Back to Squawk list

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

This is a CATIIIb landing. CATIIIC is when even after you land, you can not see the runway. It has never been used.
Amazing. Almost like when I close my eyes when I land.
Must be something wrong with my video player, all I could see was a gray screen......

That's CRAZY.
You have to wait to the very end when the runway becomes visable (flying in fog).
You can barely see to taxi.
That's about an 8 on the pucker scale.
Very impressive!
Isn't that below the FAA Legal limit? (1 mile vis/500+ ceiling) Or is that just for prop planes?
You're thinking VFR mr, watch flying wild alaska. yeah, i saw that on last weeks episode. haha!
I'm wrong, that is the legal limit for planes not equipped for CAT approaches.
Yep I'm a true FW:Alaska viewer haha!
Waou terific.....
ok let me rephrase that 'noway is there 200 m visibility, more like 20m' and i concur with the pucker factor rating :)
see my comment below. CAT1113a is 200m or above, B is less than and supposedly C is not leagal anywhere in the world yet so either Wiki has not updated or the article is wrong and it is CAT3b. Either way, the pucker factor is definitely
That is defifintely a CAT3c landing but if anyone cares to check it, Wikipedia has not updated yet and Im not sure that one is even legal in the US yet. According to Wiki the 3c was coming but not implemented yet as it basically required radar control for the Airport. 3b will let you take it in as they did. Their taxi in and where the contollers were coming from as far as directions would differentiate the difference between a 3b and 3c
That take nerves of steel
Yazoo 0
When you think about it there really isn't much difference between CAT3B and CAT3C. 3B has a 50ft "alert height". The pilot does not have to see the runway like a "decision height". 3C does not even have an alert height. With large aircraft, at 50ft, you are essentially landing anyway.
As to someones comment about taxing. The airport must have special low visibility taxi charts (SMGCS). When it's really zero-zero, you roll to the end and they send out a follow me truck. I've only done one actual CAT3A but many CAT3Bs in the sim.
And for the comment that he wishes the sound was better so that he could he the cockpit conversation .... Well, that was the cockpit conversation. It gets pretty quite when you land like that. Yes, it is amazing.
Well, I would have to agree on the quiet It is strange when you know you are there but don't see anything, and the, whoop, there they are. The other article FA has posted has had the title changed today showing it to be a CAT3B, but as you say, there ain't much difference and at 50' you are there anyway. It just magnifies the pucker
...yeah... very quiet...
LMAO but that's very true, ha-ha-ha:-)
The key here is training. I've been there and done that. We train for these approachs and rarely perform them. In my 5 years on teh 76 and 2 years on the 77 I might have completed 4 Cat IIIs. The taxi in is the hardest part, because we had no GPS ground display to work with. The SR22 I flew did a better job on taxi in!!
Zany4God 0
Oh, my goodness!! Looks like Seattle on some of her more interesting days. Zero-zero conditions, and my worst nightmare.
It "only" takes good training and lots of faith. Very exciting! Specially when you make it to the gate in one piece.
According to the Malpensa approach charts all their CAT III approaches require a 50' DH with 200m visibility.
As has been stated above, 50'don't mean a lot, and the taxi is the hardest part. It actually helps to have something ahead of you. You notice in the video, while not great, it was better when that 747 was out there but it got real trashy after he turned off.
Exactly. The crew may have had a bit better visibility than the video suggests too.
Oh, by the way CAT IIIa is all they have, no IIIb.
I stand corrected. I checked the JAA minimums page and CAT IIIb is "approved".
Anytime it is that bad, regardless of what we do, it definitely increases the pucker factor. I know it is part of it, BUT, that don't make it any
Well, this story heading says 3c. There is another FA story in here with a little different header pointing to the same video and it said 3c but sometime since yesterday, it got changed to 3B. Whichever it was, A,B or C, it was bad
Wow, that's all I can say. Quite scary I bet for those few seconds waiting for the runway to appear.
Zany4God 0
I was looking at some of the other ILS landings and saw this one at Portland, OR. It is just as amazing, well, almost.
Unreal. Even in Cat III isn't some viability required? I barley saw the runaway after they landed and they still must taxi to a gate.
You can dig thru the regs and find it but there are 3 versions of CAT3, a,b, and c.Most concise descrip I've found is Wikipedia. Just do google and CAT3 landing. It is toward the bottom of the page
Thanks Wayne
I'm outa here. Anything else til tomorrow afternoon will be off my laptop. Driving to KFSM, DH to KMEM for RON somewhere. One of DAL's 9's in the early AM to KATL and back.The 9 don't bother me, KMEM don't bother me, but KATL puts the pucker factor in the whole
Ouf! I need a cigarette.
Flew a few of those and trained to zero/zero. It just takes practice, practice, and more practice and a great simulator plus confidence in your HUD/autopilot. It never gets to be routine but you get very comfortable flying these approaches. If you think these are "cool", try a GPS approach/departure through the mountains with less then 1000' clearance horizontally in the weather.
I was in a IIIc back in the early '80s when a south African 747 landed in Rome. Now these are routine in European fogged winters.
Bravo to the pilots but that was not a bright move. Minimums there for a reason and obviously in this case there was ZERO margin for error. If something went sideways, BAD news. If crew survived they would be flipping burgers for a living. Guaranteed.
Catching up in MEM- Dan, it happens all the time now. Definiteley scary and calls for a gut check. The real fun is when you get on the ground as noted below
John Keogh. Pilot
The ILS will get you down the runway and Stop, But to find your way
to your docking bay 40' up in the cockpit in a BOWL OF PEA SOUP
When you are 1 mile away is another goal altogether moving 400 tons
around an Airport. With 400 passengers on board l would wait for a
Indeed Wayne, these guys have bought into technology. Cool. Not far from pilotless AC!
Well, it is hard when you are from the old school like me and have gone from GCA to the ILS and now letting Mr. Honeywell fly the ILS. He will fly it in or out on a clear day if you'll let him, but I haven't gave up that Outbound yet. DAL has some rules about that but I didn't tell them to call me for tomorrow, and if they don't like me flying it out and getting the hell out of dodge, they don't have to call me Early morning, Cotton Bowl is coming on, I'm a hog fan WPS, I'm outa
Yazoo 0
I was a Marine Corps pilot. I had what we called "A Special Instrument Card". That meant that you were allowed to take off and land in zero-zero. Of course the only pilots who were granted the Special Instrument Rating were the ones smart enough to NEVER USE IT!!!
@Yazoo - what were u flying?
WOW. Now these guys have to find the terminal. Have done some low ones but this one was essentially zero/zero.
Yazoo 0
@Dan Chiasson - OV10 Bronco
very cool. A hero of an AC
I would like to see the Pilot still in a job after attempting a CAT111 with a hand job on a 747 (with no ILS) the joker who said he could do that. !! well say no more.
I'v flown HARRIER JUMPS, and would not land in CAT111 in Sea Mist on a CARRIER with out ILS. The best inventions to date for saftey for Crew & passengers is ILS, TCAS & TAWS.
For the sake of the Passengers that read this TWITTER, the only time we would do a CAT111
Landing today with a Fog Vis of 200mtrs would be in extream emergency, otherwise we would be put to Divert to another Airport
Yazoo 0
@John Koegh - You are correct that you still need the ILS.
However, John, 200M visibility or less is not an "extreme emergency". Our training allows 150M (500RVR) (75M/150RVR with a HUD) takeoffs and landings as low as 75M (300RVR). Most newer aircraft are capable of landing below what most US airports are certified. Our job is to get the passenger to their destination. Due to costs we can't carry as much hold fuel as we used too but we will still attempt an approach to minimums before diverting. If the approach is certified to 150RVR/75M I'm going to make the attempt.
Got to stand with you there. That's what we get trained for and that's why Mr Honeywell is on most AC.When you get down in that 150m range and less, you are basically there anyway and prettty much all you are doing is having a major gut check and feel the pucker factor go up. If everything goes right, you will probably get down OK. If it is that bad, your problem is going to be on the ground after you get down.
WOW that's serious FG
Lowest I've done is 1800 RVR.
Did a Cat. 3C in an A320 Sim.
Makes the heart pound either way
no matter how many times you do it.
I wish the audio was clear; I would have liked to have heard that conversation. You do what you gotta do. Somebody here said that's what pilots get the big bucks for. At that point, the pilot is along for the ride to a point and the big bucks are for a gut check and the pucker factor, because if anything goes wrong, chances are it will be too damn late to do anything about it..Did you see how quick those lights appeared??!! Been there and done that, both this way and the old way and neither is any fun. Way back yonder in GCA days, I was a PAX on a TWA Convair 880 milk run that I got on at KPHX. Somwhere past KAMA, FO had a heart Attack, FE was first flight out and didn't know squat, and I wound up taking right seat. KOKC was once in a blue moon socking in and Doc said FO wouldn't make Tulsa. Cap took the OKC slope, controller advised that field was going down fast. GCA rules at the time were "see the lights at 1/4 mile or abort and go around."In our case there would have be no go around as it would close behind us. Crusty old Captain had never bobbled off the slope one iota. Contoller called "1/4 mile,do you see the lights and the Captain never answered; he was already flared or into it and told me to call the lights. They appeared on the right side just about as quickly as in that video. He dropped her onto the runway without a bounce. We inched to a taxiway, called the number and held until they could get a light truck out ther to get us into a gate.
You started writing that book yet Wayne? Put me on the waiting list.
Nah, haven't got time. Leavin' here after while to go on to KFSM and DH over to KMEM for RON. Got to turn one of DAL's 9's to KATL early morning. Kinda bothers me. Haven't been in one in awhile but I guess I'll handle it OK. I ain't crazy about KATL either but I did an MD80 turn from DFW to there and back for AA the weekend before their bankruptcy and theirs not a lot of difference, just age.
white nuckle, trust in THE LORD IS MY CO-PILOT time.
And Honeywell is the lord's copilot.
Hi Chip,
Can you provide me your dads tel #? Ed
LOVE IT! Makes the ILS in my 172 seem trivial
Talk about trusting your instruments! Wow.
Well, the comment was made above that it was a pucker factor of


アカウントをお持ちではありませんか? 今すぐ登録(無料)!機能やフライトアラート、その他様々な設定をカスタマイズできます!