Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > Questions
Reload this Page >

ILS 200ft cloud - elect to do an autoland?

Wikiposts
Search
Questions If you are a professional pilot or your work involves professional aviation please use this forum for questions. Enthusiasts, please use the 'Spectators Balcony' forum.

ILS 200ft cloud - elect to do an autoland?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 22nd Nov 2006, 12:15
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ILS 200ft cloud - elect to do an autoland?

OK firstly, I'm a mere PPL(IMC) so apoligies if any of this sounds daft.
Assume (IR) pilot is current, aircraft is capable and airfield is suitably equipped, you can descend to 200ft DH on an ILS , if you are not visual at that point you have to fly a go around.
Now with something like a 747 for example, if the METAR at your destination is showing that the cloud base is 200ft, would you still manually attempt an ILS approach and land if visible by 200ft or go around if not. To save going around though if the cloud base was slightly below 200ft, is it normal practice to set up the aircraft for an autoland if the cloud base is say 300-400 ft to give you a bit of a buffer and avoid the potential of a go around?
I ask this as obviosuly the details in the METAR could change by the time you actually get over the threshold.

Thanks in advance.
spikeair is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2006, 12:52
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting question.. I fly the A320 at the moment, and can see your point, but there are a few considerations. If the forecast conditions at the field are acceptable to make a CAT I approach (a normal ILS which is hand flown, or with autopilot down to no later than 80') we may make the approach down to minimums for that CAT I approach, i.e. not lower than 200'.

If low vis procedures are not in force, the ILS is not protected, which means backup power supplies for it and the runway lights etc are not online. Also the CAT II/III holding points will not be used, so the ILS radiating area is also not protected from other aircraft or vehicles that may be taxiing/moving near the runway.

If, before we get to the FAF the weather report given by ATIS or by the tower (or from other aircraft) is good enough, we'll carry on with the CAT I approach. If the weather deteriorates after we have passed the FAF, we can legally continue down to minimums, and land if we become visual. If not, we'd go around, hold if necessary, then either make a CAT II/III approach (which takes time for the airport to sort out), maybe needing to divert. Had to do this last week, ended up going elsewhere as the ILS was off the air.

high-flyer
high-flyer is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2006, 18:25
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: All around the World
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Now with something like a 747 for example, if the METAR at your destination is showing that the cloud base is 200ft, would you still manually attempt an ILS approach and land if visible by 200ft or go around if not
In principle, you are correct, in so far as that you would 'go around' if not visual at 200ft. However, in my company, the reported ceiling is not the controlling factor. The reported visibility or RVR are the controlling factors for any type of ILS approach, so you would not be wrong to descend to 200 feet and then go around if not visual.

Experience, and good airmanship though, would suggest, as you do, that you prepare at least for a CatII approach in those circumstances. Saves all the extra fuel and ASR's from going around.
Ray D'Avecta is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2006, 21:38
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 20D DTY
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At our airfield (& I assume, at most other CATII/III capable airfields) our instructions are that we commence the procedures for activating LVPs PRIOR to the conditions deteriorating that far, in order to try to avoid exactly the situation described - ie. get to 200ft and can't continue for an autoland because the airfield isn't yet in LVPs. Thus, if the conditions are approaching CAT I minima and forecast to deteriorate further, we instigate LVPs, giving you the option of setting up for an autoland even if the RVR / cloud are still marginally above CAT I minima.
RC
Regular Cappuccino is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2006, 07:20
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks for the replies.
spikeair is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2006, 11:55
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hmmm, from a couple of the posts, it would appear that more modern types get far too 'twitchy' during an automatic approach/land (autoland) maneuver, without LVP procedures in place, during CAT I.

An older type, with far superior performance, has no such restriction.
TriStar.
411A is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2006, 17:20
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Scandinavia
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In my opinion 200ft base is not a problem at all if you are making an approach into an airfield with CATII lighting. For such a cloud base the approach lights will be visible well before minima. The problem is an airfield with only CAT I lighting. Our company operates frequently in VV001 RVR1000 weather with no problems when CATII lighting is available (we don't have CATII approval), but the A/P is used to minimum cert. height. Today I hand flew all approaches and the bases were around 400ft.
Fellow Aviator is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2006, 14:17
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Depends on the operators' SOP's, but the simple answer is yes!
skiesfull is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.