|
|
Post by viscount on Nov 26, 2009 10:36:02 GMT 1
The previous post has now been deleted. This post was my response to correct what I considered to be interpretated as damaging allegations.
Without the initial post, mine becomes irrelevent - but as subsequent posts, which I cannot change refer to these posts, I have not deleted it totally. The original related to behaviour of aircraft landing in foggy conditions.
|
|
|
|
Post by andyh on Nov 26, 2009 11:38:48 GMT 1
Whilst not wanting to judge either way the Blueline did make two approaches before diverting away.
|
|
|
|
Post by calibrator on Nov 26, 2009 22:46:10 GMT 1
A couple of kind responses for which I would like to say thank you.
The low level runs along the runway are known as roll out guidance, and are specific to CATIII runways. They check the integrity of the localiser along the full length of the runway, and are flown at precisely 50 feet.
Glad to hear that the CATIII system will be in operation soon, a really significant event.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2009 23:59:17 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by viscount on Nov 27, 2009 11:11:59 GMT 1
jfk500,
Might I remind you it was your post #30 implied that, in low visibility rules, ATC had cleared the Blueline down to below 50' twice using the Cat.III at a time when the equipment had not been cleared for use - which if correct would be a sackable offence for ATC and/or flight crew for endangering life. Does your dad know you are erroneously publicly spreading such misconduct as fact?
It is also a good idea on an open forum to be aware who you are responding to - I could be your dad's boss. PS I'm not.
My last post on the matter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2009 12:02:32 GMT 1
jfk500, Might I remind you it was your post #30 implied that, in low visibility rules, ATC had cleared the Blueline down to below 50' twice using the Cat.III at a time when the equipment had not been cleared for use - which if correct would be a sackable offence for ATC and/or flight crew for endangering life. Does your dad know you are erroneously publicly spreading such misconduct as fact? It is also a good idea on an open forum to be aware who you are responding to - I could be your dad's boss. PS I'm not. My last post on the matter. As an ATCO, you do not clear an aircraft for a specific type of ILS approach i.e. CAT I,II or III. You clear them for the ILS approach and where necessary pass the IRVR, Wx etc. It is up to the crew to decide if they are operating within the limitations of their license. If the ILS is operating below it's promulgated level i.e. Cat II, instead of Cat III, this should be notified via Notam and also passed as essential Aerodrome information via RT or the ATIS. |
|
|
|
Post by liverpoolman1 on Nov 27, 2009 16:50:43 GMT 1
jfk500
Can I suggest that you take a step back, take a very deep breath and count to ten. Then do it again.
I am in no way a professional in ATC matters so most of what you say is completely over my head. However, I would be greatly insulted if someone who did not work in my profession started criticising me about how I should, or should not, do my job. At your own admission you are NOT in ATC so I respectfully request that you defer to those who are in ATC and have greater knowledge than you.
So, as I say - take a step back, take a very deep breath and count to ten. If you still feel aggrieved - then do it again.
Incidentally, I believe that your Dad would rather you described his job without the expletives. He is an ATC Controller. The job description, when advertised, does not carry any prefixes.
|
|
johnf
New Member
Posts: 40
|
Post by johnf on Nov 27, 2009 18:04:56 GMT 1
You know when I see a post like that from jfk500, it only makes me think that if these are the young people coming in to the hobby, then I think that it is time for me to go.
I have enjoyed the board over the years, so good bye to all of the reasonably minded people that I have enjoyed reading.
Time for me to go.
John F
|
|
|
|
Post by viscount on Nov 27, 2009 21:18:49 GMT 1
Yes, ol'banjoplayer exposes one of conundrums of ATC - they cannot stop an aircraft from landing. There was an infamous case (late 70s?) when an African (Nigerian?) Boeing 707 freighter wanted to land at Stansted in impossible conditions, the visibility in fog being way below reasonable minima. Despite being informed of this, the pilot could not be prevented from making an approach and hit the tail of a parked DC-8 on the ground some distance from the runway. The Boeing 707 pilot subsequently did land elsewhere (Manston?) and was arrested.
The point of what I am trying to state as a first-hand observer on the ground, is that the aircraft concerned never got anything like down to 50', as jfk500 relating second-hand seems to get very upset about me contradicting. As pointed out very clearly by Ol'banjoplayer, both Automated ATIS and the actual ATC would inform an aircraft of the available landing aids. I cannot envisage a scenario in todays safety concious Europe where a pilot would embark once, let alone twice, to use CAT.III minima, when the advised operational landing aid was Cat.II.
Anyhow hopefully this is my last post on an incident that never actually happened. Thank you Ol'banjoplayer for correcting an over simplification on my part.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2009 23:02:23 GMT 1
I cannot envisage a scenario in todays safety concious Europe where a pilot would embark once, let alone twice, to use CAT.III minima, when the advised operational landing aid was Cat.II. I can not comment on this supposed incident because I know none of the details. However, even with the most robust safety culture, mistakes and misunderstandings will occur (to err is to be human). Such a culture will though, mitigate risk by trying to identify circumstances when mistakes are liable to be made, but perhaps more importantly will learn from those mistakes when they are made. Believe me, nearly 20 years in the industry and I have seen, and will admit making some myself, some really fundamental errors. However, if the incident described in this thread did happen, then it will be the subject of a Mandatory Occurrence Report and as such under investigation of the appropriate authorities. Therefore this is not really the right place to be discussing and making judgement on it, try Pprune  |
|
|
|
Post by viscount on Nov 27, 2009 23:45:25 GMT 1
As an eye witness, I will state again that the alleged incident quite certainly, in my opinion, did not happen. That report was second-hand and I now notice that all the posts have now been deleted by the original postee.
The lesson is clear for all, including myself, to ensure that posts are correct and pass on useful information, with due regard for anyone connected with that information.
I also feel Ol'banjoplayer is being rather more honest than he need! It always amazes me, eavesdropping on my airband, how cool and precise ATCO's remain hour after hour, day after day, no matter how busy they are, or how foul the weather.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2009 1:10:55 GMT 1
I also feel Ol'banjoplayer is being rather more honest than he need! It always amazes me, eavesdropping on my airband, how cool and precise ATCO's remain hour after hour, day after day, no matter how busy they are, or how foul the weather. Viscount, I disagree, I work for a UK ATS provider, that in my opinion has an excellent safety culture. The simple fact is, unless I was deliberately negligent during the course of an incident, the consequences of not reporting that incident would be more severe than if I put up my hands and said I made a genuine mistake. The latter could end up in doing some retraining, or community service as I call it, the former is gross misconduct and can result in dismissal. It pays me to be honest and open. |
|
|
|
Post by viscount on Nov 29, 2009 0:24:49 GMT 1
Although irrelevant to this thread, found that nearly every detail in my post #38 was wrong, although the essence of the tale was correct. Using www.aviation-safety.net and their searchable data base, the incident was on 5th September 1982 at 0536. DC-8-51 RP-C830 with 58 pax and 15 crew was on a flight from Lagos to Stansted. Using a Cat.I ILS system the aircraft Commander made an approach with an RVR of 200m. In the process of the overshoot hit the tail of DC-8 N786F parked on a cargo apron. A successful landing was made on diversion to Manchester. The AAIB Accident Report is apparently on www.aaib.gov.uk |
|
|
|
Post by andyh on Mar 3, 2010 21:03:34 GMT 1
Is there any news yet on when we will be CAT III compliant? There is nothing in the current NOTAMs to suggest we are (in fact rather oddly there are NO current NOTAMs for Liverpool at all). Strangely, the lack of NOTAMs might suggest that the previous restrictions during CAT II operations are no longer in place (including the need for a Follow Me vehicle) - or does it mean that after they ran out in 28/02/10 no one has renewed them...?
|
|
|
|
Post by andyh on Mar 10, 2010 17:14:47 GMT 1
NOTAMs back in force around follow me vehicles during CATII ops, though it would seem that only two of the stop bars on the Alpha taxiway are sill not in service yet.
Possible explanation for lack of CATIII ops - the airport is to replace the 27 approach lighting during the summer, including new ducting and cabling. Work is likely to start in June...
|
|
) at 
