Virgin and DME arrivals

[fixa24]

So virgin guys and gals;

Whats up with the "no circling approach" thing that's happened lately?
Well to be fair i can understand that, but what's with the DME arrival caper?

Scenario: Cloud BKN015, DME/GPS arrivals on ATIS.
VOZXXX cleared DME arrival with no descent restrictions, levels off at A015. Skipping in and out of cloud, conducts missed approach. Following IFR aircraft get delayed.

Now this has not happened once, or twice. But numerous times. The DME minima for that sector with tower active is 790ft for cat C aircraft. Why are you only coming to A015?

If this is a new company policy, why weren't ATC made aware of this, as it severely limits our options.......

Any other ATC's noticed this caper?

[TurbTool]

I am not a Virgin driver, however I think that several high capacity operators have a policy of not circling lower than normal circuit height if it can be avoided with again most having a hard limit of 1000ft HAT. This normally requires a runway aligned approach if there is any doubt about ability to circle at normal circuit height i.e. 1500ft HAT.

In my experience operating into some of our Towered regional aiports the ATIS will report FEW 1800 suggesting that a DME Arrival will be O.K. but when you arrive the actual is SCT 1500 causing difficulty with the policy and hence a go-round ensues.

I can't answer why ATC are not aware of the policy.

[chimbu warrior]

Strictly speaking, a DME arrival is a circling approach; there are no runway approaches off a DME arrival (none specified anyway). If a DME arrival culminates in a final approach that is very close to runway centreline, that is great, but in theory all DME arrivals require some manoeuvering to intercept final.

[Capn Bloggs]

Fixa24,
What airport, duty runway and inbound track are we talking about here?

[DJ747]

TurbTool you are correct.

[HKG Phooey]

Because.....

Circling approaches are dangerous... and shouldnt be done in any pax aircraft....

:\

[Howard Hughes]

Circling approaches are dangerous... and shouldnt be done in any pax aircraft....
Thanks for that gem...:hmm:

Crossing the road is also dangerous when not treated with respect, should we stop that too?

What airport, duty runway and inbound track are we talking about here?
I am tipping Coffs...;)

On a serious note, why not maouvere to intercept final outside the FAF? This can be done on many DME/GPS arrivals in Oz! If you can't get runway aligned then I see nothing wrong with using an increased minima, especially in a transport category aircraft!:ok:

[Myriad]

VB Policy;

Minimums of 1500Ft AFE and 8km visibility required for visual circuits including DME/GPS arrivals.

M

[Capn Bloggs]

VB Policy;
Minimums of 1500Ft AFE and 8km visibility required for visual circuits including DME/GPS arrivals.

Fair enough (sheila's blouses) but why wasn't AsA told of this policy?

[Centaurus]

Circling approaches are dangerous... and shouldnt be done in any pax aircraft
What absolute rubbish. Circling approaches have been conducted since time immemorial. They are perfectly safe manoeuvres if you stick to the basic rule of not descending below the MDA until established on final. Of course over the last fifty years there have been occasional accidents but invariably due to poor airmanship. That is no reason to ban circling approaches.

[fistfokker]

Centaurus, I think that you will find that history shows otherwise.
Certainly from a CFIT perspective, ( I will assume you know what that means) circling approaches, lower than normal circuit height, in less than VMC, should be avoided if possible where there is an alternative runway aligned approach.
If an airline operator chooses for safety reasons to impose a ban on circling approaches, and is prepared to pay the extra cost associated with runway aligned approaches that is to be applauded.
The fare paying cargo does not enjoy low level manourvres simply for the sake of the "I can do it" attitude of a few macho pilots.

[Blip]

So if Virgin's Circling Minima is effectively 1500 ft and 8 km, I hope they thought to increase their Alternate Minima to 2000 ft and 10 km. (Assuming there is no Special Low Alternate Minima (SLAM))

[DJ747]

Blip curious observation, but we can use all other instrument approaches available (and more importantly their corresponding alternate minima) ILS, LLZ/DME, RNAV, VOR, NDB. The point that had been made earlier (and my experience backs it up) is that we often get dodgy cloud base, precipitation and visibility information from the ATIS/Tower at certain "Regional" ports. Most of us have whizzed in on a DME arrival with the expectation of becoming visual and discover the said conditions are certainly not present. I think the point being made earlier is that if there is any doubt we simply plan an alternative instrument approach. Easy and safe. Why make life difficult flogging about and "wishing" each other to call visual?

Centaurus out of interest what aircraft type do you fly, and what rank?

[cunninglinguist]

and I thought Jet* was bad............min 1000' agl for circle.
1500', thats a bluddy normal visual circuit :rolleyes:

[fixa24]

Bloggs; at a FNQ class D tower, non island based. Inbound radial 131, Rwy 14.

I think you'll find most controllers will err on the side of giving you an approach vs DME/GPS arrival when the conditions warrant it. I know i do. But tin the scenario i described in the initial post, I saw the aircraft ( i know this doesn't mean they were visual) form about 1nm to run to the VOR, passed the VOR, prob went into clound briefly once, then watched him through the missed approach and ensuing VOR approach. :ugh: :ugh:

I have absolutely no drama's if these guys won't go below A015 on a DME arrival.

What i have a problem with is that it seems to be a new company policy, and we were not made aware of it. And what's with the crew accepting a arrival procedure when they are not 100% sure they will be visual? :hmm:

Every other operator here conducts the full arrival procedure.

[woftam]

If there is ANY doubt about the WX just do the published approach. Quite simple really.
Even with a flyover of the aid to land in the opposite direction to your inbound track, compare being clean/near clean overhead to gear down/flap 15 for the DME arrival (followed by dirty circuit) and possible missed approach from same?
Takes all the guesswork out of it for everyone.
:ok:
Have been caught out myself with "ambitious" Tower wx observations. I'm sure they are just trying to help but give me the instument procedure any day.
Done more than my share of DME arrivals and circling approaches so don't need (read want) any more. :)
KISS :E

[DJ747]

Cunning....exactly. It is a visual circuit, we do not do cirling approaches anymore, end of story.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

… some points to consider:-
.
1... this company SOP effectively equates to a ‘minimum’ 500ft higher than my general CB (cloud base) cut off for a DME ARR (dependant on category of course), more likely 1,000ft. In other words, a 1,000ft buffer above 1,500AGL for possible cloud base variations (IMHO it is harder to accurately quantify the higher the CB). It all depends on the type and disposition of the cloud at the time of approach considering level assignment possibilities for other traffic!
.
2.. if there is any doubt about the CB, direct to the IAF for a runway aligned approach is doable (with consideration of other arriving and departing traffic) and is used frequently in our case, but it needs to be planned ahead of time!
.
3… if you are number 1 in a sequence of 2 or more (ahead of other operators in any event), perhaps even ahead by up to 5 mins, then you WILL be bumped in the sequence if there is any doubt about the CB and the duty runway aligned APP is not close to your inbound track! …otherwise the subsequent hold ups mean lengthy and unnecessary delays for others arriving in the circling area around the same time as you, in other words, penalising other traffic who CAN fly a DME ARR (not runway aligned) to well below the CB for circling and land before you are even established inbound!
.
4… subsequent conflicting traffic arrivals (including those who require an ILS or VOR APP) will end up with a higher level assignment and subsequent holding may also be required as the DME ARR missed approach must be considered until the first aircraft reports visual, which will likely happen substantially sooner than you would on the runway aligned APP if your runway aligned approach requires an outbound and/or ARC leg
.
.. note:- tracking and runway orientation will dictate the amount of this vertical sequencing/timing effect. It will vary dependant on how close the inbound track is to or aligned with the ‘landing’ runway and missed approach track!
.
5… the change in sequence and subsequent approach miles flown in lots of cases will mean an additional 8-12 mins in the air (not necessarily only for you)!!!!
.
6… surveillance APP/DEP would do the same if DME ARR’s were used frequently … they are not for obvious reasons, and most approaches are runway aligned at primaries (with vectoring) so there is no efficiency comparison to be made PROC V’s RADAR ….. apples and oranges ….before anyone starts! :hmm:
.
.. anecdotally, the A320, B737, DHC8, BE20, C404 crews that operate though here know how to nail the DME ARR profiles …. ATC assessing the DME ARR as suitable is useless if the aircraft arrives over the VOR at 4,000ft!!! :=
.
.. and one last thang …. If we quote ‘Instrument Approach’ … do not just set up for a VOR or ILS and not tell anyone … call the tower direct on the spare comm or through the sector driver and ask what to expect (APP and actual WX) or TELL US IF YOU HAVE SET-UP FOR A SPECIFIC APPROACH … at least then the same rules apply (as above) with the added benefit of having time to plan others around it!
.
…. missed approaches off a DME ARR .. haven’t seen many … usually result in a ‘subsequent’ runway aligned approach .. in many cases little if any lost time (compared with O/head outbound) .. why would you NOT take the opportunity to save heaps of time and fuel when ATC 99% of the time gets the CB right enough … and on the very odd occasion that they do not, it is not a big deal …. is it?? ;)
.
I mean … others ‘in similar types’ fly DME ARR’s and ‘non duty’ runway aligned approaches then circle for the active (gives you a look at the sock/s as well) … they practice it (subject to traffic), and fly them in anger also! ...why the reluctance to pole the aircraft around the circling areas? :p :ooh: :E
.
. ... makes me wonder how many ILS’s are flown to runways with downwind outside tower hours?! :=
.
… crews (of all colours) sent down to ‘this part’ of the south seem to know what they are doing!! ….. must be a QLD thing! :} :p
.
.
.
.. that should have em’ foaming :E .. nite all!

[Capt Wally]

ALL inst arrivals are designed & flown when required for one single reason, to become visual & complete the approach to land (obviously) with vis ref to ground or water, one can disscontinue an appraoch at any time & for any reason, (some are mandatory reasons) it says nothing in the books about 'having' to complete the whole approach, if VB want 'add' a little for good measure then that's their problem/right. (bunch of girls, only kidding)So most do it beacuse it's legal to do so, complete a circiling approach when they CFIT (see fit):-)

Capt Wally

[druglord]

i think most carriers in the states have done the same. no circling below1000/3. and with RNAV approaches they're becoming obselete anyway.

[Capn Bloggs]

fixa24, I don't think you're going to get an answer! 225 'em.

DJ747, how about ringing up your fleet manager and ask him if AsA have been told about your company policy.

[DJ747]

Bloggs, my duty as a Line Pilot is to follow the SOP's and Procedures as outlined in our Operations Manuals. It is their train set, so I play with it as they would like us to. In fact as someone else mentioned earlier this makes my job easier, which is great. I too have seen the DME arrival screwed up too many times(HB RWY 30), so the current method VB wants us to employ (no cirling approaches, and DME arrivals with an effective minima of 1500 AGL suite me). I always call the Tower on Comm2 and get an actual update of the conditions if it looks questionable. I then decide if we need to conduct a runway aligned instrument appraoch, or will the DME arrival provide a "cloud break" above 1500 AGL to allow a "visual circuit". Simple really.

Yes I will call our Fleet Manager to confirm if ASA know, and I suspect that they do.

[Yusef Danet]

It has been VB policy for at least 4 years not to fly circling approaches unless there is no alternative. I think the only change to that policy in recent years has been the emphasis that there is always an alternative.

DME arrivals are to be used as a cloud break to enable a normal visual approach. IE 1500' circuit.

That all the relevant Class D controllers aren't aware of this fact shows a communications lapse somewhere between VB flight ops and Airservices personnel. This is probably not unusual knowing both of these organisations. It is to the credit of Pprune that we have somewhere other than the Twr frequency to discuss this.

Keep in mind, that unlike pilots from Jetstar or Sunstate, the VB pilots fly a fairly random roster, and one may not visit a particular tower in over a year. Particularly Mel based pilots in Central Qld and Bne pilots to Launceston. And when we do it may be a CAVOK day, obviating any discussion of practical application of the minima. Management is more than happy for us to fly a full approach in conditions that you probably wouldn't consider marginal, and check/trainers are particularly encouraging the use of RNAV approaches, which take a little more time/fuel sometimes but have unarguable safety benefits.

Blip you have a valid point about the higher circling mins perhaps predicating a higher Alt minima. I may throw that one at a checkie soon, but as we would fly a straight-in NPA of some sort in any case where diversion to an alternate is considered that would be a theoretical argument anyway.

[goddamit]

As stated there is no circling permitted for VB pilots unless there is no alternative.It's the pilot' s choice to conduct a DME ARR or opt for a runway aligned approach. A DME ARR below 1500AAE is permitted when its runway aligned & the gradient from the expected cloud break height will permit a 'stable' approach on final. I've knocked back ATC assigned DME ARRs when the ATIS suggests it isn't practical or there's a fair chance of a go-around. Would you want to be a B737 Pax circling at 800' or the like in rainy overcast condtions.
On the other hand I was recently told to go around in IMC on final for the VOR/DME app because a dash 8 wanted a DME ARR from the west & couldn't get in. Short story in this case the MK controller should've advised the dash to do the aligned app. This event banked up 2 RPT jets for 5 mins each.

[fixa24]

On the other hand I was recently told to go around in IMC on final for the VOR/DME app because a dash 8 wanted a DME ARR from the west & couldn't get in. Short story in this case the MK controller should've advised the dash to do the aligned app. This event banked up 2 RPT jets for 5 mins each.

Sorry, was this MK as in Mackay?
They don't have any dash 8's from the west..................................

I find DH8's are very flexible (except the -400's), and will quite often do a DME arrival even though VOR's are on the ATIS.

And as you'd be aware, ATC nominate an approach, advise the WX, and it's up to the PIC if they want to nominate an alternate approach. :ok: I do not have a problem with this at all... That was the whole point with bringing this up.

I am happy to send every single VOZ jet for a RNAV or rwy VOR every day. no probs whatsoever. If that's what they want....:ok:

[Capt Fathom]

Sorry, was this MK as in Mackay?
They don't have any dash 8's from the west.....

They do if they've diverted due wx......:E

[Tee Emm]

Centaurus out of interest what aircraft type do you fly, and what rank?

Centaurus is not a bad chap actually although he holds the exalted rank of junior second officer on Flight Sim 2004 and he wears one bar on his shoulders as befits his experience...:ok:

[Chimbu chuckles]

TM hope that was in fun...his experience would put all the rest of us to shame:ok:

[illusion]

Centaurus,
The reality is, that increasing automation in modern aircraft means decreasing skill levels in manual manipulation of aircraft. At times, rew have trouble doing a visual approach on a CAVOK day without an ILS- Not ideal perhaps, but this is how the training and reliance on computers seasons people. If we fly from ILS to ILS on 15 hour sectors, or now use GPSNPA approaches, it is difficult to be practiced at something that is rarely needed.
Operators in Australia (mining contracts) are still regularly doing circling approaches at night into strips with no app. lighting or slope guidance in medium jets. Understand that it is fairly demanding at times. Even in this situation, there are now straight in NPA's available at most strips.

[Capt Claret]

They are perfectly safe manoeuvres if you stick to the basic rule of not descending below the MDA until established on final.

Maintain the MDA until established on final at say Cairns (1400' from memory, if circling off the NDB) and a stabilised approach becomes nigh on impossible.

Depending upon the definition of stabilised, of course. :}

[woftam]

Or just do an RNP approach ;)

[maui]

Capt. Claret

You make a common mistake re descent on a circling approach. The descent may be commenced once you intercept the appropriate path. That path can be curved. Say you are working on a 3 deg app, then calculate your track distance to the threshold, give yourself your 300'/mile and bingo you have the point at which to start your descent. There is no legal requirement for you to be on final. It is of course your responsibility to maintain appropriate terrain clearance, which, as you are visual should not be a problem. If it is, get the hell out of Dodge.

I am with Centaurus. There is nothing inherently dangerous in a properly executed circling approach. Stay within the prescribed circling area, keep the runway or associated reference markers/points in sight at ALL times, keep within the prescribed speed and appropriate configuration, maintain the prescribed height until established on the appropriate profile, and keep your f:mad: head out of the cockpit.

The problem is more as Illusion has pointed out, that recency and training are what's most likely to bring someone undone. But that is an entirely different issue. If companies are not prepared to keep their crews competent in in the manouevre, that's OK. But they must wear the fact and prohibit their use. But please, please, please, do not say "I can't do it, so it must be unsafe and no one should do it"

HKG Phooey: I challenge you to publish detail of ANY circling approach that came to grief under the following conditions:

aircraft serviceable
within the prescribed circling area
within the prescribed visibility at all times
with the runway and or associated markings in sight at ALL times
at the prescribed height until established on PATH
stabilised at the appropriate speeds and configuration

Go Arounds are easy. Try it some time.

Maui

[Jenna Talia]

WTF would you bother with a DME arrival when there are GPSRNAVS available, particularly in marginal conditions?

JT

[maui]

Simply because they are not available universally.

If there is one available, go for it.

Maui

[Dynasty Trash Hauler]

Circling approaches increase the chance of CFIT when compared to straight in NPA's which in turn increase the chance of CFIT when compared to conducting precision approaches. Statisitcally speaking, the increase is not negligable which is why so many governing bodies and airlines no longer allow pilots to circle in jet aircraft. Australia will catch on eventually.

Centaurus has earned the right to contribute more than most of us here and represents the old school stick and rudder approach to airline flying. The demand for airline crew in the developing world combined with the current worsening pilot shortage and the almost exclusive employment of automated glass aircraft will render the old school obsolete.

[maui]

Dynasty Trash Hauler

If you stay within the rules the chance of a CFIT is zero. If you step outside the rules the chance of a CFIT is a lot higher. Ergo, stay inside the rules.

I am well aware that some carriers have decided to ban circling approaches, some conditionally. More power to them. It's their train set and if they want to place restrictions on their crews that is entirely within their perogative. As for some regulators banning such approaches, are you REALLY sure. Seems to me that Jepps haven't caught up with that.

I extend to you the challenge , that I did to HKG Phooey.

Come on fellahs. Quit the categoric statements and give us some hard irrefutable facts rather than dubious opinion.

Maui

[Capt Claret]

maui

You have the wrong end of the stick, my friend. I'm not making a common mistake re descent on a circling approach because I didn't adovcate remaining at MDA until established on final, I quoted some one who did advocate it - Centaurus.

The point of my post, was to point out that if one stayed at the MDA of 1400' on final, say 3nm, at a place like Cairns, one couldn't complete a stabilised approach.

IMHO, short of practice for proficiency, I can't see the point of a DME arrival followed by circling in a jet or high performance turbo-prop, IF a RWY approach is available. In most cases a RWY approach will have a more favourable MDA, and a RWY approach greatly lessens the chance of barreling into the ground because one got distracted at the wrong time whilst performing the circling manoeuvre and ended up with an unrecoverable sink rate, or similar. I'm not saying they shouldn't be flown if necessary, just, why fly it in bad wx if there's a better approach available?

[maui]

I have no argument with that. I do have an argument with the "ban circling approaches cos they are dangerous, brigade"

I stand corrected on your position re descent point. It has been several days and time zones since I read the posts.

M

[89 steps to heaven]

I can't see the point of a DME arrival followed by circling in a jet or high performance turbo-prop

In these days where there is a lot of pressure to reduce costs, the point can be saving around 4 minutes flying time per approach. At regional ports it is not a case of dropping onto 10 mile final and everyone doing the same speeds, you have to fit in with a large range of operations.

Priorities basically state that "first to use the airspace wins", except that "this can be varied should significant economic benefit to a number of other aircraft occur" In every busy traffic sequence, there is at least one aircraft that is the key to it being a good day or a bad day. This is normally the one that has to fly an approach against the normal traffic flow. Solution sometimes is to take that one out and put it to the end of the sequence.

In regard to flying the DME arrival to the minima and circling, one day the gods will be unkind and all the gee whizz bits will not be available. It is then the PIC (and the SLF) will be thankful that they are proficient at hand flying in the circuit.

I have seen A320's fly DME arrival to minima with circling for the runway. Is it a better aircraft than the B73's in these situations :confused:

[beerlover]

Hey there guys, a little off the topic but are VB conducting RNP approaches and departures yet, or will they never conduct these approaches and departures?

cheers

beerlover

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I may be missing something here, but these days when most aerodromes have RNAV approaches to both ends of the main runway, why would you bother with a DME arrival and circling approach?

Dr:cool:

[Jet_A_Knight]

exclusive employment of automated glass aircraft will render the old school obsolete.

Sadly.

The saddest part is how the promise of increased safety with the help of technology is eroded by the fact that the new technology is making up for the shortfall in flying skills (not necessarily talking about VQ).

[Capt Fathom]

but these days when most aerodromes have RNAV approaches to both ends of the main runway, why would you bother with a DME arrival and circling approach?

Because not all aircraft & pilot's are equipped/rated!

[Dynasty Trash Hauler]

“If you stay within the rules the chance of a CFIT is zero. If you step outside the rules the chance of a CFIT is a lot higher. Ergo, stay inside the rules.”

If you stay within all of the rules at any time while committing aviation there would zero human error accidents and therefore virtually no accidents at all.

But we are humans and so there are still a lot of CFIT accidents. The margins for error when circling in a large jet transport in marginal weather are wafer thin when combined with low experience levels of pilots. Sure, if everyone was a top gun pilot like Maui there would be no problems at all, but most airlines experiencing rapid growth in regions such as Asia (where I work) or startups such as Virgin Blue can generally only attract crew with the bare minimum experience to occupy the seat. Employing top guns is not an option and so widening the margins for error is the only pragmatic option left. No circling is just one example.

“As for some regulators banning such approaches, are you REALLY sure. Seems to me that Jepps haven't caught up with that.”

Many airlines in the US such as American Airlines where my son works, no longer train pilots to conduct circling approaches and do not require any proficiency to be demonstrated, something which the FAA fully endorses. TERPS still publish circling minimums but most airlines wont go there.

[Yusef Danet]

Beerlover,
Virgin intends to introduce RNP approaches, and is pointing training in that direction already, but for now we're happy for QF to shake some of the bigs out of the procedures and equipment with their 738s.
Gentlemen, the discussion is not to "ban" circling approaches; which incidentally have been documented as several times the CFIT risk of any other maneuvers/phases of flight; but that one operator does not support their aircraft doing them when an alternative is available.

[goddamit]

to my previous, MK is Mackay & yes a/c do deviate around wx, inbound ac was from either SSW or NNW from my recollection.
1. circling apps in jet rpts is ok but the lower the minima, the more difficult the stabilized app is. That's why most overseas operators prefer not to do them as well. Any other app is far less workload.
2. To those who ask why not do an RNP, easy, FMCs usually slow the ac up 15nm out. Add the extra track miles & it adds 5 mins on to the flight. If the cloud base is BKN at 2000'aae, it makes sense to do a DME/GPS arr. After all there is a reason why CASA makes a jet's circuit height 1500' & not 700'. This subject is common sense to a lot, but common sense isn't that common these days. From an operators point of view(for those not operating these a/c) 5minsx300 flights x cost of operating the a/c - time off duty all adds up.

[maui]

Dynasty Trash Hauler

Let me see if I have this right.

You have conceded that if you stay within the rules, you will stay safe.

You contend therefore , that, because some have commited CFIT whilst not following the rules, everyone should be banned from the subject manouevers.

Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds.

If you are unable to fly a basic visual manouvre safely and therefore choose not to do it, I commend you for your responsible attitude and recognition of your limitations.:D

As you say, some operators have banned the procedure. As I have said before, more power to them. They recognise, and are obviously unwilling to rectify, deficiencies in their training. A commendable attitude. However once again why penalise those who are prepared to properly train and maintain those standards.

Your comment re the FAA and TERPS in no way confirms, in fact it denies, the veracity of your statement re regulatory banning of circling approaches .


If you stay within all of the rules at any time while committing aviation there would zero human error accidents and therefore virtually no accidents at all


QED
Top Guns not required. Just law abiding citizens.

Maui

[Capn Bloggs]

Yes I think Dynasty is being a bit precious. When did you actually do one? If you accept that a jet cannot turn base like a C150 and you employ practical procedures with practical limitations, they are not at all difficult. In fact, if you can't do one, the pax down the back should be worried about your stick and rudder skill/ability. More and more jets are crashing because pilots can't fly, not because they do a min wx circuit and drag the wingtip thru the trees turning base...

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

:} ...... Bloggsie :E

[AnQrKa]

Ever get the feeling that Maui has never flown for an airline in Asia or the desert.

Mate, you may be an ace and your company may be full of good training, but there are airlines out there with guys in the left seat of widebodies with a couple of thousand hours TT with a guy in the right seat with 200 hours TT who have both been put through a sausage factory training school. Trust me, the last thing you want is them flying around the pattern in poor viz at 400 feet. The smarter companies know this.

[maui]

And that dear friend is why some airlines have banned or restricted their use. That is sane and proper for any operator that has no need or desire to train and maintain the required standard.

However the proposal put by the Trash Hauler was that they be banned in total. An unreasonable and unwarranted proposal.

Now if you would address training standards, that is an entirely different and potentially more productive area.

(And BTW you're a bit out of whack in your guess about me.)

Maui

[joysticks]

Hello Gals & Guys,
The problem is not with the published procedure, rather than the way it is flown.
Next time you have a chance ask a Checkie or Senior Pilot what they think.
The procedure should be spelled out clearly in the Ops manual you are given when you begin.
If you are not issued one there are troubles ahead.