Boeing 737NG, CAT 3A or B?
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 1
From: Hampshire, UK
Should I assume you knew the answer before you posed the question?
'Quite a disadvantage'? Probably for most pilots, absolutely no difference in a career in terms of diversions! I wouldn't worry about it! The difference is so small, and unlikely to be ever an advantage or disadvantage! Just Cat 3 is all that matters! It's only a certification thing anyway.
'Quite a disadvantage'? Probably for most pilots, absolutely no difference in a career in terms of diversions! I wouldn't worry about it! The difference is so small, and unlikely to be ever an advantage or disadvantage! Just Cat 3 is all that matters! It's only a certification thing anyway.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,562
Likes: 33
From: I wouldn't know.
As Rainboe said the difference is not really all that big. But of course it is there, 50ft DH vs 0 and 200m RVR vs 75 or 125 single engine.
If you order the fail operational version of the NG it brings quite a bit of improvement (in my opinion) with it. You can do single engine autoland and automatic go-arounds, using flaps 30 instead of flaps 15.
And to be honest, it is quite interesting to see the automatic make an absolutely nice and smooth approach with crosswinds up to 25kts, decrab during the flare and keep the rollout exactly on the centerline.
If you order the fail operational version of the NG it brings quite a bit of improvement (in my opinion) with it. You can do single engine autoland and automatic go-arounds, using flaps 30 instead of flaps 15.
And to be honest, it is quite interesting to see the automatic make an absolutely nice and smooth approach with crosswinds up to 25kts, decrab during the flare and keep the rollout exactly on the centerline.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 1
From: AEP
Cat.III -
The last 747-200s I flew, had the full Cat.IIIb equipment.
But NO 747s were ever certificated for it. They were Cat.IIIa airplanes.
As far as certification was concerned...
xxx
Sometimes in the late 1990s, our airline stopped doing any Cat.IIIa.
They found Cat.II minimums to be quite sufficient for our operations.
Something along the lines "is it necessary" to have full Cat.IIIa capability...?
To fly (statistics) 3 or 4 approaches per year into MXP...? - It was NOT...
xxx
We kept operating merely with Cat.II until their recent final retirement.
Yes, we (at times) operated the full Cat.IIIb to see if it still "worked".
That is including the ARC (Automatic Rollout Control) = which is Cat.IIIb.
Such capability was maintained, until the last days.
xxx
Quoting a (now retired) chief pilot "if you ever need all that - use it..."
After all, we knew it worked last week on that plane.
Guess what...? I have no problems with such philosophy.
But then I am retired too. Cat.IIIc rocking chair if you care to know.
xxx
Happy contrails
But NO 747s were ever certificated for it. They were Cat.IIIa airplanes.
As far as certification was concerned...
xxx
Sometimes in the late 1990s, our airline stopped doing any Cat.IIIa.
They found Cat.II minimums to be quite sufficient for our operations.
Something along the lines "is it necessary" to have full Cat.IIIa capability...?
To fly (statistics) 3 or 4 approaches per year into MXP...? - It was NOT...
xxx
We kept operating merely with Cat.II until their recent final retirement.
Yes, we (at times) operated the full Cat.IIIb to see if it still "worked".
That is including the ARC (Automatic Rollout Control) = which is Cat.IIIb.
Such capability was maintained, until the last days.
xxx
Quoting a (now retired) chief pilot "if you ever need all that - use it..."
After all, we knew it worked last week on that plane.
Guess what...? I have no problems with such philosophy.
But then I am retired too. Cat.IIIc rocking chair if you care to know.
xxx
Happy contrails
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
From: Sweden
As I said I never heard about fail operational but I think itīs great to hear that the 737 finaly reached the 20th century
I flew the MD80 before and that bastard had it 30 years ago, pitty though they have it as an option because the cheap operators in Europe wonīt spend the money on a feature that all other aircraft have
I flew the MD80 before and that bastard had it 30 years ago, pitty though they have it as an option because the cheap operators in Europe wonīt spend the money on a feature that all other aircraft have
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,562
Likes: 33
From: I wouldn't know.
As far as i know easyjet ordered its -700s with that feature but abandoned its use because of increased maintenance and training costs. And the secondary airline in germany ordered 85 NGs to be delivered between 2006 and 2014 with that option (and all the other nice stuff like vertical situation display, IAN, GBAS capability etc). Dunno if any other european airline ordered it so far.
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
From: Sweden
Canīt tell you but I donīt think that Oīleary will pay for anything but two wings and two engines But anyway a question, will you get the nose up trim at 300 ft with dual ch. and can you make an aut. G/A with single ch. if you have the fail operational option
But anyway a question, will you get the nose up trim at 300 ft with dual ch. and can you make an aut. G/A with single ch. if you have the fail operational option
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,562
Likes: 33
From: I wouldn't know.
Yes, and yes. Well, you still get the nose up trim and you can do CAT IIIa approaches and automatic go-arounds with one engine out. However, the rudder kicks out during the GA at 400ft AGL or when you select another roll mode (LNAV is usually automaticly selected at 400') so you have to be aware of that or you will get a huge yaw all of a sudden 
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 3
From: Arizona USA
Just a short note to remind those that might have forgotten, or never knew...
The 'ole Lockheed TriStar was absolutely the first wide-body to have full CATIIIB capability and certification, right from the factory, circa 1972
According to a recently retired DAL system chief pilot, who has flown 'em all, only the B777 comes close in smoothness of operation.
Especially, touchdown and roll out guideance.
Back to normal programming.
The 'ole Lockheed TriStar was absolutely the first wide-body to have full CATIIIB capability and certification, right from the factory, circa 1972
According to a recently retired DAL system chief pilot, who has flown 'em all, only the B777 comes close in smoothness of operation.
Especially, touchdown and roll out guideance.
Back to normal programming.
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
From: Bartholomew Arms
When easyJet ordered its NG's they were only 3A. After we'd received about about 17 NG's (up to JT), Mr Boeing introduced the roll-out channel which gave them 3B capability. As Boeing is not able to retrofit this mod on the earlier NG's, we operate all our NG's to CAT3A. As the flight deck is pretty much identical, it is not safe to have your crews operating both versions as the actions required in case of an engine failure on approach are fundamentally different. i.e 3A go-around/3B land.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 123
Likes: 1
From: uk
Is Cat 3B really worth it ?
I understand that maintenance costs for 3B as opposed to 3A are much greater. For the amount of time per year that the RVR is less than 200m, the costs/benefit analysis doesn't stack up.
I also recall the day when one of my (now defunct) company's aircraft sneaked into LIN when the RVR was 75m. Cockpit crew all very pleased with themselves until they realised that they were now stuck there as they needed 125m RVR to get out again.......................... and it didn't reach this level until the following day
I understand that maintenance costs for 3B as opposed to 3A are much greater. For the amount of time per year that the RVR is less than 200m, the costs/benefit analysis doesn't stack up.
I also recall the day when one of my (now defunct) company's aircraft sneaked into LIN when the RVR was 75m. Cockpit crew all very pleased with themselves until they realised that they were now stuck there as they needed 125m RVR to get out again.......................... and it didn't reach this level until the following day
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 374
Likes: 1
From: USA
Hi 411A,
Sorry for the thread drift, but ever thought in writing a book about your experiences with Lockheed's finest?
Cheers!
Sorry for the thread drift, but ever thought in writing a book about your experiences with Lockheed's finest?
Cheers!
I always find great knowledge and humor in his posts.
Unlike certain others
Leo
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 212
Likes: 4
From: In the torpedo tube above!
If you pay for ir you shall get it.
I have flown a 737-800NG with fail operational automatics for upto 3B.Also flown the 737-900ER with dual HUD which took us all the way down to a single engine Cat 3C autoland.
So to say that the 737 didn't do fail operational ILS approaches would be incorrect.
Just Fyi....
I have flown a 737-800NG with fail operational automatics for upto 3B.Also flown the 737-900ER with dual HUD which took us all the way down to a single engine Cat 3C autoland.
So to say that the 737 didn't do fail operational ILS approaches would be incorrect.
Just Fyi....