Pressing "Start" on the timer when shooting an ILS
- Thread starter kiloalpha
- Start date
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
What does it hurt to go missed in your scenario? Just go around, and come back around and set up for the loc, or better yet, set up for the LPV to the same runway, and have a nice, stabilized, obstacle free glide path all the way down. If you don't have the fuel, that's one thing, but even so, the old "plan the flight, fly the plan" has always been something I've found has helped me out. I've found I've never been so close to hitting mountains as the times where I was complacent in my planning duties, or I've changed the plan at the last minute.
If you lose your glideslope at 800'MSL on this approach (http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1211/06053ILDZ11.PDF) what do you think you should do? Go back up to 900? Level off below mins? Just go missed? Just go missed, it's easier.
These approaches have low ILS mins, but fairly high LOC mins, I'm sure there are many more out there, these were two that I just thought of off the top of my head.
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1211/00330IL10R.PDF (without JADNU)
http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1211/00106IL31L.PDF
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Hell, with an approach speed of 120 hand flying a lot can go wrong. You're looking at most 2 mins before you impact terrain if you don't have any obstacles. If you get distracted you could really have a bad day. Approach Landing Accidents (ALAs) are no joke.
Um, I did at with an approach speed of 200 knots, in one of the most aurmoated planes there is, as I was trained. It's not rocket science, people. And it's not inherently unsafe. It only becomes risky if one doesn't brief it beforehand, or tries to do it on the fly. Remember, the military teaches it this way. I certainly don't think that as risk-averse as they are with their stateside flying, that this would be getting trained if it were indeed unsafe. And this goes for everything from T-38s to C-141s. Size and type of aircraft doesn't make a difference. Planning, briefing and preparing for it does.
If the WX has bad elements to it, why would you want to climb back into it and remain there if there wasn't something forcing you to?
Asked and answered earlier in the thread, if you go back and look. Once you're below the LOC MDA, you don't climb back up to it if you lose your GS, because the opportunity to do that has passed already. Below the LOC mins, you're committed to the ILS and are either going to land or go missed.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Sorry, but I don't want to be evaluating where I am in relation to the MDA of an approach that I wasn't shooting while inside the FAF. Again, just not the prudent course of action. A missed approach is the safest choice. Come back around, properly brief another approach, preferably an RNAV/VNAV approach, and execute the approach as briefed and planned instead of trying to switch things up in the middle of an approach. Again, there's nothing to prove here. No reason to not take the more cautious approach.
Again, there are USAF C-130s doing it. The AF isn't going to be teaching instrument procedures that are reckless.
Let me ask everyone this: For those who have flown radar GCA approaches. Ive been on a few PARs coming down the glidepath where the GCA controller has said during the talkdown "Ghost 7, glideslope went down, you're on course, MDA now 1,100'..... this will be azimuth only, continue descent......slightly right of course and correcting, turn left heading 285...yada, yada, yada..."
Now, I was initially flying a PAR approach. Should I have told the controller I desire to go missed and begin executing my verbal climbout instructions, because the approach "changed"? How would I even know where to go, since my climbout is from the MAP? Or was I reckless to continue with the talkdown and transition to an azimuth-only PAR?
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Ok, so, you lose glideslope at 600' at 200KIAS, you're 3 degree glideslope rate of descent is about what? About 1000fpm? If LOC mins are 400' you have 12 seconds to, A - decide you actually lost the glideslope if it was ambiguous, B - remember now that you have a different altitude to level off at, C- either handfly and manually level off - if you lead your altitude by 10% you're down to 6 seconds to initiate some sort of change - or reprogram the FMS. If you screw up, you're going to blow through MDA during the level off and have to go missed. I don't know what the automation was like, but I imagine that if you're on a coupled ILS at 200KIAS and you lose glideslope, the automation probably clicks off, you get a chime, and now you're hand flying. It's probably going to be a surprise (unless you're on your checkride) because even if you briefed it you probably weren't expecting it. You have a lot going on in a short period of time and it's probably better to just cob it and go around in my opinion. Approach Landing type accidents, where the airplane comes up short, or gets unstable and ends up overshooting are really common. It's not that it's inherently "unsafe" to transition, it is just that, in "my" opinion, the safer course of action is to abandon the approach and start over.
That's what Im not getting.....in terms of the "unsafe" standpoint......what's there to "evaluate"? One number that constitutes an MDA? That takes some sort of mental gymnastics that I don't know about in 25 years of flying IFR?
If it's something that requires reprogramming a box or inputting that new number into a system; then I fully agree that a missed is the FAR prudent choice as opposed to dicking around with anything while on the final segment. But apart from that or any regulatory restrictions, or if it wasn't briefed as-such, it's not that difficult a thing to do.
Like I said, do what makes one comfortable....either maneuver is fine; but lets not pull the safety card here as a matter of convenience, folks.
A: that takes about a second or two (been there before).
B: that takes another second
C: this is where I stated above......if you're handflying or clicking off to handflying, it takes another second or two. If it requires you to reprogram anything or do anything more than just remembering a number, then definitely go missed. You should always be expecting something to go wrong on the approach......that time is no time for complacency; so while it will be a surprise, it shouldn't be "unexpected".
Nothing is going to change for me......the plane is still going to go down the same glidepath to a new altitude, and if I see something when there and in a position to land, I will; if not, I go missed. As I said before, if it takes anything more than the few seconds I mentioned to figure it out or Im below any kind of useable LOC MDA, or there's WX above me that won't be too much of a problem, I go missed.
It's situational. Either way is fine. "Brief what you fly, fly what you brief".......well, I briefed a LOC backup; therefore I can flex to it. If I failed to brief it, then I won't be doing it.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Well......that's a toughy, but usually, that's not the case. But like I said, I've been known to brief the LOC mins when the weather sucks or Single Engine, but even then, if I have the performance for it, and the airplane isn't equipped with autofeather, I may say "the hell with it" and go missed rather than fly an approach that's all "goat fornicated." Really, the only reason I have to "not want to go back through it" is ice, and even with that, that's kind of a situation-dependent scenario. While there are absolutely no absolutes in aviation ( ;-) ), I think it's fair to suggest that switching approaches midway through the approach is not a good idea for me. You may be totally fine with it, and that's your prerogative, but personally, I'd prefer to go missed. Now, if I go to work someplace that has a hard-on for "starting the clock" and planning on making it in with a busted GS, then I'll follow their procedures, but in practice - I've found that if I'm "making it work," I'm usually about to make a decision I may regret.
As for the other part, I must have missed that, so disregard that commentary.
Of course I agree, if the IAP is already "goat fornicated", why press it with an emergency occurring. If you feel comfortable taking it missed and have the performance to do so, or are having any trouble with or getting behind the plane...then I agree, getting away from the ground and obstacles is very wise and prudent. Thats why I say that doing this is situationally dependant on a number of factors. In some cases, it could be dangerous, in other cases it can be very routine.
There's smart making it work, and there's dumb making it work. Like you said, situation-dependant usually separates the two concepts. WX-wise scenario, ice was always a biggie for me, not only for airframe (as there wasn't any boots or surface heat on the jets....and the boots on the old cargo 135 birds I flew worked or they didn't), but moreso engines and FOD. Ice will literally destroy some of the jet engines out there on the fighter-types and even the airliners. Don't believe me? Just ask the crew of Southern Airways 242 who had to land their DC-9 on a highway after hail/ice FODd out both their engines and shattered their windscreen in 1977. Obviously that's an extreme example, but in a moderate and higher icing condition, it's just not something I'd be wanting to screw with and climb back into IF I could safely avoid it. If I can't safely avoid it....then up into the ice Im going......
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Saying that the Air Force does it isn't really going to convince me. This is an airline environment. We look at things differently.
Unless it was an emergency, I wouldn't be conducting a radar approach with passengers on board. If every approach at an airport goes down for some reason, I'm diverting to an airport that is functioning. I've never done a radar approach in my life, and I don't intend for the first time to be with a bunch of people in the back unless the airplane is about to come out of the sky.
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
Ice is the only one I run into on a regular basis where I would "have to make it in on this try because going missed would be •-your-pants scary." But really, I think in the vast majority of situations to go missed. No you don't want to climb back up into greater than moderate ice if you don't have to. A better idea would be to fly an LPV from the get go. If that's not an option, then sure brief the swap to the LOC. The best bet is to not put yourself in a position where you'll have to do that in the first place - which sometimes is easier said than done. If you HAVE to, obviously do what you have to, but I'd say that a missed is a safer course of action under almost every situation.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
It's not "mental gymnastics," but it is a change in the plan at a critical phase of flight. Not a good idea. Fly what you brief, and don't brief things that you aren't going to be doing. That's just standard airline procedure. If I'm doing an ILS, I brief an ILS. If I'm doing a LOC, I brief a LOC. If I'm doing a visual, I brief a visual. I don't brief multiple approaches. We brief what we're going to do, and if circumstances change and we have to do something different, we get up to a safe altitude and properly plan for the new situation.
Safety is safety. Im not talking tactical considerations of any kind. Safety is safety. Our heavy strategic airlift planes do the same flying you do.
That's understandable. Radar approaches are common for us. And as I understand, many airline OpsSpecs don't allow GCA approaches. Even my 135 operation back in the day, we were allowed ASRs, but not PARs for some reason.
And thats the difference with us....we do brief a flex option in terms of reverting to LOC mins if it works. So for us, it is fly what we brief....since we briefed it.
Whats interesting is that this is seemingly not a safety issue, but moreso a philosophy issue between flying background. Im at work, and just took a random sampling of this same question to 8 of my fellow fixed-wing pilots wandering around here (the helo guys think IFR is for dummies)......4 of which are military (1 AF, 2 Army, 1 USN); 4 of which are civil background (3 part 121 guys, one former freight guy). All the mil guys agree with my argument; all the part 121 civil guys agree with your argument. The freight guy didn't care one way or another. And it came down to training. All of we military guys are trained that way, all of the part 121 guys weren't. So the respective perceptions of safe or unsafe were entirely based on that.
I still say neither one is right or wrong; both are situationally dependant; and if you didn't brief it, then don't do it.
Fun thing is....I dropped that grenade in our other office bullpen there, and I can hear the arguing going on over there from here at my desk......it's like hearing this thread in a verbal media.
This is kind of funny. The 8 initial guys who were arguing have been joined by two more who are arguing and it's getting a bit heated. The helo pilot rejects are sitting around enjoying the entertainment from the weird fixed wing guys, and egging the whole thing on with pointless commentary, making it worse. 
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
That's cool. We're not a fuel-critical, single-pilot combat aircraft. We have lots of gas, and are generally in no hurry. Cultural item that may be of note should you ever come over, lest ye get the sim instructor donkey punch during initial.