Precision approach now breaking out

[poadeleted20]

To summarize your interpretation of the regs:
DH is associated with precision approaches
DA is the altimeter reading

MDA is associated with non-precision approaches

Neither of which you may decend below during any kind of approach if any 1 of 10 criteria are not met.

Is that correct?

All except the last, but that only in the very limited sense that you are permitted to sink below DH/DA while transitioning from descent to climb after having initiated the missed at DH/DA. In fact, some of the wide-body jets occastionally do a touch-and-go during a Cat II missed from 100 DH.

Also, we use DH/DA on LPV and LNAV/VNAV approaches, which technically are not precision approaches even if we treat them as though they were for all except stanard alternate minimum issues.

So, two nits to pick, but you have the general idea.

 

[poadeleted20]

I guess that is a matter of opinion, because I don't believe that it is. Depends on how you interpret the word "continue". If I look up at DH and see nothing, I execute a missed approach. If I descend a tad below DH, I am not CONTINUING, I am in the process of executing the missed approach. And I do not believe that is a violation.

Executing the missed is not "continuing the approach." Failing to execute the missed at DH is "continuing the approach." If you reach DH without having already met the requirements to continue the approach below DH, and you do not immediately initiate a missed (i.e., you delay that to look up and try one last time to see something outside), you are continuing the approach below DH in violation of 91.175.

Yes, I know folks do it all the time. Yes, nobody will know unless the FAA is in the cockpit with you or you wreck. And it's probably not a big issue in a 172 descending at 300-400 ft/min with only 75 knots groundspeed, but if you're flying the approach in a big airplane at 150 knots or so with a sink rate of maybe 10 feet per second, the few seconds you delay combined with the allowable instrument errors could be enough to compromise required terrain clearance, especially if you're a bit low on the GS to start with. Choose wisely.

 

[poadeleted20]

While there's a lot to be said for the stabilized approach, consideration needs to be given to the type of operation and aircraft.

Before we go further on this, I suggest that folks read the different discussions of the "stabilized approach" in the Airplane Flying Handbook for light planes and for turbine aircraft much further back in the book. The differences are significant to this discussion.

 

[poadeleted20]

The point is the decision happes at a point...the DA. Btw, there is a rhythm to it...300...200...100...DA. The human mind can recognize that rhythm and be looking at the right time.

I think the FAA would suggest instead that the rhythm should be "300-look, 200-look, 100-look, DA-GO."

 

[poadeleted20]

The decision is made at the DA and it is made by looking out and seeing what you see.

No, it isn't. See what Wally posted -- you do the looking before reaching DH. If you haven't seen it by then, the decision is already made and off you go.

 

[azure]

You're already on a stablized path to the runway in both the vertical and horizontal planes, and if you do nothing, you'll hit the runway right in the touchdown zone blocks. So, be very wary of doing anything much in the way of pitch/power changes until you reach the runway threshold when you ease the power for the flare. If as you hit DH you leave the power where it is and just extend the last flaps while holding pitch attitude steady (i.e., don't let the nose rise or fall with the flaps change), you'll probably find it puts you right where you want to be in terms of speed, height, and attitude to start the flare and land in the proper touchdown zone.

If I'm flying an ILS in normal approach configuration in the Cardinal RG ( approach flaps only, gear down at GS intercept), I'm coming down the GS at 100 KIAS, which is above the white arc. So if I want to land full flaps I don't have any choice but to make a power and/or attitude change. I suppose I could learn to fly the ILS in full landing configuration, but there are only a couple of places around here where I could even practice that -- BTDT early in my instrument training, it's just too busy and most of the time ATC will not let you come down the FAS that slowly. So the only solution to avoid having to do something, is to land with approach flaps only. That's something I need to practice more.

 

[Everskyward]

He wasn't speaking of a Cat I approach. I think he was speaking of Cat IIIa at least.

This is what he said.

It's not uncommon in a transport category aircraft to touch the runway during a go around/missed approach, especially with a cat II approach.

I would take that to mean they sometimes touch the ground during a Cat I missed approach but more often on Cat II. He didn't even mention Cat III approaches.

 

[Captain]

No, it isn't. See what Wally posted -- you do the looking before reaching DH. If you haven't seen it by then, the decision is already made and off you go.

Fine, look before. I'm good with that. But you get to look at the DA too. Not DA minus 100, or DA minus 50 or even DA minus 2. But AT the DA you get to look and based on that look you get to decide.

It would be a rare approach where you see lights the instant you hit the DA, but in that case I'd continue. By rare approach I mean real world. It happens all the time in the sim and I'm expected to continue in that situation.

 

[Captain]

This is what he said.

I would take that to mean they sometimes touch the ground during a Cat I missed approach but more often on Cat II. He didn't even mention Cat III approaches.

You're right...he did say Cat II. Still, I'd have a hard time believing the worlds biggest plane is going to touch asphalt going missed on a Cat I approach.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

I'd have a hard time believing the worlds biggest plane is going to touch asphalt going missed on a Cat I approach.

You would have to really be slow on the go around for that to happen, at least in a 777.

 

[gismo]

Yes, and no. I think it does, to a degree; after all, one shouldn't necessarily fly a Lancair the way one flies a 182.

I find it particularly annoying to be lectured in some of the popular flying rags by airline pilots who insist that their way is the only way, any more than anyone with a limited view of aviation should lay down the law for anyone else.

I'll admit I'm in the habit of landing on the numbers rather than following the GS all the way to the runway. This habit probably has it's roots in the fact that a large percentage of my landings are in VMC with many to runways that don't have excessive length. I can see why this might be a bad idea in a larger/heavier airplane but other than making me ill prepared for equipment I'll probably never fly does anyone see any real downside to deliberately landing shorter than 1000 feet beyond the near end as long as the runway is clearly in view when flying a light twin or single?

 

[aterpster]

All except the last, but that only in the very limited sense that you are permitted to sink below DH/DA while transitioning from descent to climb after having initiated the missed at DH/DA. In fact, some of the wide-body jets occastionally do a touch-and-go during a Cat II missed from 100 DH.

Also, we use DH/DA on LPV and LNAV/VNAV approaches, which technically are not precision approaches even if we treat them as though they were for all except stanard alternate minimum issues.

So, two nits to pick, but you have the general idea.

It is not expected that a transport airplane may briefly touch down during a CAT II missed approach. That would be a 100' height loss, twice the maximum expected. A brief touchdown can be expected from a missed approach at AH on a CAT III approach.

BTW, LPV uses ILS criteria in all respects. LNAV/VNAV does not.

 

[Captain]

I'll admit I'm in the habit of landing on the numbers rather than following the GS all the way to the runway. This habit probably has it's roots in the fact that a large percentage of my landings are in VMC with many to runways that don't have excessive length. I can see why this might be a bad idea in a larger/heavier airplane but other than making me ill prepared for equipment I'll probably never fly does anyone see any real downside to deliberately landing shorter than 1000 feet beyond the near end as long as the runway is clearly in view when flying a light twin or single?

No downside. With that said I once flew with a guy who after breaking out would pitch over and aim for a spot about 150' dirty side of the threshold. The speed would build up and he would round out and bleed off the extra speed and touch down nearish the numbers...all the while scaring the hell out of me.

I'd be supportive of moving your aiming point from the fixed distance markers to the numbers upon breakout. I'm not supportive of aiming at dirt and rocks...ever.

 

[Bob Noel]

You would have to really be slow on the go around for that to happen, at least in a 777.

or experience windshear.

 

[denverpilot]

I'll admit I'm in the habit of landing on the numbers rather than following the GS all the way to the runway. This habit probably has it's roots in the fact that a large percentage of my landings are in VMC with many to runways that don't have excessive length. I can see why this might be a bad idea in a larger/heavier airplane but other than making me ill prepared for equipment I'll probably never fly does anyone see any real downside to deliberately landing shorter than 1000 feet beyond the near end as long as the runway is clearly in view when flying a light twin or single?

I believe the current "wisdom" on the topic is that to reconfigure to land before the markers is "de-stabilizing" that nice stabilized approach.

Not that I agree. Have just heard there's DEs who don't like it if you touch down before the markers after an ILS. Only rumor. No confirmation.

 

[poadeleted20]

If I'm flying an ILS in normal approach configuration in the Cardinal RG ( approach flaps only, gear down at GS intercept), I'm coming down the GS at 100 KIAS, which is above the white arc. So if I want to land full flaps I don't have any choice but to make a power and/or attitude change. I suppose I could learn to fly the ILS in full landing configuration, but there are only a couple of places around here where I could even practice that -- BTDT early in my instrument training, it's just too busy and most of the time ATC will not let you come down the FAS that slowly. So the only solution to avoid having to do something, is to land with approach flaps only. That's something I need to practice more.

Not sure where you're doing that, but I did a lot of ILS's to DTW during my IR training, and have done a lot of training ILS's at BWI with students over the last 15 years, and I've always found a way to come to a reasonable agreement on speed in a 172. But if you really are in the same conga line with a bunch of 737's, yes, I can see how that would be a problem. Personally, I'd try to find somewhere less clamorous to do initial ILS training, and there usually are lots of choices like that at reliever airports around the really busy air carrier airports, but if that's all you've got, I guess you have to work around it.

That said, I can't imagine a situation where the controllers require you to keep up so much speed that you can't transition from approach to landing flaps in close. Typically, the majority of the trim change comes with the first notch of flaps, and that means you have a lot less to deal with when selecting landing flaps at 200 feet or so. OTOH, trying to land a Cardinal RG at 100 KIAS seems an unwise choice no matter what the controller says.

 

[DouglasBader]

You're right...he did say Cat II. Still, I'd have a hard time believing the worlds biggest plane is going to touch asphalt going missed on a Cat I approach.

It is not expected that a transport airplane may briefly touch down during a CAT II missed approach.

You guys have got me there. You know more about it than the folks who actually fly the aircraft, or the people who wrote our Aircraft Operations Manual. The manual, of course, says differently, and certianly during a missed approach I've experienced it, but if you say otherwise, it must be so. Taken verbatim from the AOM:

"It is probable that during a very low altitude go-around, the aircraft will momentarily make contact with the runway. If a touchdown occurs, continue the go-around using normal go-around procedures."

Again, there's a reason that we use a 9 degree pitch attitude for the go-around. It's to preclude a tail strike during the missed approach in the event ground contact occurs.

The above quote appears in a section of the AOM specific to Cat II/III operations. Given that one may continue below Cat 1 minimums to 100' using only the approach lights, and that a missed approach may be initiated upon reaching 100' without adequate visual reference during a Cat 1 approach, there is no difference between executing the missed at 100' for a Cat 1, and executing it as 100' for a cat II. Forget Cat III; it's being flown to the runway in that case. We will be on the runway before we see it. The fact is that executing a missed at decision height (there's a reason it's called decision height) may result in a descent well below DH, and may result in contact with the runway during the missed approach. This possibility increases substantially the lower one goes on the procedure.

Whether one's Cessna 172 or transport category airplane will touch the runway, however, is irrelevant. What is relevant to the thread is that there is no restriction on descending below DH during a missed approach. It's a decision height. It's not a hard deck. It's the place where the decision is made. A decision is not made 100' above that; that would effectively raise the minimums and defeat the purpose of having lower minimums. One determines at DH whether the adequate visual references are available. This is the place where the decision is made; continue or go around. If it's a go around, then power is added, a pitch-up made. and a climb established. This is not instantaneous. It's expected that one will descend below DH.

One might argue that the glideslope for the category 1 procedure is protected only 50' below DH, but then it's flight checked, at least in the United States, to the runway. regardless, one isn't following the glideslope to a touchdown on a missed; one is reconfiguring to climb. This takes time and a change of inertia. One will continue to descend during this time, and yes, one may touch the runway during a missed approach.

 

[poadeleted20]

This is what he said.

I said Cat II, and I said it happens on occasion, not that it's part of the expectation.

I would take that to mean they sometimes touch the ground during a Cat I missed approach but more often on Cat II.

No, I specifically said Cat II. I don't think there's anything which would touch down on a missed from a 200 DH unless a couple of engines were out.

He didn't even mention Cat III approaches.

There's no going around from DH on a Cat III because there's no DH on a Cat III (a, b, or c).

 

[poadeleted20]

Fine, look before. I'm good with that. But you get to look at the DA too. Not DA minus 100, or DA minus 50 or even DA minus 2. But AT the DA you get to look and based on that look you get to decide.

If you look up at DA, and then decide based on what you see, you will be below DA before you initiate the missed, and that's not compliant with the rules. You can do what you want, but that really is the rule. At DA, if you have not already met the 91.175 requirements for continuing the approach below DA, you start the missed immediately (the FAA's words, not just mine) -- no looking, thinking, or picking your nose first. If you can find anything in writing from the FAA that says you get one last look at DA before initiating the missed, I'd sure like to see it.

 

[poadeleted20]

You're right...he did say Cat II. Still, I'd have a hard time believing the worlds biggest plane is going to touch asphalt going missed on a Cat I approach.

So would I -- at least, not with all engines running.

 

[poadeleted20]

It is not expected that a transport airplane may briefly touch down during a CAT II missed approach. That would be a 100' height loss, twice the maximum expected. A brief touchdown can be expected from a missed approach at AH on a CAT III approach.

Expected? No. Does it happen? So I'm told.

BTW, LPV uses ILS criteria in all respects. LNAV/VNAV does not.

True, but all I thought I said was that LPV and LNAV/VNAV are both flown the same way as a precision approach and both use DA/DH rather than MDA.

 

[poadeleted20]

I believe the current "wisdom" on the topic is that to reconfigure to land before the markers is "de-stabilizing" that nice stabilized approach.

In a jet, certainly. In a 172, not really. Read the different writeups for stabilized approaches for light planes and jets in the AFH.

Not that I agree. Have just heard there's DEs who don't like it if you touch down before the markers after an ILS. Only rumor. No confirmation.

I can't confirm it as I've yet to meet one.

 

[DouglasBader]

If you look up at DA, and then decide based on what you see, you will be below DA before you initiate the missed, and that's not compliant with the rules.

Sure it is. Again, there's a reason it's decision altitude.

True, but all I thought I said was that LPV and LNAV/VNAV are both flown the same way as a precision approach and both use DA/DH rather than MDA.

Our policy, and the one by which I'm bound, is to add 50' to the VNAV minimums. When we set up the VNAV, we put DA at published plus 50', and we set the radar altimeter the same, as well as our altimeter bugs. We treat the new elevated altitude as decision altitude.

 

[poadeleted20]

What is relevant to the thread is that there is no restriction on descending below DH during a missed approach.

I don't think anyone has said that there is such a restriction. The issue under discussion has been whether upon reaching DH/DA you are permitted to take the time for one last look outside to find the runway environment before initiating the missed, thus descending below DH/DA (albeit ever so slightly) before initiating the missed, and the regulatory answer is "no."

It's a decision height. It's not a hard deck. It's the place where the decision is made. A decision is not made 100' above that; that would effectively raise the minimums and defeat the purpose of having lower minimums. One determines at DH whether the adequate visual references are available. This is the place where the decision is made; continue or go around. If it's a go around, then power is added, a pitch-up made. and a climb established. This is not instantaneous. It's expected that one will descend below DH.

...but only after the missed has been initiated.

 

[Everskyward]

I said Cat II, and I said it happens on occasion, not that it's part of the expectation.

No, I specifically said Cat II. I don't think there's anything which would touch down on a missed from a 200 DH unless a couple of engines were out.

There's no going around from DH on a Cat III because there's no DH on a Cat III (a, b, or c).

I wasn't referring to you when I said "he". I was referring to Doug.

 

[poadeleted20]

Sure it is. Again, there's a reason it's decision altitude.

It's called the decision altitude, not the "look-see-and-then-decide" altitude. And the regulation is clearly worded -- unless someone thinks the word "immediate" gives one latitude to do something else first.

 

[Everskyward]

If I'm flying an ILS in normal approach configuration in the Cardinal RG ( approach flaps only, gear down at GS intercept), I'm coming down the GS at 100 KIAS, which is above the white arc. So if I want to land full flaps I don't have any choice but to make a power and/or attitude change. I suppose I could learn to fly the ILS in full landing configuration, but there are only a couple of places around here where I could even practice that -- BTDT early in my instrument training, it's just too busy and most of the time ATC will not let you come down the FAS that slowly. So the only solution to avoid having to do something, is to land with approach flaps only. That's something I need to practice more.

I guess it would be true that when you are doing practice approaches they can make you keep up your speed, but technically they are not supposed to give you a speed assignment inside the FAF when it's for real.

b. Do not assign speed adjustment to aircraft:

1. At or above FL 390 without pilot consent.

2. Executing a published high altitude instrument approach procedure.

3. In a holding pattern.

REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 4-6-4, Holding Instructions.

4. Inside the final approach fix on final or a point 5 miles from the runway, whichever is closer to the runway.

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc/atc0507.html

 

[poadeleted20]

I wasn't referring to you when I said "he". I was referring to Doug.

Got it. However, the reference from his FOM is consistent with my understanding of what sometimes (or perhaps in some types, often) happens on a Cat II missed from 100 DH.

 

[DouglasBader]

I don't think anyone has said that there is such a restriction. The issue under discussion has been whether upon reaching DH/DA you are permitted to take the time for one last look outside to find the runway environment before initiating the missed, thus descending below DH/DA (albeit ever so slightly) before initiating the missed, and the regulatory answer is "no."

The regulatory answer is yes. You appear to be laboring under the misunderstanding that one must decide to execute the missed prior to reaching the MAP, which on an ILS is DA/DH, or that one must begin executing the missed prior to that point.

The regulatory answer is that if, upon arriving at the MAP, one does not have the necessary visual references to continue, one must execute the missed approach. Not before. The decision is made at the MAP, because one can descend to that point without having the necessary references. If, upon arrival at the MAP, one has the necessary visual references (ala 14 CFR 91.175), one may continue. If at that point, one does not have the necessary references, one must execute the go-around.

One may not operate below MDA without the required visual references, but the language for DA is different; one may not continue the approach. If, upon arrival at DA/DH, one does not have the appropriate references, one must execute the missed; this is not continuing the approach, but is transitioning to the missed approach segment. During this time, there is no regulatory restriction from descending below DA/DH. None. Decision altitude is the decision point whereupon which one either continues, or initiates the missed. In either case, one will be below DH. One may end up going all the way to the runway, especially if one has passed DA while using the approach lights as a reference, and upon reaching 100' (not a Cat II approach), one doens't have the necessary visual references to go beyond. Thus, one may continue using the approach lights and end up going missed at 100' on a Cat 1 procedure, just the same as executing the missed at Cat 2 minimums. No difference, and in neither case is one prohibited from continued descent while transitioning to the missed.

As previously noted, our own AOM states that the aircraft may briefly touch down. It can, and sometimes does. This is not a violation of the regulation, technical, or otherwise.

However, the reference from his FOM is consistent with my understanding of what sometimes (or perhaps in some types, often) happens on a Cat II missed from 100 DH.

Or executing the missed at 100' on a Cat 1 approach, too.

It's called the decision altitude, not the "look-see-and-then-decide" altitude. And the regulation is clearly worded -- unless someone thinks the word "immediate" gives one latitude to do something else first.

One can't make the decision until one has arrived at that point in space and has seen whether the necessary visual references are there. That's implicit in the decision. One can't decide prior to reaching that point, if IMC and not in contact with the necessary visual references, unless one is clairvoyant. Upon arriving at DH, one must decide, based on the ability to see the visual references at DH. If one can't see them, then one executes the missed. This takes time, and during that time the aircraft will continue to descend.

If I make the decision, I have to verbalize the decision: "Go around!" Then issue commands: "Set go-around thrust!" followed by "Flaps 20!" While those commands are given I must rotate to 9 degrees nose up pitch attitude. At that point, it's a waiting game until a positive climb is established. Once a positive climb is registered on both the IVSI and the altimeter, then we can call it, and raise the gear. That period of time between calling for the go around, configuring the airplane, rotating, and waiting for the descent to be arrested, and achieving a positive climb will be marked by continued descent, eventual arresting, and finally a positive climb. Meanwhile, the airplane is headed in the direction that Newton's first law dictates it will go: remaining in motion until acted upon by an outside force. The time it takes for that outside force(s) to take effect mark continued descent below DH, and this is quite legal.

"Immediate" is not synonymous with "instant."

 

[poadeleted20]

The regulatory answer is yes. You appear to be laboring under the misunderstanding that one must decide to execute the missed prior to reaching the MAP, which on an ILS is DA/DH, or that one must begin executing the missed prior to that point.

The regulatory answer is that if, upon arriving at the MAP, one does not have the necessary visual references to continue, one must execute the missed approach. Not before. The decision is made at the MAP, because one can descend to that point without having the necessary references. If, upon arrival at the MAP, one has the necessary visual references (ala 14 CFR 91.175), one may continue. If at that point, one does not have the necessary references, one must execute the go-around.

One may not operate below MDA without the required visual references, but the language for DA is different; one may not continue the approach. If, upon arrival at DA/DH, one does not have the appropriate references, one must execute the missed; this is not continuing the approach, but is transitioning to the missed approach segment. During this time, there is no regulatory restriction from descending below DA/DH. None. Decision altitude is the decision point whereupon which one either continues, or initiates the missed. In either case, one will be below DH. One may end up going all the way to the runway, especially if one has passed DA while using the approach lights as a reference, and upon reaching 100' (not a Cat II approach), one doens't have the necessary visual references to go beyond.

I agree completely. But if one reaches the DA/DH without those references already in sight, the "immediate" (to quote te regs) decision must be made to go missed -- you do not delay that decision while you take another look while descending through DA/DH to find them and only then (somewhere below DA/DH) decide to continue. You have to do your looking before reaching DA/DH so you can make that decision immediately upon reaching DA/DH, not after reaching it and taking another look before deciding.

As previously noted, our own AOM states that the aircraft may briefly touch down. It can, and sometimes does. This is not a violation of the regulation, technical, or otherwise.

Your AOM is only addressing what happens after the missed is initiated -- not delaying the initiation of the missed after reaching DA/DH to take another look.

 

[Captain]

I agree completely. But if one reaches the DA/DH without those references already in sight, the "immediate" (to quote te regs) decision must be made to go missed -- you do not delay that decision while you take another look while descending through DA/DH to find them and only then (somewhere below DA/DH) decide to continue. You have to do your looking before reaching DA/DH so you can make that decision immediately upon reaching DA/DH, not after reaching it and taking another look before deciding.

Your AOM is only addressing what happens after the missed is initiated -- not delaying the initiation of the missed after reaching DA/DH to take another look.

No, you don't. You can look AT the DH. You can look before too of course, but as a matter of fact it is okay to look upon reaching the DH as well. Your mind doesn't have to be made up when you hit the DH. You are, in fact, allowed to decide at the decision height. Hence the reason they call it a 'decision' height.

 

[DouglasBader]

Your AOM is only addressing what happens after the missed is initiated -- not delaying the initiation of the missed after reaching DA/DH to take another look.

There is no "another look."

One cannot make the decision whether to continue or not until one is in possession of the facts. One must arrive at DH in order to gain this information, and this necessitates looking for the lights at DH. Whether one has seen them or not before arriving at DH is irrelevant. The decision is made at DH (decision height), and is made upon noting whether or not the lights are in sight.

Our standard calls are first 100' above minimums, "Approaching minimums." The next call is at minimums, "minimums, runway in sight, twelve o' clock," or "minimums, not in sight, go around." That's the cue. Up until that point, I'm still on the gauges. If I'm told the runway isn't in sight, I don't need to second guess or look for myself. I'm going around. If instead, I arrive at DH and I'm told it's in sight, but I look up and don't see it, I'm going around. This isn't instantaneous. It may be "immediate," but it's not in the same instant, and it takes time. The go-around is coordinated between three crew members. One person is rotating the aircraft attitude. Another is adjusting power. Another is altering aircraft radios, FMS commands, setting a new radial, and engaging the altitude select feature of the alerter, as well as configuring flaps, and eventually gear. Everyone has a mission, coordinated on command,and this does not happen instantly. It doesn't take an hour but it doesn't happen instantly. While it's not happening instantly, the aircraft is continuing to descend below DH, and there is no prohibition against this. There is, however, a general expectation that it will happen.

 

[Captain]

There is no "another look."

One cannot make the decision whether to continue or not until one is in possession of the facts. One must arrive at DH in order to gain this information, and this necessitates looking for the lights at DH. Whether one has seen them or not before arriving at DH is irrelevant. The decision is made at DH (decision height), and is made upon noting whether or not the lights are in sight.

Our standard calls are first 100' above minimums, "Approaching minimums." The next call is at minimums, "minimums, runway in sight, twelve o' clock," or "minimums, not in sight, go around." That's the cue. Up until that point, I'm still on the gauges. If I'm told the runway isn't in sight, I don't need to second guess or look for myself. I'm going around. If instead, I arrive at DH and I'm told it's in sight, but I look up and don't see it, I'm going around. This isn't instantaneous. It may be "immediate," but it's not in the same instant, and it takes time. The go-around is coordinated between three crew members. One person is rotating the aircraft attitude. Another is adjusting power. Another is altering aircraft radios, FMS commands, setting a new radial, and engaging the altitude select feature of the alerter, as well as configuring flaps, and eventually gear. Everyone has a mission, coordinated on command,and this does not happen instantly. It doesn't take an hour but it doesn't happen instantly. While it's not happening instantly, the aircraft is continuing to descend below DH, and there is no prohibition against this. There is, however, a general expectation that it will happen.

This is correct.

 

[dell30rb]

I have always heard the same interpretation as Greg and Captain, that if you decide to miss at DA you can sink somewhat below it as you execute the missed approach. Really the decision is if you can see one of the required items or not. You should have already decided to miss if you can't.

That's what my instructor taught me. Said its okay if you drop below just a bit but at DH you need to be reaching for the throttle...

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm glad we agree that someone in the cockpit has to have the runway environment in sight at DA/DH or a missed is imediately initiated. I don't think either of you runs a cockpit where at DA/DH, if the PM hasn't called visual, the PF looks out and starts trying to find it him/herself before starting the missed. At least, I hope you don't.*

And yes, in a 2-person cockpit, the PM can be the one who sees it, and the PF doesn't have to be seeing it already as long as the PM calls it before the PF, not having heard the call, hits the TOGA button at DA/DH.

However, in a single-pilot situation, you don't have the advantage of a second set of eyes looking out, and you have to shift your attention back and forth between the instruments to fly the approach and looking outside to visually acquire the runway environment. If you reach DA/DH without having already having visual acquisition, you initiate that missed approach immediately without taking the time to look up again as you sink through DA/DH and below before making the decision. Like it says -- decision height, not "look-see-and-then decide" height or "last chance to peek" height or antying of that nature.


*Last lines on the CVR tape of PSA 182 before hitting the Cessna having been:
"You still have him in sight?"
"Yeah, I think so."
"You mean, you hope so."
[laughter]
[sound of impact]

 

[poadeleted20]

That's what my instructor taught me. Said its okay if you drop below just a bit but at DH you need to be reaching for the throttle...

...not looking outside for one last peek.

 

[DouglasBader]

In a single pilot airplane such as the King Air 200, I run the show the same as if it were a crew cockpit, including running checklists aloud. I will verbally announce "Approaching Minimums." At minimums I will look out, and if I see the runway, or the approach lights, or the required visual references to continue, will do so. If I do not, I will not continue, but will execute the missed. That decision will not, and cannot be made until I've looked up at DH to see what's out there.

This is proper and correct, and very legal. It's the way it's supposed to be done.

 

[poadeleted20]

In a single pilot airplane such as the King Air 200, I run the show the same as if it were a crew cockpit, including running checklists aloud. I will verbally announce "Approaching Minimums." At minimums I will look out, and if I see the runway, or the approach lights, or the required visual references to continue, will do so. If I do not, I will not continue, but will execute the missed. That decision will not, and cannot be made until I've looked up at DH to see what's out there.

This is proper and correct, and very legal. It's the way it's supposed to be done.

If that's how you do it in a single-pilot aircraft, and don't look up until reaching DH/DA, you are very poorly trained on both FAA-recommended procedure and the regulations.

 

[aterpster]

I said Cat II, and I said it happens on occasion, not that it's part of the expectation.

No, I specifically said Cat II. I don't think there's anything which would touch down on a missed from a 200 DH unless a couple of engines were out.

There's no going around from DH on a Cat III because there's no DH on a Cat III (a, b, or c).

But, there is an Alert Height, at which a missed approach must be executed if certain major exceptions occur. That is the only time a mometary touchdown may occur; not on a CAT II.

 

[EppyGA]

Just Damn.