Vertical path non-precision approach safety?

[Bumblebee]

I wasn't driving around looking for an airport, I was on the approach path as depicted in the approach and found the airport off to the left (in the one example I'm remembering right now) which took a second. I think that, vs.going missed prior to giving me the chance to see the environment, continuing the approach while maintaining MDA, on path until MAP was in fact the safer option than the missed approach and a divert with all the possible complications.

As Derg said, it really boils down to flying the plane as the boss tells you to. Yes, you're PIC, and in an emergency you can do whatever is necessary to meet the needs of your situation. Otherwise, you have to follow procedure and the Ops Specs of the airline. If the Ops Specs don't allow dive and drive, then you're not allowed to do it.

I did within Ops Secs, exactly to the procedures, and needed those extra seconds to look around...at MDA. I had the skill, the training and the judgment to do it correctly. By the way, it is in the PTS and required for anyone wanting to be an instrument pilot, much less an ATP.

If the company wants to take that tool out of my tool box, so be it, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I don't necessarily agree that it is the safer option in all cases...probably most but not all.

This is truly the crux of the discussion here.

no it's not...

The "outcome" is not what determines the safety of the approach. If the outcome were the determining factor, you wouldn't be able to tell if an approach was safe until the aircraft was on the ground. If I fly an unstable approach and land 80% down the runway, but happen to be able to stop and keep it on the pavement, was that a safe approach/landing?

I fully understand that outcomes don't direct or inform safety, and this is every-bit the straw man argument that others were accusing Boris of.

It isn't that the outcome is unimportant. Instead, it is that you minimize the risk to reduce the likelihood of a bad outcome. In other words, what is important is how much additional risk is assumed in your approach. Think of it more as if everyone increased the risk as you did,

this kind of comment is exactly what you don't like about what Boris was saying...you make this outrageous assumption with no basis in fact and then use it to support your argument. I still believe that I mitigated risk, rather than assumed more risk.

say increasing from 1 in 40 million to one in a million, what would that mean to the operation as a whole. Since SouthWest and Delta fly nearly one million operations per year, that would mean one accident per year. Congress would be up in arms, and we would all be screwed if the accident rate were anywhere near that frequent.

I think it's probably good not to have a huge airliner that is not as maneuverable flying around at 400 feet AGL, but to restrict me from the same approaches in a EMB120 merely because we fly under the same certificate is also ludicrous. It shows no thought towards reality, or real situational awareness.

So, if it's to protect us from those, who have attained the responsibility of captain of an airliner, by pitching for the lowest common denominator, well that's a pretty sad state of affairs. Soon, we will need to fly all approaches with the A/P on because it's safer....at least until we need to do it by hand.

 

[Bumblebee]

hey, and maybe I don't understand the whole program either...

I have a few more questions...
Do they use these on LDA approaches?
What if there is only one step down to MDA from the FAF?
I guess circling approaches are now VFR only for all 121?
Or just large transport aircraft...

Look, I'm not trying to be argumentative, you really think that one level off at MDA while on the path up to where the VDP is so much greater risk? I consider a missed approach to be a far more risky maneuver personally. That's when you get a failure, your head gets spun a little...it's a violent maneuver, you now are going to more concerned about fuel, the the unknowns at your alternate.

I honestly found it to be pretty calm once at MDA and then the normal descent, much moreso than a missed and the asses and elbows that entails...(still calm of course )

 

[derg]

Capabilities of the aircraft.

Training of the crew.

Expectations of aircraft operation.

Special air crew authorization.

 

[juxtapilot]

hey, and maybe I don't understand the whole program either...

I have a few more questions...
Do they use these on LDA approaches?
What if there is only one step down to MDA from the FAF?
I guess circling approaches are now VFR only for all 121?
Or just large transport aircraft...

Look, I'm not trying to be argumentative, you really think that one level off at MDA while on the path up to where the VDP is so much greater risk? I consider a missed approach to be a far more risky maneuver personally. That's when you get a failure, your head gets spun a little...it's a violent maneuver, you now are going to more concerned about fuel, the the unknowns at your alternate.

I honestly found it to be pretty calm once at MDA and then the normal descent, much moreso than a missed and the asses and elbows that entails...(still calm of course )

Lots of analysis has gone into this. You're stating what you think or what your opinion is of the most risky maneuver. People have been paid to analyze this and have determined that CANPA carries less risk than the previous method of descending on non-precision approaches.

I can tell you that smoking is bad for you but if you choose to have an opinion that it is not, there's nothing I can do for you.

 

[dasleben]

hey, and maybe I don't understand the whole program either...

I have a few more questions...
Do they use these on LDA approaches?
What if there is only one step down to MDA from the FAF?
I guess circling approaches are now VFR only for all 121?
Or just large transport aircraft...

Look, I'm not trying to be argumentative, you really think that one level off at MDA while on the path up to where the VDP is so much greater risk? I consider a missed approach to be a far more risky maneuver personally. That's when you get a failure, your head gets spun a little...it's a violent maneuver, you now are going to more concerned about fuel, the the unknowns at your alternate.

I honestly found it to be pretty calm once at MDA and then the normal descent, much moreso than a missed and the asses and elbows that entails...(still calm of course )

Violent maneuver? We press a go-around switch on the thrust levers, and it sets a 2000fpm climb for ya. It's quite the gentlemanlike maneuver.

I'd opine that it's quite a bit less of an issue than doing pitchy/thrusty/trimmies at 500', but that's me.

And heck, Pan Am almost got shut down over the number of 707 crashes they had going into remote airports on non-precision approaches...I'm sorry, I won't be led to believe it's better than a CANPA, just because "That's how they used to do it." They "used to do it" for a reason.

http://www.panamair.org/accidents/accidents.htm

NOTE: IN ANY CASE, I DO NOT BELIEVE DIVE AND DRIVE TO BE A DANGEROUS MANEUVER.

 

[derg]

You're dangerous!

 

[dasleben]

You're dangerous!

You're a towel.

 

[Dugie8]

he throws a good elbow,

can we address this point? I mean you guys are pissed at Boris for not accepting your point , but I think I am making a pretty serious point...now I have only flown a Brasilia in these environment, never did it in the P3, so my max (landing) weight was 25,000 and I had the power response of a turboprop, so I can't speak for spool up and all those things. I do know that I needed that extra few seconds looking around on a couple of different approaches I did, and CANPA would have had us gone missed...and we made it in safely...with no issues.
I am not trying to troll, I am dead serious, and I still want the option as a captain to make that determination...what's the problem with that?

I think both sides are being just a bit "disingenuous" with the points and anecdotal evidence. Dive and drive; and CANPA (or whatever cute acronym someone comes up with next week) both do the same thing. Point the airplane at the ground and pull up when a number gets to a certain value. Trying to say a "pseudo" glide path is less of a risk is akin to saying "I need to be able to drive around at the MDA to find the airport" both statements do nothing to improve safety or reduce risk exposure, they're just cute ways to argue on the internet.

Fly how you're trained, train how you fly. Follow the book, you're (for the most part) not smarter than it.

 

[Ian_J]

Lately I've been doing a kind of temporal mental math on NPAs. I hit the step downs on a relatively constant angle by looking at the distance, time, and my rate of descent. Not so much rules of thumb or actual math, more just seeing the rates and adjusting by feel. Now when I see other guys dive it down I'm all like "what's the rushhhhhhh?"

 

[Bumblebee]

that's nice for you in you fancy jet ...probably safer too since you only do one landing every couple of days...I was doing 4-8 approaches every day, hand flying alot of them and on my game. I get that they need to protect us from folks that have lost some of their competency...but stopping at MDA to take a look to keep you from needing to go around and maneuver when you can safely make it to the airport, is no big deal when you're current and proficient.
and if they are going to say that step down approaches are too dangerous to do, then remove them from the PTS...I mean if that's what the experts say.

 

[dasleben]

that's nice for you in you fancy jet ...probably safer too since you only do one landing every couple of days...I was doing 4-8 approaches every day, hand flying alot of them and on my game. I get that they need to protect us from folks that have lost some of their competency...but stopping at MDA to take a look to keep you from needing to go around and maneuver when you can safely make it to the airport, is no big deal when you're current and proficient.
and if they are going to say that step down approaches are too dangerous to do, then remove them from the PTS...I mean if that's what the experts say.

Landing every couple days? Try once or twice a month.

Has nothing to do with proficiency, by the way. I used to be based at an airport in VT where all we had was LOC and VOR approaches. Done lots and lots and lots of stepdown non-precision approaches in rough terrain, all weather, single pilot, Bowie knife in one hand and cup of coffee in the other. If I had a VNAV path to follow, heck yeah, I'd have been all over that.

and if they are going to say that step down approaches are too dangerous to do...

Do I need the Picard facepalm pic?

 

[Bumblebee]

I think both sides are being just a bit "disingenuous" with the points and anecdotal evidence. .

and if you read my post you'll see that I fly a stabilized glide path to the MDA and make one power adjustment to hold that if the field is not in sight immediately...CANPA doesn't give me the permission to stop and look...nope. When you hit you min (higher than an ILS) you go missed, when it could take a second to see the off center runway coming out of the haze just prior to VDP.

I am a very conservative pilot...I always did my best to follow the pink and white pages...and I'm no cowboy.
Speaking about experts and company policy:
At OO they have airports where the FO cannot fly...Captain only. I asked at recurrent once if I haven't been to an airport and my FO has a bunch, can I have him fly and monitor?
No
I said, in our QRH, in an emergency it is advisable that the Captain hands the controls to the FO and handles the emergency because then the CA will have a greater SA monitoring...
He said, "correct"
I said, wouldn't I have a greater SA as PM going into these "difficult" airports as well?

He said, that's just the way we do it. So I did it that way, but that doesn't mean it was the smartest way, just the way the "experts" decided. They couldn't even resolve that question...which is why I don't just take things at face value

Lots of analysis has gone into this. You're stating what you think or what your opinion is of the most risky maneuver. People have been paid to analyze this...

 

[Dugie8]

Well, I never flew freight and only flew a Dash8 (not a real mans TP) so I'll just take my ball and go home.

 

[derg]

There's no driving around on a CANPA as its treated as a DA. You hit DA, see nothing and you're out of there.

 

[Bumblebee]

There's no driving around on a CANPA as its treated as a DA. You hit DA, see nothing and you're out of there.

do you get lower mins?

 

[dasleben]

do you get lower mins?

No, same mins, and we actually add 50' to keep from sinking below MDA on the missed.

 

[Bumblebee]

wow... that's what I was remembering (dredging up the discussion on where the jet was and what was likely coming).

thanks

 

[derg]

do you get lower mins?

Nah, it's got to says "DA Approved" and have some other stipulations or we're using a DDA (derived decision altitude) which is higher than the standard MDA. (+50' at SouthernJets)

 

[PhilosopherPilot]

I fully understand that outcomes don't direct or inform safety, and this is every-bit the straw man argument that others were accusing Boris of.
this kind of comment is exactly what you don't like about what Boris was saying...you make this outrageous assumption with no basis in fact and then use it to support your argument. I still believe that I mitigated risk, rather than assumed more risk.

.

I might agree with you if this were my opinion, but this is instead industry standard safety concept.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

wow... that's what I was remembering (dredging up the discussion on where the jet was and what was likely coming).

thanks

This has been foisted upon the Brasilia as well; sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. (No vertical navigation.)