In normal operations we work to the wake turbulance minima so generally down to 3nm (medium followed by medium or anything bigger).  If there is a bit of a headwind and the weather allows it we reduce this to 2.5 mile spacing.  With the catchup from 4 miles it's not unusual for the first to be touching down and the 2nd within 2 miles from touchdown.

 

I believe our stats average out to 1 go-around a day over the course of the year.  Obviously you may go 4/5 days with non and then on a bad weather day have 4 or 5 in a row.

 

Thanks for the info!

In the US that's true, but not necessarily in the rest of the world. Certainly in the UK you'll normally get an ILS approach.

 

 

Really?  I guess that probably makes no sense to me based on how we push traffic.  With CFMU from runway to runway, I'm sure that makes a little more sense for the environment, and making it easier for the computer to process and predict.

 

Still...seems horribly inefficient.

 

...cue the "well EGKK is the busiest single runway in the world" comment. :rolleyes:

 

In Canada it's ILS quite often if it's available. That being said I live in a mountainous area, but I can give you that CYVR likes its ILS approaches for jet aircraft. The turboprops do their own things there, as always.

 

And I think that some charts (Jeppesen, Canadian CAPs) have both Decision Height (DH, or DA) in both ASL and AGL for reference. But you're right that everything except CAT II/III ops use ASL heights

I'm not saying it's inteherently unsafe - but it is a foreing concept to me

 

haha - yeah.  I'm just generally musing instead of actually driving a point across (what??? he's not trying to win an argument??? is he okay???).

 

 

So, never report traffic in sight.  :lol:

 

If I was a controller, I'd just never call it.  Does it provide me an operational advantage?  Nope?  K.  No calls will be made.  Then again, I'm sure someone will crawl some document and cite that it's required in certain cases.  Either way, I'd only do it where absolutely required.  Here in the States, I can use it to my advantage.

 

 

 

In Canada it's ILS quite often if it's available. That being said I live in a mountainous area, but I can give you that CYVR likes its ILS approaches for jet aircraft. The turboprops do their own things there, as always.

 

So if it's a severe clear day they're still going to run the ILSs over the visuals?

 

 

So if it's a severe clear day they're still going to run the ILSs over the visuals?

 

I can't speak for the entire country on this, but on the pacific coast yes, they very often put anything with turbines on an ILS or an RNAV with LPV. Although this could just be a local thing due to the mountainous terrain locally and the large amount of flight training centres. Instead of having to call tons of traffic advisories, the VFR stay away from the ILS corridors, and the IFR stick to them quite precisely to avoid conflicts. It's a busy place.

 

CZBB (Boundary Bay) is a small training airport 10 nm south of CYVR with 9 flight schools and is 3rd in aircraft movements in the country behind CYYZ and CYVR, and it DOESN'T have scheduled air services. Just a butt load of foreign flight students flying the ugliest circuits you've ever seen. 

 

 

Just a butt load of foreign flight students flying the ugliest circuits you've ever seen.

 

haha - clearly you've never been to Phoenix :wink:

 

 

So if it's a severe clear day they're still going to run the ILSs over the visuals?

 

It does help with some problems - if a pilot is on ILS, or RNAV with vertical guidance, or something similar, you can be sure where he will fly, both lateraly and vertically. With a visual approach, you can never be so sure. Not just for separation, noise is also a consideration. 

 

 

It does help with some problems - if a pilot is on ILS, or RNAV with vertical guidance, or something similar, you can be sure where he will fly, both lateraly and vertically.

 

Sure, but again:

On a severe clear day, people are telling me that controllers are pushing the ILS over the visual.  I find that hard to believe.  While visuals do introduce variance, it's not much, particularly at higher traffic airports, where the airlines often have pilots back up visuals with the ILS indications anyway.

 

This is a wholly different concept from a visual where people are instructed to intercept the localizer.  Stringing on the LOC is still a visual procedure, and doesn't require all of the procedural items (and clearances) that the ILS would.

 

 

 

Not just for separation, noise is also a consideration.

 

Oh noise...don't get me started on that argument.  Europeans may have an argument, seeing that some of their houses are older than the country I live in (and therefore definitely outdate the airport), but over here?  Waaaay too much "oh, this is a great spot for a house," followed by "that airport is too noisy!!!!!"  Never mind that it predates your house by 50 years, you knew it was there, and still decided to put your house there.

Contrary to popular sim-belief, ILS approaches are actually pretty rare when compared to visual approaches (though many crews are taught to select the ILS approach in the system as a backup to the visual approach, and just in case ATC asks them to "intercept the localizer" to aid the visual approach). Furthermore, just because the aircraft is capable, and the approach is available, it doesn't mean that the approach will be used.

 

Doesn't US Part 121 require the ILS to be used at night if the airport has one available?  I've never flown 121 so I don't know but I remember hearing that at some point.

 

Oh noise...don't get me started on that argument.  Europeans may have an argument, seeing that some of their houses are older than the country I live in (and therefore definitely outdate the airport), but over here?  Waaaay too much "oh, this is a great spot for a house," followed by "that airport is too noisy!!!!!"  Never mind that it predates your house by 50 years, you knew it was there, and still decided to put your house there.

 

Funny story about that from college - this guy had a house around our practice area where we were at least 3,000 AGL but he always complained to the flight school about noise (and there is no way for him to even know it was our flight school airplane), and even one time he called and said he was going to shoot his assault rifle at the next airplane that flew over his house.  I really wanted to head out to the ramp and jump in an airplane and head on over there but the FBI got to his house before I could.

Doesn't US Part 121 require the ILS to be used at night if the airport has one available? I've never flown 121 so I don't know but I remember hearing that at some point.

I don't mean to come across rude, but I got a good laugh from that. Definitely no on that one. I followed a 757 and an ERJ the other night. All three of is were visual, (though I was Part 91). The 73 up my [rear] was vis too.

 

Perhaps you're thinking of an SOP from an operator where they often say it should supplement a visual where avail.

 

Funny story about that from college - this guy had a house around our practice area where we were at least 3,000 AGL but he always complained to the flight school about noise (and there is no way for him to even know it was our flight school airplane), and even one time he called and said he was going to shoot his assault rifle at the next airplane that flew over his house. I really wanted to head out to the ramp and jump in an airplane and head on over there but the FBI got to his house before I could.

Haha. Nice. If you look at the complaint data around IAD, it loosely follows house price and income. Sad...

I don't mean to come across rude, but I got a good laugh from that. Definitely no on that one. I followed a 757 and an ERJ the other night. All three of is were visual, (though I was Part 91). The 73 up my [rear] was vis too.

 

Perhaps you're thinking of an SOP from an operator where they often say it should supplement a visual where avail.

 

I don't remember where I heard it - it was a long time ago.

 

Haha. Nice. If you look at the complaint data around IAD, it loosely follows house price and income. Sad...

 

It's all relative.  Flying around DFW where airports are situated in the middle of the city and suburbs and you'll get the same results, as rich people think their complaints hold even more weight because they live in a big house.

We have a small fleet of 777 so with that, not too many destinations.

 

But Thailand, Malaysia, India, Australia, Europe, and I am sure I forgot some places.....if they have an ILS....you get an ILS.

 

Even in severe clear weather!

 

You can request a visual and you might be granted one, but I find it is more a US thing.

Hi,

I enjoy my 777 PMDG. But i have a little technical question about the Baro or Radio settings to display for the DA when landing.

Imagine we are landing on the EDDK airport, performing the ILS14L approach (Elevation of THR 14L is 230 ')

On the charts we can see this info :

 

ILS Cat II Category D (B777) :  323 (93)

 

What does i set on my MCP :

 

- BARO with 323  ?

- BARO with 93  ?

 

- RADIO with 323  ?

- RADIO with 93   ?

 

Could u give me the answer and the explanation ?

Thanks a lot.

We have similar discussions before so I hope this cut from an older post helps:

 

 

radio altitude (RA) can only be used if published on the approach charts.

Several chart providers exist, but I assume they all indicate radio altitude minimus with "RA".

 

These are very exact numbers and take into account even the sligthest uneveness in terrain.

I am looking at the ILS 16 into Zurich LSZH at the moment.

You would think the Cat II approach for this runway would have a RA of 100ft.

But it does not.

It reads 93ft.

Why...because those 100ft minimus (standard cat II minimums) are measuered above Threshold elevation. When you are 100ft height above the threshold you have to see the runway or go around. And when you are 100ft above the threshold you are about 1/3nm from the threshold, and right below you at that position there happens to be a little pile of dirt that makes your radioaltimeter read 93ft :-)

 

So, when you are using published baro minimums (lets take 200ft baro for example) and convert them to an above ground height and dial that into your RA....then you might get that (200ft RA) read out way earlier if you pass over a hill somewhere during the approach. And you would innitiate an unnecessary go around.

Or...worse case....if the runway is on top of a hill....you would not get a 200ft RA readout anywhere before the threshold! You would bust your minimums and go down dangerously low!

 

So, only use RA when published!

(In real life that is...ofcourse while simming you can do as you please :-) )

 

Then there are those other values that are published next to your baro minimums.

200 - 550

What are those?

They are not values to put into your RA!

 

Zurich for example has a Cat I Baro minima of 1590ft Baro.

Zurichs elevation is 1390ft

1390 + 200ft = 1590ft

Yes, but you can not put 200ft in your RA and fly it like that (see above).

Those 200 - 550 are your weather minima!

When you read a weather report (Metar or TAF) the cloud bases in there are AGL (above ground).

So if you want to go to Zurich and are allowed to fly no lower than Cat I minimums with your equipment or your certification (I know the 777 is Cat IIIB but not all aircraft are) then you need a cloud base of 200ft AGL and a visibility of 550 meters.

 

LSZH 030100Z 160/15 0800 FG BKN003 10/9 1013 is good.

800m visibility and the cloud base is 300ft above ground :-)

 

LSZH 030100Z 160/15 0800 FG BKN001 10/9 1013 is Not good!

800m visibility is ok, but you cant plan with that airport as the cloud base is only 100ft above ground.

Can I ask a follow up question here.  I seemed to lose the "MINIMUM" Call out.  It is selected in the FMC as "MINIMUMS MINIMUMS", all other call outs are 500,400 300, 200 etc are called out, but not the minimums.  Any clue what I may have changed.   Altimeter  is properly set to what FSX says the baro pressure is. 

 

 

Altimeter is properly set to what FSX says the baro pressure is.

 

Altimeter isn't the issue.  You have to set the minimums on the other knob on that same panel (it says MINS right above it).

 

If the plane doesn't know what the mins are, how is it going to notify you when you're reaching them?

It can't.

Tell the plane where the mins are - baro or radio - and it'll call mins.

 

The 500, 400, 300 calls are always there (based on the airline options).  Those aren't minimums based.  Those are calls to notify the crew how close they are to the ground to gauge how they're doing on the approach.

 

Remember: 99% of the time, if something works and then stops working, the cause is you.

OK thanks, I knew it was something I did.  I'll monkey around with that knob - I just couldn't figure it out.