rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
Going from GS to LOC is studly and heroic? Good grief.
Pressing "Start" on the timer when shooting an ILS
- Thread starter kiloalpha
- Start date
Going from GS to LOC is studly and heroic? Good grief.
JustinS
Well-Known Member
I was going to teach no time. Some instructors feel that if you're briefed for the ILS, and the GS fails just go missed and try again using a LOC, RNAV, or VOR Approach. I'm in that same boat. However, with discussing it with other instructors, and the general consensus at my school is that we start the time, and have the LOC approach MDA altitude briefed. However, If I was below the MDA, and the GS failed I would immediately go missed, and try another approach. I teach what they pay me to teach here, but it seems like another one of those gray areas.
scooter2525
Very well Member
Son, you got a lot to learn about this here place.Oh my god......taking one hand off something else to push a button to start a clock. Wow, that seriously sucks some SA there.I mean, really? What kind of candyass pilots do we have who can't start a timer when everything else is working. You DO realize that pilots at one time actually flew single pilot in IMC with no autopilot......and survived?? *gasp*! And many still do today......
Yet at the same time, you'd like to do a missed and go BACK into the same single-pilot IMC in turbulence with no autopilot, which you claim is so difficult to work in?
scooter2525
Very well Member
On the line at the net, did you brief both?
It's not a matter of being a stud; it's a matter of someone who tries to use the excuse of "unsafe" to something that's nothing at all unsafe. Yes, I get irked by those who try to pull the safety card when it doesn't even apply. That is candyass.
And where did I say "dive and drive"? Those are your words, not mine. Nothing says you can't keep the same descent rate and arrive at or just prior to an MDA....an altitude just slightly higher than the DH. If the lack of vertical guidance is considered "in the blind" to you, then I don't know how many crutches you and your crews seem to need in order to accomplish an instrument approach. Hope you only go to places with an ILS/MLS/PAR then.
Conservative is not keeping your plane in bad WX conditions and possible icing or worse, just because you refuse to be flexible pending your regs allow it. It's nothing studly at all; its called airmanship. Staying in bad WX that neither you, your airplane, or your pax don't need to be in, when you can safely be on the ground, is called stupid.
If you're past some point where a flex can safely be done, or it wasn't briefed before commencing the approach, or your regs or OpsSpecs don't allow it; then that's an entirely different deal. But the basic execution of it is not unsafe at all, and is just as conservative as going missed if you've taken the few seconds it takes to prepare for it appropriately.
I don't feel beat up at all, Im just surprised at the number of people who are so intimidated by having to push a button while flying an approach and think it will suck every last bit of SA they have. Glad they don't have an emergency in progress too. Of course, these are the same pilots Ive seen who think any IAP without a glideslope is dangerous.
It is a non-issue. For some though, it's some kind of complex unsafe practice to have to brief an MDA, a MAP and a VDP point, as it takes every brain byte for them to do it seemingly. Single pilot should be no different than crew, pending it's briefed as such.
Confusion that briefing 3 other separate numbers to flex to can cause? Really? If you're confused that easily....
And if taking the few seconds to brief 3 separate numbers is something you feel you need to be formally "trained" in, then I have to wonder.......
There is value to it. There are times when you don't want to remain in the air, either for prevailing WX or an aircraft problem; or even specific to your work, a medical need in the back.
Don't knock something because you simply have zero experience performing it or really understanding what it entails; or because UND never spoonfed it to you.
Thats because some simple multi-tasking doesn't confuse you and turn your mind into the blue screen of death.
Shack. Brief the backup mins, ensure that you have a method to identify the VDP and MAP, be it DME or timing, and excute it if you need to. The key is, briefing the backup mins........if you don't brief it before starting the approach, then going heads down in the cockpit after a GS failure has occurred is not the time to do it. In that case, the safest thing is indeed to go missed.
Agree. In that scenario, the LOC approach opportunity ended once you descended below it's respective MDA. Now, you're committed to the ILS approach. You're either going to land or go missed, as the time for flexing to the LOC approach has passed already.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
I see it both ways.
Like MikeD, I was trained by the military from day 1 of flight training that the hip pocket plan for a GS problem on an ILS is to transition to the LOC. That's just part of "how things are done" in military flying, at least so far as the high performance trainers and fighters are concerned; it is both allowed in our instrument flying manual, as well as encouraged in the USAF training environment as a good practice. I think it is a smart backup, because it is not at all that complex of a task to execute, and in a fuel-limited aircraft like a fighter, it makes sense to do in a real-world bad weather scenario.
I also see that, if you are not in any hurry to get on the ground -- mostly meaning, if you have plenty of gas or time -- it makes just as much sense to go missed and set it up again on a separate approach. In a 121 airplane, this is probably true. It goes along with the idea that, unless you are involved with an emergency that demands action NOW (like a boldface EP), it is much smarter to "wind your watch", take a deep breath, and step back and assess what to do.
To me, this is the same as so many other topics where military flyers and civilian flyers clash about "what is safe". Military pilots are brought up in a higher performance flying environment and perform operations everyday that are commonplace to us, but are not commonplace to civilian flying. Formation flying, for example, is one of those things. Aerobatics is another.
In this case, I don't know that the idea of transitioning from ILS to LOC on-the-fly in the event of a failure has any inherent danger; I don't see page-upon-page of NTSB report citing this as causal or contributing to a whole lot of accidents or incidents. The perception of it being either commonplace or unsafe depends entirely on each person's individual background and experience.
Like MikeD, I was trained by the military from day 1 of flight training that the hip pocket plan for a GS problem on an ILS is to transition to the LOC. That's just part of "how things are done" in military flying, at least so far as the high performance trainers and fighters are concerned; it is both allowed in our instrument flying manual, as well as encouraged in the USAF training environment as a good practice. I think it is a smart backup, because it is not at all that complex of a task to execute, and in a fuel-limited aircraft like a fighter, it makes sense to do in a real-world bad weather scenario.
I also see that, if you are not in any hurry to get on the ground -- mostly meaning, if you have plenty of gas or time -- it makes just as much sense to go missed and set it up again on a separate approach. In a 121 airplane, this is probably true. It goes along with the idea that, unless you are involved with an emergency that demands action NOW (like a boldface EP), it is much smarter to "wind your watch", take a deep breath, and step back and assess what to do.
To me, this is the same as so many other topics where military flyers and civilian flyers clash about "what is safe". Military pilots are brought up in a higher performance flying environment and perform operations everyday that are commonplace to us, but are not commonplace to civilian flying. Formation flying, for example, is one of those things. Aerobatics is another.
In this case, I don't know that the idea of transitioning from ILS to LOC on-the-fly in the event of a failure has any inherent danger; I don't see page-upon-page of NTSB report citing this as causal or contributing to a whole lot of accidents or incidents. The perception of it being either commonplace or unsafe depends entirely on each person's individual background and experience.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
It's airline terminology. When you're not doing a precision approach or LNAV/VNAV approach, you're going a "dive and drive" approach. It basically just means that you use an accelerated descent rate above what you would use in a precision environment so as to be sure that you arrive at the MDA prior to the MAP, ensuring that you have enough time to look for the runway environment. It's not a derogatory term.
Actually, our procedures say that.
Our profile descent rate at AirTran for a non-precision approach is 1,200 fpm. A normal descent rate on a precision approach is only 800 fpm in normal winds. Procedures vary from airline to airline, but every airline I've worked for always had an accelerated descent rate for non-precision approaches. The approaches are just treated completely differently.Keep in mind, it's an incredibly rare day that we're flying anything other than an ILS. This isn't fighter flying in Iraq or Korea, this is airline flying. Non-precision approaches are a real rarity. So transitioning in the middle of a precision approach to a non-precision approach that you almost never do is not the most prudent way to conduct operations.
No airliner is going to have any problems dealing with ice. It's a non-event. I'm sure it's a real consideration when flying a 402 or a Baron, but it's not for us. It's not something I would even think about when considering a go-around.
No, it's all good. We're just having a spirited argument of ideas and concepts, so no offense is intended and my apologies if it came across that way. Seriously mean that.
The big thing is, barring anything regulatory, nothing requires anyone to do one method or another. And to me, both can be varying degrees of safe or unsafe. If it makes you feel any better, ERAU didn't provide the technique to me in the spoonfeeding they gave me way back when either.
Ahh, got you. I was thinking it was referring to having to automatically increase descent rate to some severe amount, with the level off at MDA and driving in. That's cool.
Actually, our procedures say that.
That makes sense in terms of procedures/regulatory. And however one is directed to do it in that way, is the way it should be accomplished, I agree.
And that's another fair argument for one not doing them if they don't feel comfortable with it. It's not that it's unsafe or anything, but it would be what I'd term an "out of the ordinary" operation just because of what you describe above with it being seldom done in day-to-day ops. If Im not mistaken, most mainline jets that fly to larger airports, the non-precision they'd likely see is probably a LOC anyway. Whereas I imagine the regional operators would be the ones most likely to see or have to use the other non-precision IAPs available such as VORs.
And if it's no problem for you guys with your aircraft, then thats a consideration that's been already taken into account. For other guys, it may or may not be a consideration and they'd have to make their own eval on whether it works for them.
Good thread.
Dugie8
Well-Known Member
No, it's all good. We're just having a spirited argument of ideas and concepts, so no offense is intended and my apologies if it came across that way. Seriously mean that.
The big thing is, barring anything regulatory, nothing requires anyone to do one method or another. And to me, both can be varying degrees of safe or unsafe. If it makes you feel any better, ERAU didn't provide the technique to me in the spoonfeeding they gave me way back when either.
I apologize, I shouldn't have fired back with a snarky comment as well. You feel a bit attacked you tend to come out with the larger calibre rifle. We don't know each other in a way that I felt comfortable being "snidefriendly". We can have that kind of banter I'm down wit dat, I just didn't want to cross a line of being to "familiar".
To be 100% opaque on my stance on this. It isn't something I have never considered before this thread. This "idea" has been proposed before and I have given it some thought on not only practical applications but also likelyhood of happening with any regularity adn the consequences of not being prepared if it does (ie V1 cuts). I look at it this way, if I am sliding down a glideslope and the GS flag pops up, 1 I don't know what just failed (aircraft or ground equipement), 2 my "driving blind" simply means I am in the soup, something is failing and I don't think continuing towards terra ferma is quite prudent 3, depending on where the failure happened, transitioning to the MDA may be possible but am I in a position to land, in otherword am I going missed anyway to come back around and start the approach with a steeper descent.
I hack the time almost without fail but it is a back up for me in making sure the GS is bringing me down correctly, ie 1 minute in I should be about 1000 feet down, anything too far outside that and I start doing a lot more mental gymnastics, etc.
And you are doing what works for you, which is all good. Truthfully, there's no need to flex to a backup approach, except for the rare emergency or severe WX time. So if someone is comfortable doing it one way, cool. If the other way, cool. If both ways at different times, cool. For those that don't regularly do it, it's merely a technique to have available up your sleeve if you ever find yourself in a time where you may need to do it, such as mentioned above. It's not a card thats ever required to be played in any kind of normal ops. And it's as safe as anything else, pending the pilot has briefed it, is prepared to execute it, and knows when to. It starts to become risky when pilots haven't done any of the aforementioned prep and try to do it on the fly, in my opinion.
And snidely familiar is all cool!
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Even at the regionals, non-precision approaches are still quite rare. Thinking back to my RJ days, I would estimate that I probably shot a non-precision approach maybe five times a year, if that. And yeah, it would usually be a LOC or LDA, not anything complicated. Actually doing a complicated approach with a bunch of step-downs or a DME arc is something you might do once every few years, with the exception of the sim. And many aircraft can't even do NDB approaches anymore. My current aircraft doesn't even have an ADF installed.
Agreed.
Cessnaflyer
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
We do VORs all day, although we are in old equipment in a mountainous island environment.