Fascination

[Cat Driver]

You landed in zero vis weather off an OFFSET localizer approach? Just how would you do that? I've done it lots of times with an ILS but how would you transition from the Localizer to the runway IMC?

I did a calculation in my mind whereby my plan was to leave the gear up and fly the approach to one hundred feet above the airport height and then turn to runway heading and glassy water it onto the airport, figured that would give me my best chance to get laid that night.

Using PMA with the FO looking outside with his only duty being advise me when and if he saw the runway environment glow of the lights....we lucked in because we saw the amber glow soon enough to allow me to select gear down and using the change in color of the glow from amber to white I found the runway and lucked in by touching down just as the gear locked down...we were flying a Volpar Beech 18 and the gear is slow to cycle down to the locked position.

We really lucked in by finding a thinner layer of fog at the threshold than the guy sending up the balloons saw at the tower.

The hard part was believing I would be able to do it.

In case you are wondering I was very , very afraid.

[yfly]

True, I may live long enough to end up in a bed dependent on someone wiping my ass but not really looking forward to it.

Not a future anyone would look forward to so I hope it doesn't happen to you.

Your world of aviation no longer really affects me as a pilot because I managed to survive my career without the ass wipers.

However I still fly on the odd airline trip and when getting on some of the small feeder airline airplanes I must confess I wonder if I have aviators or a procedures monkeys up front flying it.

My world of aviation is also nearing it's end but in my recollection, there have always regulations to live by. They just left more open to discretion. Maybe it is bad or maybe it is good as statistically, there are fewer incidents per flight hour.

Now they are trying to mandate safety by eliminating the human factors component. It is needed. I am sure through your career you have known aluminum miners that would still be around if they had the knowledge, imposed limitations or equipment of today. Progress is meant to be just that.

Now, I certainly don't agree with all aspects of the current ban as I have to pull out a manual to see if I can fly an approach. Simplicity works for me and this version is far too complex. It is there to enhance safety, not an afront to our manhood.

[flying4dollars]

How about we turn the table and ask those not in favor explain why there should not be a ban.

I thought that's what people were doing.

Well its nice to finally say that I think a majority of the responses in this and the other thread are worth reading, no matter how you feel about the ban. For myself, I may not be as experienced as a lot of you guys, but I'm experienced enough to execute your standard "minimums, nothing seen, go around" missed approach, and I would assume most people are as well. That's what it should boil down to. When the crews are looking at the weather @ destination and they see that the weather is below the CAP advisory, if they question their missed approach techniques, then THAT's when you should employ an approach ban...on yourself, not by TC.

We all know a lot of weather reporting and forecasts aren't always bang on and changes constantly and sometimes very rapidly. I've done a few approaches beyond the FAF when the latest reported wx was below ban limits, and still got in (yes @ minimums without 'cheating'). Yes I've also done it and had to execute a missed. Both scenarios were done safely and what it boiled down to both times were what happened @ minimums. See the field? Land. Don't see it? Missed!

Yeah, I see what people are saying when they mention removing the ban is an invitation for people to maybe go below mins just for the sake of getting in, but that happens with or without the ban and it's always going to be like that whether you're a 'good pilot' or not.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I think the crews should decide whether they'd be competent and proficient enough to be able to go to an airport and execute a missed approach if need be. It's part of the PDM process and that's also what a lot of us are being paid for. Now if we were discussing scrapping minimums or something then we'd have a problem here.

Now, where the ban might be useful is in the following scenario. The crew (if the ban didn't exist) proceeded to execute an approach @ an airport where the weather was below landing mins. They get to mins, nothing seen, but they decide to continue down anyways because they feel they may get the field within another 50 feet or so. Either they get uncomfortable and THEN go around, or they continue down and end up landing, or worst case, they hit the ground and we have another accident on our hands. Having the approach ban here might have prevented this kind of crew from executing that kind of approach below mins. So I could see how it's also useful.

These are just my opinions, agree or not, just my $.02

[trey kule]

Having the approach ban here might have prevented this kind of crew from executing that kind of approach below mins. So I could see how it's also useful.

Exactly what had the ban to do with this...THE CREW BUSTED MINIMUMS....do you think that idiots like that are going to pay attention to a ban?

In reading over some of the accident reports, it seems that one of the problems is the crew is holding at the MDA, but hesitates in executing the missed and sees the runway enviorment and tries to quickly change the plane into landing profile and get in....usually results in an overun.

I still fail to understand how those who are willing to bust minimums are going to suddenly not do an approach at all...because a ban is in effect...and, to keep harping on it, why in the north pilots can do this. If this difference makes sense to all the people who are preaching the safety issue of an approach ban please explain why it is safe to do an approach in the north of Canada but not in the south.

[Rockie]

Having the approach ban here might have prevented this kind of crew from executing that kind of approach below mins. So I could see how it's also useful.

If this difference makes sense to all the people who are preaching the safety issue of an approach ban please explain why it is safe to do an approach in the north of Canada but not in the south.

IFR capable airfields in the north are sparse and far apart, don't usually have an ILS, and can have rapidly changing and harsh weather conditions. In those circumstances flying an approach with the weather below the southern approach ban limits could very easily be the safest option. Not having an approach ban up north makes perfect sense to me, as does having one in the south.

[trey kule]

Rockie, not to belabor a point, because we seem to disagree, but this is not about weather, or sparse airports...

It is supposedly about safety. As I understand it your position is due to the different conditions it makes more sense, from a safety standpoint in the north, to allow pilots to attempt an approach. So, the "human factor" is less a risk than the enviromental factor.

In order to make perfect sense of it, you have to be a genius at examining the variables of pilot decision making ability, proficeincy(in flying,,not spelling) as oposed to the enviromental and geographical factors, while looking at the southern part and making the same analysis to come to a different conclusion.

There is a great deal of the same type of psycholgical perspective that exists in the military and the government which allows them to use perfect logic to come to the totally wrong conclusion...here is a rule..here is the logic behind it..Make sense of it..Dont question it.

Just sayin is all... but the problem here is if we take your postion we will never address, what I believe are the root causes for the accidents...heck we simply wont need as good pilots if we cant trust or allow them to actually fly a plane properly...just make more rules. There is really nothing unsafe about descending to the MDA and subsequently, if it is necessary, do a missed approach..Nothing unsafe at all. So safety is not the root issue here is it?

[Rockie]

Weather and sparse airports are the reason behind there not being an approach ban up north, so it is very relevant. If geographical particulars make a regulation logical in one place but not another then it would be kind of silly to impose a blanket regulation. Northern operators made the argument and Transport Canada agreed with it, so it must have made sense to them if not to you.

You are of course correct in there being nothing unsafe about descending to MDA or DA and executing a missed approach. That holds true for the vast majority of us the vast majority of the time, and provided there is no pressure either self imposed or from your boss to make that landing. But this regulation didn't just appear in someones imagination one night as a means of placing further annoying restrictions on us. It was deemed justifiable and even necessary based on past events.

I have to ask though, if the reported RVR is less than 75% of the charted visibility (50% for qualifying airlines), why aren't you spring loaded to going to your alternate anyway? The charted visibility isn't just a number someone pulled out of their ass. It is the minimum visability required to make a normal landing off an instrument approach, and any attempted landing with less carries with it greatly increased difficulty and greatly increased potential to misjudge the visual transition.

Also, this regulation is not intended to replace proper training or compensate for inadequate skill or judgement. You won't find anyone at Transport Canada who thinks it is. As stated before it is a safety enhancement so don't take it personally any more than you would TCAS or GPWS.

[2milefinal]

I have a better idea. How about you send me your name and we can address your question when I interview you?

No ...not going to send anyone my name. Not just yet.
I wonder what letters(acronym) would be on your hat during that interview.
My earlier question has been answered.

[flying4dollars]

Having the approach ban here might have prevented this kind of crew from executing that kind of approach below mins. So I could see how it's also useful.

Exactly what had the ban to do with this...THE CREW BUSTED MINIMUMS....do you think that idiots like that are going to pay attention to a ban?

The point I was trying to make is that with the ban, the crew may have elected not to continue to the airport to begin with, but without it, would be willing to go, and bust minimums since they're already there.

Or maybe they'd ignore the ban all together, you're right, but in the case I mentioned above, the ban would at least MAYBE deter that situation from happening. That's all I'm saying. In that regard, the ban has everything to do with it.

[trey kule]

Rockie.
I dont take this personally at all. I am just questioning the logic behind it. One of my pet beefs is "perceived pressure" by pilots. It is part of the job. Part of training should be learning how to say no. If you cant say no you simply should not be in the cockpit.

As far as the relevance of geographical location goes, we both agree that an approach and missed are not inherently dangerous. So why does a ban exist anywhere? What I understand from your argument then is that it is really not safe , but in the north it is safer than the alternate. Kind of a bit of Orwillian logic, but I dont think I can convince you of that.

As far as your spring loaded comments go, I could not agree with you more. You seem to be personalizing this on my behalf.

Well the fact is that pilots do not understand, as you so nicely , eloquently, and politely put it, the limits are there for a reason. Seems like a simple thing to understand. So why do we need a regulation saying "dont".

My guess is that TC was under the gun (pressured if you like) to "do something" after a number of accidents. So they came up with this rule. Justified, as all these things are, by the liberal use of the word safety...It would do them no good to tell people that there are just some pilots out there who should not be out there...

Here is a suggestion. Instead of the approach ban as a proactive measure for safety, why does TC not sponser a regulation that compels a company to lose their OC for , say 90 days if one of their planes has an accident attributed to this scenerio....I bet you that would go along way farther to prevent pilots from trying the approach....but the politics...maybe not so much if one of the big carriers had it happen...Just a thought.

[yfly]

I think all but 3 of us can agree that in some cases safety can be enhanced by having a ban in place, unless of course, you haven't been trained to fly a missed approach and fly to an alternate, then there is no option other than to land.

How about someone enlighten me as to the dangers of having an approach ban in place.

[Cat Driver]

Pilots are not worse today than they were 50 years ago. They have more to deal with for sure, which is a function of vastly more planes out there and increasing sophistication in equipment.

See kids we can have serious discussions without anyone getting all warped out of shape and going anal.

So lets dissect the above in red.

Does this mean as new hi-technology airplanes are being built they are more complex than the old airliners such as the DC6/7's and the Super Connie's, thus harder to fly and manage?

With all the new nav aids and radar coverage and ATC watching the big picture is it still getting more difficult to fly due to the increase in the number of airplanes?

I remember the days when we flew a Beech 18 on night auto parts runs into O'Hare with only a Narco Superhomer, an ADF and a three light marker beacon. The was so much traffic we felt uncomfortable when we were not in cloud because it looked like bees flying around a hive there were so many other aircraft in the Chicago airspace.

[yfly]

From a technical standpoint, and on a digital level, current transport aircraft are far more complex than the old piston types. The technical complexities just concentrate your attention on other areas and you become a system manager and monitor.

Gone are the days of knowing all the nuts and bolts, system intricacies. That was hard work. Having flown both, I much prefer the technology but it hardly relieves you of being a busy two man crew.

[Cat Driver]

Having flown both, I much prefer the technology but it hardly relieves you of being a busy two man crew.

We are fortunate to have experienced both.

[wantok]

Trey kule;

you are right that it wasn’t safety but political pressure that brought the approach ban about. I was at the NATA (Northern Air Transportation Association) meeting when the ban was the topic du jour. TC was represented by around a dozen people if I remember right, from the top man on down.

Most, if not all the operators represented at the meeting, were fairly adamant against the ban. After much “debate” we were told that no matter what the operators arguments were, the approach ban was coming because TC was told to do something about the low vis accidents. (Air Canada at Fredericton being the prime one I think) In the time between this meeting and the ban coming out, the First Air and Jetsgo? incidents happened which I’m sure didn’t help the anti ban cause much.

One comment that made me realize this was not about safety was one made during the discussions about how the ban would be implemented. After much toing and froing the point was brought up a few times (by TC) that the ban only applied if there were vis reports from someone on the ground. It finally clicked on either the First Air or Canadian North rep (can’t remember which) and he asked TC point blank that if there was no one on the ground to give a vis report pilots could “go take a look” since there would be no ban in effect. The answer was yes. Which begs the question, how is this ban making things safer if we just wait until the CARS guys go home, there is no reported vis, and then we can go take a look. So just change your sked times to when there is no CARS staff and you’re good to go.

Another interesting comment heard at that meeting was that the poor service we get from CARS operators was not TCs problem. (One operator argument against the ban was the poor quality of accurate weather reports from local CARS staff) TC’s answer to that was,” That’s not my problem, it’s yours, you have a service provider problem” (or words to that affect) Just about fell off my chair but I guess he was right in that TC doesn’t look after that any more, Nav Can or someone else does. Another example of how the fragmenting/downloading/abdicating of TC’s responsibilities affects pilots and safety.

The exemption to the ban north of 60 was not that it is safer than the alternate but that the ban would be fairly restrictive to ops above the treeline where the vis is often poor at ground level due to blowing snow but flight vis is well above VFR. What is one of TC’s favorite catch phrases? Show me an equivalent level of safety? NATA did that in TC’s eyes I guess.

My personal opinion is that the old ban (1200 RVR) worked fine for those who played by the rules and don’t think we needed this new one.

Anybody tried to figure out if you can taxi at your airport yet with the new reduced vis operations? Clear as mud in the CAP GEN.

[Rockie]

Trey kule;


Most, if not all the operators represented at the meeting, were fairly adamant against the ban. After much “debate” we were told that no matter what the operators arguments were, the approach ban was coming because TC was told to do something about the low vis accidents. (Air Canada at Fredericton being the prime one I think) In the time between this meeting and the ban coming out, the First Air and Jetsgo? incidents happened which I’m sure didn’t help the anti ban cause much.

One comment that made me realize this was not about safety was one made during the discussions about how the ban would be implemented.

This is a difficult couple of sentences to reconcile. You mention a few incidents that would have been prevented by an approach ban. You say TC was told to implement the approach bans to do something about these types of incidents. And yet somehow to you that means it wasn't about safety? Seems to me it's all directly related to accidents where some people died, but many more could have if not for blind dumb luck.

Someone forced the auto industry to install airbags too. Does that not have anything to do with safety either?

[trey kule]

Here is the thing I find so hard to reconcile.

There are pilots out there (or were) who are either unwilling or unable to execute an approach and, if necessary, a missed approach. If they are incompetent, we either have to deal with it as a training issue or a qualification issue. On the other hand, if they simply ignore the MDA limits and continue on the approach then somehow, some feel that by implementing a new rule they will suddenly abide by it.

Regulators, unfortunately, much like the police, are faced with dealing with transgressions after the fact. The media, and subsequently the public in general seems to think that they should do something to prevent such transgressions. And the truth is they can only make more rules and regulations. That is what the comment I made about it being a political decision. If it is safe north of 60 than it is safe south. If it is equivalent, than it means it is not safe to the south and only safer due to the circumstances in the north.
You can beat it to death, but it simply is not logical.

I think if we were really concerned as a group about this issue, we should look at some other of the possible causes. One of the ones I have seen is the TC flight test rule that one is not allowed to descend below DH...If one is flying the profile correctly the aircraft is descending and the transition at DH will mean the aircraft will descend below it...there is no safety issue with this..in fact, certain A/C actually have the gear touch down on low vis missed approaches (747 for one). To demand the student not descend below the DH means that prior to reaching the DH the pilot has to destabalize the approach..this I believe has to be one of the most dangerous practices as if the runway enviroment does appear the plane is no longer on the profile and we get the dive for the runway syndrome. It is time TC looks at their role in creating pilots who fly like this.

[Cat Driver]

I am just a simple minded medium at best IQ sort of person but here is how I understand these acronyms.

MDA = Minimum descent altitude:

When that is the limit I am flying to I operate the thing so as to not descend below that altitude which means I will have to move the controls in the thing so it does not go below that altitude....in other words I begin leveling off in time so the thing does not descend below that altitude because I was scratching my nuts and started the level off to late.

DH = Decision height:

The height on the thing that measures height at which I decide to land because I see the runway down there, or I decide to @#$! off because I can't see the runway down there.

Have I been doing it wrong?

[Carrier]

Quote: ".....but maybe if she and we can save just one life....."

Yes you can and it is very easy to do. How? Just think how many people were killed in air crashes in North America in the three days after 9/11. The rigid enforcement of just one existing regulation saved all those lives. Hmmmmm, naturally there was a cost!
If you want air transport then you have to accept that there will always be SOME risks. The necessary minimum of regulation should exist. It will NEVER compensate for lack of common sense and lack of basic skills in a certain minority. That is no reason to penalise everyone else with excessive costs and red tape.
Some three decades ago a similarly dumb attitude towards liability closed almost the entire light aircraft manufacturing industry in the USA. It only recovered when common sense prevailed and practical time limits for product liability were introduced. We seem to be heading down the same slippery slope for air transport with another knee jerk reaction for each crash or incident introducing yet more business strangling regulation. It's time to stop addressing the symptoms and start dealing with the problem - pilots who lack common sense, intelligent decision making skills and basic flying skills, and air operators who have inadequate maintenance and endorse and even encourage unsafe operating practices. Raise the bar, expel the problem individuals and companies, strip out most of the regulations that have arrived since the CARs first came in, and let the rest of us get on with providing safe and cost effective air transport to the travelling public.

[Cat Driver]

Some three decades ago a similarly dumb attitude towards liability closed almost the entire light aircraft manufacturing industry in the USA. It only recovered when common sense prevailed and practical time limits for product liability were introduced. We seem to be heading down the same slippery slope for air transport with another knee jerk reaction for each crash or incident introducing yet more business strangling regulation. It's time to stop addressing the symptoms and start dealing with the problem - pilots who lack common sense, intelligent decision making skills and basic flying skills, and air operators who have inadequate maintenance and endorse and even encourage unsafe operating practices. Raise the bar, expel the problem individuals and companies, strip out most of the regulations that have arrived since the CARs first came in, and let the rest of us get on with providing safe and cost effective air transport to the travelling public.

It is as simple as the above...but it will not happen because the bureaucrats only care about perception and ass covering.

Maybe we need to figure out how to get rid of the bureaucrats?

[yfly]

Quote: ".....but maybe if she and we can save just one life....."

Yes you can and it is very easy to do. How? Just think how many people were killed in air crashes in North America in the three days after 9/11. The rigid enforcement of just one existing regulation saved all those lives. Hmmmmm, naturally there was a cost!
If you want air transport then you have to accept that there will always be SOME risks. The necessary minimum of regulation should exist. It will NEVER compensate for lack of common sense and lack of basic skills in a certain minority. That is no reason to penalise everyone else with excessive costs and red tape.
Some three decades ago a similarly dumb attitude towards liability closed almost the entire light aircraft manufacturing industry in the USA. It only recovered when common sense prevailed and practical time limits for product liability were introduced. We seem to be heading down the same slippery slope for air transport with another knee jerk reaction for each crash or incident introducing yet more business strangling regulation. It's time to stop addressing the symptoms and start dealing with the problem - pilots who lack common sense, intelligent decision making skills and basic flying skills, and air operators who have inadequate maintenance and endorse and even encourage unsafe operating practices. Raise the bar, expel the problem individuals and companies, strip out most of the regulations that have arrived since the CARs first came in, and let the rest of us get on with providing safe and cost effective air transport to the travelling public.

All good suggestions for a utopic world. Unfortunately, we don't live in one.

[Rockie]

I am just a simple minded medium at best IQ sort of person but here is how I understand these acronyms.

MDA = Minimum descent altitude:

When that is the limit I am flying to I operate the thing so as to not descend below that altitude which means I will have to move the controls in the thing so it does not go below that altitude....in other words I begin leveling off in time so the thing does not descend below that altitude because I was scratching my nuts and started the level off to late.

DH = Decision height:

The height on the thing that measures height at which I decide to land because I see the runway down there, or I decide to @#$! off because I can't see the runway down there.

Have I been doing it wrong?

That pretty much sums it up ., but I'll give Trey Kule the benefit of the doubt and allow the possibility of a brain fart. For some years now that doesn't tell the whole story though. If a company conducts Stabilized Constant Descent Approaches (SCDA's) using either PMA's or with a modern autoflight system, Transport Canada permits a MDA to be treated as a DH (excepting four conditions that preclude it), that allows an aircraft to legally descend below MDA while conducting a missed approach.

It is a blanket exemption that any company can get if they meet the requirement. Air Canada chooses not to do that and adds 50 feet to every MDA, thus ensuring minimum obstacle clearance of 250 feet is never busted unless the airplane is landing.

[Liquid Charlie]

In my opinion TC introduced the higher approach ban minimums for 2 reasons --

To assure the landing and thus lower the possibility missed approaches dramatically since there are many out there who consider the missed approach the most fucked up procedure or segment in IFR approaches and secondly reduce the number of people busting minimums to get in because the landing is almost guaranteed with the higher minimums --

I'm not sure what most other people think but when I commence an approach it is not with the idea of missing -- and let's face it at RVR 1200 on a CAT 1 runway you are likely busting minimums because you have just clues at 200 feet and nothing is assured until you drive it down to about 100 feet but hey your legal(in the old days) -- was it safe -- likely unless the shit hit the fan and now there is no safety margin built in -- this was TC's attempt to remove "stupid" out of the word pilot and in true Canadian bleeding heart fashion the dropped the ball because they didn't have the balls to stand up to the lobby groups -- sheesh

[sluggo]

just use the "Force" and you will get in.

[xsbank]

I tell my people to expect a missed approach and if they are lucky and the conditions are conducive, they might just get to land.

If any of you are flying passengers and cannot comfortably execute a missed approach you should get out now and get a job in a bank.