Going below the minimum without visual reference to the runway
Life's too short for ironing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Scotland, & Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operators in business aviation are prone to that (the few ones which are well-off can afford to stick to the rules...)
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?
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?
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.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operators in business aviation are prone to that
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)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Dublin
Age: 45
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@fernytickles
No, I have no facts to back that up but thatīs 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
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
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: SE England
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Slovakia
Age: 65
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hello!
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Slovakia
Age: 65
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,096
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: fl
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Dustertoo; 20th Apr 2012 at 22:07.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...)!
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.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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...
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!
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.
Last edited by His dudeness; 20th Apr 2012 at 07:19.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: ME
Posts: 5,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good read for all pilots is the G-IV accident into Aspen, CO (KASE).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Avjet_Aspen_crash
Mutt
Life's too short for ironing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Scotland, & Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Are you an avid believer of The National Enquirer or The Sun?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Dublin
Age: 45
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Sir KDM Lowe
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 donīt 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...
Please tell me I don't share the same airspace with such idiots
...and by that I donīt 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...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 21st Apr 2012 at 00:31.