The FAA requires, used to require, an asymmetric limited panel non precision approach, and some examiners may require a limited panel ILS but I have only had to demonstrate the non precision. A limited panel, asymmetric ILS to minima for real might be interesting.
My FAA checkride was almost wholly partial panel. Hard work, but then I was flying 2x a day for the previous 2 weeks so was very current.
placido wrote:
Interesting technical exchanges but I wonder how much of the OP question about what is going on in ones head when approaching minimums has been answered in 7 pages.
You make a good point. Other than remaining stable, in the last 100-200 ft I am usually mentally reviewing the critical steps in the missed approach for me. The exact sequence is aircraft dependant but it is always arresting descent, climb power to establish climb, lose drag, get some lateral and eventually vertical guidance.
Placido, hopefully you are totally focused on ensuring you are stable, on the localiser and glideslope and counting down to minima. Your training should emphasize going around at DA if the ALS and runway environment is not clear at DA. Some may have the capacity to have some Proustian moments but I think the overwhelming majority will just have enough capacity for the task at hand.
The FAA requires, used to require, an asymmetric limited panel non precision approach, and some examiners may require a limited panel ILS but I have only had to demonstrate the non precision. A limited panel, asymmetric ILS to minima for real might be interesting.
Interesting technical exchanges but I wonder how much of the OP question about what is going on in ones head when approaching minimums has been answered in 7 pages.
Dave_Phillips wrote:
Looking at this from the other side, what information are you deriving from your HSI below DA?
Needles crossed in the middle, just the same as above DA.
As I keep saying, I have seen too, too many people push forward at 200’ in poor visibility. I am not sure if it’s psychological (“there’s the ground, just what I’ve been looking for, I really want to embrace it like a long lost friend”) or perceptual (ie your eyes are fooled by what you see into thinking you are too high), but I think it’s more the former than the latter.
Getting your head back inside just ensures that you remain stable until you have really good reference, including, critically, PAPI.
This, I believe, is one of the reasons that RNAV MAPs are set at the threshold rather than at DA, so that the HSI keeps driving you towards the destination, as it would on an ILS.
Timothy wrote:
But that is for Cat II. Is there a similar document for Cat I?
No, the limitations on Cat I are about barometric altimetry errors and the reliability of the ILS beam. The capability of the pilot to land the aircraft manually using visual reference is what, in essence, limits Cat II.
No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that on a CAT 1 approach linked with the minimum prescribed RVR for that approach you should see more than enough of the approach lighting environment to continue visually.
Looking at this from the other side, what information are you deriving from your HSI below DA?
Dave,
NCO.OP.210 says:
The approach may be continued below DA/H or MDA/H and the landing may be completed provided that the visual reference adequate for the type of approach operation and for the intended runway is established at the DA/H or MDA/H and is maintained.
I think that only means that if you lose the lights you have to go around. I don’t think that it says that you have personally to think that the safest way to fly from 200’ to 100’ is visually, even if it’s possible. Indeed, I have seen enough people screw that up (as, I am sure, have you) both on real aeroplanes and sims to know that doing it on instruments is more reliable and safer.
Are you saying that if you are doing a Cat 1 approach to minima (550m and 200’) and what you can see at 200’ is three consecutive centreline lights and a crossbar (which I always understood to be the minimum), you would go around, or are you saying that you would use that reference visually as soon as you saw it, and not monitor the HSI?
RW20 try
AMC1 CAT.OP.MPA.305(e)
AMC1 NCC.OP.230
AMC1 NCO.OP.210
Take your pick, depending upon your type of operation.
Timothy, why would there be, unless you’re on a LTS Cat I approach? The very requirement of 550/800RVR minima says that you should have enough elements of the approach lights to continue the approach. If you are fortunate enough to have LTS approval down to an RVR of no less than 400m on a CATI the following criteria apply at DA:
At DH, the visual references specified below should be distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:
(1) a segment of at least three consecutive lights, being the centreline of the approach lights, or touchdown zone lights, or runway centreline lights, or runway edge lights, or a combination of these; and
(2) this visual reference should include a lateral element of the ground pattern, such as an approach light crossbar or the landing threshold or a barrette of the touchdown zone light unless the operation is conducted utilising an approved HUDLS usable to at least 150 ft.
