Anyone of you relying on self-constructed FMS approaches?
Yes and no. I rely on my FMS`s for the navigational part during a VFR approach in conditions where it is legal but not easy. That frees a substantial part of my brain (you know, being male doensīt make multitasking easy
) to stay in visual contact with mother earth and/or decide what to do next. Would I go into, e.g. Samedan Valley relying on my FMSses? Certainly not.
Going below minima? No mam, BUT I always wondered why we get constantly better equipment and canīt get any credit for that. Our airplane would be CAT II capable (needs an SB,but no there are no physical changes done, just a software update), has 2 large PFDs in front of every dude which allow you to see any deviation quickly etcetc.
Compared to, say a 1976 KingAir 200 (which I have flown as well) with steam driven equipment we donīt get lower minima. As a 'surplus' going around from 200ft in a well powered jet is so much easier than with, say a KingAir or Seneca...especially single engine.
I donīt see why we could not get, say 400meters and 150 ft on well lighted runways (a CAT II or III lighting). Or why its practically impossible to get CAT II when your homebase is not CAT II, you do not operate on an AOC and your authority is German...
What I have learned since I donīt fly on an AOC any more (where we had the approach ban), is that the good old 'look and see' (shoot an approach with wx REPORTED below minima) has seen me landing a few times as we ACTUALLY saw the runway or lights above minimum.
To answer your question: no, we donīt go below minima on certain airports.