Just skimmed through LC's posts and no talk of performance issues such as obstacle clearance on a missed approach.
Little argument on this matter implies little knowledge on behalf of LC.
Why argue with a fool.
Minimums
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog
Re: Minimums
There seems to be a bit of "Do as I say, not as I do" from some of the posters in this thread.
-
ChillinOnIce
- Rank 0
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:08 pm
Re: Minimums
DonnyBrook.... Thanks for your post!! I would sure enjoy seeing this topic brought up to the media to see what the general public has to say about pilots openly admitting to busting minimums just to gether done or to make the 5/7 pax on board the plane happy. Or whoever your trying to make happy. It doesn't matter if you know the local area or not. It's called a MINIMUM DESCENT ALTITUDE FOR A REASON. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE KAHONEEZ to tell your BOSS/PAX it was below min's than I believe your in the wrong industry. There may be certain situations where it needs to be done(ie minimum fuel). Which I would hope never happens to you. But if your doing it every time the weather craps out to get the job done.......FAAAAAACK I would not want to fly or sit in the back of your plane and I believe nobody in the general public would either. Being a good pilot means being a good decision maker and unless you have a serious life or death situation I believe it shouldn't be done. I definitely don't have the 1000's of hours some of you do but I would hate to try to explain in a court why I killed someone on my plane because I thought I should dip it down a little lower. The Car's ARE THERE TO DUMB DOWN AVIATION. That's the point of law's/regulations for Commercial operators. There set in place to protect everyone in the general public. Not to leave it up to the pilot if he thinks it's safe or not.
This is a general post. I hope the next time you want to risk your life you think about the pax and their families in the back. Maybe this will help you mature as a pilot.
This is a general post. I hope the next time you want to risk your life you think about the pax and their families in the back. Maybe this will help you mature as a pilot.
Re: Minimums
Liquid Charlie provided us with a very good subject from which, I hope, some of you have learned something.jjj wrote:Just skimmed through LC's posts and no talk of performance issues such as obstacle clearance on a missed approach.
Little argument on this matter implies little knowledge on behalf of LC.
Why argue with a fool.
jjj.....believe me when I tell you LC is FAR from being a fool! I know he has forgotten more than you will ever know.
Very insightful, thought provoking thread.
Thought. If none of you ever go below your minimum descent altitude, why do we have so many accidents? Every time, an airplane comes in contact with the ground, anywhere but on a runway, somebody has been below minimums.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: Minimums
Doc I am wondering about some of these people.
If L.C. is a fool is that as bad or worse than a know it all?
Some years ago I used to fly a very well equipped Navajo, we had a cloud breaking procedure for getting visual to land at a logging camp strip on the west coast of Vancouver Island.
Here was the equipment we used to cloud break.
From the top of the descent we had Loran, DME from a VOR and ADF.
As we got lower we used Loran, Radar in terrain mapping mode, Radar Altimeter as well as the two altimeters in the panel.
In that we were letting down heading away from the coast over the ocean what would be a safe height for the minimum descent altitude? and after visual contact was made with the water and we were heading back to the coast at a 45 degree angle using loran and radar what would be a safe forward vis to allow a missed approach turn and climb away from land?
If L.C. is a fool is that as bad or worse than a know it all?
Some years ago I used to fly a very well equipped Navajo, we had a cloud breaking procedure for getting visual to land at a logging camp strip on the west coast of Vancouver Island.
Here was the equipment we used to cloud break.
From the top of the descent we had Loran, DME from a VOR and ADF.
As we got lower we used Loran, Radar in terrain mapping mode, Radar Altimeter as well as the two altimeters in the panel.
In that we were letting down heading away from the coast over the ocean what would be a safe height for the minimum descent altitude? and after visual contact was made with the water and we were heading back to the coast at a 45 degree angle using loran and radar what would be a safe forward vis to allow a missed approach turn and climb away from land?
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
Liquid Charlie
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1461
- Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:40 am
- Location: YXL
- Contact:
Re: Minimums
Damn -- I hate it when that happens -- spent considerable time on a post and answer to some of the questions aimed at me and it ain't here -- I guess the homotrons went the wrong way --
I can't believe the shit storm this created but hey -- it was about time there was some action on this forum with maybe a subject that can get a few guys thinking -- although some of the reactions I see I sure hope that those attitudes are not taken onto the flight deck.
Thanks DOC for the support -- many years have passed -- still going to stop for coffee --
I think how you commence a missed approach and where is going to require more thought - with LPV approaches coming on line and thus equipment with the ability to have glideslope for all overlay approaches the missed approach becomes more complex - at first glance it seems simpler but it can put you at a point where a turn is not allowed since you are executing the missed approach on a mda and not a missed approach point. It's like the pitfall created when air canada and few other airlines adopted the VRP (visual reference point) based on a constant rate of decent for non precision approaches. So keep the back door open and make sure you understand the missed approach procedure.
Certainly you don't bust minimums but you also must fly the airplane - I find there is a tendency to overly focus on the rules and the real time issues get put on a lower priority - there is no need in this day to go below minimums -- they are low enough - in the by gone years it was common since in the flat lands or over the ocean with normal minimums were way above vfr so yes the tendency was to go below when the vis was reported good - today TC has tried to eliminate missed approaches as much as possible with the approach ban and by the reduced vis ground operation -- maybe that was a by product but it's there.
Aviation has learned by the mistakes in the past and it's good to see people say they play by the rules. Don't rule out the old fart in the left seat -- you might think he is over the hill and sitting in your seat. Learn from his mistakes and more to the point -- yours and have the balls to admit when you are wrong - damn there are a lot out there who won't - it's always someone else - those guys are the real problem childs out there. Remember - time marches on and one day you will be that "old grey haired gentleman" with the brat pack thinking you are over the hill. All as I can say is we all make mistakes and we also learn something every day -- and yes I learn from my F/O's on a daily basis -- The smart captain learns from and uses all resources that surround him and the top of the list is the crew and people you work with -- it's good to feel good about yourself but don't put yourself above others (except maybe in the bedroom - even then you got to share
) cuz most of us ain't that good when you strip away the rest of the team. For the single IFR guy -- which I enjoyed when I did it -- you are the only one and and don't have that pain in the ass F/O chipping at you --- leave the IPOD at home --
I can't believe the shit storm this created but hey -- it was about time there was some action on this forum with maybe a subject that can get a few guys thinking -- although some of the reactions I see I sure hope that those attitudes are not taken onto the flight deck.
Thanks DOC for the support -- many years have passed -- still going to stop for coffee --
I think how you commence a missed approach and where is going to require more thought - with LPV approaches coming on line and thus equipment with the ability to have glideslope for all overlay approaches the missed approach becomes more complex - at first glance it seems simpler but it can put you at a point where a turn is not allowed since you are executing the missed approach on a mda and not a missed approach point. It's like the pitfall created when air canada and few other airlines adopted the VRP (visual reference point) based on a constant rate of decent for non precision approaches. So keep the back door open and make sure you understand the missed approach procedure.
Certainly you don't bust minimums but you also must fly the airplane - I find there is a tendency to overly focus on the rules and the real time issues get put on a lower priority - there is no need in this day to go below minimums -- they are low enough - in the by gone years it was common since in the flat lands or over the ocean with normal minimums were way above vfr so yes the tendency was to go below when the vis was reported good - today TC has tried to eliminate missed approaches as much as possible with the approach ban and by the reduced vis ground operation -- maybe that was a by product but it's there.
Aviation has learned by the mistakes in the past and it's good to see people say they play by the rules. Don't rule out the old fart in the left seat -- you might think he is over the hill and sitting in your seat. Learn from his mistakes and more to the point -- yours and have the balls to admit when you are wrong - damn there are a lot out there who won't - it's always someone else - those guys are the real problem childs out there. Remember - time marches on and one day you will be that "old grey haired gentleman" with the brat pack thinking you are over the hill. All as I can say is we all make mistakes and we also learn something every day -- and yes I learn from my F/O's on a daily basis -- The smart captain learns from and uses all resources that surround him and the top of the list is the crew and people you work with -- it's good to feel good about yourself but don't put yourself above others (except maybe in the bedroom - even then you got to share
) cuz most of us ain't that good when you strip away the rest of the team. For the single IFR guy -- which I enjoyed when I did it -- you are the only one and and don't have that pain in the ass F/O chipping at you --- leave the IPOD at home --Black Air has no Lift - Extra Fuel has no Weight
ACTPA
ACTPA
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: Minimums
Liquid Charlie in a way you have it better than most of us had /have because you should have less dissent and conflict in the cockpit especially if your crew understand decision making.
Why argue with a fool.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Minimums
LC - I like your last post better than your first. More eloquent and it doesn't make you sound the fool.
Flying in Canada has gone well beyond what makes sense.
We have approached a threshold where the rules have bogged down a very normal process. We are at a point where even though you can see a runway and get to it safely - it doesn't mean you will necessarily have the legal right to land / approach / or taxi to it.
What?
LC, you are correct that rule compliance can take away from the job at hand. Despite the tools we have at our disposal that were science fiction when you and Cat started - the job is in some ways harder as now we are required to juggle more insanity disguised as regs written and enforced by people that love to swing their dicks.
If I were to just work on common sense, aimenship and so on and pay little disregard for the fine print - I wouldn't make it through next winter before some dude would have my license cut to pieces.
We are dealt what we are dealt - and in my case with 17 years (god willing) to retirement - I have to manage what is in front of me. That means more time in the seat with the parking brake on when I could be smoozing with the flighties as I work through the various permutations of the mission at hand so when the flight commences I'll be able to focus on the important stuff.
All this new stuff won't make it any safer anywhere except where flights will just get cancelled when the WX holds at a 1/4 mile in a few places.
I suppose we would all be safer if we just stayed home and never turned a wheel.
Now all we have to worry about is the pig virus.
Thanks Transport Canada - go f( )ck yourself.
Flying in Canada has gone well beyond what makes sense.
We have approached a threshold where the rules have bogged down a very normal process. We are at a point where even though you can see a runway and get to it safely - it doesn't mean you will necessarily have the legal right to land / approach / or taxi to it.
What?
LC, you are correct that rule compliance can take away from the job at hand. Despite the tools we have at our disposal that were science fiction when you and Cat started - the job is in some ways harder as now we are required to juggle more insanity disguised as regs written and enforced by people that love to swing their dicks.
If I were to just work on common sense, aimenship and so on and pay little disregard for the fine print - I wouldn't make it through next winter before some dude would have my license cut to pieces.
We are dealt what we are dealt - and in my case with 17 years (god willing) to retirement - I have to manage what is in front of me. That means more time in the seat with the parking brake on when I could be smoozing with the flighties as I work through the various permutations of the mission at hand so when the flight commences I'll be able to focus on the important stuff.
All this new stuff won't make it any safer anywhere except where flights will just get cancelled when the WX holds at a 1/4 mile in a few places.
I suppose we would all be safer if we just stayed home and never turned a wheel.
Now all we have to worry about is the pig virus.
Thanks Transport Canada - go f( )ck yourself.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: Minimums
Thanks for the good post jjj.
By the way:
However they can go @#$! themselves for sure.
By the way:
Transport Canada looks almost sane compared to some of the regulators you will find elsewhere.
Thanks Transport Canada - go f( )ck yourself.
However they can go @#$! themselves for sure.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Minimums
Just recently I flew my first missed approach due to weather on a commercial flight. My reaction and thoughts afterwards are what attracted me to this thread.
We were MEDEVAC going into CYYB. Winds were very strong out of the West and so we opted for vectors onto the back course 26. Once on the approach and in communication with radio, the visibility started dropping due to fog. We continued in to minimums (and to the MDA only) but without any luck. During the missed approach, I could see the runway looking straight down. After talking it over with the captain, we decided to take the tail wind and try the ILS. Unfortunately, this didn't work either. DH was called and the missed initiated.
On the flight to our alternate (our home base) I couldn't believe how incredibly defeated I felt. Here we were, MEDEVAC to pick up a patient for Ottawa only to fail in our mission.
Or did we?
Our mission as aviators (to quote my buddy Mav) is to put our crew and plane first. Our mission that day (and everyday) is to bring the crew and plane down safely. Period.
It was a humbling experience, but one I needed in order to understand the pressures out there and to be able to say 'NO'.
We were MEDEVAC going into CYYB. Winds were very strong out of the West and so we opted for vectors onto the back course 26. Once on the approach and in communication with radio, the visibility started dropping due to fog. We continued in to minimums (and to the MDA only) but without any luck. During the missed approach, I could see the runway looking straight down. After talking it over with the captain, we decided to take the tail wind and try the ILS. Unfortunately, this didn't work either. DH was called and the missed initiated.
On the flight to our alternate (our home base) I couldn't believe how incredibly defeated I felt. Here we were, MEDEVAC to pick up a patient for Ottawa only to fail in our mission.
Or did we?
Our mission as aviators (to quote my buddy Mav) is to put our crew and plane first. Our mission that day (and everyday) is to bring the crew and plane down safely. Period.
It was a humbling experience, but one I needed in order to understand the pressures out there and to be able to say 'NO'.
Keep Flyin'!
-
snaproll20
- Rank 7
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm
Re: Minimums
May the Gods protect me from some of the 'pilots' on Avcanada.
Why does a perfectly reasonable discussion become a cesspit of name calling, bad language and totally dumb opinions?
ChillinOnIce (this comment is not attached to the above.
)
You said "think about the pax and their families."
One day, you may find passengers who are perfectly willing to overload your plane and then risk their lives with yours flying in it. (Some will insist on it!!!) You may also have a CEO yelling at and cussing you because you are unwilling to do what he wants. You may also be out of work for any of the above 'pax' inputs, with a black mark against your name because you have a 'bad attitude'.
Doubtless, your response to this may be "I don't care, I am a pro and will not do wrongful things."
All very well, but sometimes keeping your job by doing 'risky' things is more important. Especially if you know the risk is mitigated by a continuous repetition of the same act. There are few 'perfect' situations in life.
We have to draw the line sometime between what we know will work and what will not. Everyone has that built into them, mostly from the benefit of experience. It has been my observation that the newbies in the industry are the ones who howl at the moon about things they will not do. It is probably just because you have not (yet) been put in that actual position.
Flame away!
Why does a perfectly reasonable discussion become a cesspit of name calling, bad language and totally dumb opinions?
ChillinOnIce (this comment is not attached to the above.
)You said "think about the pax and their families."
One day, you may find passengers who are perfectly willing to overload your plane and then risk their lives with yours flying in it. (Some will insist on it!!!) You may also have a CEO yelling at and cussing you because you are unwilling to do what he wants. You may also be out of work for any of the above 'pax' inputs, with a black mark against your name because you have a 'bad attitude'.
Doubtless, your response to this may be "I don't care, I am a pro and will not do wrongful things."
All very well, but sometimes keeping your job by doing 'risky' things is more important. Especially if you know the risk is mitigated by a continuous repetition of the same act. There are few 'perfect' situations in life.
We have to draw the line sometime between what we know will work and what will not. Everyone has that built into them, mostly from the benefit of experience. It has been my observation that the newbies in the industry are the ones who howl at the moon about things they will not do. It is probably just because you have not (yet) been put in that actual position.
Flame away!
Re: Minimums
"I couldn't believe how incredibly defeated I felt."Isis wrote:
On the flight to our alternate (our home base) I couldn't believe how incredibly defeated I felt. Here we were, MEDEVAC to pick up a patient for Ottawa only to fail in our mission.
Let that sink in for a minute. She's saying, "I've failed.."
This is a VERY common feeling about missed approaches in general, and missed approaches on medevacs in particular. For some unknown reason, medevac flights seem to entail, to some extent, a self induced sense of urgency. This is pure and utter bull poop. But, the feeling is real. The attitude is real. The pressure is real. It's self induced, and it's total bull shit. But, it IS very real. And, it can, and it will, get you killed!
Medevacs are one of the most dangerous segments of general aviation. But, have faith. The Ontario Ministry of Health has come to our rescue with millions of dollars worth of single engine airplanes, so you mere mortals won't have to risk life and limb to rescue folks from "black hole" communities at 3:00 am, because their hangnails can't wait for the sked!
Re: Minimums
Diverting has never caused me any heartache no matter how much inconvenience it causes me, the company or the people in the back. It's way better than being dead.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Re: Minimums
Missing an approach or several because one does not get the visual clues to complete the approach and landing is not a failure on the part of the pilot/'s it is evidence the pilot/'s have done the job they are licensed to do.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Minimums
Exactly!Cat Driver wrote:Missing an approach or several because one does not get the visual clues to complete the approach and landing is not a failure on the part of the pilot/'s it is evidence the pilot/'s have done the job they are licensed to do.
Something that you don't really understand until you've been there. Now that I'm more fully aware of those pressures, I feel I'm better equipped to judge accordingly. I just wanted to share my experiences, let others know they are not alone.Doc wrote:But, the feeling is real. The attitude is real. The pressure is real. It's self induced, and it's total bull shit.
... and for the record, even though I FELT defeated, I KNEW better. Logic vs. emotions, Spock.
Keep Flyin'!
