Going below the minimum without visual reference to the runway
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Dublin
Age: 45
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going below the minimum without visual reference to the runway
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
feeding the troll, I know...
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I have a self constructed approach to my home base that I use to break cloud but never below 1000AGL.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone of you relying on self-constructed FMS approaches?
) 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 canīt 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 donīt 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 donīt 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 donīt 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 donīt go below minima on certain airports.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going below the minimum without visual reference to the runway
All great ideas. Good luck.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"
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?
Last edited by de facto; 16th Apr 2012 at 09:45.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
As for going below minimum, never done it, and don't have any intention to do it except in an emergency.
@ 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.
"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.
@ 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.
"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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: MAN
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Pace
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
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 16th Apr 2012 at 14:28.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Dublin
Age: 45
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. Itīs 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. Itīs 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
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. Itīs 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. Itīs 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
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: MCO (occasionally)
Posts: 387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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