Modifying published minimums?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Seoul
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modifying published minimums?
Hi all.
At my company, PICs with less than 300hrs of PIC time (new captains) must add 100ft on published minimum for all kind of instrument approaches. (e.g., for DA of 233ft, it will be 333ft in this case)
I know their intentions but still, don't understand for modifying published approach minimum. Actually unnecessary many go-arounds have been made due to this limitation.
I am also curious if other companies have some special limitations for new captains.
My company is an LCC based in S. Korea, and operates B737NG.
Thanks!
At my company, PICs with less than 300hrs of PIC time (new captains) must add 100ft on published minimum for all kind of instrument approaches. (e.g., for DA of 233ft, it will be 333ft in this case)
I know their intentions but still, don't understand for modifying published approach minimum. Actually unnecessary many go-arounds have been made due to this limitation.
I am also curious if other companies have some special limitations for new captains.
My company is an LCC based in S. Korea, and operates B737NG.
Thanks!
Hi all.
At my company, PICs with less than 300hrs of PIC time (new captains) must add 100ft on published minimum for all kind of instrument approaches. (e.g., for DA of 233ft, it will be 333ft in this case)
I know their intentions but still, don't understand for modifying published approach minimum. Actually unnecessary many go-arounds have been made due to this limitation.
I am also curious if other companies have some special limitations for new captains.
My company is an LCC based in S. Korea, and operates B737NG.
Thanks!
At my company, PICs with less than 300hrs of PIC time (new captains) must add 100ft on published minimum for all kind of instrument approaches. (e.g., for DA of 233ft, it will be 333ft in this case)
I know their intentions but still, don't understand for modifying published approach minimum. Actually unnecessary many go-arounds have been made due to this limitation.
I am also curious if other companies have some special limitations for new captains.
My company is an LCC based in S. Korea, and operates B737NG.
Thanks!
Major EU carrier.
Don't know about current regs.
Hi all.
At my company, PICs with less than 300hrs of PIC time (new captains) must add 100ft on published minimum for all kind of instrument approaches. (e.g., for DA of 233ft, it will be 333ft in this case)
I know their intentions but still, don't understand for modifying published approach minimum. Actually unnecessary many go-arounds have been made due to this limitation.
I am also curious if other companies have some special limitations for new captains.
My company is an LCC based in S. Korea, and operates B737NG.
Thanks!
At my company, PICs with less than 300hrs of PIC time (new captains) must add 100ft on published minimum for all kind of instrument approaches. (e.g., for DA of 233ft, it will be 333ft in this case)
I know their intentions but still, don't understand for modifying published approach minimum. Actually unnecessary many go-arounds have been made due to this limitation.
I am also curious if other companies have some special limitations for new captains.
My company is an LCC based in S. Korea, and operates B737NG.
Thanks!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all.
At my company, PICs with less than 300hrs of PIC time (new captains) must add 100ft on published minimum for all kind of instrument approaches. (e.g., for DA of 233ft, it will be 333ft in this case)
I know their intentions but still, don't understand for modifying published approach minimum. Actually unnecessary many go-arounds have been made due to this limitation.
I am also curious if other companies have some special limitations for new captains.
My company is an LCC based in S. Korea, and operates B737NG.
Thanks!
At my company, PICs with less than 300hrs of PIC time (new captains) must add 100ft on published minimum for all kind of instrument approaches. (e.g., for DA of 233ft, it will be 333ft in this case)
I know their intentions but still, don't understand for modifying published approach minimum. Actually unnecessary many go-arounds have been made due to this limitation.
I am also curious if other companies have some special limitations for new captains.
My company is an LCC based in S. Korea, and operates B737NG.
Thanks!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very common requirement however it can lead to some bizarre situations. Captains at my current airline have this restriction however are fully LVO qualified with no restrictions for such approaches. Sometime back while acting as relief on a four-man crew, 2 CNs and 2 FOs, the operating CN on his first ever sector in command, while exiting the hold, was faced with unforecast deteriorating weather on the approach however CAT I was still in force. ATC were not prepared to go to CAT II as it would reduce their traffic flow.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting one. But then, each airline has their own style of running things. In my previous airline new captains were not allowed to do LVO until they had 50 hours PIC, which they had halfway through their linetraining. And yes, time in seat was considered PIC, even though there was a trainer on the jump seat. The more restricting one was the requirement to accumulate 2500 hours PIC in company on type before they were allowed to operate into class C airports. In my current airline it is simply six months, do a check flight and the second simulator and you are good to go.
Nothing unusual to you companys procedure in this regard - in fact it´s not an uncommon industry practice. When you conclude that these go around are uncecessary you clearly don´t understand, or rather appreciate, why pilots go around (I´m not going to explain you this). Other common limitations on new captains (and pilots in general) until they gain experience on type in the "new" seat is crosswind limitation. You should be happy and proud that you work for an airline where pilots follow the operation manuals and limitations.
Just imagine... ILS CAT1 only airport, visibility 10km+ but just low cloud base of OVC 200ft. There you go, unnecessary go around because at 300ft you are in clouds while at 200ft you would most likely have at least lights in sight. If weather drops below OVC300 while enroute, do you divert? Do you only get to fly on non-marginal days until you get the hours? Are you in a silly position where if the weather is bad the FO has to land because the captain legally can't according to the company?
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, yes, it makes total and complete sense that a pilot who has probably been landing planes from the normal minimums for a few years now suddenly has to deal with a seemingly random restriction despite training to regular standards and minimums. If you are afraid they can't handle a normal approach in their 'new' seat, there is an issue to be sorted out in training during the upgrade process, not with arbitrary restrictions while released on the line IMHO.
Just imagine... ILS CAT1 only airport, visibility 10km+ but just low cloud base of OVC 200ft. There you go, unnecessary go around because at 300ft you are in clouds while at 200ft you would most likely have at least lights in sight. If weather drops below OVC300 while enroute, do you divert? Do you only get to fly on non-marginal days until you get the hours? Are you in a silly position where if the weather is bad the FO has to land because the captain legally can't according to the company?
300 feet is the new minimum, and you do everything the same as any other time. The go-around was necessary because you didn't see the runway upon reaching minimums, same as any other time. What's more to it? You fly on marginal days with an alternate and are ready to use it, same as any other time. If the weather drops below minimums and you're outta gas you divert, same as any other time. If it's bad, the FO with you can't fly it either (at least in the US, dunno how it is for you.)
Last edited by Vessbot; 17th Oct 2019 at 18:04.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting one. But then, each airline has their own style of running things. In my previous airline new captains were not allowed to do LVO until they had 50 hours PIC, which they had halfway through their linetraining. And yes, time in seat was considered PIC, even though there was a trainer on the jump seat..
Back on topic, some restrictions do make sense, such as increasing RVR/vis, since the visual conditions when reaching minima will make it easier to judge, i.e. a CAT3A at 300m provides better picture than at 200m.
By increasing the DA/DH you are just moving the decision point slightly higher, but the issue still remains the same - it could be just as marginal at DH200ft and OVC002 as with DH300ft and OVC003 and the decision to continue or go-around should be without hesitation anyway.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it's OK to discuss but no one should have a problem following a company procedure . At minimums transition from instrument to visual is the critical part. Even if one has done it in another aircraft before, the feel of controls, the subconscious familiarity of the cockpit, the flare height may be slightly different. The company is giving you a safety cushion for a short period. Nothing wrong in that.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to anybody else for the huge drift off topic here.
A bit of background in US. See 4-148 EVOLUTION OF AWTA.
:
http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v0...04_002_001.htm
:
"Included as part of the initial concept of operating minimums was an increase in the operating minimums for air carrier pilots in command (PIC) until 100 hours of flight experience in a particular type of aircraft was obtained. This was determined by adding 100 feet to the published ceiling and ½ sm to the published visibility for each approach. This aspect of the concept of operating minimums is still in use today. The high-minimum PIC requirement is currently specified in parts 91K, 121, and 135 (with RVR landing minimum equivalents in the operations specification (OpSpec))."
http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v0...04_002_001.htm
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 447
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Overall it would probably make more sense to use the normal decision height/altitude but put some increase on required vis/ceiling to increase the chance for something to be seen there and give a little more time to decide for a captain not yet that familiar with the new type.
We have similar rules here, Alpine Flag Carrier.
We have similar rules here, Alpine Flag Carrier.
It’s a bit of a weird one but many airlines have some exceptions for operating in the LHS with low hours/sectors. We don’t allow role-reversal until you’ve completed ten flights, for example, which makes sense in terms of getting handling experience in quickly.
Our OM also reminds us that we can operate to higher minima if we think it prudent for whatever reason(s).
Our OM also reminds us that we can operate to higher minima if we think it prudent for whatever reason(s).
Only half a speed-brake
It may have made sense in the pre-Level-C SIM era, completely get that. In today's world of CAT II/III from day one, mandatory FDs and an equal share of handling between LH/RH, it lacks practical meaning.
If I see any effect at all, it makes the handling and decision making part of PIC job more complex on a particular day. Exactly the opposite from "newbie safe space" the rule was (most likely) hoping to create.
If I see any effect at all, it makes the handling and decision making part of PIC job more complex on a particular day. Exactly the opposite from "newbie safe space" the rule was (most likely) hoping to create.
Makes sense to me. Lift the minimum and if you're not Visual then, get out of there.
That what is achieved by this rule, which is simpler because you don't have to rely on ATC/external reports of the actual cloudbase, measured to the micron. By lifting the DA, you are giving the new captain extra time to get the aeroplane on the ground after deciding to land. The Visual decision, after all, is instant, it's not sitting there for 100ft of descent trying to decide if you can make it in before the FO/Auto call of "Minimum" (or whatever it is).
Why? No different to any other scenario where the minimum has been lifted for whatever reason. Just make your decision at the new DA. It might be commercially penalising, but that's irrelevant if the company thinks the risk for new captains at the normal minimum is too high.
Overall it would probably make more sense to use the normal decision height/altitude but put some increase on required vis/ceiling to increase the chance for something to be seen there and give a little more time to decide
If I see any effect at all, it makes the handling and decision making part of PIC job more complex on a particular day.
Makes sense to me. Lift the minimum and if you're not Visual then, get out of there.
By the time the pilot had accrued 500 hours as first pilot (in other words in command) the 100 ft addition to MDA/DH was removed. In addition, it was considered the pilot had accrued enough decision making time (500 true PIC) to have the experience to undertake a zero/zero takeoff. In other words takeoff blind. Remember this was for wartime operations. After the appropriate flight test to these standards a Green Card Instrument Rating was awarded. The pilot was tested annually.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Woodlands
Age: 64
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something to consider;
It has been my understanding that high mins regulations pertains to dispatchability of high mins pic.
If weather is at or forecasted to be at or below high mins, no go. Now if unexpected weather at destination went to say CAT 1, then published minimums would apply. Much like diverting to an alternate. One of the many reasons why the no green on green rules are used.
I agree with the mass complications that could ensue if weather goes down at say destination and alternate enroute as well. I understand companies clarifying there own SOP to set actual approach minimums to the 100' above and should be clarified at company operational level. Although I believe the intent of the regulation has more to do with dispatch minimums.
It has been my understanding that high mins regulations pertains to dispatchability of high mins pic.
If weather is at or forecasted to be at or below high mins, no go. Now if unexpected weather at destination went to say CAT 1, then published minimums would apply. Much like diverting to an alternate. One of the many reasons why the no green on green rules are used.
I agree with the mass complications that could ensue if weather goes down at say destination and alternate enroute as well. I understand companies clarifying there own SOP to set actual approach minimums to the 100' above and should be clarified at company operational level. Although I believe the intent of the regulation has more to do with dispatch minimums.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: USVI
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it used to be an add no matter experience, depending on the aircraft...
Is 50 foot momentary descent good for you and your ac when you decide to GA an minima?
Most ac and drivers would bust 50 feet and the MSA going GA at minima...(50 foot is a 7 second rule...2 seconds to decide, 2 seconds to config, and 3 seconds for ac to respond)
Descend more than 50 feet when deciding to GA...I know quite a few ac that simply could not do that on final, even when spooled up approaching minima....
Is 50 foot momentary descent good for you and your ac when you decide to GA an minima?
Most ac and drivers would bust 50 feet and the MSA going GA at minima...(50 foot is a 7 second rule...2 seconds to decide, 2 seconds to config, and 3 seconds for ac to respond)
Descend more than 50 feet when deciding to GA...I know quite a few ac that simply could not do that on final, even when spooled up approaching minima....