Holguin, Cuba - Is it possible I saw this happen?

[coreydotcom]

Hi guys, I'm brand new to avcanada.

Anyways, I am not a pilot, but I love aviation. Can someone who has experience confirm or dispell what I think I may have seen in Holguin, Cuba.

So we were waiting for our return flight to Montreal but it had not arrived because of some of the heaviest rainstorms I have ever seen. I really don't mind waiting at airports because I am one of those nerds that like just staring out the window and admiring the runway. Anyways, not much going on at Holguin during heavy rains but all of a sudden, I see the runway lights come on (it was dark before and I hadn't noticed they were off). I tell myself the plane must be coming in to land so I go up to the second story to try and get a better look. There's still lightning, but it is off in the distance. All of a sudden, I see the plane's lights so I get all excited. Then a huge bolt of lighting illuminated the sky and it was really really cool to just watch the plane against the cloudy backdrop. So the airplane approaches and it was over the threshold (I think that's what airplane people call the fence lol) and for some reason or another they decide to go around. That was cool too as I had never seen it from the outside and I found it cool. Next funny thing that happened was the runway lights were shut off. I found that funny... do they do it to save energy lol?

Knowing the little I do about aviation, I thought once you went missed you diverted, but around 20 minutes later, I was surprised to to see the runway lights come on again. I thought it was maybe some other plane but nevertheless I went back up to the second floor to watch it. As soon as I saw the plane for the first time I knew it was the same one trying to land again.

This is where I am unsure of what happened but this is what I think happened (please tell me if this is impossible - by the way, I'm pretty sure the plane was in the A320 family but I don't know if it's relevant to the story): The airplane crossed the threshold, and I think (this is the part I'm not sure about) he/she put the main landing gear down but then he went around again (I am sure he went around again but not sure if the mains touched down). Then they diverted to Camaguey and came back 1h30 later. The flight attendant told me the ride in was pretty wild on both approaches.

So the question are: is it possible to roll the mains for a while on landing and then go around? if so, what would prompt the PF to do so since in my mind if you put the mains down, you're pretty committed to landing?

Thanks everyone!

[flyalmaguin]

Perhaps the heavy rains combined with winds shifting to a tailwind in the last momments of the approach led to a go around decision? With that combination landing distance is increased substantially on a wet runway.

I am far from an expert either, but possible scenario anyhow.

Can't answer about the cycling of the runway lights.....

Just my 2 cents and worth exactly half of what you paid

[W0XOF]

The threshold is the beginning portion of the runway usable for takeoff. It's marked by green lights showing the beginning of the runway and is marked by red lights (on the other side of the same light) showing the end of the reciprocal runway.

As far as the lights go (speaking as an FSS at a regional airport), our "rules" are to have them illuminated 10 minutes prior to an aircraft ETA and until 3 minutes after departure. If there are consecutive aircraft landing or departing, they just stay on.

In what I understand from your post, they missed and most likely indicated they were going to hold (instead of shooting another approach) until conditions improved (visibility, wind etc.) or had to use their alternate due to fuel concerns. If visibility wasn't the issue (didn't need to break visual for example) but was waiting for the crosswind component to change and would be holding IMC, normal for an airport of that size to turn the lights off until another approach was indicated.

[Nark]

As far as the mains touching down, and then performing a go around, it happens. Some of the heavier iron, 767,747 etc... will initiate a missed approach at or around 200' above the threshold, but because of the momentum and the delay jet engines take to output "climb power" the mains will touch.

Another more realistic example is that a landing is never assured. By that I mean, a pilot can initiate a go around while rolling down the runway, examples being a bear running across the runway (happens up north) or hellacious wind increase causing the aircraft to go flying again, when the pilot is trying to land, this is an example of wind shear, and can be extremely dangerous.

However there is a caveat, most aircraft are committed to landing upon activating thrust reversers. However in the end, it is still the Captains call.

Welcome to the board.

[RVgrin]

WRT the main wheels touching, yes that is also absolutely possible. There can be a significant time lag after the pilot flying decides (or gets ordered by the captain) to go missed, the throttle being pushed forward, the engines spooling up to full (or go around) power, the thrust getting converted to forward speed, the speed increasing to an amount sufficient to arrest the sink rate and begin to provide positive lift, etc.

By this time the wheels may indeed have touched, but with the go-around already committed-to, and the throttles forward, the plane builds speed and takes off again... a mains-only touch-and-go, if you will.

[coreydotcom]

Wow thanks a lot for the answers guys! Much appreciated...

I get it how it takes a few moments for the engines to produce power but by that time the aircraft may already be on the ground.

However, I remember talking to one of my parent's neighbour who flies the A320 family and he was telling me about an "auto-land" feature. Basically he was telling me that he could put her down without ever seeing the runway (maybe he was exagerrating because I am a non-pilot and he was trying to impress). If that is true though, when would you make a land/no-land decision... you'll never see the runway! He was also telling me that although he relies and trusts the technology, it's pretty stressful when you've got 150+ PAX behind you and the first time you see the runway is when you feel the bump of the mains touching down lol...

THANKS again!

[husky]

It's true that a properly equipped aircraft and a properly equipped airport, when combined, can land with no visual reference to the ground before the aircraft touches down using automated systems.

[CpnCrunch]

There have been quite a few accidents with planes either skidding off the runway or going off the end of the runway during heavy rainstorms - due to the combined effects of hydroplaning, tailwinds and crosswinds. The pilot made a good decision in aborting the landings, but perhaps it would have been wiser just to divert in the first place (although it's difficult for us to know what information the pilot had prior to landing).

Oh, and even with autoland the pilot would still be able to initiate a go-around at any point during the landing.

[DanJ]

I think the A320 guy in corey's post is trying to impress. I'm no pilot but I was always under the impression that you have a decision height or something similar, where you need to see the lights to make the decision to land. Just because the plane is capable of the auto-land without the pilot seeing anything, I don't think it's a procedure a competent pilot would attempt, given that the first indication that the instruments are making a mistake is when you are about to touchdown on the grass beside or before the runway. Hell, most pilots I've ever talked to claim they never let the plane land itself because they can do it better.

[SAR_YQQ]

CATIII autoland is something that is not science fiction - the heavy iron guys will do this in poor vis. The aircraft will even apply the brakes and slow the aircraft down to taxi speed. At properly configured airports, this is very much a fact and no real issues with landing on grass.

[Ref Plus 10]

In Canada, there are only 6(?) airports equipped with CAT III ILS systems, meaning aircraft guidance down to the runway, and they are the only ones where landing with no visual reference is allowed, and even then only certain airlines and aircraft. the Airbus family does have autoland capability, this just means that the airplane can remain on autopilot all the way to wheels down. As mentioned before, there are decision heights, but this has no bearing on autoland systems.

It is quite possible that the PIC elected to go around after encountering LLWS (Low Level Wind Shear) and went around, or the approach became destabilized, and contacted the runway before achieving the speed necessary to climb out again. On the DC-3 (not the same thing, I know), it's quite possible that on an approach at gross weight, we could initiate a go around at 200' and still contact the runway.

Ref

[RVgrin]

Just because the plane is capable of the autoland without the pilot seeing anything, I don't think it's a procedure a competent pilot would attempt, given that the first indication that the instruments are making a mistake is when you are about to touchdown on the grass beside or before the runway. Hell, most pilots I've ever talked to claim they never let the plane land itself because they can do it better.

Not true. In addition to the aircraft and airport needing to be auto-land capable, qualified crew need to remain current on the procedure, and thus are required by their companies to make some of their approaches using autoland.

While it is true that a skilled pilot on a good day will make the round-out "flare" and touchdown smoother than an autopilot (which safely drops it down on the runway rather deliberately and abruptly), there is no pilot around who can consistently fly as precise an approach as a modern autopilot.

[The Fish]

Yes Cat3 and Cat 2 Autolands are real,
yes some can track center line till at taxi speed (Need 3 Autopilots I believe)
Almost all newer big jets have auto-brakes

I don't know of any that are allowed to touchdown without some sort of visual reference.

In Canada flying a Cat3A ILS decision height is 50' on the Radio Altimeter, see nothing Go-around! It's not uncommon for the mains to touch on a Go-around initiated at 50' or less.

Cheers

[DanJ]

Just because the plane is capable of the autoland without the pilot seeing anything, I don't think it's a procedure a competent pilot would attempt, given that the first indication that the instruments are making a mistake is when you are about to touchdown on the grass beside or before the runway. Hell, most pilots I've ever talked to claim they never let the plane land itself because they can do it better.

Not true. In addition to the aircraft and airport needing to be auto-land capable, qualified crew need to remain current on the procedure, and thus are requiredby their companies to make some of their approaches using autoland.

Keep in mind, I didn't say auto-land can't be done. I know it can, and the systems for it have been around for years. I was simply saying that I don't beleive an airline pilot does it blind to touchdown. There has to be some visual reference, or you go around. I would be shocked if there was an airline which has a standard procedure of allowing an auto-land where the first indication you are near the ground is when the mains touch. Again, I'm not a pilot, but I think the one referenced in the post above is embellishing his stories. Or is a disaster waiting to happen.

While it is true that a skilled pilot on a good day will make the round-out "flare" and touchdown smoother than an autopilot (which safely drops it down on the runway rather deliberately and abruptly), there is no pilot around who can consistently fly as precise an approach as a modern autopilot.

No doubt, I'm just saying most pilots won't admit the computer can do it better. Some won't trust the computer that close to the ground, and some actually beleive they are better than the computer.

[Nark]

Would you tell a doctor he is wrong, simply because his diagnosis isn't what you want to hear?

Do a youtube search of CATIIIc approaches. Yes, it is done down to 0-0.

[metal]

Keep in mind, I didn't say auto-land can't be done. I know it can, and the systems for it have been around for years. I was simply saying that I don't beleive an airline pilot does it blind to touchdown. There has to be some visual reference, or you go around. I would be shocked if there was an airline which has a standard procedure of allowing an auto-land where the first indication you are near the ground is when the mains touch. Again, I'm not a pilot, but I think the one referenced in the post above is embellishing his stories. Or is a disaster waiting to happen.

# Category III B – A precision instrument approach and landing with:

* a) a decision height lower than 50 feet (15 m) above touchdown zone elevation, or no decision height (alert height); and
* b) a runway visual range less than 200 meters (656 ft) but not less than 75 meters (246 ft). Autopilot is used until taxi-speed. In the United States, FAA criteria for CAT IIIb runway visual range allows readings as low as 150 ft.

FYI...Minimums for this approach with our Airline and ops certificate are ceiling 0....no DH and 75m.......as you can see it is well above that (175m)
Jetsetter767 9 months ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgeT-F9-1KI

[20DMEYYZ]

Yes Cat3 and Cat 2 Autolands are real,
yes some can track center line till at taxi speed (Need 3 Autopilots I believe)
Almost all newer big jets have auto-brakes

I don't know of any that are allowed to touchdown without some sort of visual reference.

In Canada flying a Cat3A ILS decision height is 50' on the Radio Altimeter, see nothing Go-around! It's not uncommon for the mains to touch on a Go-around initiated at 50' or less.

Cheers

given that this can occur at time's , do crew manually un-arm the spoiler's in that sequence or would that be done automatically by the selection of TOGA pwr ?

[Meatservo]

When people, especially non-aviation people, like to talk about aircraft that can "land themselves", the implication is that the pilots are sitting back, reading magazines and clinking the first of the evening's martinis together. Or that they are staring bewilderedly out the window, white-knuckling the armrests while the technology does all the work. The fact is that the pilots are always in complete control of the aeroplane, and it really doesn't matter if a person is guiding an aircraft using bungees and cables, hydraulics, or by turning knobs and pushing buttons on an FMS/autopilot, he is still flying the aircraft. Physically manipulating the controls is child's play and is the easiest part of being a pilot. Category III approaches can be very stressful, and require precise adherence to exact procedures. (Not having ever done one myself) I would imagine the average pilot would find it easier to land manually if he was not familiar with the technique.

[Darkwing Duck]

When people, especially non-aviation people, like to talk about aircraft that can "land themselves", the implication is that the pilots are sitting back, reading magazines and clinking the first of the evening's martinis together.

Aren't all airline pilots doing this anyway, especially on the long hauls. And who says it is the 1st of the evenings martinis. They chuggle them all day long. You also forgot to add them smoking the finest stoggies from Havana as well. That is what the FA's are for, to keep the flight deck well endowed in the embellishments of the finest liqueurs and spirits.

[Eric Janson]

There's a great deal of inaccurate and false information on this thread.

A go-around can be made at any point including after touchdown. Once reversers have been selected you are committed to land.

As far as the mains touching down, and then performing a go around, it happens. Some of the heavier iron, 767,747 etc... will initiate a missed approach at or around 200' above the threshold, but because of the momentum and the delay jet engines take to output "climb power" the mains will touch.

Incorrect. Acceleration from idle thrust takes about 6 seconds. On approach the engines are well above idle (50% N1 approx) and thrust response is instantaneous. Idle thrust is automatically increased when flaps are selected to ensure the engine thrust remains responsive. From 50% N1 to TOGA takes 2-3 seconds max.

Altitude loss during a go-around is usually less than 50 feet under normal conditions. Below 50 feet on approach you may have the wheels touch the runway briefly.

On the DC-3 (not the same thing, I know), it's quite possible that on an approach at gross weight, we could initiate a go around at 200' and still contact the runway.

Incorrect. I've flown the DC-3 and power response is instantaneous. The aircraft may not climb very well but it will climb.

Category III approaches can be very stressful, and require precise adherence to exact procedures. (Not having ever done one myself) I would imagine the average pilot would find it easier to land manually if he was not familiar with the technique.

I disagree. We do several in the Simulator every 6 months and have to do one practice autoland in the aircraft every 45 days. It's extremely straightforward (especially in the airbus). Nothing stressful about it. The hardest part of lowvis operations is finding your way to the gate.

To clarify - under JAA regulations Cat IIIB can be flown to '0' DH and an RVR of 75m. There is no requirement to see anything prior to touchdown. After touchdown you need to be able to see 1 centreline light.

[Meatservo]

*Sigh*...Oh, OK Eric. Thanks for setting me straight. I thought there must be at least one difficult thing about being an airline pilot. Enjoy your easy job until you're replaced by a computer.


I was just trying to make it sound like you guys were actually doing something up there. It seems like you're happy with the traveling public being aware that you are not.
Ha, ha... that was what I WANTED to say... what I really MEANT to say is, my original IFR instructor was a 767 pilot by day, and he made it sound pretty stressful. Of course back then it must have been a pretty novel thing. Or he was just trying to make himself sound like a bigshot, in which case I'm disappointed in him and grateful to you for telling it like it really is. Cheers!

[Bajan Pilot]

On the Jazz CRJ's we hand fly Cat. 3 approaches to 50' DH. using the HGS [HUD].

[Meatservo]

That actually IS cool. I would like to see that.