@flythetube you cant start the approach if its below the vis. But landing from an approach is predicated on visibility, because we cant read visibility from a chart like we can with an altitude. that is why decision heights are based on altitudes. Thats why the visibilty dont really matter. If you see the lights before DH then you land.
@beergut111 ... The answer is. No! If the RVR is always below the required minimum for a CAT I approach, you cannot fly the CAT I approach, even if you see the lights prior DH. Back to this Video. During this approach the RVR was always below the CAT I minima. The crew could never legally made a CAT I approach during that weather. So they commenced a CAT III approach (a CAT II approach could have been also be possible). So, the title of this video is NOT mislabelled.
@mithat87 It depends on the type of aircraft, but in general auto-lands are producing a longer landing-roll compared to a good controlled manual landing, I was told.
It means that you add to the computer the destination airport the data of the same so the plane LAND itself using antennas which are positioned in the beginning of the runway
@provinho90 In the meantime I got the Info as well. The CAT IIIa Minima is for the RVR 200 m, the DH depends on the type of aircraft, which, U know that, I don´t like to mention.
great video! what do you mean by the landing is less precision than normal manual landing? oh and what airline do you work for? before taking the flight course, is there any specific academic course u have to take other than a U degree recommended by the airline?
@beergut111 The RVR is the main criteria for a precision approach. The ceiling is not regulative. If the RVR is below the CAT I Minima (i.e. 400 m) and U never, during the approach, get higher values, you are not legal to continue the approach down to the DH. If U see the lights at 300 Ft AGL, well, then U are lucky, but that does not make it a legal CAT I approach. Now we can talk about the numerous exemptions i.e. malfunctions during approach with a visual continue, but it depends on type etc
CATs means minimum visibility and minimum decision height at which pilot must deside if "to land or not to land" :) See "Instrument Landing System" on wikipedia, there's chapter about categories.
@flythetube well you didnt ask what i thought was safe, you asked if it was legal. you can start an approach with zero vis if you want. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is legal too.
@beergut111 Yes, the visibility differs during the approach. This is very common during CAT III, especially during fog patches. In Order to Land in such Conditions U have to be able to monitor you position in space all the way during touchdown, and I really doubt a human being able to do that, especially during a manual landing (that would be the consequence of flying a CAT I approach). Nevertheless, the actual RVR were 400 m at that time, to low to shoot a CAT I approach. It is not mislabeled.
@suiteno1 Hi who is "we". In this video everything is done 100% be procedure, remember, this is only a CAT IIIa approach with no automatic rollout capability..!
@beergut111 OK, slowly we are getting there :-) Yes, you can see parts of the lights a 300 Ft. Sometimes during Fog it is even possible that you see the whole runway from above, but, once you enter the fog the visibility goes down rapidly. The Fog was only a thin, but intense layer. So, it is possible that you see the lights prior reaching the DH, but the RVR is still below the required minimum for a CAT I approach. But, is it legal the fly a CAT I approach under such condition? .......
@beergut Yes, you can start the approach if the visibility is below minimum, but according to the regs I´m talking about (commercial, Europe) you have to have the minimum required visibility at least one time during the approach, i.e., most time latest at the OM. After that point, the visibility can go below the minimum again But, as I said during my postings, during this approach the RVR was all the time 400 m RVR (and even continuously decreasing). A CAT I approach would not have been legal
@beergut111 Hi, please don't be offended, but it looks like You have not understand my previous comment. Like it says in the title of this video and in my comments the actual RVR was 400 m. The lowest possible CAT I minima worldwide is 550 m. The ceiling is irrelevant. With 400 m RVR this approach could also have been a CAT II approach, but then with a higher DH. Like I said, even if you see the lights at 300 Ft, with an continuous RVR of 400 m, a CAT I approach would have been not legal.
@hkgyyzhkg I´m not a pilot, just a guy with some knowledge. Manual landing are more precise since the pilot can active control the type i.e. of touchdown. Hard or soft! Long or almost no flare. Depending of the type of weather of runway condition The autoland-program of the autopilot follows programmed parameters (Localizer or radio-altitute etc.) which are results in a save and average landing, not an optimum touchdown appropriate for the actual circumstances.
i dont know, i dont know what airport this is and I dont have the chart. i also dont have the reported weather. What i do have is approach lights in sight at 300ft.
@beergut111 With a DH of 50 Ft ! Interesting This is not the kind of operation U would do with this kind of Jet. Not here. This would be considered unsafe.
@flythetube you cant start the approach if its below the vis. But landing from an approach is predicated on visibility, because we cant read visibility from a chart like we can with an altitude. that is why decision heights are based on altitudes. Thats why the visibilty dont really matter. If you see the lights before DH then you land.
@beergut111
...
The answer is. No!
If the RVR is always below the required minimum for a CAT I approach, you cannot fly the CAT I approach, even if you see the lights prior DH.
Back to this Video.
During this approach the RVR was always below the CAT I minima. The crew could never legally made a CAT I approach during that weather.
So they commenced a CAT III approach (a CAT II approach could have been also be possible).
So, the title of this video is NOT mislabelled.
@mithat87
It depends on the type of aircraft, but in general auto-lands are producing a longer landing-roll compared to a good controlled manual landing, I was told.
It means that you add to the computer the destination airport the data of the same so the plane LAND itself using antennas which are positioned in the beginning of the runway
@provinho90
In the meantime I got the Info as well. The CAT IIIa Minima is for the RVR 200 m, the DH depends on the type of aircraft, which, U know that, I don´t like to mention.
great video!
what do you mean by the landing is less precision than normal manual landing?
oh and what airline do you work for? before taking the flight course, is there any specific academic course u have to take other than a U degree recommended by the airline?
@beergut111
The RVR is the main criteria for a precision approach. The ceiling is not regulative. If the RVR is below the CAT I Minima (i.e. 400 m) and U never, during the approach, get higher values, you are not legal to continue the approach down to the DH.
If U see the lights at 300 Ft AGL, well, then U are lucky, but that does not make it a legal CAT I approach.
Now we can talk about the numerous exemptions i.e. malfunctions during approach with a visual continue, but it depends on type etc
CATs means minimum visibility and minimum decision height at which pilot must deside if "to land or not to land" :) See "Instrument Landing System" on wikipedia, there's chapter about categories.
@beergut111
My apalogies.
Part 91 operation. Are those the Regs for large commercial Operators?
@OCXEON
I think the lights are orange/green colour coded until U are leaving the ILS CAT III protected area.
@flythetube ive flown 20,000 hours and that is the best 400m vis ive ever seen.
@flythetube no, those would be part 91k,135 and 121.
any other questions?
@flythetube well you didnt ask what i thought was safe, you asked if it was legal. you can start an approach with zero vis if you want. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is legal too.
@flythetube no, those would be 91k,135 and 121.
any other questions?
@flythetube yes so you've said. but it dont look like 400m. like i said i could see the lights at 300ft. so that is more like about 5/8 of a mile.
@flythetube no need for the instruction paragraph. Ive flown autoland back when we we're still testing the system in the L1011.
@beergut111
Yes, the visibility differs during the approach. This is very common during CAT III, especially during fog patches. In Order to Land in such Conditions U have to be able to monitor you position in space all the way during touchdown, and I really doubt a human being able to do that, especially during a manual landing (that would be the consequence of flying a CAT I approach).
Nevertheless, the actual RVR were 400 m at that time, to low to shoot a CAT I approach. It is not mislabeled.
@suiteno1
Hi
who is "we".
In this video everything is done 100% be procedure, remember, this is only a CAT IIIa approach with no automatic rollout capability..!
@gopherfive
Thank You for the explanations. I´m not so familiar with the US Regulations.
what do CATs mean? does it have to do with the speed u land when performing an ils?
@beergut111
OK, slowly we are getting there :-)
Yes, you can see parts of the lights a 300 Ft. Sometimes during Fog it is even possible that you see the whole runway from above, but, once you enter the fog the visibility goes down rapidly. The Fog was only a thin, but intense layer.
So, it is possible that you see the lights prior reaching the DH, but the RVR is still below the required minimum for a CAT I approach.
But, is it legal the fly a CAT I approach under such condition?
.......
@provinho90
good question? CAT IIIa ??!!??
@provinho90
Question marks usually mean that it is not known. I even don't know if it "less than 100 ft"
@beergut
Yes, you can start the approach if the visibility is below minimum, but according to the regs I´m talking about (commercial, Europe) you have to have the minimum required visibility at least one time during the approach, i.e., most time latest at the OM. After that point, the visibility can go below the minimum again
But, as I said during my postings, during this approach the RVR was all the time 400 m RVR (and even continuously decreasing). A CAT I approach would not have been legal
@bar2v
I corrected the title from "CAT III" to "CAT IIIa", pehabs that makes things more understandable.
@beergut111
Hi, please don't be offended, but it looks like You have not understand my previous comment. Like it says in the title of this video and in my comments the actual RVR was 400 m.
The lowest possible CAT I minima worldwide is 550 m. The ceiling is irrelevant.
With 400 m RVR this approach could also have been a CAT II approach, but then with a higher DH.
Like I said, even if you see the lights at 300 Ft, with an continuous RVR of 400 m, a CAT I approach would have been not legal.
That was awsome, tanx for your amazing video
@Espectroestelar
I think this statement is not correct, since the colour coding is also used on non High-Speed Taxiways.
@flythetube looks about 600-800 ft judging by the runway edge lights.
@flythetube ok, why are you telling me all that? im familiar with the regs.
What do you mean by autoland?
@beergut111
Nope, I kind of remembered it that way, but that´s quite a long time ago. Greettings
@beergut111
Because U are saying in your original posting that this approach is mislabeled. Which is not true, as you know for yourself.
@beergut111
Hi, ok, is that a CAT I minima?
Greetings
Flythetube
@hkgyyzhkg
I´m not a pilot, just a guy with some knowledge. Manual landing are more precise since the pilot can active control the type i.e. of touchdown. Hard or soft! Long or almost no flare. Depending of the type of weather of runway condition
The autoland-program of the autopilot follows programmed parameters (Localizer or radio-altitute etc.) which are results in a save and average landing, not an optimum touchdown appropriate for the actual circumstances.
i dont know, i dont know what airport this is and I dont have the chart. i also dont have the reported weather.
What i do have is approach lights in sight at 300ft.
@flythetube for part 91 it is.
this is CAT I weather. I seen the approach lights at 300 ft.
nice video though, just mislabeled.
thanks for the good tips!
they cut off A/P when the nose hadn't touch down.and we should cut it off after the FMC has done all the jobs.
@flythetube um yeah.....why?
@beergut111
With a DH of 50 Ft !
Interesting
This is not the kind of operation U would do with this kind of Jet. Not here. This would be considered unsafe.
It was a CAT 3, but not the A.
Nice video though!
@beergut111
OK, then you know the rules, right.
great.... 5/5
wowwwwwwwwwwwwwww