question for you smart as$es

raven54 · Post by **raven54** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:53 pm

Here's a question for you in reference to landing minima. Say you're flying a non precision approach into your local airport that you know very well. At the MDA you see Joe Blows' barn, and his fence that you know leads directly to the runway threshold. Can you now legally descend below the MDA and continue the approach?

Bcn-In-Bnd · Post by **Bcn-In-Bnd** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 6:59 pm

.....giver!

JACKASS · Post by **JACKASS** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:19 pm

the only things you can use is the runway or the lighting specified in the cap gen. You never know when Jim Bob is going to paint his barn the exact same color as Joe' Blo

raven54 · Post by **raven54** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 7:49 pm

Are you sure? The CAP GEN says, "The visual reference required by the pilot in order to continue the approach to a safe landing SHOULD include at least one of the following: runway or runway markings, etc. etc." If it were law, wouldn't transport use the word "shall" or "must" What does everyone think???

confuzed · Post by **confuzed** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:03 pm

deleted

shitdisturber · Post by **shitdisturber** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:04 pm

If you use the barn method, and as Jack said somebody else painted their barn the same way; guess who's going to be the guest of honour at a TC inquistion.

... · Post by **...** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:21 pm

wow that's 'puurty' daring....ask this guy what you should do...

chief · Post by **chief** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:29 pm

Keep in mind you quote said SAFE landing.

Northern Flyer · Post by **Northern Flyer** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 9:05 pm

If you are visual, cancel you IFR and continue VFR to the airport and land.

Inthesoup · Post by **Inthesoup** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 9:43 pm

That kinda sounds like a contact approach to me, in which case i'd giver.

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 10:21 pm

The minimums are there for a reason and those reasons are not just to fill the minima box on the charts. They are there to keep dumbassed pilots from crashing into obstructions near the airport or if a missed approach becomes necessary, to provide a measurable climb requirement to keep dumbass pilots from crashing into the obstructions. So, yes, if there are clues that will definitely align you with the runway centerline, then you are legal to continue the approach. But, to descend out of the MDA without the airport in sight throws all the obstruction clearance criteria out the window. If you are too close to do an uninterupted descent to the runway, you are probibaly landing below visibility limits. Your question tells me one thing, you have not done many approaches in mimimum conditions because what you have described does not make sense. However, if you are at MDA and you see recognizable features, you are "legal" to continue and begin a descent when you have the runway in sight. There is a name for your type of response. It is called a "duck-under accident" A contact approach is where you have the ground in sight but not the airport or other traffic but can visually orient yourself and therefore abandon some or all of the published instrument approach procedures. A visual approach is where you have the airport and any traffic in sight and will visually orient yourself with the runway. No missed approach on a visual approach because you can see the airport. Cancelling the IFR is a dumb manoever that should only be considered in GOOD VFR conditions. Flight Safety Foundation puts out a good CFIT video and it shows that the most CFIT accidents happen on a non precision approach where the pilot descends below the MDA and strikes the ground short of the runway. I am not trying to be critical, just offering advice that may keep you, your airplane and your passengers alive a bit longer. Cheers and fly safely.

truedude · Post by **truedude** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:27 pm

As it reads in the AIP

Rac 9.19.3 Landing Minima

The Visual refrences required by the pilot to continue that approach to a safe landing SHOULD include at least one of the following refernces fo teh intended runway, and should be distinctly and identifiable to the pilot.

(a) the runway or runway markings:

(b) the runway threshold or threshold markings:

(c) the touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings:

(d) the approah lights:

(e) the approach slope indicator system:

(f) the runway identification lights:

(g) the threshold and runway end lights:

(h) the thouchdown zone light:

(i) the parallel runway edge lights: or

(J) the runway center line lights:

Now it does say SHOULD include one of these things, however does not say must include one of these things, so I guess your ok. Transport may still not like it though.

truedude · Post by **truedude** » Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:28 pm

As it reads in the AIP

Rac 9.19.3 Landing Minima

The Visual refrences required by the pilot to continue that approach to a safe landing SHOULD include at least one of the following refernces fo teh intended runway, and should be distinctly and identifiable to the pilot.

(a) the runway or runway markings:

(b) the runway threshold or threshold markings:

(c) the touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings:

(d) the approah lights:

(e) the approach slope indicator system:

(f) the runway identification lights:

(g) the threshold and runway end lights:

(h) the thouchdown zone light:

(i) the parallel runway edge lights: or

(J) the runway center line lights:

Now it does say SHOULD include one of these things, however does not say must include one of these things, so I guess your ok. Transport may still not like it though.

Guido · Post by **Guido** » Sat May 01, 2004 4:11 am

The CARs must have something to say about this..... anyone?

Bcn-In-Bnd · Post by **Bcn-In-Bnd** » Sat May 01, 2004 6:36 am

Oldtimer,
I agree with everything you put on the screen.
My responce was a bit of sarcasm.
Where I work we have this topic come up almost every 6 mounths.
I can not believe how many people do not think about how safe or unsafe it would be in an overshoot situation.

....getting in is cool getting in safely is way cool.

Dockjock · Post by **Dockjock** » Sat May 01, 2004 9:07 am

Legally that is not considered visual reference with the airport environment. So no. But many heroes do it anyway.

raven54 · Post by **raven54** » Sat May 01, 2004 10:09 am

Don't get me wrong here. I ask this question because a certain operator has asked guys this question in interviews and say that it is legal. I'd rather stick with the published references.

confuzed · Post by **confuzed** » Sat May 01, 2004 11:33 am

deleted

RB211 · Post by **RB211** » Sat May 01, 2004 12:17 pm

truedude wrote:As it reads in the AIP

Rac 9.19.3 Landing Minima

The Visual refrences required by the pilot to continue that approach to a safe landing SHOULD include at least one of the following refernces fo teh intended runway, and should be distinctly and identifiable to the pilot.

...

Now it does say SHOULD include one of these things, however does not say must include one of these things, so I guess your ok. Transport may still not like it though.

AIP Gen page 5-11 (definitions)

Required Visual Reference

In respect of an aircraft on an approach to a runway, means that section of the approach area of the runway or those visual aids that, when viewed by the pilot of the aircraft, enables the pilot to make an assessment of the aircraft position and the rate of change of position relative to the nominal flight path.

It is the "...enables the pilot to make an assessment of the aircraft position and the rate of change of position relative to the nominal flight path." portion of the definition that would likely make the barn unsuitable visual reference.

just curious · Post by **just curious** » Sat May 01, 2004 12:27 pm

Putting on my "Perfesser" hat...

That relates to what was refered to as a Local Knowledge Approach, which was finally firmed up by Jeppesen selling copies of his notes (70 years ago!). This is what existed prior to the existence of Radio Ranges and NDB approaches.

Subsequent to that the approach criteria were developed. Them lights N' stuff.

Now, on my usual approach at the end of the day, there's a quarry, a lake with a muskrat 'push-up' on the right hand side, a rectangular clearing with a trail running into it from west to east, then the clearway, then the runway. If I see most of this, I am confident I think of making it in. I've done this approach maybe 5000 times or so. However, most of this is just outside of the circling distance, and is only stuff you see on the straight in. If I routinely try and press and make it in, and explain to the dispatcher that "Oh, yeah, I can make it", so he sends out one of the 'new kids' and they press and don't make it in, guess which one of the two crews looks unprofessional to their peers?

You can likely get away with stuff like that. However, getting hauled up before Enforcement to try and explain your "Lake, Muskrat, & Big Red Barn " theory, you have just made the leap from Pilot to Lawyer, and the Enforcement folks are much better at that.

Better to wait for the lights I think.

confuzed · Post by **confuzed** » Sat May 01, 2004 1:21 pm

deleted

RB211 · Post by **RB211** » Sat May 01, 2004 1:53 pm

So you are right on centreline by the barn. How high are you? When you do see the rwy suppose you are high and end up sliding off the end 'cause it is slippery. Who will be holding the bag? Will your company support the 'Barn 1' approach procedure?

My feeling is, the more you make things up as you go along, the more 'out there' you are.

It is your licence, how bad do you need to 'get in'? Missing isn't the end of the world nor the sign of a bad pilot.

Having said that, I am not saying don't use your experience and local knowledge to assist you. Just be careful of the risk vs benefit.

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Sat May 01, 2004 3:27 pm

I think I know what Raven 54 is kinda hinting at. I did the NDB approach into the Dairy Queen (Dawson Creek B.C.) in a King Air one winter. We were below cloud just off the procedure turn and had the legal vis plus a bunch but do you think I could see the airport, until I flew over it and spotted it going by. Did the missed and then on the second approach, used local landmarks to locate the airport. We had minimums plus but the airport just blended in with the rest of the terrain. Even the runways were white. So it can happen but if you are using "the barn" as a nav aid and the decision to continue, you could put yourself in a whole world of hurt.

confuzed · Post by **confuzed** » Sat May 01, 2004 6:20 pm

deleted

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Sat May 01, 2004 6:59 pm

Since when is the "Suggested" visibility minima 1/2 mile on a GPS approach. It is quite obvious most of the respondents to this topic do not have a clue what is happening. I have a suggestion. For those without a CVR/FDR, my suggestion is to carry a tape recorder so the coroner does not have to spend as much time guessing at why you have splattered yourself all over the foremost part of your airplane because that is what is going to happen. Just check with the Flight Safety Foundation. It is called CFIT acidents and there are lots of them. FSI has a big database to draw from and they will tell you that with the comments heard here, just pick a number(they give accidents a number). In my case the limits were something like 500 and 1.5 miles and the actual weather was 1200 ft and 10 miles after a snow storm with everything covered in snow, including the airport. Anybody ever heard of the Beaufort 1 approach. an NDB approach to Arctic communities located on the coast. At the beacon, turn out to sea and descend down to visual conditions on the RAD ALT and then turn back. Ace McCool and the gang from Down East International Airlines used the YMN as a nav aid with a RAT approach. ( The YNM is the YEA Method of Navigation as in hold up your thumb and pick up a heading of about "YEA". When you get there, you point and say "The airport should be Rat About There!!!")