This is your captain, I can't land the plane

First, that's a quote from a passenger, not the captain. Second, it's not unusual to find a Captain whose Cat II qual is recent, limiting his DH to 150 vice 100 feet, or a new captain not yet Cat II qualified.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Level 2? Level 5? Huh?

I can see "Category II" as being an issue, but "Level 5?" WTH?

And the guy wasn't smart enough to just say it was a weather issue, which it really was. Hmmm.
Click to expand...

Do you trust the media to make an accurate quote?
 
Ron Levy said:
First, that's a quote from a passenger, not the captain. Second, it's not unusual to find a Captain whose Cat II qual is recent, limiting his DH to 150 vice 100 feet, or a new captain not yet Cat II qualified.
Click to expand...

Or a high mins capt who is new to his seat/equipment. I'm guessing that's the UK equivalent of either high mins or Cat II.
 
Ron Levy said:
First, that's a quote from a passenger, not the captain. Second, it's not unusual to find a Captain whose Cat II qual is recent, limiting his DH to 150 vice 100 feet, or a new captain not yet Cat II qualified.
Click to expand...

FWIW, the difference between Cat 1 Mins and Cat 2 mins is RVR, not DH. A new captain is Cat 2 certified, however is limited to 4000 RVR until 100 hours of line experience. (at least to our OpSpecs)
 
The levels he refers to may not relate directly to ILS categories - they may relate to something his airline uses, where Level 5 is limited to certain weather minima and level 2 is much less limited.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
No, and I attribute the mixing up of category and level to that, but I'd think they could at least get a number right - Or at least maybe in the ballpark. :dunno:
Click to expand...

What Tim said. I have no idea what the British do or call their approach categories. We can't really badmouth them when we have no good idea what we are talking about.
 
TMetzinger said:
The levels he refers to may not relate directly to IRS categories - they may relate to something his airline uses, where Level 5 is limited to certain weather minima and level 2 is much less limited.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

-Skip
 
You would enjoy riding a sim session with the Brits. They talk about more crap during one approach than we do in a week.

I was JAA-qualified in the G-V for a while, but it was a big PIA to keep up with all their stuff. I decided to let the full-timers do it.
Greg Bockelman said:
What Tim said. I have no idea what the British do or call their approach categories. We can't really badmouth them when we have no good idea what we are talking about.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Greg Bockelman said:
What Tim said. I have no idea what the British do or call their approach categories. We can't really badmouth them when we have no good idea what we are talking about.
Click to expand...

That's never stopped us before. :nono::D
 
>FWIW, the difference between Cat 1 Mins and Cat 2 mins is RVR, not DH

eh? Cat I doesn't have a 200' DH and Cat 2 doesn't have a 100' DH?
 
Bob Noel said:
>FWIW, the difference between Cat 1 Mins and Cat 2 mins is RVR, not DH

eh? Cat I doesn't have a 200' DH and Cat 2 doesn't have a 100' DH?
Click to expand...

Yes. But in order to fly the approach, cloud base is not a deciding factor, visibility is. As long as you have the required RVR you may fly the approach.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
FWIW, the difference between Cat 1 Mins and Cat 2 mins is RVR, not DH. A new captain is Cat 2 certified, however is limited to 4000 RVR until 100 hours of line experience. (at least to our OpSpecs)
Click to expand...
In addition to the differing RVR requirements, Cat I DH is no less than 200 AGL, and Cat II DH is minimum 100 AGL (150 initially for newly qualified captains). See any Cat I/II approach chart for the details. Only Cat III has RVR mins with no DH.
 
Ron Levy said:
In addition to the differing RVR requirements, Cat I DH is no less than 200 AGL, and Cat II DH is minimum 100 AGL (150 initially for newly qualified captains). See any Cat I/II approach chart for the details. Only Cat III has RVR mins with no DH.
Click to expand...

Yes Ron, I've seen the charts, use them daily since I'm flying a Cat2 certified plane. And I'm very aware of what DH means, but in reality it's visibility that controls the approach, not DH. You can have 100 overcast and 2400 RVR and still fly the approach and land under Cat1, just as you can have no ceiling and 1200 RVR and fly the Cat2 approach. The purpose of DH is the point of continuing the approach if you have the approach lights or runway environment in site.

Ron Levy said:
(150 initially for newly qualified captains)
Click to expand...

That is not a requirement.
 
Last edited:
Or, to be sure I understand...

RVR dictates whether you can commence the approach (under 135 and 121)?
DH dictates where you go missed (not having the required stuff in sight)?
 
TMetzinger said:
Or, to be sure I understand...

RVR dictates whether you can commence the approach (under 135 and 121)?
DH dictates where you go missed (not having the required stuff in sight)?
Click to expand...
You got it. I think R&W and I were saying the same thing in different ways.
 
TMetzinger said:
Or, to be sure I understand...

RVR dictates whether you can commence the approach (under 135 and 121)?
DH dictates where you go missed (not having the required stuff in sight)?
Click to expand...

Correct. But for instance during a Cat1 approach at DH you could see the approach lights, now you can proceed to 100 feet. If at that point you don't have the runway environment in sight now you will go miss.

91.175




(i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach lights as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable.
(ii) The threshold.
(iii) The threshold markings.
(iv) The threshold lights.
(v) The runway end identifier lights.
(vi) The visual approach slope indicator.
(vii) The touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings.
(viii) The touchdown zone lights.
(ix) The runway or runway markings.
(x) The runway lights.
 
TMetzinger said:
Or, to be sure I understand...

RVR dictates whether you can commence the approach (under 135 and 121)?
DH dictates where you go missed (not having the required stuff in sight)?
Click to expand...

Also, once inside the FAF if the RVR drops below minimums the approach an be continued. (121 & 135)
 
Our OpSpecs stipulate the following for a high min's captain:

The equivalent experience reduction for a Captain who already has 100 hours as Pilot-In-Command in
another type of aircraft in air carrier operations is arrived at by reducing the 100 hours by 1 hour for
each landing made in the new type aircraft to not less than 50 hours.
• Increase visibility minimum by 1/2 mile, or use the corresponding RVR reading as listed below,
and increase the DH or MDA by 100 feet. However, in no case need the minimums exceed applicable
standard alternate landing minimums for the procedure being used.


Notice how it says visibility AND DH. While under normal circumstances, part 121, RVR is always controlling, I'm curious to know if R&W and Greg have the same opspecs for high min's captains.
 
Correction said:
Our OpSpecs stipulate the following for a high min's captain:

The equivalent experience reduction for a Captain who already has 100 hours as Pilot-In-Command in
another type of aircraft in air carrier operations is arrived at by reducing the 100 hours by 1 hour for
each landing made in the new type aircraft to not less than 50 hours.
• Increase visibility minimum by 1/2 mile, or use the corresponding RVR reading as listed below,
and increase the DH or MDA by 100 feet. However, in no case need the minimums exceed applicable
standard alternate landing minimums for the procedure being used.


Notice how it says visibility AND DH. While under normal circumstances, part 121, RVR is always controlling, I'm curious to know if R&W and Greg have the same opspecs for high min's captains.
Click to expand...

That's the same as ours.
 
Bottom line, we have a Captain who is adhering to safe operations and his carriers OpSpecs, and a carrier (whose OpSpecs are intended to promote safety) which is supporting the adherence to the safe operations by their pilot, and they are being lampooned by the press.

Nice.
 
People want 100% assurance that they're going to get where they want to go, on time, with no issues. Mother nature doesn't exist, weather is CAVU every day. The biggest challenge in the sky is figuring out which way to look out the window. The assumption is that, regardless of conditions, the plane and pilot should be able to land.

People are stupid.
 
Yep. The fault, if any, was in the original decision to dispatch that flight with that crew if the conditions at the other end were known or reasonably expected.

I remember sitting in Dulles one day waiting for an NWA flight into Detroit - cancelled while all the other Independence Air flights were going. NWA captain explained to the pax that the airplane wasn't equipped to land in the weather in Detroit, but the RJs and Airbus' used by other carriers were.
 
Correction said:
Notice how it says visibility AND DH. While under normal circumstances, part 121, RVR is always controlling, I'm curious to know if R&W and Greg have the same opspecs for high min's captains.
Click to expand...

I would have to check my manual to be sure, and I won't see it for a month, but that is the same as ours. But still, it is visibility that is controlling, not Decision Height.
 
SCCutler said:
Bottom line, we have a Captain who is adhering to safe operations and his carriers OpSpecs, and a carrier (whose OpSpecs are intended to promote safety) which is supporting the adherence to the safe operations by their pilot, and they are being lampooned by the press.

Nice.
Click to expand...

And by people on these web boards. :mad3:
 
TMetzinger said:
Yep. The fault, if any, was in the original decision to dispatch that flight with that crew if the conditions at the other end were known or reasonably expected.
Click to expand...

Now this is what got me torqued on the Red Board. I doubt the flight WOULD have been dispatched if the forecast was such that it would be doubtful that the flight could have made it in. TEMPO in the forecast is not a show stopper. Besides, it takes both the pilot and the dispatcher to agree whether or not to operate the flight.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I would have to check my manual to be sure, and I won't see it for a month, but that is the same as ours. But still, it is visibility that is controlling, not Decision Height.
Click to expand...

I would agree but here's a story....

I was flying with a high min's captain, and it was a 3 man crew. We were holding because of weather in Berlin, and the CA was under the impression we could not shoot the approach because our opSpecs said Visibility AND DH for the high min's rule. MYself and the other FO thought that we only needed visibilty. So, now we bring dispatch, the director of flight ops, plus a chief pilot into the loop and they all decide we need both since the CA was high mins.

So, we ended up diverting to FRA. The funny thing is, that since FRA is an alternate, high mins does not apply and the weather was the same as Berlin.
 
Correction said:
The funny thing is, that since FRA is an alternate, high mins does not apply and the weather was the same as Berlin.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I would have to see a reference on that because I don't think that is accurate. I think maybe alternate minimums may be confused with approach minimums here.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Hmm. I would have to see a reference on that because I don't think that is accurate. I think maybe alternate minimums may be confused with approach minimums here.
Click to expand...

§ 121.652 Landing weather minimums: IFR: All certificate holders.

(a) If the pilot in command of an airplane has not served 100 hours as pilot in command in operations under this part in the type of airplane he is operating, the MDA or DA/DH and visibility landing minimums in the certificate holder's operations specification for regular, provisional, or refueling airports are increased by 100 feet and one-half mile (or the RVR equivalent). The MDA or DA/DH and visibility minimums need not be increased above those applicable to the airport when used as an alternate airport, but in no event may the landing minimums be less than 300 and 1. However, a Pilot in command employed by a certificate holder conducting operations in large aircraft under part 135 of this chapter, may credit flight time acquired in operations conducted for that operator under part 91 in the same type airplane for up to 50 percent of the 100 hours of pilot in command experience required by this paragraph.
 
Ok. I will grant you that one. HOWEVER, notice


Correction said:
§ 121.652 Landing weather minimums: IFR: All certificate holders.

but in no event may the landing minimums be less than 300 and 1.
Click to expand...

which is effectively the same as high minimums.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Now this is what got me torqued on the Red Board. I doubt the flight WOULD have been dispatched if the forecast was such that it would be doubtful that the flight could have made it in. TEMPO in the forecast is not a show stopper. Besides, it takes both the pilot and the dispatcher to agree whether or not to operate the flight.
Click to expand...

Hence my "if any" caveat. I doubt they dispatched the flight thinking this outcome was possible, but people DO make mistakes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top