traveller001

Southwest already has higher mininums and no Autoland anywhere I assume because the classics can't do it?

rsteinmetz70112

That makes sense to me. A friend of mine, (a former Airtan Captain, current Southwest FO, soon to be Southwest Captain) told me Southwest "dumbed down" everything to the least common denominator. He was aghast that Southwest had mandated that they (Airtran) not use some of the automation in Airtran's planes because some of Southwest's planes were not so equipped.

texashoser

But the higher mins on Cat III approaches have nothing to do with non-precision approaches at airports like Key West.

Southwest captains hand fly the Cat III approach because all the WN aircraft use the HUD system vs. auto-land equipment. Classics could certainly be outfitted with auto-land equipment, it's just that WN brass decided not to go that route. Decision height on Cat III HUD approaches is 50 feet.

The only approaches affected by the Southwest equipment are Cat III ILS approaches - no others would be affected.

texashoser

Had Southwest been operationally flexible, as you claim they were not, did your PL numbers show that with just three flights daily Key West would have been a profitable market?

That's my point. Even with 10,000 foot runways, given those three flights and given opportunities elsewhere, it doesn't seem like Key West was going to be around very long.

PA42

Theres never been an unprofitable mainline operation, as a whole, in this century under a normal ops spec (or under favorable weather days with an abnormal ops spec) no matter who is flying the A319/73G into EYW.

Not sure why you think that way, maybe you have some preconceived notions but they have little do with the reality of that market.

OPNLguy

It may be helpful to observe here that CAT-III ops are the generic terms, and they have more specific definitions by sub-type... DH is Decision Height..

........DH............Visibility Minimums (RVR, runway visual range, in feet)
IIIa...100 feet....700 feet
IIIb...50 feet......150 to 700 feet
IIIc...No DH........No RVR limitation

Some basic info on ILS approaches: http://www.navfltsm.addr.com/ils.htm

I should also observe that CAT-IIIa/b/c approaches are not everywhere, and only installed where they're likely to get utilized, i.e. you won't see any at PHX, but you will see them at places like LAX, SFO, SEA, and other airports that routinely see fog and/or rain, snow, etc.

If anyone wants to see if a specific airport has a CAT-IIIa/b/c approach, check out http://www.airnav.com/airports/ and after typing in the airport code, scroll down to the bottom where there will be a list of instrument approach procedures (IAPs, of all types) that serve that airport.

OPNLguy

I'll second that. When I dispatched at Air Florida back in the early 1980s, we had scheduled service there from MIA, and with the 737-200s in use at the time (it was before the -300s came out), the EYW operation was highly restrictive and unreliable It had to be a -15 or -17 powered -200, no fuel tankering, and most problematic of all, it had to be a dry runway. More than once, a fairly benign rainshower cropped up while enroute and we had to do a 180 back to MIA.

The ironic thing about the overall Key West situation was that, during times of approaching hurricanes (back then) other airlines like Eastern (v1.0) and National (v1.0) use to run widebody evac flights, and those of course went into very close-by NQX, the Naval Air Station. Theoretically, they could have closed EYW, made NQX a joint-use airport (like CHS, ABQ, BLV, and others), and made a better and more reliable operation, but I reckon they wanted to keep things small-scale.

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KNQX

traveller001

NQX though has several tail hook arresting systems for practicing carrier landings. Those are relatively high risk landings during training. (high risk for scheduling mixed use) I can't see the Navy giving it up for mixed use unless a Senator gets involved. Though in several years visits I only saw a couple Navy fighters in the area. Maybe used more in winter? Maybe used to be used more at night before Key West got sound sensitive?

That would mean building a new passenger terminal. Though abandoning EYW with some landfill might make a nice big resort with several pools and a walk over bridge to the beach to offset the cost.

Though with current environmental protections EYW would likely have to be returned to what it once was as a vacant coral shoal.

traveller001

So 50ft with HUD flying by hand is better or worse than proven autoland? I've been aboard autoland landings. Movements are sharp and correct with no over control. Computers react quicker than humans.

If HUD is MEL well it's a Cat I then? I just see the HUD as unneeded. Autoland is needed.

texashoser

I never said that HUD is better than auto-land. The decision by airlines is probably a combination of cost and pilot preference. Many airline pilots prefer hand-flying the approach rather than sitting back and monitoring the approach and flight instruments. Autoland equipment is generally more expensive up front and has a higher maintenance cost.

As to HUD being MEL and Cat I? Not sure what you mean. All Cat III aircraft are required to have at least some sort of fail-operational or fail-passive landing system. As the Cat III RVR minimums decrease, the need for rollout systems are required as well. In order to do the absolute minimum Cat IIIb approach with no decision height and an RVR of of 150 feet, you need both landing and rollout systems that are fail-operational. No airport in the world is certified for Cat IIIc operations (no minimum RVR) because they don't have a taxi way system capable of zero-vis traversing.

So let's say the HUD or auto-land equipment is INOP. If the aircraft has the required flight director system (ie, it's certified) and the pilots are trained and certified in this operation, the approach could be flown as a Cat II approach without auto-land or HUD with minimums of DH 100 and RVR 1200. In other words, no HUD doesn't automatically mean a Cat I approach.

Does this answer your question?

traveller001

Yes it did. Autoland is too expensive I guess. Diversions are NOT cheaper OTOH.

Been on many approaches with autoland and without in weather. I'll take autoland over pilot induced over correction anyday.

Computer flying is spot on and you can feel the difference.

It's kind of reminding me of Airtran with Autoland and RVR minimum of 150ft. WN to my knowledge is 500ft.

texashoser

How do you know which landing system was used? Did you ask the pilots afterwards? And how many landings in each scenario have you done to have adequate sample sizes?

traveller001

FL kept track of them... If ACARS didn't acknowledge I got CA or FO takeoff and Auto on meeting them.

Autoland is quick and precise on approach. No human can do that.

Pilots tend to overfly the aircraft. You only have to watch WN approaches with a crosswind to realize this.