Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Below minimums in medevac

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    Okay, a risk is always present. But how relevant is this risk.
    Are you saying that 200 ft & 1/2 mile is more dangerous than 800 feet and 2 miles? Both are IMC.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
      Sorry Gabriel, I have been in there twice. it is an alternate for us when we go into B.A.
      And you parked in the TDZE in fog without the tower knowing about it?
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
        Sorry Gabriel, I have been in there twice. it is an alternate for us when we go into B.A.
        And you where there "by mistake"?????

        I meant the chances of a 747 being on let's say the first half of the runway 18 with the pilot mistakenly thinking that he is on a taxiway or ramp.

        The airport diagram is so simple. There are no taxiways or runway intersections at all in that zone of the runway. The first intersection with a taxiway is like 1500m down the runway.

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          Are you saying that 200 ft & 1/2 mile is more dangerous than 800 feet and 2 miles? Both are IMC.
          No. I was talking of this risk in this specific situation when landing on RWY 18 at SACO:

          Originally posted by Gabriel
          Again, I think that there was no significant risk of killing anybody else but the two pilots. Does this makes it acceptable? No. Not by itself at least.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
            And you parked in the TDZE in fog without the tower knowing about it?

            No on purpose!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              ...Nothing that would prevent a 747 packed with poor and hungry refugees being sitting in the middle of the runway by mistake, when the pilot thinks and informs ATC that he is safely holding on the taxiway, and neither the landing pilot nor the tower can see them due to the fog...
              1) Absolute statements are almost always wrong.

              2) A lot of airports have ground RADAR.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                1) Absolute statements are almost always wrong.
                That's absolutely almost always right!

                2) A lot of airports have ground RADAR.
                Yes, but those airports have it and use it in CAT III B and CAVU conditions.
                And, AFAIK, ground radar is not required for CAT III B ops and a lot of airports that are CAT-III-B-worthy lack ground radar.

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • #38
                  I agree that it is unlikely that a 747 would be erroneously parked on the runway at this particular airport.

                  Cat III airports have increased approach lighting, runway lighting, reduced light spacing, different hold point markings, stop bars, etc etc. It would be far easier for someone to stray onto a runway. For example, departing pilot gets told to taxi and hold short at xxx before backtracking for departure, it would be easier to do this in fog at a non cat IIIB airport than at a Cat IIIB one. Simply because of the changed taxiway markings. But again, it is very unlikely that would be an issue at this particular airport, given if the visibility is that bad aircraft would be unlikely to be taxiing anyway...

                  But thats kind of not the point. It is not appropriate for pilots to be making an assessment, on approach, of things like 'the runway has no crossing intersections so its unlikely someone is there when they shouldn't be', and 'there's nothing at the end of the runway for us to hit if we go off the end or touch down short' for a PLANNED operation. They are the sort of assessments you make when you've got an aircraft emergency and are trying to pick the lesser of two evils. Aircraft with brakes on fire at maximum take off weight, two available runways, one slightly longer with a cliff at the end vs a shorter one that is just below the published landing distance but has a few empty fields at the end. That sort of thing.

                  In the Lear example, how is the pilot sure he is landing in the touch down zone? Or even on the runway? Wouldn't be the first to land on a taxiway instead, or float when he loses visibility and land on the edge lights. How does he know where on the runway he is landing, given his visibility will be extremely poor? Its hard enough to be sure you're on the centreline in those conditions doing an auto land when all you're doing is trying to see the runway, let alone trying to fly an aircraft at the same time. I'm wondering if people fully understand just how significant 50m is. It is below CAT IIIB minima!

                  Aside: when conducting a CATIII B approach, does the tower take added precautions with ground operations?
                  In addition to what BoeingBobby has said, there are a few other precautions taken. For example: Depending on the airport setup, sometimes only one aircraft is allowed on the manoeuvring area at any one time (common practice for airports not set up for low visibility arrivals). Taxi routes will sometimes be issued in smaller segments instead of a long confusing one. Safety vehicle works etc may be suspended to prevent someone stumbling where they shouldn't be. Pilots also have to report clear of the ILS critical/sensitive areas after landing.

                  Ground radar makes a big difference and increases movement rates significantly.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by MCM View Post
                    ...I'm wondering if people fully understand just how significant 50m is. It is below CAT IIIB minima!...
                    I think it helps to think of this stuff in terms of time. 50m is about 10 sec from a nasty touchdown

                    The thing that got my attention is that if you reach the DH at Cat II minimums and go missed there's a real chance that the plane still touches down as the descent is arrested...or so I read somewhere.
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X