Pressing "Start" on the timer when shooting an ILS
- Thread starter kiloalpha
- Start date
ctab5060X
Well-Known Member
Depends on the regional. I've done more non-precision approaches in the last 4 months than I have in the past 4 years. Most have been NDB approaches too. Sure does make you appreciate and ILS some days.
You're in your 74, approaching for a landing into Newark. Clearly no mountains. It's daytime. Ceiling 900 feet. Vis unrestricted. You opt for the ILS and lose glide slope at 1100 feet. Since you didn't brief one additional altitude, tune in your backup for identifying the MAP (you need this anyway...see msmspilot's post) and one addition first step for missed approach (if they are even different) you decide to go missed with your 300 some odd passengers.
Sounds absurd to me.
Anyways, I don't fly a 74, or even for the airlines. However, I was taught to use my resources and I don't see how being set up for a switch like this brings any additional risk. Can some of you really say it's risky to tune a backup for identifying the LOC MAP, jotting down another altitude, and possibly needing to consider a different first step for your missed procedure?
Obviously I'm of the side that says use your resources. Use common sense too, obviously if the airports at minimums for the ILS it wouldn't be wise to try and use a LOC backup. How often is this really the case though, where you shoot an ILS with minimums too low for the LOC only approach.
Oh well, my rants over. As you were.
Sounds absurd to me.
Anyways, I don't fly a 74, or even for the airlines. However, I was taught to use my resources and I don't see how being set up for a switch like this brings any additional risk. Can some of you really say it's risky to tune a backup for identifying the LOC MAP, jotting down another altitude, and possibly needing to consider a different first step for your missed procedure?
Obviously I'm of the side that says use your resources. Use common sense too, obviously if the airports at minimums for the ILS it wouldn't be wise to try and use a LOC backup. How often is this really the case though, where you shoot an ILS with minimums too low for the LOC only approach.
Oh well, my rants over. As you were.
But captain, I've already got 3 numbers and I just don't have enough fingers on my hand to fit 3 more.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
To add, it's not a lack of airmanship, and it's not a comfort level issue. When you have plenty of fuel and have no reason to hurry, what's the point?
shdw: At 1100', there's just not much time to communicate your new plan to your other crewmembers, along with spinning in new radials and whatever else you need. Just go missed. Really a non-event. I flew a 10 hour leg yesterday from London down to the Caribbean, and if everything started going wonky at 1100' in IMC, I don't think any of us would have attempted to salvage it. Everyone's tired. Mistakes are more easily made. Just hit the button and try again.
shdw: At 1100', there's just not much time to communicate your new plan to your other crewmembers, along with spinning in new radials and whatever else you need. Just go missed. Really a non-event. I flew a 10 hour leg yesterday from London down to the Caribbean, and if everything started going wonky at 1100' in IMC, I don't think any of us would have attempted to salvage it. Everyone's tired. Mistakes are more easily made. Just hit the button and try again.
My only points are:
1. Potenitally staying in WX that's not wise to stay into. If the WX you're in isn't a problem to stay in, then this doesn't apply.
2. People who's claims that it's unsafe in some way, especially if single pilot. That's simply B.S.
Now, if someone simply doesn't feel like doing it; or even more importantly if they're restricted by regulation from doing it; that's understandable. I just don't like when the safety card is randomly thrown out there for the hell of it (not saying you in particular are).
Circling ASR in the WX is full up....I like it
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
shdw LNAV/VNAV if you think the ILS is wonky. At least that's what I do in the 74.
We had some guys who continued the approach after the signal wen T-U. Didn't scrape any metal, but got to talk to the feds. Ooops, wrong runway.
The question becomes WHY did the signal go crazy? Tower turn it off? Airplane somewhere on the runway making the beam wavy? Bad reciever? You really wanna try to guess on the way in?
I fully understand in single-seat land things are different, but in airline world, the gas burnt on toga is hella less than the cost of a frame, or suspensions or 709s.
We had some guys who continued the approach after the signal wen T-U. Didn't scrape any metal, but got to talk to the feds. Ooops, wrong runway.
The question becomes WHY did the signal go crazy? Tower turn it off? Airplane somewhere on the runway making the beam wavy? Bad reciever? You really wanna try to guess on the way in?
I fully understand in single-seat land things are different, but in airline world, the gas burnt on toga is hella less than the cost of a frame, or suspensions or 709s.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
You sir, are dangerous.
Apparently so. I missed in the original post that the GS was lost before breaking out.
GS and LOC are two different things though. If your GS goes out, but the LOC signal is still good, Im not worried about it.....stuff happens. Maybe the box just stopped working......I don't bother worrying why it went out, it's only the GS. Now if the LOC signal goes out, of course that's a completely different thing altogether......you're done with that approach obviously. It's not like you're going to "flex" to a VOR approach or anything like that. It may be possible, but that's pushing it too far.
In the case you mention though, was that crew even allowed to continue after the GS signal went out anyway....regs/OpsSpecs wise? If they continued after having that malfunction, then they cooked their own goose with regards to the Feds.
I still wonder why some guys are thinking on here that loss of a GS signal automatically equals a crashed airplane?
It's a technique, and one that works just as well as going around. Either one can be safe or unsafe, circumstances dependant.
Apparently so. I missed in the original post that the GS was lost before breaking out.
Looking outside while VMC......thats crazy talk!!!
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
My only points are:
1. Potenitally staying in WX that's not wise to stay into. If the WX you're in isn't a problem to stay in, then this doesn't apply.
2. People who's claims that it's unsafe in some way, especially if single pilot. That's simply B.S.
Now, if someone simply doesn't feel like doing it; or even more importantly if they're restricted by regulation from doing it; that's understandable. I just don't like when the safety card is randomly thrown out there for the hell of it (not saying you in particular are).
Circling ASR in the WX is full up....I like it
shdw this kind of addresses your post too
If the weather is bad enough that I don't want to stay in it, or I'm fighting an emergency, it's possible that I may brief the localizer procedure before I start the approach, but generally, even if it's an approach to mins, I brief what I'm going to fly, then I fly it. If I'm going to fly an ILS, I brief an ILS, if I'm going to fly a localizer I brief a localizer. I don't fly airplanes that are fuel critical enough (generally) to not be able to go missed and try the approach again at least once, and if the weather is crappy enough so that I am definitely going "all the way down" I'm probably gonna have a little extra fuel stashed to go again. I'm not required to go missed if I lose the GS inside the marker, but that's what I'm going to do too. If you're all set up for an ILS, and you suddenly flag out on the approach, it may take you a second to realize what just happened, or the flag might flicker a bunch and then come back, at very least you're going to have to transition from a "stabilized" approach to a "dive and drive" inside the marker. While that's not really a big deal if that's what you've planned from the very beginning, but generally, when I plan a precision approach, that's what I am intending to do, and single pilot the biggest thing I've learned that will get me in trouble is "switching horses mid stream." I've flown with guys who've done some...shall we say, interesting stuff because they tried to turn a non-precision approach into a visual too soon, I've botched a circling approach bad enough to go missed because I tried to turn a straight in into a circling approach because the winds down low weren't as advertised and I tried to make it work. Doing this increases your workload when you're close to the ground and you already may have a lot going on, especially single pilot. Start the timer if you really want to, and I generally have my chart on my lap or kneeboard, or clipped to the yoke (if I have jepps) so in a pinch I could switch if I had to, but realistically why not just go back around and do it again? I've almost always found that the second I say to myself "I can make this work," I'm about to do something stupid, so in my head, that's where I draw the line. If I'm trying to salvage the approach, I just would rather start over.
Exactly why you brief it well before hand. Because to go missed in the conditions I've presented, to me anyway, seems like piss poor planning on the part of a couple of professional pilots.
You wouldn't agree?
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
I still wonder why some guys are thinking on here that loss of a GS signal automatically equals a crashed airplane?
I think that the potential for confusion over approach minimums in these circumstances puts you at greater risk for a CFIT accident - especially in an automated airplane or an airplane with more than one crewmember or both particularly in mountainous or urban terrain - or especially over featureless snow covered terrain where you break out right at mins. Hand flying on steam gauges is one thing, but reprogramming an altitude pre-select, or reconfiguring the autopilot if it hasn't already clicked off or some other cockpit duty that could distract you when you should just click everything off and hand fly is something that could consume time at the wrong time. Additionally, if you're crewed, you've got to explain what you're doing to the other crew member, even if you've briefed it. Then what if his glideslope didn't fail? Do you swap PF-PNF duties so you can complete the approach? It's not that confusing a maneuver, but I suspect you are aware that when something fails -especially an instrument, it is rare that you recognize what happened immediately, or that your brain doesn't take time to process something. I've seen guys miss a "nav flag" entirely and try to fly an approach that wasn't even there, or other stupid - yet easy to make - mistakes.
My "dumbest" instrument failure related mistake was on an ILS as an FO about 6 years ago. I was flying the approach, inside the marker when my airspeed started to gradually slow. I kept adding added a little power figuring it was the ice we'd been accruing on the descent, I pushed the power up a little more, then a little more and then the captain says, "hey, why are we going so fast?" Well, my cross check hadn't included the captain side airspeed or the GPS (which was not conveniently located for me to look at), and the heating element had slowly failed on the descent and the tip of the pitot tube on my side froze over without covering the drain hole. At this point I looked over and was at about 1000' doing about 180KIAS on an approach that was probably going to be close to mins. The captain said, "no worries, just go off my side and go to flight idle, this'll work out." In a big turboprop it worked out, and we were able to restabilize our airspeed at about 400' to break out at 300-ish. That said, both my failure to cross check properly ( should have immediately picked up the fact that the rate of descent was picking up irregardless of the captains airspeed and GPS), and the captains attempt to salvage the approach were inappropriate responses. It would have taken 5 minutes to come back around and do it over, and we would have gone through 1000' stabilized on speed with the airplane configured appropriately and wouldn't have had to do anything aggressive. That said, it took me probably 10 seconds for me to think, "wait a sec, this isn't right, why am I so slow I've got power pushed up, gear is out, but it shouldn't slow me down, we're not getting that much ice." The CA caught it, and I only had about 600hrs at the time, so really, inexperience is what that was all about, but seriously since I started flying SPIFR the wisest words I've heard spoken to me yet have been, "if you ever find yourself saying, I can make this work, then you're doing it wrong."
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
No, I wouldn't agree. You've lost a navaid inside the FAF and before you've gone visual. You're now on an approach that you haven't been cleared for. It's time to go around.
I can't recall ever briefing the LOC minimums when flying an ILS, at least not in the last 10 years or so. I suppose I must be a piss poor planning professional pilot.
*shrug*
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
+1 to ATN. I wouldn't agree at all. It's probably fine in piston single land. There just isn't much time to address the nav and flight mode changes at 1100' with an approach speed of 130-150 knots.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I'm not sure where this go-around hesitancy is coming from. You're presented with a situation where the plan has changed. What you've briefed as Plan A is no longer an option. You're a few hundred feet above terrain and descending at a rate of 800 fpm at a speed of 140 knots. And you believe the most prudent course of action is to continue on an approach that hadn't been planned? Sorry, but I think that's reckless. Is it dangerous? Probably not. But it certainly isn't the safest course of action, and you have nothing to prove, so there's no reason to do it when a go-around is always a safe option.