Approach ban
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
ihavecontrol
- Rank 2
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 8:45 am
Approach ban
Am I right to say that at an airport normally serviced by a RVR (which is temporarily down) you are still authorized to shoot an approach even if tower is calling the vis at less than 1/4 SM?
-
talkinghead
- Rank 4
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 6:14 am
There's nothing unsafe about doing an ILS when the vis is ZERO! Just as long as you remember to "piss off" at mins when you dont see anything! It's also allowed to shoot an approach when there is a ban if you dont intend to land? We dont get much practice at missed approaches on an ILS, because normally, we see the runway......it's a really funny feeling to know your butt is only a hundred feet off the runway and you are on a missed!
That said however, during a normal work day, with a plane load of pax, I'd just tend to procede to my alternate. But for practice.....go and miss the approach...but brief for a missed...something we dont do all that often.
And I dont mean the standard on the plate "in the event of a missed..." crap. Really BRIEF for one! And dont even get into the mindset of a landing...plan for the missed!
That said however, during a normal work day, with a plane load of pax, I'd just tend to procede to my alternate. But for practice.....go and miss the approach...but brief for a missed...something we dont do all that often.
And I dont mean the standard on the plate "in the event of a missed..." crap. Really BRIEF for one! And dont even get into the mindset of a landing...plan for the missed!
-
just curious
- Rank Moderator
- Posts: 3592
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:29 am
- Location: The Frozen North
- Contact:
Both Johnny and Doc are correct in thier take on this. In the arctic, whcih should normally include Winnipeg, strong winds may pick up loose snow and ice crystals and reduce the ground visability (at the height of the observer) to 1/4 mile. The dozen or so items listed as identifiers of the runway environment in the CAP gen... RIALs PAPI REL runway lights etc. may all be clearly visable on the approach. A landing may be safely made off of an approach to the runway in these conditions. The two problems that then ensue are these:
Taxiing to the terminal is problematic.
You are now stuck in Nowhere NT until the vis comes up in 2 to 3 days.
It is important to remember that for landings, suitability for landing is generally considered to be ceilings, not vis. Approach may well be governed by vis, especially during circling manoevers. That having been said, at night or in fog, a two crew, stabilized approach on an ILS into an airport with vis reported at less that 1/2 mile will often result in the pilot looking out at 200 feet and identifying sufficient identifying features (see CAP Gen for list) to safely continue the approach to landing.
That having been said, an NDB (Circling) approach to Attawapiskat with a remote altimeter setting, observed vis as reported by a sked agent as not very good, at night, with just runway lights and end lights is going to result in:
Old cynical pilots saying "Screw it we're going back to Timmins"
A new, inexperienced crew scaring the hell out of themselves and their passengers while narrowly missing rolling into the ground.
Doc comes close to the heart of the matter when he suggests that:
During your brief that you realistically talk about what you are going to do next when you miss, because, given the lousy vis, you likely will.
A trained experienced crew (that flies the way they train) flying a well equiped and maintained aircraft on a stabilized into an airport with good facilities and weather that meets the approach criteria will almost always complete the approach (safely) to landing.
Take away any one of these variables, and the potential for a missed increases dramatically. For newer pilots flying into a field, single pilot in a generic 703 machine to a night circling NDB to a blackhole type airport, the approach will almost never be done without a much higher degree of risk and uncertainty.
Taxiing to the terminal is problematic.
You are now stuck in Nowhere NT until the vis comes up in 2 to 3 days.
It is important to remember that for landings, suitability for landing is generally considered to be ceilings, not vis. Approach may well be governed by vis, especially during circling manoevers. That having been said, at night or in fog, a two crew, stabilized approach on an ILS into an airport with vis reported at less that 1/2 mile will often result in the pilot looking out at 200 feet and identifying sufficient identifying features (see CAP Gen for list) to safely continue the approach to landing.
That having been said, an NDB (Circling) approach to Attawapiskat with a remote altimeter setting, observed vis as reported by a sked agent as not very good, at night, with just runway lights and end lights is going to result in:
Old cynical pilots saying "Screw it we're going back to Timmins"
A new, inexperienced crew scaring the hell out of themselves and their passengers while narrowly missing rolling into the ground.
Doc comes close to the heart of the matter when he suggests that:
During your brief that you realistically talk about what you are going to do next when you miss, because, given the lousy vis, you likely will.
A trained experienced crew (that flies the way they train) flying a well equiped and maintained aircraft on a stabilized into an airport with good facilities and weather that meets the approach criteria will almost always complete the approach (safely) to landing.
Take away any one of these variables, and the potential for a missed increases dramatically. For newer pilots flying into a field, single pilot in a generic 703 machine to a night circling NDB to a blackhole type airport, the approach will almost never be done without a much higher degree of risk and uncertainty.
-
talkinghead
- Rank 4
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 6:14 am
As per normal DOC. I agree with what you wrote.Doc wrote:There's nothing unsafe about doing an ILS when the vis is ZERO! Just as long as you remember to "piss off" at mins when you dont see anything! It's also allowed to shoot an approach when there is a ban if you dont intend to land? We dont get much practice at missed approaches on an ILS, because normally, we see the runway......it's a really funny feeling to know your butt is only a hundred feet off the runway and you are on a missed!
That said however, during a normal work day, with a plane load of pax, I'd just tend to procede to my alternate. But for practice.....go and miss the approach...but brief for a missed...something we dont do all that often.
And I dont mean the standard on the plate "in the event of a missed..." crap. Really BRIEF for one! And dont even get into the mindset of a landing...plan for the missed!
Damn, I hate saying that.
DOC, your a hundred percent correct on missed briefings. The one on the approach plate is use in most cases for communication failure. Every IFR pilot should ask and get missed approach instruction prior to commencing an approach if minimal weather. Sometimes that's the published missed but most of the time it will be a clearance that is more suitable for the planned route.
You know what they say about IFR, fly the numbers, check the instruments and you will make it home.
You know what they say about IFR, fly the numbers, check the instruments and you will make it home.
I wish I could spell
It seems to me that TC is trying to use ceilings govern precision approaches, in a backwards kind of way.
If the min vis is 1/4 mile, that equates to a ceiling of about 75 ft. (300 ft/sm descent on a 3 degree path divided by 4). This is obviously far lower than our current minimums.
For our current 200 ft minimums, by reversing the same logic, the visibility would need to be about 2/3 of a mile in order to land while flying a 3 degree slope. This is close to what TC is talking about and I wonder if they are following the same line of thought.
This is not good logic to use.
The issue of course is the fact that you can usually see the lights at 200' even when they are calling 1200 RVR (at least when it is dark out). This is due to the fact that at 200' you are seeing the lights which are 200' below you, and approximately 5-600' (less on smaller planes and more on bigger planes due to over the nose visibility) ahead of you, or a slant range of maybe 6-800'. Therefore, theoretically, if you have at about 600 RVR or more, you should have a possibility of getting in using the current 200' minimums (assuming that slant visibility is equal to RVR).
I guess what I am trying to say is that by increasing the minimums to 3/4 of a mile, this would equate to (in my way of thinking) a needed slant visibility of approximately the same, 3/4 mile, or about 4000'. I am guessing that this would equate to being able to see the lights on a minimum visibility approach at approximately 4-500'. Quite a jump from our current 200' minimums.
This of course does not account for low cloud ceilings and is mainly a dicussion about poor visibilities.
The only good thing about having higher minimums would be if there were 1/4 mile OPSPECs for aircraft and crew meeting certain requirements. Then there would end up being no changes for most operators in the country, and the private pilots out there would be safer with the new rules.
I might possibly also be interested in non-precision visibility minimums. That is another can of worms though.
If the min vis is 1/4 mile, that equates to a ceiling of about 75 ft. (300 ft/sm descent on a 3 degree path divided by 4). This is obviously far lower than our current minimums.
For our current 200 ft minimums, by reversing the same logic, the visibility would need to be about 2/3 of a mile in order to land while flying a 3 degree slope. This is close to what TC is talking about and I wonder if they are following the same line of thought.
This is not good logic to use.
The issue of course is the fact that you can usually see the lights at 200' even when they are calling 1200 RVR (at least when it is dark out). This is due to the fact that at 200' you are seeing the lights which are 200' below you, and approximately 5-600' (less on smaller planes and more on bigger planes due to over the nose visibility) ahead of you, or a slant range of maybe 6-800'. Therefore, theoretically, if you have at about 600 RVR or more, you should have a possibility of getting in using the current 200' minimums (assuming that slant visibility is equal to RVR).
I guess what I am trying to say is that by increasing the minimums to 3/4 of a mile, this would equate to (in my way of thinking) a needed slant visibility of approximately the same, 3/4 mile, or about 4000'. I am guessing that this would equate to being able to see the lights on a minimum visibility approach at approximately 4-500'. Quite a jump from our current 200' minimums.
This of course does not account for low cloud ceilings and is mainly a dicussion about poor visibilities.
The only good thing about having higher minimums would be if there were 1/4 mile OPSPECs for aircraft and crew meeting certain requirements. Then there would end up being no changes for most operators in the country, and the private pilots out there would be safer with the new rules.
I might possibly also be interested in non-precision visibility minimums. That is another can of worms though.
-
twin turbines
- Rank 1
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:04 pm
So if RVR unreported and ground vis reported at 1/8th mile?
A clarification question....
So if there is no RVR for the runway, or if RVR is unserviceable then even with tower observed visibility of 1/8 of a mile we can still conduct an approach?
So if there is no RVR for the runway, or if RVR is unserviceable then even with tower observed visibility of 1/8 of a mile we can still conduct an approach?
Nobody take offense to this comment.. but I see alot of pilots including myself unsure of IFR procedures.
Whether it pertains to this thread topic of approach bans, or alternate mins, etc.
Shouldn't IFR FTUs be teaching this stuff properly from the beginning and putting stuff into layman terms for us.
I know myself having done my M-IFR 2 years ago, I still run across IFR procedures that were never explained properly or some other pilot with more experience than myself can't explain it either
Any body else feel the same
Whether it pertains to this thread topic of approach bans, or alternate mins, etc.
Shouldn't IFR FTUs be teaching this stuff properly from the beginning and putting stuff into layman terms for us.
I know myself having done my M-IFR 2 years ago, I still run across IFR procedures that were never explained properly or some other pilot with more experience than myself can't explain it either
Any body else feel the same
-
snaproll20
- Rank 7
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm
Raising the limits on an ILS is an abomination. Typical TC "prohibition of flight to ensure safety."
Pilots have been conducting ILS approaches down to 200 feet for about half a century. They always seem to work. I cannot remember even a handful out of hundreds conducted to limits where we missed. Statistically, the accidents have been very small (I believe)....and don't give me the "one is too much" argument, otherwise we will all never fly.
Berserker had some good numbers in his offering. They tell us that if this thing goes, we will be going "missed" more often, or, not even commencing the flight. (Business? Dollars? The Boss? Fuel?)
Nobody seems to have explored the follow-on events of an increased number of ILS "misses" and pilots proceeding to an alternate.
That is when the real fun starts. Already stressed, the pilot is now heading off to somewhere where the alternate limits may be going down. Now he HAS to push, ( with little recent practice because of 'misses') He is not as sharp as a pilot who has gone down to 200 feet and copes with it as routine. In normal operations, his experience does not include a comfortable frequency of flights to an alternate, with fuel starvation a building nightmare.
How much reserve (or granny) fuel does the pilot have? Invariably, we go with "legal" fuel unless the WX is horrible or our experience tells us to be wary. I would believe that in any year, there are more days which fall into the numbers berserker gave us, than down to 200 feet and RVR 2600. Thus, we will see more misses. 200/2600 is a relative rarity, (and maybe a delay gets us a better forecast.)
Increased limits will only thrust inexperienced pilots into a new realm of risk, swapping one area of risk (we are trained for) for another (we rarely have to do and never train for.) My experience tells me I would rather shoot an ILS down to 200 feet with a 9?% percent chance of getting in versus going out and rolling the dice for the next couple of hours that my alternate will not go down and leave me no options.
At all events, look for more deadly accidents fostered by the need to go to an alternate to start appearing in the annual statistics.
Pilots have been conducting ILS approaches down to 200 feet for about half a century. They always seem to work. I cannot remember even a handful out of hundreds conducted to limits where we missed. Statistically, the accidents have been very small (I believe)....and don't give me the "one is too much" argument, otherwise we will all never fly.
Berserker had some good numbers in his offering. They tell us that if this thing goes, we will be going "missed" more often, or, not even commencing the flight. (Business? Dollars? The Boss? Fuel?)
Nobody seems to have explored the follow-on events of an increased number of ILS "misses" and pilots proceeding to an alternate.
That is when the real fun starts. Already stressed, the pilot is now heading off to somewhere where the alternate limits may be going down. Now he HAS to push, ( with little recent practice because of 'misses') He is not as sharp as a pilot who has gone down to 200 feet and copes with it as routine. In normal operations, his experience does not include a comfortable frequency of flights to an alternate, with fuel starvation a building nightmare.
How much reserve (or granny) fuel does the pilot have? Invariably, we go with "legal" fuel unless the WX is horrible or our experience tells us to be wary. I would believe that in any year, there are more days which fall into the numbers berserker gave us, than down to 200 feet and RVR 2600. Thus, we will see more misses. 200/2600 is a relative rarity, (and maybe a delay gets us a better forecast.)
Increased limits will only thrust inexperienced pilots into a new realm of risk, swapping one area of risk (we are trained for) for another (we rarely have to do and never train for.) My experience tells me I would rather shoot an ILS down to 200 feet with a 9?% percent chance of getting in versus going out and rolling the dice for the next couple of hours that my alternate will not go down and leave me no options.
At all events, look for more deadly accidents fostered by the need to go to an alternate to start appearing in the annual statistics.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
-
sprucemonkey
- Rank 8
- Posts: 773
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 10:31 pm
-
snaproll20
- Rank 7
- Posts: 636
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm
ridehard.
My comments are not resistant to "change". I just do not understand why limits which have served for many years are being tossed out. I need to see a rational explanation that in the face of trained pilots successfully completing thousands of approachs, the situation has somehow justified a change.If you want to be thoroughly safe...don't go flying.
My comments are based on thousands of hours of "safe" flying under some of the most arduous weather the world can offer.
Are you saying that alternates never go down unexpectedly? That would be an automatic admission of limited experience on your part.
I agree with you that Canada and the CARS may be out of step and I would admit I don't know whether other nations have "higher limits". I can tell you from personal experience that everyone flew ILS approaches to 200 feet in the 60s in Europe and they were successful. Is that all being thrown out now, and for why?
Your comments smack of someone who has always had their hand held, be it on 'heavy iron' by dispatchers and backed by redundant safety measures.
More likely, with your "matrix" and "risk assesment" terminology, you are probably with Transport. (i.e. little or no practical experience.)
Either way, you do not sound like someone who has flown smaller aircraft with their limited load vs fuel capabilities and the consequent responsible decision-making required of such pilots. (As far as 'granny' fuel is concerned, the only TC people I ever had respect for used the phrase, {and, on occasion, the fuel}.)
You definitely have never worked for a boss who will fire your ass if you do not depart to a destination that is (current) ILS limits and an alternate which is hovering . This means you have never been responsible as an owner, a manager, or a line pilot to see the company develops revenue.
And, the boss is not necessarily an ***hole, it's just that he knows, from experience, that you will arrive safely.
My comments are not resistant to "change". I just do not understand why limits which have served for many years are being tossed out. I need to see a rational explanation that in the face of trained pilots successfully completing thousands of approachs, the situation has somehow justified a change.If you want to be thoroughly safe...don't go flying.
My comments are based on thousands of hours of "safe" flying under some of the most arduous weather the world can offer.
Are you saying that alternates never go down unexpectedly? That would be an automatic admission of limited experience on your part.
I agree with you that Canada and the CARS may be out of step and I would admit I don't know whether other nations have "higher limits". I can tell you from personal experience that everyone flew ILS approaches to 200 feet in the 60s in Europe and they were successful. Is that all being thrown out now, and for why?
Your comments smack of someone who has always had their hand held, be it on 'heavy iron' by dispatchers and backed by redundant safety measures.
More likely, with your "matrix" and "risk assesment" terminology, you are probably with Transport. (i.e. little or no practical experience.)
Either way, you do not sound like someone who has flown smaller aircraft with their limited load vs fuel capabilities and the consequent responsible decision-making required of such pilots. (As far as 'granny' fuel is concerned, the only TC people I ever had respect for used the phrase, {and, on occasion, the fuel}.)
You definitely have never worked for a boss who will fire your ass if you do not depart to a destination that is (current) ILS limits and an alternate which is hovering . This means you have never been responsible as an owner, a manager, or a line pilot to see the company develops revenue.
And, the boss is not necessarily an ***hole, it's just that he knows, from experience, that you will arrive safely.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
The mindset today has truly been dummed down and no one seems capable of using good airmanship when it comes to risk management and deciding when it is safe to file and go and have an expectation of actually safely completeing the flight.
When I started my IFR flying we had the radio range for airway navigation and many of the approaches.
Having flown in every conceivable enviorement on the planet up to this point in time I find all these changes and additions to the rules to have accomplished only two things, gives the rule makers something to do fiddling with something that already works and makes it harder for the end users the pilots to figure out what in f.ck the regulator is saying.
The bottom line is found by reading the comment under all my posts.
Cat
When I started my IFR flying we had the radio range for airway navigation and many of the approaches.
Having flown in every conceivable enviorement on the planet up to this point in time I find all these changes and additions to the rules to have accomplished only two things, gives the rule makers something to do fiddling with something that already works and makes it harder for the end users the pilots to figure out what in f.ck the regulator is saying.
The bottom line is found by reading the comment under all my posts.
Cat
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.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
The subject of safety and good airmanship is not as complex as we tend to make it out to be.
Good airmanship is carefully pre thinking your next flight and once committed to the flight maintaining a situational awareness of where you are heading and what changes are taking place ahead of you such as weather changes that were not forecast, and then altering your plan to compensate for the changes, or at least forming an alternate plan should it be needed..........in otherwords think ahead.
Rules and regulations combined with proven SOP's are what seperate the professional pilots from those still climbing up the ladder of knowledge and experience.
Rule and regulation changes for the sake of change degrades safety.
Over regulation and endless rules and regulations that are difficult to keep up with and even more difficult to remember and or uderstand also degrade safety, and can tend to lead to non compliance because they are so complex.
CAR's are a classic example of poorly written conflicting and generally confusing word salading.
And once again these are only my own feelings on this subject.
Cat
Good airmanship is carefully pre thinking your next flight and once committed to the flight maintaining a situational awareness of where you are heading and what changes are taking place ahead of you such as weather changes that were not forecast, and then altering your plan to compensate for the changes, or at least forming an alternate plan should it be needed..........in otherwords think ahead.
Rules and regulations combined with proven SOP's are what seperate the professional pilots from those still climbing up the ladder of knowledge and experience.
Rule and regulation changes for the sake of change degrades safety.
Over regulation and endless rules and regulations that are difficult to keep up with and even more difficult to remember and or uderstand also degrade safety, and can tend to lead to non compliance because they are so complex.
CAR's are a classic example of poorly written conflicting and generally confusing word salading.
And once again these are only my own feelings on this subject.
Cat
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.
-
Schooner69
- Rank 1
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:14 pm
- Location: Vernon, BC Canada
Some here do not seem to like the "Approach Ban" provisions.
Does any one here know the reasoning behind the enactment of the "Approach Ban"?
(Cat Driver probably does....I think he's even older than I am.
PS The comment about Canada not being in step with other countries vis-a-vis approach limits....I believe that private pilots in the US of A have no approach limits.
Does any one here know the reasoning behind the enactment of the "Approach Ban"?
(Cat Driver probably does....I think he's even older than I am.
PS The comment about Canada not being in step with other countries vis-a-vis approach limits....I believe that private pilots in the US of A have no approach limits.
Every Day Is Saturday
