Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

GoAround requirements for CAT II

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

GoAround requirements for CAT II

Old 28th Feb 2018, 11:46
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lat N55
Age: 57
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
GoAround requirements for CAT II

Hello everybody!
We have a range of go-around speeds (1.23-1.41 Vs) for normal approach (CAT I and others). Is it applicable for CAT II?
The entries are the same but the approach type.
Is it software or flight limitation?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
IMG_0465.jpg (699.1 KB, 137 views)
File Type: jpg
IMG_0467.jpg (683.0 KB, 133 views)
Anvaldra is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2018, 12:31
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 997
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One is AUTOLAND, one is manual.
gearlever is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2018, 15:11
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lat N55
Age: 57
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My fault but it doesn't matter, it increases OLD only
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
IMG_0469.jpg (662.6 KB, 118 views)
Anvaldra is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2018, 13:29
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: EU
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You have different landing weights in your calculations as I can see ......
Flyer007 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2018, 19:57
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lat N55
Age: 57
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The landing weight is 61000 kg for both cases. The question is why the performance MLWs are different for same conditions and other entries
Anvaldra is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2018, 21:27
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
my only guess would be for some odd reason go-around gradient is calculated for an earlier go-around in one case because CATII means very low level go-around.

on the other hand it does not make sense because a bounced landing also means go-around.
so below 200ft or so you are committed to land
wiedehopf is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2018, 15:09
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Presumably because the GA, for the calculations not CAT2, assume a GA at DA for normal Cat 1 approach (presumably 200') and you would therefore make the 5% gradient for the GA.
In the CAT 2 case the GA from the CAT 2 DH (of presumably about 100' RA) the aircraft will not make the 5% GA gradient, so a lighter weight is required to make the 5%.
iceman50 is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2018, 16:49
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,922
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by wiedehopf
my only guess would be for some odd reason go-around gradient is calculated for an earlier go-around in one case because CATII means very low level go-around.

on the other hand it does not make sense because a bounced landing also means go-around.
so below 200ft or so you are committed to land
Missed approach numbers are based on the approach climb limit with an engine inop from the DH. Landing climb limit numbers are all engine from 50 feet. So you're committed to land from 50 feet.

I still don't see where the OP gets the 5% grade.
MarkerInbound is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2018, 18:17
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MarkerInbound
Missed approach numbers are based on the approach climb limit with an engine inop from the DH. Landing climb limit numbers are all engine from 50 feet. So you're committed to land from 50 feet.

I still don't see where the OP gets the 5% grade.
it's only for high waves around incheon

(and thanks for a qualified answer i just guessed because no one else answered)
wiedehopf is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2018, 02:43
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So you're committed to land from 50 feet.
Committed??? You are never committed!

Presumably the 5% will be from the approach chart for the GA.
iceman50 is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2018, 05:35
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lat N55
Age: 57
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by iceman50
Presumably because the GA, for the calculations not CAT2, assume a GA at DA for normal Cat 1 approach (presumably 200') and you would therefore make the 5% gradient for the GA.
In the CAT 2 case the GA from the CAT 2 DH (of presumably about 100' RA) the aircraft will not make the 5% GA gradient, so a lighter weight is required to make the 5%.
If such reasoning is followed, the CAT III operation would restrict our LW till unacceptable value.
FlySmart doesn't have an option to insert CAT III, so i don't think if the manufacturer wouldn't take it into consideration
Anvaldra is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2018, 19:35
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,922
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The approach plate has a 4% to 3000 requirement but the MSA in the quadrant the miss takes you to is only 2300.
MarkerInbound is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.