Mr. President...

speedbird591 · Post by **speedbird591** » 21 Dec 2006, 21:42

That sounds right as well, Dave :roll: I guess I can only concentrate on the non-technical explanations at my age

But I'm like you - I don't care very much. I'm not flying anywhere :sad:

Ian

DanKH · Post by **DanKH** » 21 Dec 2006, 21:48

I can confirm the lousy weather at EGLL yester-evening/night.

If the downloaded metar can be trusted.

I had most of the airport to myself as I landed at 0400.

9L came into sight approximately 0.5 nm out....

Good for framerates though!

100% traffic and clouds etc...and still 18-25 FPS ;-)

Fog isn't always a bad thing.....

Post by **DaveB** » 22 Dec 2006, 00:41

Certainly not. I flew out of Coltishall this evening to Den Helder (De Kooy) and had a very pleasant trip. Vis on the other side of the North Sea was 3000ft.. more than adequate for me to faux Pas the landing

ATB

DaveB :tab:

petermcleland · Post by **petermcleland** » 22 Dec 2006, 12:23

DaveB wrote: They reported late last night that the shorthauls were cancelled (in part) due to minimums.. that being, vis was at around 150meters and the majority of shorthaul aircraft only being cleared for 200meter ops.. the larger aircraft being cleared to operate at 150mtr hence transatlantic and longhaul were not having the same problem. (sri that explanation went on so long) Seemed reasonable so I accepted it! :roll:

I wonder what happened to CATIII :think:

Perhaps they couldn't afford it anymore

I think the ATC change from 3 mile separation to 6 miles might cause a bit of worry...How many collisions on the runway due to fog have we had in the history of Heathrow? :tuttut:

cstorey · Post by **cstorey** » 22 Dec 2006, 13:42

Peter - the answer may be that there have been a number of incidents recently at EGLL with a/c kissing each other from adjacent taxiways ( a recent AAIB bulletin details this) - the problem seems to be winglets and the fact that with many of the modern long fuselage a/c the extremities cannot be seen from the cockpit . Thus centreline positioning becomes of paramount importance and in the sort of vis there yesterday ground ops became very hazardous - incidentally EGBB were giving 50m vis last night!

petermcleland · Post by **petermcleland** » 22 Dec 2006, 16:49

cstorey wrote:Peter - the answer may be that there have been a number of incidents recently at EGLL with a/c kissing each other from adjacent taxiways ( a recent AAIB bulletin details this) - the problem seems to be winglets and the fact that with many of the modern long fuselage a/c the extremities cannot be seen from the cockpit . Thus centreline positioning becomes of paramount importance and in the sort of vis there yesterday ground ops became very hazardous - incidentally EGBB were giving 50m vis last night!

The 6 mile separation would not affect this.

petermcleland · Post by **petermcleland** » 22 Dec 2006, 16:52

TomNocturnal wrote:If not, and Its FS9, can you please point me in the direction of those Traffic packs, Ground/Airport textures and everything else you have running to get it looking so sweet!!! :huf:

Tom,

I got into World of AI today and it seems well in advance of PAI...give it a try

http://www.world-of-ai.com/

kit · Post by **kit** » 25 Dec 2006, 09:52

Peter,

petermcleland wrote: The 6 mile separation would not affect this.

A guy from Swanley on TV explained that the 6 mile separation on approach, which directly causes the 50% reduction in traffic, is enforced because a/c on the runway take longer to clear the active in very low vis. conditions.

I can see what he means, even if the a/c are CATIII equipped, but you'd think that something could be done about that in this technological age. How come the a/c with GPS-NAV can't 'see' well enough to turn off at the correct taxiway?

Me, I use Ctrl-S in those conditions and I know EXACTLY where I am

cstorey · Post by **cstorey** » 25 Dec 2006, 11:08

Kit and Peter - it's 15 years since I used to go to EGLL, but even then, to accommodate the amount of traffic they had, at peak times it was not that uncommon to be given a minimum approach speed of 160 kts IAS and a "land after " instruction, so that there were two a/c on the runway at once. Often, these were coupled with an " earliest turn off" instruction . Plainly this cannot be done safely in poor vis, hence the vast reduction in landing capacity in Cat III conditions

speedbird591 · Post by **speedbird591** » 25 Dec 2006, 12:24

One of my last jump seat landings before I retired from BA was on a 777 at Dubai in almost zero visibility. The Captain was prepared for an overshoot and had earmarked Bahrain as the alternate but decided to make one attempt. Decision height was over the threshold and we could see absolutely nothing. Just as he was about to abort, the white bars appeared under the nose and he let it autoland at which point the fog closed in again and we were thundering down the runway at 130 knots feeling the centreline with the nosewheel.

Finding a turn off was the next problem and meant crawling along with the FO standing up to look over the panel for the taxiway markers. Having found a turn-off we then had to crawl along to find the main taxiway. Both pilots were looking left as an Emirates Airbus suddenly appeared on our right just as we were about to cross in front of it. After an emergency stop they gave up and asked for assistance in the form of a pick-up truck with a 'follow me' light on the cab. We had to follow very slowly about 20 feet behind or we would have lost him.

It was a very sobering experience that you can land 300 tons of machinery at 150 mph on to a precise spot and then you have the same ability as a Reliant Robin to get any further.

Ian