Capable approach or unsafe?

[Jaybird180]

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

[Greg Bockelman]

Originally Posted by Jaybird180

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.

[Jaybird180]

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.

[Piloto]

Originally Posted by Jaybird180

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

[Kent]

Originally Posted by Piloto

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

(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.

[Piloto]

Originally Posted by kkoran

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

[iFlyTwins]

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?

[Kent]

Originally Posted by Piloto

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.

[Piloto]

Originally Posted by kkoran

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

[Kent]

Originally Posted by Piloto

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...

(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:

[Cap'n Ron]

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.

[Jaybird180]

What allows a pilot to fly CAT I, II, III approaches? Equipment requirements or training or something else?

[Captain]

Originally Posted by Jaybird180

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.

[iFlyTwins]

Originally Posted by Jaybird180

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.

[Piloto]

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

[iHenning]

Is there a reason you're discussing US rules for a flight in Germany?

[iHenning]

Originally Posted by Jaybird180

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.

[Kent]

Originally Posted by Henning

Is there a reason you're discussing US rules for a flight in Germany?

What flight are you referring to?

[Kent]

Originally Posted by Piloto

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.

Originally Posted by Piloto

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?

[FlyingRon]

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'

[iHenning]

Originally Posted by flyingron

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.

[Cap'n Ron]

Originally Posted by Henning

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.

[Let's Fly]

Originally Posted by kkoran

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.

[Piloto]

Originally Posted by kkoran

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

[Cap'n Ron]

Originally Posted by Piloto

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.