Monitored Approach
Monitored Approach
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: England
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt will fly the Take off, climb and cruise. Approaching top of descent he will hand overcontrol to the F/o who then flies the descent and approach to decision height. Then the Capt takes control for the landing. On sector 2 the roles are reversed.
It was invented by BA to stop rushed and unstable approaches. You will find mixed views on its benefits in todays modern cockpit but it does work well in low Vis approaches.
It was invented by BA to stop rushed and unstable approaches. You will find mixed views on its benefits in todays modern cockpit but it does work well in low Vis approaches.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: The Aluminium Tube of Doom
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's the case that the guy flying the approach would fly a go-around if necessary, the other guy would just do the landing. So the approach-flyer can concentrate on the missed approach procedure.
FT
FT
The Monitored Approach concept was developed primarily by BA (BEA) in conjunction with BLEU at RAE Bedford for all weather operations on BAC1-11 and Trident aircraft.
The principle for approaches required one pilot to be head down and ‘fly’ the aircraft (generally via the autopilot), and the other to monitor the operation, but be head up for the decision and landing.
The head up pilot looks up at about 100ft above DH to seek visual cues for a landing decision. The head down pilot would announce ‘xx ft above’ (decision height) alerting the head up pilot, who would reply ‘land’ if the conditions were suitable. If there was no return call (land) or a go around instruction then the head down pilot flew a go-around.
If a system failed or there was an ILS deviation before a land decision, then the head down pilot would fly a go-around.
After a ‘land’ call, the head up pilot would either continue to monitor the landing visually or if there was a failure after decision altitude, fly a go around. Thus, there was a change of control at the point of deciding. Some operators also used a hand tap on the thrust levers to reinforce the ‘land’ call and the change of control; this was very effective in busy ATC environments where crew calls could be masked.
The procedure reduced human error of ‘press-on-itis’ or ‘lets have a look’ during low visibility operations. It can also be used during NPAs. Primarily it reduced the decision maker’s workload whilst maintaining good monitoring. For experienced crews it also enabled first officers to be the head up pilot and gain more experience in low visibilities; each sector could be flow turn and turn about.
The principle of the procedure was adopted by many European operators, but not in the USA due to the then ‘P1’ biased operating technique (some would argue otherwise, but their monitored approach was still P1 led). In recent years, the procedure has been adapted to suit more modern atutoland designs, HUD, etc, and lower Cat 3 minima.
IIRC, B Cal and Dan Air used the monitored approach, and possibly Brittania, but I don’t know what the current procedures are.
The principle of the procedure is sound and safe, but to some extent relies on good training, experience, and discipline. There is a very good paper continuing some the conceptual ideas and proposals for current operations -
Eliminating "cockpit-caused" accidents: Error-tolerant Crew Procedures for the Year 2000
The principle for approaches required one pilot to be head down and ‘fly’ the aircraft (generally via the autopilot), and the other to monitor the operation, but be head up for the decision and landing.
The head up pilot looks up at about 100ft above DH to seek visual cues for a landing decision. The head down pilot would announce ‘xx ft above’ (decision height) alerting the head up pilot, who would reply ‘land’ if the conditions were suitable. If there was no return call (land) or a go around instruction then the head down pilot flew a go-around.
If a system failed or there was an ILS deviation before a land decision, then the head down pilot would fly a go-around.
After a ‘land’ call, the head up pilot would either continue to monitor the landing visually or if there was a failure after decision altitude, fly a go around. Thus, there was a change of control at the point of deciding. Some operators also used a hand tap on the thrust levers to reinforce the ‘land’ call and the change of control; this was very effective in busy ATC environments where crew calls could be masked.
The procedure reduced human error of ‘press-on-itis’ or ‘lets have a look’ during low visibility operations. It can also be used during NPAs. Primarily it reduced the decision maker’s workload whilst maintaining good monitoring. For experienced crews it also enabled first officers to be the head up pilot and gain more experience in low visibilities; each sector could be flow turn and turn about.
The principle of the procedure was adopted by many European operators, but not in the USA due to the then ‘P1’ biased operating technique (some would argue otherwise, but their monitored approach was still P1 led). In recent years, the procedure has been adapted to suit more modern atutoland designs, HUD, etc, and lower Cat 3 minima.
IIRC, B Cal and Dan Air used the monitored approach, and possibly Brittania, but I don’t know what the current procedures are.
The principle of the procedure is sound and safe, but to some extent relies on good training, experience, and discipline. There is a very good paper continuing some the conceptual ideas and proposals for current operations -
Eliminating "cockpit-caused" accidents: Error-tolerant Crew Procedures for the Year 2000
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: out there
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a matter of fact, it is a way to enable P2 to be the one who makes the decision 
(landing or not...) when he is PF on the leg.
Am I right ?
If so, how about P2 first flight in the real world in real very low visibility conditions ? Is he (she) immediatly entrusted with such a reponsibility ?
bleeds off
Thx alf5071h
(landing or not...) when he is PF on the leg. Am I right ?
If so, how about P2 first flight in the real world in real very low visibility conditions ? Is he (she) immediatly entrusted with such a reponsibility ?
bleeds off
Thx alf5071h
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
Bleeds, in the airline in question, only the Captain can do a Cat3 landing, and he takes over at 1000' for either a 50', 20' or zero Decision Height. I can't recall the exact limits for a copilot to practice an approach, whether it's something like 500m vis or Cat2 limits.
I think it works quite well. The copilot flies from TOD to approach down to 1000', the Captain takes over having briefed himself at leisure on the go-around and decides at DH (called by copilot) whether to land or GA and carries it out, and hands back over to the copilot after the GA in the circuit to collect himself to do it again. In bad weather it works superbly, and prevents one guy getting overloaded doing it all himself, and maybe flying a GA after an extended complicated approach and forgetting some detail of the GA. It also shares some of the flying each sector. It works, and can't be knocked. The other way that works is one person flying the whole thing. I think it is short sighted to criticise one or the other, especially when not fully understanding how it works.
Finally, having flown both ways for years, I'd say in bad weather approaches, give me Monitored Approach always- it's excellent. In good weather, it doesn't matter- either will do.
I think it works quite well. The copilot flies from TOD to approach down to 1000', the Captain takes over having briefed himself at leisure on the go-around and decides at DH (called by copilot) whether to land or GA and carries it out, and hands back over to the copilot after the GA in the circuit to collect himself to do it again. In bad weather it works superbly, and prevents one guy getting overloaded doing it all himself, and maybe flying a GA after an extended complicated approach and forgetting some detail of the GA. It also shares some of the flying each sector. It works, and can't be knocked. The other way that works is one person flying the whole thing. I think it is short sighted to criticise one or the other, especially when not fully understanding how it works.
Finally, having flown both ways for years, I'd say in bad weather approaches, give me Monitored Approach always- it's excellent. In good weather, it doesn't matter- either will do.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Uk
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A monitered approach is a fantastic tool for low vis conditions where the approach is flown normally by the F/O in Cat 3's and autolands or by either the Capt or the F/O in a Cat 2.
The whole idea is that the whole approach and a go arround is the focus of the pilot flying(PF), and the PNF "moniters" his action to decision height where the PNF is looking for the required visual reference to land, a instant call of Land or Go arround can therefore be made by PF when PNF calls decide,and controls are instantly handed over if landing. Hence why the capt is normally PNF.
Im sure this is how most commercial aircraft fly low vis approaches, whether they call it a monitered approach or not !!!
The whole idea is that the whole approach and a go arround is the focus of the pilot flying(PF), and the PNF "moniters" his action to decision height where the PNF is looking for the required visual reference to land, a instant call of Land or Go arround can therefore be made by PF when PNF calls decide,and controls are instantly handed over if landing. Hence why the capt is normally PNF.
Im sure this is how most commercial aircraft fly low vis approaches, whether they call it a monitered approach or not !!!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Citizen of the World
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The monitored approach comes in many different versions. However, all have the same essential element in that one pilot flies the aircraft (with the automatics) and the other monitors both the flight path and the outside view, especially approaching DA/DH. It was originally developed by BA ans has since been copied by companies worldwide in various guises.
Whether this involves the FO flying the a/c and the Captain doing the landing (usually an autoland but not necessarily so) or vice versa, doesn't much matter. It's simply THE outstanding manner in which to conduct an approach to minimums regardless of whether it's CAT 1 or Cat 111 or even a Non-Precision Approach. Inh fact I would venture to suggest that the NPA to minimums is the one where it's probably most needed.
Lots of pilots have rubbished this method over the years without trying it out to see just how well it works and how much it adds to safety near the ground when the weather is lousy. Sure, some companies have gone overborad and made it unnecessarily complicated but that doesn't negate the value. However, as stated earlier by another poster, it does require good training and, most of all, good flight deck discipline. I just wish we had it in my current outfit.
Whether this involves the FO flying the a/c and the Captain doing the landing (usually an autoland but not necessarily so) or vice versa, doesn't much matter. It's simply THE outstanding manner in which to conduct an approach to minimums regardless of whether it's CAT 1 or Cat 111 or even a Non-Precision Approach. Inh fact I would venture to suggest that the NPA to minimums is the one where it's probably most needed.
Lots of pilots have rubbished this method over the years without trying it out to see just how well it works and how much it adds to safety near the ground when the weather is lousy. Sure, some companies have gone overborad and made it unnecessarily complicated but that doesn't negate the value. However, as stated earlier by another poster, it does require good training and, most of all, good flight deck discipline. I just wish we had it in my current outfit.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking as one who was first trained in this some 35 years ago there is a further aspect which hasn't been mentioned.
Nowadays with GPS and sophisticated autopilots, flying the approach is relatively straight-forwards, but in the days when it required rather more concentration it was all to easy for PF to forget about anticing, fuel states, QNH/QFE, crosswind, clearance to land, etc.
The monitored approach allowed the co-pilot to fly the A/C whilst the Captain did what he was paid for, i.e to take an overall view of the operation.
At decision height he either said "Go Around" in which case the co-pilot did that, whlilst he monitored, or "Land" in which case he was looking outside whilst the A/P landed the A/C.
At the time it worked well and allowed BA and others to get clearance for CAt3 autoland.
Whether it is still the "Gold Standard" is open to debate but at the time it worked well.
Nowadays with GPS and sophisticated autopilots, flying the approach is relatively straight-forwards, but in the days when it required rather more concentration it was all to easy for PF to forget about anticing, fuel states, QNH/QFE, crosswind, clearance to land, etc.
The monitored approach allowed the co-pilot to fly the A/C whilst the Captain did what he was paid for, i.e to take an overall view of the operation.
At decision height he either said "Go Around" in which case the co-pilot did that, whlilst he monitored, or "Land" in which case he was looking outside whilst the A/P landed the A/C.
At the time it worked well and allowed BA and others to get clearance for CAt3 autoland.
Whether it is still the "Gold Standard" is open to debate but at the time it worked well.
Originally Posted by alf5071h
The Monitored Approach concept was developed primarily by BA (BEA)
He was flying as captain on a Ford Trimotor for Cubana. He told me he ALWAYS had the copilot ( that's what they were rightly called before "politically correct" took over the world ) fly the low approaches because it freed him up to look out the windshield and fulfill his command responsibility of deciding whether the flight should continue to landing under exisiting conditions.
This was in the 1940's. Some people just see what others overlook.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A properly flown monitored approach is the lowest stress way possible to get through difficult conditions of any sort. When you've got 3 amazing autoplits (or even just one as we once used for Cat 3 on the MD-80), it is a waste of the Captains talents for him to be PF. You can watch whats happening so much better in a monitored approach. Try it if you haven't yet.
good idea (sometimes)
The monitored approach is also good during non-normal situations as it gives the captain the chance to sit back and take an overview of events and in many instances, the captain will have to do the landing anyway due to technical limitations.
Having used this system on BAC1-11s in LVP conditions and having several Cat111 autolands on this type, I can see where BA were coming from, but to apply its use to all approaches is pointless.
How does one cater for a circling or visual approach, or a late landing clearance after MDA/DA?, I know of situations where missed approaches have been flown solely due to over zealous adherence to SOPs leading to nasty conflictions between traffic departing and traffic going around simply because the PF has not heard the magic word "land" by DA (in one instance because the captain was still replying to his landing clearance!!).
I've also seen too many PFs struggling away in VS mode all the way to MDA on a non precision approach while the PNF sits and waits for the "decision" call having had the RWY in sight for the last 10 miles!!
I have come to the conclusion that it should be the captain's decision whether a monitored approach should be flown as he/she is in the best place to make that judgement and it should not be imposed by companies.
Companies that impose monitored approach procedures to be flown for every approach might equally decree that left rudder only may be used in the event of an engine failure to eliminate the risk of using the wrong rudder. It would apply the same logic!
Having used this system on BAC1-11s in LVP conditions and having several Cat111 autolands on this type, I can see where BA were coming from, but to apply its use to all approaches is pointless.
How does one cater for a circling or visual approach, or a late landing clearance after MDA/DA?, I know of situations where missed approaches have been flown solely due to over zealous adherence to SOPs leading to nasty conflictions between traffic departing and traffic going around simply because the PF has not heard the magic word "land" by DA (in one instance because the captain was still replying to his landing clearance!!).
I've also seen too many PFs struggling away in VS mode all the way to MDA on a non precision approach while the PNF sits and waits for the "decision" call having had the RWY in sight for the last 10 miles!!
I have come to the conclusion that it should be the captain's decision whether a monitored approach should be flown as he/she is in the best place to make that judgement and it should not be imposed by companies.
Companies that impose monitored approach procedures to be flown for every approach might equally decree that left rudder only may be used in the event of an engine failure to eliminate the risk of using the wrong rudder. It would apply the same logic!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UAE
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FR are using monitored approaches (Cat 1 ILS and NP) when the weather is marginal. F/O always fly's the approach, Capt calls land or G/A. Capt fly's the landing. Very similar to Cat II/IIIa procedures. Works well.
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
Hec7or- You're not reading the above! The PF flies to TOD, hands over. The other pilot flies Descent down to 1000', with the luxury to brief himself on the final approach and go-around. He takes over at 1000' announces what he is doing 'Manland/Autoland xxx' Baro/Radio', and flies down to limits or visual, called by PNF, and go around or lands. If Go-around, somestage after ATOC, hands over to PNF to handle while he rebriefs himself to take over again at 1000'. Circling and visual approaches are no problem, the PF can take over when he likes- all it takes is 'I have control!' He can then fly the circuit he has been quietly planning to himself in his 'breather' time.
The chief criticism people make, without understanding how it works, usually runs along the lines of 'taking over an out of trim aircraft at DH.......Hahaha'- which doesn't happen. It has its advantages- both pilots always share some flying each leg- it shares the workload and resources better, especially in bad weather. It does work well. But as I said, there are many ways to skin a cat, and you can argue a long time over a few drinks and not really be able to fault either system. But if you are caught in several go-arounds on a poor day, believe me it works far, far better!
The chief criticism people make, without understanding how it works, usually runs along the lines of 'taking over an out of trim aircraft at DH.......Hahaha'- which doesn't happen. It has its advantages- both pilots always share some flying each leg- it shares the workload and resources better, especially in bad weather. It does work well. But as I said, there are many ways to skin a cat, and you can argue a long time over a few drinks and not really be able to fault either system. But if you are caught in several go-arounds on a poor day, believe me it works far, far better!
Rainboe
My post wasn't conjecture, just a reflection on what I've observed, and while you point out the obvious benefits of the system, there are some traps which lie in wait for the inexperienced or poorly trained in employing a "one size fits all" SOP.
I'm not suggesting it is not an excellent system, provided the P1 for the sector (ie..the landing pilot) knows precisely at what point he should take control. 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".
At the other end of the scale I've had to go around from below minimums because the FO has screwed up the last 200' because he waited till "decide" to take control and did not get the feel of the aircraft - applying a huge handful of thrust immediately after taking control and getting hugely out of shape.
Surely the only difference between a monitored approach and a "normal" approach is that there is a transfer of control from one pilot to another and in some circumstances this just serves to add an element of confusion or doubt to the inexperienced or the poorly trained.
I stand by what I say.
I'm not suggesting it is not an excellent system, provided the P1 for the sector (ie..the landing pilot) knows precisely at what point he should take control. 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".
At the other end of the scale I've had to go around from below minimums because the FO has screwed up the last 200' because he waited till "decide" to take control and did not get the feel of the aircraft - applying a huge handful of thrust immediately after taking control and getting hugely out of shape.
Surely the only difference between a monitored approach and a "normal" approach is that there is a transfer of control from one pilot to another and in some circumstances this just serves to add an element of confusion or doubt to the inexperienced or the poorly trained.
I stand by what I say.
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
Look it's not an argument. Just trying to point out the usual off the cuff criticisms people make aren't really valid. I too don't like the idea of swapping control at DH, especially as that may not be 200'. It could be 100', 50' or even 20', or 0'! It's a no-no. The best way is to swap at 1000', announce what's happening, and the PNF can compose himself for the calls required, and breathe a sigh because he's flown the descent and approach, and will take over again after the After Take-off check in a Go-around.
I don't think the inexperienced or poorly trained should be sitting there in bad weather approaches. The Passengers deserve better! But all that happens is a single swapping of control prior to the high pressure buildup. If a pilot can't hack that, something is wrong with the airline. The BA way works best- 1000', not at DH! It works, and works better, IMO, but whether it is that much better that it makes it worth having to train everybody to the new way is the point open to discussion.
I don't think the inexperienced or poorly trained should be sitting there in bad weather approaches. The Passengers deserve better! But all that happens is a single swapping of control prior to the high pressure buildup. If a pilot can't hack that, something is wrong with the airline. The BA way works best- 1000', not at DH! It works, and works better, IMO, but whether it is that much better that it makes it worth having to train everybody to the new way is the point open to discussion.
Last edited by Rainboe; 12th Jun 2006 at 08:50.