Minimums

[Liquid Charlie]

I get a charge out of guys pointing fingers and sounding like a bunch of school boys and girls when it come to minimums -- in reality are minimums a "hard" number - not to me it's a reference where you should see reasonable clues. There is so much reaction to "published" minimums and the "busted minimums" god will come out and smite you from the air. To me there are very few incidents of accidents associated to this and far more with CFIT with guys stooging around VFR than people making a reasonable attempt via an approach. In the past I'll use Broughton Island as an example -- 500 feet was a good safe minimum - that was 2000 feet below published -- it was safe and it got the job done -- now the miss ratio is very high - frustrating for all except the guy sitting in the seat but a great example of the "dumbing down" thread --

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that guys pretend to be horrified when someone mentions "busting minimums" but there are far more dangerous areas out there that will bite your ass. The group that concerns me the most are the guys who try and "end run" the regs and find a loop hole and do something (like .. running) -- because it might be legal doesn't mean it's safe.

[Rockie]

Can't argue with the scudrunning sentiment having done it myself way too many times in my youth. Live (hopefully) and learn. I don't know anything about Broughton Island, but are you saying the published ceiling was 2000' and you routinely went to 500?

[rayban]

[quote="Liquid Charlie"
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that guys pretend to be horrified when someone mentions "busting minimums" but there are far more dangerous areas out there that will bite your ass. The group that concerns me the most are the guys who try and "end run" the regs and find a loop hole and do something (like .. running) -- because it might be legal doesn't mean it's safe.
[/quote]

Published minimums are designed to protect pilots from themselves. Imagine being in a court room somewhere for an infraction to the CAR's (minimums) and trying to justify yourself. Not sure they would let that fly. On the other hand, there is also something to be said about local knowledge and a pilots experience operating in certain places like Broughton, minimums (2000,3) are above VFR. I'm not much of a fan of .. running but sometimes getting below IMC and making an approach VFR isn't such a bad option. Just make sure you have a way out if things change.

[F,D and H]

This "getting the job done" is something that you hear alot of in the YXL area. It's absolute BS, the mins are there for a reason. This is the year 2009, you make us all look bad.

The operator will be just fine if you miss the odd approach. Honestly, if you fly 1000 hours in a year and respect the mins, how many times will you go missed? Not NEARLY enough times to justify breaking them just once, the operator will still have his nice juicy steak and good bottle of wine that night without worrying about his bank account. Your first officer on the other hand will be risking his life for 20k because YOU don't think mins are "hard numbers"

The mins are there for a reason, period.

[iflyforpie]

Just remember that an MDA gives you only 300 ft of clearance above the highest obstacle. Not something I would want to be below should I have an engine failure or encounter a down draft. You don't have to be in clear sky to legally go below; but you have to see at least something that tells you exactly where the airfield is.

Maybe somedays you have to decide to do the missed or not go. Like ..-running, just because you got away with it this time, doesn't mean you will next time.

[foxmoth]

here the term '.. running' lots.
I cant find definition.
anyone know?

[iflyforpie]

Flying visually below a low cloud ceiling.

[confuzed]

This "getting the job done" is something that you hear alot of in the YXL area. It's absolute BS, the mins are there for a reason. This is the year 2009, you make us all look bad.

The operator will be just fine if you miss the odd approach. Honestly, if you fly 1000 hours in a year and respect the mins, how many times will you go missed? Not NEARLY enough times to justify breaking them just once, the operator will still have his nice juicy steak and good bottle of wine that night without worrying about his bank account. Your first officer on the other hand will be risking his life for 20k because YOU don't think mins are "hard numbers"

The mins are there for a reason, period.

+1

[Liquid Charlie]

more fuel for the fire -- a home brew approach is far safer than a 90 degree circling approach -- and yes "local knowledge" is a must --

[foxmoth]

sorry, LC that is to vague
How high cloud, what is vis before being '..'?

[confuzed]

more fuel for the fire -- a home brew approach is far safer than a 90 degree circling approach -- and yes "local knowledge" is a must --

It is?

Well this point has been argued so many times it's like beating your head against a brick wall, so I'll just go to my standard response now. Go to it, fill your boots....whatever YOU think is "safe" and won't kill you and your passengers while teaching your impressionable F/Os the "way" to do things.

[Cat Driver]

Liquid Charlie you are a braver man than I.

I would far rather face African pirates off the coast of Somalia than face the outpouring of indignation you will face form your younger peers who are converts of the " authorities " know better for whom the rules are as cast in stone as the ten commandments are to the born again.

I'm gonna enjoy this thread.

[Rockie]

LC

Are you advocating to the young impressionable aviators here to go ahead and use their own "home brew" approach if they think it's safer?

A simple yes or no please.

How about you Cat?

[confuzed]

Liquid Charlie you are a braver man than I.

I would far rather face African pirates off the coast of Somalia than face the outpouring of indignation you will face form your younger peers who are converts of the " authorities " know better for whom the rules are as cast in stone as the ten commandments are to the born again.

I'm gonna enjoy this thread.

Younger? Wow, thanks Cat! Considering I felt older then the gates of hell this morning trying to drag myself out of bed that helps a little. I wouldn't necessarily say that we're converts....just because things were done differently 30-40 years ago doesn't mean it was safer or more dangerous then it is done today. It's just that over time, things have changed and procedures were developed in order to try to increase the margin of safety to minimize potential tragedy. At least that's the way I look at it. Is it completely perfect? Well no, however through trial and error I'm sure it'll be figured out. However, people who have attitudes of "minimums are stupid, I'll do my own thing (aka lone wolves)" basically throw out any advancement the industry has made about trying to improve safety. Maybe I'm just to "young" and naive? You tell me.

[iflyforpie]

Here's an example of a 'home brew' approach.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 1w0269.asp

Went pretty good considering everybody survived and the plane was repaired.

[Cat Driver]

How about you Cat?

Me?

By now everyone here knows I am the village idiot so why would you be interested in what I think?

Like I said I am going to enjoy this thread because it will give me a chance to fully appreciate just how little I really knew about flying.

So back to all you experts.

[Doc]

Are published minimums "hard numbers"? Good question. If you have NO visual clues, they certainly are. Keep in mind, you will have to go "below minimums" if you are going to land the airplane. Therefore, with visual clues "you can work with", down you go.

However, and here's the caveat, most of the guys/gals reading this would be far better served treating a minimum altitude as an absolute, hard number. Unless you have the runway environment in sight. Why? Because some pilots still hit things, like trees, on missed approaches.

I've had the privilege of sharing a cockpit with Liquid Charlie. The guy is one with the airplane. Nobody does it better. But, for the purposes of this forum, and the experience level of most of you, if you get to minimums, don't have the runway, bugger off and fly another day.

[Rockie]

The rules are simple, and anybody thinking about circumventing them should consider that they are written in blood. You may not descend below DH or MDA unless you have the required visual reference. The definition for that is certainly not cut and dried though, and is a place where local knowledge can definitely be a factor.



602.128 (1) No pilot-in-command of an IFR aircraft shall conduct an instrument approach procedure except in accordance with the minima specified in the Canada Air Pilot or the route and approach inventory.

(2) No pilot-in-command of an IFR aircraft shall, unless the required visual reference necessary to continue the approach to land has been established,

(a) in the case of a CAT I or CAT II precision approach, continue the final approach descent below the decision height; or
(amended 2006/12/01; previous version)

(b) in the case of a non-precision approach, descend below the minimum descent altitude.

(3) Where the pilot-in-command of an IFR aircraft conducting an instrument approach does not establish the required visual reference referred to in subsection (2), the pilot-in-command shall initiate a missed approach procedure

(a) in the case of a CAT I or CAT II precision approach, at decision height; and
(amended 2006/12/01; previous version)

(b) in the case of a non-precision approach, at the missed approach point.

"required visual reference" - in respect of an aircraft on an approach to a runway, means that portion of the approach area of the runway or those visual aids that, when viewed by the pilot of the aircraft, enable the pilot to make an assessment of the aircraft position and rate of change of position, in order to continue the approach and complete a landing;

[flyinthebug]

Are published minimums "hard numbers"? Good question. If you have NO visual clues, they certainly are. Keep in mind, you will have to go "below minimums" if you are going to land the airplane. Therefore, with visual clues "you can work with", down you go.

However, and here's the caveat, most of the guys/gals reading this would be far better served treating a minimum altitude as an absolute, hard number. Unless you have the runway environment in sight. Why? Because some pilots still hit things, like trees, on missed approaches.

I've had the privilege of sharing a cockpit with Liquid Charlie. The guy is one with the airplane. Nobody does it better. But, for the purposes of this forum, and the experience level of most of you, if you get to minimums, don't have the runway, bugger off and fly another day.

Well said Doc. Although I have no time in the cockpit with liquid charlie, his words in threads give us a general idea of his experience and knowledge.

I just wanted to add to what you already said Doc. I agree that mins should be "hard numbers" when in an area you are unfamiliar with period, no exceptions..and on that same note, I believe even by todays standards that if you have local knowledge of the terrain and approach.. that it is "ok" to dip down an extra 30,40,50 ft to have a peek. Isnt it just common sense? Mins are there for a reason and if you dont know the area GO AROUND...If you know theres no trees, hills, etc then why wouldnt you have a look? Isnt that TCCA`s big sell? Situational awareness?

If you know where you are, those "hard" numbers can be softened up just a bit.. and before I get flamed Id just like to suggest that EVERYONE look at their last approach to mins..where it was.. did u cheat? Did you break the MDA by 40'? DH by 25 '?

Those that want to start their "holier then thou" and id never ever ever break mins.. Save it for facebook..Reality is, people break mins every day and thats the nature of the business. The problem is that sometimes, cowboys will try to break mins in UNfamiliar areas and thats when it bites you square in the a$$.

Cat, for what its worth I would truly value your input on this thread. I maybe somewhat like a dinosaur in this line of thinking.. Any input would be appreciated.

Just my 2 cents.
Fly safe all.

[Doc]

Actually FTB, I don't think it's Okay to "dip down" an extra 30, 40 or 50 feet. Why? Because it will become an extra 100 or 200 feet. There has to be a line drawn in the sand, if you will. Once we start making exceptions, these exceptions pop up where they just aren't safe. There's just no need for it. Companies use the "Bill will go down the extra 50 feet. Why won't YOU??" argument to "push" pilots. We've all seen it.

Also, when dealing with a pressure altimeter, you could already be that 30-50 feet below minimums!

Why the hard line? From me? Because the folks I want to get this across to are not Just Curious, Liquid Charlie, Cat Driver, etc. They are guys and gals with 1500 hours, slogging around the north in Navajos and the like.

[Rockie]

How about you Cat?

Me?

By now everyone here knows I am the village idiot so why would you be interested in what I think?

Like I said I am going to enjoy this thread because it will give me a chance to fully appreciate just how little I really knew about flying.

So back to all you experts.

I'm very interested in what you and LC think, and as flyinthebug indicates lots of other people are too. Is that a yes or a no?

[flyinthebug]

5X5 Doc.

[yfly]

I believe even by todays standards that if you have local knowledge of the terrain and approach.. that it is "ok" to dip down an extra 30,40,50 ft to have a peek. Isnt it just common sense? Mins are there for a reason and if you dont know the area GO AROUND...If you know theres no trees, hills, etc then why wouldnt you have a look? Isnt that TCCA`s big sell? Situational awareness?

That is a realistic opinion flynthebug but I am curious as to what minimums are then? How low do you go, 60, 70, 80?

I am guessing that this is not at all included in "TCCA's big sell". The new approach bans will preclude people from executing this procedure by design.

[AuxBatOn]

I don't understand what's the point of busting a minimum. Prove that you're better than others?

Rules are rules and, wether we like it or not we, as professional pilots, need to follow them. Just translate that into the driving world. What's more stupid than waiting at a Red Light when there is no one coming from any direction. Why can't we just look left and right and go? Well, that's a rule. Rules are made to be simple enough so most people can understand them, and made to protect the majority of the population. Pilots have been known to make pretty stupid decisions when put under pressure, and they were not always part of the "lowest common denominator" crowd.

In the end, it's your license, your money and your passengers. If you get busted and you come up with "but, but my boss told me to do so", do you think you boss will back you up?

[flyinthebug]

yfly.. You raise a very good point. If your willing to break mins by 40 ft..then where does it end? For me it was 50% of published mins became my new mins IF IF IF I KNEW the local terrain. Perhaps my ideals of whats safe during an approach have become outdated. That is why im seeking input from people like Cat & Doc etc. It was taught to me as using common sense. For the record I do want to reiterate that I would not push mins 1 single foot at an airport that id never flown into or had even limited knowledge of. The approaches I was speaking of were the ones I did 3 times a day 5 days a week into the same old community over and over. Id likely fished off the floats of the company DHC2 on the approach path. In those senarios I felt SAFE and secure "dipping down" a few extra feet.

For the younger group of pilots on here.. What I was taught is now outdated and mins are published for a reason and they should be adhered to at all times. No exceptions. I stand corrected. Besides, I havent flown an approach to mins since 2004.

AuxBatOn.. I just saw your post as I clicked send on mine. I cant speak for anyone else but in my personal instance I never ever broke mins to "look good"..Often it was to get people home that REALLY needed to get there. Sometimes I will admit that as a manager, my motives may have been fuelled by the almighty $$$.. BUT NEVER did i break mins at an unfamiliar airport for ANY reason and I never once deviated from that train of thought. I hope that helps a bit?..My reasons dont make it "right" but it is an explanation.

Fly safe all.