Having been the subject of a Pprune "post mortem" myself on one occasion, I can imagine how the crew involved must feel at this dissection of their actions and so will offer no further comment on that day's events but this thread seems to have taken a rather alarming turn in a different direction.
I refer to the rather glib suggestions that one should just "bust minimums" as if it were only a case of operating outside the legal remit and so may have to endure an interview with tea and biccies (or tea and no biccies or even no tea and no biccies etc).There is so much more to such a decision than whether or not you are breaking the law (national; international or simply company).
Do those suggesting such actions ever consider why an NDB approach has higher minima than a localiser approach or why a LOC/DME has higher than Cat1 and why that is higher than Cat 2 etc etc.? Do they ever consider that these minima are there because obstacles in the Missed Approach path or cone or funnel or whatever are taken into consideration because the aeroplane may NOT be smack in line with Runway centreline upon reaching minima due to the vagaries/tolerances associated with the approach aid in use? Why does Cat 3B not require a DH? In other words the specific minima exist, in many cases, to save lives (your lives) not just to save an interview with the top man.
Of course NONE of this applies if you have no other safer options such as uncontrollable smoke, no fuel reserves at all, nowhere else to go etc. but even those reasons don't guarantee you'll be safe but it may be your ONLY option and if your ONLY option was to fly a manual ILS right down to the runway in zero vis then you would give it your best shot because you have NO other options.
Last edited by Starbear; 19th Dec 2007 at 07:42.