Wilmington Cat 2's

[Colonel Savage]

We had the Cat II up and operating at the time. Dayton would clear us for the approaches (ILS 22/VOR 04), we must have cancelled IFR on the ground, but it's been so long ago I can't remember specificly what the procedures were.

 

[scarface]

You could also cancel in the air with landing assured, if I recall correctly.

 

[scarface]

Cancelling in the air avoided the possibility of a go around if the guy in front of you was slow to call clear; Dayton lost track of you about 400 ft. agl and you cancelled on Dayton. That was back in the 22/4 only runway that was 9000 feet long and 4 was VOR only. Believe it or not the system worked quite well.

 

[Colonel Savage]

Canceling in the air is OK if you're VFR, but on a Cat II down to mins, canceling on the ground after clearing the runway was the senario I was refering to.

 

[nitefr8dog]

Cancelling in the air avoided the possibility of a go around if the guy in front of you was slow to call clear; Dayton lost track of you about 400 ft. agl and you cancelled on Dayton. That was back in the 22/4 only runway that was 9000 feet long and 4 was VOR only. Believe it or not the system worked quite well.

"We" also had Emery land on top of us in a DC8 and rip the tail off of 908AX. Still seems like a bad situation in CAT II weather.

 

[FastHap]

"We" also had Emery land on top of us in a DC8 and rip the tail off of 908AX. Still seems like a bad situation in CAT II weather.

Wasn't that @ Stewart in NY??

 

[Colonel Savage]

Wasn't that @ Stewart in NY??

Yes, it was. 20 Aug 1987:

"The weather was deteriorating as Airborne Express Flight 124 (DC-9-31 N908AX) and Rosenbalm Flight 074 (DC-8-63 N951R) were on successive arrivals for an ILS runway 9 approach at Newburgh-Stewart Airport, NY (SWF). Flight 124 was cleared for the approach and landing. After landing, the Local Controller instructed flight 124 to back taxi on the runway and report when clear of the runway. Flight 074 was then cleared for the ILS runway 9 approach. After contacting the tower, the crew were instructed to reprot at the Outer Marker. Near the OM, the ctew attempted to advize the Local Controller, who was in a lengthy transmission, that they were inside the OM. This transmission was not receieved by the Local Controller. When the Local Controller finished transmitting, the flight crew didn't attempt to alert the Local Controller of their position, nor did they receive a landing clearance. Subsequently, the two aircraft converged as Flight 074 was flaring to land and Flight 124 was exiting the runway. Both crews tried to avoid a collision, but the wing of the DC-8 freighter hit the empennage of the DC-9."

 

[freightdogfred]

"We" also had Emery land on top of us in a DC8 and rip the tail off of 908AX. Still seems like a bad situation in CAT II weather.

Well actually, it was RAX...(Rosenbalm aviation) And it was in KSWF, not ILN...
And it was Cat I not Cat II
And...well that's one captain who won't ever dally back taxiing on an active runway that another aircraft has been cleared to land on.

 

[scarface]

I don't think he was dallying and the accident resulted in Airborne requiring at least one mile visibility to back taxi.

 

[nitefr8dog]

Well actually, it was RAX...(Rosenbalm aviation) And it was in KSWF, not ILN...
And it was Cat I not Cat II
And...well that's one captain who won't ever dally back taxiing on an active runway that another aircraft has been cleared to land on.

I think the point of the discussion was the hazards of operating in uncontrolled airports in IFR conditions. What color the fluids where that ended up on the ground after 908 had the tail ripped off was not really important. TIC