FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1970
1970 - 0018.PDF
FLIGHT International I January 1970 AIR TRANSPORT. . Pilot's point of view Amid the encircling gloom CAN WE LAND SAFELY? Is there any lower patch of stratus, or fog?" This is the fog season, and pilots will frequently be peering out of their flight-deck windows to evaluate what they hope will develop into an acceptable display of approach and runway lighting. Despite the fullest introduction of Cat 3 operations this dangerous assessment will still need to be made, and in fact there will always be a very large proportion of civil airline operations where a "go/no-go" decision is required. This is because the cost of automatic-landing equipment is probably too high for those operators who are only irregularly exposed to very low landing-visibility conditions, and because of con tinuing ground-equipment deficiencies. Pilots will be taking note of TCAO's Aircraft Accident Dines) Circular 88-AN/74 (issue No 17). and particularly of one state ment in it: "A satisfactory visibility from a certain height does not exclude, particularly under thin fog conditions, the possibility of a very low horizontal visibility near the ground." There is nothing new about this piece of information. It is part of any elementary pilot-training course in meteorology, and is regularly reinforced by a monotonously familiar series of accidents each year. What causes pilots to be misled into continuing approaches when such conditions exist? There may be several reasons, no one of which is the prime cause, but which if taken together do suggest the means for remedying the situation. The reporting of visibility is still in its infancy, and there is a direct relationship between accident risk and the efficiency and accuracy of the runway-visibility reporting method in use. Without the use of accurate automatic reporting equipment situated at the touchdown, mid-runway and rollout zones, how can we ever expect to give pilots warning of trouble in time? The existence of non-standard reporting procedures, and the various methods of producing runway visual range from visual observations has become a disgrace. We are now beginning to see the introduction of many Cat 2 operations, with pilot assessment of landing visibility an essen tial and vital part of the philosophy, ft is too easy to accuse the pilot of being foolhardy in attempting a landing if he runs into a patch of very low visibility during the flare, touchdown or rollout, and then runs off the runway, or if he loses orienta tion with catastrophic results. It has taken years for Britain to agree to fit transmissometers at London and other fog-ridden Korean Airlines bought the first two reconditioned Boeing 720s which the manufacturer is now offering. One is seen here at Hong Kong airports. Many pilots suspect that the reasons for the delay are political rather than operational. Runway lighting and the last thousand feet of approach lighting are the vital parts of the system for very low visibility approaches. There is today a chaotic situation of lighting standards on the world's instrument runways. A pilot used to Calvert-type bars or the ALPA system, modified or unmodified, or. to any of the many variations on these themes that are fitted as a result of varying committee policies in varying States, can be forgiven if he is not expert in interpreting their differing cues in the second or two available for decision making. We have spent millions of pounds on autoland development, on visual attachments to simulators, on films and on flight-safety committees and organisations. What have we produced? A breed of pilots who have insufficient training in the interpretation of runway lighting patterns in marginal conditions. BLEU (the Blind-Landing Experimental Unit) produced a series of films of low-IAS approaches at Bedford in very bad fog conditions. Many pilots have seen these, but they are only representative of Varsity speeds. We badly need the IATA Technical Committee to sponsor a series of colour slides and films to give training and preparation to pilots. The films could show a standard approach on to all types of runway lighting now in use at fog-prone airports, in colour, with some guidance as to the local vagaries of reporting equipment, reaction time to deteriorations and so on. Many airports still have that old and out-dated system by which any changes in the RVR must be processed by a time- wasting procedural chain involving meteorological offices. The direct-reading automatic equipment now available should be in front of the tower landing controllers, and should be fitted with some type of alarm system to warn of dangerous deteriora tions and fluctuations. I have purposely left discussion of the setting of RVR. RVV and visibility minima to the end of this discussion as the most important single item. Any airline needs regularity, and this has to be achieved with minimum risk and cost. These are conflicting requirements. Striking a balance is the business of experts, not amateurs, yet we still have many office-borne gentlemen involved who have never even witnessed a-low- visibility approach done in anger. Thank goodness there are opportunities for pilot opinion to modify policy-making in this area. Normally the operators set operational minima, but with occasional overriding control from the FAA, Board of Trade or other aviation authority. Such control was exercised in *<o#e*r/»/v ..arret.r/vtss: •
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
