CAT III landing

[edyvw]

Most of us who follow aviation are familiar with CAT III. Some like @Astro14 and some other here execute this often:



Then there is this "CAT III" Landing:



A friend of mine who flew MIG21 and had to move to helicopters because of a back injury, said: "We were always telling helicopter pilots how they are flying that machine because they're just not as good as we are. Then it was my turn to fly a helicopter, and I figured out I might actually die landing in some village of 10 people because I have to deliver bread."

 

[wwillson]

@Astro14 and I did a near zero visibility auto-land into DIA the last time we flew the 767-400 sim. We felt the mains land before we could see anything. All indications on the instruments and all annunciations were perfectly normal, but you can't see anything outside. It's kinda spooky, but it's no different than flying in the clouds, except you are landing in the clouds. The computer does a wonderful landing.

 

[y_p_w]

I've seen similar conditions due to pollution in China. It was really bad with tons of cancellations all over the country and where our connecting flight was cancelled. I was at Pudong Airport talking to other Americans trying to get where they were going, but we ended up staying overnight about a mile away although we found our hotel through some sketchy character offering to help, although it ended up OK with maybe a $45 hotel stay. I think he got a finders fee for the trouble.

 

[Exhaustgases]

How come synthetic vision isn't required? Even adding IR and SAR to the mix, all would make zero visibility operations easy enough a 10 year old could do it.

 

[Astro14]

How come synthetic vision isn't required? Even adding IR and SAR to the mix, all would make zero visibility operations easy enough a 10 year old could do it.

I can land with 300 RVR using existing systems. No minimum ceiling required.

Synthetic vision does not get me any lower - in fact, it still requires a 200’ decision height.

I can land in much worse weather than that using the existing CAT III systems and approaches. If my system is degraded, I can use a 50’ decision height. Far better than many of the airlines that use HUDs for low visibility operations. Better than the synthetic vision minima.

So, why should my airline pay millions to retrofit every airplane (with over 900 airplanes, a couple million per airplane is a couple billion for the company) and millions more to train pilots, when synthetic vision doesn’t buy any additional capability?

 

[Astro14]

@Astro14 and I did a near zero visibility auto-land into DIA the last time we flew the 767-400 sim. We felt the mains land before we could see anything. All indications on the instruments and all annunciations were perfectly normal, but you can't see anything outside. It's kinda spooky, but it's no different than flying in the clouds, except you are landing in the clouds. The computer does a wonderful landing.

That is what it is like in the real world. Winter in Zurich, like the example. Mains touch down and I still don’t see anything…

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I have only done two, real CAT 3 approach’s.

Minimum RVR 250 feet.

 

[c502cid]

I've seen similar conditions due to pollution in China. It was really bad with tons of cancellations all over the country and where our connecting flight was cancelled. I was at Pudong Airport talking to other Americans trying to get where they were going, but we ended up staying overnight about a mile away although we found our hotel through some sketchy character offering to help, although it ended up OK with maybe a $45 hotel stay. I think he got a finders fee for the trouble.

In my many trips to China the delays in take off and landing are because of the pollution. When I do talk to the pilots they tell me it's on instruments much of the time almost anywhere in the country.

 

[wwillson]

I have only done two, real CAT 3 approach’s.

Minimum RVR 250 feet.

That surprises me with your ~25,000 hours of experience. Is the reason for so few real CAT III approaches the geography you fly into?

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

That surprises me with your ~25,000 hours of experience. Is the reason for so few real CAT III approaches the geography you fly into?

I have flown for many companies in the past, but none of those aircraft had CAT 3 capability. If they did, I would have done lots of them because I have flown in areas where the weather is prone to fog and low ceilings ( Newfoundland ...I used to live and fly for an Airline there ). I flew down to CAt 1 limits, manually, no auto pilot and lots of go-arounds holds, and diversions.

Today, I RARELY fly to places that even have an ILS except on the return leg home but my home base, Montreal, doesn't have CAT 3 approaches and isn't known for bad fog anyway.

I normally fly to the Caribbean by choice ( most productive, long, high credit hour turns ). I just got back from a long Cancun turn.

When I say I have only flown two, I mean approaches close to CAT 3 weather minimums like in that video ( ceiling height 0 and 250 feet runway forward visibility ) despite having done around 20 I guess.

I do not consider anything real CAT 3 unless it is like in that video despite having technically flown them.

Interesting flying a CAT 3 into a place like Newfoundland because it's one of the few places that have thick fog with strong surface winds that can exceed the Auto Land limits.

You often have to do two separate approach briefings ( Cat 1 , CAT 2 ) when the ATIS shows the ceiling slightly below CAT 1 limits but the winds are on the limit for a CAT 2 auto land (weather can change very fast from time start descent until close to the airport with arrival controller ).

Max crosswind is 20 knots ( but company limit is 15 ) and 30-knot headwind or else cannot auto land.

I do them in the sim to requalify but there is no big deal since the autopilot does all the work, plus landing.

It is A LOT more work landing in a 35 knot cross-wind, manually ( rare, done it maybe three times on the Airbus )

I bid max credit hour turns and most routes are sun destinations ( PHX, LAS, LAX, Florida, Caribbean, Bahamas, Central America, Kelowna BC, Cancun, Mexico City, ).

Rumors are that B737 will take over my flying and I will switch to the B777 if that happens and maybe see some fog LOL.

 

[E365]

I’m about to start my 20th year as an airline pilot. I too could probably count the number of landings at actual CATIII minimums on one hand. Maybe I’ve just been lucky?

But, I also flew 7 years on a Saab 340 that was only CAT1 approved, so we would have cancelled if it was that bad. I’ve probably declared an emergency for severe icing just as many times as I’ve actually gone down to 50’ above the runway on a CATIII

Regardless, it’s not common for me.

 

[E365]

I fly a 737 and we can land with the HUD (autopilot off) down to 50’ above the runway and 600’ visibility, which is the same as our CATIII autoland minimums. BUT, the 737 can’t autoland with one engine, so the only landing benefit with the HUD would be the rare scenario you’d be flying with one engine AND you need to land in very poor conditions.

737 can takeoff with HUD down to 300’ visibility, which is the main benefit. But again, that’s super rare.

 

[y_p_w]

In my many trips to China the delays in take off and landing are because of the pollution. When I do talk to the pilots they tell me it's on instruments much of the time almost anywhere in the country.

I understand another issue is that the military basically controls the airspace, so they get priority when visibility is bad.

However, on our last day in China on that trip, we were back in Pudong where our taxi driver (who spoke our language) was saying that the skies were about as clear as they'd be all year. It was at least 25 miles clear visibility. So we saw the extremes of air pollution in Shanghai on that trip.

 

[4WD]

I have flown for many companies in the past, but none of those aircraft had CAT 3 capability. If they did, I would have done lots of them because I have flown in areas where the weather is prone to fog and low ceilings ( Newfoundland ...I used to live and fly for an Airline there ). I flew down to CAt 1 limits, manually, no auto pilot and lots of go-arounds holds, and diversions.

Today, I RARELY fly to places that even have an ILS except on the return leg home but my home base, Montreal, doesn't have CAT 3 approaches and isn't known for bad fog anyway.

I normally fly to the Caribbean by choice ( most productive, long, high credit hour turns ). I just got back from a long Cancun turn.

When I say I have only flown two, I mean approaches close to CAT 3 weather minimums like in that video ( ceiling height 0 and 250 feet runway forward visibility ) despite having done around 20 I guess.

I do not consider anything real CAT 3 unless it is like in that video despite having technically flown them.

Interesting flying a CAT 3 into a place like Newfoundland because it's one of the few places that have thick fog with strong surface winds that can exceed the Auto Land limits.

You often have to do two separate approach briefings ( Cat 1 , CAT 2 ) when the ATIS shows the ceiling slightly below CAT 1 limits but the winds are on the limit for a CAT 2 auto land (weather can change very fast from time start descent until close to the airport with arrival controller ).

Max crosswind is 20 knots ( but company limit is 15 ) and 30-knot headwind or else cannot auto land.

I do them in the sim to requalify but there is no big deal since the autopilot does all the work, plus landing.

It is A LOT more work landing in a 35 knot cross-wind, manually ( rare, done it maybe three times on the Airbus )

I bid max credit hour turns and most routes are sun destinations ( PHX, LAS, LAX, Florida, Caribbean, Bahamas, Central America, Kelowna BC, Cancun, Mexico City, ).

Rumors are that B737 will take over my flying and I will switch to the B777 if that happens and maybe see some fog LOL.

Yep - have seen 70 mph fog coalesce on everything and launch sheets of high velocity water … and that ocean is a tough place to put one down in … Beautiful countryside - but brutal weather …

 

[Exhaustgases]

@Astro14, Just questions here. Do they have FLIR type systems and SAR combined ? Its too bad things like this can't be way more affordable, so many lives could be saved especially with the small planes and helicopters. If I was to fly again I'd want the CAS/ TAS, altitude encoding transponder etc etc. I've watched too many of those air disaster shows. So is synthetic vision not as good because it is GPS based?
What is the latest and greatest system now?

 

[wpod]

I will humbly say I can not imagine the skill level needed to be a pilot.

 

[Astro14]

@Astro14, Just questions here. Do they have FLIR type systems and SAR combined ? Its too bad things like this can't be way more affordable, so many lives could be saved especially with the small planes and helicopters. If I was to fly again I'd want the CAS/ TAS, altitude encoding transponder etc etc. I've watched too many of those air disaster shows. So is synthetic vision not as good because it is GPS based?
What is the latest and greatest system now?

We completely agree about small airplanes and helicopters- Kobe Bryant comes to mind.

My understanding of synthetic vision is that they still have landing minimum, at which point you have to be able to perceive the runway.

And while FLIR is great, I used to have one on the Tomcat, and I used to have one in the Hornet, but they cannot see through fog and clouds very well. It turns out that moisture in the atmosphere is a really good IR attenuator.

So, with a synthetic aperture radar, and a forward-looking infrared, installed, both of which on an airliner are gonna cost millions of dollars to do and get certified, it still doesn’t get you to zero visibility.

The real gain is on light, aircraft and helicopters, if the synthetic vision is based off of GPS signals, which are relatively available, instead of expensive complex and sophisticated new systems, then there’s really some room for improvement there.

But airliners as they are right now, are remarkably good. My landing minima for cat three is 300 feet RVR with no ceiling. Frankly, it’s hard to drive in those conditions, much less fly an airplane. Wayne mentioned landing a simulator and 300 RVR, and it bears repeating.

At the moment that the main wheels touchdown, you can’t see anything from the ccockpit, and by anything I mean even the runway in front of you. You are still in the fog because you are 35 to 40 feet in the air. as the airplane derotates, and the nose gear comes down to the runway, then you can just see a little bit of runway in front of you, but at roughly 120 or so knots, 300 feet visibility is half a second in front of you, you are no condition to taxi the airplane. So, you let the auto brakes stop the airplane while the auto pilot tracks centerline.

Then, when you’re down to about 15 kn, you very carefully exit the runway at your preplanned point and make darn sure that you are where you think you are. It is not easy.

So, all that to say that I just don’t see the return on investment when it comes to airliners. The systems that we’ve developed and installed actually work really well.

Depending on the cost of installation, there may be some great safety gains for small airplanes. Even then, though, you still need to be instrument rated.

Further, the majority of crashes, including Kobe‘s, helicopter crash, are because of visual-only pilot flew into instrument conditions, and I’m not sure synthetic vision is going to help in that situation. It might, but I worry about someone being overconfident, because now they have synthetic vision, and they need not follow the rules of VFR.

JFK Jr. Comes to mind in flying into instrument conditions while technically still VFR…

 

[wwillson]

Kobe Bryant comes to mind

From the NTSB report which is available on-line:

The pilot, age 50, had worked for Island Express for about 10 years. According to FAA records,
the pilot held an FAA commercial certificate with ratings for helicopter and instrument
helicopter, as well as an FAA instructor certificate for flight, instrument, and ground instruction.
11 of 11
His most recent FAA second-class medical certificate was issued on July 3, 2019, with a
limitation stating, “must have glasses for near vision.” At the time of his last medical application,
he reported 8,200 total hours of flight experience. The pilot logged about 1,250 total hours in the
S76 helicopter. His most recent flight review, including proficiency training in inadvertent entry
into instrument meteorological conditions (IIMC) and unusual attitude recovery, was conducted
in a helicopter with EUROSAFETY International on May 8, 2019. The pilot received
satisfactory grades for these maneuvers.

He was an experienced helicopter pilot and held a flight instructor certificate with an instrument endorsement. He was certified to teach primary, commercial, ATP, and instruments in helicopters. However, the company he flew for was only certified for VRF conditions. Having little to no current IFR time, he was not proficient on instruments and simply lost control of the helicopter.

Practicing recovery from an unusual attitude that you know is coming is a whole world different than getting into a real unusual attitude that you didn't expect. Yes, I've done both and when you find yourself pointing somewhere you didn't expect, while in the clouds, it is very disorienting (an instrument student froze on the controls and for a bit wouldn't let go). You need to know how to recover and be proficient in doing so, else the outcome may be less than satisfactory.

The helicopter was perfectly capable of flying in IMC, but the pilot wasn't.

 

[billt460]

If you look at these high profile "spatial disorientation" accidents, like Kobe and JFK Jr. How can they not at some point look at their instruments, (artificial horizon, rate of climb / descent), and instantly determine what's going on?

I might be able to understand JFK Jr. because he had limited flying experience. But Kobe's pilot was the best that helo service had. He supposedly had over 6,000 hours in helicopters.

It's almost hard to believe a pilot with that much experience could crash while flying over 180 MPH, while descending at over 4,000 FPM, and be totally unaware of it. And he transitioned into that from basically level flight, in mere seconds, not minutes.

 

[Astro14]

If you look at these high profile "spatial disorientation" accidents, like Kobe and JFK Jr. How can they not at some point look at their instruments, (artificial horizon, rate of climb / descent), and instantly determine what's going on?

I might be able to understand JFK Jr. because he had limited flying experience. But Kobe's pilot was the best that helo service had. He supposedly had over 6,000 hours in helicopters.

It's almost hard to believe a pilot with that much experience could crash while flying over 180 MPH, while descending at over 4,000 FPM, and be totally unaware of it. And he transitioned into that from basically level flight, in mere seconds, not minutes.

It’s harder than most people imagine. When you look at your instruments, you have to create a mental model of where the airplane is (altitude, attitude, heading, speed, all of it).

Our bodies weren’t designed for flight. We use our eyes to see the ground, and determine simple up/down and level. Our inner ear, which gives us balance, can handle the relatively modest speeds and acceleration of walking, running, climbing.

So, with the lack of a horizon, and the loss of that visual reference, it has to be created. But at the same time, the acceleration (G force) of flight is creating signals in our inner ear that scream “you’re leaning, you’re falling” to our brain. It takes a great deal of discipline, as well as a great deal of practice, to ignore your basic instinct for survival, which is screaming at you, that you must respond to it, and trust your instruments instead.

As an exercise, back in college, when I was rowing, we all did a balance experiment. You held a baseball bat vertically over the ground. You place your head on the handle of the bat so that your head was parallel to the ground even though you were standing up. Your buddies spun you around a couple of times, this is where the inner ear comes in, and got the fluid in your inner ear moving. Then you stand up abruptly.

Even though your eyes are level when you stand up, because of the motion of fluid in your inner ear, it is screaming that the floor is moving, and as you stand up, you instinctively move to balance, which, of course leads to you falling over, and in one case, one of our team members jumped backwards, spectacularly falling over at the floor that was rising up to hit him.

So, if you ever want to try and see what it’s like to look at instruments, while your inner ear is confused, and understand what a pilot is experiencing during vertigo, give that little drill a try.

Hold the bat straight up and down, perpendicular to the floor, and place your for head on the handle of the bat, looking down at the floor. Then, spin around a couple of times, and then stand up quickly.

Tell me which one takes primacy: your eyes, or your inner ear.