IFR Question

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:58 am

Since when is safety not black and white?

Well ... would you fly an un-airworthy airplane?

A friend of mine is an old mechanic, and he says that there is no such thing as a legally airworthy aircraft in Canada. Give him the books, and let him look at the aircraft, and he'll find something, he says to me.

About 10 years ago, we drove by a line of 172's in my car, going out for dinner. He grumbled from the right seat that they weren't airworthy.

Horsesh1t, I told him. You didn't even get within 10 feet of them - how could you tell?

Four inch letters on the tail, he replied.

Now, would you fly an aircraft with 4 inch letters on the tail instead of 6 inch letters, as per CAR 200 series?

Black and white, you said? I guess every pilot that had flown that 172 with 4 inch numbers on the tail was a reckless cowboy?

I would wager a considerable sum that many, if not all of the airplanes you have flown in the past were not legally airworthy.

What does that make you?

Stinky · Post by **Stinky** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:04 am

Confuzed
You are confused on this, there is no DME listed as a missed approach, it is timing only.
The approach is very simple, use DME to identify the IF and FAF, after that use timing.
What are you going to do, be the safe guy and fly until you are at 0 DME and then go missed, if that`s the case you will have overflown the airport by 10 miles and probably hit something en route.
There is nothing wrong with the approach.

55+ · Post by **55+** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:15 am

Stinky wrote:55+, you obviously know a lot about approach design, I do not.

I do feel fairly confident that if I were on a ride and were given the Barrie approach and the examiner failed the DME on me inside the FAF, I would not be faulted for continuing the approach.

It's funny how such a seemingly simple IFR question leads to such a debate.

Don't mean to portray myself as a know-it-all, but I am certified/authorized/trained in accordance with CAR 803 in interpretation/design TP-308 Instrument approach procedures and have done several initial/reviews for the CAP and RCAP in my other life. as well as an ATPL with turbine/jet experience

Procedure identification VOR/DME or VOR RWY XX would enable you to continue using the published VOR minima should FAF identification not be avialable on the VOR/DME portion. If you continued with a VOR/DME approach without DME reference you would/should be marked down for that.

confuzed · Post by **confuzed** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:19 am

Hedley wrote:
Since when is safety not black and white?
Well ... would you fly an un-airworthy airplane?

A friend of mine is an old mechanic, and he says that there is no such thing as a legally airworthy aircraft in Canada. Give him the books, and let him look at the aircraft, and he'll find something, he says to me.

About 10 years ago, we drove by a line of 172's in my car, going out for dinner. He grumbled from the right seat that they weren't airworthy.

Horsesh1t, I told him. You didn't even get within 10 feet of them - how could you tell?

Four inch letters on the tail, he replied.

Now, would you fly an aircraft with 4 inch letters on the tail instead of 6 inch letters, as per CAR 200 series?

Black and white, you said? I guess every pilot that had flown that 172 with 4 inch numbers on the tail was a reckless cowboy?

I would wager a considerable sum that many, if not all of the airplanes you have flown in the past were not legally airworthy.

What does that make you?

Hedley, you're grasping at straws here....no I would not fly an airplane that wasn't airworthy. Thankfully, I work for an airline that maintains their aircraft to the highest standards. If there is a problem with the aircraft that can't be MEL'd, then it doesn't leave the ground. I'm not sure about you, but I've got a family to come home to. I've been in a few situations where I've turned down trips due to an aircraft that had maintenance issues, one of which left me stranded on a reserve over night.

This thread isn't about maintenance though, it's about flying a procedure the way it was designed. If you want to fly an approach that may not be properly assesed, then fill your boots....just don't wonder "why did this happen?" one day if things don't go quite as planned should something "bad" happens.

confuzed · Post by **confuzed** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:33 am

Stinky wrote:Confuzed
You are confused on this, there is no DME listed as a missed approach, it is timing only.
The approach is very simple, use DME to identify the IF and FAF, after that use timing.
What are you going to do, be the safe guy and fly until you are at 0 DME and then go missed, if that`s the case you will have overflown the airport by 10 miles and probably hit something en route.
There is nothing wrong with the approach.

Sigh....it's hard not to get overly sarcastic here, but I will try. Again, I haven't seen the approach bear this in mind. However, when I am approaching an airport and the CAP lists on the approach that I require a VOR/DME for this approach then I know that I need BOTH of them to be working. I never said it had anything to do with the missed approach. I said that if it were to go u/s on me when I was FAF inbound, I would still conduct a missed approach as I no longer have the required equipment to fly the appproach. If you want to do it, fill your boots that's a personal choice that only YOU can make. BTW, what's the distance from the FAF to the threshold, does it indicate this?

Continuing to fly this approach in my mind would be like continuing to fly an RNAV approach with a RAIM warning. Well, I'm already FAF inbound and I can see still tell on the GPS where I am according to the threshold....screw it, let's keep on trucking! Sorry, I couldn't resist a bit of sarcasm.

It still amazes me that people are in such a frantic hurry to get into an airport if the published approaches aren't available. If you can't get in, you can't get in. C'est la vie, try again another day. It's the mindset that people have towards this that I find disturbing. As I mentioned to Hedley, I can think outside the box if required. However, when it comes to safety and guiding an aircraft down to specified parameters I fly it as published. If I can't use the approach as it was designed (using the REQUIRED equipment), then I don't use it.

There is no room for second chances, should something "bad" happen.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:35 am

All this simplistic talk about "only black and white" and the unrealistic reverence towards paper, as if it came down from Jesus Christ himself, reminds me of a non-precision approach which had been around for decades, with an MDA of 500 feet.

Somebody noticed that the remote altimeter source was actually 25.3 nm away, and the maximum allowable by TP308/TERPS was 25nm, so hundreds of feet were added to the MDA.

Does that mean that everyone that successfully flew that approach with the previous published minimums was reckless? If the next day, when the new minimums came out, if you flew them with the old minimums that had worked for decades, would you be reckless?

Of course, a few months later, new minimums were again published, lower than the second set, but higher than the first set

I suppose the way it works is that NavCan is free to change all the minimums every day, and if we don't use the minimums in effect THAT DAY, we are reckless.

This silliness reminds me of a guy who posted here, saying that if you crashed, and all your paperwork was in order, then it was ok. Perhaps it hurts less.

confuzed · Post by **confuzed** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:51 am

Hedley wrote:All this simplistic talk about "only black and white" and the unrealistic reverence towards paper, as if it came down from Jesus Christ himself, reminds me of a non-precision approach which had been around for decades, with an MDA of 500 feet.

Somebody noticed that the remote altimeter source was actually 25.3 nm away, and the maximum allowable by TP308/TERPS was 25nm, so hundreds of feet were added to the MDA.

Does that mean that everyone that successfully flew that approach with the previous published minimums was reckless? If the next day, when the new minimums came out, if you flew them with the old minimums that had worked for decades, would you be reckless?

Of course, a few months later, new minimums were again published, lower than the second set, but higher than the first set

I suppose the way it works is that NavCan is free to change all the minimums every day, and if we don't use the minimums in effect THAT DAY, we are reckless.

This silliness reminds me of a guy who posted here, saying that if you crashed, and all your paperwork was in order, then it was ok. Perhaps it hurts less.

I whole heartedly agree with you there Hedley, it is silly. However, you can only fly as it is published. Did it work before? Of course it did. However, maybe not with the margin of safety that was warranted. Again, all you can do is fly it as published and if you miss, you miss.

Here's another couple of stupid ones. There's an approach in the RCAP for Webequie (CYWP) that has an NDB approach. Now, when using Landsdowne House altimeter setting (the closest one, otherwise there is NO altimeter setting) you have to add like 250' or something silly like that to all procedure altitudes. I think minimums were like 800 feet or something to that effect. Pretty much pointless some days even trying to go in there IFR.
In YHD, the ILS requires you to add 50' to minimums due to some trees on some private property that apparently encroach the glideslope. According to the airport manager, if you were low enough for those trees to affect your glideslope, you have a MUCH bigger problem to worry about.

That's the joys of flying up in the NWO area, there's not really a whole lot for weather reporting or altimeter settings.

WHIPPER · Post by **WHIPPER** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:14 am

Stinky wrote:Confuzed
You are confused on this, there is no DME listed as a missed approach, it is timing only.
The approach is very simple, use DME to identify the IF and FAF, after that use timing.
What are you going to do, be the safe guy and fly until you are at 0 DME and then go missed, if that`s the case you will have overflown the airport by 10 miles and probably hit something en route.
There is nothing wrong with the approach.

I don't think the "safe guy" would fly any approach to 0 DME. I can guarentee if you flew the approach to 0 DME you WOULD have hit something, (the DME source for those of you who are a little slow).

HavaJava · Post by **HavaJava** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:52 am

I have to agree with Stinky on this...

We are talking about an approach which has NO requirement for DME after the FAF has been passed. The distance from the FAF to the threshold is purely based on timing. In fact, if you were to try to use DME to determine the distance to the threshold then technically you would be wrong.

Confuzed, you are acting all self-rightous and preaching that anyone who doesn't think like you is unsafe, however I don't think you even understand the basic point of the original question.

No one is saying that you should continue an approach after you lose a navaid that is still required for the approach!!!

confuzed · Post by **confuzed** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:05 am

HavaJava wrote: Confuzed, you are acting all self-rightous and preaching that anyone who doesn't think like you is unsafe, however I don't think you even understand the basic point of the original question.

Dude, I seriously don't care what you do or do not do. It doesn't affect my life, so I personally don't care what you do. Just to let you know, I am open to new ideas when they are relevant...as a crew, you're there to work as a team, and I carry that with me wherever I go. I have had F/O's present some ideas that were operationally good ideas that they learned somewhere else. I implemented them quite easily actually, as I thought it was a great idea too.

As I previously stated though, someone asked a question so the question was answered. I don't care if you like the answer or not. That has no relevance. However, when you have experienced people in here like 55+ who has first hand exerience with this, don't you think it's pretty ignorant to argue with them saying they're wrong?

If you're in this with stinky, then why don't the two of you give Transport a quick shout and ask them what their take on it is. Ask them if it would be prudent to miss or continue when losing the required equipment for the approach. If they come back to you and say yeah, you can keep going then I'll take back everything I've said in here. Other then that, I'm done with this thread. People wonder why others are so hesitant to assist you in this forum, now I'm starting to see why. When the answer is given, all people do is argue to say how wrong you are and how "self righteous" you are to promote safe operations. Enough of this, off to enjoy the rest of my days off.

Stinky · Post by **Stinky** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:43 am

Confuzed

I think the problem is that you haven`t seen the approach plate for this particular approach. My take is that the DME is no longer a required Navaid after passing the FAF.

Another similar example would be an ILS that uses an NDB as the only way to identify the FAF, once you pass the beacon, if the beacon were to go U/S, would you miss? I wouldn`t, it has already served it`s purpose, which was to let me know when I had reached the FAF. This is certainly not a reckless attitude.

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:24 pm

For those of you saying that your opinion is that you do not need the DME after the FAF you are missing the point. Your opinion does not matter. The rules are clear on this point: DME is in the name, therefore DME is required for the procedure. Not part of it, the whole thing.

That is the black and white version, and frankly, when you are down at minimums black and white is all there is time for. Anyone sitting there trying to come up with an opinion on some CAR while fumbling around at minimums is an accident waiting to happen. UNSURE-even for ten seconds- EQUALS MISSED APPROACH.

Having said that, the above is black and white. If you are past the faf going down to minimums and timing affects your MAP what are you doing looking at the DME. You might glance at it for situational awareness but you should be concentrating on what you are doing. If it fails, how do you know it failed? Did it just drop off momentarily or is it stone dead? If you take the time to check and then troubleshoot to figure this out while down at minimums then you again are an accident waiting to happen. If it fails so spectacularly that you know for sure it has failed (ie bursts into flames) then you are now in an emergency situation and the rule book goes right out the window anyway.

It is a fine question to talk about on the ground and the answer is obvious. DME procedure + dead DME = DO NOT CONTINUE. However if i was on a ride and the DME failed after the FAF and the examiner brought this up i would say "So what? I had more important things to do than play with the DME to see if it was broken and i wasn't using it at the time."

On the same note, if you are actually flying this situation and you do overshoot you need your DME to properly execute the MA. So you start playing with the DME to see if you can bring it back online. Bad idea. If it cannot be fixed in less than five seconds forget about it, ded reckon your way to a safe point, then play with it.