transitioning from instruments to visual landing on final

[Gerald Sylvester]

I'm about 14 hours into my IFR training with 11 of those on the sim.
I had to go to LAS for work (non-aviation) for 3 weeks. I came back
and was dying to go flying. Well I expected the worst. I hadn't
flown a plane in nearly 2 months since I was working on the IFR stuff.
First time flying approaches in a plane. At night. I expectedt to be
near dead afterwards. According to my CFII, I would have been close
to the PTS standards. yea, it put a big smile on my face.

The biggest problem I had was going from the IFR part to the
visual on short final. The night time might have had something
to do with it but regardles I had a hard time adjusting. I presume
this is somewhat normal. Any words of wisdom?

Gerald

[Stan Gosnell]

Gerald Sylvester > wrote in
ink.net:

> The biggest problem I had was going from the IFR part to
> the visual on short final. The night time might have had
> something to do with it but regardles I had a hard time
> adjusting. I presume this is somewhat normal. Any words
> of wisdom?

About all I can say is be careful. This is a tough area. I'm
lucky enough to fly a dual-pilot aircraft, and my usual policy
is that the PF does the landing if we break out on the ILS at or
above 400'AGL, but the PNF, who is looking outside, does the
landing if we break out lower. It's just too difficult to make
the transition at lower altitudes, which can be as low as 100'.
Practice it a lot, with a safety pilot if possible. Proficiency
comes with practice, and instrument flying takes lots of
proficiency to be done safely.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 03 May 2004 05:22:04 GMT, Gerald Sylvester
> wrote:

>I'm about 14 hours into my IFR training with 11 of those on the sim.
>I had to go to LAS for work (non-aviation) for 3 weeks. I came back
>and was dying to go flying. Well I expected the worst. I hadn't
>flown a plane in nearly 2 months since I was working on the IFR stuff.
>First time flying approaches in a plane. At night. I expectedt to be
>near dead afterwards. According to my CFII, I would have been close
>to the PTS standards. yea, it put a big smile on my face.
>
>The biggest problem I had was going from the IFR part to the
>visual on short final. The night time might have had something
>to do with it but regardles I had a hard time adjusting. I presume
>this is somewhat normal. Any words of wisdom?
>
>Gerald
>
>
>

It is common. The "words of wisdom" are "practice, practice, practice"
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

[Michael]

Gerald Sylvester > wrote
> The biggest problem I had was going from the IFR part to the
> visual on short final.

I'm glad you recognize where the big issue is on the approach. See,
when you do them at night, especially if the visibility is less than
perfect, this becomes obvious. Keep doing them at night - doing it in
the daylight with good vis is no challenge, but doesn't prepare you to
shoot that ILS to less than a mile vis either.

> The night time might have had something
> to do with it but regardles I had a hard time adjusting. I presume
> this is somewhat normal. Any words of wisdom?

Yes, it's very normal. It's also not easy.

I suggest that even when you go visual at DH, you keep the instruments
in the scan. Learn to divide attention between visual and instrument
references. On an approach in very low vis (remember, as an
instrument rated pilot you might legally land with as little as 1800
RVR - less than half mile vis at ground level) you really should not
be fully off instruments until you flare.

If a VASI is available, use it.

Make your power reductions gradually, and don't forget to retrim as
you do. Realize that you don't get less busy when you acquire visual
references, you get MORE busy.

Practice. It will get better.

Michael

[Bob Gardner]

This is a weak spot for CFII's. Most will have students shoot approaches
down to MDA or DH and then go around, with no emphasis on transitioning to
VFR and landing. Their reasoning is that they can't take the time to taxi
back when they might be able to squeeze in just one more approach. Not good
real-world training. I have found ATC to be very accomodating, if you tell
them well in advance what you want to do.

Bob Gardner

"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I'm about 14 hours into my IFR training with 11 of those on the sim.
> I had to go to LAS for work (non-aviation) for 3 weeks. I came back
> and was dying to go flying. Well I expected the worst. I hadn't
> flown a plane in nearly 2 months since I was working on the IFR stuff.
> First time flying approaches in a plane. At night. I expectedt to be
> near dead afterwards. According to my CFII, I would have been close
> to the PTS standards. yea, it put a big smile on my face.
>
> The biggest problem I had was going from the IFR part to the
> visual on short final. The night time might have had something
> to do with it but regardles I had a hard time adjusting. I presume
> this is somewhat normal. Any words of wisdom?
>
> Gerald
>
>
>
>

[Roy Smith]

(Michael) wrote:
> I'm glad you recognize where the big issue is on the approach. See,
> when you do them at night, especially if the visibility is less than
> perfect, this becomes obvious.

Night is good practice, if only because there are so many ground lights
to confuse you. For example, on the ILS-16 at HPN, if you're a little
left of the localizer and correcting back to the right when you look up
at maybe a mile or two out, you'll see yourself perfectly lined up with
a line of white lights. The only problem is, it's not the approach
lights, it's I-684. The illusion that it's a runway is really hard to
fight if you've never seen it before.

You really need to stay on instruments until you're absolutely sure
you've identified the runway visually.

[John R Weiss]

"Gerald Sylvester" > wrote...
>
> The biggest problem I had was going from the IFR part to the
> visual on short final. The night time might have had something
> to do with it but regardles I had a hard time adjusting. I presume
> this is somewhat normal. Any words of wisdom?

The instrument-to-visual transition is indeed the hardest part of the
process for many/most people. Several things help:

On an ILS, be set up perfectly as soon as possible. When you first see
the runway, DO NOTHING -- the airplane will continue to fly the LOC and G/S!

After you see the runway, go back to the instruments. Avoid the urge to
"go visual" as soon as you can.

Take only peeks at the runway until you are over the threshold. Stay on
the instruments. Even when you "break out" at minimums, stay on the
instruments, except for those peeks. At 200' AGL, you still have 15-20
seconds of flying to do, and the flare takes less than the last 5 of those.

On a non-precision approach, plan a rate of descent to get yourself at
MDA at the VDP. If no VDP is on the approach plate, construct one using DME
or timing. If you "break out" approaching the MDA, DO NOTHING until you
have oriented yourself with the runway. Then make the easy heading
corrections to establish lineup (if on a VOR or ADF approach; should be
unnecessary on a LOC) while the airplane continues at the normal rate of
descent. At 400' AGL, you still have 30-40 seconds of flying to do; there
is seldom a rush to do anything RIGHT NOW.


Did I mention -- stay primarily on the instruments until over the threshold.
:-)

[John R Weiss]

"Stan Gosnell" <me@work> wrote...
>
> I'm
> lucky enough to fly a dual-pilot aircraft, and my usual policy
> is that the PF does the landing if we break out on the ILS at or
> above 400'AGL, but the PNF, who is looking outside, does the
> landing if we break out lower. It's just too difficult to make
> the transition at lower altitudes, which can be as low as 100'.

Dunno about that one...

Unless the PF is disoriented, transferring control to the PNF at the last
second may be even a riskier proposition. The PF has been actively flying
and has the current feel of the controls. He has unconsciously set the bias
in the trim that suits his techniques, which may be different from the
PNF's. The PF also has established his instrument scan, which he can
maintain until the flare or go-around; he will have been peeking out the
window regardless of his discipline, and will have no worse a situational
awareness than the PNF at first ground contact.

Of course, if your OpSpecs dictate that technique and it is practiced often,
it may work out for you. I wouldn't recommend it to a novice, though.

John Weiss
ATP, 747-400 F/O

[Matt Whiting]

Gerald Sylvester wrote:
> I'm about 14 hours into my IFR training with 11 of those on the sim.
> I had to go to LAS for work (non-aviation) for 3 weeks. I came back
> and was dying to go flying. Well I expected the worst. I hadn't
> flown a plane in nearly 2 months since I was working on the IFR stuff.
> First time flying approaches in a plane. At night. I expectedt to be
> near dead afterwards. According to my CFII, I would have been close
> to the PTS standards. yea, it put a big smile on my face.
>
> The biggest problem I had was going from the IFR part to the
> visual on short final. The night time might have had something
> to do with it but regardles I had a hard time adjusting. I presume
> this is somewhat normal. Any words of wisdom?
>
> Gerald

I was lucky and never found this to be a problem. I took most of my
training at night due to work obligations, but in retrospect this was
probably good as it makes flying in the daytime so much nicer! The only
problem I had in transitioning was when I didn't take the time to form a
mental image of what I would see. For example, let's say you are
crabbing 10 degrees to the right on final. If you mentally expect to
look 10 degrees left of the nose for the runway, then it all makes more
sense when you look out the window. One time I was on a real approach
into, I think, Lynchburg, VA, and I was holding something like 20
degrees of crab due to very strong wind. When I first broke out, I was
slightly disoriented as the runway wasn't where I expected it to be, but
I pretty quickly caught on to what was what. I now try to always think
through where the runway will be when I look up from the hood (or break
out of a real overcast) and I find the transition very painless.


Matt

[David Megginson]

Gerald Sylvester wrote:

> The biggest problem I had was going from the IFR part to the
> visual on short final. The night time might have had something
> to do with it but regardles I had a hard time adjusting. I presume
> this is somewhat normal. Any words of wisdom?

I wouldn't call this wisdom -- I got my rating only nine months ago -- but
for me, the important thing is not to muddle around. When you're IFR, you
want to be either on instruments (full scan) or visual (looking outside and
cross-checking instruments), but never halfway in-between.

The hood or foggles do a lousy job of showing what IFR flying is really
like. In real life, it's often a matter of flicking in and out of cloud
tops or cloud bottoms, alternating between IMC and VMC every few minutes or
even every few seconds. To pull that off, you have to imagine a virtual
switch in your brain between instrument flying and visual flying and flick
it back and forth as conditions change -- even say it out loud to yourself
if it helps.

Landing is just a special case of that problem. I find it useful to decide
in advance when I'm going to start looking for the runway (assuming the
weather is low enough for a full IAP rather than a visual approach). Until
I hit that time or altitude, I'm only on instruments; at the moment when I
hit my preselected point, I look up for the runway.

If I can see the runway clearly, I throw the virtual switch in my head to
"visual" and finish the landing; if not, I plan to stay on "instruments"
until the DH or MAP and then go missed (so far, I have not had to do a
missed approach -- my rule is never to start out unless my destination is
forecasting at least standard alternate minima).

Staring out the windshield saying "I can sort-of see the runway, but I still
need to sort-of follow the ILS and sort-of use the gyros to keep the plane
level" is probably not a good flying mode -- your "instruments/visual"
switch is stuck in the middle.

I hope that you enjoy your IFR training as much as I enjoyed mine last year
-- it can be frustrating sometimes, but it can also be a lot of fun, and it
made an enormous difference in the usefulness of my plane.


All the best, and good luck,


David

[Jim Baker]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:%tvlc.22953$I%1.1648156@attbi_s51...
> "Stan Gosnell" <me@work> wrote...
> >
> > I'm
> > lucky enough to fly a dual-pilot aircraft, and my usual policy
> > is that the PF does the landing if we break out on the ILS at or
> > above 400'AGL, but the PNF, who is looking outside, does the
> > landing if we break out lower. It's just too difficult to make
> > the transition at lower altitudes, which can be as low as 100'.
>
> Dunno about that one...
>
> Unless the PF is disoriented, transferring control to the PNF at the last
> second may be even a riskier proposition. The PF has been actively flying
> and has the current feel of the controls. He has unconsciously set the
bias
> in the trim that suits his techniques, which may be different from the
> PNF's. The PF also has established his instrument scan, which he can
> maintain until the flare or go-around; he will have been peeking out the
> window regardless of his discipline, and will have no worse a situational
> awareness than the PNF at first ground contact.
>
> Of course, if your OpSpecs dictate that technique and it is practiced
often,
> it may work out for you. I wouldn't recommend it to a novice, though.
>
> John Weiss
> ATP, 747-400 F/O
>
I agree about recommending it to a novice John, but in a well trained
cockpit, the transfer is not difficult. We did it both ways in the B-52 and
B-1B and it worked out if you knew who you were flying with and had
confidence in him (her). In those aircraft, there was nothing lower than a
DH of 200' authorized. I imagine you go much lower than that in the 74.

JB

[John R Weiss]

"Jim Baker" > wrote...
>
>> Unless the PF is disoriented, transferring control to the PNF at the last
>> second may be even a riskier proposition.
>
> I agree about recommending it to a novice John, but in a well trained
> cockpit, the transfer is not difficult. We did it both ways in the B-52
and
> B-1B and it worked out if you knew who you were flying with and had
> confidence in him (her). In those aircraft, there was nothing lower than
a
> DH of 200' authorized. I imagine you go much lower than that in the 74.

The "well trained cockpit" is the key here. If you fly as a dedicated crew
all the time, you can work out those things. For pilots who switch partners
virtually every leg, it's a much bigger problem.

I remember back in my Navy instructor days that we'd have to do all the
landings in the TA-4 during students' back-seat instrument flights. After a
while, I'd come to expect almost ANYTHING in the way of trim when I took it
at minimums (usually severe VMC in the front, though). The fact that I was
the Instrument Stan guy who "touched" virtually every student with problems
made it even more interesting... I got used to regular crews (B/Ns) in the
A-6, but landing from the right seat was not an approved procedure (though
occasionally practiced on big runways as a 'combat contingency').

Cat I minima still include 200' DH in the 744. Any Cat II or III landing is
Autoland. After a 12- or 14-hour overnight flight from LAX to Seoul,
though, I'm usually tempted to let Otto land if I don't see the runway at
400'. Our FHB gives us that latitude (brief the options on final), and it's
much preferable to a last-second change of control -- which is used almost
exclusively as a Captain's last-resort option when an FO is about to
ham-hand it.

[Stan Gosnell]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in
news:%tvlc.22953$I%1.1648156@attbi_s51:


> Unless the PF is disoriented, transferring control to the
> PNF at the last second may be even a riskier proposition.
> The PF has been actively flying and has the current feel of
> the controls. He has unconsciously set the bias in the
> trim that suits his techniques, which may be different from
> the PNF's. The PF also has established his instrument
> scan, which he can maintain until the flare or go-around;
> he will have been peeking out the window regardless of his
> discipline, and will have no worse a situational awareness
> than the PNF at first ground contact.
>
> Of course, if your OpSpecs dictate that technique and it is
> practiced often, it may work out for you. I wouldn't
> recommend it to a novice, though.

The ops specs leave it up to the captain. I usually fly with
one of 2 FOs, but sometimes with a new guy. My preference is to
have the FO fly the approach, and I will take the controls at
breakout if necessary, after monitoring the approach. I've had
a bad experience or two with the PF looking up, trying to get a
visual reference, and not being properly oriented right away.
We can cut the published visibility in half, down to 1/4 mile,
and Part 91 says you can continue to 100' above the TDZE if you
have the approach lights in sight. I've done that several
times, and always got the runway lights at about 110'. IMO,
that's too low to try to switch to visual, so it's safer to
transfer the controls, especially if it has been briefed and
practiced. A proper approach briefing, including transfer of
controls, is critical.

That's my preference, but your cockpit, your decision.

--
Regards,

Stan

[Stan Gosnell]

Roy Smith > wrote in
:

> Night is good practice, if only because there are so many
> ground lights to confuse you. For example, on the ILS-16
> at HPN, if you're a little left of the localizer and
> correcting back to the right when you look up at maybe a
> mile or two out, you'll see yourself perfectly lined up
> with a line of white lights. The only problem is, it's not
> the approach lights, it's I-684. The illusion that it's a
> runway is really hard to fight if you've never seen it
> before.
>
> You really need to stay on instruments until you're
> absolutely sure you've identified the runway visually.
>
Years ago - about 30, to be more precise - I used to fly
practice approaches to Paducah, KY at night. If you were just a
little off, you not only saw a row of lights, you had saw
sequenced strobe lights leading to them. The strobes were on a
very tall tower, and I'm mildly surprised that no one ever hit
it in the dark, thinking they were lined up for the runway. So
yes, stay on the instruments until short final.

--
Regards,

Stan

[[email protected]]

>
>
> That's my preference, but your cockpit, your decision.
>

It's been the air carrier "standard" since the mid-1980s to do monitored
approaches below a certain combination of reported ceiling and
visibility, and to encourage use of automatics whenever possible.

But, the single pilot guy in a light aircraft has a whole different set
of issues to deal with.

Nonetheless, a first rate autopilot with good ILS coupling and vertical
speed for IAPs other than ILS can end up making it work good, provided
the pilot is really proficient at the use of the auto-pilot, knows what
to monitor, and knows when to disconnect once the visual cues are
sufficient.

One size doesn't fit all.

Then again, only the most current and proficient pilot should be flying
an approach to RVR 2400, or so, where often no "break out" ever occurs.

[Michael]

David Megginson > wrote
> I wouldn't call this wisdom -- I got my rating only nine months ago -- but
> for me, the important thing is not to muddle around. When you're IFR, you
> want to be either on instruments (full scan) or visual (looking outside and
> cross-checking instruments), but never halfway in-between.

I could not disagree more strongly. The essence of flying a good
visual segment in low visibility is exactly the opposite of this - the
blending of visual and instrument references for aircraft control. If
you fly in low vis, especially at night, you will encounter situations
where neither will be sufficient.

> If I can see the runway clearly, I throw the virtual switch in my head to
> "visual" and finish the landing; if not, I plan to stay on "instruments"
> until the DH or MAP and then go missed (so far, I have not had to do a
> missed approach -- my rule is never to start out unless my destination is
> forecasting at least standard alternate minima).

I think you will discover that your method will not work on those days
when the conditions are iffy - ceiling within 100 ft of mins, and
flight visibility at MDA/DH of a mile or less (two miles or less for
night circling approaches).

> Staring out the windshield saying "I can sort-of see the runway, but I still
> need to sort-of follow the ILS and sort-of use the gyros to keep the plane
> level" is probably not a good flying mode

If you ever hope to land out of an ILS at 3000 RVR or less, it's the
only viable flying mode. People have driven the gear through the
wings of the airplane more than once because they transitioned to
visual references with visibility that was legally sufficient to
descend below DH but not sufficient to maintain precise control of the
airplane.

If you are at the 200 ft DH on an ILS and you can just barely make out
the line of approach lights through the fog or rain - what is your
plan? If you think you're going to be able to control the plane with
just that line, you need to think again. If you're going to miss
that's certainly your choice - but it's not necessary. You can go
down to 100 ft without seeing the runway. Even at 100 ft, if you spot
the VASI, the REIL's, or the red terminating bar (or anything else
listed in 91.175), you can land. It is literally quite possible and
legal (at least in the US - Canadian rules may differ) to not see the
lights until 220 ft, not see the REIL's until 150, not see the runway
itself until crossing the threshold at 60 ft or so, land, roll out,
and still not see the far end of the runway. BTDT.

Since alternate minimums are always at least 2 miles, I don't suppose
you're ever going to encounter these conditions - until the day the
forecast goes bust.

Michael

[Michael]

wrote
> But, the single pilot guy in a light aircraft has a whole different set
> of issues to deal with.

Yup. In fact, I've started to believe that what we (private operators
of IFR-capable airplanes) do is so different from what the airlines
do, that there is precious little for us to learn from the airline
procedures. They're so geared towards crew operations and equipment
that we don't have that they just don't translate well into a
single-pilot cockpit with typical GA equipment.

I learned multiengine flying from an airline captain, and he taught me
to fly as much like the airlines as possible. I suppose that wasn't a
bad thing, but I also wound up carrying a copilot around for many of
my early IFR flights, until I developed the proficiency AND altered my
procedures to where I could handle the workload single-pilot.

> Then again, only the most current and proficient pilot should be flying
> an approach to RVR 2400, or so, where often no "break out" ever occurs.

I've done it a few times (my lowest to 2000 RVR). Frankly, it's a
cakewalk compared to a circling-only NDB approach at night to a poorly
lit runway in 2 miles vis. Then again, it may have been the
airline-quality training I got that made it a cakewalk...

Michael

[John R Weiss]

"Michael" > wrote...
>
> Yup. In fact, I've started to believe that what we (private operators
> of IFR-capable airplanes) do is so different from what the airlines
> do, that there is precious little for us to learn from the airline
> procedures. They're so geared towards crew operations and equipment
> that we don't have that they just don't translate well into a
> single-pilot cockpit with typical GA equipment.

There may be a lot of differences between single-pilot and 2-pilot
operations, but a lot of "airline" concepts are very applicable/adaptable to
current "typical" GA equipment... I've flown IFR in GA, single- and
multi-pilot military, and [currently] airline aircraft; the basics remain
the same regardless of individual procedures.

These days, GPS is more typical than strange in GA, especially among
IFR-equipped airplanes, and most of them have more capability than airliner
installations! Once you get away from the very low end (IFR-equipped 172s
and 182s), you're likely to see a 2-axis autopilot as well. With these 2
pieces of equipment, you have the basics for adapting "airline procedures,"
with the GPS providing much of the navigation capability of an airliner's
FMS.

If you fly a high-end, 2-pilot GA airplane (cabin-class twin, turboprop, or
jet), you may well be trained using "airline procedures" by Flight Safety or
other professional training company. If you have a high-end
single-engine/single-pilot airplane, you may go for training, but the
procedures have been adapted for single-pilot use in lieu of the "crew
concept." Still, many of the concepts for reducing workload and increasing
situational awareness for the Pilot Flying in a 2-pilot cockpit are still
applicable to the lone pilot; he just has to shoulder the additional
workload of checklists, programming, and communication himself.

Further, those who have an IFR-certified GPS NEED to be "geared towards"
their equipment if they rely on it for IFR operations! These are not simple
boxes like a tune-'n'-fly ILS receiver! If you don't know the equipment, it
will "fail" you at the most inopportune moment!

[Roy Smith]

(Michael) wrote:
> Yup. In fact, I've started to believe that what we (private operators
> of IFR-capable airplanes) do is so different from what the airlines
> do, that there is precious little for us to learn from the airline
> procedures.

I don't know about that. I had the pleasure a while ago of checking out
a 737 pilot in our club's Archers. Not surprisingly, I learned a lot
more from him than he did from me.

The most illuminating thing was his attitude towards safety. Before our
first takeoff, he gave me a CRM briefing, including procedures for
positive exchange of controls. He told me that even though he had many
more hours and ratings than I did, I was more current in Archers and
more familiar with the local area, and thus if we had an emergency, he
would expect me to take charge.

Before each and every takeoff, he gave me a full briefing about what we
were about to do. This didn't just include procedures and airspeeds,
but a summary of wind conditions, nearby terrain, and a plan for
emergencies immediately after takeoff (taking wind and terrain into
account). Then he would ask me, "Do you have anything to add?"

Most of the guys I fly with want to just get in and go. I think we've
got a lot to learn from airline pilots. Maybe the specific procedures
don't translate well to spam cans, but the attitude should.

[David Megginson]

Michael wrote:

>>I wouldn't call this wisdom -- I got my rating only nine months ago -- but
>>for me, the important thing is not to muddle around. When you're IFR, you
>>want to be either on instruments (full scan) or visual (looking outside and
>>cross-checking instruments), but never halfway in-between.
>
> I could not disagree more strongly. The essence of flying a good
> visual segment in low visibility is exactly the opposite of this - the
> blending of visual and instrument references for aircraft control. If
> you fly in low vis, especially at night, you will encounter situations
> where neither will be sufficient.

Thanks for the feedback. I agree that it's especially important to
crosscheck your instruments when flying a visual approach -- even on a night
landing in clear VMC, I will tune in the ILS (when there is one) and glance
down every few seconds to make sure that I'm at or above the glidescope,
because the black hole effect is so dangerous. As I mentioned in my
original posting, cross-checking instruments is always a good idea.

Still, if you're not a freight dog struggling to survive at the bottom of
the aviation food chain, a medevac pilot with a dying patient, or a pilot in
an emergency with flames shooting out from under the cowling, why push down
below minima when you cannot see the runway clearly even if it is
technically legal (say, because you made out a few of the approach lights)?
Presumably, you have an alternate that you can fly to with much safer
landing conditions.

We seem to lose a lot of good, experienced IFR pilots to approaches in IMC,
both in Canada and the U.S., and I suspect that one of the reasons is
pushing too far when there's not a clear visual transition available. A few
weeks ago, I was out over Lake Ontario flying the LOC/DME B circling
approach into Toronto Island in very easy daylight IMC (1000 ft and 2 SM),
but I still couldn't help remembering the poor Baron pilot who died on the
same approach last year, simply disappearing into the lake while trying the
approach, even after the Dash-8 ahead of him had gone missed and returned to
Ottawa.

> Since alternate minimums are always at least 2 miles, I don't suppose
> you're ever going to encounter these conditions - until the day the
> forecast goes bust.

Standard alternate minima in Canada are 400 ft and 1 SM for an airport with
two usable ILS approaches -- in fact, those were the conditions during my
IFR flight test last August.


All the best,


David

[[email protected]]

Michael wrote:

> wrote
> > But, the single pilot guy in a light aircraft has a whole different set
> > of issues to deal with.
>
>
> I learned multiengine flying from an airline captain, and he taught me
> to fly as much like the airlines as possible. I suppose that wasn't a
> bad thing, but I also wound up carrying a copilot around for many of
> my early IFR flights, until I developed the proficiency AND altered my
> procedures to where I could handle the workload single-pilot.

That's sort of like teaching someone to be a cop without the benefit of the
support of the resources of the police department.

>
>
> > Then again, only the most current and proficient pilot should be flying
> > an approach to RVR 2400, or so, where often no "break out" ever occurs.
>
> I've done it a few times (my lowest to 2000 RVR). Frankly, it's a
> cakewalk compared to a circling-only NDB approach at night to a poorly
> lit runway in 2 miles vis. Then again, it may have been the
> airline-quality training I got that made it a cakewalk...

No doubt that an ILS is far safer than circle-to-land under almost any
conceivable circumstances.

[Michael]

David Megginson > wrote
> Still, if you're not a freight dog struggling to survive at the bottom of
> the aviation food chain, a medevac pilot with a dying patient, or a pilot in
> an emergency with flames shooting out from under the cowling, why push down
> below minima when you cannot see the runway clearly even if it is
> technically legal (say, because you made out a few of the approach lights)?

Because it's not just technically legal - it's entirely acceptable if
you use the right techniques - exactly the techniques you claim are a
bad idea. Also because diverting to the alternate means you didn't
get where you wanted to go when you wanted to be there. I think it
makes sense to maximize the utility of the airplane by flying to
published minima, rather than some higher minima required to
accomodate substandard flying technique.

> We seem to lose a lot of good, experienced IFR pilots to approaches in IMC,
> both in Canada and the U.S., and I suspect that one of the reasons is
> pushing too far when there's not a clear visual transition available.

I don't buy that in the least. I suspect the real reason we lose so
many is the abysmal quality of initial training and the almost
non-existent recurrent training, combined with a real lack of
understanding of what you can and can't do. Lack of a clear visual
transition is a fact of life when shooting approaches to visibility
minima.

Michael

[Michael]

"John R Weiss" > wrote
> There may be a lot of differences between single-pilot and 2-pilot
> operations, but a lot of "airline" concepts are very applicable/adaptable to
> current "typical" GA equipment... I've flown IFR in GA, single- and
> multi-pilot military, and [currently] airline aircraft; the basics remain
> the same regardless of individual procedures.

Well, when you get down to it the basics are always the same.
However, procedures optimized for a well-equipped crew-operated
aircraft may well be suboptimal for a single pilot private aircraft.

> These days, GPS is more typical than strange in GA, especially among
> IFR-equipped airplanes, and most of them have more capability than airliner
> installations! Once you get away from the very low end (IFR-equipped 172s
> and 182s), you're likely to see a 2-axis autopilot as well.

I don't have two-axis autopilot (no altitude hold), and neither do
most of my friends. BTW, I fly a twin and so do most of them.

There's also a huge difference between a copilot and an autopilot. A
copilot can be given the plane; an autopilot can't. GA autopilots are
all single-gyro dependent; none of them are immune from going hard
over on the controls in seconds if a gyro or an associated
curcuit/connection fails. I consider my autopilot to be the most
dangerous piece of equipment in the airplane, and normally will not
even turn it on in IMC. Mostly it's just a way to reduce workload and
let me rest on long boring segments.

> Further, those who have an IFR-certified GPS NEED to be "geared towards"
> their equipment

I agree. This is a big problem with IFR-certified GPS. The user
interfaces are highly constrained by FAA regulation. If one of my
programmers turned out something as klunky as a KLN-94 user interface,
I would fire him. Even the GNS-430 has more quirks than I am
comfortable with.

On the other hand, lots of handheld GPS units offer great
functionality with a user-friendly and pilot-intuitive user interface.

Michael

[Michael]

Roy Smith > wrote
> Most of the guys I fly with want to just get in and go. I think we've
> got a lot to learn from airline pilots. Maybe the specific procedures
> don't translate well to spam cans, but the attitude should.

It's the specific procedures I referred to - especially the handoff of
the airplane on an instrument approach that precipitated this. My
specific procedures for operating my airplane have evolved
substantially since I was trained in it. The operating philosophy has
remianed largely the same.

What you describe in terms of pretakeoff briefings and such is
contingency planning. It's not really so much a skill as it is an
attitude. I guess I don't recognize it as an airline attitude because
I was quite familiar with it long before I ever met any airline
pilots.

My first introduction to aviation was skydiving. My first 'flight'
was about four minutes - and was preceded by over five hours of ground
training. Most of that was emergency preparation, but a good chunk of
it was the plan for my flight under canopy - really a very low
performance glider - because that first flight would be solo.

In skydiving it is quite common to spend thirty minutes planning a
flight that might only take thirty seconds. It is equally common (or
was) to sit around at the end of the day, discuss the 'what might have
beens' and analyze the safety issues. This is largely absent from GA
flight training, and that's not a good thing, but I would hardly call
that 'airline procedure.'

Michael

[Matt Whiting]

Roy Smith wrote:
> (Michael) wrote:
>
>>Yup. In fact, I've started to believe that what we (private operators
>>of IFR-capable airplanes) do is so different from what the airlines
>>do, that there is precious little for us to learn from the airline
>>procedures.
>
>
> I don't know about that. I had the pleasure a while ago of checking out
> a 737 pilot in our club's Archers. Not surprisingly, I learned a lot
> more from him than he did from me.
>
> The most illuminating thing was his attitude towards safety. Before our
> first takeoff, he gave me a CRM briefing, including procedures for
> positive exchange of controls. He told me that even though he had many
> more hours and ratings than I did, I was more current in Archers and
> more familiar with the local area, and thus if we had an emergency, he
> would expect me to take charge.
>
> Before each and every takeoff, he gave me a full briefing about what we
> were about to do. This didn't just include procedures and airspeeds,
> but a summary of wind conditions, nearby terrain, and a plan for
> emergencies immediately after takeoff (taking wind and terrain into
> account). Then he would ask me, "Do you have anything to add?"
>
> Most of the guys I fly with want to just get in and go. I think we've
> got a lot to learn from airline pilots. Maybe the specific procedures
> don't translate well to spam cans, but the attitude should.

I learned to fly from an old-timer, but he did much the same thing. I
learned to fly at an airport that is surrounded by mostly unfriendly
terrain (N38, Grand Canyon State). Early on we discussed the "what
would you do if the engine failed RIGHT NOW" question at many stages of
departure and arrival. We didn't verbally brief it after a few hours of
instruction, but he expected me to have mentally briefed it and to have
the answer at hand as he quite often asked the "your engine just failed"
question, or pulled the throttle if we had safe altitude to do so.

To the best of my knowledge, he never flew anything larger than a light
twin, but he'd made something like 11 emergency landings after real
engine failures, and walked away from every one so I figured he knew
what he was talking about. If you wonder how he was so unlucky to have
had so many engine failures, I'd say it was two reasons:

1. He has something north of 50,000 hours of flight time and,
2. He delivered a lot of new airplanes (the most dangerous kind, he said)

Matt