Tower, this is Southwest 153 Heavy... tower? Tower?

[A4sForever]

^ The above has all the elements of a classic airline-dispatch-ATC cluster-Fvck. A possible dialogue follows:

"You said you called the tower!"

"Who .. me? He did it!"

"Not me!"

"Then him!"

"Nope, not me, either!"

"Sounds like pilot error to me .... "

"I agree ... damn pilots ... stupid, arrogant, overpaid primadonnas ... " :icon_rast

 

[plc67]

You don't need the tower to be open but you do need an approved weather reporting method. With that you shoot the approach and if the visual cues aren't there at mins you go miss. If you have the contingency fuel and feel that it's worth the effort you try again or you go to your alternate.
To be an annoying nitnoid, there ain't no such thing as a Southwest heavy, airplane that is.

 

[A4sForever]

You don't need the tower to be open but you do need an approved weather reporting method.......
To be an annoying nitnoid, there ain't no such thing as a Southwest heavy, airplane that is.

Anyone who shoots ANY approach day/night/IFR/VFR without a WX/NOTAMS-type check is asking for it .... and sooner or later -- he/she/it will get "it".

Southwest Heavy ??? Glad you said it first. It proves I'm not the ONLY detail freak on the forum.

They may not be "heavy" ... but they're still our Brother(s) .... :icon_rast

 

[HAL Pilot]

You don't need the tower to be open but you do need an approved weather reporting method.....

My SWA friend said they needed the tower open because it was a Cat III approach. If it had been a Cat I, they could have landed with it closed.

 

[plc67]

I should have stated per our OPSPECS. I'm sure not going to tell SWA aviators what their guidelines are. I do know that our guidelines for CAT iii list the airports we're allowed to execute the approaches to and all of them are manned 24/7 in the control tower. I didn't know SWA was CAT iii certified; you learn something knew everyday.

 

[plc67]

Yeah, I knew it was new after I posted it; friends don't let friends post when they've been, well you can fill in the blanks.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

"I agree ... damn pilots ... stupid, arrogant, overpaid primadonnas ... " :icon_rast

You heard it from him first, boys and girls

 

[AppleCello]

Can one of you do a quick rundown of Cat I / Cat III differences for a non-aviator like myself? (maybe someday...) thanks.

 

[A4sForever]

Can one of you do a quick rundown of Cat I / Cat III differences for a non-aviator like myself?

Not to worry about Aviator vs. non-Aviator, as Google is for free ... 10 seconds peering through the ILS "fog" of Google reveals:

Category I landings are for suitably equipped aircraft in weather with 2400 ft (732m) visibility or 1800 ft (549m) in case of touchdown and centerline lighting and 200 ft ceiling (cloud base or vertical visibility). More advanced Category II and III systems allow operations in near-zero visibility, but require special additional certification of the aircraft and of the pilot.

Category II approaches permit landing with a 100 foot decision height and visibility as low as 1200 ft (366m).

Category III is flown by an auto-land system on board the landing aircraft, and permits operations even with no decision heights and visibility better than 700ft (Cat IIIa) or between 150ft and 700ft (Cat IIIb). Each operator certified for Cat III operations will have specific decision heights and visibility minima established which are unique to their certification.

Some operators are authorized to land in zero/zero conditions (Cat IIIc). Category II/III installations include in-runway centreline and touchdown zone lighting, as well as other aids and enhancements.

But you wanted a "quick" rundown ??? O.K.

CAT I: Scary

CAT II: More scary

Cat III: Really, really scary

 

[Fly Navy]

Anyone here ever do a Cat IIIc?

 

[A4sForever]

Anyone here ever do a Cat IIIc?

Nope, but I did a manual, hand's-on CAT III in the A-4 getting back into Chase Field .... and didn't even know it.

 

[gregsivers]

No and I don't ever want to. The one actual ILS I did at Whiting was bad enough. And its nothing compared to what many others on here have done I'm sure. Breaking out right at mins is not my idea of fun.

 

[A4sForever]

... Breaking out right at mins is not my idea of fun.

It's NEVER "fun" ... kinda like practicing bleeding.

BUT ... having done many, many approaches to minimums over the years --- ILS, GCA, CCA, TACAN, VOR, ADF (yes, ADF) --- I've "lost my fear" of minimums approaches --- some months across the N. Pacific or @ Monsoon time in SE Asia --- that's what you get. Over and over and over again ....

I don't "like" them. Never have/never will. But they are not a big deal anymore. Like anything else ... when you lose the mystery -- you lose the fear. The more of them you do -- the less of a big deal it becomes.

Practice makes perfect ... or at least an FAA 70% "satisfactory" kind of perfect.

 

[FrankTheTank]

Done a few CAT IIIa approaches... Really not too big of a deal.. Hell, easier than a slam dunk CAT I hand-flown approach... Or a CAT II with a sh1tty autopilot.. Usually CAT III approaches have lots of restrictions (ie crosswinds, airpeeds, localizer and glideslope deviations, etc) and if any of those fall out of limits then it's go-around time.. Also apporach does a nice job with set-up.. Real base legs, long finals, truly at intercept altitude... But not too hard for them; half the time they have plenty of time to figure it out while your in holding...

 

[AppleCello]

Thanks A4s. Definitely sounds like something that requires some experience to be comfortable with. Its like me trying to pull my car into my driveway in the fog. thats my CatIII approach... :| haha