Monitored Approaches
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Over Here
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monitored Approaches
How many of you work for companies where the monitored approach is the norm, ie one pilot flies to minimums expecting to execute the missed approach, whilst the other pilot looks out and takes control and land, given sufficient visual refs etc. How useful do you find them, and do you use them on Cat II or Cat III approaches? If you do, do they have any relevance given the competence of modern autopilots? Just curious.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Southern England
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My company use them and I personally like them. I think it keeps both pilots “in the loop” as the landing pilot has a vested interest in the quality of the approach, apart from the proven value of not having to change from short field focus to outside reference at a critical moment.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We use them, but only if the weather's bad. That is, close to Cat 1 limits. Then the FO always gets to be PF, expecting to do the missed approach, and the Captain is the one looking out. When he sees the runway he takes control and becomes PF. If its an autoland, the FO keeps it until main wheel touchdown.
I think its good in bad weather, or possible bad weather. However, when its CAVOK its nice to just to a nice little visual circuit into some places we go.
I have had the experience of getting the weather, and it was something like "few at 4000 feet". We got there and the Captain was flying it and it was rubbish, right down below minima, and that did get a bit confusing as the Captain was then PF and making all the calls like "100 above" and "decide" to himself!
But 99% of the time it works well.
Don't want to see it for all approaches though, I think most pilots like to plan and fly their own approach and landing.
I think its good in bad weather, or possible bad weather. However, when its CAVOK its nice to just to a nice little visual circuit into some places we go.
I have had the experience of getting the weather, and it was something like "few at 4000 feet". We got there and the Captain was flying it and it was rubbish, right down below minima, and that did get a bit confusing as the Captain was then PF and making all the calls like "100 above" and "decide" to himself!
But 99% of the time it works well.
Don't want to see it for all approaches though, I think most pilots like to plan and fly their own approach and landing.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some like the monitored approach idea and some don't. I personally do not, but thats just my preference.
However, should a Captain retire after having used monitored approaches for a long time and then go to a company which does NOT use them, the line training can extend for a very long time. In one company I worked for, about 60% of these guys did not complete line training and were asked to leave. As I was involved with line training at this company, it was not a pretty picture.
However, if monitored approaches are the norm in a company then..... "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
However, should a Captain retire after having used monitored approaches for a long time and then go to a company which does NOT use them, the line training can extend for a very long time. In one company I worked for, about 60% of these guys did not complete line training and were asked to leave. As I was involved with line training at this company, it was not a pretty picture.
However, if monitored approaches are the norm in a company then..... "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
