Samolin wrote:A remember once on the line (I was still BLUE at that time) when we commenced a PMA approach with me as PF...
That is nowhere close to a PMA... that was a bloody mess!
FICU take a chill pill...
If it has happened to other pilots, then we are not immune to something similar happening to us, unless we study what were the underlying cases of the incident.
Samolin wrote:A remember once on the line (I was still BLUE at that time) when we commenced a PMA approach with me as PF...
That is nowhere close to a PMA... that was a bloody mess!
FICU take a chill pill...
If it has happened to other pilots, then we are not immune to something similar happening to us, unless we study what were the underlying cases of the incident.
But if you are a Jazz hater, then keep ranting!
Nothing against Jazz but have to wonder if some people know what a PMA actually is.
PMA is SIMPLE, 100 to mins PNF looks outside if he/she doesn't say "runway in sight I have control" by the time the PF gets to the MA point the PF says "minimums go around" or whatever the call might be. No need to check with the other guy and see if they see anything as you are already only 200AGL you don't have the altitude to ask if they see anything as you keep descending below mins.
PMA is SIMPLE, 100 to mins PNF looks outside if he/she doesn't say "runway in sight I have control"
I for one think that PMA approaches with xfer of control at 200' in a decent and low visibility is a very poor practise and is a dangerous band-aid to operate under an ops spec created in Canada because the government is too cheap to invest in cat2 and cat3 runways - My opinion is that minimums as published should stand and ops specs are just pure bullshit unless proper training and equipment is available -- simply adopt ICAO standards and if you want to land at lower limits get at least a cat2 program in place. Until such time airports here catch up with the technology at least make aircraft requirements the same as what is required for cat2 if you want to fly below RVR26. Reduced vis on GPS approaches with vertical profile only -- step down approaches should have no reduced minimums -- the list goes on -- back to PMA approaches -- we should all be very capable of a safe landing off a CAT1 ILS -- so why the xfer of control -- Fredricton - Fck -- and in reality are all approaches in a multi crew are PMA or they certainly should be - I just have a major issue with xfering control at minimums --
Well Charlie i have to disagree with you. I've been doing PMA approaches for 20 years and they are way safer than a pilot flying inside ( instruments ) down to minimums then trying to switch to looking outside and find the runway at the last second, and then switch back to instruments again to fly a missed if required. Imho.
Normally I agree with your thoughts but on this one I do not.
The transfer of control in a properly executed PMA is safer because the PNF is already looking outside with no other distraction at limits and can see the runway coming into focus and thus determine if the picture is safe to land before taking control.....
---------- ADS -----------
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.
Normally I agree with your thoughts but on this one I do not.
The transfer of control in a properly executed PMA is safer because the PNF is already looking outside with no other distraction at limits and can see the runway coming into focus and thus determine if the picture is safe to land before taking control.....
Circumstances alter cases. Here's a good example Cat. I've had it both ways. When in ANY doubt, "You have control...." If I'm comfy with what I see, I'll land. I don't like to chisel these things in stone.
Illya
av8ts wrote:Well Charlie i have to disagree with you. I've been doing PMA approaches for 20 years and they are way safer than a pilot flying inside ( instruments ) down to minimums then trying to switch to looking outside and find the runway at the last second, and then switch back to instruments again to fly a missed if required. Imho.
Agreed completely av8ts. Head down at DA Charlie and you want to look up to find 1 or 2 approach lights? The Captain will be looking outside with no transition when the runway environment comes in sight at DA. Safe, efficient, and effective.
Maybe the message got lost in the translation -- my b1tch is that PMA approaches with control xfer are a "poor man's" way of landing below published (with ops spec) minimums -- I personally have no difficulty transitioning from flying to landing at cat 1 minimums nor should anyone else since it's expected you do so to pass a ride or fly SPIF -- my point is improve the runways and let companies equip their aircraft properly (auto pilots - heads up displays etc to qualify for reduced landing minima including cat2 or even cat3 - oh ya PMA at any company I worked for was always captain's landing with f/o flying the approach -- 2 big reasons why I don't like PMA - transfer of control -- different procedure from non PMA approach - 200 feet is no where to get the "dance confused" - if PMA approaches are to be used then they should be used for every approach - regardless of wx so all calls and procedures remain the same -- no brain farts allowed and control xfer should become optional. IMHO any centre with scheduled jet service should have at least a cat2 runway -- Seems Europe got it right ---
The Jazz DHC8-100 (C-GTAI, Flt 7795) was on approach to Rwy 30 at Sault Ste Marie Airport
(CYAM). The aircraft touched down approximately 500 feet short of the runway threshold striking
one of the ODAL lights leading to the threshold. The aircraft damage is being assessed, there were
no reported injuries.
av8ts wrote:Well Charlie i have to disagree with you. I've been doing PMA approaches for 20 years and they are way safer than a pilot flying inside ( instruments ) down to minimums then trying to switch to looking outside and find the runway at the last second, and then switch back to instruments again to fly a missed if required. Imho.
av8ts wrote:Well Charlie i have to disagree with you. I've been doing PMA approaches for 20 years and they are way safer than a pilot flying inside ( instruments ) down to minimums then trying to switch to looking outside and find the runway at the last second, and then switch back to instruments again to fly a missed if required. Imho.
Agreed.
Been doing them for years with great success. We train it in the SIM, brief it before flying it and it goes very smoothly. Only done on a precision approach where the weather it at or below minimums (approach ban ops spec) when runway in sight and landing are only seconds away from each other. The most dangerous segments of an IFR approach is a go around. Loss of situational awareness and spatial disorientation have caused many accidents during botched go arounds. By doing a PMA the pilot flying keeps flying and is prepared for the go around where the pilot not flying is prepared for a landing. The transfer when rehearsed in the SIM and briefed before the approach is smooth and a non event. More importantly it makes a go around so much simpler.
where the pilot not flying is prepared for a landing
-- I know we can argue this until the cows come home -- It's just my personal feelings and insight -- it has bitten me where the xfer of control has hung us out to dry - specifically in "big" xwinds -- pilot takes control with runway in sight and immediately instinctively removes the crab to line up on the runway -- pilot induced G/A because he does not have the "feel" for the aircraft -- I always brief all options for landing
At the end of the day I'm just arguing that proper aircraft equipment and upgraded runways are safer and more reliable than a PMA --
where the pilot not flying is prepared for a landing
-- I know we can argue this until the cows come home -- It's just my personal feelings and insight -- it has bitten me where the xfer of control has hung us out to dry - specifically in "big" xwinds -- pilot takes control with runway in sight and immediately instinctively removes the crab to line up on the runway -- pilot induced G/A because he does not have the "feel" for the aircraft -- I always brief all options for landing
At the end of the day I'm just arguing that proper aircraft equipment and upgraded runways are safer and more reliable than a PMA --
Maybe. There are no doubt inherent risks to both methods. In my experience though the PMA has worked very well. No refocusing from viewing something 1 foot away to several hundred feet away and no head movement. What helps and is SOP for us is the captain shadows the controls. If the FO/autopilot has done their job all the captain has to do is continue the decent to a flare and landing. The aircraft is at bug speed, lined up and all that is left to do is flare and land. Unless there is a drastic change in wind there should be very little left to adjust.
PMA's are not performed nor are they approved for the CRJ or Q.
Maybe they would not wreck so many airplanes if they changed their procedures and allowed PMA's?
Maybe they would not wreck ANY airplanes if they had even a remote selse of situational awareness?
Knowing you're landed 8000 feet down a 10000 foot runway, or perhaps doing a missed approach when they can't see the bloody runway? C'MON MAN!
Illya
