Jet Jockey A4
28th Nov 2014, 12:53
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?