Monitored or Non Monitored Instrument Approaches?
Howcanwebeexpectedtoflylikeeagles
whensurroundedbyturkeys
Thread Starter
Monitored or Non Monitored Instrument Approaches?
I know this has been discussed elsewhere but assuming no autoland, which airlines still operate "Monitored" instrument approaches in weather conditions close to minima?
Just to clarify, Monitored means PF flies (or controls the autopilot) down to DA or MAPt and if PNF becomes visual, PNF takes control for the landing. The other pilot then remains 80% on instruments and gives callouts as required by SOP. In the event PNF doesn't see the required visual references, PF executes a normal go around.
Non Monitored - PNF, hopefully, calls "visual, lights dead ahead" or similar, and PF then looks up and completes the landing.
I know that Monitored was SOP in BA for many years but is this still the case? What do other Airlines do.
I know most of the arguments for and against. I just need to know how many airlines still use Monitored approaches.
Thanks.
Just to clarify, Monitored means PF flies (or controls the autopilot) down to DA or MAPt and if PNF becomes visual, PNF takes control for the landing. The other pilot then remains 80% on instruments and gives callouts as required by SOP. In the event PNF doesn't see the required visual references, PF executes a normal go around.
Non Monitored - PNF, hopefully, calls "visual, lights dead ahead" or similar, and PF then looks up and completes the landing.
I know that Monitored was SOP in BA for many years but is this still the case? What do other Airlines do.
I know most of the arguments for and against. I just need to know how many airlines still use Monitored approaches.
Thanks.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Colchester
Age: 40
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monitored or Non Monitored Instrument Approaches?
We still do it. Cat IIs are monitored with left seat making the landing, autopilot on until minima, Cat IIIs are flown manually by left seat with HGS.
When I was with a well known budget airline they flew monitored approaches for both precision and non precision approaches when weather was below certain minima. I believe they still do.
Previously I had never flown monitored approaches (with a variety of airlines!) but have to say I am a convert to the system.
Previously I had never flown monitored approaches (with a variety of airlines!) but have to say I am a convert to the system.
I was totally converted to the idea of monitored approaches 25 years ago, and introduced it at a former airline where I was honcho. Unfortunately that airline went bust, though that was nothing to do with our approach policy!
As far as I am aware, no other airline in Australia has embraced the concept. I have never seen it in any SOPs, most of which appear to have evolved from Ansett or TAA days of old when the mighty DC 3 was flagship, men were men and barmaids ate their young. On the odd occasion where I have raised monitored approaches for consideration I have been told firmly to butt out because others know a better way of doing things in bad weather. CASA do not appear to have any great interest in this subject, either. Good oh.
I would appreciate information on any domestic airline in Australia that has monitored approaches as policy, and what weather minima makes it mandatory.
As far as I am aware, no other airline in Australia has embraced the concept. I have never seen it in any SOPs, most of which appear to have evolved from Ansett or TAA days of old when the mighty DC 3 was flagship, men were men and barmaids ate their young. On the odd occasion where I have raised monitored approaches for consideration I have been told firmly to butt out because others know a better way of doing things in bad weather. CASA do not appear to have any great interest in this subject, either. Good oh.
I would appreciate information on any domestic airline in Australia that has monitored approaches as policy, and what weather minima makes it mandatory.
Here, the same figures apply. Weather below 300ft and/or 1000m visibility require low minima procedures to be applied, which is observed by using either the HGS or a monitored approach.
The choice depends to a great part on the actual weather: a Monitored approach is limited to Cat II weather or better, while the HGS allows the use of Cat IIIa minima.
The choice depends to a great part on the actual weather: a Monitored approach is limited to Cat II weather or better, while the HGS allows the use of Cat IIIa minima.
Howcanwebeexpectedtoflylikeeagles
whensurroundedbyturkeys
Thread Starter
Thanks to those who replied to my question but part of the question was asking if BA stil use Monitored Approach as an SOP.
For those who did reply, I would be obliged if you could name the airlines to which you refer.
I have no sinister motive in asking the question. IT is just an enquiry as to it's relevance nowadays with highly automated aircraft and whether there is any particular geographical or cultural bias towards its use.
For those who did reply, I would be obliged if you could name the airlines to which you refer.
I have no sinister motive in asking the question. IT is just an enquiry as to it's relevance nowadays with highly automated aircraft and whether there is any particular geographical or cultural bias towards its use.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA do not appear to have any great interest in this subject, either. Good oh.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: taking up the hold
Age: 53
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hugh,
BA still do monitored approaches. For autolands handover of control occurs at 1000' AGL otherwise when visual but not normally before 1000' due to stable approach policy.
BA still do monitored approaches. For autolands handover of control occurs at 1000' AGL otherwise when visual but not normally before 1000' due to stable approach policy.
Shepp, when the weather is really, really crappy the F /O will be driving it via the autopilot; something most F/Os seem to do even better than Captains. Particularly on a non precision approach, I find it useful to be looking outside about a mile or 200 feet to MAP/MDA. Getting right to minimums then looking won't allow for a stabilised approach in some places on a dark night because there are not enough cues or there is not enough distance to the threshold.
The F/O is primed for a go around, and this is also often better executed by the guy whose head is still inside.
Most doubters have either never done monitored approaches, not done them with a competent crew, or never landed in sub 800 metre visibility conditions with any degree of regularity.
Single pilot is another subject to this. King Airs and the like really don't need to be fully stabilised until about 200 feet, if at all in skilled hands.
But in this age of big brother monitoring, there would probably be less reports of high sink rates, tail strikes and heavy landings if monitored approaches were more universally applied in marginal conditions. I wonder how BA stack up against similar sized operators flying in the same environment?
The F/O is primed for a go around, and this is also often better executed by the guy whose head is still inside.
Most doubters have either never done monitored approaches, not done them with a competent crew, or never landed in sub 800 metre visibility conditions with any degree of regularity.
Single pilot is another subject to this. King Airs and the like really don't need to be fully stabilised until about 200 feet, if at all in skilled hands.
But in this age of big brother monitoring, there would probably be less reports of high sink rates, tail strikes and heavy landings if monitored approaches were more universally applied in marginal conditions. I wonder how BA stack up against similar sized operators flying in the same environment?
An interesting view of safety and monitoring, circa 1999, and still valid.
Error-tolerant Crew Procedures for the Year 2000.
Error-tolerant Crew Procedures for the Year 2000.
Access to paper referred to by PEI_3721
Hi everyone,
I'm the author of this paper and wasn't aware of it's being on that forum. The copy there lacks footnotes. If you want a copy please let me know directly to
[email protected] or [email protected]
I've just been contacted by Hugh Martin and have responded directly as well.
I have just reviewed the paper and it is still valid.
I'm the author of this paper and wasn't aware of it's being on that forum. The copy there lacks footnotes. If you want a copy please let me know directly to
[email protected] or [email protected]
I've just been contacted by Hugh Martin and have responded directly as well.
I have just reviewed the paper and it is still valid.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: EU
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our company removed the SOP to call "visual - runway lights" or similar. My theory was that on a CATIII if you call visual at 100ft, then the RHS relaxes too much and expects a "land" call at 50ft but by then the LHS has lost visual causing a bit of confusion and maybe coming into the realms of confirmation bias. Or possibly the RHS assumes that if LHS says "visual" he would take control, again causing confusion. Am I right? Any more experienced guys have any ideas?
Howcanwebeexpectedtoflylikeeagles
whensurroundedbyturkeys
Thread Starter
Hi Guys,
I am still lacking accurate info on which airlines use "Monitored Approach" technique today (as described in my first post on this thread ). Any info would be grately appreciated.
If you work for an airline which has changed from Monitored back to non Monitored, I would also be very interested in why this happened.
The evidence/expert opinion I have seen so far weighs in favour of a handover of control from the pilot flying the instrument approach to the other pilot (usually the commander) when visual being the safer option. If there is any evidence to the contrary, I would wish to hear of it.
Is anyone aware of any events when there was a handling problem or loss of control when PNF took control for the landing during a Monitored Approach?
Steve Last, the author of the paper referenced by PE3721, has been extremely helpful in providing me with quality information. Unfortunatley there seems to be little authorititive material on this subject published within the last 10-15 years.
If you are worried about confidentiality, please PM me. No information I receive will be used other than for flight safety analysis by me.
I am still lacking accurate info on which airlines use "Monitored Approach" technique today (as described in my first post on this thread ). Any info would be grately appreciated.
If you work for an airline which has changed from Monitored back to non Monitored, I would also be very interested in why this happened.
The evidence/expert opinion I have seen so far weighs in favour of a handover of control from the pilot flying the instrument approach to the other pilot (usually the commander) when visual being the safer option. If there is any evidence to the contrary, I would wish to hear of it.
Is anyone aware of any events when there was a handling problem or loss of control when PNF took control for the landing during a Monitored Approach?
Steve Last, the author of the paper referenced by PE3721, has been extremely helpful in providing me with quality information. Unfortunatley there seems to be little authorititive material on this subject published within the last 10-15 years.
If you are worried about confidentiality, please PM me. No information I receive will be used other than for flight safety analysis by me.
