I don't think BA ever operated VC10s to Cat3. Management hoped to get Cat3 approval and were constantly encouraging the line crews to carry out practice autolands for verification purposes. But the line crews had a very jaundiced view of the system because of its unreliability, just as BEagle describes in RAF service, and eventually the scheme was abandoned.

Looking to the future, GPS approaches using LAAS might be a better bet than ILS in difficult terrain, always assuming of course that the system can be made to function as hoped.

I don't see any push to make RNP AR approaches with lower than CAT 1 minimums so it will be a while before ILS or MLS will be bettered.

My original point was about comparative cost. The point about the chicks needing the same capability is a good one as I don't know what kind of Nav kit they have as standard but for the AT fleet you have 3* with 3C capability and your own sim. The only thing missing is the will. I'll bet the C17s have low vis capability too.

Wasn't there a similar diversion involving a Vulcan & Shrike ?!

I'd imagine VSTOL aircraft are 'easier' to land in bad vis' if one has the skills in the first place, but doing it discreetly without active sensors - on the aircraft or platform - may be another matter ?

Probably different with modern systems...

Sorry BEags but I suspect you have never operated to Cat III limits. The required recency for AWOPS is an approach, go around and a landing in the sim, plus an RTO for the captain. Additionally, you must have completed an autoland in the aircraft in the preceding 6 months - this can be in CAVOK conditions if need be. Hardly an arduous training burden.

So here's my first point; there is a difference between AWOPS and autolands, but the RAF seems (or chooses) not to recognise this. The 26 ILS at Brize is (or certainly was) 'suitable for auto-coupled approaches to the threshold', so there's your recency tick. And it's less to do with cloudbase than RVRs - as I'm sure you're aware that there are no cloudbase limits for commencing an approach.

The 'almost fatal crash' refers to 706? Absolutely cock-all to do with the 08 ILS; more to do with trying to autoland from below 1500R, thereby not attaining the A/L Armed criteria. FMA awareness (or lack of) caused it. The 08 glideslope was fine after the initial capture where it had something of a dip and I seem to remember there being no restriction when I first joined the fleet, but that may be old age getting the better of me.

I just hope they sort it out for FSTA; if not it'll be like MT taking the radios out of vehicles way back when. Sadly, I can still see aircraft ending up in Prestwick because Birmingham, Stansted and Manch are all Cat II.

bbd, you're correct in your statement that I've never landed in Cat III conditions. But in 20-ish years, I probably had to divert for weather.....twice?

I recall the politics of the early days with the TriStar and the frustration expressed by the crews due to the hierarchy's attitude towards autolands back then....:uhoh:

But I'm sure that the ban on auto-coupled approaches to RW08 followed the 706 incident - and that it was reviewed some years later, but the ban remained due to the impossibility of rectifying the RW08 glideslope profile?

did the argie's supply "escort"?? one would imagine their pilots chomping at the bit for a formation piccy.

and of course vise versa!!

Bring back Stanley, with its 4000ft tin strip and 4 cables!

.... and wonky centreline!

Stanley
 

Stanley is still there of course, though no longer with cables, iirc. Mind you, does Typhoon have a hook? The F3s did practice approaches to Stanley on a regular basis, though I am not aware of anyone actually landing - or even doing a touch and go - there. But it would have been used if recovery to MPA - or a mainland diversion - was out of the question. But if MPA is fogged in, Stanley is unlikely to have been much if any better. Also, these ac would seem to have been en route from Brazil, so likelihood is they didn't even attempt a landing at MPA. Quote from the link to Post #2: "According to Chile’s El Mercurio visibility in MPA because of a thick fog was down to a hundred metres. The three aircraft apparently were travelling south from Brazil and entered Chilean air space close to 18:00 hours."

Essdee wrote

Yes.

TJ

However, this is more about foggy RVR then the cloudbase. On a **** day the RVR is more likely to sneak up to 300M than to 550. I spent several years operating CAT 2 aircraft and I have to say we used it in anger quite regularly. In my experience if you can get the RVR to be allowed to start an approach you usually get in. Very gratifying knowing the Cat 1 aircraft were stil droning around the hold (or sitting on the ground at their departure point).

ok, this was airliner ops around Europe, not operating into the FI about which I know nothing. I probably flew a dozen or so 'live' cat 2 approaches a year.

Whereas, in my subsequent Cat 3 experience, I don't think I flew many approachs where the RVR would have precluded Cat 2, and I don't recall ever actually landing without getting the lights well before touchdown.

So for my money, Cat 2 is a really useful addition to capability and its Cat 3 that provides relatively little extra. Very subjective of course.

pb

The last 2 posts are very interesting.

The US once operated PARs to a 100ft DH, if I recall correctly. Perhaps it still does? Is there any basic reason why suitably qualified aircrew and ATCOs couldn't do so at places such as MPA?

Of course, many see PAR as being very 'last century' - but given the infrequency of flights at most RAF bases, surely a high-quality PAR system (if such a thing still exists) might go some way to facilitating safe ops in conditions of low cloudbase and RVR?

PARs are disappearing rapidly in the US. More often than not only available at training bases now also. They definitely don't do them down to 100ft. A good thing in my book as they are not as good at them over here as the RAF Talkdown folks. This probably stems from the infrequent use of PAR as an approach in the US. It therefore follows that if controllers were given enough training and did them enough they could quite effectively talk people down to 100ft.

Just found this thread and thought I'd chuck in a couple of reminiscences:

1. When the F4’s first arrived at Stanley the tin strip (AM2 matting) was 6,100 ft long with 5 cables running:

Bak-13 – -RHAG –---- BAK-13 -----RHAG –- Bak-13.

The centre cable was known colloquially in ATC as the “Oh ****-me” cable because it was only ever likely to used in such extremis.

However, when one the of the BAK-13’s cable’s failed (due to an ill-advised ‘demo’ landing to a Big-Wig in diabolically poor wx conditions) and effectively sliced the back-end off one the F4s they were ‘withdrawn from service’ as a face-saving measure and we were forced to operate with just the 2 RHAGs which took 3 times longer to rewind and re-set, much to the chagrin of the last-to-land C-130 tanker.

2. Talking down to 100 ft: Never done officially of course, but Lightnings landing on Leuchars RW 09, which only had a 3º GP and 320 ft DH (if memory serves – which it probably doesn’t) and the haar rolling up the airfield sometimes needed a little assistance! I well remember the exchange:

“Heading 089, one and a half miles from touchdown, approaching decision height, on centreline, on glidepath, heading good, one mile, passing decision height,advisory information follows...” (pause for effect)

“KEEP TALKING!!!!!!!!!!” (about 6 octaves above Middle 'C')

“On centreline, on glidepath, touch right 2º, heading 091, on centreline, on glidepath, heading good, half a mile, on centreline, on glidepath, over radar touchdown – NOW; radar serviced terminated......Contact Twr stud 1.

“XXXX, clear. No 1’s flamed out”

And no, he never did say ‘Thanks’!

Happy days (well not at Leuchars!) and wonderful job satisfaction.

Incidentally, if the story re the Typhoons and the VC10 flying to Chile is true as it was recounted to me, kudos to the VC10 crew and authoriser.

Not many around these days with the balls....

Double-zero

You couldn't resist and changed your mind!!

Tourist:

Also some big balls were required in the Eng community due to the state of the VC10 at the time! I was there that afternoon, watching it go dark as the fog rolled in, wondering when I was going to get my jets back...

jindabyne: Look at the date of his post.

Typhoon deployment
 

As someone whose only experience of single-seater fixed-wing was in a Chipmunk in basic training, could someone verify the non-stop deployment of Typhoons from UK to the Falklands. The quoted 18 hours sounds an unbelievable amount of time to sit in a seat with no chance of stretching your legs let alone meeting more urgent needs. It far exceeds any other single-pilot flight-time I've ever heard of, never mind the concentration required to take on fuel after say, 16/17 hrs in the air.