NTSB faults Flight Options check airman

[Aspiring to be]

Thanks! Absoluate a great site. Now if I could only decide which one I want.

 

[Aspiring to be]

Absolutely It is early!!

 

[Singlecoil]

Visibility of less than a mile and x-wind stronger than 10 knots is a no no. Part 121 for a CAT 1, 2, or 3 approach you can not have more than a 10 knot x-wind.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. There is no such limit in the FAR's. Perhaps you are referring to contaminated runway operations, i.e, when the braking action is reported poor. Then there very well may be a 10kt x-wind limit, but that will be airplane or company specific, again not found in the FAR's. I have flown two different airplanes under 121 that can do a 600RVR cat III with a 15 knot x-wind, but not if the runway is contaminated.

 

[SkywayFO]

If there was a Cat 1 10 kts x-wind limit than there would be not approaches done by the airlines at ORD in the fall or spring. I think you may have something with CatIII. But lets face it is it is really CatIII conditions than most likely it is do to fog and there is very little or no wind.

 

[Aspiring to be]

I do not have time to find the FAR now but I stand by what I said and that is you can not make a CAT 1, 2 or 3 approaches with more than 10 knots of x-wind under part 121.

Not sure if any aircraft autopilot is certified to autoland with 15 knots of x-wind. I have a type for the 767 and several older airliners. I would never make an autoland for weather above CAT II. I have made many manual landing from a CAT II approach. For CAT III except with a very few exceptions you must (must) autoland. Some operators with a heads-up display can make a manual landing. A 600 RVR approach would be a CAT III b and would require an autoland. The approach would be limited to 10 knots of cross wind. You must be mistaken about the 15 knots. The autopilot might be certified to autoland with 15 knots of x-wind but you could not shoot the approach with more than 10 knots.

I was wrong in the landing made at CLE was not a CAT I. I was thinking vis. was less than 1/2 mile.

 

[cgmason1]

The 737-700 has the following autoland wind limits:
Headwind: 25 knots
Crosswind: 20 knots
Tailwind: 15 knots

Fly Safe
Chuck

 

[vclean]

I have not heard of a xwind limitation for a CAT I approach. The two 121 operations I have worked at had no such limitation in our regulations or opspecs. I did a search on the FAA site and found no language regarding a 10Kt Xwind CAT I limitation.

If this was the case, a lot of us would be called into the CP's office and getting phone calls from our PIO.

 

[Aspiring to be]

I will have to find it later, it is there. CAT I 1800RVR -2400RVR. It would be very rare to have more than 10 knots with RVR less than 2400. I have seen it maybe two or three times in over thirty years. Not saying it does not accure more often but that is all that I can remember. I have never seen a CAT II or III that I could not shoot due to x-wind. The 10 knot restriction does not apply for an ILS less (more vis) than Cat I.

 

[Singlecoil]

Maybe you haven't flown in a while, but 600RVR is now Cat IIIa, not Cat IIIb. This was a change made several years ago to get the US more in line with ICAO minimums.
Less then 2400 RVR and greater than a 10 knot crosswind is not at all uncommon in some areas of the country. Advection fog in coastal areas in the summer, and blowing snow in the winter will cause these conditions with pervasive regularity. Again, there is no FAR x-wind limit.

 

[100-1/2]

Does anyone else see this?

Braking action reported as, "poor". I don't know of many 135 operators' POI's that allow use of a contaminated runway with anything less than fair and/or without a recalculation of required landing lengths. Even on Part 91 Legs, you cannot exceed your Ops Specs unless they specifically make exception under Part 91 Ops. It seems to me they were hosed from the moment the Hawker made the report.

In a situation like this workload is understandibly high and full consideration on such a report could easily be missed by the PIC, however, it was acknowledged and should have been weighed heavier. Yes it is Mon Morning QB, but there is a reason those limits exist. I am dissappointed that such an experienced aviator allowed his own capabilities to be exceeded. I am mildly dissappointed the FO did not question the Capt on the Hawker's report and assert an alternative course of action such as servicing the client out of Hopkins. I say Mildly because he already had his hands and thoughts full of airplane at the moment the report was relayed by tower. That is why these aircraft require 2-TWO pilot CREWS.

Am I wrong or are there Operators that would have been legal to land at the airport after the HS report? If it would have been legal, would it have been safe?

I am thinking to myself:

"11pm, there is one COUNTY worker plowing the runway and his pay is not based on quality assurance or expeditious snow removal. It is cold and he is probably just running the brush a couple of real quick sweeps before the airport closes, so he can get back in the maintenance shack and watch the rest of Howard Stern on E!"

One fine career rounding the corner to retirement was ended prematurely and another obviously in the early stages of blossoming has been largely affected. I think a lot can be learned here and appreciate the initial post so long as it was free from competitive jousting or glee in this hardship.

100-1/2