Pilots of America Message Board

Home Live Chat
Go Back   Pilots of America Message Board > Pilot's Lounge > Hangar Talk

Hangar Talk Open forum for discussion of any topic you like, aviation related or otherwise (but no spin zone material, see below).

Virtually all topics in this forum are permitted - so long as they are discussed in a civil manner.

NOTE: Politics and religion and any other topic likely to become highly charged must be posted in The Spin Zone. To gain access to the Spin Zone, click this link and join the Spin Zone group.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 5th, 2012, 12:25 PM   #1
Jaybird180 Jaybird180 is offline
(User ID: Jaybird180)
En-Route
 
Jaybird180's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Near DC
Posts: 4,923
Capable approach or unsafe?

Looks like a 0/0 approach in a Cirrus Perspective EVS. Not sure this is safe or legal, but it was done in Germany. Thoughts?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeaFb...e_gdata_player
__________________
Green Belt PP(HP)ASEL
Part Owner: 1998 Cessna Skyhawk SP

Senator Long: “The only difference I ever found between the Democratic leadership and the Republican leadership is that one of them is skinning you from the ankle up and the other, from the neck down.”
Jaybird180 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2012, 12:44 PM
Posted in reply to Jaybird180's post "Capable approach or unsafe?"
  #2
Greg Bockelman Greg Bockelman is online now
(User ID: Greg Bockelman)
Final Approach
Pilots Of America Management
 
Greg Bockelman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lee's Summit, MO
Posts: 6,362
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaybird180 View Post
Looks like a 0/0 approach in a Cirrus Perspective EVS. Not sure this is safe or legal, but it was done in Germany. Thoughts?
What makes you think it was a 0/0 approach?

FWIW, having never seen it in person, that synthetic vision display on the right, at the end, was pretty cool.
__________________
Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing.

-Helen Keller


They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

-Benjamin Franklin
Greg Bockelman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2012, 01:50 PM
Posted in reply to Jaybird180's post "Capable approach or unsafe?"
  #3
Jaybird180 Jaybird180 is offline
(User ID: Jaybird180)
En-Route
 
Jaybird180's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Near DC
Posts: 4,923
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

Possibly it was white out in the camera due to sun. Highly possible. I didn't think of that.

But let's assume for the sake of discussion it was 0/0.
__________________
Green Belt PP(HP)ASEL
Part Owner: 1998 Cessna Skyhawk SP

Senator Long: “The only difference I ever found between the Democratic leadership and the Republican leadership is that one of them is skinning you from the ankle up and the other, from the neck down.”
Jaybird180 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2012, 02:14 PM   #4
Piloto Piloto is online now
(User ID: Piloto)
Position and Hold
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 940
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaybird180 View Post
Possibly it was white out in the camera due to sun. Highly possible. I didn't think of that.

But let's assume for the sake of discussion it was 0/0.
I agree since the camera aperture was set for the panel light.

As for legality the video on the right screen looks from a FLIR (Forward Looking Infra Red) camera. My understanding of the regulation is that you can perform a legal a 0/0 approach as long as you have visual ques to the runway, which is the case here. This is what has made FLIR and EVS system attractive. Synthetic vision does not qualify since you can not determine a runway obstruction (another plane on the runway) with it. Beware that FLIR capability is limited by the density of the fog. Radar technology is not limited by the fog but has less resolution than FLIR, it is very expensive (over $100K) and would not fit in a piston single.

José
Piloto is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2012, 05:53 PM
Posted in reply to Piloto's post "Re: Capable approach or unsafe?"
  #5
Kent kkoran is offline
(User ID: kkoran)
Position and Hold
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Renton, WA
Posts: 988
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piloto View Post
I agree since the camera aperture was set for the panel light.

As for legality the video on the right screen looks from a FLIR (Forward Looking Infra Red) camera. My understanding of the regulation is that you can perform a legal a 0/0 approach as long as you have visual ques to the runway, which is the case here. This is what has made FLIR and EVS system attractive. Synthetic vision does not qualify since you can not determine a runway obstruction (another plane on the runway) with it. Beware that FLIR capability is limited by the density of the fog. Radar technology is not limited by the fog but has less resolution than FLIR, it is very expensive (over $100K) and would not fit in a piston single.

José
Your understanding is wrong.

14 CFR 91.175
Quote:
(l) Approach to straight-in landing operations below DH, or MDA using an enhanced flight vision system (EFVS). For straight-in instrument approach procedures other than Category II or Category III, no pilot operating under this section or §§121.651, 125.381, and 135.225 of this chapter may operate an aircraft at any airport below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DH and land unless—

(1) The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers, and, for operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter, the descent rate will allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing;

(2) The pilot determines that the enhanced flight visibility observed by use of a certified enhanced flight vision system is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach procedure being used;

(3) The following visual references for the intended runway are distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot using the enhanced flight vision system:

(i) The approach light system (if installed); or

(ii) The following visual references in both paragraphs (l)(3)(ii)(A) and ( of this section:

(A) The runway threshold, identified by at least one of the following:

( 1 ) The beginning of the runway landing surface;

( 2 ) The threshold lights; or

( 3 ) The runway end identifier lights.

( The touchdown zone, identified by at least one of the following:

( 1 ) The runway touchdown zone landing surface;

( 2 ) The touchdown zone lights;

( 3 ) The touchdown zone markings; or

( 4 ) The runway lights.

(4) At 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation of the runway of intended landing and below that altitude, the flight visibility must be sufficient for the following to be distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot without reliance on the enhanced flight vision system to continue to a landing:

(i) The lights or markings of the threshold; or

(ii) The lights or markings of the touchdown zone;

(5) The pilot(s) is qualified to use an EFVS as follows—

(i) For parts 119 and 125 certificate holders, the applicable training, testing and qualification provisions of parts 121, 125, and 135 of this chapter;

(ii) For foreign persons, in accordance with the requirements of the civil aviation authority of the State of the operator; or

(iii) For persons conducting any other operation, in accordance with the applicable currency and proficiency requirements of part 61 of this chapter;

(6) For parts 119 and 125 certificate holders, and part 129 operations specifications holders, their operations specifications authorize use of EFVS; and

(7) The aircraft is equipped with, and the pilot uses, an enhanced flight vision system, the display of which is suitable for maneuvering the aircraft and has either an FAA type design approval or, for a foreign-registered aircraft, the EFVS complies with all of the EFVS requirements of this chapter.
kkoran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2012, 08:57 PM
Posted in reply to kkoran's post "Re: Capable approach or unsafe?"
  #6
Piloto Piloto is online now
(User ID: Piloto)
Position and Hold
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 940
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kkoran View Post
Your understanding is wrong.

14 CFR 91.175
Not really. The EVS approach limitation calls for insight view (without EVS) of the runway lights at 100ft on a non-CAT-III approach. You can still have no visibilty (with the naked eye) of the runway surroundings when you land, but had the approach lights in view just before touchdown, which is not uncommon. The above requirement is due to the fact that EVS does not provide guidance to the autoland system as is required below 100ft. On some B777 and B747 the EVS is projected on the HUDs. This allows the pilot to see the ADI superimposed over the EVS video on the windscreen. Unlike CAT-III only aircraft those with EVS can see taxiway activity where is not visible with the naked eye (CAT-IIIc). EVS would have prevented the Tenerife collision of two B747 on the runway in 1977.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjLrZ2SDDaU

José
Piloto is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2012, 09:30 PM
Posted in reply to Jaybird180's post "Capable approach or unsafe?"
  #7
iFlyTwins Ted DuPuis is online now
(User ID: Ted DuPuis)
Touchdown! Greaser!
 
Ted DuPuis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamilton, OH
Posts: 15,643
Send a message via AIM to Ted DuPuis
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

Well, if he was actually shooting a 0/0 approach, then he's not using the legal equipment. I'd argue that single-pilot, that's a bad idea.

That said, that equipment is pretty cool between the SVT and EVS. Anyone know of some sort of EVS that could be legally added to our non-equipped aircraft?
__________________
-Ted
CP-ASEL & AMEL-IA, CFI, CFII, MEI

Plus Belize
http://www.cloudninerescueflights.org/

Last edited by Ted DuPuis; May 5th, 2012 at 09:33 PM.
Ted DuPuis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2012, 09:38 PM
Posted in reply to Piloto's post "Re: Capable approach or unsafe?"
  #8
Kent kkoran is offline
(User ID: kkoran)
Position and Hold
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Renton, WA
Posts: 988
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piloto View Post
Not really. The EVS approach limitation calls for insight view (without EVS) of the runway lights at 100ft on a non-CAT-III approach. You can still have no visibilty (with the naked eye) of the runway surroundings when you land, but had the approach lights in view just before touchdown, which is not uncommon. The above requirement is due to the fact that EVS does not provide guidance to the autoland system as is required below 100ft. On some B777 and B747 the EVS is projected on the HUDs. This allows the pilot to see the ADI superimposed over the EVS video on the windscreen. Unlike CAT-III only aircraft those with EVS can see taxiway activity where is not visible with the naked eye (CAT-IIIc). EVS would have prevented the Tenerife collision of two B747 on the runway in 1977.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjLrZ2SDDaU

José
José,

RVR represents the horizontal distance a pilot can expect to see down the runway, based on sighting either the High Intensity Runway Lights (HIRL) or the visual contrast of other targets. Therefore, it must be some value greater than zero for the pilot to see the lights when he is at 100 ft on the approach. Whether or not one can see the "runway surroundings" is irrelevant to the question of visibility in an aviation context.
kkoran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2012, 10:23 PM
Posted in reply to kkoran's post "Re: Capable approach or unsafe?"
  #9
Piloto Piloto is online now
(User ID: Piloto)
Position and Hold
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 940
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kkoran View Post
José,

RVR represents the horizontal distance a pilot can expect to see down the runway, based on sighting either the High Intensity Runway Lights (HIRL) or the visual contrast of other targets. Therefore, it must be some value greater than zero for the pilot to see the lights when he is at 100 ft on the approach. Whether or not one can see the "runway surroundings" is irrelevant to the question of visibility in an aviation context.
My experience has been that a thin layer of fog will allow you to see the runway lights from above but not on the ground. This is because the layer maybe 50ft or less on vertical thickness but over 1000 feet horizontal to the lights or surrounding with fog in between. So in this case the RVR would appear to be zero on the ground but maybe 1000ft at 100ft over the ground. It is very much like morning fog in a city when looking out of the 10th floor, you can see the other buildings but when you are on the road you can not see the buildings.

José
Piloto is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 5th, 2012, 11:31 PM
Posted in reply to Piloto's post "Re: Capable approach or unsafe?"
  #10
Kent kkoran is offline
(User ID: kkoran)
Position and Hold
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Renton, WA
Posts: 988
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piloto View Post
My experience has been that a thin layer of fog will allow you to see the runway lights from above but not on the ground. This is because the layer maybe 50ft or less on vertical thickness but over 1000 feet horizontal to the lights or surrounding with fog in between. So in this case the RVR would appear to be zero on the ground but maybe 1000ft at 100ft over the ground. It is very much like morning fog in a city when looking out of the 10th floor, you can see the other buildings but when you are on the road you can not see the buildings.

José
I think (hope) everyone understands that you might be able to see down through a thin layer of fog but when you descend into it, the visibility can be minimal. If, as the plane descends into the fog, the visibility is so low that the pilot loses sight of the threshold or touchdown zone lights, he has to to go missed since the regulation require that...
Quote:
(4) At 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation of the runway of intended landing and below that altitude, the flight visibility must be sufficient for the following to be distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot without reliance on the enhanced flight vision system to continue to a landing:
kkoran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 09:32 AM
Posted in reply to Jaybird180's post "Capable approach or unsafe?"
  #11
Cap'n Ron Ron Levy is online now
(User ID: Ron Levy)
Touchdown! Greaser!
 
Ron Levy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Salisbury, MD
Posts: 24,804
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

If it's really 0/0, you won't be legal other than Cat III ILS since you won't see any of the Magic Ten at DH, and even if you do as Piloto suggested, you'll lose sight before touchdown, and that mandates a missed. There are some reduced minimums for enhanced vision systems, but special aircraft and aircrew training and certification are required, and the Cirrus doesn't have that certification.

Last edited by Ron Levy; May 6th, 2012 at 09:35 AM.
Ron Levy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 09:57 AM
Posted in reply to Jaybird180's post "Capable approach or unsafe?"
  #12
Jaybird180 Jaybird180 is offline
(User ID: Jaybird180)
En-Route
 
Jaybird180's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Near DC
Posts: 4,923
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

What allows a pilot to fly CAT I, II, III approaches? Equipment requirements or training or something else?
__________________
Green Belt PP(HP)ASEL
Part Owner: 1998 Cessna Skyhawk SP

Senator Long: “The only difference I ever found between the Democratic leadership and the Republican leadership is that one of them is skinning you from the ankle up and the other, from the neck down.”
Jaybird180 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 10:10 AM   #13
Captain Captain is online now
(User ID: Captain)
En-Route
 
Captain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: NOYB
Posts: 4,979
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaybird180 View Post
What allows a pilot to fly CAT I, II, III approaches? Equipment requirements or training or something else?
Cat I requires an instrument rating, currency and an equipped aircraft with current inspections.

The others require specific training and more equipment. I've never flown more than Cat I.
__________________
BPITW
Captain is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 10:23 AM   #14
iFlyTwins Ted DuPuis is online now
(User ID: Ted DuPuis)
Touchdown! Greaser!
 
Ted DuPuis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hamilton, OH
Posts: 15,643
Send a message via AIM to Ted DuPuis
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaybird180 View Post
What allows a pilot to fly CAT I, II, III approaches? Equipment requirements or training or something else?
Yes.

A CAT I is the standard ILS that we perform in our piston planes, and even most of the 135 and 121 folk are only doing CAT I on a regular basis.

To get CAT II or III requires a good bit of additional equipment (both for the plane and the airport), two pilots (who have been trained), and some other things that I'm not familiar with since it's not something I've ever had cause to do.

Not many airports have CAT II or III approaches. They only will if there's a good reason to have it, typically, since there's extra equipment required that costs money to install and maintain. Two examples of airports I've flown into that have CAT II approaches are CYYT (St. John's, Newfoundland) and KMHT (Manchester, NH). Both tend to have low cloud ceilings on a semi-regular basis and benefit from them.
__________________
-Ted
CP-ASEL & AMEL-IA, CFI, CFII, MEI

Plus Belize
http://www.cloudninerescueflights.org/
Ted DuPuis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 12:24 PM   #15
Piloto Piloto is online now
(User ID: Piloto)
Position and Hold
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 940
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

Notice that 14 CFR 91.175 does not make reference to required ceiling or RVR. So is up to the pilot to make the visibility assesment. Coming on a ferry flight to CYYT from LPAZ at night the ground visibility was so bad that I had to wait for the "Follow Me" cart from Aerocentre FBO because the tower could not see me on the ground. Wish I had a GPS with airport diagram at the time. CYYT morning and evening fog combined with runway icing is a challenge. Twice I have seen there airliners go past beyond the runway end. To make things worse the prevailing CYYT-LPAZ headwinds are from the NW at over 50kts at times. And Gander is over 100nm away, so is either a CAT-II approach or a ditch in icy waters.

José
Attached Images
File Type: jpg CYYT Ramp.JPG (523.9 KB, 5 views)
Piloto is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 12:32 PM
Posted in reply to Jaybird180's post "Capable approach or unsafe?"
  #16
iHenning Henning is offline
(User ID: Henning)
Taxi to Parking
 
Henning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ft Lauderdale FL
Posts: 32,941
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

Is there a reason you're discussing US rules for a flight in Germany?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geico266 View Post
Short term solutions if effective, become long term solutions. Look at TSA.

<-click for slideshow
caphenning.com

Henning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 12:46 PM   #17
iHenning Henning is offline
(User ID: Henning)
Taxi to Parking
 
Henning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ft Lauderdale FL
Posts: 32,941
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaybird180 View Post
What allows a pilot to fly CAT I, II, III approaches? Equipment requirements or training or something else?
Both. Cat I is an Instrument rating required. Cat II requires an IR, Extra training and an evaluation flight (6 down to 100' and you do an eval flight, that gets you 150' authority then after another 6 you're fully Cat II to 100'); if your plane is above Category A on the bottom of the plate, you will need some special equipment like a radar altimeter. Cat III is both special training and a lot of special equipment since for all intents and purposes, it's an 'autoland' system.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geico266 View Post
Short term solutions if effective, become long term solutions. Look at TSA.

<-click for slideshow
caphenning.com

Henning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 12:57 PM
Posted in reply to Henning's post "Re: Capable approach or unsafe?"
  #18
Kent kkoran is offline
(User ID: kkoran)
Position and Hold
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Renton, WA
Posts: 988
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henning View Post
Is there a reason you're discussing US rules for a flight in Germany?
What flight are you referring to?
kkoran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 01:22 PM
Posted in reply to Piloto's post "Re: Capable approach or unsafe?"
  #19
Kent kkoran is offline
(User ID: kkoran)
Position and Hold
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Renton, WA
Posts: 988
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piloto View Post
Notice that 14 CFR 91.175 does not make reference to required ceiling or RVR. So is up to the pilot to make the visibility assesment.
That is true. And, if the pilot assesses the flight visibility to be zero, he is supposed to go missed because he obviously can't see at least one of the items he is required to see from 100 ft. to touchdown. Bottom line: EVS does not, from a regulatory perspective, permit zero-zero landings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piloto View Post
Coming on a ferry flight to CYYT from LPAZ at night the ground visibility was so bad that I had to wait for the "Follow Me" cart from Aerocentre FBO because the tower could not see me on the ground. Wish I had a GPS with airport diagram at the time. CYYT morning and evening fog combined with runway icing is a challenge. Twice I have seen there airliners go past beyond the runway end. To make things worse the prevailing CYYT-LPAZ headwinds are from the NW at over 50kts at times. And Gander is over 100nm away, so is either a CAT-II approach or a ditch in icy waters.
Relevance?
kkoran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 01:33 PM
Posted in reply to Jaybird180's post "Capable approach or unsafe?"
  #20
FlyingRon flyingron is online now
(User ID: flyingron)
En-Route
 
flyingron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,346
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

It's possible to get pilot/aircraft approval for Cat II and waiver of some of the equipment requirements. Some have done it, many just don't find it worth it for that extra 100'
flyingron is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 01:46 PM   #21
iHenning Henning is offline
(User ID: Henning)
Taxi to Parking
 
Henning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ft Lauderdale FL
Posts: 32,941
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingron View Post
It's possible to get pilot/aircraft approval for Cat II and waiver of some of the equipment requirements. Some have done it, many just don't find it worth it for that extra 100'
If you are Category A plane there are no waivers for equipment as the requirements do not exist in order to be waived.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geico266 View Post
Short term solutions if effective, become long term solutions. Look at TSA.

<-click for slideshow
caphenning.com

Henning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 02:22 PM
Posted in reply to Henning's post "Re: Capable approach or unsafe?"
  #22
Cap'n Ron Ron Levy is online now
(User ID: Ron Levy)
Touchdown! Greaser!
 
Ron Levy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Salisbury, MD
Posts: 24,804
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Henning View Post
If you are Category A plane there are no waivers for equipment as the requirements do not exist in order to be waived.
Close. You're thinking of a Category A Certificate of Authorization, and per 14 CFR 91.193 allows deviation from the normal Cat II regulatory requirements (91.189, 91.191, and 91.205(f)) for operations involving a Category A (1.3 Vs0 < 91 knots) small (less than 12,500 lb MGW) airplane. Also, after you get your initial Cat II, I believe it's 6 months, not just 6 approaches, before you can get the authorized DH lowered from 150 to 100. There are other details on which you were a little off about obtaining Cat II authorization -- see 61.67 for details.
Ron Levy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 02:25 PM
Posted in reply to kkoran's post "Re: Capable approach or unsafe?"
  #23
Let's Fly EppyGA is offline
(User ID: EppyGA)
Final Approach
 
EppyGA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hoschton, GA
Posts: 7,088
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kkoran View Post
What flight are you referring to?
The OP said that he believed the video was from Germany and everyone went off on a discussion about U.S. regs.
__________________

Randy

If it moves, tax it
If it moves too fast, regulate it
If it stops moving, subsidize it.
EppyGA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 02:40 PM
Posted in reply to kkoran's post "Re: Capable approach or unsafe?"
  #24
Piloto Piloto is online now
(User ID: Piloto)
Position and Hold
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 940
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kkoran View Post
Relevance?
And Gander is over 100nm away, so is either a CAT-II approach or a ditch in icy waters.

What would you do in this case if your plane is certified for CAT-I and has no EVS?.

The above example is to show that visibility is relative to the viewer and depends on your location.

An EVS equipped plane does not need to be CAT-II equipped neither the airport to accomplish a CAT-II minimums approach on an airport that not even has an ILS approach. But I have to admit that a radio altimeter is a handy instrument to have even if EVS equipped.

José
Piloto is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 6th, 2012, 02:52 PM
Posted in reply to Piloto's post "Re: Capable approach or unsafe?"
  #25
Cap'n Ron Ron Levy is online now
(User ID: Ron Levy)
Touchdown! Greaser!
 
Ron Levy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Salisbury, MD
Posts: 24,804
Re: Capable approach or unsafe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piloto View Post
An EVS equipped plane does not need to be CAT-II equipped neither the airport to accomplish a CAT-II minimums approach on an airport that not even has an ILS approach.
You may think that is possible, but it certainly isn't legal outside of an emergency situation.
Ron Levy is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply
Home Register New Posts Today's Posts
Go Back   Pilots of America Message Board > Pilot's Lounge > Hangar Talk

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Lancair IV, unsafe at any speed?? Capt.Crash'n'Burn Home Builders and Sport Pilots 121 October 6th, 2011 10:43 AM
Capable Out-of-Production Twins spiderweb Hangar Talk 45 December 11th, 2010 12:27 AM
Unsafe Flight- Watch it HERE! SCCutler Lessons Learned 135 October 2nd, 2009 07:56 PM
iShuffle: WMA-capable? Let'sgoflying! Technical Corner 4 October 7th, 2007 11:57 AM
Disgruntled ex-employee calls 787 unsafe JohnR Hangar Talk 7 September 18th, 2007 10:04 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) 2005 - Pilots of America