BA near miss

tut · Post by **tut** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:51 pm

Yet at the initial interview, the F/O said they were carrying out an auto landing.

If your minimum visibility is 75m, what is your minimum cloud base, or breakout height?

Cheers

tut

Post by **pete** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:00 pm

tut wrote:Yet at the initial interview, the F/O said they were carrying out an auto landing.

If your minimum visibility is 75m, what is your minimum cloud base, or breakout height?

Cheers

tut

A more complete answer to your ILS question.

CAT3a 200/50 Auto land. No roll out guidance, auto-throttles and auto pilot disconnected immediately after landing. Crew control aircraft through rollout. (737-300 and older probably).
CAT3b 75/0 Auto land and roll out. Crew taxi aircraft to stand (hence need for 75m). (Later 737s, Airbus etc)
CAT3c 0/0. Autoland and taxi to ramp. Not implemented anywhere to my knowledge (nor to anyone in my brief straw-poll).

Pretty much what I said earlier but more succinctly!

Pete

r055 · Post by **r055** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:04 pm

ahhh and extract from the good ol' CAP168...

...was my bible for a few years

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?c ... ail&id=232

tut · Post by **tut** » Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:37 pm

Thanks Pete, I got the 0/0 wrong as I did not realise that it had not yet been implemented.

Good thing though. Even 75m is more suitable for a tortoise, and landing in 0 is just not natural.

Still interested in my question though. You are the pilot, its for real, you have not got visual reference at 75m, Robin could work out what height you would be at on a 3 deg flight path but very low, can you still safely overshoot with hitting full throttle?

tut

Post by **pete** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:18 am

tut wrote:Thanks Pete, I got the 0/0 wrong as I did not realise that it had not yet been implemented.

Good thing though. Even 75m is more suitable for a tortoise, and landing in 0 is just not natural.

Still interested in my question though. You are the pilot, its for real, you have not got visual reference at 75m, Robin could work out what height you would be at on a 3 deg flight path but very low, can you still safely overshoot with hitting full throttle?

tut

OK I kick started my ancient trigonometry knowledge and came up with this...

Short answer,
No he can not over shoot.

Longer answer,
No. The 75 m visibility translates to a slant distance (as you are not interested in seeing forward, just down to the ground) which means on a 3 degree glide slope you are at approx 12 feet + MEH (minimum eye height - the distance from the pilot's eye to the ground varies hugely depending on type - it is 64 feet in a 747!) from the ground.

If IAS is 140 knots then descent is roughly 700fpm. So the pilot would break cloud 1 second before landing.

But on a CAT 3b approach you are not to go around as there is no decision height. The aircraft is carrying out an autoland with autothrottle and auto rollout (see aircraft of the future joke*), the 75m is not calculated by you but by transmissometers** and is a minima to make sure you can taxi. The runway occupancy is dictated by ATC. The integrity of the ILS by Tels (part of ATC). The Pilot is there to park the plane and watch for red lights in the cockpit!

In the EGLL incident the autothrottles asked for power, the engines didn't respond, the pilots responded to an alarm, probably trying to initiate a go around, according to the reports the engines still didn't respond to manual throttles and the plane landed short...

Pete

*In the future there will be one pilot in the cockpit and a dog. The pilot is there to make sure nothing goes wrong and the dog to bite the pilot if he touches anything.
**I only mention transmissometers so I can tell you I have two in my garden. OK they aren't technically transmissometers but transmissometer housings but still enough to earn me the coveted "Most Legitimate Use of The Word Transmissometer in a Single Post" Prize.

tut · Post by **tut** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:26 pm

Pete

Thanks for the illuminating explanation of how you would die if it was for real, but mostly for technical post of the year with coming up with a word such as "TRANSMISSOMETERS".

Now that is the sort of word that they would expect from me if I was bullsh*tting, but seems that it could even be in the Oxford.

tut

RDH · Post by **RDH** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:35 pm

tut wrote:Pete

Thanks for the illuminating explanation of how you would die if it was for real, but mostly for technical post of the year with coming up with a word such as "TRANSMISSOMETERS".

Now that is the sort of word that they would expect from me if I was bullsh*tting, but seems that it could even be in the Oxford.

tut

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmissometer

Did you write this Pete?

tut · Post by **tut** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:09 pm

ps I presume that if ATC gave you an RVR of less than 75m then you would not attempt a landing, but either hold for an improvement or divert?

However if they gave you a 100m, you would carry on with an auto landing, and if you still did not have visual by 75m, you would listen to the dog and leave the controls alone, you cannot overshoot, so you would let the A/C carry out the landing.

tut

tut · Post by **tut** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:20 pm

pss Thank f**k I mostly flew helicopters...............

<BG>

tut

tut · Post by **tut** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:41 pm

Don't be silly Rob, Robin wrote that in between a discourse on his discovery of a cure for Cancer, and that the the practicality of achieving nuclear fusion at room temperature was so simple, that it had been staring everybody in the face. Einstein was just over complicating it.

As for time travel, just do not get me started..............

tut

ps early on the Laphroaig today, life, the Universe, and kids getting me down a bit.

pss Scotty you waste of oxygen, where is my bloody diagram? Tis getting cold.

Scottd · Post by **Scottd** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 3:09 am

This whole story was dodgy from the start IMHO, co-pilot landed it?!? WTF? G. Brown HAD to go to China so it was a complete cover up / give the press a hero story from the start, again IMHO.

SKY news - Heathrow Crash: 'No Engine Defect'
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,, ... 84,00.html

Interesting to note that since UK state television (BBC) was thoroughly kicked into line after the Hutton enquiry it's no surprise they are reporting G. Brown friendly ambiguous nonsense.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid ... =1&bbcws=1

Video I'm afraid, I'll be curious to see if the BBC revise this now SKY has released a little more of the truth.

Scary that we get more 'independent / liberal' news from a billionaire megalomaniac and owner of US Fox News

Rich H · Post by **Rich H** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:19 am

Saw something about cavitation in the main fuel pumps, seems a bit spurious.

AAIB report will reveal the truth. Probably...

tenkfeet · Post by **tenkfeet** » Tue Feb 19, 2008 1:33 pm

The report:

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/sites/aaib/c ... G-YMMM.pdf

I heard a rumour that they thought ice may have been the cause .

woody · Post by **woody** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:43 pm

tenkfeet wrote:The report:

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/sites/aaib/c ... G-YMMM.pdf

I heard a rumour that they thought ice may have been the cause .

Ice crystals blocking the fuel/oil heat exchangers (they work just like a laminova oil cooler) but no 100% proof.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 898265.ece

DDtB · Post by **DDtB** » Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:14 pm

Oh goody...

Looking forward to my flight on a 777 tomorrow now....

Scottish Elises

BA near miss

Re: BA near miss

Re: BA near miss

Re: BA near miss

Re: BA near miss

Re: BA near miss