PMAs (Pilot Monitored Approaches)
Thread Starter
PMAs (Pilot Monitored Approaches)
Left the airline world almost 24 years ago to go back to the corporate world but I would like your opinion on the following policy/procedure (PMAs) we have for approaches at my present company.
When I used to fly in the airlines we never had this procedure even when flying a CAT II approach and I have checked with my friends that fly at a major Canadian airline and they don't have this procedure either.
Basically when the weather is down to CAT I minimums (ceiling 200' AGL and visibility 1/2 mile/RVR 2600'), the PF relinquishes the controls to the PNF during a segment of the approach so that he can fly the aircraft down to minimums. The original PF (now the PNF) does the call outs, the monitoring and keeps a lookout outside for the runway.
At minimums or when the runway is visual the original PF now retakes control of the aircraft and lands it. The original PNF (who just relinquished the aircraft's controls) stays inside and continues to monitor the approach.
In the event of a missed approach (after the control swap to a landing) the procedure calls for another control swap for the missed approach portion... Yes you read that right, the PF (the original one) now relinquishes the controls back to the PNF who technically was supposed to be still inside monitoring the approach.
Personally I do not like this swapping of controls at very low altitudes... To me it seems to be a recipe for a disaster!
Now finally after many years arguing with management, we are going to be able to do CAT IIs and with its lower minimums (100 AGL) and cannot fathom this switch over of controls at those heights above ground.
Another aspect of this PMA procedure that seems to go against logic is that some of our aircrafts are equipped with HUDs or HUDs/EVS which renders the whole thing even more stupid IMO.
Again, what is the general consensus on this procedure?
When I used to fly in the airlines we never had this procedure even when flying a CAT II approach and I have checked with my friends that fly at a major Canadian airline and they don't have this procedure either.
Basically when the weather is down to CAT I minimums (ceiling 200' AGL and visibility 1/2 mile/RVR 2600'), the PF relinquishes the controls to the PNF during a segment of the approach so that he can fly the aircraft down to minimums. The original PF (now the PNF) does the call outs, the monitoring and keeps a lookout outside for the runway.
At minimums or when the runway is visual the original PF now retakes control of the aircraft and lands it. The original PNF (who just relinquished the aircraft's controls) stays inside and continues to monitor the approach.
In the event of a missed approach (after the control swap to a landing) the procedure calls for another control swap for the missed approach portion... Yes you read that right, the PF (the original one) now relinquishes the controls back to the PNF who technically was supposed to be still inside monitoring the approach.
Personally I do not like this swapping of controls at very low altitudes... To me it seems to be a recipe for a disaster!
Now finally after many years arguing with management, we are going to be able to do CAT IIs and with its lower minimums (100 AGL) and cannot fathom this switch over of controls at those heights above ground.
Another aspect of this PMA procedure that seems to go against logic is that some of our aircrafts are equipped with HUDs or HUDs/EVS which renders the whole thing even more stupid IMO.
Again, what is the general consensus on this procedure?
Last edited by Jet Jockey A4; 28th Nov 2014 at 13:18.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: EU
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We do it but slightly differently.
Whenever it is decided that a monitored approach is to be flown the controls will be given to the FO (or retained by the FO if they were already PF). The approach is then done as you say with the Captain looking out and will take control for the landing. HOWEVER if a go around is needed after Capt takes control then he retains control for the GA.
I would also be uncomfortable about handing over control at <100'. I agree that HUD makes them a bit pointless.
Whenever it is decided that a monitored approach is to be flown the controls will be given to the FO (or retained by the FO if they were already PF). The approach is then done as you say with the Captain looking out and will take control for the landing. HOWEVER if a go around is needed after Capt takes control then he retains control for the GA.
I would also be uncomfortable about handing over control at <100'. I agree that HUD makes them a bit pointless.
They so work fairly well. With the fog around Eastern Europe I have done several is week in weather right on limits which have allows us to land in cases where had we not been flying monitored, I think we would have gone around, as when I looked up at minima, I saw nothing, whereas the Captain looking outside had managed to glimpse the lights.
I have flown both monitored and non-monitored with weather at CAT I limits and much prefer the monitored method. I have not experienced HUDs so cannot comment on their utility in this area.
I have flown both monitored and non-monitored with weather at CAT I limits and much prefer the monitored method. I have not experienced HUDs so cannot comment on their utility in this area.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Northampton
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have used the BA system in the past flying the 1-11 down to cat3a. As the previous poster said the FO many times commented that when he gave the decide call and I said "land" he looked and saw nothing. A great system if properly used and trained for. If the land call was not made the FO, who was PF, would automatically go around.
JJA4, see also PM and email.
As BOAC and other have said it is a very good procedure, but I have not heard of a change of control being required for a rejected landing, I would very much question the wisdom of that. Can you give a bit more detail please?
As BOAC and other have said it is a very good procedure, but I have not heard of a change of control being required for a rejected landing, I would very much question the wisdom of that. Can you give a bit more detail please?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Used it in low vis, works quite nice. But to be honest the "traditional" approach does work as well.
There was a, probably unfounded, rumour, that BA tried to order their 787s without the HUD, as that piece of equipment makes the monitored approach procedure kinda pointless.
There was a, probably unfounded, rumour, that BA tried to order their 787s without the HUD, as that piece of equipment makes the monitored approach procedure kinda pointless.
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Queensland
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIA adopted the procedure from the mid 80s onwards and as a check pilot I have to say we were happy with the outcome.
F/O flew the approach and remained on instruments throughout and if no "Landing" was announced by the captain carried out the missed approach.
At the D.H. or before, if the capatin considered he had sufficient vis for a landing he announced "Landing" and took control. This always left the decision to land in marginal conditions with the captain.
In the unlikely event of a subsequent go around the captain would continue to fly the aircraft.
F/O flew the approach and remained on instruments throughout and if no "Landing" was announced by the captain carried out the missed approach.
At the D.H. or before, if the capatin considered he had sufficient vis for a landing he announced "Landing" and took control. This always left the decision to land in marginal conditions with the captain.
In the unlikely event of a subsequent go around the captain would continue to fly the aircraft.
Thread Starter
Personally I see no use for this procedure with HUD or HUD/EVS or the new aircrafts coming out with HUDs, EVS and synthetic vision.
With HUD/EVS you can go down to 100' DA (like a CAT II) IF you meet the operational requirements on the approach regardless of the approach's published DA or MDA.
With a HUD or HUD/EVS you are looking outside all the time and flying the approach at the same time. You also have a feel for the aircraft and since you are flying it, you've also trimmed it the way you want it, so no surprised handling characteristic at 100 feet above ground. I just don't feel confident in taking control at that altitude (unless it was an emergency). Remember the 737 crash in LGA last year. I know it's a totally different situation but that's an example of someone taking over at a low altitude and doing it all wrong.
I don't think I will fly an aircraft certified for CAT IIIs but I would find it even more dangerous to take the controls at 50' off the ground, basically almost in the flare! I remember some airlines in the western USA and IIRC in Alaska flying CAT IIIs manually with the HUDs back then, surely there was no switching of controls on those.
With HUD/EVS you can go down to 100' DA (like a CAT II) IF you meet the operational requirements on the approach regardless of the approach's published DA or MDA.
With a HUD or HUD/EVS you are looking outside all the time and flying the approach at the same time. You also have a feel for the aircraft and since you are flying it, you've also trimmed it the way you want it, so no surprised handling characteristic at 100 feet above ground. I just don't feel confident in taking control at that altitude (unless it was an emergency). Remember the 737 crash in LGA last year. I know it's a totally different situation but that's an example of someone taking over at a low altitude and doing it all wrong.
I don't think I will fly an aircraft certified for CAT IIIs but I would find it even more dangerous to take the controls at 50' off the ground, basically almost in the flare! I remember some airlines in the western USA and IIRC in Alaska flying CAT IIIs manually with the HUDs back then, surely there was no switching of controls on those.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 807
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always thought a PMA is doing the work that a HUD does for non-HUD aircraft. That is, someone is looking outside for a better view of things. You're right though, a HUD negates the advantage of a PMA.
I've done hundreds of PMA's at my current company and the last one, and they work great for non-precision approaches and precision approaches to CAT I minima. The guidance we were given, however, stated that the approach had to be flown by hand from at least the FAF inbound so that any transfer of control was done from a trimmed aircraft. Furthermore, the PF (whether it was the FO doing the approach or the Captain following control transfer) would do the go around.
I've done hundreds of PMA's at my current company and the last one, and they work great for non-precision approaches and precision approaches to CAT I minima. The guidance we were given, however, stated that the approach had to be flown by hand from at least the FAF inbound so that any transfer of control was done from a trimmed aircraft. Furthermore, the PF (whether it was the FO doing the approach or the Captain following control transfer) would do the go around.
