121 wx to shoot approach prior to final fix

[profile]

Other parts of the world have different procedures, some include ceiling requirements at some airfields. They are hardly "antiquated", in fact, in many respects, it is the U.S. that needs to catch up in both facilities and procedures.

 

[bafanguy]

Well, Profile, you're right..."antiquated" is not the right word. The US did, at one time, require ceilings if I remember correctly but changed to the visibility criterion so long ago I'd have to dig for the date. You caught me in an unconscious display Amerocentrism ( just made that up, pretty good, huh ? ).


As for going back to ceiling requirements in the US, don't know...I think our current system gives the crew more say-so. For example, if the required viz for the approach is OK, but you know the ceiling is so low there's no chance ( or in your judgement as PIC there's no chance ) of seeing enough to land, you just don't make the approach. If, though, due to irregular cloud bases, transient precip, fill in your own reasons, you think that even though the ceiling is lower than MDA/DA you feel there's a reasonable chance of making a safe approach and seeing something anyway, you have the legal option of trying the approach ( how's that for a runon sentence ? ). Being stuck with a ceiling requirement removes the exercise of your judgement and experience as PIC.

Just a thought.

 

[SkyWestCRJPilot]

I agree with everything said here. Visibility is the only limiting factor. But regarding the ceiling on nonprecision approaches, every time I've gone missed approach was when the visibility was met but the ceiling was below the MDA. I tried to get in but couldn't. In the future I will still continue to try to get in when the visibility allows but from my experience when the ceiling is below the MDA I have never gotten in. Something to consider.

 

[bafanguy]

Skywest,

I'm not surprised at your experience with ceilings below MDA, but at least you had the option to shoot/not shoot the approaches. Your "front line" feel/judgement for a situation is probably better than some FAA lawyer who writes FAR's.

 

[profile]

I would say that the "vis only" requirement was pushed more by the operators than the pilots. I doubt it was ALPA that pushed for that, I would guess it was ATA driven, with the associated implications. It might be true that it gives the PIC more options, but also means that the Capt is put in a position of explaining his/her actions if he/she decides not to fly the approach when all the weather is ok except the ceiling.

 

[bafanguy]

Profile,


THAT sort of thing would depend on who you work for, I guess. The people I flew for ( 3 very different companies ) never once, to my knowledge, questioned the captain's decision in ops-related issues. And two of the companies were very small so we WOULD have heard about it. Only insane/stupid management would pressure pilots into doing things they weren't comfortable with...an accident is a lot more "inconvenient" than the occasional diversion because the captain felt an approach ( for any reason ) wasn't wise.

I know you'll say there ARE managements out there who WILL/DO pressure people. I'm just talking about pure operational considerations...not the labor/management side of it.

If one has to explain his actions, "so be it" as we say in some companies.

 

[profile]

I doubt any of the larger companies would push the issue either, I know mine wouldn't, but I think that I wasn't that clear on my thoughts on the matter. More accurately, I think the pilots would push themselves. I think most pilots tend to try to fly an approach that's legal to fly. An example is the published demonstrated x-wind numbers. Those aren't published as limitations, and, as a result, I've watched pilots at virtually all the major carriers operate in winds in excess of them.

My company does treat them as hard limitations, our performance computer will just show the winds as out of limits and that's the end of it. I sat in CDG one night, unable to fly with the winds, while all the other carriers (except UAL at the time, the only other carrier that had the "hard limit", others may now, I don't know) were all operating in and out. I know they were operating in winds in excess of the demonstrated numbers because I had flown the types of aircraft they were operating that night, and the numbers are manufacturer numbers, not company driven.

I think the ceiling is the same, no limit, so pilots tend to try to do it, just as part 91 operators often fly approaches with the reported vis below mins -- with statistically higher tragic results.

 

[ThomasR]

Precision Approach

I am not going to defend by original yes or no answers because it is debatable what the actual Wx would be at arrival.

But if you are only non-precision equipt I consider a Wx report suggesting vis below minimums as a good reason to go to the alternate and leave the approachs clear for those with precision approach equipment. I personally don't like holding with thousands of tons flying around above and below me over the same spot. I don't like the idea that people go IMC for practice. And when in icing conditions you might not have a choice whether to land or not and someone holding up the approach on the off chance they can make it on an NDB approach might mean your brand new ILS equipment gets you only to pancakeville.

 

[100LL... Again!]

I mean this in the nicest possible way, but ThomasR, you do not sound that confident in anyone's skills. Your own or theirs. What's up?

100 & 1/2 is no big deal if you are prepared for it. (ILS, of course)

Non-precision? Little trickier, but not too bad.

Point is ,we get paid to get it done, and if it doable, we do it. The pilot must have complete confidence in his/her skills, of course.

 

[ThomasR]

I mean this in the nicest possible way, but ThomasR, you do not sound that confident in anyone's skills. Your own or theirs. What's up?

100 & 1/2 is no big deal if you are prepared for it. (ILS, of course)

Non-precision? Little trickier, but not too bad.

Point is ,we get paid to get it done, and if it doable, we do it. The pilot must have complete confidence in his/her skills, of course.

Don't have a problem with skills or getting the job done; just need to set a limit as to when to leave it and go to the alternate. I fly mostly helicopters and I flew in Michigan wx which means ice and lots of it. It buids in a blink and you can't get it off the aircraft. It can jam your controls, knock out your ratios, over gross your aircraft, destroy visibility or kill your engine. We lost a Million Dollar cessna one winter coming back from a Chicago charter. Wings booted ice fine but on final the wind shield froze over. We emptied the anti freeze trying to clear forward vision. We hit the runway center line on an ILS backcourse one of us looking out the side for the runway and the other on instruments. We difted after touch down and hit the snow bank from the plows clearing the runway.

Helicopters don't have any anti icing equipment. If the blades sling ice unevenly you get a sever lateral vibration that is impossible to handle.
As far as flying near jumbo jets in a helicopter; it is suicide. The vortex from a jet liner will knock a helicoper out of the sky. If it does not knock it inverted it can push it out of altitude at least a thousand feet easily. I am willing to go IMC and I am good in IFR weather; but I don't like it and if there is anyway I can avoid it I will. Small aircraft and ice

I have always admired those big aircraft and I enjoy being able to converse with some of you that fly them, but I am just a little guy trying to keep out of the way from being crunched.

 

[pilotyip]

Standard 121 ILS mins 4000 RVR

Standard ILS minimums for 121 air carrier without Op Spec C54 is 4000 RVR. 121 flt crews are not authorized to go below 4000 RVR unless they are trained to lower than standard minimums under the provisions of Op Spec C54 and 15% must be added to the LFL if using lower than standard minimums.

 

[vclean]

Standard ILS mins are 1/2 mile, 2400 RVR.

 

[bafanguy]

pilotyip is correct. This issue is governed by Ops Specs under 121. The 4000RVR(3/4 mile) is called Basic Turbojet Minima ( and includes a 200' HAT...used to be 250' many years ago ). There are additional requirements for 121 crews to be able to use anything lower but it's not an issue since training/dispatch programs take care of the legal mumbo-jumbo and you don't really run up against it.


Our Ops Specs said: "The Pilot-in-Command must be specifically qualified and authorized to use minima below RVR 4000 or 3/4 mile visibility".

There is the requirement for the additional runway as pilotyip said AND our Ops Specs also require precision instrument runway markings OR CL to operate below RVR 4000. This last one would only come up when the CL's are OTS and/or there is construction/repaving under way leaving no precision markings. MLB was like this for a long time as the runway (9-27, I think ) was extended, resurfaced, or whatever they were doing to it at the time.

There will most likely be some variations in Ops Specs from one company to another so yours may not require all the same stuff as ours. But, RVR 4000 as Basic Turbojet Minima is likely something basic to FAA Master Ops Specs as would come into play at your 121 company. It's just not normally a player.

 

[aroundtheblock]

Remember that these are all predicated on different mins. At US Air, for example, if you had to circle weather had to be at least a ceiling 1000 and vis of 3 miles as per op specs.

 

[bafanguy]

atb,


Yeah, it's interesting to see that there are differences between airlines ops specs when they fly the same airplanes into the same airports under the same regs.