Low vis to USA
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
Thanks for your selective recent listings of some senior posts showing 2/3 FJ appointments
I think others have filled in the gaps on the modernisation of the AT/AAR fleet quite nicely.
CPL Clott
Some amusing posts folks.
The general standard of the AT/AAR equipment probably matches its needs after decades of being a right mixture. The Voyager PFI provides a good asset but, it comes at a hell of a price and, it is a political inheritance. The lack of vision surrounding the requirement for CAT III at the RAF hub of AT/AAR is simply astounding. I gave the reasons why it was kept out of the equation in the 80's, 90's and 00's. Lastly, there seems to be some confusion about the ability of AT/AAR to depart in low vis. Prospective pax on RAF AT will be reassured to know that the aircraft are operated to suitable RTS limitations by well trained crews.
OAP
The general standard of the AT/AAR equipment probably matches its needs after decades of being a right mixture. The Voyager PFI provides a good asset but, it comes at a hell of a price and, it is a political inheritance. The lack of vision surrounding the requirement for CAT III at the RAF hub of AT/AAR is simply astounding. I gave the reasons why it was kept out of the equation in the 80's, 90's and 00's. Lastly, there seems to be some confusion about the ability of AT/AAR to depart in low vis. Prospective pax on RAF AT will be reassured to know that the aircraft are operated to suitable RTS limitations by well trained crews.OAP
In my day, Low Vis meant 600m and that was the distance that could be seen from the start point (threshold) using the lights as the measure /counter. Based in Jersey, we frequently sat at the threshold of RW27 waiting for the 600m.
Originally Posted by BEagle
RW07 (or 08 as was) had a 3.24° GS and was not approved for 'coupled' approaches - is that still the case?
ILS RWY 08 BZA 111.9 / RWY 26 BZB 111.9 (Autocoupled approaches to DH permitted to both rwy's)
spekesoftly, that information is at least 5 years old...
According to 2016 information:
RW07 (08 as was) has always had an undulating glideslope!
According to 2016 information:
Rwy 07 ILS not suitable for auto-coupled approaches to Cat 1 DH
Aircrew may experience large fluctuations in glidepath guidance below 400’ AGL. In order to determine the extent of these fluctuations in glidepath guidance below 400ft all 07 ILS approaches will be monitored on PAR.
Quote Basil
Yes, it was most capable and great to fly!
Not certain what the RAF should be criticised for though, other than not utilising the CAT III or, for not having another Sqn of them or, for not putting the wing pods on the tankers?
OAP
The TriStar was one of the most capable low vis and autoland aircraft in the World.
The RAF should be ashamed of what they did to it.
The RAF should be ashamed of what they did to it.
Not certain what the RAF should be criticised for though, other than not utilising the CAT III or, for not having another Sqn of them or, for not putting the wing pods on the tankers?
OAP
Once a Pilot - why is my argument crass, as Beagle has pointed out it would cost a fortune to upgrade Brize, this has been done to death on this forum before. There would also be a training bill and a certification one for both the aircraft and airfield. So for the few days that aircraft have to divert the operational risk is not worth the financial penalty. Sure we would all like a 100% service at all times - but when it comes down to taxpayers money there is a limit. Of course, I am sure that the rump of the CFS empire and the Transport Command Trapping system would welcome it as they could take aircraft off the line for far more days; reminiscent of the hugely wasteful 'trainers' that survived well past their justifiable life. Though I acknowledge that these were massive fun for the crews and the trainers in particular.
For civil airlines it is entirely different, when a wide body is pushing back every 12 hours with £300k of fares on board there is a financial imperative to ensure the show stays o the road. For us in uniform it just means a spot more military waiting in the logbook. Of course some civvy airlines in the loco sector don't bother with anything beyond CatII as its deemed too expensive.
For civil airlines it is entirely different, when a wide body is pushing back every 12 hours with £300k of fares on board there is a financial imperative to ensure the show stays o the road. For us in uniform it just means a spot more military waiting in the logbook. Of course some civvy airlines in the loco sector don't bother with anything beyond CatII as its deemed too expensive.
Mmm, but Land 2, which is Cat 3a is 200m RVR is still a great capability and it rarely gets worse than that. In the last 17 years, I doubt I've seen a dozen times when I've genuinely needed Cat 3b.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well anyway, looks like the PM got off just fine, she's in ZZ336 at 10,000 feet passing Allentown, PA, callsign Kittyhawk 37 Heavy.
It appears that she is going into PHL landing to the west, ILS 27R.
The FR24 plot shows KRF37 departing Heathrow, not Brize Norton:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...zz336/#c466872
It appears that she is going into PHL landing to the west, ILS 27R.
The FR24 plot shows KRF37 departing Heathrow, not Brize Norton:
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...zz336/#c466872
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: birmingham
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let me get this right, the o/p started the thread on the premise that the PM would be left kicking her kitty heels at BN in thick fog coz the electrical wotsit wiz not up to the all singing and dancing standard that Heathrow uses every day. The RAF then decided that doing a ' Muhammed goes to the mountain' was the better option than keeping kitty heels waiting at BN. And thats it ? That's the story ? I wasted how much of my life reading this thread ? I've been conned, I need a no win no fee lawyer.
Hi 2Planks,
I feel that the argument "it is too difficult/it costs too much" IS crass, set against the overriding imperative of some AT/AAR Ops. I have seen the paperwork on the ILS issues and I believe "the problems" could be overcome.
As far as expenditure on aircraft and crew training, I expect that the aircraft that are normally CAT III remain CAT III in RAF use (as the TriStar did) and crew qualification possibly already occurs for use at normal CAT III airports. If not, the training cost is not very high.
OAP
I feel that the argument "it is too difficult/it costs too much" IS crass, set against the overriding imperative of some AT/AAR Ops. I have seen the paperwork on the ILS issues and I believe "the problems" could be overcome.
As far as expenditure on aircraft and crew training, I expect that the aircraft that are normally CAT III remain CAT III in RAF use (as the TriStar did) and crew qualification possibly already occurs for use at normal CAT III airports. If not, the training cost is not very high.
OAP
As you say, training costs are not high. I seem to recall, a morning in the classroom, a couple of hours in the sim and voila ! Few autos in the clear and you are good to go. An auto land is dead easy, it's the failure cases that take the learning !
One would think that with all RAF tanker and transport assets on just one runway, that. BZN would be kept as operational as technology allows.
One would think that with all RAF tanker and transport assets on just one runway, that. BZN would be kept as operational as technology allows.