CATIII operations. Go around below DH.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under which JAR? JAR-FCL? Doesn't really apply here. JAR-OPS? Replaced by EU-OPS. However both allow manual landings with less than 300m RVR under certain circumstances. For example all those HUD equipped CAT IIIa approved airplanes with correctly trained crews may land with less than 300m RVR as normal operation.
However the question was a somewhat non-normal case, if a go-around below DH is mandatory for CAT IIIa operation. And it seems the answers are somewhat split on that. Some operators do allow it (even under EU-OPS rules), others do not.
Personally i would be very interested how those operators that have aircraft with both autoland capability and the ability to do manual CAT IIIa approaches and landings (for example 737s with HUD) cover that special case.
However the question was a somewhat non-normal case, if a go-around below DH is mandatory for CAT IIIa operation. And it seems the answers are somewhat split on that. Some operators do allow it (even under EU-OPS rules), others do not.
Personally i would be very interested how those operators that have aircraft with both autoland capability and the ability to do manual CAT IIIa approaches and landings (for example 737s with HUD) cover that special case.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: EGPH
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RJ FCOM Abnormal and Emergency Checklist
Response to AP Disengagement on CAT2 or CAT3 Approach
Below DH with RVR less than 300m
With crosswind 10kts or less, a go around should be flown
With crosswind greater than 10kt, a go around must be flown
Response to AP Disengagement on CAT2 or CAT3 Approach
Below DH with RVR less than 300m
With crosswind 10kts or less, a go around should be flown
With crosswind greater than 10kt, a go around must be flown
I have that video and also show it to my trainees...
But as I recall the video was exactly that .... a training video with the aircraft flown by a test pilot. It was not an unintentional hard landing.
The hard landing limits is 2.6 G if converted this works out to roughly 7 to 800 feet/min. Calculation in relation to DFDR read outs.
Every company has its own view on GAs in low vis situations and the governing factor is safety and one cannot generalise. That is why the simulator training.
But as I recall the video was exactly that .... a training video with the aircraft flown by a test pilot. It was not an unintentional hard landing.
The hard landing limits is 2.6 G if converted this works out to roughly 7 to 800 feet/min. Calculation in relation to DFDR read outs.
Every company has its own view on GAs in low vis situations and the governing factor is safety and one cannot generalise. That is why the simulator training.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, if the actual visibility is CAT 3 it is considered that you cannot have sufficient visual clues so you must go around with a warning below DH, according to JAR OPS?
the problem is... How do you know what the visibility exactly is?
(Please don't make me count center line lights in that moment...)
Therefore, unless it is specifically forbidden to go around with a warning below DH, wether in SOPs or in JAR or wherever, it remains a Captain's decision to continue or go around depending on his assessing the visual cues as sufficient or not.
If conditions are actual CAT3, I think we won't have sufficent visual cues for a flare and landing. And many times we won't even know why the autoland is not reliable so we don't know if we are over the threshold or what. If conditions happen to be better, we can see well and land.
However, if warning is due the LOC transmitter failure, visual cues might happen to be sufficient to flare and land on the TDZ, but not sufficient for the subsequent roll out. But this could also happen during the roll out itself after a non event autoland!
Argh!
I have come to the conclusion that I don't like CAT III
the problem is... How do you know what the visibility exactly is?
(Please don't make me count center line lights in that moment...)
Therefore, unless it is specifically forbidden to go around with a warning below DH, wether in SOPs or in JAR or wherever, it remains a Captain's decision to continue or go around depending on his assessing the visual cues as sufficient or not.
If conditions are actual CAT3, I think we won't have sufficent visual cues for a flare and landing. And many times we won't even know why the autoland is not reliable so we don't know if we are over the threshold or what. If conditions happen to be better, we can see well and land.
However, if warning is due the LOC transmitter failure, visual cues might happen to be sufficient to flare and land on the TDZ, but not sufficient for the subsequent roll out. But this could also happen during the roll out itself after a non event autoland!
Argh!
I have come to the conclusion that I don't like CAT III
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the problem is... How do you know what the visibility exactly is?
In genuine CAT3a conditions, the rule book says any problem after Decision Ht: GO AROUND! Whether you would live to regret not doing so is questionable. To be trying to manually land and rollout at 200metres visibility and high speed is dodgy. What is the point of Cat 1 limits of 200'/600m if on a Cat 3 approach you can do just the same as a Cat1 manual landing (and hope you get away with it!)? The AWOPS regulations say Cat 2 and Cat 3 landings MUST be automatic. Trying to manually land in those conditions is really not for having passengers behind you!
Renard
Wasn't the MD80 tail snap landing a flappless approach, which would result in a much higher rate of descent than on a CATIII approach.
Another 'no flare' landing, exacerbated by flaring late and driving the wheels in:YouTube - C130 WING SNAP
Don't like it, aeroplanes don't, just don't like it!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is what Airbus SOP says abnormal procedures for Below 1000ft and above DH (for CAT 2 or CAT 3 SINGLE) or above AH (for CAT 3 DUAL)AWO:
Thus as shown above the decision to land is an option. It entirely depends on a individual's experience level and actual circumstances.
Not valid for CAT II. Careful with your statements 
At 200ft RA and below Any AUTOLAND warning requires an immediate go-around. If visual references are sufficient and a manual landing is possible, the PF may decide to land manually.
• At flare height
If FLARE does not come up on FMA, a go-around must be performed.
If visual references are sufficient and a manual landing is possible, the PF may
decide to complete the landing.
• At flare height
If FLARE does not come up on FMA, a go-around must be performed.
If visual references are sufficient and a manual landing is possible, the PF may
decide to complete the landing.
The AWOPS regulations say Cat 2 and Cat 3 landings MUST be automatic.
Originally Posted by Rainboe
The AWOPS regulations say Cat 2 and Cat 3 landings MUST be automatic. Trying to manually land in those conditions is really not for having passengers behind you!
My first big aeroplane was ATR, it had no autoland and yet it was approved for CAT II operation. FD manual or AP coupled.
Afterwards I moved to A320. Policy was that all low vis approaches should normally end with autoland, however under CAT II it was allowed to manually save landing if autoland warning came off after passing DH. Under CAT III, conditions, go-around for autoland red light was mandatory between DH and touchdown. If mains have touched down, it was captain's decision whether to continue manually with de-rotation and roll-out or go around and once reversers have been deployed, stopping was mandatory. I find this policy quite reasonable, but I really have no idea whether every SA Airbus operator uses it or it was just us.
And just today, I've landed manually in CAT IIIA conditions, with official RVR being 200m. I had merely 58 pax and 2 stw behind me and yet I was both safe and legal. I've spotted TDZ lights at 70', so I had 20 ft to spare.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to introduce the new (to some) CAT IIIA approved gizmo: the HGS.
Rainboe It may benefit readers if you were to identify the references which support your statements and whether the recommendations are based on opinion or fact.
”The rule book says …”
The background to ‘European’ Cat 3 operations is given in CS AWO 300 – aircraft certification.
CS-AWO 321 specifies the equipment required for a range of operations, generally subdivided by equipment capability and the decision height.
Thus for 50 ft DH, autoland in not always necessary, but where fitted, and if the system fails below DH then a manual landing can be made in particular circumstances. Whether manual landing can or should be approved in these circumstance is debatable (original thread question) and in practice involves both aircraft and operational certification – not just pilots or engineers beliefs. Operators may impose additional, more stringent operating restrictions.
RVR limits (and other caveats) are given EU-OPS1 (E) – operational certification.
Cat 3a operations are not normally allowed below 200m, but there is an option for fail passive operations in Cat 3b – DH 50ft in 150m (Appendix 1 (Old) to OPS 1.430 table 8). Here, there is opportunity for confusion between the ‘older’ ICAO terminology and the new, rapidly developing equipment capabilities catered for in the new rules – i.e. a muddle (IMHO).
The visual references for each operation Cat 1 – Cat 3 vary. The actual visual requirements have been determined by the required piloting task e.g. Cat 1 may involve ‘significant’ lateral manoeuvres, whereas the equipment standard required for Cat3 should ensure that a minimum if any lateral manoeuvre being required. Most of these aspects were determined by research which involved manual landings in actual conditions. This is documented in “The Economic Cat 3 Programme 1975-80” RAE report TR81025, also in TR 79130 “Manual Landings in Fog”.
Thus your statement “… trying to manually land and rollout at 200metres visibility and high speed is dodgy…” should perhaps be qualified by aircraft type and landing speed. CS-AWO recognises that not all types are suitable for manual landing in the lowest visibilities.
”The rule book says …”
The background to ‘European’ Cat 3 operations is given in CS AWO 300 – aircraft certification.
CS-AWO 321 specifies the equipment required for a range of operations, generally subdivided by equipment capability and the decision height.
Thus for 50 ft DH, autoland in not always necessary, but where fitted, and if the system fails below DH then a manual landing can be made in particular circumstances. Whether manual landing can or should be approved in these circumstance is debatable (original thread question) and in practice involves both aircraft and operational certification – not just pilots or engineers beliefs. Operators may impose additional, more stringent operating restrictions.
RVR limits (and other caveats) are given EU-OPS1 (E) – operational certification.
Cat 3a operations are not normally allowed below 200m, but there is an option for fail passive operations in Cat 3b – DH 50ft in 150m (Appendix 1 (Old) to OPS 1.430 table 8). Here, there is opportunity for confusion between the ‘older’ ICAO terminology and the new, rapidly developing equipment capabilities catered for in the new rules – i.e. a muddle (IMHO).
The visual references for each operation Cat 1 – Cat 3 vary. The actual visual requirements have been determined by the required piloting task e.g. Cat 1 may involve ‘significant’ lateral manoeuvres, whereas the equipment standard required for Cat3 should ensure that a minimum if any lateral manoeuvre being required. Most of these aspects were determined by research which involved manual landings in actual conditions. This is documented in “The Economic Cat 3 Programme 1975-80” RAE report TR81025, also in TR 79130 “Manual Landings in Fog”.
Thus your statement “… trying to manually land and rollout at 200metres visibility and high speed is dodgy…” should perhaps be qualified by aircraft type and landing speed. CS-AWO recognises that not all types are suitable for manual landing in the lowest visibilities.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kiyv
Age: 51
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see you point, all of you.
For me, as engineer, decision to make AUTOLAND or to GO AROUND in real vis. was clear, because according to regulations (CS-AWO and etc) we have done about 100 succefull autolands, the autopilot manufacturer have millions succesfull modelling autolands, we have enough autolands on our simulator and we have demonstrared the safe transition from automatic to manual control. But we haven't the statistic of safe manual landings in real CATIII vis conditions after transition to manual control below DH and we haven't equipped by HUD. Thats why I asked my question.
I think, it's really the subject for training by operators pilots and the subject for approval by our CAA.
For me, as engineer, decision to make AUTOLAND or to GO AROUND in real vis. was clear, because according to regulations (CS-AWO and etc) we have done about 100 succefull autolands, the autopilot manufacturer have millions succesfull modelling autolands, we have enough autolands on our simulator and we have demonstrared the safe transition from automatic to manual control. But we haven't the statistic of safe manual landings in real CATIII vis conditions after transition to manual control below DH and we haven't equipped by HUD. Thats why I asked my question.
I think, it's really the subject for training by operators pilots and the subject for approval by our CAA.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: paradise
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A.F, excited to see your new baby. It's about time for a come back of some traditional manufacturers from the East. If I may add a point, I'd leave the options open as a manufacturer and simply advise that it's all subject to approval of the relevant CAA. Pilots won't like it though. Best of luck with your plans.
Andew, the following may help alleviate your concerns about manual landing.
The research paper (TR81025) concludes the following:-
There are additional caveats such as the need for 50ft DH and high accuracy autopilot guidance; these are now requirements in CS-AWO.
The research data supporting the conclusion indicates that manual landings were made in visibilities as low as 150m RVR, although the success rate based on the ability to decide before DH and then complete a landing started to reduce below 220m RVR, i.e. no land decision given, or the landing was attempted, but judged excessive workload.
Note that this data was for a manual takeover at DH; for landings simulating an autopilot failure below DH, the corresponding RVRs were lower, with 100% success rate at 200m and the lowest value 120m.
Note that the piloting task in the tests differed from that in commercial operations. During the tests the task was to detect and assess the conditions and cues as being suitable for landing, and then complete the landing – only the first and second attempts in the conditions were assessed to avoid ‘learning’.
In commercial operations the required visual references are thus already defined, and in stable (Cat 3) fog conditions within the RVR limit they should always be seen. Therefore the crew task is much less and crews will have the benefit of training. This provides commercial operations with an additional safety margin from reduced workload and RVR minima higher than the limiting condition.
One aspect which is not specifically included in the regulations is the cockpit view over the glare shield. As you may realise this is a critical parameter in determining the point of first contact, the extent of the visual scene, and maintaining the view during the flare. This is a judgement issue for the test team, which is encompassed in CS-AWO 321 (b) 1
The research paper (TR81025) concludes the following:-
Manual landings were successfully demonstrated in RVR conditions lower than hitherto been thought possible. This established the feasibility of safe operations (with high success rate) in low visibilities (down to 240m and below) based on manual landings per se or as the reversionary mode of a fail passive autoland system.
The research data supporting the conclusion indicates that manual landings were made in visibilities as low as 150m RVR, although the success rate based on the ability to decide before DH and then complete a landing started to reduce below 220m RVR, i.e. no land decision given, or the landing was attempted, but judged excessive workload.
Note that this data was for a manual takeover at DH; for landings simulating an autopilot failure below DH, the corresponding RVRs were lower, with 100% success rate at 200m and the lowest value 120m.
Note that the piloting task in the tests differed from that in commercial operations. During the tests the task was to detect and assess the conditions and cues as being suitable for landing, and then complete the landing – only the first and second attempts in the conditions were assessed to avoid ‘learning’.
In commercial operations the required visual references are thus already defined, and in stable (Cat 3) fog conditions within the RVR limit they should always be seen. Therefore the crew task is much less and crews will have the benefit of training. This provides commercial operations with an additional safety margin from reduced workload and RVR minima higher than the limiting condition.
One aspect which is not specifically included in the regulations is the cockpit view over the glare shield. As you may realise this is a critical parameter in determining the point of first contact, the extent of the visual scene, and maintaining the view during the flare. This is a judgement issue for the test team, which is encompassed in CS-AWO 321 (b) 1
(A) It is demonstrated that manual landings can be made without excessive workload in the visibility conditions; and
(B) The aeroplane has a low approach speed, is easily manoeuvrable and the height of the pilot's eyes above the wheels is small;
(B) The aeroplane has a low approach speed, is easily manoeuvrable and the height of the pilot's eyes above the wheels is small;
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we talking about 140kt aeroplanes? A V1 reject in Cat3a conditions is frightening. As for much lower conditions, forget it- you are in significant danger of losing directional awareness unless you keep your head and use the localiser. Landing manually in Cat 3, in a 15 kt crosswind on a wet runway and 200 metres visibility, without the benefit of your usual horizon and end of runway cues.......difficult! And people question 'captain only' requirements!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why only 15? the 737 (your type iirc) can do up to 20 on a wet runway and 25 on a dry one 
Actually you can even get approval to land with down to 125m RVR if you have a LAND2 indication, 50ft RA of course but lower than usual CAT 3a RVR.
Having flown a 733 with HUD manually to the usual CAT IIIa limits all i can say is that manual landings are possible and actually quite a lot of fun, given the right equipment. However with any failure of equipment close to DH or below i would personally rather do a go around then try to sort things out in the very short time i have until landing. But there is allways a somewhat grey area, do you initiate a go-around if the rollout feature fails during high speed rollout in the fail operational 737s? Even if you have allready the reverser open? And those cases are what captains decision is there fore, that is why that position is usually better payed than the first officer who is not allowed to fly actual low vis approaches (simulated ones are fine though).
Actually you can even get approval to land with down to 125m RVR if you have a LAND2 indication, 50ft RA of course but lower than usual CAT 3a RVR.
Having flown a 733 with HUD manually to the usual CAT IIIa limits all i can say is that manual landings are possible and actually quite a lot of fun, given the right equipment. However with any failure of equipment close to DH or below i would personally rather do a go around then try to sort things out in the very short time i have until landing. But there is allways a somewhat grey area, do you initiate a go-around if the rollout feature fails during high speed rollout in the fail operational 737s? Even if you have allready the reverser open? And those cases are what captains decision is there fore, that is why that position is usually better payed than the first officer who is not allowed to fly actual low vis approaches (simulated ones are fine though).
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm struck by how every operator and country seems to have totally different procedures and limitations! I wasn't aware of so much variety.
Our AWOPs stop at 200m, crosswind limitation strictly 15kts, copilot flies all AWOPs approaches, Captain takes over at DH (50'). No 125m allowed at all.
I think once speedbrakes pop up, you should commit to rollout. Once reverse deploys, you must NEVER GA! As far as any problems from DH are concerned, unless you are absolutely sure of safety, a GA is advised. The problem is- there is just no time to analyse the failure. Loud clicks, warning lights and possibly horns or hooters going off, and it really is a time to GTHOOT (Get The H* Out Of There). Our Alert Height is 500', below which no diagnosis of faults is permitted, so I think technically a GA is required UNLESS you are completely satisfied a manual landing can be completed safely. But when you've been holding awaiting your turn, and the fuel is starting to look a bit sick, it's easier said than done to go around.
Our AWOPs stop at 200m, crosswind limitation strictly 15kts, copilot flies all AWOPs approaches, Captain takes over at DH (50'). No 125m allowed at all.
I think once speedbrakes pop up, you should commit to rollout. Once reverse deploys, you must NEVER GA! As far as any problems from DH are concerned, unless you are absolutely sure of safety, a GA is advised. The problem is- there is just no time to analyse the failure. Loud clicks, warning lights and possibly horns or hooters going off, and it really is a time to GTHOOT (Get The H* Out Of There). Our Alert Height is 500', below which no diagnosis of faults is permitted, so I think technically a GA is required UNLESS you are completely satisfied a manual landing can be completed safely. But when you've been holding awaiting your turn, and the fuel is starting to look a bit sick, it's easier said than done to go around.
Last edited by Rainboe; 4th Nov 2009 at 09:58.