Minimums?

[Brian[_5_]]

While watching a lot of landing videos and whatnot, I hear "minimums"
called out as an aircraft approaches its landing field.

From what I've been told, "minimums" indicates the decision as to
whether or not the field is in sight, correct?

so if minimums are not met, go around? Am I right in assuming this?

[Jackal24]

Brian > wrote in news:6818594d-f834-40c6-bd59-
:

> While watching a lot of landing videos and whatnot, I hear "minimums"
> called out as an aircraft approaches its landing field.
>
> From what I've been told, "minimums" indicates the decision as to
> whether or not the field is in sight, correct?
>
> so if minimums are not met, go around? Am I right in assuming this?
>

Correct on all points.

[F. Baum]

On Jan 9, 3:01*pm, Brian > wrote:
> While watching a lot of landing videos and whatnot, I hear "minimums"
> called out as an aircraft approaches its landing field.

Brian, who is calling "minimums" ? This is typically done on a two
pilot crew when the PM makes an "Appoaching Minimums" and "Minimums"
callouts. On newer planes this is done automatically according to
where the minimums bug is set (Usually referenced to RA).
>
> From what I've been told, "minimums" indicates the decision as to
> whether or not the field is in sight, correct?

The term "Minimums" in this case refers to the DH or DA (Depending on
the type of approach). The runway environment must be insight by the
time a pilot reaches minimums (Which is the MAP on many approaches).
>
> so if minimums are not met, go around? Am I right in assuming this?

For part 91 ops, you only need to have the required inflight
visibility.
Frank

[bertie_the_bunyip]

"F. Baum" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 9, 3:01 pm, Brian > wrote:
> While watching a lot of landing videos and whatnot, I hear "minimums"
> called out as an aircraft approaches its landing field.

Brian, who is calling "minimums" ? This is typically done on a two
pilot crew when the PM makes an "Appoaching Minimums" and "Minimums"
callouts. On newer planes this is done automatically according to
where the minimums bug is set (Usually referenced to RA).
>
> From what I've been told, "minimums" indicates the decision as to
> whether or not the field is in sight, correct?

The term "Minimums" in this case refers to the DH or DA (Depending on
the type of approach). The runway environment must be insight by the
time a pilot reaches minimums (Which is the MAP on many approaches).
>
> so if minimums are not met, go around? Am I right in assuming this?

For part 91 ops, you only need to have the required inflight
visibility.
Frank
Nope Fjuckwit


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"bertie_the_bunyip" > wrote in
:

>
> "F. Baum" > wrote in message
> news:7998221d-0b08-442e-8cea-1f2ab9a7b772
@c4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 9, 3:01 pm, Brian > wrote:
>> While watching a lot of landing videos and whatnot, I hear "minimums"
>> called out as an aircraft approaches its landing field.
>
> Brian, who is calling "minimums" ? This is typically done on a two
> pilot crew when the PM makes an "Appoaching Minimums" and "Minimums"
> callouts. On newer planes this is done automatically according to
> where the minimums bug is set (Usually referenced to RA).
>>
>> From what I've been told, "minimums" indicates the decision as to
>> whether or not the field is in sight, correct?
>
> The term "Minimums" in this case refers to the DH or DA (Depending on
> the type of approach). The runway environment must be insight by the
> time a pilot reaches minimums (Which is the MAP on many approaches).
>>
>> so if minimums are not met, go around? Am I right in assuming this?
>
> For part 91 ops, you only need to have the required inflight
> visibility.
> Frank
> Nope Fjuckwit
>
>
> Bertie
>

Whoowh!

Hi!

Spelled Fjukkwit BTW.

Do you know where I left my socks? I can't find them anywhere.


Bertie also
>

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 10, 7:20*am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> On Jan 9, 3:01*pm, Brian > wrote:
>
> > While watching a lot of landing videos and whatnot, I hear "minimums"
> > called out as an aircraft approaches its landing field.
>
> Brian, who is calling "minimums" ? This is typically done on a two
> pilot crew when the PM makes an "Appoaching Minimums" and "Minimums"
> callouts. On newer planes this is done automatically according to
> where the minimums bug is set (Usually referenced to RA).

The newer Boeings may call "minimums" from the approach set in the
FMS.

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:e59d55d7-f173-4703-956b-
:

> On Jan 10, 7:20*am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
>> On Jan 9, 3:01*pm, Brian > wrote:
>>
>> > While watching a lot of landing videos and whatnot, I hear "minimums"
>> > called out as an aircraft approaches its landing field.
>>
>> Brian, who is calling "minimums" ? This is typically done on a two
>> pilot crew when the PM makes an "Appoaching Minimums" and "Minimums"
>> callouts. On newer planes this is done automatically according to
>> where the minimums bug is set (Usually referenced to RA).
>
> The newer Boeings may call "minimums" from the approach set in the
> FMS.
>

Nope,. they call it off the rad alt.


Bertie

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jan 10, 9:53*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:e59d55d7-f173-4703-956b-
> :
>
> > On Jan 10, 7:20*am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> >> On Jan 9, 3:01*pm, Brian > wrote:
>
> >> > While watching a lot of landing videos and whatnot, I hear "minimums"
> >> > called out as an aircraft approaches its landing field.
>
> >> Brian, who is calling "minimums" ? This is typically done on a two
> >> pilot crew when the PM makes an "Appoaching Minimums" and "Minimums"
> >> callouts. On newer planes this is done automatically according to
> >> where the minimums bug is set (Usually referenced to RA).
>
> > The newer Boeings may call "minimums" from the approach set in the
> > FMS.
>
> Nope,. they call it off the rad alt.

Is it always 200 feet or is it based on the approach though?

-Robert

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jan 10, 9:53*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
>> news:e59d55d7-f173-4703-956b-
>
>> :
>>
>> > On Jan 10, 7:20*am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
>> >> On Jan 9, 3:01*pm, Brian > wrote:
>>
>> >> > While watching a lot of landing videos and whatnot, I hear
>> >> > "minimums"
>
>> >> > called out as an aircraft approaches its landing field.
>>
>> >> Brian, who is calling "minimums" ? This is typically done on a two
>> >> pilot crew when the PM makes an "Appoaching Minimums" and
>> >> "Minimums" callouts. On newer planes this is done automatically
>> >> according to where the minimums bug is set (Usually referenced to
>> >> RA).
>>
>> > The newer Boeings may call "minimums" from the approach set in the
>> > FMS.
>>
>> Nope,. they call it off the rad alt.
>
> Is it always 200 feet or is it based on the approach though?


You set it to the DH. It's usually used for Cat II or III aproaches,
Yosemite Sam. You can set it to any rad alt height you like up to as
high as it will go. Our's goes from-20 ( we set it to minus if there is
no DH at all, like on a Cat IIIB) or to whatever it is. Could be 15
feet, 50 feet, 100 feet, whatever is specified for the approach. If the
WX isn't really bad, we don't set it at all, but some airplanes set it
as a matter of course.


Bertie
>

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:20:40 -0800 (PST), "F. Baum" >
wrote:

>On Jan 9, 3:01*pm, Brian > wrote:
>> While watching a lot of landing videos and whatnot, I hear "minimums"
>> called out as an aircraft approaches its landing field.
>
>Brian, who is calling "minimums" ? This is typically done on a two
>pilot crew when the PM makes an "Appoaching Minimums" and "Minimums"
>callouts. On newer planes this is done automatically according to
>where the minimums bug is set (Usually referenced to RA).

Or by certain altitude alerters in some autopilots, I can get an alert
from the 66X.

>> From what I've been told, "minimums" indicates the decision as to
>> whether or not the field is in sight, correct?
>
> The term "Minimums" in this case refers to the DH or DA (Depending on
>the type of approach). The runway environment must be insight by the
>time a pilot reaches minimums (Which is the MAP on many approaches).
>>
>> so if minimums are not met, go around? Am I right in assuming this?
>
>For part 91 ops, you only need to have the required inflight
>visibility.

Don't you have to have ceiling and visibility, or at least the laundry
list from 91.175(c)(3)(i) to proceed to 100' ATDZE? I'm thinking
airport in a valley with fog yet you're at the DH and still above the
layer.

[F. Baum]

On Jan 10, 2:04*pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
>
> >For part 91 ops, you only need to have the required inflight
> >visibility.
>
> Don't you have to have ceiling and visibility, or at least the laundry
> list from 91.175(c)(3)(i) to proceed to 100' ATDZE? *I'm thinking
> airport in a valley with fog yet you're at the DH and still above the
> layer.

Pete, In the USA ceiling is not a requirement. I dont do part 91 IFR
stuff very often, but as I recall you can still go down and have a
look no mater what the WX is reporting.
Frank

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:31:08 -0800 (PST), "F. Baum" >
wrote:

>On Jan 10, 2:04*pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
>>
>> >For part 91 ops, you only need to have the required inflight
>> >visibility.
>>
>> Don't you have to have ceiling and visibility, or at least the laundry
>> list from 91.175(c)(3)(i) to proceed to 100' ATDZE? *I'm thinking
>> airport in a valley with fog yet you're at the DH and still above the
>> layer.
>
>Pete, In the USA ceiling is not a requirement. I dont do part 91 IFR
>stuff very often, but as I recall you can still go down and have a
>look no mater what the WX is reporting.

Unlike part 121 and 131, under part 91 you can go ahead and initiate
an approach with the airport reporting under minimums, but isn't, say,
200/1 a ceiling and visibility requirement?

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:33:32 -0500, Peter Clark
> wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:31:08 -0800 (PST), "F. Baum" >
>wrote:
>
>>On Jan 10, 2:04*pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
>>>
>>> >For part 91 ops, you only need to have the required inflight
>>> >visibility.
>>>
>>> Don't you have to have ceiling and visibility, or at least the laundry
>>> list from 91.175(c)(3)(i) to proceed to 100' ATDZE? *I'm thinking
>>> airport in a valley with fog yet you're at the DH and still above the
>>> layer.
>>
>>Pete, In the USA ceiling is not a requirement. I dont do part 91 IFR
>>stuff very often, but as I recall you can still go down and have a
>>look no mater what the WX is reporting.
>
>Unlike part 121 and 131, under part 91 you can go ahead and initiate
>an approach with the airport reporting under minimums, but isn't, say,
>200/1 a ceiling and visibility requirement?

Oops, correction, part 135.

[F. Baum]

On Jan 10, 2:33*pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
>
> Unlike part 121 and 131, under part 91 you can go ahead and initiate
> an approach with the airport reporting under minimums, but isn't, say,
> 200/1 a ceiling and visibility requirement?

I think the 200 is just denoting the HAT or HAA for a non precision
approach.

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:53:20 -0800 (PST), "F. Baum" >
wrote:

>On Jan 10, 2:33*pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
>>
>> Unlike part 121 and 131, under part 91 you can go ahead and initiate
>> an approach with the airport reporting under minimums, but isn't, say,
>> 200/1 a ceiling and visibility requirement?
>
>I think the 200 is just denoting the HAT or HAA for a non precision
>approach.

At which point you either need to be under the ceiling and have 1SM
visibility, or are you saying that at 200' AGL I can be looking at the
top of a 100' layer with 10SM visibility, descend through it, and land
even though I don't have the required items from 91.175?

OK. Hmm. Open FAR..

(c) Operation below DH or MDA. Where a DH or MDA is applicable, no
pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the
United States, at any airport below the authorized MDA or continue an
approach below the authorized DH unless --

(1) The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to
a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of
descent using normal maneuvers, and for operations conducted under
part 121 or part 135 unless that descent rate will allow touchdown to
occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing;

(2) The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed
in the standard instrument approach being used; and

(3) Except for a Category II or Category III approach where any
necessary visual reference requirements are specified by the
Administrator, at least one of the following visual references for the
intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:

(i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend
below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach
lights as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side
row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable.

(ii) The threshold.

(iii) The threshold markings.

(iv) The threshold lights.

(v) The runway end identifier lights.

(vi) The visual approach slope indicator.

(vii) The touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings.

(viii) The touchdown zone lights.

(ix) The runway or runway markings.

(x) The runway lights.

OK, 'ceiling' isn't listed. But effectively the 200 becomes a
ceiling, if you're over an undercast or fog layer you can't see the
visual references regardless of visibility, and if you're at the DH
and are still in the clouds you don't have the flight visibility.

[Bob Gardner]

Your logic is impeccable, but the FAA took "ceiling" out of the equation
back in the 60's.

Bob Gardner

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:53:20 -0800 (PST), "F. Baum" >
> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 10, 2:33 pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
>>>
>>> Unlike part 121 and 131, under part 91 you can go ahead and initiate
>>> an approach with the airport reporting under minimums, but isn't, say,
>>> 200/1 a ceiling and visibility requirement?
>>
>>I think the 200 is just denoting the HAT or HAA for a non precision
>>approach.
>
> At which point you either need to be under the ceiling and have 1SM
> visibility, or are you saying that at 200' AGL I can be looking at the
> top of a 100' layer with 10SM visibility, descend through it, and land
> even though I don't have the required items from 91.175?
>
> OK. Hmm. Open FAR..
>
> (c) Operation below DH or MDA. Where a DH or MDA is applicable, no
> pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the
> United States, at any airport below the authorized MDA or continue an
> approach below the authorized DH unless --
>
> (1) The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to
> a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of
> descent using normal maneuvers, and for operations conducted under
> part 121 or part 135 unless that descent rate will allow touchdown to
> occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing;
>
> (2) The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed
> in the standard instrument approach being used; and
>
> (3) Except for a Category II or Category III approach where any
> necessary visual reference requirements are specified by the
> Administrator, at least one of the following visual references for the
> intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:
>
> (i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend
> below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach
> lights as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side
> row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable.
>
> (ii) The threshold.
>
> (iii) The threshold markings.
>
> (iv) The threshold lights.
>
> (v) The runway end identifier lights.
>
> (vi) The visual approach slope indicator.
>
> (vii) The touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings.
>
> (viii) The touchdown zone lights.
>
> (ix) The runway or runway markings.
>
> (x) The runway lights.
>
> OK, 'ceiling' isn't listed. But effectively the 200 becomes a
> ceiling, if you're over an undercast or fog layer you can't see the
> visual references regardless of visibility, and if you're at the DH
> and are still in the clouds you don't have the flight visibility.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"F. Baum" > wrote in news:7a1f4dfd-626e-4cb5-a7fb-
:

> On Jan 10, 2:04*pm, Peter Clark
> > wrote:
>>
>> >For part 91 ops, you only need to have the required inflight
>> >visibility.
>>
>> Don't you have to have ceiling and visibility, or at least the laundry
>> list from 91.175(c)(3)(i) to proceed to 100' ATDZE? *I'm thinking
>> airport in a valley with fog yet you're at the DH and still above the
>> layer.
>
> Pete, In the USA ceiling is not a requirement. I dont do part 91 IFR
> stuff very often, but as I recall you can still go down and have a
> look no mater what the WX is reporting.

Been ages since I did a 91 approach, but unless they've changed it you are
allowed to initiarte an approach in any wx you like and if you see what's
required at the MDA or DH you can land from it.
As opposed to our restriction of having to hve in excess of vis minima
prior to reaching the FAF or OM as the case may be. Once past that, you can
continue to DH if the reported vis is below minimums.
Ceiling is only factored for diversion unless I'm mistaken..

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Peter Clark > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:53:20 -0800 (PST), "F. Baum" >
> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 10, 2:33*pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
>>>
>>> Unlike part 121 and 131, under part 91 you can go ahead and initiate
>>> an approach with the airport reporting under minimums, but isn't,
say,
>>> 200/1 a ceiling and visibility requirement?
>>
>>I think the 200 is just denoting the HAT or HAA for a non precision
>>approach.
>
> At which point you either need to be under the ceiling and have 1SM
> visibility, or are you saying that at 200' AGL I can be looking at the
> top of a 100' layer with 10SM visibility, descend through it, and land
> even though I don't have the required items from 91.175?
>
> OK. Hmm. Open FAR..
>
> (c) Operation below DH or MDA. Where a DH or MDA is applicable, no
> pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the
> United States, at any airport below the authorized MDA or continue an
> approach below the authorized DH unless --
>
> (1) The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to
> a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of
> descent using normal maneuvers, and for operations conducted under
> part 121 or part 135 unless that descent rate will allow touchdown to
> occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing;
>
> (2) The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed
> in the standard instrument approach being used; and
>
> (3) Except for a Category II or Category III approach where any
> necessary visual reference requirements are specified by the
> Administrator, at least one of the following visual references for the
> intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:
>
> (i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend
> below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach
> lights as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side
> row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable.
>
> (ii) The threshold.
>
> (iii) The threshold markings.
>
> (iv) The threshold lights.
>
> (v) The runway end identifier lights.
>
> (vi) The visual approach slope indicator.
>
> (vii) The touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings.
>
> (viii) The touchdown zone lights.
>
> (ix) The runway or runway markings.
>
> (x) The runway lights.
>
> OK, 'ceiling' isn't listed. But effectively the 200 becomes a
> ceiling, if you're over an undercast or fog layer you can't see the
> visual references regardless of visibility, and if you're at the DH
> and are still in the clouds you don't have the flight visibility.


You can have the "ceiling" donw on the deck and still be able to see the
runway clearly in 1/4 mile. All you need is the runway environment in
sight to continue at that stage. It's both legal and do-able.


Bertie

[F. Baum]

On Jan 10, 3:01*pm, Peter Clark
> wrote:
>
> >I think the 200 is just denoting the HAT or HAA for a non precision
> >approach.
>
> At which point you either need to be under the ceiling and have 1SM
> visibility, or are you saying that at 200' AGL I can be looking at the
> top of a 100' layer with 10SM visibility, descend through it, and land
> even though I don't have the required items from 91.175?

Pete, You dont have to be "Under the ceiling". If you are asking me ,
all you need is the inflight visibility (For part 91 and cat1 part 121
you can determine this) and the approach lights at the DA to continue.
My point from the previous post was that the part 91 guys can depart
the FAF and have a look see if the reported vis is below mins.
>
> OK. Hmm. *Open FAR..
>
>
> OK, 'ceiling' isn't listed. *But effectively the 200 becomes a
> ceiling,

Thanks for posting the FAR. If you take a look at how ceiling is
measured, it becomes pretty much meaningless as far as minimums are
considered. This is why it is not a requirement or everyone would be
busting mins all the time.

FB

[Tina]

On Jan 9, 5:01*pm, Brian > wrote:
> While watching a lot of landing videos and whatnot, I hear "minimums"
> called out as an aircraft approaches its landing field.
>
> From what I've been told, "minimums" indicates the decision as to
> whether or not the field is in sight, correct?
>
> so if minimums are not met, go around? Am I right in assuming this?

[Tina]

Opps, sent a blank message.

Someone may have already pointed this out, if so, sorry for the
duplication, Brian, if one is flying a precision instrument approach,
like an ILS, that has a glideslope, when one arrives at 'minimums' the
runway environement must be is sight if the landing is to be
continued. It would not be uncommon for ILS minimum altitude to be
200 feet above ground, so there aren't too many seconds left to decend
that last 200 feet. See the runway or fly the missed approach.


There are other kinds of approaches, called non precision approaches.
These take you you to the vicinity of the airport for circling
approaches, or near the approach end of the runway, but do not give
altitude information. What happens with these is the airplane passes
over a final approach fix, which is some form of radio derived point,
and then the approach documentation permits the airplane to decend to
a fixed altitude. At that point it will have reached minimiums, but
the pilot in general will depend on a clock and airspeed estimates to
tell when (s)he should be over the airport. (S)he does NOT have fly
the missed approach when the airplane reaches the minimum altitude
permitted by the approach, but when the estimated position is close to
the airport. Think of a small airport in a flat region near the coast.
If the approach is from the water siide it might be reasonable for the
airplane to go down to 500 feet two NM from the airport, then continue
flying toward it for another minute (if speed over the bottom is120
kts), before flying the miss.

Sorry if this is all redundant.


> While watching a lot of landing videos and whatnot, I hear "minimums"
> called out as an aircraft approaches its landing field.
>
> From what I've been told, "minimums" indicates the decision as to
> whether or not the field is in sight, correct?
>
> so if minimums are not met, go around? Am I right in assuming this?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Airbus > wrote in
:

> In article
> >,
> says...
>>
>>
>>Opps, sent a blank message.
>>
>>Someone may have already pointed this out, if so, sorry for the
>>duplication, Brian, if one is flying a precision instrument approach,
>>like an ILS, that has a glideslope, when one arrives at 'minimums' the
>>runway environement must be is sight if the landing is to be
>>continued. It would not be uncommon for ILS minimum altitude to be
>>200 feet above ground, so there aren't too many seconds left to decend
>>that last 200 feet. See the runway or fly the missed approach.
>>
>>
>>There are other kinds of approaches, called non precision approaches.
>>These take you you to the vicinity of the airport for circling
>>approaches, or near the approach end of the runway, but do not give
>>altitude information. What happens with these is the airplane passes
>>over a final approach fix, which is some form of radio derived point,
>>and then the approach documentation permits the airplane to decend to
>>a fixed altitude. At that point it will have reached minimiums, but
>>the pilot in general will depend on a clock and airspeed estimates to
>>tell when (s)he should be over the airport. (S)he does NOT have fly
>>the missed approach when the airplane reaches the minimum altitude
>>permitted by the approach, but when the estimated position is close to
>>the airport. Think of a small airport in a flat region near the coast.
>>If the approach is from the water siide it might be reasonable for the
>>airplane to go down to 500 feet two NM from the airport, then continue
>>flying toward it for another minute (if speed over the bottom is120
>>kts), before flying the miss.
>>
>>Sorry if this is all redundant.
>>
>
> Not necessarily redundant, but somewhat incorrect.
> No obligation that the MDA and the MAP be close to each other, as you
> suggest. Some pilots do try to descend progressively to arrive at the
> MDA at or near the MAP, but others "dive and drive" losing altitude
> first, then driving forward to the MAP. At the MAP, if one of the
> visual items on the list is not in continuous view, (s)he MUST
> initiate the missed approach. The missed approach may be initiated in
> advance by climbing straight ahead, but no turns may be initiated
> until reaching the MAP.
>
>


Yes, but not everywhere. The Brits regard MDA as a decision altitude.
They also don't allow a dive and drive type approach.

Bertie

[Tina]

I think you my have been just a little misleading. We surely agree
the missed approach may not be flown until at the MAP, but of course
the pilot is under no obligation to descend to the minimum allowable
altitude. The slightly misleading point is a miss may not include an
initial turn. Should the pilot choose to abort the landing early (s)he
can climb. I am not sure, but would expect the pilot owns the airspace
up to the altitiude of his/her final approach fix until the missed
approach point is reached (unless cleared higher, of course), and then
owns the altitudes published on the approach plate for the miss.

Finally, and it might be interest to the intial poster, good pilots
who are flying an instrument approach
are thinking about flying the miss -- initial heading, gear up, adjust
flaps, climb to altitude, all of that-- rather than landing the
airplane. Finding the runway, which happens nearly all of the time, is
treated as a happy accident. The alternative, thinking about the
landing and not the miss, could leave someone low and slow in clouds
trying to figure out what to do next. That can lead to unhappy
accidents.

Please feel free to correct errors or other misleading statements I've
made.


turnOn Jan 11, 11:07*pm, Airbus > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Opps, sent a blank message.
>
> >Someone may have already pointed this out, if so, sorry for the
> >duplication, Brian, if one is flying a precision instrument approach,
> >like an ILS, that has a glideslope, when one arrives at 'minimums' the
> >runway environement must be is sight if the landing is to be
> >continued. It would not be uncommon for ILS minimum altitude *to be
> >200 feet above ground, so there aren't too many seconds left to decend
> >that last 200 feet. See the runway or fly the missed approach.
>
> >There are other kinds of approaches, called non precision *approaches.
> >These take you you to the vicinity of the airport for circling
> >approaches, or near the approach end of the runway, but do not give
> >altitude information. What happens with these is the airplane passes
> >over a final approach fix, which is some form of radio derived point,
> >and then the approach documentation permits the airplane to decend to
> >a fixed altitude. At that point it will have reached minimiums, but
> >the pilot in general will depend on a clock and airspeed estimates to
> >tell when (s)he should be over the airport. (S)he does NOT have fly
> >the missed approach when the airplane reaches the minimum altitude
> >permitted by the approach, but when the estimated position is close to
> >the airport. Think of a small airport in a flat region near the coast.
> >If the approach is from the water siide it might be reasonable for the
> >airplane to go down to 500 feet two NM from the airport, then continue
> >flying toward it for another minute (if speed over the bottom is120
> >kts), before flying the miss.
>
> >Sorry if this is all redundant.
>
> Not necessarily redundant, but somewhat incorrect.
> No obligation that the MDA and the MAP be close to each other, as you
> suggest. Some pilots do try to descend progressively to arrive at the MDA
> at or near the MAP, but others "dive and drive" losing altitude first,
> then driving forward to the MAP. At the MAP, if one of the visual items
> on the list is not in continuous view, (s)he MUST initiate the missed
> approach. The missed approach may be initiated in advance by climbing
> straight ahead, but no turns may be initiated until reaching the MAP.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[F. Baum]

On Jan 11, 9:12*pm, Airbus > wrote:
>
> >> so if minimums are not met, go around? Am I right in assuming this?
>
> >For part 91 ops, you only need to have the required inflight
> >visibility.
>
> Hmmm - I'm wondering if maybe that didn't come out they way you meant it.
> The only thing special about Part 91 is that you can initiate the
> approach without being sure of having minimum requirements at the end of
> it. But when you do get down to DA or DH, you need more than in-flight
> visibility - you must continuously see one of the items on that list and
> be in a position to land normally - otherwise you go missed.- Hide quoted text -
>
Hmmmm- Thats exactly the way I meant it. There are plenty of
differences between 91 and 121 and in the context of the original
post, this is what I was trying to point out.
Frank

[Tina]

It's interesting that you find most pilots expect to land. The guy I
fly with (aka husband) briefs himself and me on the miss before
reaching the final approach fix every time -- it's part of his
checklist, I think just before extending the gear at the outer marker.
Lots of redundancy on that check list, too -- how many times can you
extend the gear on an approach anyway? (yeah, yeah, I know.)




On Jan 12, 1:15*am, Airbus > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >I think you my have been just a little misleading. We surely agree
> >the *missed approach may not be flown until at the MAP, but of course
> >the pilot is under no obligation to descend to the minimum allowable
> >altitude. The slightly misleading point is a miss may not include an
> >initial turn. Should the pilot choose to abort the landing early (s)he
> >can climb. I am not sure, but would expect the pilot owns the airspace
> >up to the altitiude of his/her final approach fix until the missed
> >approach point is reached (unless cleared higher, of course), and then
> >owns the altitudes published on the approach plate for the miss.
>
> >Finally, and it might be interest to the intial poster, good pilots
> >who are flying an instrument approach
> >are thinking about flying the miss -- initial heading, gear up, adjust
> >flaps, climb to altitude, all of that-- rather than landing the
> >airplane. Finding the runway, which happens nearly all of the time, is
> >treated as a happy accident. The alternative, thinking about the
> >landing and not the miss, could leave someone low and slow in clouds
> >trying to figure out what to do next. That can lead to unhappy
> >accidents.
>
> That's an excellent point - oft taught, oft forgot! It just goes against our
> nature. All pilots I know - good or otherwise - are expecting to land. The
> controllers are expecting it too. But at least - even if you're expecting to
> land, at least prepare for the missed - know it, brief it, set up frequencies
> for it *- *otherwise going missed can coincide with going missing (sometimes
> for years!!)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:03:39 -0800 (PST), Tina >
wrote:

>It's interesting that you find most pilots expect to land. The guy I
>fly with (aka husband) briefs himself and me on the miss before
>reaching the final approach fix every time

So do we, but we still expect to land.

If it's obvious that I'm not landing, I'm already off to the
alternate.

[Tina]

We make a weather induced miss about every 400 hours flying in the
north east and south east, most often on non precision approaches at
uncontrolled airports. These are mostly business related flights
scheduled some time in advance (about 10% of those planned flights are
cancelled because of weather and at least a third include IMC). I
can't remember the last time it happened on an ILS. Your statement
makes it sound like a more common occurance for you. What is your
experience?


On Jan 11, 6:05*pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:03:39 -0800 (PST), Tina >
> wrote:
>
> >It's interesting that you find most pilots expect to land. The guy I
> >fly with (aka husband) briefs himself and me on the miss before
> >reaching the final approach fix every time
>
> So do we, but we still expect to land.
>
> If it's obvious that I'm not landing, I'm already off to the
> alternate.

[Tina]

A weather induced miss every 400 hours is a very low fraction. It
usually means the weather forecast for an uncontrolled airport was
better than actual. On a non precision approach, unless there were
strong hints -- peeks of the of ground during the day or lights at
night near the MAP, or (can I say this?) an approach not flown well,
not to his personal minimums, husband goes elsewhere. He may have
flown a second approach once in the past 4 years (he logs about 200
hours of complex sel (a Mooney) a year.

He had to search his memory to remember that level of detail --
remember, the airplane doesn't leave on about 10% of his planned
trips, so he avoids weather induced misses because if it looks like
it'll be below minimums he doesn't take off, or while on the way if
the controlled airport is reporting conditions worse than minimums he
won't take a peek even if as a part 91 operation he could.

I don't think he's doing anything a prudent pilot wouldn't do. Well,
IMC at night might be pushing that, I guess. He does say -- and this
might be something many do not agree with -- workload with a single
pilot just is not a big deal, especially if IFR. He says that, but if
I'm in the right seat the only thing he wants to hear me say when he's
flying an approach in IMC is "You are visual".



On Jan 12, 5:02 am, Airbus > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> says...
>
>
>
> >We make a weather induced miss about every 400 hours flying in the
> >north east and south east, most often on non precision approaches at
> >uncontrolled airports.
>
> That's a very intriguing number.
> At first glance, it looks like a high percentage. But normalized to the
> type of equipment, mission and approach you are typically flying it may
> not be. From accident reports, we all know that missed approaches are in
> the high-alert category for risk, however this again probably deserves to
> be normalized against they type of operation - go-arounds being possibly
> more common and better integrated in corporate 91 and 135 flights than in
> part 121 ops.
>
> The experience level you describe indicates you may have quite a few
> missed approaches in your log. For many of us, it's a fairly rare
> occurrence. Out of curiosity, what do you do, typically, in these cases?
> Do you go around to try again? Once? Twice? Try a different approach with
> lower minima? Go elsewhere? How do you handle the missed?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Tina > wrote in
:

> I think you my have been just a little misleading. We surely agree
> the missed approach may not be flown until at the MAP, but of course
> the pilot is under no obligation to descend to the minimum allowable
> altitude. The slightly misleading point is a miss may not include an
> initial turn. Should the pilot choose to abort the landing early (s)he
> can climb. I am not sure, but would expect the pilot owns the airspace
> up to the altitiude of his/her final approach fix until the missed
> approach point is reached (unless cleared higher, of course), and then
> owns the altitudes published on the approach plate for the miss.
>
> Finally, and it might be interest to the intial poster, good pilots
> who are flying an instrument approach
> are thinking about flying the miss -- initial heading, gear up, adjust
> flaps, climb to altitude, all of that-- rather than landing the
> airplane. Finding the runway, which happens nearly all of the time, is
> treated as a happy accident. The alternative, thinking about the
> landing and not the miss, could leave someone low and slow in clouds
> trying to figure out what to do next. That can lead to unhappy
> accidents.
>
> Please feel free to correct errors or other misleading statements I've
> made.
>

Nope, very good and absolutlely correct, especially the part about
preparing for the go-around.

Bertie

[Airbus[_3_]]

In article
>,
says...
>
>
>Opps, sent a blank message.
>
>Someone may have already pointed this out, if so, sorry for the
>duplication, Brian, if one is flying a precision instrument approach,
>like an ILS, that has a glideslope, when one arrives at 'minimums' the
>runway environement must be is sight if the landing is to be
>continued. It would not be uncommon for ILS minimum altitude to be
>200 feet above ground, so there aren't too many seconds left to decend
>that last 200 feet. See the runway or fly the missed approach.
>
>
>There are other kinds of approaches, called non precision approaches.
>These take you you to the vicinity of the airport for circling
>approaches, or near the approach end of the runway, but do not give
>altitude information. What happens with these is the airplane passes
>over a final approach fix, which is some form of radio derived point,
>and then the approach documentation permits the airplane to decend to
>a fixed altitude. At that point it will have reached minimiums, but
>the pilot in general will depend on a clock and airspeed estimates to
>tell when (s)he should be over the airport. (S)he does NOT have fly
>the missed approach when the airplane reaches the minimum altitude
>permitted by the approach, but when the estimated position is close to
>the airport. Think of a small airport in a flat region near the coast.
>If the approach is from the water siide it might be reasonable for the
>airplane to go down to 500 feet two NM from the airport, then continue
>flying toward it for another minute (if speed over the bottom is120
>kts), before flying the miss.
>
>Sorry if this is all redundant.
>

Not necessarily redundant, but somewhat incorrect.
No obligation that the MDA and the MAP be close to each other, as you
suggest. Some pilots do try to descend progressively to arrive at the MDA
at or near the MAP, but others "dive and drive" losing altitude first,
then driving forward to the MAP. At the MAP, if one of the visual items
on the list is not in continuous view, (s)he MUST initiate the missed
approach. The missed approach may be initiated in advance by climbing
straight ahead, but no turns may be initiated until reaching the MAP.

[Airbus[_3_]]

In article
>,
says...
>
>
>On Jan 9, 3:01*pm, Brian > wrote:
>> While watching a lot of landing videos and whatnot, I hear "minimums"
>> called out as an aircraft approaches its landing field.
>
>Brian, who is calling "minimums" ? This is typically done on a two
>pilot crew when the PM makes an "Appoaching Minimums" and "Minimums"
>callouts. On newer planes this is done automatically according to
>where the minimums bug is set (Usually referenced to RA).
>>
>> From what I've been told, "minimums" indicates the decision as to
>> whether or not the field is in sight, correct?
>
> The term "Minimums" in this case refers to the DH or DA (Depending on
>the type of approach). The runway environment must be insight by the
>time a pilot reaches minimums (Which is the MAP on many approaches).
>>
>> so if minimums are not met, go around? Am I right in assuming this?
>
>For part 91 ops, you only need to have the required inflight
>visibility.


Hmmm - I'm wondering if maybe that didn't come out they way you meant it.
The only thing special about Part 91 is that you can initiate the
approach without being sure of having minimum requirements at the end of
it. But when you do get down to DA or DH, you need more than in-flight
visibility - you must continuously see one of the items on that list and
be in a position to land normally - otherwise you go missed.

[Airbus[_3_]]

In article >,
says...
>
>
>I think you my have been just a little misleading. We surely agree
>the missed approach may not be flown until at the MAP, but of course
>the pilot is under no obligation to descend to the minimum allowable
>altitude. The slightly misleading point is a miss may not include an
>initial turn. Should the pilot choose to abort the landing early (s)he
>can climb. I am not sure, but would expect the pilot owns the airspace
>up to the altitiude of his/her final approach fix until the missed
>approach point is reached (unless cleared higher, of course), and then
>owns the altitudes published on the approach plate for the miss.
>
>Finally, and it might be interest to the intial poster, good pilots
>who are flying an instrument approach
>are thinking about flying the miss -- initial heading, gear up, adjust
>flaps, climb to altitude, all of that-- rather than landing the
>airplane. Finding the runway, which happens nearly all of the time, is
>treated as a happy accident. The alternative, thinking about the
>landing and not the miss, could leave someone low and slow in clouds
>trying to figure out what to do next. That can lead to unhappy
>accidents.
>

That's an excellent point - oft taught, oft forgot! It just goes against our
nature. All pilots I know - good or otherwise - are expecting to land. The
controllers are expecting it too. But at least - even if you're expecting to
land, at least prepare for the missed - know it, brief it, set up frequencies
for it - otherwise going missed can coincide with going missing (sometimes
for years!!)

[Airbus[_3_]]

In article
>,
says...
>
>
>We make a weather induced miss about every 400 hours flying in the
>north east and south east, most often on non precision approaches at
>uncontrolled airports.

That's a very intriguing number.
At first glance, it looks like a high percentage. But normalized to the
type of equipment, mission and approach you are typically flying it may
not be. From accident reports, we all know that missed approaches are in
the high-alert category for risk, however this again probably deserves to
be normalized against they type of operation - go-arounds being possibly
more common and better integrated in corporate 91 and 135 flights than in
part 121 ops.

The experience level you describe indicates you may have quite a few
missed approaches in your log. For many of us, it's a fairly rare
occurrence. Out of curiosity, what do you do, typically, in these cases?
Do you go around to try again? Once? Twice? Try a different approach with
lower minima? Go elsewhere? How do you handle the missed?

[Airbus[_3_]]

In article
>,
says...
>
>
>A weather induced miss every 400 hours is a very low fraction. It
>usually means the weather forecast for an uncontrolled airport was
>better than actual. On a non precision approach, unless there were
>strong hints -- peeks of the of ground during the day or lights at
>night near the MAP, or (can I say this?) an approach not flown well,
>not to his personal minimums, husband goes elsewhere. He may have
>flown a second approach once in the past 4 years (he logs about 200
>hours of complex sel (a Mooney) a year.
>
>He had to search his memory to remember that level of detail --
>remember, the airplane doesn't leave on about 10% of his planned
>trips, so he avoids weather induced misses because if it looks like
>it'll be below minimums he doesn't take off, or while on the way if
>the controlled airport is reporting conditions worse than minimums he
>won't take a peek even if as a part 91 operation he could.
>
>I don't think he's doing anything a prudent pilot wouldn't do. Well,
>IMC at night might be pushing that, I guess. He does say -- and this
>might be something many do not agree with -- workload with a single
>pilot just is not a big deal, especially if IFR. He says that, but if
>I'm in the right seat the only thing he wants to hear me say when he's
>flying an approach in IMC is "You are visual".
>
>

Nice post - sounds like fun.

IMC at night? Some feel that single-pilot IFR in IMC at night is an
inordinate risk. Others feel it's fine on the condition you know wher VFR
conditions exist, keep them in range, and plan how to get there with
everything on the blink except your whiskey compass.

Workload? IFR is much less work than VFR, as long as you are organized and
have a good autopilot. High workloads can happen when things go wrong.