Maverick Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 You're upgrading to the big bro'? I'm not 100% sure but I think you can use the autothrottles to control ground speed!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 If you are going on the upgrade course could you find out if autothrottles will work to control taxi speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bat Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 How about YYZ? Conducting Cat IIIs to 06L RVR 1200-1400. RVR 05 1400, but YYZ has imposed Cat III ops and guys are buggering off in all directions. In case you haven't been there, 20 minutes in trail from the bedposts (ie bordn, linng, etc) was the order of the day. Even with 06L reserved for CAT III ops 05 would be a Cat 1 operation (AC low vis policy not withstanding) for the rest of the gang. I can only imagine that this is a result of the manops requirements for ground manouvering in low vis conditions. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 I think that's what the "Autobrake" is for isn't it? Whattaya figure I should set it at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jastefn Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 The reason for the situation you describe has nothing to do with enforcement but with workload. ATC is busy enough in these conditions that they don't have time to unnecessarily work an aircraft that will more than likely have to hold/overshoot. I remember the days you are speaking about and several WJA aircraft did shoot the approach and miss, while other WJA did land in the same conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 On the day I'm referring too, the reported RVR's were hovering around the 1200 point. Allowing us to attempt an approach, but ATC imposed a ground hold in YYC allowing only "CAT II" aircraft into the YVR airspace. I guess the long and the short of it is that Nav Canada felt that we would be "unsuccessful" and as was said, we'd clog up the airspace and alternates. A judgement call, but I question whether it is their call to make. Some good discusion on the subject. ( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Thanks for the response. It's the phrase "unnecessarily" that has me and few at WestJet irked. How can you say we'd be unecessary? As you state some of our aircraft landed and some did not. Can Nav Canada close airspace or is the Minister of Transport responsible for that act? We can attempt an approach. There is nothing in the reg's that say we are to be banned from airspace when the weather reaches certain limits. They do state that we can not pass beyond the marker unless we have certain values. These values are published in our flight/operations manuals. Nav Canada many times is not aware of these minima, how can they turn away an aircraft because it "might" miss? As was also stated, not only do different aircraft have different capabilities, different crews on the same type of aircraft have different capabilities. In such instances it would be up to me the PiC with discussion with our dispatch, to decide not to attempt the flight because my personal limits are not conducive to arriving at destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jastefn Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 I guess when the likelihood of a successful landing is very low ATC has to look at the "big" picture. When you conduct a CAT1 approach, you effectively take away the airspace from other aircraft that will almost certainly land while conducting CAT11. If you overshoot you also temporarily shut down departures from the other runway. The other runway might have an aircraft on the runway ready to go while another is on final; the aircraft on final now has to be instructed to do the missed and so there are now 2 aircraft on missed approaches. There are many complicating factors to everything that happens in a Low Vis environment; they all form part of the decision making. The days you are speaking about had RVR values that were regularly below 1200. They went as low as 500 which shut the airport down until they reached 600 again. The 1200 RVR was in fact not the low end of the bar but the high end. In any case the airpace decisions are not made by the controllers doing the work but by the managers, so if you wish to get direct answers then call the GMIFR. I'm sure he can better explain what he is allowed to do and not. As controllers we just work the airplanes we have/get etc. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yvr_apch Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Great thread! No we (ATC) are not concerned whether you are conducting a CAT 2 'a' vs 'b'. The sooner you let us know (via the center) that you will be CAT 2 or 3, the better--as we can start planning. I would like to make some comments on CAT 2/3 operations and the effects on traffic management and arrival capacity, as I feel many pilots may not understand some of the complexities. In an earlier post fester mentioned five mile spacing, but here in YVR our spacing requirements are greater than that. These values are locally determined and are dependent upon runway layout and taxiways, etc. Our MANOPS states than in a CAT 2 or 3 operation an aircraft must be clear of the ILS critical area prior to the next arrival passing the FAF. With increased spacing requirements, things can back up very quickly (here's your holding clearance for BOOTH!) Therefore, in an arrivals only scenario (say 08L or 26R) our spacing requirements become: CAT 2 -- 7nm IN FRONT of the CAT 2 a/c CAT 3 -- 8nm IN FRONT of the CAT 3 a/c These values are dictated to us by YVR tower, and can be revised up or down dependent on local conditions. (just how slow are the aircraft at getting off the runway) I won't even get into the spacing requirements for mixed (arrivals and departures) operations off the same runway--they are insane! My point from all of this is.....if the weather is poor, but not quite CAT 2, and CAT 1 aircraft are landing.....please don't request a CAT 2 unless necessary. The extra spacing we must provide IN FRONT OF YOU can really hurt those who will be BEHIND you. Have a good ride! YVR_APCH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre Garneau Posted July 11, 2003 Author Share Posted July 11, 2003 Wow! What generous and well thought out input from each and everyone. Special appreciation to the ATC members for the insight of the planning and challenges at your end. Thanks again, and whatever you're up to, have a great weekend! Pierre Garneau AC A320 C YYZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 A while back I was arriving into YVR during quiet hours with RVR values around 2000'. The north runway was closed and ATIS showed the ILS Cat 2 for runway 08R. RVR was fluctuating but maintaining above Cat 2 minima. We requested the Cat 3A on 08L but ATC was reluctant to open the other runway. At about 1800' we were informed the RVR was 900'-1000'. A go-around was followed by a diversion to Portland which was very inconvenient. I don't even want imagine the cost of diverting a 747 but it was not cheap. My point being next time I will insist on the 3A and others behind will just have to slow up a little early. I hope ATC will understand and see it from my point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PortTack Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Sounds like you got ever reliable Newfy 1200' from tower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jastefn Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 RE: "ATC was reluctant to open the other runway" It's kind of funny how you think the situation you describe is an ATC issue. The Airport Authority determines when we can use the North RWY. Did you know that there is a possible $5000 fine to both the pilot and controller if noise abatement rules regarding the North parallel are broken. The Airport Authority has determined that they will let us use the North Runway for CAT111 operations during quiet hours, if it is required by "actual" wx conditions. They have stated to us that a pilot wanting a CAT111 when CAT11 is available on the south runway is not enough of a reason. So you can insist all you like but if the runway is closed, it really is closed until the weather determines otherwise; or maybe your company can make arrangements with the Airport Authority. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Interesting information. Does this mean the runway won't be opened until the weather drops below Cat 2 limits? How many aircraft must divert prior to opening the runway? I would suggest any RVR values below 2000' should be sufficient for opening the other runway and maybe if your involved with this decision you can discuss this within your group. CPDude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre Garneau Posted July 11, 2003 Author Share Posted July 11, 2003 "Sounds like you got ever reliable Newfy 1200' from tower".- PortTack Watchu talkin' bout, Willis????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Avcat Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 This is true. However, I still think and say "Contact!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Thanks for your thoughtful response. As we can see there is a lot going on, on both sides of the radar screen. I want to get people where they want to go, and I can see that you and those above you have guidelines and decisions "big picture" wise. Our people, above me, have had full and frank discussions with the YVR people. It will be interesting to go in on Monday and ask what the outcome of those discussions were for when we find ourselves in that position again. Take care hope to speak to you when I'm into YVR. (d) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 Hey there SD: Things are the same (or used to be) in YYZ. If wx goes below RVR2600, they go to single runway, Cat II ops. Rather than allow the Canadian operators (Jazz, WJ, etc) use the north Cat I runway and the Yanks and Others the south Cat II, they just simply close the north runway. Sure am glad they're building a sixth runway there. Lotsa water under the bridge since the 80's, eh?!! The more times change, the more things remain the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PortTack Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 If I told you, we may never get it anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 Water, beer, New Year's Levee's... Hope europe is treating you well! :> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jastefn Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 Generally speaking, few if any aircraft should end up being affected. During the quiet hours, traffic is light enough that one is usually able to make the necessary adjustments to open the North Rwy before anybody has to overshoot. This obviously was not the case for you, but I would think you fall into the situation of being a rarity. The midnight controllers can try to influence the YVRAA to try and get use of the North Rwy before wx dictates it becomes mandatory, however, in my experience it has to be extremely close to limits to be allowed. The YVRAA will not take any chances on using it before it is really required. And no, I'm not invloved in this decsion making process at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted July 12, 2003 Share Posted July 12, 2003 Aye, laddie, Aye - 'tis!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest oldebloke Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 Don,nice to see you in print these days. Nitpick,the original statement stipulated' the RVR was holding steady at 1000'but the Vis was 1/4 mile we continued'AIP9.19.2©that if the RVR is up/down then 1/4 applies. Even the TWR didn't help-he put the 1/4 in jeopardy.good thing the Actual vis'was legal by the FAF.Remember the Feds get a list of all the landings performed below CAP limits-and then choose to invetigate.That's why I recieved mine 6 months hence.Canada only does CAT3 approaches as the RVR's are stuck at 600' to accomodate the fire/rescue and 600T/Off limits-and no Greens to the gate at all fields.CAT3 AB allow, as you say ,lower VIS(175m)with the associated centre line taxi to the gate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.