Real approach into bare minimums

AngelFuree

AngelFuree

Well-Known Member
I just got back from flying an approach into bare minimums. It is nothing like practicing it in a simulator. The sensations trick you so much when looking out for the runway. What they say about trusting your instruments is a MUST.

Flew the LOC BC 17R into GFK, just vectors. Finally saw the runway at .6 DME

It was a good experience and now I have a lot of respect for mother nature.

Hand-flying non-precision approaches to absolute minimums isn't exactly smart/fun. An ILS is excellent because it provides you with vertical guidance, but in a non-precision, where you have to constantly look out for the runway prior to your VDP or MAP, it can get tricky.

The METAR was this:

KGFK 202153Z 19010KT 03SM BR OVC005 15/14 A2966 RMK SFC VIS 3 DZE37
The actual ceilings were about 400' if not slightly lower.

Anyway, felt the need to post it. Hand flying's fun, but there's a limit. If it were at night, it'd be a different story hehe...Our alternate was 40 miles away. Not the funnest of things in a Piper Warrior.

Post away your stories. :)
 
Come fly the Beech at Colgan. You'll get to hand fly approaches like that in a Turbine aircraft at 140kts all the time. Best approach I did was 200OVC 2400RVR into HYA at night. Thats was nuts. :insane:
 
AngelFuree said:
I just got back from flying an approach into bare minimums. It is nothing like practicing it in a simulator. The sensations trick you so much when looking out for the runway. What they say about trusting your instruments is a MUST.

Flew the LOC BC 17R into GFK, just vectors. Finally saw the runway at .6 DME

It was a good experience and now I have a lot of respect for mother nature.

Hand-flying non-precision approaches to absolute minimums isn't exactly smart/fun. An ILS is excellent because it provides you with vertical guidance, but in a non-precision, where you have to constantly look out for the runway prior to your VDP or MAP, it can get tricky.

The METAR was this:

KGFK 202153Z 19010KT 03SM BR OVC005 15/14 A2966 RMK SFC VIS 3 DZE37
The actual ceilings were about 400' if not slightly lower.

Anyway, felt the need to post it. Hand flying's fun, but there's a limit. If it were at night, it'd be a different story hehe...Our alternate was 40 miles away. Not the funnest of things in a Piper Warrior.

Post away your stories. :)
Click to expand...


What's not smart about it, even at night? Stay at or above the MDA, and stay on course and you have no problems.

And is there a limit to hand flying in GA aircraft?

Confused... that's sorta instrument PTS kinda stuff there.

EDIT: That being said, yes, it IS quite the experience to fly an approach to mins for the first time! I know how it feels. I hope you enjoy the experience rather than thinking it is unsafe.
 
Awesome, I'm sure you gained a lot from that approach. I still have yet to even come close to mins when i shoot approaches...maybe someday lol. Thanks for the post.
 
wheelsup said:
Personally I find it easier flying approaches to mins @ night. Much easier to see the runway.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

In fact, I prefer it over an approach to mins in broad daylight. It will be different in an urban area, but at an airport that is away from town, you will occasionally get a reflection of approach lights, REILS, etc. while you are still in the clouds before you ever break out.
 
It was fun to make an 18,000 hour ATP squirm in the right seat of the company Cirrus today shooting the ILS 5 at ORF. Ceilings were reported as overcast at 1,100', but it was more like a droopy 600' on final.

When I asked him why he looked uncomfortable, his reply was "we shouldn't be doing this in a single engine airplane".

I asked him if the big jets used the same ILS transmitter or did they have a "members only" system that does better.

Like Ian said, on altitude, on course and on speed = no big deal.
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
It was fun to make an 18,000 hour ATP squirm in the right seat of the company Cirrus today shooting the ILS 5 at ORF. Ceilings were reported as overcast at 1,100', but it was more like a droopy 600' on final.

When I asked him why he looked uncomfortable, his reply was "we shouldn't be doing this in a single engine airplane".

I asked him if the big jets used the same ILS transmitter or did they have a "members only" system that does better.

Like Ian said, on altitude, on course and on speed = no big deal.
Click to expand...

You'd be suprised how many professional pilots get nervous in a small single. I have a Luscombe and guys that would jump at the chance to fly a taildragger when we were CFIs now get all squirmy in the seat at 75 mph, over the numbers when the nose is high for a three-pointer.
 
Great job! Can't beat experience like that. And thanks for getting that experience while still in training and not with me in the back of an RJ with you in the right seat flying your first approach to minimums.
 
Ah, haha....something should've told me you guys were going to rip on the wrong stuff. The reported minimums were higher than actual, but that's not what I was getting at.

Perhaps I should rephrase....For me, disorientation got the best of me even after trusting the instruments for the whole entire flight. The transition from the cockpit to the outside view looking for the runway really got the best of me in terms of disorientation. I am very comfortable with hand flying IFR and can fly pretty accurately and smoothly. The problem today was the illusion I got after trying to look outside.

It's no problem in North Dakota where there is no terrain, almost no obstacles, but I can see it being dangerous for a pilot who hasn't had much experience with 300'-400' ceilings in a crowded city/mountainous areas. The lowest I've flown before was in 900 OVC, but that was w/ ILS, fairly simple and precise, no missed approach point, just your DA where you go missed if you don't see the runway and with vertical guidance. However...I felt it was kinda different when doing the BC and leveling off waiting to see the runway.

I don't know, it was good experience...and please don't rip on me for going out there experimenting with low ceilings. I know we should all have personal minimums. I was cautious, just didn't think I'd be a victim to vestibular illusions. It's not the first time I've flown actual, and in fact, have flown actual three days in a row this week Yeah, s----y weather. Tell me about it.
 
Interested Observer said:
Great job! Can't beat experience like that. And thanks for getting that experience while still in training and not with me in the back of an RJ with you in the right seat flying your first approach to minimums.
Click to expand...
Ditto. Definitely good to experience it now than later. Flight Directors do an awesome job in those RJs though. :D Haha, no, I agree with you.
 
Ian J said:
What's not smart about it, even at night? Stay at or above the MDA, and stay on course and you have no problems.

And is there a limit to hand flying in GA aircraft?

Confused... that's sorta instrument PTS kinda stuff there.

EDIT: That being said, yes, it IS quite the experience to fly an approach to mins for the first time! I know how it feels. I hope you enjoy the experience rather than thinking it is unsafe.
Click to expand...
Sorry, low-time pilots like me are more prone to vestibular illusions. :sarcasm:

:p
 
AngelFuree said:
I'm not bragging about "shooting an approach to minimums." Just commenting on my experience.
Click to expand...

You know, most of here are talking about flying ILS approaches to mins...you flew a LOC approach, BC at that, in 400' ceilings and 3 miles vis. AND you did it in a Warrior, which I assume doesn't have either a HSI or Flight Director...

AngelFuree said:
I just got back from flying an approach into bare minimums. It is nothing like practicing it in a simulator. The sensations trick you so much when looking out for the runway. What they say about trusting your instruments is a MUST.
Click to expand...

Exactly why I think there should be a hard requirement for the Instrument Rating to include a certain amount of actual time and a certain number of approaches in less than VFR conditions. You just don't realize how much you glance outside when you are actual IFR rather than being limited to the panel and ONLY the panel when you are wearing a view limiting device.



Sounds like you had a good experience overall and learned or realized something that you didn't know. That is the important thing. Next time you fly a non-precision approach like that, you will know what to expect.
 
but angel, i thought the epaulets had special fabric that dissolved in actual IFR??? didnt you break SOPs??












:nana2:
 
AngelFuree said:
Nope, 1SM. Don't know what made you think that?

The topic of the thread, "Real approach to bare minimums", is what made me think that the approach minimum was 3sm. Sorry for any confusion.

I came from a similar huge flight school background, where we really didn't go out and fly when the weather was below VFR criteria. That really jips an instrument candidate. It is good in the sense that it builds your "personal minimums" and reinforces them later, but I also feel that it's a double-edged sword. IMO, an instrument student recommended for a checkride should not have any trouble flying precision and non-precision approaches right down to minimums and land. I learned things on the fly, but could've had a better foundation if our SOP's werent' designed to scare the crap out of us.

And...hand flying non-precision approaches to mins is both smart and fun.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top