UK (civil) ATC absolute minima procedure
The FAA relies on the competience of the pilot to properly execute an instrument approach, and go-around if the runway (or runway environment, approach lights etc) are not in sight at the appropriate time.
It may well be that the UK CAA has no such confidence from those that may simply lack the skill and ability to properly fly an instrument approach to minima
It may well be that the UK CAA has no such confidence from those that may simply lack the skill and ability to properly fly an instrument approach to minima
A ban on descent below minima is extremely difficult to police. The absolute minima procedure is at least enforceable. I make no judgement on whether it's a good thing or a bad thing overall.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting point arose somewhere in the mudslinging started by our contributor from across the Pond.
The approach ban in the UK applies equally to landing traffic as it does to training. This seems a bit daft, as if you are practising instrument approaches and intend to go around at DA then why do you need to worry about the RVR for landing, provided you can fly back to an airfield where you can land?
With regard to:
'The FAA relies on the competience of the pilot to properly execute an instrument approach, and go-around if the runway (or runway environment, approach lights etc) are not in sight at the appropriate time.'
That'll be why there are several fatal accidents every year in the USA where these 'competient' (sic) pilots failed to fly the approach properly or failed to go around when they should and ended up in a smoking hole. How many of them would have continued or would still be alive if they had been warned of an FAA investigation if they commenced the approach?
I'm not in favour of over-regulation, but must agree that if the rules are restated and clear-cut, then you've only got yourself to blame if you break them and have to face the music (or your Maker) as a result.
The approach ban in the UK applies equally to landing traffic as it does to training. This seems a bit daft, as if you are practising instrument approaches and intend to go around at DA then why do you need to worry about the RVR for landing, provided you can fly back to an airfield where you can land?
With regard to:
'The FAA relies on the competience of the pilot to properly execute an instrument approach, and go-around if the runway (or runway environment, approach lights etc) are not in sight at the appropriate time.'
That'll be why there are several fatal accidents every year in the USA where these 'competient' (sic) pilots failed to fly the approach properly or failed to go around when they should and ended up in a smoking hole. How many of them would have continued or would still be alive if they had been warned of an FAA investigation if they commenced the approach?
I'm not in favour of over-regulation, but must agree that if the rules are restated and clear-cut, then you've only got yourself to blame if you break them and have to face the music (or your Maker) as a result.
The risk factor throughout an approach varies depending what part of the approach the aircraft is in. The overall safety is dependent on the combination of all the parts and is predicated on a successful conclusion to the approach ie a landing.
A missed approach is a different matter. Increased risk. Just look at the minimum terrain separation that is provided: only 100'.
I think the reasoning behind approach bans is based on the statistical safety for approaches ie preventing a high likelyhood of a missed approach.
A missed approach is a different matter. Increased risk. Just look at the minimum terrain separation that is provided: only 100'.
I think the reasoning behind approach bans is based on the statistical safety for approaches ie preventing a high likelyhood of a missed approach.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tinstaafl,
Ah...how can a missed approach (ie: overshoot) be considered any more dangerous than the instrument approach that it follows?
Seems to me both are normally approved maneuvers, for which no 'emergency' is declared.
Both are trained for in the sim, both are accepted in normal line operations, even with one engine inoperative...(talking transport aircraft here).
Yes, suspect we have noticed both rather poorly done (sim and line) yet they require no special qualifications, beyond the stipulated license of course.
Ah...how can a missed approach (ie: overshoot) be considered any more dangerous than the instrument approach that it follows?
Seems to me both are normally approved maneuvers, for which no 'emergency' is declared.
Both are trained for in the sim, both are accepted in normal line operations, even with one engine inoperative...(talking transport aircraft here).
Yes, suspect we have noticed both rather poorly done (sim and line) yet they require no special qualifications, beyond the stipulated license of course.
I saw a publication (from Oz CASA? An AIC perhaps? Can't remember) outlining the design of instrument approach procedures & giving the risk factors for each segment of an approach. The missed approach had the highest factor. I'm pretty sure the publication stated that the overall risk for xyz approach was predicated on concluding with a landing at the end of it.
It was years ago when i saw it & I don't have it any more so I can't refer.
The man to ask would be OzExpat. He designs approaches for a living.
It was years ago when i saw it & I don't have it any more so I can't refer.
The man to ask would be OzExpat. He designs approaches for a living.
