Tenerif... AUSTIN!

[Gabriel]

I would like to hear what someone with credentials (or even better EXPERIENCE) has to say...

I don't have how to verify it and anybody can lie, but this is what a self-identified NOT_US 777 pilot has to say:

This event and the ensuing commentary in this thread reflects the inherent weaknesses in how ATC operates in the United States.

I distinctly remember my first approach to DFW on extended final ‘’cleared to land” with 3 aircraft ahead interspersed with departures from the same runway!

The worrisome elements exposed in this conduct is the lack of recognition of such practices. What is inevitable with the increasing traffic volume exposes these accepted activities and behaviour that normalises risks. Inevitably this WIIL will lead to a serious and possibly unrecoverable outcome. Pushing boundaries is what resulted in the Space Shuttle Challenger accident that became a watershed moment in Managing risks - not just accepting them.

The FAA has to revise its own operating standards. Look how long it took to introduce/employ standard ICAO phraseology!

This event is a Wake-Up call. Time to act, not prevaricate.

[Evan]

I suspect that the 767 PF or PM deviating the attention outside of the instruments during a CAT-III autoland,

Wait, where are you getting autoland from? The description only said Cat III. If it's Cat IIIa or IIIb there is still a DH where one must be expected to look out the GD windows.

[Evan]

I don't have to verify it and anybody can lie, but this is what a self-identified NOT_US 777 pilot has to say:

I think it's safe to say that a hyper-competitive society in which everyone is stressed to their gills, addicted to meds and packing a gun is normalizing risk. So I guess this shouldn't surprise me. I think, from now on, I'm only flying in other countries.

[Gabriel]

Wait, where are you getting autoland from? The description only said Cat III. If it's Cat IIIa or IIIb there is still a DH where one must be expected to look out the GD windows.

Unlike CAT-I and CAT-II, Cat-III approached require autoland. Not time to transition from instrument flight to visual flight (if at all possible). Cat III-A or III-B do not require a DH as per the FAA definition.

A category III A approach is a precision instrument approach and landing with no decision height or a decision height lower than 100ft (30m) and a runway visual range not less than 700ft (200m).

A category III B approach is a precision instrument approach and landing with no decision height or a decision height lower than 50ft (15m) and a runway visual range less than 700ft (200m), but not less than 150ft (50m).

A category III C approach is a precision instrument approach and landing with no decision height and no runway visual range limitation

In a CAT-III approach you are not expected to look out of the windows, not until the DH if any (and they initiated to go around before the DH). The plane will flare, retard, touchdown, extend spoilers, lower the nose, brake and maintain the centerline all by itself. Just need to add reverse and monitor the centerline. Pilots need to monitor the instruments very closely because any loss of stabilized approach criteria (especially a NO LND message in the FMA) requires an immediate go-around.

[Gabriel]

I think, from now on, I'm only flying in other countries.

Don't exaggerate. Aviation safety in the US is extremely high. What makes me mad of this is that the risk of overlapped runway clearances (however small it is) is totally unecessary.
There are very small risks taken for the sake of practicality, cost, airspace capacity, etc. This one helps nothing, it is risk for nothing and chicks for free (no, not even chicks for free)

[Evan]

Unlike CAT-I and CAT-II, Cat-III approached require autoland. Not time to transition from instrument flight to visual flight (if at all possible). Cat III-A or III-B do not require a DH as per the FAA definition.



In a CAT-III approach you are not expected to look out of the windows, not until the DH if any (and they initiated to go around before the DH). The plane will flare, retard, touchdown, extend spoilers, lower the nose, brake and maintain the centerline all by itself. Just need to add reverse and monitor the centerline. Pilots need to monitor the instruments very closely because any loss of stabilized approach criteria (especially a NO LND message in the FMA) requires an immediate go-around.

I wasn't aware that Cat III was necessarily autoland. I thought it was just a reduced precision approach minima for aircraft with fail-operational or fail-passive autoflight down to the flare (with other requirements met).

The definition I have is:

A CAT III operation is a precision approach at lower than CAT II minima.

For example:

2.2.1CAT III A DEFINITIONS
ICAO and FAA definition
A category III A approach is a precision instrument approach and landing
with no decision height or a decision height lower than100ft(30m) and a runway
visual range not less than700ft(200m).
JAA definition
A category III A approach is a precision instrument approach and landing
with a decision height lower than100ft(30m) and a runway visual range not less
than700ft(200m).
It is worth noting that the JAA considers that CAT III A is always associated with a
decision height (difference with ICAO/FAA).

I thought only Cat IIIc was an autoland requirement.

Why do IIIa and IIIb have visibility requirements if they do not expect the pilots to look beyond the instruments?

[Gabriel]

Why do IIIa and IIIb have visibility requirements if they do not expect the pilots to look beyond the instruments?

The same document that you and I quoted say (loose paragraphs in different pages):

The main difference between CAT II / CAT III operations is that Category II provides sufficient visual reference to permit a manual landing at DH, whereas Category III does not provide sufficient visual references and requires an automatic landing system.

Approval for CAT II / CAT III operations is dependent on four elements in order to maintain the required level of safety: − the aircraft − the airfield − the flight crew − the operator All of these elements must comply with the regulations established by the operator's responsible authority. An aircraft type must be approved for CAT II / CAT III operations with an automatic landing system, which provides automatic control of the aircraft during approach and landing.

In contrast to other operations, CAT III weather minima do not provide sufficient visual references to allow a manual landing to be made. The minima only permit the pilot to decide if the aircraft will land in the touchdown zone (basically CAT III A) and to ensure safety during rollout (basically CAT III B).

Therefore an automatic landing system is mandatory to perform Category III operations. Its reliability must be sufficient to control the aircraft to touchdown in CAT III A operations and through rollout to a safe taxi speed in CAT III B (and CAT III C when authorized). Note about automatic landing: Automatic landing is not CAT III. An automatic landing system is only equipment providing automatic control of the aircraft during the approach and landing and is not related to particular weather conditions. This system is mandatory for all CAT III operations. However, it is a common practice to perform automatic landing in good visibility

4.3.1 REQUIREMENTS The automatic landing function of the AFS provides automatic guidance and control of the aircraft during approach, landing and roll-out. This is a mandatory function for all CAT III operations, but it may also be used in weather conditions better than CAT III weather conditions

.

[Evan]

The same document that you and I quoted say (loose paragraphs in different pages):

.

Interesting. I assume the language permit the pilot to decide if the aircraft will land in the touchdown zone implies a look out the window before touching down, but this would be in no way a reliable defense against collision at that point.

So, as this was autoland with no DH, then WTF was the controller thinking in letting a departure flight beyond the CAT III hold marker and into the protected area at that point? If this is SOP, than anarchy has taken over and I give up.

[Gabriel]

So, as this was autoland with no DH, then WTF was the controller thinking in letting a departure flight beyond the CAT III hold marker and into the protected area at that point? If this is SOP, than anarchy has taken over and I give up.

It was autoland (it had to be) but I don't know if with no DH. CAT-I and CAT-II may have a DH.

And again. THAT (what you said above) is not SOP. I am pretty confident that the controller broke a few rules regarding the ILS protected area (which are based on ceiling and visibility and not on the type / CAT of approach being conducted).

What IS SOP is the "in-advance" landing clearances overlapped with other vehicles being cleared to cross, land or take-off on the same runway, regardless light/dark or visibility conditions (but without breaking the ILS protected area rules). This NOT being SOP (being forbidden) would have added an additional layer of Swiss Cheese even after the failure of the previous layer (previous paragraph). Because then the FedEx would have had to go around by SOP (actually, regulation requirement of not landing unless you are cleared to do so), and not by exceptional awareness, judgment, and deciding to look out of the window in an autoland CAT-III landing while still at least 100 ft above the DH (if there was any DH), what he was not required to do.

[Evan]

I am pretty confident that the controller broke a few rules regarding the ILS protected area (which are based on ceiling and visibility and not on the type / CAT of approach being conducted).

Now you're confusing me again.

CAT II and CAT III are made possible, in part, by establishing a protected ILS area. CAT I doesn't really need this because pilots would have ample time at DH to correct for ILS distortion or go around.

So the protected ILS is specifically a requirement for CAT II or CAT III. Since CAT II and CAT III are based on ceiling and visibility, it amounts to the same thing, right? When the ceiling and visibility are below CAT I minima, it's CAT II or CAT III or no cats allowed.

First principle: We want pilots to look out the window whenever there is visibility to see the runway. We want a visual DH whenever possible.

CAT III is not there so pilots can sit back and let the airplane do the job. It's there to allow for landings in low or zero visibility where CAT II might not allow them.

The FedEx 767 was either able to establish visual with the runway above 150 or they didn't like what they were hearing over the radio. So, although the approach didn't specifically require them to put eyeballs on the runway when it came into view, airmanship did require that. They get a gold star for airmanship. But why the delay? They get a C- for not going around the moment the controller instructed SW to taxi onto the runway. That is CAT III game over.

The SW 737 should never have accepted the clearance to taxi. They violated the basic rules of CAT III. Hopefully they know the rules in the first place and that CAT III operations were in effect. They get an F.
The controller needs to go back to controller school. F-

Just to clear this up...

The CAT II/CAT III stop bars are to keep aircraft outside the ILS protected area during CAT II/CAT III operations.
CAT II always has a DH, lower than 200 but not less than 100.
CAT IIIA may have a decision height lower than 100. Or it may have no decision height.
CAT IIIB may have a decision height lower than 50. Or it may have no decision height.
CAT IIIC has no DH and no RVR minimum.

[3WE]

NOT_US 777 pilot

If we[no italics] want advice from ex-US aviation folks (or ass-hat parlour talkers on obscure aviation fora), we[no italics] will ask.

https://youtu.be/RXdjrlnJ24c

We did invent the Connie, DC-3, DC-8, DC-10, 707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777 and 787, Piper cub, 172.

Vs. engine and tank destroying tyres, and cheap composite crackerboxes and what's it doing now, jumbo jets that fail economically and those crazy spinning aeroptrasportilae de Region de France..

And oh, the ironing, who shoved the throttles forward when the tower said, "cleared".

Frankly, lets do away with the word clear.

"Cleared to land" is a purely TeeVee(i.e. legal) thing... cleared as filed, cleared for the approach, cleared to runway 99 at taxiway four quebec IMPLIES CLEARANCE TO CROSS ANY RUNWAY IN-ROUTE... doesn't that sound like a formula for TOTAL disaster? Instead of ANYONE worrying about checking a legal box, let's just all watch the runway (or ground radar or ADSBTCASLATESTGREATESTACRONYMTHING) for abort/go-around decisions.

[3WE]

I assume the language permit the pilot to decide if the aircraft will land in the touchdown zone implies a look out the window before touching down.

I THINK it implies that the needles and radar altitudes and maybe even a heads-up synthetic division display ARE NEAR-PERFECT TO WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE...

Also, I think the ILS protected area is enforced for the good of Cat I approaches, as well as II, III, IV, V VI, VII, VIII IX and X approaches...Although the ILS signal is used for almost all approaches, based upon extremely general, NOT_type-specific, good operating procedures, there's probably an additional ceiling and visibility number when the protection kicks in.

On beautiful Sunday afternoons, I guess you CAN go past the ILS hold lines, but Hui Theiu Lo, still needs to maybe glance at the airspeed with a bit of critical attention, regardless of the Autopilot Acronym Mode.

[Gabriel]

Now you're confusing me again.

CAT II and CAT III are made possible, in part, by establishing a protected ILS area. CAT I doesn't really need this because pilots would have ample time at DH to correct for ILS distortion or go around.

So the protected ILS is specifically a requirement for CAT II or CAT III. Since CAT II and CAT III are based on ceiling and visibility, it amounts to the same thing, right? When the ceiling and visibility are below CAT I minima, it's CAT II or CAT III or no cats allowed.

3-7-5. PRECISION APPROACH CRITICAL AREA

a. Aircraft and vehicle access to the ILS critical area must be controlled to ensure the integrity of ILS course signals whenever the official weather observation is a ceiling of less than 800 feet or visibility less than 2 miles. Unless the arriving aircraft has reported the runway in sight or is circling to land to another runway, do not authorize vehicles/aircraft to operate in or over the critical area, except as specified in subparagraph a1, whenever an arriving aircraft is inside the ILS outer marker (OM) or the fix used in lieu of the OM.

1. LOCALIZER CRITICAL AREA

(a) Do not authorize vehicle or aircraft operations in or over the area when an arriving aircraft is inside the ILS OM or the fix used in lieu of the OM when the official weather observation is a ceiling of less than 800 feet or visibility less than 2 miles, except:

(1) A preceding arriving aircraft on the same or another runway that passes over or through the area while landing or exiting the runway.

(2) A preceding departing aircraft or missed approach on the same or another runway that passes through or over the area.

(b) In addition to subparagraph a1(a), when the official weather observation indicates a ceiling of less than 200 feet or RVR 2,000 feet, do not authorize vehicles or aircraft operations in or over the area when an arriving aircraft is inside the middle marker, or in the absence of a middle marker,1/2 mile final.

2. GLIDESLOPE CRITICAL AREA. Do not authorize vehicles or aircraft operations in or over the area when an arriving aircraft is inside the ILS OM or the fix used in lieu of the OM unless the arriving aircraft has reported the runway in sight or is circling to land on another runway when the official weather observation indicates a ceiling of less than 800 feet or visibility less than 2 miles.

b. Operators commonly conduct “coupled” or “autoland” approaches to satisfy maintenance, training, or reliability program requirements. Promptly issue an advisory if the critical area will not be protected when an arriving aircraft advises that a “coupled,” “CATIII,” “autoland,” or similar type approach will be conducted and the official weather observation indicates a ceiling of 800 feet or more, or the visibility is 2 miles or more.

[Gabriel]

cleared to runway 99 at taxiway four quebec IMPLIES CLEARANCE TO CROSS ANY RUNWAY IN-ROUTE.

it doesn't. You need a specific clearance to cross any active runway and ATC needs a correct readback.

[3WE]

it doesn't. You need a specific clearance to cross any active runway and ATC needs a correct readback.

Ummmmmmmm.

I said any, you said active…

Pretty sure ground can CLEAR you to your takeoff runway and you have CLEARANCE to cross INACTIVE runways (and maybe active ones, too since ATC might know if there’s a gap in activity.)

However, if they say TAXI to your takeoff runway, you do not_have CLEARANCE to cross other runways.

….and yes, taxi instructions should also say HOLD SHORT if that is needed.

At flyover, planes routinely cross the “crosswind” runway which is usually inactive.