Rarely, and mostly in training. When conditions allow, I take trainees to fields I know are below mins so they can get a "real" missed approach to experience what it's like to look up and see nothing, and have to make the timely decision to execute the missed, and then do so without busting MDA/DA or otherwise losing the bubble.
Operationally, missed approaches are rare for me because I don't normally take off without some reasonable assurance of arriving at my destination. If I were to guess, I'd say I probably don't miss "for real" more than once a year.
A lot depends on why you missed. A lot of times the weather conditions may be in the process of changing. It may make sense to try it again, or it might be an exercise in futility. It is not always a solid layer at or below minimums.I'm not sure I'd ever try an approach again after missing the first time.
Similar thing happened to my dad. He was flying the DC 9 into Flint and went missed twice. Him and the captain decided to divert if they didn't make the next one. They ended up making it because the heat from the engines burned off some of the fog on the approach courseA lot depends on why you missed. A lot of times the weather conditions may be in the process of changing. It may make sense to try it again, or it might be an exercise in futility. It is not always a solid layer at or below minimums.
I once (as a pax) in a CRJ went through 3 approaches trying to get into CVG. We finally landed on the third attempt. The first two misses were simply due to a freaking cloud being in the way of the runway. We broke out well above DH and you could clearly see the whole airport....except for the runway until the last approach.
Great info to a great question.
Do you recommend IFR rated pilots TRY taking a flight they know will end in a missed to their own personal minimums if given the opportunity (one airport fogged in, another with VFR weather)?
A lot depends on why you missed. A lot of times the weather conditions may be in the process of changing. It may make sense to try it again, or it might be an exercise in futility. It is not always a solid layer at or below minimums.
I once (as a pax) in a CRJ went through 3 approaches trying to get into CVG. We finally landed on the third attempt. The first two misses were simply due to a freaking cloud being in the way of the runway. We broke out well above DH and you could clearly see the whole airport....except for the runway until the last approach.
As long as they have somewhere else to go where they know there will be better weather, absolutely yes. Even better to go somewhere it's right near mins (rather than socked in) so they don't know in advance which way the approach will end.Do you recommend IFR rated pilots TRY taking a flight they know will end in a missed to their own personal minimums if given the opportunity (one airport fogged in, another with VFR weather)?
As long as they have somewhere else to go where they know there will be better weather, absolutely yes. Even better to go somewhere it's right near mins (rather than socked in) so they don't know in advance which way the approach will end.
I suppose that might work, but I have bad feelings about trying to get the trainee to remember to use something other than what's on the chart. Buggers up VDP's, too.For NP approaches (where misses are more likely IME) why not just artificially raise the entire approach, mins and all so that the MDA is right at the bases. Seems like that would provide the same experience while pretty much eliminating the likelihood that you wouldn't be able to get the airplane home.
I know Delta lets their pilots make the decision to go missed how ever many times they feel likeMy current carrier allows us two attempts, then off to the alternate.
I know Delta lets their pilots make the decision to go missed how ever many times they feel like
I know Delta lets their pilots make the decision to go missed how ever many times they feel like
Yep of course, obviously the pilots won't go missed 50 times. Don't airlines also have 2 alternate airports that they have to have fuel requirements as well?Depending upon alternate and fuel reserve, that depends. Besides, after a couple of missed approaches the passengers are tensing up, as well as risk factors are now increasing for the crew. Some battles are best fought later.
. Don't airlines also have 2 alternate airports that they have to have fuel requirements as well?
I think you are referring this rule:Yep of course, obviously the pilots won't go missed 50 times. Don't airlines also have 2 alternate airports that they have to have fuel requirements as well?
So, it is possible, depending on weather, for an air carrier flight to have two, one, or even no alternate airports designated at dispatch.Sec. 121.619
Alternate airport for destination: IFR or over-the-top: Domestic operations.
(a) No person may dispatch an airplane under IFR or over-the-top unless he lists at least one alternate airport for each destination airport in the dispatch release. When the weather conditions forecast for the destination and first alternate airport are marginal at least one additional alternate must be designated. However, no alternate airport is required if for at least 1 hour before and 1 hour after the estimated time of arrival at the destination airport the appropriate weather reports or forecasts, or any combination of them, indicate--
(1) The ceiling will be at least 2,000 feet above the airport elevation; and
(2) Visibility will be at least 3 miles.
(b) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section, the weather conditions at the alternate airport must meet the requirements of Sec. 121.625.
(c) No person may dispatch a flight unless he lists each required alternate airport in the dispatch release.
They may carry only the minimum fuel required by regulation, but it's not going to be as little as your post suggests ("the minimum fuel required to make it to destination"). Part 121 still requires the same "departure-destination (and then to alternate if required) plus 45 minutes" that Part 91 requires. And when multiple alternates are required, the alternate fuel must be to the most distant alternate.Most airlines barely carry near the minimum fuel required to make it to destination. Carry less weight ... More fuel savings...
What has disappeared to a large extent is the so-called "captain's fuel", where the captain could order more fuel than legally required based on his/her own judgment of the situation. That discretion has diminished or disappeared in many or most airlines.Sec. 121.639
Fuel supply: All domestic operations.
No person may dispatch or take off an airplane unless it has enough fuel--
(a) To fly to the airport to which it is dispatched;
(b) Thereafter, to fly to and land at the most distant alternate airport (where required) for the airport to which dispatched; and
(c) Thereafter, to fly for 45 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption or, for certificate holders who are authorized to conduct day VFR operations in their operations specifications and who are operating nontransport category airplanes type certificated after December 31, 1964, to fly for 30 minutes at normal cruising fuel consumption for day VFR operations.
They may carry only the minimum fuel required by regulation, but it's not going to be as little as your post suggests ("the minimum fuel required to make it to destination"). Part 121 still requires the same "departure-destination (and then to alternate if required) plus 45 minutes" that Part 91 requires. And when multiple alternates are required, the alternate fuel must be to the most distant alternate.
I'm not talking training, etc.
in actual how often do you 'miss'?
They may carry only the minimum fuel required by regulation, but it's not going to be as little as your post suggests ("the minimum fuel required to make it to destination"). Part 121 still requires the same "departure-destination (and then to alternate if required) plus 45 minutes" that Part 91 requires. And when multiple alternates are required, the alternate fuel must be to the most distant alternate.
What has disappeared to a large extent is the so-called "captain's fuel", where the captain could order more fuel than legally required based on his/her own judgment of the situation. That discretion has diminished or disappeared in many or most airlines.
ok, I didn't know what SWAG meant so I googled it and came up with this:Just a SWAG, but in almost thirty years in ATC I've had aircraft miss an approach perhaps a dozen times in a typical year.
Fixed linky for you (was a mailto to some address I didn't recognize).ok, I didn't know what SWAG meant so I googled it and came up with this:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=swag
Not often when I wasn't expecting it. OTOH I've taken the proverbial "look-see" a few times in warm benign cloud followed by the "missed" when I had plenty of fuel aboard and with a solid gold alternate.I'm not talking training, etc.
in actual how often do you 'miss'?
What has disappeared to a large extent is the so-called "captain's fuel", where the captain could order more fuel than legally required based on his/her own judgment of the situation. That discretion has diminished or disappeared in many or most airlines.
Maybe on that one particular flight, but when you average it out over all their flights all year, it probably doesn't pay off. You can be sure they have some really smart folks crunching the numbers to evaluate that, and if it was cheaper overall, they'd be doing it.Doesn't carrying a bit of extra fuel cost the airline much less than having to divert, sitting at an alternate field for hours without a gate, and making it back to the original destination hours late?