Thank you Pappy, you saved me the effort!

Good point, Pappy. "Runway in sight" is what you tell the other pilot. :O

MD80 going into MSY with 300 overcast and a mile at 400 ft in turbulence autopilot clicked off and I took over manually and salvaged the approach by going back to localizer and GS pushing power to approach power, breaking out and landing. I think any competent pilot could do the same. Automation fails all the time so use it but don't trust it.

Jolly well done but that's not the same as losing the ILS signal when you're visual.

Meatlover,

Tell me why it is that you wouldn't question their course of actions?

In this case you would only ask why he chose to go around, but what if the situation was different and potentially dangerous, would you still decide not to question the captain on his decision?

This is a multi-crew environment and the industry is trying to lower the cockpit gradient and for good reason.

- absolutely:D:D

Doing an instrument approach and seeing the runway it doesn't matter what your instruments are doing just land the f**king airplane and talk about what is wrong with the approach taxiing in. Don't talk on the approach unless it is a confirmation of cleared for the approach. If you see the runway, LAND.

Exactly what several people on this thread have already said. So, I'm not sure what you're adding to the topic especially with your completely irrelevant MD80 war story.

If you're confirming that you're cleared for an approach you wouldn't be on the approach anyway. You don't think we should acknowledge RT calls and clearances or carry out checklists on an approach?

Swearing doesn't make you appear intelligent by the way.

Please, no more extraneous hero stories.

Thank you LSM, you saved me the effort! (I've heard something like that before)

Funny how many hero's emerge once the sensible answer's been presented!

BTW...Sorry I swore earlier, but all my :ugh::ugh::ugh: was starting to hurt!

Hi meatlover,

You can't continue your approach beyond the approach ban if you don't have the minimum required RVR, as in this case.

Cheers.

Having flown into New Orleans countless times, there are a few things I can say about it...

The place doesn't typically suffer from weather such as the type that causes continuous rain, fog or haze. It does however suffer day-long pounding rain, thunderstorms and similar weather.

So, since the turbulence was severe enough to "click off" the autopilot, therefore clearly indicating significant and hazardous weather, my question is...

What the F_@& were you doing flying an approach in it??? I at least hope that you're going to tell us that you were on the runway 01 approach???

I2021,

Approach ban is a very much theoretical thing, and does not even exist in a lot of countries. In reality you do make the approach if you as PIC think you will have a good chance of seeing the required cisual guiding elements at your MDA/DA+ and do not ask current visibility AT the OM/1000'/FAF .

Rule says OVER, not BY anyhow:8

No, the MD80 was famous for having glitches so we expected them. We got the first ones that came out and they were even worse. Losing an AP in the approach happened a lot so no heroics required, just hand fly it. If you never land in turbulence you must come from a different planet. On this planet you look at your landing minimums and possible severe weather, but turbulence is part of the environment you fly in every day. That is what the seat belt sign is for.

Hi despegue,

It is indeed theoretical, but I believe that our friend meatlover is looking for some theoretical reference (which I did not give by the way) as the statement "someone told me" is a well spread issue in our industry, as you well know. Unfortunately I'm on my phone and can't provide the link to the EU OPS but there are countless threads on tech log dealing with commencement and continuation of approach.

Cheers.

Thank you all for the responses.
I am just a newbie still learning so do bare with me please as you already are.

Thatsaviation,

I do not question his course of action only because I was not there and do not know his reasons.
Maybe the weather was bad? Maybe there were two parallel runways and he wasn't in VMC? Or in doubt? I don't know.


One more question.
I-2021,
"An instrument approach may be commenced regardless of the reported RVR/VIS but the approach shall not be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent position, if the reported RVR/Visibility is less than the applicable landing minima.
Where no outer marker or equivalent position exists, the Commander shall make the decision to continue or abandon the approach before descending below 1000 ft above the aerodrome on the final approach segment."

For the first point. If your reported RVR/VIS was below the applicable minima, what would be the point to shoot the approach till the Appraoch ban if you can't continue the approach after that even if you were visual?
Not saying you're wrong. The way it is written, you are absolutely right, but I'm wondering what the point is?

For the second point. So if there is no outer marker, our RVR/VIS is below applicable landing minima, the captain can in this case elect to continue beyond 1000 feet to the MDA anyway?

Confusion.
Thanks I'm advance, I'm sure I'm missing something here..

In agreement with bubbers. The AP kicking off shouldn't trigger a missed/go around in of itself.

WC, did you read the thread title?

Meatlover. Most of us OFB (Old Fart Brigade) are more than happy to explain things to the 'newbies.'

In your case what I think what's happened is some confusion between the criteria to 'commence' an approach, and the requirments to 'continue' an approach. They are different.

It's true that there issues that prevent us from 'commencing' an approach, unless specific criteria exist that you mentioned, i.e.: past the FAF when the WX is received,etc.

However, once past the final approach fix you're dealing with things that will allow you to "continue", which by FAA regulation (most other countries are similar, expect China which is a whole different sordid affair) include:

-having the approach light system in view which will allow you to further continue to about 100 feet (CAT I ILS),

-then, having the 'red terminating bars' in sight, allows you to continue until you see specifics of the runway environment, then

-you land.

So, if you have any or all of the above in sight regardless of the distance, ie: 4 kms, there is nothing that prevents you from continuing the 'approach' and LANDING. Furthermore, its legal, normal and expected, so there's no need to 'request, confirm, beg or borrow" anything.

Make sense?


ps: I've only seen an Autopilot kick of due to turbulence when the turbulence was causing IAS changes +/- 25 knots and VSI +/- 2000 FPM. Now, I only have a little over 20,000 hours so I haven't seen everything, but the autopilot 'kicking off at 400 feet. No need to Go-Around over it, true. But, I'd question whether he should have been there in the first place. Mind you, it might be the whole 'old bold' thing.

Or maybe it was an MD80 has a POS autopilot so it can't be trusted so be ready to take over. That, in my opinion, was what happened to us.

Well maybe it should have its own thread then?