The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Help with ILS Visabiltiy??

Old 3rd Jul 2010, 02:33
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 139
For the edification of the ignorant or the just plain curious.













Chuck said it all about 3 pages ago.

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

Last edited by Alistair; 3rd Jul 2010 at 05:22.
Alistair is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2010, 05:04
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: East side of OZ
Posts: 617
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.
Bullethead is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2010, 06:07
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,313
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).
remoak is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2010, 12:16
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 3,517
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.
Capt Fathom is online now  
Old 3rd Jul 2010, 22:52
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: House
Posts: 49
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.

Last edited by sagan; 4th Jul 2010 at 00:19.
sagan is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2010, 01:59
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 261
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.
Kelly Slater is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2010, 02:55
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: East side of OZ
Posts: 617
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.

Last edited by Bullethead; 4th Jul 2010 at 08:59. Reason: Spelling
Bullethead is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2010, 08:40
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 623
Alistair.....well done ! its as simple as that. U2 Chimbu....who worries about counting lights ??

Last edited by PA39; 4th Jul 2010 at 08:57.
PA39 is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2010, 09:08
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Qld troppo
Posts: 3,469
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!

Dr
ForkTailedDrKiller is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2010, 10:50
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,996
Bullethead, I'm with Kelly. That procedure sounds a bit sus to me.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2010, 12:07
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Russia
Age: 40
Posts: 26
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...
Velikiye Luki is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2010, 12:16
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 3,517
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 is online now  
Old 4th Jul 2010, 12:19
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 3,517
That procedure sounds a bit sus to me.
What a croc!

Pushing a button to go around! How easy can it be!
Capt Fathom is online now  
Old 4th Jul 2010, 12:29
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: East side of OZ
Posts: 617
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.
Bullethead is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2010, 14:24
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,313
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.
remoak is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2010, 14:49
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,996
Keep it up, Luki. We'll learn a lot from you.

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?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2010, 22:41
  #57 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,620
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.
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2010, 01:18
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,313
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.
remoak is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2010, 03:35
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 3,517
so no, you can't legally do an autoland to a Cat I (only) runway
..not in Europe, anyway!
Capt Fathom is online now  
Old 6th Jul 2010, 04:50
  #60 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,620
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.
Chimbu chuckles is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.