that only one operator is favoured by these changes. I doubt we will see many international operators taking advantage of the changes.

That said, the operator in question has obviously spent a considerable sum to equip aircraft & train crew. My criticism is of CASA's media release.

Troo believer
22nd Jan 2016, 23:44
Nothing to do with Qantas favouritism. Who else operates Boeing equipment with HUD? Not Virgin, not Jetstar A320 but only the QF 737 and JQ 787. Buy the HUD, train the crew and apply to CASA for approval. See how long that will take?

fujii
22nd Jan 2016, 23:57
Aren't people being a bit parochial with their comments here? Although QANTAS and Virgin are mentioned in the article, there are plenty of international airlines operating into Cat 1 airports which will benefit from the change.

itsnotthatbloodyhard
23rd Jan 2016, 00:07
The release is somewhat vague and refers to both HUD and autoland, and it's not clear to me that HUD is a requirement for what they're introducing. Could it be a case of either/or, so that aircraft without HUD but with autoland may be able to take advantage of the lower minima?


Sydney airport, Melbourne airport and the nation’s top two carriers, Qantas and Virgin, welcomed the new standard

I'm not sure why Virgin would welcome it if it only advantaged their main competitor.

Snakecharma
23rd Jan 2016, 00:25
I read it the same way..hud or autoland, not both and if you think about it autoland works happily without hud - the two are not connected...

Transition Layer
23rd Jan 2016, 02:02
Would someone get morno (and others) a box of Kleenex?

Qantas spent a sh1tload on getting HUDs fitted and associated extra training, why shouldn't they have a commercial advantage and be able to use them to their full capability?

CurtainTwitcher
23rd Jan 2016, 02:07
Aren't people being a bit parochial with their comments here? Although QANTAS and Virgin are mentioned in the article, there are plenty of international airlines operating into Cat 1 airports which will benefit from the change.
Yes, they will be able to potentially use the new rules, but will they? Will it be worth training to what appears to be a non-standard CAT II/III with CASA approval just in case they fly to Oz? In just the same way RNP is potentially available to overseas operators, most don't make use of them (ANZ as the exception?).

As I said, the press release is sufficiently vague & ambiguous - but it clear in one regard - it looks non-standard with regard to lighting requirements. Until more details are released it is unclear what will be involved for overseas operators.

neville_nobody
23rd Jan 2016, 02:43
If CASA are allowing CAT I autolands with a lower minima but no HUD how is that maintaining the current standard? I would assume the safety case is here that you have a HUD which gives you added protection in the lower visibility. To just allow autolands on a CAT I ILS at 450RVR with nothing else is hardly maintaining the current safety standard. But this is CASA we are talking about so it will be interesting to see the exemption they give out.

neville_nobody
23rd Jan 2016, 02:50
You will need a HUD:

https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/nprm-1209as-–-new-precision-instrument-approach-operations

SA CAT I will only be available to operators of 2-crew aircraft equipped with appropriately certified HUD systems for use by appropriately trained and competent flight crews. The cost of installing and maintaining HUD systems as well as cost of associated flight crew training and maintenance of competence can be high.

Smart move by QF. Will give their 737 operation a big advantage over everybody else. I guess any operator of a 787 will be happy given a HUD is standard in that machine.

craka
23rd Jan 2016, 05:54
Not a big deal - used heavily in EASA land as well as FAA. Here is document from FAA back to 2009.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8400.13.pdf

donpizmeov
23rd Jan 2016, 07:16
Let's airports invest in more car parks and shops, and not have to waste money on airfield infrastructure.

Bonuses all round.

morno
23rd Jan 2016, 08:10
Would someone get morno (and others) a box of Kleenex

Well let's face it TL, if someone else had all the technology ready to go and asked CASA for approval, it'd be met with a big fat no. But because Qantas asks, CASA will bend over backwards to do it.

morno

maggot
23rd Jan 2016, 09:14
Crikey morno


Neat idea that has been mooted for over a decade. Where is the cross check on what the captain is doing? The FO just sits there unable to verify anything but the ils hoping the skipper does it right and is 100%

Troo believer
23rd Jan 2016, 09:33
Morno , you ever done an RNP? Ever done an Autoland? Ever done a low vis takeoff? If you have then ask yourself "well how did I get here". Qantas Flight Operations that's how, pulling CASA along into the twenty first century.

aerostatic
23rd Jan 2016, 17:55
Crikey morno


Neat idea that has been mooted for over a decade. Where is the cross check on what the captain is doing? The FO just sits there unable to verify anything but the ils hoping the skipper does it right and is 100%

It's monitored in a similar manner to any other ILS approach, with the addition of a panel in the FO's field of view that gives HGS specific cautions and warnings.

Going Boeing
23rd Jan 2016, 21:29
Morno, Qantas has had HUD's fitted to B737's since 2002. The fact that it's taken 14 years to get some advances in instrument approaches approved by CASA indicates that QF has no control or influence over them. How many QF people have been appointed to run CASA? Generally, it's ex CX or RAAF and in doing that, they are ensuing that they are not being influenced by an airline.

The GBAS facility that has been fitted at Sydney airport was only done as a result of research by QF technical people and urging CASA & Air Services to get with this technology. It will be useful for all operators at all airports in the Sydney basin so it's a win for everyone.

sunnySA
24th Jan 2016, 06:07
Next.

GBAS PRM APCH.

scrotometer
24th Jan 2016, 14:58
we were doing cat 3A single engine approaches hand flown on the HUD back in 1999 in Europe. It's not hard once you've done it and a damn site more stable and comfortable than any autoland in a Boeing (Yes I've done that too).
The HUD is a wonderful piece of kit.
There's nothing new here.

Derfred
25th Jan 2016, 02:59
I'm missing something here... SYD and MEL airports are reportedly very excited, but they already have CAT II/III.

Agreed, not on their East-West runways, but the normal runway mode in MEL for low vis is RWY 16 for arrivals and RWY 27 for departures, so SA CAT I on RWY 27 is hardly going to help. As for SYD, low vis conditions won't conceivably introduce RWY 07/25 for arrivals in addition to the parallels. So what are they excited about, exactly?

So, the only advantage of the news that I can see is for other CAT I ILS's in the country. But which of them have transmissometers? If there is no RVR available, can you use SA CAT I? Or is installing transmissometers part of the "additional infrastructure" required?

As for a QF advantage, they've spent millions on gear they haven't been allowed to use for over a decade because of no CASA approval. Doesn't sound like a regulator in the pocket to me. More like years of tireless work and dollars devoted to trying to budge a virtually immovable object. The equipment is capable of CAT IIIa, and after 14 years we get a reduction of 50 feet and 100 RVR at the two airports that don't need it? As one poster suggested, hopefully just a first step in something bigger.

awqward
12th Feb 2016, 07:34
I don't understand....I'm allowed to land my Mooney in Europe at Cat1 airports with 550m RVR if coupled and airport has 720m FALS....800m RVR is applicable if hand-flown....does that not apply in Australia?

underfire
12th Feb 2016, 21:41
The GBAS facility that has been fitted at Sydney airport was only done as a result of research by QF technical people and urging CASA & Air Services to get with this technology. It will be useful for all operators at all airports in the Sydney basin so it's a win for everyone.

Because of the unique Sydney Airspace, GBAS was not effective.

A GBAS system is being installed at MEL, which should make quite the difference, IF they use the RNP transitions to GBAS final, and get past the tired mantra of idle descent that RNP was originally sold on (and why it failed)

Blue is DEP (is that a beautiful splay or what!)....not certain why so many approach designs to RW09, dont think I have ever landed on that end, but...
not allowed to show the missed approach designs...but if you are a driver, you know what they look like.

http://operationsbasednavigation.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/YMMLconcepts-e1344460104719.jpg

Derfred
13th Feb 2016, 03:55
GBAS was not effective.

Really? I use it every day.

framer
13th Feb 2016, 05:44
and get past the tired mantra of idle descent that RNP was originally sold on (and why it failed)
Thanks for the pic under fire. Can you expand a bit on the above quote? I have flown a few rnp ar's in Aus and am interested in what you mean by the above.
Cheers