Landing to left of runway

[mokeiko]

Hi all,

I flew from KSFO to KJFK. When approaching ILS RWY22, aircraft landed to the left of runway, like about 30 to 40 feet to the left. I have latest Build 10.40, latest AIRAC 1803. Just to be sure I reloaded PSX, positioned aircraft using PSX Position tab and I was at center of RWY22. Was this some kind of IRS drift of sorts? Thanks for any help.

By the way, I am using Foreflight Interface v3.0.1, WidePSX v1.0.6 (AloftWX and Printer only for now).

fly safe


Francisco

[Dirk Schepmann]

Hi Francisco,
do you remember the weather conditions when it occured? Maybe there was a change of wind direction close to the ground?

Perhaps you have a copy of the METAR or TAF from your flight plan.



Best regards,
Dirk

[Hardy Heinlin]

Hi,

according to the government data there is an offset of ca. 2 degrees. So you can't do a full autoland.


22R localizer course is 221

https://de.flightaware.com/resources/airport/JFK/IAP/ILS+OR+LOC+RWY+22R/pdf


22R runway heading is 223.9

https://de.flightaware.com/resources/airport/JFK/APD/AIRPORT+DIAGRAM/pdf


The IJOC localizer antenna is not at the end of the runway but to the left of the runway.


Regards,

|-|ardy

[mokeiko]

hi |-|ardy,

"according to the government data there is an offset of ca. 2 degrees. So you can't do a full autoland.


22R localizer course is 221

https://de.flightaware.com/resources/airport/JFK/IAP/ILS+OR+LOC+RWY+22R/pdf


22R runway heading is 223.9

https://de.flightaware.com/resources/airport/JFK/APD/AIRPORT+DIAGRAM/pdf


The IJOC localizer antenna is not at the end of the runway but to the left of the runway."

I did not take this into account, I realized the error. Thank you for the help guys.

fly safe

francisco

[torrence]

A related tutorial on operating in the crowded airspace around KJFK is Britjet's tutorial on using an offset VOR approach to 22L transitioning to flying the final visually on the ILS.

  https://youtu.be/kTXpk6rdJGI 

You can also find it on the Tutorial link here.

Cheers,
Torrence

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

Except for the quiet absence of "CAT II/III" on the 22R plate compared to 22L... easy to miss.

I forgot the definitions. Is a CAT I ever autoland certified in the first place?


/-/

[emerydc8]

I forgot the definitions. Is a CAT I ever autoland certified in the first place?

We do autolands with only a Cat I approach (VMC conditions) when the flight plan indicates the aircraft needs a landing, but not sure the score we put in the aircraft logbook qualifies for anything. If we do a successful autoland to a Cat I runway, we can only put a score of 1 in the logbook (instead of 3). You also have to be aware that there is no protection from signal interference by other aircraft or ground vehicles, so you should not be surprised if there is a deviation on final, although the built-in feature to continue tracking and descending during the interference period works very well. Some companies don't allow a Cat I autoland. JetBlue comes to mind, but maybe it's an Airbus thing.

Jon

[United744]

There is no reason why you can't autoland any time - the category of landing is about weather minima and equipment, so if the equipment is present and correct, and the weather is at or above the minima for that category, there is no problem (technically).

The airlines that I know of that autoland, require the flight crew to request protection for the ILS during the autoland, and if they can't get the protections, they don't do it (this is when it is a VFR day for example but they want to do it). There is otherwise no limitation, except serviceability of the aircraft and ground equipment.

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

Ok, thanks.  I wasn't sure whether CAT I equipment was accurate enough to get you down onto the runway in a reliable, safe way.

[John H Watson]

Qantas regularly does VMC autolands in Sydney to keep the system "certified" for Cat III landings. If no autolands are successfully performed within 45 days, Cat III autolands are invalidated. Sydney is only rated at Cat I.

[emerydc8]

There is no restriction in our 767 manuals for us to do autoland in VMC conditions on a Cat I-only runway, other than we can't grade it as a 3 in the logbook. But I think Cat II and Cat III LOC and G/S have an additional stabilizing beam for accuracy (additional to the two normal frequencies). There are also assurances that the beam geometry and any terrain interference has been analyzed, so maybe that's why some airlines don't allow it. Maybe it's a difference between Boeing and Airbus equipment too.

Personally, I wouldn't want to drive into a busy airport and announce that we need to have the Cat II/III area protected because we want to do an autoland. That would not make a lot of people happy (ORD or JFK comes to mind here). Maybe some airlines have prior agreements with ATC on this, but usually we are just glad to get the runway we want, so we don't have to taxi for thirty minutes. 

[Holger Wende]

Hi,

Why is it a difference for ATC whether a plane performs an Autoland or manual landing under VMC?
It this due to other separation rules? Or does Autoland (if indicated in the flight plan or for certification only) require to do a full stop on the runway rather than vacating early?

Thanks, Holger

[Jeroen Hoppenbrouwers]

If you want to perform an Autoland, ATC needs to keep ground vehicles including aircraft further away from the runway, to protect the ILS radio signals from being warped by metal objects traveling through or near them. This typically causes a delay of ground ops that ATC would prefer to avoid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_area_(aeronautics)


Hoppie

[Holger Wende]

Hi Hoppie,

Thanks for the link, I was not aware of these critical areas.
During my next flights (as real-life passenger) I'll look out for the ILS signs, I think I never noticed them, neither as passenger nor in any video.

... the aircraft needs a landing ...

Jon's comment made me really smile, initially:
For a moment I was imagining aircraft that never need to land ... 

Regards, Holger

[John H Watson]

There is no restriction in our 767 manuals for us to do autoland in VMC conditions on a Cat I-only runway, other than we can't grade it as a 3 in the logbook.

Surely if you can get an acceptible landing at a mere CAT I runway, your aircraft systems will more than capable of autolanding on a more precise/accurate CAT 3 runway? Actually, I really doubt that there are unique ground station signal features which enable Cat III landings.  I think that aviation authorities simply require CAT III runways to be tested more often with dedicated testing aircraft (expensive) and that there is no regular signal interference from nearby buildings (such as monstrous metal shipping container storage areas 30 feet high like they have in Sydney, adjacent to the ILS) and the stuff already mentioned (e.g. that the taxiways are marked to keep aircraft away from the runway when an aircraft is landing).

I can understand why you wouldn't write in your personal logbook that you've done a Cat III landing, but not in the aircraft logbook. The aircraft systems have no idea what runway visibility is.

[emerydc8]

I'm 100% sure of this: At my airline, if you do not have a Cat II or Cat III runway, you cannot grade it s a 2 or 3 in the aircraft logbook. Whether an autoland to a Cat I runway is sufficient to check the box for doing an autoland as a part of our ongoing certification, I don't know. This is in reference to the aircraft logbook -- not my own logbook.

[Britjet]

We would frequently be asked via the tech log to do an autoland to revalidate the aircraft ability after a hangar check. There were no specific requirements at the destination airfield for this, except that it had to be a Cat 3 runway. (Most folk would "conveniently forget" because they might need the landing themselves for recency). We never told ATC. I suppose the logic was that if the aircraft could do a decent landing with unprotected areas around the runway it could do it in real confitions. I suspect they were just testing the multi-autopilot and flare functions anyway...

If the RVR was ever less than 200m it required an entry in the tech log, with "satisfactory" or not.

You certainly couldn't log a Cat 3 in personal logbooks if it wasn't such.

Peter

[emerydc8]

There were no specific requirements at the destination airfield for this, except that it had to be a Cat 3 runway.

Peter, I was called on this a few months ago by the logbook police when I graded a 3 going into a Cat I runway. I think they just live to find a mistake on the aircraft log page so they can send a nastygram. I don't even know if I'm wasting my time doing an autoland to a Cat I runway because it may not even count towards continuing certification.

Actually, I really doubt that there are unique ground station signal features which enable Cat III landings.

John, if there are no unique ground station features, then the FAA has sure spent a lot of money over nothing. If you go to pdf page 26 under ILS Monitor Precision Calibrator, this feature operates over the LOC and G/S bands. I was thinking it was an additional stabilizing signal, but it turns out, from what I can tell, to be a monitor for accuracy and integrity of Cat III equipment.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a030150.pdf

Jon

[John H Watson]

John, if there are no unique ground station features, then the FAA has sure spent a lot of money over nothing.

Note that I was very careful with my wording, Jon....   

"....there are no unique ground station signal features...."

Yes, there probably will be more attention paid to monitoring and things like redundancy of transmitter power supplies (perhaps even back up transmitters?)

I'll read that document when I have a few spare hours and a large pot of coffee

[tango4]

Hi guys,

I am a bit late to this topic as I am on holiday right now and don't have access to my computer (apologies for typos, I am on my mobile phone).
I can confirm that in order to be CAT III capable, the ILS is self monitored, and has much more redundancy (including electrical backup). In the tower, all ILS are monitored and we can see in real time if the ILS is indeed CATIII capable. It frequently happens that the ILS is downgraded to CAT I for various reasons, either planned maintenance, or less planned failure if some redundancy goes away...
Basically, only the tower (and approach) will be able to confirm that the ILS is indeed CATIII capable in real time.
Now, as this seems a bit confusing to certain person here is a simplified explanation of what you need for a cat 3 versus the rest.
In order to perform a CATIII autoland with poor visibility, you need 3 things basically:
*The pilot has to be trained AND current for CAT III operations.
* The aircraft has to be capable (meaning the type of aircraft: for example a Q400 can only perform CAT II at best ) AND current (meaning as Jon explained, after maintenance it has to demonstrate its capabilities), both according to the logbook AND to the current status of the aircraft (you might have had a failure during your flight that downgraded the aircraft to various levels).
*LVP have to be in force at the airport (Low Visibility Procedures, this will be in the ATIS). If you want to perform a CATIII without LVP in force (reasons might be for training, or if the weather is bad,you are low on fuel and don't want to risk a missed approach due to minima), you NEED a clearance from ATC.The fact that the airport is in LVP implies that all the protections will be enforced and you can plan whatever ILS type you wish without notifying. You can even fly a CAT I if you wish and if the minima are OK to begin the approach  (or if your aircraft is downgraded ), but you risk going around if you don't see the runway . If LVP are not in force, in order to perform a real CAT III autoland and get a protected signal, you NEED clearance from ATC which will not be possible all the time because it has some consequences. The first thing that comes to mind is the need to increase separations which is not really a good idea in rush hour, but in order to guarantee signal protection, other things are needed: here is what we have to do at LFPG.
You need to "lock" the ILS, which will turn some red lights on inside the ILS Shelter to prevent any intervention from maintenance personnel. You have to call all vehicles on a dedicated frequency to make sure there are no vehicles in the CATIII protected area (remember, you are not in LVP, so there can be a vehicle in this area !). If the runway you intend to land on is operated in mixed mode (departures and arrivals on the same runway), you have to make sure that any awaiting departure is maintaining the CATIII holding point.
At LFPG, it is published that pilot can request a CAT III for training only during the afternoon for all those reasons (less traffic).


Now regarding CAT I autoland, as an ATC, it is not my business. This procedure is airline dependent. The biggest danger of this procedure is a lack of training about this in some airlines. You MUST BE AWARE THAT ILS PROTECTION IS NOT GUARANTEED. That means that you have to be ready to take over manually at any time. Airliner autopilots are able to compensate fairly well any false signal, as long as it is identified by the computer as a deviation, and as Jon told, the aircraft will maintain its inertial path. The biggest problem is what we call slow deviation, frequently caused by the previous departure overflying the localizer or by an aircraft maintaining CAT I holding point (this causes signal reflections). In such cases the autopilot will not identify it as a parasite and will follow the false signal...
This is what happened at Munich to this B777. If I remember correctly the field was not in LVP. And there had been a misunderstanding between the crew and the ATC. The crew thought they were cleared for a CAT III, and ATC did not apply CAT III separations with the previous departure.
Here is the result:



From: http://avherald.com/h?article=445873f3/0000

I hope my post will help you understand the ground side of this better.

Once again apologies for the typos and poor clarity, conditions were not ideal for my writing !

All the best.

Charles


Hoppie fixed some phone-induced formatting issues