Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Modifying published minimums?

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Modifying published minimums?

Old 16th Oct 2019, 16:07
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Seoul
Posts: 12
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!
joshuahsong is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 17:01
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 825
Originally Posted by joshuahsong View Post
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!
In my outfit it was CAT I only for PIC with less than 100 hrs.
Major EU carrier.
Don't know about current regs.

gearlever is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 17:10
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Utopia
Posts: 479
Originally Posted by joshuahsong View Post
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!
Nothing unusual to you companys procedure in this regard - in fact its not an uncommon industry practice. When you conclude that these go around are uncecessary you clearly dont understand, or rather appreciate, why pilots go around (Im 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.
Klimax is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 17:16
  #4 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 41
Posts: 2,591
I am afraid this is a very old ICAO rule. It does cause completely unnecessary trouble.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 18:50
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,446
Originally Posted by joshuahsong View Post
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!
Similar restrictions apply to carriers in the US.
Check Airman is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 19:27
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 125
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.
BalusKaptan is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 19:44
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 3,953
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.
Denti is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 20:40
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Europe
Posts: 167
Originally Posted by Klimax View Post
Nothing unusual to you companys procedure in this regard - in fact its not an uncommon industry practice. When you conclude that these go around are uncecessary you clearly dont understand, or rather appreciate, why pilots go around (Im 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.
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?
Intrance is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2019, 20:59
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 447
Originally Posted by Intrance View Post
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.
"Been trained" is not a binary yes/no proposition. Skill, saturation capacity, situational awareness, etc. go up gradually and it's naive to think that someone coming out of the schoolhouse as a new FO can handle everything the same that a seasoned veteran can. It's only a safe-enough starting point to be built on with experience. Same for a recent upgrade with the new seat, new tasks, and new responsibilities, etc. I think it's perfectly sensible to tighten up the minimums a little for a newbie.

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?
If you subtract 100 feet from all those numbers you can ask all the same questions for someone not under this restriction, and it doesn't suddenly turn into some farce-revealing conundrum.

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 19:04.
Vessbot is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2019, 00:40
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 835
Originally Posted by Denti View Post
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..
Wait, what? Command upgrade training with trainer in the jumpseat and trainee in the LHS logging actual PIC time as the commander of the aircraft? I hope Im missing something here...

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.
FlyingStone is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2019, 04:01
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 2,323
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.
vilas is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2019, 11:58
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 3,953
Originally Posted by FlyingStone View Post
Wait, what? Command upgrade training with trainer in the jumpseat and trainee in the LHS logging actual PIC time as the commander of the aircraft? I hope I’m missing something here...
Indeed, i found it utterly fascinating as well, as i cannot see that in the EASA regulations. Although they did split the hair even thinner, as the trainer was considered the commander, but the captain in the seat the PIC. Apparently the local authority kinda liked that, but i cannot see how that works out according EASA rules.

Sorry to anybody else for the huge drift off topic here.
Denti is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2019, 12:16
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,273
Originally Posted by Check Airman View Post
Similar restrictions apply to carriers in the US.
A bit of background in US. See 4-148 EVOLUTION OF AWTA.
:

"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 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



bafanguy is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2019, 18:01
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 336
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.
Alpine Flyer is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2019, 08:13
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,400
Its a bit of a weird one but many airlines have some exceptions for operating in the LHS with low hours/sectors. We dont allow role-reversal until youve 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).
FullWings is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2019, 13:48
  #16 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 41
Posts: 2,591
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.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2019, 07:04
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,791
Makes sense to me. Lift the minimum and if you're not Visual then, get out of there.

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
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).

If I see any effect at all, it makes the handling and decision making part of PIC job more complex on a particular day.
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.
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 19th Oct 2019, 08:59
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,871
Makes sense to me. Lift the minimum and if you're not Visual then, get out of there.
I like that description. From memory the RAAF had a similar concept back in the 1950's. Newly graduated pilots were awarded a "White Card" instrument rating that covered all types they may fly. The White Card required 100 feet to be added to the MDA or DH or their equivalent in those days. There was no takeoff minima. If you could see enough to keep straight on the runway you simply went.

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.
Centaurus is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.