flybe - visibility restrictions Dash8 v Embraer 195
 

I wonder if anyone can answer this for me.

On Friday afternoon, I was doing my usual Edinburgh to Birmingham trip (this week with flybe). There were various levels of mist/fog in Edinburgh and other parts of Scotland all day. When I found my flight had been delayed (no great suprise having seen the departures board already) and tried to find out more information, the suggestion was that the weather had been such that the Dash8 weren't able to land at Edinburgh for large parts of the day although the Embraer 195 had been ok (consequently the Dash8 planned for my flight had been diverted to Prestwick earlier in the day and the delay was to wait for it to be able to transfer to Edinburgh). I just wondered if any flybe (or other pilots) could tell me what the weather restrictions are on the 2 types ?

Thanks

Not FlyBe, but I believe the dash 8 is a cat II aircraft. This means that it can T/O in 125m visibility and (depending on the airport) land in around 300m vis. I don't know anything about the Embraer, but with it being a pretty new jet, I would guess it is a Cat III aircraft, allowing T/O and landing in even less visibility.

Of course, if there is a problem with the aircraft (both dash and jungle jet), they can be downgraded to Cat I, which means they will need around 500m vis to land. Also, the airport needs to be approved for cat II/III ops, however I think EDI is. Finally the crew need to both be current in Cat II ops.

As I said, not flybe or dash/JJ rated, so am happy to be corrected. Also the numbers are from memory, would need to look in the books for the accurate ones, but they are "about right".

All spelling mistakes are iPhone induced.

Both the Dash and the Embraer are currently CAT II only. The Embraer will eventually be CAT III but it isn't yet.

As Timesreader said there are a few technical factors which will downgrade the aircraft to CAT I. Both the crew have to be CAT II trained aswell and maybe it was the case that one or more of the Dash crew weren't CAT II qualified.

Without knowing any of the specifics it's impossible to really tell you why it happened but I suspect it wasn't due to the different types as they both currently have the same minima.

The weather will also have played it's own role obviously and maybe at the time of the Dash's approach it was slightly worse.

There are too many variables to give you a good answer but I hope that helps you a bit.

P.S. TTR84 those figures are right.

The 195 is only CATII due to certain mods not being taken by Flybe during production due to costs, most namely a rudder servo if memory serves me correctly.

Thanks for the info. Makes interesting reading, especially to someone who has a simple PPL but spends most of his flying time as SLF.

At least it confirms that it wasn't simply the aircraft type that caused the delay. One of my fellow travellers was complaining about the limitations of a non-jet. Next time the weather problem occurs, at least I can put people straight on the aircraft limitations.

Thanks again for that.

While I have the attention of a few interested parties, does anyone know why it seems to be difficult to grease a landing in the Dash8 ? Often feels like we are trying to land on a runway about 3 feet below where it actually is :)

Again, not dash so it's all 3rd hand.

Apparantly, with the dash having such a long main landing gear leg, it has to be extremely stiff (to prevent fatigue cracks of the mounts etc). This, coupled with the long fuselage, which limits the amount of flare the PF can use. This all adds up to a "positive" arrival. Apparantly most guys on the fleet don't try to "grease it on" any more, just accepting that it's damn near impossible to get a nice landing out of it.

As far as prop/jet ops, I dare say for 90% of UK/Northern European ops, CatII is more than sufficient. Most guys I fly with can count on one hand the number of times they have diverted/scrubbed due to weather. Small comfort I know.

CM thanks for the confirmation. My ops manuals were 200 miles away when I wrote that, and I hate to knowingly give duff info.

Mrmagooo, the Embraer is indeed CAT III capable, manually flown CAT IIIa to be precise, and nothing to do with lack of mods.

However, the CAA require the aircraft to fly a certain number of sectors, I don't know how many, before we are allowed to use it in anger. I have flown CAT III approaches in the simulator using the HUGS and it's a brilliant bit of kit. It also allows us to use lower than standard minima for CAT I approaches, specifically a 50' DH (I think). As and when we get the approval isn't yet known.

As an aside Flybe was the first European operator to do a manual CAT III approach and landing for real. CRJ into Leeds a few years ago.

Thanks for the extra info.

Must admit the Dash8 landing can be really useful. It means I wake up when Edinburgh R24 arrives, especially if I am on the early flight lol

Seriously, thanks for all the information.

Embraer CatIII
 

The Ejet has several options for AWOPS you don`t need the HUD for cat III (would be nice to have it tho!) its an option if you have the parallel rudder (extra rudder servo), Cityflyers Embraers are CAT IIIA Auto land (even engine out) Cat IIIB is an option as well with more kit. Its all about how much you pay Embraer and they put in the appropriate box and enable the bits. I`ve found the autoland to be firm, works well but not the greaser the RJ used to do.

Oh dear, where to start? The Dash 8-400 is one of those types, rather like the 737NG, that’s a sod to land smoothly. Theories abound, and I’m sure the undercarriage design does it no favours, but the fact is you can try the same technique day in day out, in near identical conditions, and it will do something different every time. I’ve had days when I’ve sat there waiting for the wheels to kiss the runway, only to get shot down from an altitude of 6 inches, other days when everything was clenched, waiting for the impact, and it’s greased on. Frankly it’s a roll of the dice.

It likes wet runways and crosswinds, which suggests that main wheel spin-up times (and hence spoiler deployment) play a part. Those enormous props also significantly energise airflow over the wings at low speeds, and if excess speed is carried into the flare, it has a tendency to float (particularly at flap 35). You then have little option but to pull off some power, which kills the lift and results in the thing dropping on to the runway like a homesick sack of spuds.

Prolonging the flare to get a greaser is not a good idea, and not just because of the amount of runway it eats up. The fuselage is very long, and at flap 15 the tail gets quite close to the ground – it’s far better to fly the aircraft onto the runway and accept a firm landing than pull back and risk a tailstrike.

Just one of the joys of flying the Dash. :ok:

(Current greasing around 1 in 20 landings, although EDI 24 seems to be one of my lucky runways).

The short landing gear stroke of the Q400 makes it very difficult to get a kisser too. G SXTY, one of your BE colleagues managed to get one of those firm landings at EDI in January this year after a flight from CWL. But I've also experienced a kisser - on a BE flight from SEN to JER in August.

I've used to firm landings with Dash 8, but then it's usually with white and green Dash-8-100s to STOLports in Norway. My next flight to one of these 800 metre long airports will be on 11 January from TRD (Trondheim) to OSY (Namsos). I hope it isn't that foggy on the 11th, SCAT1 hasn't been installed at OSY yet and Widerøe therefore can't use the GLS-1250 GNSS installed in their -100s.

Thanks for the continuing supply of interesting and very useful information.

G SXTY - I'd definitely prefer to avoid a tailstrike too, I tend to be sat in row 20 or 21....a heavy arrival is definitely preferable to a tailstrike.

Thanks again to everyone for the info. I look forward to my flight back to BHX tomorrow evening with all the extra knowledge :)