B-787 CAT 111 B
Thread Starter
B-787 CAT 111 B
Hi All
Just heard Air India B 787 s are diverting from New Delhi due Fog as the a/c are not yet CAT 111B compliant. Also heard a special Boeing tech team is in Delhi for software upgrades. Any info?
Thanks
Just heard Air India B 787 s are diverting from New Delhi due Fog as the a/c are not yet CAT 111B compliant. Also heard a special Boeing tech team is in Delhi for software upgrades. Any info?
Thanks
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is what happens when you have a bunch of clowns running an airline.
On November 12:
Air India Dreamliners can't take wing in fog - Times Of India
Has nothing to do with the aircraft itself. Rather the airline poorly planning CATIII certification of it's pilots.
On November 12:
A senior AI official said fog is expected in Delhi around December 22. "We hope to get the required approvals by then."
"The DGCA is not satisfied with the documentation submitted for seeking Cat III clearance. The training and ground classes started last month. Only a handful of B-787 pilots will be ready for Cat III," sources said.
"The DGCA is not satisfied with the documentation submitted for seeking Cat III clearance. The training and ground classes started last month. Only a handful of B-787 pilots will be ready for Cat III," sources said.
Has nothing to do with the aircraft itself. Rather the airline poorly planning CATIII certification of it's pilots.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vermont
Age: 67
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't speak to what the DGCA is actually looking for, but a CAT III approval is an approval of the operator's entire program, not just the airplane. This includes maintenance training and procedures, spare parts control, flight operations procedures that are specific to the operator and the particular airports within the operator's route structure, crew training specific to the operator's particular procedures, and so forth.
I wrestled with this when writing and certificating a CAT III program here in the States. We were flying the 757 with a bunch of pilots who had retired early from a number of established major carriers, where they had been CAT III qualified for years. Our management had a hard time understanding why we couldn't just fly CAT III approaches out of the box. The FAA's position was not to evaluate the airplane or the pilots, but rather to evaluate how well the program we had developed within our airline met the reliability and predictability requirements of low level minimum operations.
I wrestled with this when writing and certificating a CAT III program here in the States. We were flying the 757 with a bunch of pilots who had retired early from a number of established major carriers, where they had been CAT III qualified for years. Our management had a hard time understanding why we couldn't just fly CAT III approaches out of the box. The FAA's position was not to evaluate the airplane or the pilots, but rather to evaluate how well the program we had developed within our airline met the reliability and predictability requirements of low level minimum operations.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: AUSTRALIA - CHINA STHN
Age: 59
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CATIIIB
Yes , hard to understand what all the fuss is about with paperwork approvals etc... It should just be out of the box... Aircraft certified.. Check... Crew trained ... Check.. Engage land three/ cat III dual , no DH and let the automatics land...
In fact if one did a risk analysis of accidents allowing an out of box autoland versus the incident rate of manual approaches that result in screw ups, overruns or land shorts, the reality might be that fully auto land is actually safer straight from the manufacturer!!!
But then the FAA/ DGCA and other outfits would not be able to justify their raison d'etre now would they?
Too much paperwork delaying safety improvements with no valid reason to my way of thinking ( and yes I was once a land three / cat III dual/ no DH pilot) but in current outfit flying an identical aircraft ( 330) I can only do CAT 1 due to regulators paperwork issues ... Certainly an ops spec approval wont make a schmick of difference to the actual operation....it just rubber stamps it for lawyers... In the meantime flights divert/ delay or tempt fate as they obviously do in AI...
In fact if one did a risk analysis of accidents allowing an out of box autoland versus the incident rate of manual approaches that result in screw ups, overruns or land shorts, the reality might be that fully auto land is actually safer straight from the manufacturer!!!
But then the FAA/ DGCA and other outfits would not be able to justify their raison d'etre now would they?
Too much paperwork delaying safety improvements with no valid reason to my way of thinking ( and yes I was once a land three / cat III dual/ no DH pilot) but in current outfit flying an identical aircraft ( 330) I can only do CAT 1 due to regulators paperwork issues ... Certainly an ops spec approval wont make a schmick of difference to the actual operation....it just rubber stamps it for lawyers... In the meantime flights divert/ delay or tempt fate as they obviously do in AI...
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most airlines arent bothering keeping the CAT cert up, as they very seldom are cleared to use them. Its a huge expense, from training down to the navdatabase.
I heard from United that due to costs, they are letting quite a bit of the RNAV drop off, as they seldom get cleared by ATC for an RNAV APP, and virtually never for the RNAV DEP.
This happened with SW and RNP, get trained, get cert, pay to add the procedures into the navdatabase..then never get cleared to use the procedures.
I heard from United that due to costs, they are letting quite a bit of the RNAV drop off, as they seldom get cleared by ATC for an RNAV APP, and virtually never for the RNAV DEP.
This happened with SW and RNP, get trained, get cert, pay to add the procedures into the navdatabase..then never get cleared to use the procedures.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact if one did a risk analysis of accidents allowing an out of box autoland versus the incident rate of manual approaches that result in screw ups, overruns or land shorts, the reality might be that fully auto land is actually safer straight from the manufacturer!!!
I heard from United that due to costs, they are letting quite a bit of the RNAV drop off, as they seldom get cleared by ATC for an RNAV APP, and virtually never for the RNAV DEP.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: AUSTRALIA - CHINA STHN
Age: 59
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes true
Yes, true ...capacity reduction ... But then again it can always be disconnected if not performing ... Like any other time... I guess my point is that so many obstacles and costs get put up as barriers to increased safety that operators sometimes give up taking up the options..
