Monitored Approach
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always thought, from the position of never having used the system, that the whole point was that the person flying the approach head down was going to go around. This is meant to remove the problems associated with transitioning from IF to visual in marginal conditions, and also to avoid the inadvertent minimum bust caused by the "but I must be able to see the lights now" factor as you continue decending. So approacing DH the monitoring pilot is (relatively) free to look out for the visual reference and if visual at the DH takes over to land. If (s)he is not visual, or if they've just had a heart attack and don't respond then the flying pilot does it just like in the sim and goes around. It sounds remarkably sensible and ought to be straightforward as long as everyone knows what to expect.
Rainboe, I think that in the context of airline ops your comment about "inexperienced and poorly trained pilots" is farcical. They almost certainly have less experience than the captain; at what point do they cease being "inexperienced" - in most airlines' seniority based system people are capable of being captains long before they ever get their command. And again most airlines training systems are pretty thorough - even Ryanair don't skimp on what they do, they just get other people to pay for it! Having said all that, in reality when flying with an inexperienced/ poorly trained fo (as happens quite frequently in the corporate world), by far the best way to operate is to get them to fly the aeroplane, leaving the captain to manage the flight effectively while giving them a great sense of satisfaction!
Rainboe, I think that in the context of airline ops your comment about "inexperienced and poorly trained pilots" is farcical. They almost certainly have less experience than the captain; at what point do they cease being "inexperienced" - in most airlines' seniority based system people are capable of being captains long before they ever get their command. And again most airlines training systems are pretty thorough - even Ryanair don't skimp on what they do, they just get other people to pay for it! Having said all that, in reality when flying with an inexperienced/ poorly trained fo (as happens quite frequently in the corporate world), by far the best way to operate is to get them to fly the aeroplane, leaving the captain to manage the flight effectively while giving them a great sense of satisfaction!
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was responding to hec7or's comment <<I've been handed control at 1000' radio in IMC in marginal Cat 1 by an inexperienced FO despite the company requirement for the FO to fly the approach to minimums or until I say "I have control" or "land".>> where someone evidently should not have been doing what was required of them. Operating in these conditions is not for such people.
For the reasons stated where we can look to DHs far lower than 200', maybe even 50', the days of swapping control at DH are gone- it's dangerous. There is no advantage with taking control at DH, even at 200'. What do you suggest for a DH of 50', 20'? You will probably only have seen approach lights and a bit of runway (you have been monitoring outside as well as concentrating on RA). If you then take over, you are probably less aware of attitude than the handler. If you then take over low down, you are more likely than the other guy to start changing pitch according to visual conditions and falling into the sudden visual trap of lowering the nose. You are far more likely to make a porridge of it. It is better that the handler from 1000' keeps it and starts looking up, but holds the attitude exactly (he has been flying it to that attitude and knows it).
I think the BA way (and many other airlines now), works best, in bad weather undoubtedly. My current procedures are not to do it- but that's fine- I'm happy doing either way.
For the reasons stated where we can look to DHs far lower than 200', maybe even 50', the days of swapping control at DH are gone- it's dangerous. There is no advantage with taking control at DH, even at 200'. What do you suggest for a DH of 50', 20'? You will probably only have seen approach lights and a bit of runway (you have been monitoring outside as well as concentrating on RA). If you then take over, you are probably less aware of attitude than the handler. If you then take over low down, you are more likely than the other guy to start changing pitch according to visual conditions and falling into the sudden visual trap of lowering the nose. You are far more likely to make a porridge of it. It is better that the handler from 1000' keeps it and starts looking up, but holds the attitude exactly (he has been flying it to that attitude and knows it).
I think the BA way (and many other airlines now), works best, in bad weather undoubtedly. My current procedures are not to do it- but that's fine- I'm happy doing either way.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern Turkey
Age: 82
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with BizJetJock and cannot understand where Rainboe is coming from on this and another (monitored approach) related thread. I don't have CAT III experience but have many years experience of CAT II, CAT I and NP monitored approaches.
In my experience FO has always flown approach to DH/DA etc., and has executed a GA if no 'LAND' call from CAPT. A 'LAND' call means 'I have control to land (or GA if something subsequently arises to preclude landing safely). It is a system which is easy to train and works very well in practice.
Any approach below CAT I minima will always be auto-coupled so there should never be a 'hand-over of control from one pilot to another', merely the disengagement of AP (nicely trimmed a/c one would hope) by the designated pilot (experienced CAPT hopefully).
The idea of a CAPT monitoring inside and out from 1000ft down to DA, looking up, deciding and then landing from 100 ft atd or less is frightening and certainly NOT a monitored approach. I can, however, see that this could and should be a requirement for an auto-land approach.
Rainboe, I don't know what BA's CAT III training comprises but, unless it specifically incudes a great deal of CAT II training, there should never be a reversion from CAT III auto-land to CAT II manual land and certainly not with a defective AP and incapacitated pilot.
rts
In my experience FO has always flown approach to DH/DA etc., and has executed a GA if no 'LAND' call from CAPT. A 'LAND' call means 'I have control to land (or GA if something subsequently arises to preclude landing safely). It is a system which is easy to train and works very well in practice.
Any approach below CAT I minima will always be auto-coupled so there should never be a 'hand-over of control from one pilot to another', merely the disengagement of AP (nicely trimmed a/c one would hope) by the designated pilot (experienced CAPT hopefully).
The idea of a CAPT monitoring inside and out from 1000ft down to DA, looking up, deciding and then landing from 100 ft atd or less is frightening and certainly NOT a monitored approach. I can, however, see that this could and should be a requirement for an auto-land approach.
Rainboe, I don't know what BA's CAT III training comprises but, unless it specifically incudes a great deal of CAT II training, there should never be a reversion from CAT III auto-land to CAT II manual land and certainly not with a defective AP and incapacitated pilot.
rts
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the old way of monitored approaches had to be changed as the limits lowered- it was no longer practical to swap pilot control at DH. Cat2 & 3 approaches now are all autocoupled. I don't see what problem you find with the rest? Especially in the context of 2 pilots flying a bad weather approach with autopilots dual/triple engaged for an autoland. What difference does it make. All we are talking about is a role change at 1000' and another role change at a safe time after a go-around. Any problems you are finding apply just a much with the traditional 'one man band' system (an overloaded 'one man' at that).
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Age: 61
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BitMoreRightRudder
Does anyone know of any other carriers other than BA who use this system? It seems like an interesting method.
Also meant to ask; how do those who have operated with the monitored approach system view it in comparison to operating the entire sector as PF?
Also meant to ask; how do those who have operated with the monitored approach system view it in comparison to operating the entire sector as PF?
bitmore..
Also meant to ask; how do those who have operated with the monitored approach system view it in comparison to operating the entire sector as PF?
Having operated the "monitored approach" system for 12 yrs I have seen just as many pitfalls with it as it has advantages, for instance, as well as introducing a handover of control from one pilot to another in the late stages of an approach, and you can view the merits of that how you like, you also have a "handover" from one AP/FD channel to the other when the switch is flicked and I've had a couple of excursions from stable flight simply due to swapping over the AP.
I've also seen several instances of the Captain/P1 taking too much advantage of being able to hand the flying to the P2 in order to manage minor pax or technical issues and by spending too much time "out of the loop" has got completely disorientated and lost situational awareness. With the other system you have to prioritise and "aviate, navigate, communicate" without allowing yourself to lose SA, in fact as soon as the other pilot takes the R/T as well as the flying, you become a passenger.
A couple of weeks ago I had a technical problem which required an expeditious return to where we'd just left and we managed to accomplish this quite efficiently without any transfer of control from one pilot to the other because it simply wasn't necessary and I didn't feel at any stage that a handover of control would have helped in any way at all.
While it may be nice sometimes to be able to delegate the flying to the other pilot when busy with other things, I would rather choose to do this only when necessary and even then with caution.
I've seen too many cock ups with the monitored approach system so I don't have a particularly high opinion of it. In fact I view it as an invitation to the unwary to get out of the loop and get overloaded simply because you've delegated the "aviate, navigate" bit of the equation to someone else and workload management is more difficult to achieve.
