To brief or not to brief...

X-Forces said:
:yeahthat:

Truer words were never spoken.


I get that all the time. I do not particularly train my guys to time at the FAF on an ILS for a backup. I'll always get some smart guy question it.

"Your guy didn't start timing at the FAF when we shot the ILS"

"And"

"Well, what would happen if he lost the glideslope?"

"He would go missed and return for a second approach, or not"

"Why would you want to go missed?"

"Auh, maybe because part of the ILS just took a dump?"

"Why not just fly the LOC?"

"He would, possibly, on the next attempt"

"But then you have to go missed, set up, and shoot the approach again. Big waste of time!"

"Are we in some sort of rush?"

"FORGET IT!!"

"Forgotten"
Click to expand...

Another thing to think about is that sometimes glide slope intercept and the final approach fix for the localizer do not coincide. It would be pointless to start the time at glide slope intercept in this case.;)
 
KLB said:
Another thing to think about is that sometimes glide slope intercept and the final approach fix for the localizer do not coincide. It would be pointless to start the time at glide slope intercept in this case.;)
Click to expand...

Which is another perfect reason I don't teach it that way.

Lots of approaches don't have coinciding GSI and FAF, so you have to watch for your GSI and also know where your FAF (LOC Approc) is and be ready to begin timing.

Please!!! One approach at a time.
 
Truer words were never spoken.


I get that all the time. I do not particularly train my guys to time at the FAF on an ILS for a backup. I'll always get some smart guy question it.

"Your guy didn't start timing at the FAF when we shot the ILS"

"And"

"Well, what would happen if he lost the glideslope?"

"He would go missed and return for a second approach, or not"

"Why would you want to go missed?"

"Auh, maybe because part of the ILS just took a dump?"

"Why not just fly the LOC?"

"He would, possibly, on the next attempt"

"But then you have to go missed, set up, and shoot the approach again. Big waste of time!"

"Are we in some sort of rush?"

"FORGET IT!!"

"Forgotten"
Click to expand...

Awesome.
Please have that conversation by the dispatch desk next time...
 
Brief and fly one approach at a time. Trying to remember 17 things, seven of which are on one approach and 10 on another is setting yourself up for trouble. If the GS goes out, transition to the visual if available or go-around and figure out plan B. That's my 2 cents.
 
There is one reason you should be timing no matter what; if you're in a non radar environment, and without GPS, DME...ahh...FMS...ahh...ok a host of other things, you won't know where to start your missed approach procedure. Sure you can fly down the localizer and you'll probably have a pretty good idea of where the end of the runway is, but you won't really know where to start the NEXT procedure (the missed) without time.

That being said I didn't time ILS approaches. I figured if ATC's radar went down in mountainous terrain, while the DME went down while the FMS took a crap and I had no way to know where I was, I was probably in deeper that I could possibly dig myself out of.
 
I figure if the GS goes out on the ILS approach, I'd rather just report the outage, go missed and set up for a different approach until I'm specifically cleared for the LOC approach or ILS GS OUT approach.

We're not dropping bombs on a convoy or picking up a heart attack victim.
 
Switching to the LOC while intending to fly the ILS is a contingency -- something you do in case things do not go as planned.

There are a million different things that can make your approach not go as planned, yet you still do them even if you didn't sit there and discuss every possible one before the approach.

"Whoops...we just lost #1....but since we didn't discuss the single-engine approach as part of the brief, we can't do it."
 
Doug Taylor said:
I figure if the GS goes out on the ILS approach, I'd rather just report the outage, go missed and set up for a different approach until I'm specifically cleared for the LOC approach or ILS GS OUT approach.

We're not dropping bombs on a convoy or picking up a heart attack victim.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:

Some instructors and examiners get caught up on petty techniques, as already stated. Its a good idea to just time the approaches anyways, as jtrain suggested.
 
Aside from the "brief" thing (what?), I'd say the actual execution is, like so many other things, a question of common sense. I've done the LOC when a supposedly functional ILS didn't give me glideslope info. I was being vectored to it, the weather was marginal VFR, I was in radar coverage, I had plenty of time to rethink the approach because I was in a 210 doing 150 or so and way before the FAF when it became clear the glideslope was going to flag.

I've also missed on an inoperative glideslope because I was being a freight jerk doing 250 to the marker in a mitsi, I had 4 or 5 config changes still to do, the weather was like 300/2, there was icing, the controller was busy as heck, etc etc.

Use your head, Luke.
 
This is a dumb question from a non-IR pilot...but...it's on my mind so I'm going to ask...

If the GS goes out and you can see the runway, can't you just cancel IFR and land visual?
 
killbilly said:
This is a dumb question from a non-IR pilot...but...it's on my mind so I'm going to ask...

If the GS goes out and you can see the runway, can't you just cancel IFR and land visual?
Click to expand...

If you see the runway, you don't need to cancel. Just say "tower, N12345 lost the GS, runway's in sight."

You've reported the failure, the tower cab can check what they can, and that's it.

Personally, I wouldn't brief the LOC portion unless I intend to fly it. If the GS dies, climb to the missed altitude, fly to the MAP, then follow that, or radar vectors.

The more variables you introduce, the more mistakes you can make.
 
killbilly said:
This is a dumb question from a non-IR pilot...but...it's on my mind so I'm going to ask...

If the GS goes out and you can see the runway, can't you just cancel IFR and land visual?
Click to expand...

No dumb questions, only dumb answers. So here's one of those. Depends on the weather. If it's not legal VFR, you're commiting a federal booboo.

However the much maligned and misunderstood Contact Approach could be your friend in this scenario...

Visual approach
--ATC or pilot initiation
--Ceiling 1500' or better or pilot must be able to maintain VFR.
--Pilot maintains separation and wake avoidance

Can be offered by ATC or asked for by pilot if ceiling is 1000’ and visibility 3 miles. You must remain clear of clouds. You must have any preceding traffic or the airport in sight. Traffic and wake avoidance is up to the pilot. On top conditions may be difficult in convective conditions. Clouds often rise at 3000 fpm. Let ATC know so you can file IFR. Ask for an alternate IFR clearance in case of communications failure. You must see and avoid all other traffic but also report all altitude changes as though IFR.
If you are dealing with IFR as a process within a complex maze of strict, unwavering rules requiring passive compliance, they you don’t know how to use and fly the system. there are a number of time and fuel saving ways of using the system to your advantage.
Contact Approach
An IFR pilot can shift responsibility, control and liability out of the hands of ATC by requesting a contact approach. This
allows deviation from published procedures and allows flight to the airport where visibility is reported to be at least one
mile. The pilot must maintain ground contact, remain clear of clouds and provide obstacle clearance. Only you, the pilot,
can do this; ATC cannot. The contact approach has the pilot responsible for terrain clearance, clear of clouds and flight
visibility. ATC must have a procedure (including the published misssed) available should IMC flight be required by the
pilot unable to maintain the contact approach.
Don’t descend until in position to land. Obey minimum safe altitudes and obstruction clearance features. This is a form of scud-running that is safe only if you are familiar with the area. Don’t ask for a contact approach unless you really know where you are and will be all the time. You must have one mile visibility and fly clear of clouds as though SVFR. One mile visibility can suddenly go lower. Don’t hesitate to contact ATC and get an approach clearance. ATC will provide separation only from other IFR traffic and SVFR traffic. The contact approach is a substitute for an IFR approach.
Must be pilot requested and ATC approved. Only airports with IAPs and weather reporting. Cannot be used to reach other airports. Pilot is responsible for obstacles and radar service ends with frequency change.
--The contact approach can only be asked for by the pilot.
--Minimum conditions are 1 mile visibility and clear of clouds.
--ATC does not like the contact approach since its safety is directly related to how familiar the pilot is with the area.
--ATC will never clear a contact approach aircraft below the local minimum safe altitude.
--Requested by pilot
--Clear of clouds and
--1 mile visibility
--Pilot responsible for obstacle clearance
Click to expand...
 
Dang you Boris. My computer froze up dealing with one of those FAA PDF's and you beat me to it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top