Monitored approach?

[AeroSpark]

I believe thats what its called. I was watching a cockpit film dvd recently, the Captain was pilot flying and obviously did the take off, but at top of descent the FO took over and flew the approach down to final, when the captain took back control and landed the aircraft.
Is this a common system, and what are the advantages of this over one pilot doing the whole thing?
Thanks in advance

[+TSRA]

Hi AeroSpark,

Yep, a Monitored Approach is a fairly common procedure. The procedures vary between operators, so you won't find a specific answer that applies to the whole industry. For example, I've worked with a company whose procedures for a monitored approach had the First Officer fly the approach and the Captain took over only for the landing. At another shop, we permitted a "Reverse-Monitor" where the FO would conduct the landing and the Captain would monitor. At my current gig, the Captain flies all monitored approaches.

The advantage of a monitored approach is that instead of both pilots being "heads down" until minimums, the Captain will begin looking outside about 100 feet above the minimum altitude. This permits the Captain to become accustomed to the outside environment to conduct the visual landing. For example, illusions such as wind drift or blown precipitation could cause the crew to conduct a missed approach were they to look up right at minimums. It also ensures that the First Officer remains on the instruments through to the landing roll to identify and call any deviations which may otherwise be imperceptible to the Captain. This differs from a "non-monitored approach" where as soon as the pilot flying calls "visual" or "landing" the pilot monitoring can look outside as a part of their scan.

At my company, we are required to do a Monitored Approach for:
1) any CAT I precision or Non-Precision Approach where the reported visibility is below the advisory visibility (remember that cloud base is the determining minimum for an approach, not the visibility), and
2) all CAT II and CAT III approaches.

I think in a year I might fly five monitored approaches, and often most of those happen on the same day, so it's not necessarily common for an individual to conduct a monitored approach, but they certainly happen every day around the globe.

[condor17]

AeroSpark ,
Monitored approach also has further benefits .....
The F/O flying the approach is usually younger , fitter , faster , better hand eye co-ordination than the ''crusty '' , old , grumpy , slower hand / eye / reaction skipper in the left hand seat [ I have been both ] . F/O on instruments and primed up ready for a go-around ... easy peasy , better than the ''old man '' performing one .
Skipper , as explained looking for visual clues [ takes about 5 seconds or so for older eyes to accomodate from distance vision [ outside ] to near vision [instruments ] . Therefore F/O already on instruments and ready to go upstairs . Skipper generally has more experience and rank to correct verbally or physically any poor flying by F/O . The other way around where a steep rank gradient exists might not be so effective [ Irish or Aussie F/Os excluded ! ]

Absolutely brill in poor wx , having done both .

rgds condor .

[parkfell]

British Airways have Monitored Approaches as Standard.
When Loganair was a BA franchise it was imposed on them.

It certainty worked well on the Shorts360 in poor conditions with the FO flying the CAT 1 approach on instruments.
All hand flying. No AP.

[AeroSpark]

Thanks for the informative replies, seems like a very sensible system.
The film I watched was an old Go air 737, which I believe was a BA subsidary so that would explain why they did the monitored approaches. The weather was perfect for both sectors, on the way back they swapped roles as you would expect, with the captain flying the approach and the FO taking over to land.

[bingofuel]

any CAT I precision or Non-Precision Approach where the reported visibility is below the advisory visibility (remember that cloud base is the determining minimum for an approach, not the visibility),
Are you sure? The approach ban is based on visibility.

[meleagertoo]

The big improvement on safety imo was the seamless transition into a go-around flown by the PNL (Pilot Not Landing). He stays on instruments the whole time and never breaks the scan.
After doing this a few times it does not seem sensible at all to fly the approach on instruments to minima, throw away your scan, look in vain at a distant eye-focus and then try to pick up the scan again as you launch into a go-around.

There is also an added element of pride in handing the aircraft over to the PL perfectly placed and at perfect speed to flatter his subsequent landing. It kept both pilots firmly together in the loop throughout the flight and avoided the slightly more disparate roles of simple PF flying and PNF doing the paperwork.

Many people who were new to this were very uncertain about it and some quite opposed to it in the early stages, but few failed to appreciate it as a better way of keeping both the crew in the loop once they got used to it.

istr that at Go we swapped roles sector by sector but with Captain taxiing as only he had a tiller. Capt taxis, PL (whichever pilot it was on that sector) takes off, PNL takes control shortly after t/o and operates the sector, briefs PL on the approach, landing and g/a, flies the approach to minima (or when PL calls visual and continues to land) and awaits the PL's call "landing, I have control" or "Go around". In the event of a g/a the PNL remains PF, flies the g/a and next procedure/diversion etc, briefs again and flies to minima on the subsequent approach.

[+TSRA]

Note: Information is for operations in Canada, although similar procedures exist in other jurisdictions.


Are you sure? The approach ban is based on visibility.

Yep. But I’ll grant you that it does require a trip through the CAP GEN and an understanding that TCCA lets commercial operators do things that GA pilots cannot do. I don’t have one with me or I’d provide the page references, but it’s in the approach section. I think it’s still titled as Approach Ban - Commercial Operators - Ops Spec.

The Approach Ban prohibits you from continuing an approach inside the FAF if the visibility is below a certain value, however it does not constitute “minimums.”

This is because the Approach Ban is modifiable through Special Authorizations (what used to be called Ops Specs) for commercial operators. Minimums cannot be modified by anyone.

Take a CAT I ILS for a commercial operator with the appropriate Special Authorization. Let’s say the Advisory Visibility is 1/2 SM. The Special Authorization for commercial operators can reduce this to 1/4 SM. The DH, however, will always stay at 200 feet AGL.

Furthermore, there are a few “gimmes” with the Approach Ban - it’s not applicable to training flights intending to go around, it’s not applicable to NPA’s and CAT I Precision Approaches if the visibility fluctuating, it’s not applicable if a below-Approach Ban condition begins when inside the FAF for an NPA or CAT I Precision Approach, and it’s not applicable north of 60.

There are no gimmes with minimums.

[parkfell]

[QUOTE1)] any CAT I precision or Non-Precision Approach where the reported visibility is below the advisory visibility (remember that cloud base is the determining minimum for an approach, not the visibility)
Are you sure? The approach ban is based on visibility.




Whilst the UK determines an approach ban in terms of RVR criteria, the French use cloud structure/base as a determining factor as well. I think Hungary also use it?

[FlyingStone]

the French use cloud structure/base as a determining factor as well.

Have you got a reference for that? I might have been flying to France for years without knowing this.

[Denti]

Whilst the UK determines an approach ban in terms of RVR criteria, the French use cloud structure/base as a determining factor as well. I think Hungary also use it?
In the world of EASA rules? I doubt it, but would be very grateful for a direct source.

[Jwscud]

When I flew for Ryanair, the Ops Manual approved criteria for conducting a monitored approach were based on visibility or cloud base. I seem to recall 300ft/1000m for a CAT 1 ILS OR +100/3000m for an NPA though those are from a rather shaky memory.

I like monitored approaches but if but if you do them all the time you are robbed of the delight of taking everything out going downwind and flying all the way to the gate...

[back to Boeing]

When I flew for Ryanair, the Ops Manual approved criteria for conducting a monitored approach were based on visibility or cloud base. I seem to recall 300ft/1000m for a CAT 1 ILS OR +100/3000m for an NPA though those are from a rather shaky memory.

I like monitored approaches but if but if you do them all the time you are robbed of the delight of taking everything out going downwind and flying all the way to the gate...

Why’s that? No where in doing monitored approaches (to a manual landing) does it state that you have to fly it on automatics.

[blind pew]

Swissair allowed an approach below published minimum if there was doubt about the accuracy of the RVR.(captains’ decision).
I watched a successful approach into Gatwick with a RVR below cat 2.
Monitored approach with a continued phase at minimum before the captain assumed control.
I was RHS on what was the last departure out of Heathrow before it closed. The fog layer was just reaching the heads of the transmissometers but was way below the Trident flight deck. We had gin clear viz.

[RUMBEAR]

Have never flown in Canada, however Approach Ban for us is related to visibility only (unless the chart publishes a minima that states "ceiling required"-which is quite rare). The DH / MDA is defined as the lowest altitude we can descend to asses the visibility for landing.

[AeroSpark]

istr that at Go we swapped roles sector by sector but with Captain taxiing as only he had a tiller. Capt taxis, PL (whichever pilot it was on that sector) takes off, PNL takes control shortly after t/o and operates the sector, briefs PL on the approach, landing and g/a, flies the approach to minima (or when PL calls visual and continues to land) and awaits the PL's call "landing, I have control" or "Go around". In the event of a g/a the PNL remains PF, flies the g/a and next procedure/diversion etc, briefs again and flies to minima on the subsequent approach.

meleagertoo, as an ex Go pilot you might be interested, this is the dvd I have

https://www.itvv.com/Civil-Aviation-DVD/Boeing-737-300-DVD/B737-300-Flight-Deck-Experience.html

Follow this first revenue flight of the Boeing 737-300 G-IGOM having only been delivered to Go two days earlier presented by Captain John Mahon and First Officer Joe Wholihan.

90 minute
Go Airways
London Stansted – Lisbon – London Stansted
Platinum Collection
Filmed using a total of 7 cameras

You will join John and Joe at London Stansted airport (EGSS) for a round trip to Lisbon in Portugal, on this brand new aircraft. Departure is from Stansted's Runway 23, callsign Go Flight 301, for our journey with John as Pilot Flying.

[Jwscud]

Why’s that? No where in doing monitored approaches (to a manual landing) does it state that you have to fly it on automatics.


True, but you fly a beautiful raw data approach all the way to 1000ft or wherever, and the other jockey robs you of the pleasure of landing it!