a300boy
Well-Known Member
Re: KLM cityhopper
Me in the past !! Have you not done so ?
Me in the past !! Have you not done so ?
Air Traffic, ILS & Navigation Aids
- Thread starter The Pole
- Start date
- Tagged users None
a300boy
Well-Known Member
Re: KLM cityhopper
You have Incorrect information !! perfectly acceptable to do a Cat 2 approach followed by a manual approach !! What do you do for a living ?
You have Incorrect information !! perfectly acceptable to do a Cat 2 approach followed by a manual approach !! What do you do for a living ?
a300boy
Well-Known Member
Re: KLM cityhopper
sorry should have read Cat 2 approach followed by a manual landing from decision height.
sorry should have read Cat 2 approach followed by a manual landing from decision height.
Re: KLM cityhopper
lol I was going to say....
Ok let me reiterate my previous post and add more background
I spoke to a KLC pilot who told me as follows - (from what I can remember as it was over several beers)
They can do a CATII Manual on the FK70 into LBA on 32 and that's about it. The autoland on the Fokker works on closure rates so the way he described it was that it would just glide and glide down and out of the 32 touchdown zone unless full flaps and speedbreak out - which he reckons would do the trick lol. Having said that they are not trained/approved to do it so that's that. I forgot what VIZ they need to be able to do that in sorry but 400m perhaps? rings a bell.
As I type this a FK70 did a missed approach on 14 in about 300m - not a good day at the office.
So the E190's at KLC he said can do CAT III auto - and it does not work off closure rates like the FK70. So they punch in the alt and it lands on it, there was a short period earlier this year when the E190 was doing the morning rotation and it was foggy - unfortunately they had not yet bagged a CAT III at LBA with the type since its introduction to KLC so it had to divert I think. Eventually they did one in good weather and so the E190 was approved for CAT III at LBA by KLC.
He did then mention he was unsure what the cross wind limit was for CAT III on the E190 and as well all know - LBA is one of the few airports that can be 300m and gusting 42!
All the above aside - just because they can do CAT III doesn't mean they always can and will. I am led to believe its a fleet wide possibility on the E190 now but only subject to training and if the autoland is INOP then back to square one.
I do hope the introduction of the type improves things a little in bad weather, it will be in from May so that is another full winter of FK70 operations at LBA but it is coming to stay so it will get to prove its worth from next October.
:crazy:
lol I was going to say....
Ok let me reiterate my previous post and add more background
I spoke to a KLC pilot who told me as follows - (from what I can remember as it was over several beers)
They can do a CATII Manual on the FK70 into LBA on 32 and that's about it. The autoland on the Fokker works on closure rates so the way he described it was that it would just glide and glide down and out of the 32 touchdown zone unless full flaps and speedbreak out - which he reckons would do the trick lol. Having said that they are not trained/approved to do it so that's that. I forgot what VIZ they need to be able to do that in sorry but 400m perhaps? rings a bell.
As I type this a FK70 did a missed approach on 14 in about 300m - not a good day at the office.
So the E190's at KLC he said can do CAT III auto - and it does not work off closure rates like the FK70. So they punch in the alt and it lands on it, there was a short period earlier this year when the E190 was doing the morning rotation and it was foggy - unfortunately they had not yet bagged a CAT III at LBA with the type since its introduction to KLC so it had to divert I think. Eventually they did one in good weather and so the E190 was approved for CAT III at LBA by KLC.
He did then mention he was unsure what the cross wind limit was for CAT III on the E190 and as well all know - LBA is one of the few airports that can be 300m and gusting 42!
All the above aside - just because they can do CAT III doesn't mean they always can and will. I am led to believe its a fleet wide possibility on the E190 now but only subject to training and if the autoland is INOP then back to square one.
I do hope the introduction of the type improves things a little in bad weather, it will be in from May so that is another full winter of FK70 operations at LBA but it is coming to stay so it will get to prove its worth from next October.
:crazy:
Re: KLM cityhopper
Oh an a300 is correct -
they do CAT II Auto initially on the FK70 and take out the autoland at decision height its the only way they can do it (again the runway undulation issue) then they manually land it.
:good:
Also - the FK70 landed at 1530 on RWY 32 by doing a CAT II - very topical discussion indeed lol
Oh an a300 is correct -
they do CAT II Auto initially on the FK70 and take out the autoland at decision height its the only way they can do it (again the runway undulation issue) then they manually land it.
:good:
Also - the FK70 landed at 1530 on RWY 32 by doing a CAT II - very topical discussion indeed lol
Re: KLM cityhopper
Fair enough I'll stand (partly) corrected but I've never heard of any such operation (Cat 2 coupled approach to a manual landing)
I have just checked my manuals for clarity which state "it is our policy to autoland for Cat 2 approaches" which clearly is where my mindset was coming from. Fair enough it seems other operators routinely use Cat 2 limits followed by a manual landing.
Cat 2 limits are 300m and require 3 landing lights with some lateral element to be acquired visually to continue. Hardly ideal for a manual landing and no I've never done one. Nor felt the need.
You also say "Cat 3 is nothing to do with autoland" but then follow it up with "if yr doing Cat 3 you must autoland" ? That doesn't make sense to me.
PS I think you know exactly what I do for a living but thanks for asking
Fair enough I'll stand (partly) corrected but I've never heard of any such operation (Cat 2 coupled approach to a manual landing)
I have just checked my manuals for clarity which state "it is our policy to autoland for Cat 2 approaches" which clearly is where my mindset was coming from. Fair enough it seems other operators routinely use Cat 2 limits followed by a manual landing.
Cat 2 limits are 300m and require 3 landing lights with some lateral element to be acquired visually to continue. Hardly ideal for a manual landing and no I've never done one. Nor felt the need.
You also say "Cat 3 is nothing to do with autoland" but then follow it up with "if yr doing Cat 3 you must autoland" ? That doesn't make sense to me.
PS I think you know exactly what I do for a living but thanks for asking
a300boy
Well-Known Member
Re: KLM cityhopper
All agreed ridgeback. Most of the Uk operator do not train for Cat 2 and Cat 3 dual ratings as it is too expensive to do so [ My BMI Training Captain ex group member informs me ] As a result only Cat 3 qualification is offered if the aircraft is Cat 3 capable or Cat 2 if its only Cat 2 capable aircraft type. We had dual qualification on our Belgian then Irish registered aircraft and because we had the same problem at Luton that aircraft have here as long as the weather was above Cat 2 minima we did an autopilot Cat 2 approach and as long as we had the runway scenario at decision height or before we could disconnect the autopilot and land normally. Much better than waiting for the autoland and long flair protection to kick in with a possible go around. My comment was that both systems are considered separate but as you say a Cat 3 approach would only be carried out in conjunction with an autoland at the end of the approach phase.
All agreed ridgeback. Most of the Uk operator do not train for Cat 2 and Cat 3 dual ratings as it is too expensive to do so [ My BMI Training Captain ex group member informs me ] As a result only Cat 3 qualification is offered if the aircraft is Cat 3 capable or Cat 2 if its only Cat 2 capable aircraft type. We had dual qualification on our Belgian then Irish registered aircraft and because we had the same problem at Luton that aircraft have here as long as the weather was above Cat 2 minima we did an autopilot Cat 2 approach and as long as we had the runway scenario at decision height or before we could disconnect the autopilot and land normally. Much better than waiting for the autoland and long flair protection to kick in with a possible go around. My comment was that both systems are considered separate but as you say a Cat 3 approach would only be carried out in conjunction with an autoland at the end of the approach phase.
a300boy
Well-Known Member
Re: KLM cityhopper
The negative side of the UK system is that because the crew of , for instance , a Jet 2 Boeing 757 are Cat 3 only trained they cannot do a Cat 2 approach to Lbia. They can only do a Cat 3 approach with an autoland at the end of the approach but the landing distance and runway slope or tailwind prevent this aircraft type autolanding here. If the crew were Cat 2 qualified as well they could make a Cat 2 approach to Cat 2 minima which would be far better than the Cat 1 minima they haveat present.
It is a matter of training I have been told but it is another problem unique to Leeds. The Luton LDA was sufficient for us to do an autoland so that was not an issue just the long flare we sometimes had made it interesting .
The negative side of the UK system is that because the crew of , for instance , a Jet 2 Boeing 757 are Cat 3 only trained they cannot do a Cat 2 approach to Lbia. They can only do a Cat 3 approach with an autoland at the end of the approach but the landing distance and runway slope or tailwind prevent this aircraft type autolanding here. If the crew were Cat 2 qualified as well they could make a Cat 2 approach to Cat 2 minima which would be far better than the Cat 1 minima they haveat present.
It is a matter of training I have been told but it is another problem unique to Leeds. The Luton LDA was sufficient for us to do an autoland so that was not an issue just the long flare we sometimes had made it interesting .
Re: KLM cityhopper
Most don't do it because there is no point.
20 years flying I have never once thought "what a pity we can't carry on to Cat 2 limits and then disconnect for the landing."
If the F70 requires it at LBA so be it but no time soon is everyone else going to start thinking this is a great idea.
Hence my original post really.
a300boy said:
Most don't do it because there is no point.
20 years flying I have never once thought "what a pity we can't carry on to Cat 2 limits and then disconnect for the landing."
If the F70 requires it at LBA so be it but no time soon is everyone else going to start thinking this is a great idea.
Hence my original post really.
a300boy
Well-Known Member
Re: KLM cityhopper
We will have to agree to disagree then ! I still believe it would be an advantage for winter B757 here at Leeds but not very likely.
We will have to agree to disagree then ! I still believe it would be an advantage for winter B757 here at Leeds but not very likely.
Re: KLM cityhopper
Fokker 70 MLW circa 35T
Boeing 757 MLW circa 90T
Mayby Jet2 757 chief pilot doesn't actually want his pilots disconnecting at 100' in 300m vis having 'acquired' the necessary 3 lights and landing a 90 Tonne machine in (probably) a 10 knot tailwind.
Even if I was 'allowed' to do it I very much doubt I wld do so in a 321 (roughly equivalent to a 757). That is what I'm paid for. It's not just about making it possible somehow.
Your incredulity that I have never done this is quite remarkable. Cat 2/3 limits exist primarily for auto-landing and normally with a headwind, not for getting you 100' nearer to the runway so you can disconnect to automatics and throw it on the ground.
Fokker 70 MLW circa 35T
Boeing 757 MLW circa 90T
Mayby Jet2 757 chief pilot doesn't actually want his pilots disconnecting at 100' in 300m vis having 'acquired' the necessary 3 lights and landing a 90 Tonne machine in (probably) a 10 knot tailwind.
Even if I was 'allowed' to do it I very much doubt I wld do so in a 321 (roughly equivalent to a 757). That is what I'm paid for. It's not just about making it possible somehow.
Your incredulity that I have never done this is quite remarkable. Cat 2/3 limits exist primarily for auto-landing and normally with a headwind, not for getting you 100' nearer to the runway so you can disconnect to automatics and throw it on the ground.
a300boy
Well-Known Member
Re: KLM cityhopper
Opinions are one thing fact are another. Everyone must be bored with this by now so lets move on.
Opinions are one thing fact are another. Everyone must be bored with this by now so lets move on.
- Admin
- #73
Re: KLM cityhopper
Cat 3 is an autoland whereas a cat 2 is only semi automatic with the pilot taking the controls to complete the landing at decision hight within reported IRVR limits.
Cat 3 is an autoland whereas a cat 2 is only semi automatic with the pilot taking the controls to complete the landing at decision hight within reported IRVR limits.
- Admin
- #74
Re: KLM cityhopper
Old school now but British Midland and Britannia used to do that at East Midlands back in the 90's
a300boy said:
Old school now but British Midland and Britannia used to do that at East Midlands back in the 90's
Re: KLM cityhopper
Aviador. I just quoted factually from my companies ops manual that states that one must autoland off a cat 2 approach. I have accepted that I was incorrect as other companies clearly do things differently. I have also expressed an opinion that it might not be a terrific idea in a large aeroplane on a limiting runway with a tailwind. I stand by that but I accepted I was incorrect about cat 2 only being for autoland.
When presented with restricted visibility you look at the best minima available. On an autoland runway this is normally Cat 3. Occasionally it is not, Paris CDG being one such example. If you go to Paris in fog you autoland to cat 2 minima for that is the best limits available. It is still an autoland.
This all started from a statement (by a pilot) that cat 3 (&2) was nothing to do with auto landing. I queried that because it is nonsense.
I had my occupation queried as a result.
Aviador. I just quoted factually from my companies ops manual that states that one must autoland off a cat 2 approach. I have accepted that I was incorrect as other companies clearly do things differently. I have also expressed an opinion that it might not be a terrific idea in a large aeroplane on a limiting runway with a tailwind. I stand by that but I accepted I was incorrect about cat 2 only being for autoland.
When presented with restricted visibility you look at the best minima available. On an autoland runway this is normally Cat 3. Occasionally it is not, Paris CDG being one such example. If you go to Paris in fog you autoland to cat 2 minima for that is the best limits available. It is still an autoland.
This all started from a statement (by a pilot) that cat 3 (&2) was nothing to do with auto landing. I queried that because it is nonsense.
I had my occupation queried as a result.
Re: KLM cityhopper
Having the approval to do this has prevented many diversions for KLC in the last few years, much to the relief of passengers and crew alike I imagine.
Your both qualified airmen - operations, procedures & training varies between carriers at the end of the day as you just stated.
But I will say this, most of the chaps flying those Fokkers in & out of LBA have done so for many years in challenging weather.
They are experienced and professional - there is certainly not anything amateurish, reckless or "throwing it on the ground" about it. You have your procedures they have theirs and you can both agree to disagree but it is wrong for you to discredit this procedure and the pilots/carriers doing it.
I am sorry such an innocent posting to answer somebodies question on KLC CAT III capability has caused such a fuss & I hope this concludes the autoland-gate scandal.
Now, kiss & make up lol. :friends:
Having the approval to do this has prevented many diversions for KLC in the last few years, much to the relief of passengers and crew alike I imagine.
Your both qualified airmen - operations, procedures & training varies between carriers at the end of the day as you just stated.
But I will say this, most of the chaps flying those Fokkers in & out of LBA have done so for many years in challenging weather.
They are experienced and professional - there is certainly not anything amateurish, reckless or "throwing it on the ground" about it. You have your procedures they have theirs and you can both agree to disagree but it is wrong for you to discredit this procedure and the pilots/carriers doing it.
I am sorry such an innocent posting to answer somebodies question on KLC CAT III capability has caused such a fuss & I hope this concludes the autoland-gate scandal.
Now, kiss & make up lol. :friends:
Re: KLM cityhopper
It wasn't a slight at fellow professionals (KLM). It's a turn of phrase (used in my circles certainly) that anyone who disconnects at 100' will be 'throwing it at the ground' in that there is no time to get a feel for the machine, the weather, nothing so you end up pulling back at approx the right height and hoping for the best
Not implying anything gash is going on at all.
I categorically include myself in that and I've only ever disconnected at 200' minimum as per this debate. Very hard to pull a decent landing out of the bag at that stage. Even more so at Leeds!
I know the KLM guys hv done a very good job for a very long time.
I stated I'd be less happy to do this in a larger machine at LBA and suggested that that may be why Jet 2 757's aren't doing it currently.
Rgds
It wasn't a slight at fellow professionals (KLM). It's a turn of phrase (used in my circles certainly) that anyone who disconnects at 100' will be 'throwing it at the ground' in that there is no time to get a feel for the machine, the weather, nothing so you end up pulling back at approx the right height and hoping for the best
Not implying anything gash is going on at all.
I categorically include myself in that and I've only ever disconnected at 200' minimum as per this debate. Very hard to pull a decent landing out of the bag at that stage. Even more so at Leeds!
I know the KLM guys hv done a very good job for a very long time.
I stated I'd be less happy to do this in a larger machine at LBA and suggested that that may be why Jet 2 757's aren't doing it currently.
Rgds
a300boy
Well-Known Member
Re: KLM cityhopper
I only asked what your profession was as I was not sure if you were aircrew or in ops for birdseed and I still dont know. Just as a final note you might have the runway in sight at 200 ft above the 100 ft minima of a Cat 2 approach so you can disconnect the autopilot at any time on the approach. Its not mandatory to stay with the autopilot until decision height if you are visual. A pilot as you said has to asses the situation and decide the best action that is allowed. The A300 is a bigger bird than an A321 and I can only recall one problem occuring in the time I had Cat 2 and Cat 3 qualification other than in the simulator, and that was when we had a long flair during an autoland at Luton, we went around. Jet 2 pilots are not qualified to carry out Cat 2 approaches anywhere so an autoland is always done from a Cat 3 approach just like BA so Lbia is a no go for them due to the autoland problem. I think it was you who told us a BA A319 could only accept 5 kts of tailwind on 32 with a Cat 3 approach which again is strange.Our ops manual would allow us to autoland on 32 with a 10 kt tailwind at max landing weight [ 295000 lbs ] So many different limitations for different operators. Have you ever asked yourself how Flybe and Eastern Airways do Cat 2 approaches when neither aircraft types have autoland capability ?
I only asked what your profession was as I was not sure if you were aircrew or in ops for birdseed and I still dont know. Just as a final note you might have the runway in sight at 200 ft above the 100 ft minima of a Cat 2 approach so you can disconnect the autopilot at any time on the approach. Its not mandatory to stay with the autopilot until decision height if you are visual. A pilot as you said has to asses the situation and decide the best action that is allowed. The A300 is a bigger bird than an A321 and I can only recall one problem occuring in the time I had Cat 2 and Cat 3 qualification other than in the simulator, and that was when we had a long flair during an autoland at Luton, we went around. Jet 2 pilots are not qualified to carry out Cat 2 approaches anywhere so an autoland is always done from a Cat 3 approach just like BA so Lbia is a no go for them due to the autoland problem. I think it was you who told us a BA A319 could only accept 5 kts of tailwind on 32 with a Cat 3 approach which again is strange.Our ops manual would allow us to autoland on 32 with a 10 kt tailwind at max landing weight [ 295000 lbs ] So many different limitations for different operators. Have you ever asked yourself how Flybe and Eastern Airways do Cat 2 approaches when neither aircraft types have autoland capability ?
whoshotjimmi
Well-Known Member
Re: KLM cityhopper
:whiteflag:
Seriously though, I think this is a terrific debate - precisely why I love taking part on this site. However, I can't help feel that it would be better served in the runways or weather thread as the KLM point has, kind of, gone by the wayside.
Also, imagine if.....KLM were called KLC....
:whiteflag:
Seriously though, I think this is a terrific debate - precisely why I love taking part on this site. However, I can't help feel that it would be better served in the runways or weather thread as the KLM point has, kind of, gone by the wayside.
Also, imagine if.....KLM were called KLC....
- Admin
- #80
Re: KLM cityhopper
We've discussed this at length before I seem to remember. The company variations differ so much from the ops manual particularly with airlines from outside the UK. Ryanair has been quoted in the past because of it's operating differences compared with UK based carriers.
We've discussed this at length before I seem to remember. The company variations differ so much from the ops manual particularly with airlines from outside the UK. Ryanair has been quoted in the past because of it's operating differences compared with UK based carriers.
Similar threads
Remove Advertisements
Subscribe to help support your favourite forum and in return we'll remove all our advertisements. Your contribution will help to pay for things like site maintenance, domain name renewals and annual server charges.
NEW - Profile Posts
If anyone would like to share their local airport news right here in our news area let me know so I can give you the correct permissions to do so. It only takes a couple of minutes to upload a news story with an accompanying image. The news items can then be shared on the site homepage by you. #TakePart #Forums4airports Bring the news to one place!
Well it looks like I'm off to Australia and New Zealand next year! Booked with BA from Manchester via Heathrow with a stop in Singapore and returning with Air New Zealand and BA via LAX to Heathrow. Will circumnavigate the globe and be my first trans-Pacific flight. First long haul flight with BA as well and of course Air NZ.
Ashley.S. wrote on Sotonsean's profile.
Welcome to the forum, I was born and bred in Southampton.
Trending Hashtags
-
#liverpoolairportWeight: 4
-
#EasyJetWeight: 2
-
#LiverpoolJohnLennonWeight: 2
-
#Jet2Weight: 2
-
#GetUKDomesticFlightsMovingWeight: 1
-
#RYANAIRWeight: 1