How not to fly an instrument approach to mins

That looked like me playing Microsoft Flight Simulator.

I am learning IFR. (This guy shows how not to do it. He’s right, I’m learning from him.)
(1) Was it “legal”? I saw no runway when I heard “minimums”. Assuming no.
(2) Is there typically some lag time in the GPS annunciation vs DA/MDA? Or do you go missed as soon as you hear that? I’m guessing it’s just an aid and the altimeter must rule the day.
(3) Personal mins - I get it in VFR flying. On an IFR approach, do people set their own higher minimums (greater than DA/DH), or is this “considered” bad practice, leading to deteriorating of skills, and unable to eventually pass an IPC or check-ride? I could see someone saying “if you can get comfortable with breaking out at 200 ft DA in actual, then you have no business flying IFR or holding an instrument ticket”. Or is my impression wrong?

I wonder why FAA hasn’t investigated (maybe they are).
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
(3) Personal mins - I get it in VFR flying. On an IFR approach, do people set their own higher minimums (greater than DA/DH), or is this “considered” bad practice, leading to deteriorating of skills, and unable to eventually pass an IPC or check-ride? I could see someone saying “if you can get comfortable with breaking out at 200 ft DA in actual, then you have no business flying IFR or holding an instrument ticket”. Or is my impression wrong?
Click to expand...
You are asking one of the great debates in aviation, so this is just my opinion:

Yes, personal minimums have a place in IFR. Actually more so than in VFR flying because the choices are greater.

For example, although it is quite legal, I am not going to depart in zero-zero weather. In fact, I am not going to depart IFR at all unless the weather at my departure airport is at least at my approach personal minimums in in the case of trouble (or there is a suitable takeoff alternate). I am also not going to takeoff into convective activity. And,although when I train, I train to be proficient going down to published minimums if I have to, I am no longer either perfect or invulnerable and choose not to head somewhere unless the weather is forecast to be above my personal minimums for an approach, which are somewhat higher than published. I'm also not going to fly in severe turbulence or if the crosswind components at my departure or destination are not acceptable.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
That looked like me playing Microsoft Flight Simulator.

I am learning IFR. (This guy shows how not to do it. He’s right, I’m learning from him.)
(1) Was it “legal”? I saw no runway when I heard “minimums”. Assuming no.
(2) Is there typically some lag time in the GPS annunciation vs DA/MDA? Or do you go missed as soon as you hear that? I’m guessing it’s just an aid and the altimeter must rule the day.
(3) Personal mins - I get it in VFR flying. On an IFR approach, do people set their own higher minimums (greater than DA/DH), or is this “considered” bad practice, leading to deteriorating of skills, and unable to eventually pass an IPC or check-ride? I could see someone saying “if you can get comfortable with breaking out at 200 ft DA in actual, then you have no business flying IFR or holding an instrument ticket”. Or is my impression wrong?

I wonder why FAA hasn’t investigated (maybe they are).
Click to expand...
1. You can descend below DA/MDA if you see a number of things such as runway lights, markings, approach lights, etc but you don’t actually need to see the runway to descend below the DA/MDA.
2. You look at your altimeter or your timing. When you hit either one and don’t see anything that lets you continue (runway markings, approach lights, etc) you go missed
3. Personal mins like not feeling comfortable shooting an approach down to mins is not good IMO. And it’s not about having a macho attitude. You are instrument rated, you need to comfortable flying the approach down to the charted minimums if need be.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
That looked like me playing Microsoft Flight Simulator.

I am learning IFR. (This guy shows how not to do it. He’s right, I’m learning from him.)
(1) Was it “legal”? I saw no runway when I heard “minimums”. Assuming no.
Click to expand...

As @jordane93 said, there are a number of things that you can see that allow you to descend below minimums, including runway lights/approach lights. So for example, last weekend I initiated an approach at CXO when they were advertising 1/8SM FG. I knew I wasn't going to get in - but I had lots of fuel and I wanted to do it for the practice of shooting a real ILS to mins to a missed. Good opportunity since I wasn't in a hurry and had extra fuel.

Mins on the approach were 200 AGL. Upon reaching mins, I saw approach lights, so I continued. At 100 AGL there was no runway there (although I did see the runway lights), so I executed the missed.

In his situation, I would say that he busted mins. He called the runway about 50 ft below mins, and that's also about when it showed up on the video. There is an inherent lag in the human brain between saying internally "It's time to go missed" and actually going missed, and theoretically he was within that. However I think he had made the decision that he was going to land and that he was going to see the runway, so I don't think he had any intention of going missed. This is a really bad idea - you should always plan for the missed, and be surprised when you see the runway.

(2) Is there typically some lag time in the GPS annunciation vs DA/MDA? Or do you go missed as soon as you hear that? I’m guessing it’s just an aid and the altimeter must rule the day.
Click to expand...

The annunciation was from the G600, which is tied to the baro altimeter. I went and looked at the approach, watched that segment of the video a few times. The G600 behaved exactly as it should - it announced "MINIMUMS" at minimums. He then went down another 50 ft or so before calling the runway.

Keep in mind that, because he was so far above the glide slope, he was hitting minimums a lot closer to the runway than he should have. This has all kinds of bad ramifications, especially on a 3500 ft runway.

(3) Personal mins - I get it in VFR flying. On an IFR approach, do people set their own higher minimums (greater than DA/DH), or is this “considered” bad practice, leading to deteriorating of skills, and unable to eventually pass an IPC or check-ride? I could see someone saying “if you can get comfortable with breaking out at 200 ft DA in actual, then you have no business flying IFR or holding an instrument ticket”. Or is my impression wrong?
Click to expand...

There are lots of different ways to look at this. My opinion on personal minimums is that they should be applied in terms of conditions at departure and forecast conditions at arrival, with understanding about alternate options. You should be comfortable flying an approach to minimums, but you can also make no-go decisions and backup plans if things look like they won't work out in your favor.

Using the trip to CXO last weekend that resulted in a missed approach and a diversion, I knew it was likely going to be an approach to mins, but there were viable alternates nearby (lots of airports in the Houston area). So I had my filed legal alternate, but also knew that when I got down there I'd keep an eye on conditions at other fields and decide where to go. If I'd wanted to avoid a low approach altogether, then I could've just not gone.
 
jordane93 said:
1. You can descend below DA/MDA if you see a number of things such as runway lights, markings, approach lights, etc but you don’t actually need to see the runway to descend below the DA/MDA.
Click to expand...

Yup, the "runway environment"
 
asicer said:
His syn vis had a FPM. Center the course, keep the FPM painted over the runway and the needles should have remained frozen. Looks like he did it in the wrong order (put the FPM over the airport before centering the course).
Click to expand...

That is still improper technique. The needles are what you should be looking at first. If your autopilot drives a flight director, that's also correct.

The FPM and synthetic vision are aids to situational awareness - they are not intended to be primary navigation aids.
 
Funny Bryan gets a dime dropped on him for nothing yet this guy flys like an ass and post it all over the internet. Go figure.
 
I dunno...
The approach light system, threshold, threshold marking, threshold lights, runway end identifier lights, visual glideslope indicator, touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings, touchdown zone lights, runway or runway markings, and runway lights all certainly sound like they are in/part of the "runway environment" to me, and "runway environment" is a whole hell of a lot quicker to type.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That is still improper technique. The needles are what you should be looking at first. If your autopilot drives a flight director, that's also correct.

The FPM and synthetic vision are aids to situational awareness - they are not intended to be primary navigation aids.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. I wasn't advocating that the needles be ignored after everything is set up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
He still has to have the required flight visibility for the approach to go below DA as well. In this vid, even though he mentions he’s got 1/2 mile flight vis, there’s no way he’s got it. OAK was reporting 1200 RVR which went to 1000 during the approach. You can see in the nose cam at the end, when he tries to say “got the runway” he’s just prior to the 3 light approach light and passing over Airport Drive. That’s less than 1/4 mile off the runway or about the 1000-1200 RVR that tower is reporting.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxGjm4p2paQEhuyuVp_woDA

Also I see he likes to do the circle off the IAP to 33 into OAK but doesn’t request it with approach. The clearance for the circle needs to be included in the clearance for the IAP. It’s just not something to request with tower after you bust out below the ceiling. The circle, while a visual maneuver the aircraft is still IFR and needs to be protected for in case of missed on the other runway

 
Last edited:
Not sure what happened to the above attachment but here’s the one I was referencing with 1/2 mile vis.

 
MauleSkinner said:
Except that "runway environment" was removed from the reg 45 years ago since some pilots believed that the Golden Arches were part of the "runway environment ".
Click to expand...

Makes sense, as my CFI/II was an old crusty bugger.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
As @jordane93 said, there are a number of things that you can see that allow you to descend below minimums, including runway lights/approach lights. So for example, last weekend I initiated an approach at CXO when they were advertising 1/8SM FG. I knew I wasn't going to get in - but I had lots of fuel and I wanted to do it for the practice of shooting a real ILS to mins to a missed. Good opportunity since I wasn't in a hurry and had extra fuel.

Mins on the approach were 200 AGL. Upon reaching mins, I saw approach lights, so I continued. At 100 AGL there was no runway there (although I did see the runway lights), so I executed the missed.
Click to expand...

If you saw the runway lights, why go missed? You'd have been legal to land. 91.175(c)(3)(x). (Yes, I had to look it up to be sure, because I assumed you had it right. :) )
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If you saw the runway lights, why go missed? You'd have been legal to land. 91.175(c)(3)(x). (Yes, I had to look it up to be sure, because I assumed you had it right. :) )
Click to expand...

There lacked the flight visibility. Other than the lights, there just weren't no runway there.

I wish I'd had a video going for that.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If you saw the runway lights, why go missed? You'd have been legal to land. 91.175(c)(3)(x). (Yes, I had to look it up to be sure, because I assumed you had it right. :) )
Click to expand...
As @Ted DuPuis said, it's it's about the 1/2 mile visibility required to complete the approach. The approach will get you to 200 AGL:; the lights will get you to 100 AGL, but you still need to see that 1/2 mile.

What I will say in Jerry's defense (sort of) is that a GoPro lens is not necessarily the most accurate representation of what they eyes can see in marginal visual conditions, so it's certainly possible he saw enough.

Unless one flies in these conditions a lot, gauging visibility is an issue. But there are clues for pilots who do, including the runway markings and the lights themselves.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
I dunno...
The approach light system, threshold, threshold marking, threshold lights, runway end identifier lights, visual glideslope indicator, touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings, touchdown zone lights, runway or runway markings, and runway lights all certainly sound like they are in/part of the "runway environment" to me, and "runway environment" is a whole hell of a lot quicker to type.
Click to expand...
And, of course, it's always best to use terminology that has been specifically excluded from the context. Eliminates confusion. ;)
 
I also noticed on his foggy flight into OAK he edited it at the end so you couldn’t time from when he saw the runway until passing over it. Doesn’t matter though. At his edited 10 secs from sight to crossing runway end and 120 kts GS, that’s 2,000 ft. In reality, it looked like he took 7 seconds from runway sight to passing over it. That’s 1,400 ft and corresponds with the Airport Drive road and tower reported 1200 RVR. So there’s no way he’s got 1/2 mile vis on that approach.

He seems to relish in the fact that he’s the only one getting in there and NORCAL thought he’d go missed. Yeah, if you break the rules and don’t abide by mins, it’s understandable that you’re the only one getting in there.
 
MauleSkinner said:
And, of course, it's always best to use terminology that has been specifically excluded from the context. Eliminates confusion. ;)
Click to expand...
Maybe we need an acronym for everything that makes up the runway environment. :D
 
I am trying to not be critical, but I am supercritical of myself, and thus can’t help but see so many “mistakes” and feel embarrassed and at the same time concerned for him.

Yep, I make mistakes. I’m afraid of making them, but then more afraid of gradually becoming accepting of a lower standard, and just getting sloppier over time.

There are multiple issues at multiple levels. Radio, airplane control/handling, procedures, attitude, etc. Not sure at this advanced stage how and who would save this guy and his friends/family from the ultimate grief.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
I am trying to not be critical, but I am supercritical of myself, and thus can’t help but see so many “mistakes” and feel embarrassed and at the same time concerned for him.

Yep, I make mistakes. I’m afraid of making them, but then more afraid of gradually becoming accepting of a lower standard, and just getting sloppier over time.

There are multiple issues at multiple levels. Radio, airplane control/handling, procedures, attitude, etc. Not sure at this advanced stage how and who would save this guy and his friends/family from the ultimate grief.
Click to expand...

The problem with this guy is as Ted said, he’s behind the airplane. He’s behind the airplane and he’s making mental lapses in judgment with an over confidence in his flying. Bad combo that will only get worse with time. Right now the tech is saving his bacon but all it will take is setting up his AP wrong with a lack of awareness and disaster will strike.
 
On something with vertical guideance (ILS, LPV, etc..) you go missed when she says minimums and you don't already have the environment.
If you're on a regular non-precision approach, you just don't descend below the minimum descent altitude (catchy why it is called that). You don't need to go missed until you hit the missed approach point (another catchy name).
 
Velocity173 said:
The problem with this guy is as Ted said, he’s behind the airplane. He’s behind the airplane and he’s making mental lapses in judgment with an over confidence in his flying. Bad combo that will only get worse with time. Right now the tech is saving his bacon but all it will take is setting up his AP wrong with a lack of awareness and disaster will strike.
Click to expand...

The one correction I'll make is that the shiny tech gadgets are pretty new to him. If you look at his old videos in his 320 and then originally in the 414, he had crappy old panels. He put a good sum of money into the panel on the 414 to add the G600 TXi and the GTN 750, plus I think he threw some other things in. It's a shame that he doesn't use them.

Getting in when nobody else is usually means you're busting minimums, and in this case that's what I personally say he's doing. Sometimes you've got individual pilot skill (needles properly centered, etc.), general luck in the clouds, and I've seen slower aircraft sometimes do better just because they have more time.

His videos show none of those reasons for getting in when others aren't. If I were the CFII, he would not get a sign off for, well, anything. But really I just wouldn't get in a plane with the guy.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The one correction I'll make is that the shiny tech gadgets are pretty new to him. If you look at his old videos in his 320 and then originally in the 414, he had crappy old panels. He put a good sum of money into the panel on the 414 to add the G600 TXi and the GTN 750, plus I think he threw some other things in. It's a shame that he doesn't use them.

Getting in when nobody else is usually means you're busting minimums, and in this case that's what I personally say he's doing. Sometimes you've got individual pilot skill (needles properly centered, etc.), general luck in the clouds, and I've seen slower aircraft sometimes do better just because they have more time.

His videos show none of those reasons for getting in when others aren't. If I were the CFII, he would not get a sign off for, well, anything. But really I just wouldn't get in a plane with the guy.
Click to expand...
There is one potential one. Jerry's plan vanilla Part 91. The discussion with ATC suggests others were likely certificate operators who were not even permitted to try.
 
Mooney Fan said:
Why was he high again?
Click to expand...
On this specific one or in general?

In general, Jerry is behind the airplane when IFR. So when his autopilot doesn't capture the lateral or vertical guidance, he is extremely slow to react and is chasing altitude, airspeed, direction... It's a common theme.
 
midlifeflyer said:
There is one potential one. Jerry's plan vanilla Part 91. The discussion with ATC suggests others were likely certificate operators who were not even permitted to try.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. You're correct, that could be the difference.

Martin Pauly said:
I ordered my T-shirt last night. I can't take credit for any of the creative work - others here and on BeechTalk did that. Still, I thought it would be cool to actually have this shirt!

View attachment 72103
Click to expand...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That's hilarious
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
the thing is....with GPS why would anyone "need" to chase a needle? It's dirt simple to fly to the runway over the course line.....I guess getting the slam dunk is his fault for poor vertical management. But even that is much easier with good situational awareness.
Click to expand...

GPS can definitely lead to chasing. Heading and VSI should be the primary. Looking at the moving map too much is a common cause of chasing.
 
All joking aside, since this thread has a pretty serious background. I don't know if Jerry reads PoA, but...

Jerry, if you read this: Many have said, here on PoA and on other forums, that we want to help improve what we feel strongly is a situation with high risk of an accident. To add to this, here is my offer: if you agree to take a few hours of ground and flight instruction, I will personally pay for your instructor's time. You can contact me here on PoA, through a personal message on BeechTalk, or on reddit (u/Martin_Pauly) and we'll work out the details.
 
Seriously though, I do admire this guys ability to stay calm in a crisis.

However, I would be more impressed if I thought he realized he was in crisis. I think he’s calm because he honestly doesn’t see a problem.
 
In the video of his ridiculous bank and dive to 33, did anybody else think he was also dangerously close to the high building before the airport, or am I just being a wussy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top