Oops... was misinterpreting the sometimes vague wording in the AIP... read further it somewhat indirectly states that RVR is paired only with ILS systems. Unless it states something else in the CARS disregard my previous post. Haven't flown IFR for a couple months.
RVR's are runway specific, not approach specific. While it seems that they only put RVR's where there's an ILS, if there's another approach to the same runway, you can't do that one either. Example: If RVR 07 is 800 feet, obviously you can't do the ILS 07, but you can't do the NDB 07 either. You can, however, do the BC 25. Good luck getting in, but it would be legal.
I'll let someone else tackle the "pdm" issues on whether you should really be trying it.
BTW: Doc, it says under your name now that you are a Rank Moderator. Does this mean that your "Rank" is "Moderator", or that you are a "Moderator" who can be described as "Rank"?
Any approach is safe as long as you fly the approach and missed approach as published.
Smart? That all depends on the scenario.
You are legal to do the approach to the other end of the runway.
One scenario where it would be appropriate to do an approach to the other end is if it was a local phenomena on the ILS approach end. I have been on the missed approach and broken out into substantially better weather while on the missed going passed the other end of the runway.
I have seen that scenario quite a few times out west here in the rocks and on the coast.
If you knew that the wx was the same on both ends, it probably wouldn't be smart or cool. You would only be wasting time, money and fuel. Go to your alternate.
When there's an approach ban on a certain runway, I've seen pilots do non-precision approaches on another runway at the same airport and get in just fine. In terms of PDM, I don't really see the problem if you've got the fuel, and you respect the minimums. I mean what if it clears while you're on the approach and you can land safely? It was well worth the try, and it's no significant risk if again, you respect the minimums.
securitas wrote:wouldn't the rvr on that end be "RVR B"?? If so you'd still need the 1200 to do the approach.
RVR B is the mid runway RVR, not the other end.
securitas wrote:
what section does it imply that approach bans are for ilss only?
Approach bans are not for ILS only. If an approach ban is in effect for ILS 29 it is also in effect for NDB 29 as the RVR is for the runway, not the approach. However, RVR equipment is expensive and is only found on runways that are served by an ILS. RVR measuring equipment, if present, is actually considered part of the ILS system, like the approach lights.
IMO - the weather as reported is rather inconsequential when flying an instrument approach. I say this because frequently even when the WX is reported to be fine - at the end of the approach - the WX is complete crap.
Therefore, despite what any other plane has done or despite what has been reported the decision to land (assuming normal OPS) is made at DH or at the MAP whilst sitting at your MDA. If there is no runway even when there is supposed to be one - get the f--k out. Simple. And even if you do see a runway, that does not mean you are required to land. Some high performance machines need a bit more space - so, seeing the runway as you cross the button on a non-precision approach ain't good enough whereas a Twotter would happily plop down.
IFR is a simple science. VFR scares the hell out of me.
I can be dispatched on Priority medevacs all day long into the crappiest of wx and shoot missed appraoches all day long - perfectly safe.
jjj
imho. A missed appraoch can be one of the most unsafe things to do in the ifr world. ( Most engine failures occur while changing pwr settings) To start a flight, knowing that you are going miss at a distention can not be a COOL thing to do.
If you look at the wx before you start your day and it looks good and then it craps out before you get to your destination, then yes I can see giving it a try. But, I think it best just to avoid the missed approach thing when ever possible.
Hey DOC there are guys out there still getting paid by the mile
thats just crazy
I dont totally agree with you. A missed approach is the safest thing you can do if it doesnt feel alright or if the visual requirements aren't there. You have a much chance of getting an engine failure then any T/O you do.
I agree, sort-of
but dont you think that if you can avoid the whole thing.
Why wouldnt you.
Its a question of how safe you can make your day.
If i could plop myself and A/C at fl200, at cruise speed
and not have to do the take-off part of the flight
then why wouldnt I.
Put thats just-----crazy talk.
"engine failures most often happen during power changes"...or something to that affect. This used to be true in Daks and other airplanes equiped with big old round engines, that required two and sometimes even three power reductions after take off alone....BUT today's engines....particulary the ones that allow you to cruise at the aformentioned FL200 usually quit because they run out of gas! This is most common on Navajos!
There is nothing hazardus about the missed approach. The dangerous part is the second, or third attempt to land at an airport, after missing the previous approaches, and for some reason known only to the complete idiots at the controls, with the "urge" to "get in" next time around. Read the accident reports...they are almost always just below the headline "Airliner Crashes after Attempting to Land In Fog".....it almost always goes on to say the "pilot made(2 or 3)atempts to land! This baffels the living sh*t out of me, and makes me throw things at the TV! Who ARE these morons??? If ya dont see anything you can work with on the FIRST approach, piss of to your alternate, and live to fly another day. You are being paid by the mile...right?
Do I have hard core evidence that engine failures occur with a power
change, no I dont but i think if someone was to look into it, you find that I
am correct in my thinking.
Is a missed approach safe or unsafe .
Being at 400 or so feet adding pwr, pulling the gear and flap up and pitching 8-10 degrees nose up AND hoping everything goes as it should
may not be UNSAFE, but if I can avoid it, I will.
I will on occasion do two appraoches to the same rwy, but three,
I am with ya DOC its time to find better WX.
There is a name for pilots who do that. It's called an accident. Good way to get yourself killed. Hypothetically speaking of course. If the RVR is below the approach ban, then the whole airport is below the approach ban. I damn near got violated in Lethbridge when I landed on runway 05, which was VFR. Because the weather office, FSS was near the button of 23. FSS was IFR and the official weather was 1/4 mile. minimums were 1/2 mile. Would not let me through the Edmonton International control zone VFR because the tower/weather office was still in fog, the rest of Alberta was clear. Had to go around the zone.
Bcn-In-Bnd, just remember that if your airplane is certified to US Far 23, less than 12,500 lbs, it does not have to demonstrate that it will succesfully overshoot from an approach after loosing an engine,
Is the RVR just another tool that "THEY" use to better advize the pilot what conditions are at an airport. The Weather office declares what the weather is. RVR is just a method of measuring visibility. 1200 RVR does not mean you can land. it just means you are legal to take a look. If you land, they can still violate you. Proving you did not have the required visibility is another thing. If you do the NPA because of visibility below the approach ban, is the weather then below limits for the entire airport. I think it is. What scares the sh#$%t out of me is people who would try something as dumb as that. Talking hypthetically to learn or get an opinion is one thing but????? lets hope most pilots are sensable enough. But I have also heard the same discussion about taking off on a non RVR runway because the IFR runway was below limits. There was a name for that particular pilot. His employer (not me) called him unemployed.
