A question from Russia
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Scott ..could you explain how the "land and hold short procedure"fails safe! It would seem to me if the circumstances were right it could fail in a dangerous way ! And did not Sydney have a problem at Kingsford -Smith with that sort of procedure .As someone else said we like to have belts and braces .
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Moscow
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to ATC Watcher
No problem with "capacity enhancers" so far. On the contrary - it's ME who wants more than one a/c cleared into position. Just to make my life easier. We have enough TWYs but nearly half of them are closed either needing repair or blocked by non-used a/c. So to line up mediums and heavies have to backtrack to the beginning. For Il-86 it takes quite a few time - enough for departure of 2-3 Yak-40s behind its back. No risk of collision at all as two a/c are on the opposite move. At the same time departure queue shortens. That's what'd make my life easier. I don't want it at night - give it just when I can see everything.
Thanks again to all who have patience to reply to me - I owe beer to you, guys. [img]null[/img]
No problem with "capacity enhancers" so far. On the contrary - it's ME who wants more than one a/c cleared into position. Just to make my life easier. We have enough TWYs but nearly half of them are closed either needing repair or blocked by non-used a/c. So to line up mediums and heavies have to backtrack to the beginning. For Il-86 it takes quite a few time - enough for departure of 2-3 Yak-40s behind its back. No risk of collision at all as two a/c are on the opposite move. At the same time departure queue shortens. That's what'd make my life easier. I don't want it at night - give it just when I can see everything.
Thanks again to all who have patience to reply to me - I owe beer to you, guys. [img]null[/img]
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok if you want the MOST safe operation then you are right. Land and Hold Short does not give you 100% safety. But guess what. If your brakes fail on landing and you are at DFW and can't stop in the 9000 or so feet prior to the hold short point, you are going to be safer than landing at Washington National airport and going off the end of the runway which is shorter than that and into the river...
We operate these aircraft everyday at airports with short runways and nothing off the end but buildings or blast fences. Is that NOT a safe operation? What makes it any less safe by doing a land and hold short operation using the same amount of runway as some of the short runways that are used everyday???
regards
We operate these aircraft everyday at airports with short runways and nothing off the end but buildings or blast fences. Is that NOT a safe operation? What makes it any less safe by doing a land and hold short operation using the same amount of runway as some of the short runways that are used everyday???
regards
Pegase Driver
I accept the brakes/ fence / runway lengh issue. That is one thing.
What about go arounds ?
If both a/c do not like what they see (too close, obstruction near intersection both runways, etc..) and both a/c decide to go around, what is the procedure ?
What about go arounds ?
If both a/c do not like what they see (too close, obstruction near intersection both runways, etc..) and both a/c decide to go around, what is the procedure ?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello ATC watcher;
It is no different if you have two close but not touching runways. You issue traffic and then see and avoid as it has in the past takes over. If you are making a go around for any reason, you are doing a VFR operation in the terminal environment. I have had this argument with part 121 pilots here in the US. Some could not even fathom the idea of being VFR after going around from a visual approach. The kept thinking that they were just going to go follow the missed approach procedure. I would then ask which procedure they were talking about since there is no such thing for a visual approach. They would then ask well what would I do???? How about enter right traffic, cleared to land? Then they would what if about going into clouds... Would have to remind them that to do a visual approach the field would have to be VFR. Professional Pilots are forgetting the basics of airmanship with all of this automation these days...
regards
It is no different if you have two close but not touching runways. You issue traffic and then see and avoid as it has in the past takes over. If you are making a go around for any reason, you are doing a VFR operation in the terminal environment. I have had this argument with part 121 pilots here in the US. Some could not even fathom the idea of being VFR after going around from a visual approach. The kept thinking that they were just going to go follow the missed approach procedure. I would then ask which procedure they were talking about since there is no such thing for a visual approach. They would then ask well what would I do???? How about enter right traffic, cleared to land? Then they would what if about going into clouds... Would have to remind them that to do a visual approach the field would have to be VFR. Professional Pilots are forgetting the basics of airmanship with all of this automation these days...
regards
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scott - did I understand you to say that if I do a go around off an ILS appraoch I'm now VFR? I hope that's not what you said, because it's certainly a new idea to me, and I suspect most of my colleagues.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wake up!!
LAHSO is conducted visual.
This is pretty funny watching poms tell yanks something like the LAHSO they (and others) have been running for 30 years is not safe. Hahaha.
LAHSO is conducted visual.
This is pretty funny watching poms tell yanks something like the LAHSO they (and others) have been running for 30 years is not safe. Hahaha.
Tired
You are VFR on a go around from a VISUAL approach. As to the ILS approach you mentioned, to be technical, there is no "go around", its a missed approach. This assumes it is not a practice approach with a VFR restriction.
You are VFR on a go around from a VISUAL approach. As to the ILS approach you mentioned, to be technical, there is no "go around", its a missed approach. This assumes it is not a practice approach with a VFR restriction.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the explanation, guys! To a pilot a "go around" and a "missed approach" means exactly the same thing - 2 words for the same procedure, whatever flight plan you're on. I didn't realise that to you guys they signify the difference between VFR and IFR.
ferris - "LAHSO is conducted visual". Yeah, I'm aware of that squire, but because I'm visual doesn't mean I'm VFR. My company doesn't allow me to do LAHSO, so it's academic to me, but out of interest - does accepting LAHSO imply that I've cancelled IFR, or merely that I'm conducting a visual approach on an IFR plan - not the same thing?
ferris - "LAHSO is conducted visual". Yeah, I'm aware of that squire, but because I'm visual doesn't mean I'm VFR. My company doesn't allow me to do LAHSO, so it's academic to me, but out of interest - does accepting LAHSO imply that I've cancelled IFR, or merely that I'm conducting a visual approach on an IFR plan - not the same thing?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Going back to my airfield days, I am pretty sure that a Visual Approach is an instrument approach and so I would expect a go around (overshoot in my day!!) to conform with the IFR missed approach procedure.
An approach maintaining VMC is different and I also seem to remember that the visibility and cloud base requirements were less than you might expect for a VFR operation when the controller authorises a visual approach.
How about it LL KK SS CC chaps, has the book changed or is my memory at fault. I am also pretty sure that UK procedures were lifted straight from ICAO PANS OPS so we should all be singing from the same hymn sheet unless differences have been filed.
Z
An approach maintaining VMC is different and I also seem to remember that the visibility and cloud base requirements were less than you might expect for a VFR operation when the controller authorises a visual approach.
How about it LL KK SS CC chaps, has the book changed or is my memory at fault. I am also pretty sure that UK procedures were lifted straight from ICAO PANS OPS so we should all be singing from the same hymn sheet unless differences have been filed.
Z
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hampshire UK
Age: 70
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi ZIP250,
A visual approach by an IFR flight is conducted under instrument flight rules, and standard IFR separation will continue to be provided from any other arriving or departing traffic under IFR or SVFR, unless the pilot cancels his IFR plan. I would expect the crew to have briefed for the appropriate instrument missed approach, and therefore to follow that procedure in the event of a go around.
Approach maintaining VMC has been withdrawn from the MATS Part 1. I believe.
Tired and others - remember that the above applies in the UK and not the USA.
A visual approach by an IFR flight is conducted under instrument flight rules, and standard IFR separation will continue to be provided from any other arriving or departing traffic under IFR or SVFR, unless the pilot cancels his IFR plan. I would expect the crew to have briefed for the appropriate instrument missed approach, and therefore to follow that procedure in the event of a go around.
Approach maintaining VMC has been withdrawn from the MATS Part 1. I believe.
Tired and others - remember that the above applies in the UK and not the USA.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting....
Yup in the US a visual approach is done in visual conditions and must be VFR. The aircraft is indeed still on an IFR flight plan and getting IFR separation, HOWEVER <G>, there is NO missed approach authorized from a visual approach. If you have to go around for whatever reason, you can then expect to be cleared by the tower to enter a downwind for the VFR circuit to land...
regards
Scott
Yup in the US a visual approach is done in visual conditions and must be VFR. The aircraft is indeed still on an IFR flight plan and getting IFR separation, HOWEVER <G>, there is NO missed approach authorized from a visual approach. If you have to go around for whatever reason, you can then expect to be cleared by the tower to enter a downwind for the VFR circuit to land...
regards
Scott
Pegase Driver
Extract from Av Web earlier this week :
Especially the second part...
A close call at DFW Airport
on August 16 is being blamed on a mistake by an air traffic controller.
According to the FAA, the controller ordered a taxiing Continental 737
into the path of a departing Delta 737. Both pilots saw what was going
to happen and took evasive action.
WHILE NTSB SAYS FAA IS ALSO AT FAULT: The NTSB is using the incursion to
bang the drum again on several of its recommendations that the FAA has
chosen not to follow. Number one on the NTSB's hit parade is
implementing an Airport Movement Area Safety System, which generates
both audible and visual alerts of possible collisions to ATC. The
safety board also recommends the feds begin requiring separate
clearances for each runway crossing, discontinue the holding of aircraft
on active runways at night or in periods of poor visibility, and use the
standard internationally understood ICAO phraseology for air traffic
control. As yet, none of those recommendations have been implemented.
No comment...
Especially the second part...
A close call at DFW Airport
on August 16 is being blamed on a mistake by an air traffic controller.
According to the FAA, the controller ordered a taxiing Continental 737
into the path of a departing Delta 737. Both pilots saw what was going
to happen and took evasive action.
WHILE NTSB SAYS FAA IS ALSO AT FAULT: The NTSB is using the incursion to
bang the drum again on several of its recommendations that the FAA has
chosen not to follow. Number one on the NTSB's hit parade is
implementing an Airport Movement Area Safety System, which generates
both audible and visual alerts of possible collisions to ATC. The
safety board also recommends the feds begin requiring separate
clearances for each runway crossing, discontinue the holding of aircraft
on active runways at night or in periods of poor visibility, and use the
standard internationally understood ICAO phraseology for air traffic
control. As yet, none of those recommendations have been implemented.
No comment...
