Going below the minimum without visual reference to the runway

[Flyinggirl27]

A lot of us do it but nobody would admit it openly...going below the minimum on an instrument approach without having established visual contact to the runway. Lots of experienced pilots have told me that for ILS approach at airport xy they would go "50 ft below the minimum" because "they know the runway is there" and "all the others do that as well". Now, this thread is not for those who will be scandalized, who would of course "never" do that and those who will be utterly outraged and protest "who unprofessional that is".

Anyone of you goes below the minimum at certain airports (e.g homebase) and if so why? Anyone of you relying on self-constructed FMS approaches? Be honest and simply write about it. I expect the outraged pilots to write first but that will be beside the question of this thread!

flyinggirl 27

[fernytickles]

Why do you ask?

[INNflight]

I do it because I'd rather get a paycheck and not hear the moaning from the pax when diverting. Not.

Too many good crews have gone because of "knowing the runway is there"...

But hey - I'm only an outraged pilot who would rather loose his job and live than be employed and die.

[mad_jock]

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/442308-crash-cork-airport.html

Thats what happens if you do.

[S-Works]

Not outraged here. But have never done it. Minima are there for a purpose and there have been way to many deaths caused by people wanting to go and 'have a look'.

I have a self constructed approach to my home base that I use to break cloud but never below 1000AGL.

[His dudeness]

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 doens´t make multitasking easy :D ) 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 can´t 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 don´t 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 don´t 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 don´t 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 don´t go below minima on certain airports.

[CaptainProp]

Going below the minimum without visual reference to the runway

Would that be the same people that plan without destination alternates because weather is just too bad to find one? Lands with less than minimum reserve fuel on a regular basis? Departs with equipment inop against the MEL? Departs overweight? Departs from airports in mountainous areas without having a planned escape route in case of an engine failure?

All great ideas. Good luck.

[de facto]

Lots of experienced pilots have told me that for ILS approach at airport xy they would go "50 ft below the minimum" because "they know the runway is there"
At minima vis (lets say 550rvr)you will see the approach lights by your DA but not the runway.
You WiLL NOT see the runway until you reach about 150-100ft.
You are not required to see the runway to continue when reaching your minima,you must identify the approach light system.
Those who say they bust the altitude to see the runway are bragging about some they should not in the first place,they have just no idea what they are supposed to do/see and when.
Those experienced pilots need serious retraining and attitude change,who knows what else they are doing..

That brings me about cold weather corrections.....how many unknowingly bust those minima cause they dont know or too lazy to make such a correction?:eek:

[Denti]

Well, there is the possibility to get a Lower than Standard minimum according to EU-OPS. And for EVS the minima are even lower. All according to EU-OPS and CAT I. Usual values for LTS are 400m RVR, for EVS 350m. We have those minima on our charts, however we do use only the standard values and use CAT II/III if needed. No idea what the requirements are to get an approval for LTS.

As for going below minimum, never done it, and don't have any intention to do it except in an emergency.

[Jet Jockey A4]

@ de facto...

"At minima vis (lets say 550rvr)..."

Who begins or let alone completes an ILS with the RVR reported at 550 feet (or are you talking meters)? Don't most countries have an approach ban for the visibility for Cat I and Cat II ILS approaches?

"That brings me about cold weather corrections.....how many unknowingly bust those minima cause they dont know or too lazy to make such a correction?"

Many I'm sure. I suspect pilots that do not operate in the cold weather environment are not familiar with the temp correction procedure.

[Jet Jockey A4]

@ Denti

"Well, there is the possibility to get a Lower than Standard minimum according to EU-OPS. And for EVS the minima are even lower. All according to EU-OPS and CAT I. Usual values for LTS are 400m RVR, for EVS 350m. We have those minima on our charts, however we do use only the standard values and use CAT II/III if needed. No idea what the requirements are to get an approval for LTS."

Taking into consideration this is the Biz Jets and GA forum, I don't think the majority of these aircrafts are certified to fly a CAT II approach and none a CAT III approach (except perhaps the Boeing and Airbus BBJs).

Although some private jets do have a HUD system, not too many have the EVS systems onboard.

EVS will allow you to go 100 feet below minimums if you get a suitable EVS image by the time you get to the regular minimum for that approach.

Once the EVS image is seen/captured and you call "EVS visual" you can continue to 100 feet below the minimum at which point you must have "burn through" to continue the approach to a landing or else a missed approach must be executed.

[cldrvr]

We all go below minimums, they are just there as a general guidance, nobody takes any notice really of the numbers. Plenty of times I can't be bothered to put my glasses on so I can't read them anyways. I have petitioned Jeppessen countless times for large print or even braille versions of the plates. They told me the last time I contacted them, that it is under considerations as they have had hundreds of requests for large print/braille versions. I know they are working on a "spoken" version as an App, to make life easier for us visually challenged drivers. Honeywell is also working on a "talking" FMS to facilitate easier inputs, especially at nights for those tricky VFR cloudbusting circling approaches below minimums. As to homemade approaches, there is a huge market for "lower minima" versions, especially in the winter months. I am always looking out for the best version available out there by fellow pilots.

I am still looking for a Samedan plate that gets me down to 50 feet, if anyone knows of one or has constructed one, PM's are welcome. In exchange, you can have my Lugano 40 feet Saturday special. That one only requires an RVR of 350, so much better then what the "official" sources publishes.

I am also still on the lookout for the 5 item emergency checklist that is doing the rounds, the factory one is just too cumbersome....

[gatbusdriver]

That made me chuckle.....ty

[Pace]

Of course its not professional to go below minima. That 50 foot extra becomes another 50 foot and ???

Having said all that on a recent sim ride at the end and for fun I was placed at Biggin Hill in cloud, given turbulence an engine failure, then an autopilot failure.

For fun the cloud base set at minima was dropped to 200 metres in fog.
Ok off somewhere else until it was announced that I now had 200ibs per side of fuel in the Citation sim.

I hand flew to the runway and a safe landing.

15 years ago I was flying a Seneca and had unforecast fog over an extensive area.
I also had a fuel selector jam. Talking to a military base who were colour code red they understood the situation of low fuel, nowhere to go and a jammed fuel selector and I got a PAR breaking out at 50 feet with 500 metres.

After that in VMC I tried a simulated zero zero landing on an ILS with a safety pilot.

Setting the radar alt at 30 feet for a flare point it was possible to land.
I also know of a ferry Kingair 350 which landed with low fuel in fog.

While I no way condone flying below minima in normal situations its nice to know you can do it if needs be. (even onto the deck) but nice to know you can is where it should stay ;)

Flying Girl 27 its a strange post to make for your very first post here :E

Pace

[de facto]

Who begins or let alone completes an ILS with the RVR reported at 550 feet (or are you talking meters)? Don't most countries have an approach ban for the visibility for Cat I and Cat II ILS approaches?

Yes meters.
Yes the ban is usually 1000ft. if reported rvr is below of what is required ,usually 550 meters(cat1 ils)then a missed approach is to be initiated.
So if vis is 550 meters rvr, then one can continue,however the runway itself will be visible only below 200ft.

[leaf hopper]

Page 13 Flight International today! "Wrecked An-24 Failed to Abort Approach in Storm --- Descent below the decision height and failure to execute a go-around in bad weather........." SPLAT!!!

[MungoP]

Pt 135 ops re ILS (Min 200ft AGA) in the US allow descent to 100ft if approach lts become visible at 200ft..

[Flyinggirl27]

Interesting contributions!

I second His dudeness that general aviation aircraft have progressed from a 1976 KingAir with steamgauges to a modern glass-cockpit bizjet and still the CATI minimum is "stuck" at 550mRVR/200ftAGL or at 500-600ft AGL for a GPS approach. It´s tempting to go below for a "good reason". Flying to home base after a long day...you know that the terrain is perfectly flat around the airport. It´s tempting!

Why do I ask? With the cost-pressure and ever increasing rules what-not-to-do, one is tempted to make a short-cut now and then. Operators in business aviation are prone to that (the few ones which are well-off can afford to stick to the rules...)!

Flyinggirl 27

[FrankR]

I used Google translate and looked up how to say "Descending, I know the runway is there" in Polish. It's Malejącym, wiem, jest tam pas startowy!

I think it's about the last thing on the CVR of the TU-154 that crashed in 2010 killing all 96 people on board.

Go for it! What could possible go wrong?

FR

[CaptainProp]

Follow the LOC/GS?! ;)

[fernytickles]

Operators in business aviation are prone to that (the few ones which are well-off can afford to stick to the rules...)

Is this a sweeping generalisation or do you actually have any facts to back this statement up?

[Jet Jockey A4]

Just a few points I'd like add to my initial post...

In Canada a private operator can start an ILS approach if the "Runway Visibility" is reported at a 1/4 mile or greater or if the runway is equipped with a RVR device, the "RVR" is reading 1200' or greater.

If the visibility on the approach is reported to be fluctuating below those values (1/4 mile or RVR 1200') and it is caused by a "local phenomenon", then you are still able to continue the approach.

If the visibility and/or RVR are below the above limits and are steady in nature then an approach cannot be commenced if the aircraft is outside (prior) to the FAF. However once inside the FAF even with falling visibility or RVR values the approach can be continued to minimums.

In regards to those higher GPS approach minimums someone mentioned (400 or 500 feet AGL), we have in North America for those with the proper equipment in their aircrafts GNSS LPV/WAAS approaches that have minimums as low as a CAT I ILS approaches or 200' AGL DAs.

I do agree that today's modern turboprops and business jets with better equipment should be able to have lower ILS minimums; perhaps the standard ILS minimums for these modern aircrafts should be reset to what a CAT II minimum is today or 100' AGL.

I find it annoying that a modern aircraft like a Global Express with fancy equipment like a HUD and EVS who is generally flown by professionals with lots of flight experience is limited to the same minimums as a very low time pilot flying a piston powered and old Piper Aztec. What is the logic behind this?

[Tinstaafl]

In the USA you may also descend to 100' if, at the DA, you can see the approach lighting. From 100' you must have the runway in sight to continue, or you must commence the missed approach.

[His dudeness]

Operators in business aviation are prone to that

Some might be. I remember a then copilot being asked by the DO who he was flying with on that day 'what his minimum was today'.
Their destination was below CAT I, airplane and crew were CAT I. The answer was, and I salute this guy for his quick and good reaction: 'wait a second', he pulled the Jeppchart, '550m RVR and 200ft, why do you ask?'
Off they went back to their alternate.

This story made a real impact in that operation. (at the time it was an 7 Aircraft ops, so not the usual very small operator)

[Pace]

Above the clouds

Do you have a link to that CAA document ? On your next sim check it's well worth trying a fog landing auto and hand flown.
Short on fuel is the obvious must land situation but there are other such situations where getting down is a must.

Pace

[S-Works]

Bit of a difference between a must land as a result of an emergency and the original question.........:ok:

[Flyinggirl27]

No, I have no facts to back that up but that´s just my impression. I have to add that it would also not be possible to prove that business aviation is on the same standard SOPwise like airliners.

Bizjet pilots are often considered cowboys by airline pilots. However, planning a Y- or Z-flight takes much more thinking, planning and flying skills then sliding down yet another ILS with an airbus!

Flyinggirl 27

[basil faulty]

Flyinggirl 27, I used to be a Corporate pilot and now fly an Airbus for EZY, last week I operated in to FNC INN GIB and CFU, not an ILS in sight!! All but one in challenging weather conditions. My view is that it is a different job, not more difficult.

With regards to going below minima, well it is there for a very good reason! I understand that we are about to get an approval for LTS Cat 1 approaches, (Lower Than Standard) I am sure that anybody operating a corporate jet with very modern equipment would be able to do this.

[rennaps]

Do Not go below minimums!!!:=
I design instrument procedures for a living and I know how tight the tolerances can be. Believe me, when I say that you are taking your life in your hands if you descend below minimums without visual reference and being assured of a landing.
Quite often it is not the approach obstacles but the missed approach obstacles that are the problem. If you descend below minimums for a look see and then subsequently do a missed approach you could be too low to get over the obstacles in the missed approach.

[what next]

Hello!

Quite often it is not the approach obstacles but the missed approach obstacles that are the problem. If you descend below minimums for a look see and then subsequently do a missed approach you could be too low to get over the obstacles in the missed approach.

Yes, but: What will happen in case of a baulked landing? Your established missed approach procedure must also enable a safe go-around from a very low altitude due to other factors than visual conditions. Like for example runway incursions by aircraft or vehicles.

[cldrvr]

What next, that's why there is a difference in climb gradient for a MAP vs balked lanidng. Don't have the numbers to hand but if memory serves me right it is 2.5% and 3.1%. I am sure someone here can correct me on the numbers. EU-ops has a provision that states that if the climb gradient cannot be met, a higher approach minima must be used, again reference not to hand.

Thirdly, there is a certification requirement for each aircraft covering both MAP and balked landing scenarios, among others.

Google should get you the answers you need without having to rely on my murky memory. My general recollection should steer you in the right direction.

[rennaps]

Good question What Next,

The ICAO Annex 14 baulked landing obstacle limitation surface is only required to not be penetrated for ILS Cat. II & III. This obstacle limitation surface covers you in the event of a baulked landing from an ILS approach Cat. I & II.

However this surface is not required to be established for ILS Cat. I or non-precision approaches. Most airports assess it for obstacles but it is not a requirement. So if you do a baulked landing off these approaches climb as best as you can. Normally the missed approach is assessed using a 2.5% climb gradient unless otherwise stated.

So if you are doing a non-precision approach, have a baulked landing, go immediately into IMC, lose an engine and can only climb at 2.5%. Then you have real problems. However the chances of all that happening at once is rather remote. :ok:

[what next]

So if you are doing a non-precision approach, have a baulked landing, go immediately into IMC, lose an engine and can only climb at 2.5%. Then you have real problems. However the chances of all that happening at once is rather remote.Not so very remote after all I think! A few months ago we hit a large bird right over the threshold after an ILS approach to CAT I minima. Luckily (for us - as for the bird it didn't make much difference) we got it against our nose gear and not into an engine. If one loses an engine under such circumstances and is slow to react to the asymmetry, it might be too late to regain the centreline and a very low single engine go-around into a 200ft overcast will be the result.

[Dustertoo]

Hello All,

Yes. Mins are mins. We as ,professional pilots, are required to plan and excute flights within the standards. This includes emergency planning as well...think mountainous airport arrivals and departures. So her is my story.

My second job, after being a CFI for 3 years, was at a "freight dog" single pilot operation. First month with the company... I could not land at the last airfield of the day because the wx was below mins. I diverted to my alternate and upon landing was informed I may not have a job come Monday...so be it....I did the right thing. That Monday the chief pilot did call after I arrived at my lay over...they always like to "can" you at the out station. What happened? I explained what I did and why without apology. I continued to flying with the operation for 2 more years, earning Training Captain status on 3 airframes, until I resigned to acceptt my next job at the commuters. Funny....over those next two years... I did recieve two more calls but I always said the same thing..."I wanted to land at my destination but you pay me to make the safest decision". One very important thing to note: that company did not have a union so I was on my own when I made my decisions. I decided early in my flying carrier that I never wanted to get anyone hurt and I wanted to go home to my family.

I currently fly a DA2000 in the states with additional duties as a company check airman. A good read for all pilots is the G-III accident into Aspen, CO (KASE). The report shows how outside pressure created the chain of events that ended with the pilots and pax not going home at the end of the day. Remember ,as professional pilots, we are paid to move airplanes safetly and efficently which requires us to say "NO" sometimes. The amazing thing with corporate flying is there will always be some other alternate that will work. Unlike scheduled airlines.

In closing there are no times, a pilot, with a fully functional airplane can justify exceeding a min...once you start down that path.... you will start to accept more unsafe operations and will not be able to reconize a "really" bad idea....so yes...mins are mins.

Dustertoo

Thanks Mutt...I was going with memory on the model Gulfstream...but read the NTSB report and you will see how the pressure was building on this crew even before there depatrue.

[Sir KDM Lowe]

With the cost-pressure and ever increasing rules what-not-to-do, one is tempted to make a short-cut now and then. Operators in business aviation are prone to that (the few ones which are well-off can afford to stick to the rules...)!

Please tell me I don't share the same airspace with such idiots? What other rules do you sometimes break? Minimum fuel perhaps or MEL items? And you wonder why the airline folks view some business jet pilots as cowboys? I hope your boss knows how reckless you're willing to be with his expensive jet and previous life. If he needs to go someplace plagued with low viz, then best he either goes with a CAT 3 operator or goes by road.

As basil faulty has pointed out, airline flying isn't about shooting yet another ILS. We're certainly more current than most, yet wouldn't dream of "sneaking below minima". No self respecting commander would put his colleague in the other seat, in that position. Rennaps has explained what goes into designing these procedures. Only a moron would consider busting them.

Now whether or not modern aircraft instruments and runway lighting should permit a rethink of current limits is another story. But this game is all about experience and recency. You're only as good as your last trip. And if that one involved disregarding the most basic of rules, then maybe you should take a long hard look at your own operation. The cemetery is full of guys who busted the limits. Unfortunately, they felt they had the right to take their passengers with them.

[His dudeness]

Yes, KDM, you share the airspace with some idiots.

Airliners never ever do something wrong, of course, its always GA cowboys doing bad things and making mistakes.

The accidents and incidents that make the headlines with airliners are all fake - or because of technical issues...

I hope you allow me to kiss the pavement you walk on, dear skygod!

On second thoughts, after reading this post (made yesterday)

Hasn't it been a great week for showing off our professionalism on PPRuNe! Snow covered wings, mad CM1's, dazed and confused CM2's, fisticuffs on the flightdeck, pilots failing to notice a large hole in the fuselage and falling thru it and now someone texting on finals, really I think I'll vote myself a pay cut!

and checking that no GA cowboy was involved and looking at some accidents such as airliners being unable to land MD11s without destroying them etcetc. I think I will refrain from thinking you are a better person just because you think you are.

Presumably, even the FAA (the authority with the best safety record in their yard) have concerns about airliners...

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today proposed to substantially raise the qualification requirements for first officers who fly for U.S. passenger and cargo airlines.

[mutt]

A good read for all pilots is the G-IV accident into Aspen, CO (KASE). GIV or GIII? Big difference.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Avjet_Aspen_crash

Mutt

[fernytickles]

With the cost-pressure and ever increasing rules what-not-to-do, one is tempted to make a short-cut now and then. Operators in business aviation are prone to that (the few ones which are well-off can afford to stick to the rules...)!
Please tell me I don't share the same airspace with such idiots? What other rules do you sometimes break? Minimum fuel perhaps or MEL items? And you wonder why the airline folks view some business jet pilots as cowboys? I hope your boss knows how reckless you're willing to be with his expensive jet and previous life. If he needs to go someplace plagued with low viz, then best he either goes with a CAT 3 operator or goes by road.

KDM - this "flygirl27" has specifically stated she/he doesn't have any facts on which to base their inflammatory statements. Yet you have jumped straight in there believing what they have written.

Are you an avid believer of The National Enquirer or The Sun?

[Flyinggirl27]

KDM, I just had a look at the "Flybe Pilots fired after flight deck row"...
Please tell me I don't share the same airspace with such idiots:)...and by that I don´t mean Flybe Pilots but airline pilots in general! I guess you can afford that kind of behaviour in your airbus or whatever you fly because autoland spares you the ordeal of landing the aircraft...

[Pace]

And before you start with the rant, I don't advocate going below minimums in a modern civilian aviation environment but please don't tar all bizjet operators with the same brush, or maybe we should tar all airline operators with same brush from the incidents and goings on we see here on PPRuNe

But of course all N reg corporate jets are flown by untrained cowboys!

AOC OPS with their oversight and excessive regulation need to protect the public from the shoddy N reg brigade on safety grounds.

Airline are the creme de la creme.

Interesting statistics from the CAA own paper 2009/3 Business jet safety research

Corporate ops achieved a fatal accident rate of 0.2 per million hours flown for the period 2003 to 2007 which is comparable to large western built aeroplanes. Whereas Air Taxi Operations as a whole had a far larger rate of 3.5 per million hours flown

Must get rid of those lousy and cowboyish private corporate jet pilots in the name of safety! Especially the untrained substandard FAA ones :ugh:

Pace

[CaptainProp]

Going below the minimum without visual reference to the runway

Still early days but do that and end up like the Bhoja Air flight where 127 people lost their lives today. RIP

[Sir KDM Lowe]

Flying girl and Above the Clouds

I've obviously touched a nerve. You've clearly not read my post. I thought the subject was busting minima. I suspect your rant at airline guys is due to some personal issue and not relevant to this discussion.

Noticed I said some biz jet pilots. See how its underlined? Not all but some. No airline is perfect and no two companies are the same. I wasn't trying to infer they were better. I just think that any discussion about going below minima without the required visual ques makes you look foolish and unprofessional. I don't care what you fly.

Just relax guys and think about what you're advocating.

[His dudeness]

Please tell me I don't share the same airspace with such idiots? What other rules do you sometimes break?

First two sentences of your post.

think about what you're advocating.

Who advocated what?