Did anyone fly into LGW yesterday morning (10/11)?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did anyone fly into LGW yesterday morning (10/11)?
I happened to be driving past at about 10.00 am and the viz in the rain was so poor that I could barely see planes on short final as they crossed the M23.
As a PPL who would not be flying in those conditions, I was just wondering what the view from the cockpit was like? At what height were you visual with the runway, and were the conditions particularly bad or not that unusual?
As a PPL who would not be flying in those conditions, I was just wondering what the view from the cockpit was like? At what height were you visual with the runway, and were the conditions particularly bad or not that unusual?
I had exactly the same thought passing LHR yesterday on the M25 around mid-day. I almost crashed at one point having hit an unusualy large patch of standing water and the vis was atrocious.
Couldn't actually tell which way they were landing it was so bad!
Couldn't actually tell which way they were landing it was so bad!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the visibility is very low, LVPs (Low Visibility Procedures) are enforced - this will be broadcast on the ATIS. Each airfield's different but this normally happens when the conditions approach the minimum for what's called a 'Cat I ILS' approach - at Gatwick, the Cat I minima are 550M runway visual range (essentially visibility) and a cloud base 200' above the ground, for the aircraft I fly.
The 200' is the decision height i.e. you must go-around if you don't have the required visual references on the ground at this point. We can hand-fly Cat I ILSs down to 200' then land if we can see the runway.
Our aircraft (medium twin-jets) are approved for Cat IIIB approaches (culminating in an autoland) - the minima for these are 75M and they don't have a decision height (!) so you can appreciate that the conditions can be very bad and aircraft can still land. The downside of LVPs is that they slow everything down - more space is left between aircraft, aircraft have longer final approaches, aircraft need to clear the runway by a greater margin than usual before other aircraft are cleared to land (due to the danger that the vacating aircraft will interfere with the ILS beams being used by the landing aircraft), etc.
As an aside, autolands tend to be quite a bit more, er, "positive" than hand-flown ones! You also tend to land a little longer if the autopilot's doing it.
B&S
The 200' is the decision height i.e. you must go-around if you don't have the required visual references on the ground at this point. We can hand-fly Cat I ILSs down to 200' then land if we can see the runway.
Our aircraft (medium twin-jets) are approved for Cat IIIB approaches (culminating in an autoland) - the minima for these are 75M and they don't have a decision height (!) so you can appreciate that the conditions can be very bad and aircraft can still land. The downside of LVPs is that they slow everything down - more space is left between aircraft, aircraft have longer final approaches, aircraft need to clear the runway by a greater margin than usual before other aircraft are cleared to land (due to the danger that the vacating aircraft will interfere with the ILS beams being used by the landing aircraft), etc.
As an aside, autolands tend to be quite a bit more, er, "positive" than hand-flown ones! You also tend to land a little longer if the autopilot's doing it.
B&S
Modern transport aircraft also have very good windscreen wipers although even they have difficulty coping with torrential rain!
In the "olden days" we had rain repellant. You pressed the requisite button which gave you a quick squirt of a chemical on the windscreen which miraculously meant you had a better view out in heavy rain. Sadly this has been discountinued in latter years as the chemical wasn't too healthy!
There's quite an interesting thread on Pprune already running at:-
Rain repellant
In the "olden days" we had rain repellant. You pressed the requisite button which gave you a quick squirt of a chemical on the windscreen which miraculously meant you had a better view out in heavy rain. Sadly this has been discountinued in latter years as the chemical wasn't too healthy!
There's quite an interesting thread on Pprune already running at:-
Rain repellant
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vancouv
It was certainly 'entertaining' heading into LGW yesterday morning. Probably the most unpleasant conditions so far this year due to the level of turbulence below around 3000'. We were on approach a little later than your drive-by, but I think the weather was actually deteriorating as the morning progressed.
Multiple go-arounds due to windshear (most likely from automated detection systems). Expected to have one ourselves, but were 'lucky' enough just to have low cloud, rain and strong, gusty crosswinds all the way to touchdown.
Can't remember exactly what the ATIS was giving at the time, but I seem to recall being visual with the approach lights somewhere around 800' and viz was around 3000m. Wind was 200/20G30.
Not unusual conditions (at least where I'm from), but they get a bit wearing after 4 sectors where you have the same conditions at all your arrival and departure points.
It was certainly 'entertaining' heading into LGW yesterday morning. Probably the most unpleasant conditions so far this year due to the level of turbulence below around 3000'. We were on approach a little later than your drive-by, but I think the weather was actually deteriorating as the morning progressed.
Multiple go-arounds due to windshear (most likely from automated detection systems). Expected to have one ourselves, but were 'lucky' enough just to have low cloud, rain and strong, gusty crosswinds all the way to touchdown.
Can't remember exactly what the ATIS was giving at the time, but I seem to recall being visual with the approach lights somewhere around 800' and viz was around 3000m. Wind was 200/20G30.
Not unusual conditions (at least where I'm from), but they get a bit wearing after 4 sectors where you have the same conditions at all your arrival and departure points.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
200/20+ always used to be about the worst wind at LGW - known as Freddie's revenge, due to the proximity of the ex-Laker hangar near the threshold. I remember it well in the B737-200
Having said that, heavy rain and strong winds are rarely associated with cloud bases much below 300 or 400ft with vis less than 800 metres (unless you are at Jersey
), so usually you get a fair stab at the landing with 15 seconds or so to spot it.
Having said that, heavy rain and strong winds are rarely associated with cloud bases much below 300 or 400ft with vis less than 800 metres (unless you are at Jersey
), so usually you get a fair stab at the landing with 15 seconds or so to spot it.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the "olden days" we had rain repellant. You pressed the requisite button which gave you a quick squirt of a chemical on the windscreen which miraculously meant you had a better view out in heavy rain
I suppose another point worth mentioning is that in the "olden days" when a/c had less crosswind capability airports had more than one runway oriented in different directions! For example Liverpool had RW 17/35 and 08/26, even Heathrow had 05/23 as well as the westerly runways. Many airports for a variety of reasons have closed these other runways!
As we were on approach to a certain airport today I joked to the F/O "Why cannot they build runways into wind!" Still it means we are quite (?) proficient at crosswind take offs and landings given that most modern a/c have relatively high crosswind limits.
As we were on approach to a certain airport today I joked to the F/O "Why cannot they build runways into wind!" Still it means we are quite (?) proficient at crosswind take offs and landings given that most modern a/c have relatively high crosswind limits.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Crawley
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the "olden days" we had rain repellant. You pressed the requisite button which gave you a quick squirt of a chemical on the windscreen which miraculously meant you had a better view out in heavy rain. Sadly this has been discountinued in latter years as the chemical wasn't too healthy!
Strange, the UK registered fleet of A320s and A321s I work on are all fitted with Rain repellant - had to change a bottle just about a week ago. Can't remember the brand name or make but it certainly hasn't been withdrawn by this particular carrier.
FB
Strange, the UK registered fleet of A320s and A321s I work on are all fitted with Rain repellant - had to change a bottle just about a week ago. Can't remember the brand name or make but it certainly hasn't been withdrawn by this particular carrier.
FB
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Vancouv
I was just wondering what the view from the cockpit was like? At what height were you visual with the runway, and were the conditions particularly bad or not that unusual?
I've only been flying jets for a couple of years but I still think back to PPL flying when the weather is horrendous and sometimes think how I wouldn't even have driven to the airfield clubhouse in conditions which I find myself doing 4 sectors. Flying through really heavy rain I can only describe as like being in a submarine. The water just flows over the windscreen in a wave. You get no impression of rain drops. I suppose the nearest equivalent is when you hit a deep patch of water in your car on the motorway and temporarilly lose all visability and the wipers are hopeless.
Of course this doesn't continue down to the landing (or at least hasn't for me) otherwise we wouldn't be able to see to land. Generally for the last couple of miles of the approach as we slow down to around 140 kts the wipers are on full and the view inproves a bit.
Almost all the approaches I do are CAT I so the height at which we decide to land or go-around is at 200ft above the runway. This is reached at a distance of about 800 meters from the start of the runway so if the visibilty is also down at the minimum figure for a CAT I landing of 550m all you will see initially is approach lights, then a few seconds later the runway lighting. I find it concentrates the mind. Mind you, it is rare to get torrential rain with really bad visibility but not unknown.
To answer 'at what height do we see the runway' well for me we only do CAT I landings so we must see the runway by a height of 200ft to land otherwise we go around. At 300ft the pilot not flying calls '100 above' and that is a cue to get ready to go around. It is not uncommon to see absolutely nothing at this point which is quite interesting since we are descending at 700ft per minute and have to decide in 100 ft which is about 8 seconds later. Sometimes you see the lights/runway right at 200ft and continue. Its all good fun, but I still love taking a light aircraft up for some good old fashioned tight glide approached into a grass strip!
