Zero-Zero Below and Out of Options - IFR Past Minimums

[iRyan]

What are minimums? Ceiling means nothing. Cat 3 has no decision height. So what minimums are you talking about?

secondary minimums obviously lol

 

[iRyan]

Wrong. I fly one that can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

what does vnav have to do with anything? if you don't have it, you just use your brain and fly the arrival. basic stuff.

 

[jordane93]

GA aircraft avionics are very peculiar in that they have loads of information packed onto the PFD and MFD. The avionics themselves, I’d argue, have more technology than most transport category planes. What you can get on a G3000, primus, etc is way more than you can get on a 121 aircraft. The aircraft itself, will beat out redundancy on any single and multi engine piston. Also, most, if not all ,of the info on GA aircraft avionics, we can pull up on our EFB. The info is all there for both, but it’s just in different places.

 

[Zeldman]

Which small airplanes are 300 rvr certified? I’m just curious.

Every 207 in Alaska... Ok, well self certified....

 

[Kritchlow]

GA aircraft avionics are very peculiar in that they have loads of information packed onto the PFD and MFD. The avionics themselves, I’d argue, have more technology than most transport category planes. What you can get on a G3000, primus, etc is way more than you can get on a 121 aircraft. The aircraft itself, will beat out redundancy on any single and multi engine piston. Also, most, if not all ,of the info on GA aircraft avionics, we can pull up on our EFB. The info is all there for both, but it’s just in different places.

Yes, GA aircraft have more advanced “pretty pictures” on the displays, but I’m not aware they are certified for cat3 landings.

 

[jordane93]

Yes, GA aircraft have more advanced “pretty pictures” on the displays, but I’m not aware they are certified for cat3 landings.

They could be CATIII certified but it’s mostly cost prohibitive. It probably doesn’t make financial sense for them to outfit the jets with autoland and go through the training. I think I get what @N1120A is saying. The PFD and MFD of a Cirrus or G1000 172, has arguably more technology than a transport category plane. Obviously, any transport category plane will blow a Cirrus out of the water as far as redundancy and more advanced systems but I’d agree that avionics have more information on them than a transport plane. But again, we can look up all the information they have on their MFD, on our iPads so it’s the same info in both flight decks, just in different places

 

[Rex Kramer]

I don’t recall seeing many Cirruses running around with us in that ancient 757 I was flying when I pulled up this ATIS. Don’t know what the problem was. Wind was down the runway at 3kts.

 

[Rex Kramer]

That wasn't a qualification. The fact remains that airliners can't fly LPV approaches and many don't even have VNAV

But hey! That 767 that can't even fly an RNAV SID can land itself at some airports!

I don’t know what 767s you’ve been flying (oh wait...), but the ones I was flying 15 years ago were doing RNAV RNP approaches back then. I don’t think RNAV departures are really a problem.

I can’t think of a Boeing or Airbus that isn’t a 707 or 727 that can’t do VNAV.

 

[midwestpa24]

I'd add to this conversation. If I'm in a light twin with one engine caged, there is no missed approach. I can think of no better way to kill oneself that attempting a missed approach, IMC, at 200 feet on an ILS, with the gear and flaps down on one engine.

Hopefully I can find an airport with a better option within single engine range, but if not you have to do what you have to do to survive.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I'd add to this conversation. If I'm in a light twin with one engine caged, there is no missed approach. I can think of no better way to kill oneself that attempting a missed approach, IMC, at 200 feet on an ILS, with the gear and flaps down on one engine.

Hopefully I can find an airport with a better option within single engine range, but if not you have to do what you have to do to survive.

Depending upon the light twin, not using flaps might be a good enough option to make the missed doable. But yes, there definitely comes a point where landing is going to happen.

 

[Rebel]

How about this video? Not in an emergency for this ATR and I could see nothing when the minimums is called until almost 50 feet AGL.
Moreover, the autopilot was disconnected right after minimum is called.
Can someone explain what the hack is this technique? It seems very dangerous, like it's title said.

Recall that here in the US seeing any part of the approach light system means you can go through the minimums down to 100 ft above the runway, but to go lower than 100 ft you have to see a runway (lights, markings, surfaces). So, these pilots probably saw the rabbit prior to minimums and the runway threshold lights by 100 ft. Just saying it could happen...seen it a hundred times in a FlightSafety G650 sim.

 

[gsengle]

I'd add to this conversation. If I'm in a light twin with one engine caged, there is no missed approach. I can think of no better way to kill oneself that attempting a missed approach, IMC, at 200 feet on an ILS, with the gear and flaps down on one engine.

Hopefully I can find an airport with a better option within single engine range, but if not you have to do what you have to do to survive.

In a Seminole or Cougar or Duchess perhaps, but bigger “light” twins most certainly can fly a missed single engine with proper technique... good thing to practice...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Arnold]

How about this video? Not in an emergency for this ATR and I could see nothing when the minimums is called until almost 50 feet AGL.
Moreover, the autopilot was disconnected right after minimum is called.
Can someone explain what the hack is this technique? It seems very dangerous, like it's title said.

I'm not sure what country they are in. I could not understand the cockpit conversation. The autopilot control shows a Cat II approach though and I'm not qualified to comment on CAT II procedures.

Windshield wipers are loud though.

 

[Jakl15]

Being an “old timer” I wouldn’t hesitate to fly a ILS “zero-zero”, done it several times raw data, no auto pilot, but to a carrier, no pesky flaring.

That being said, declaring an emergency to keep people away from the end of the runway to prevent signal distortion blah blah blah, and being in a GA aircraft, a lot slower and smaller, while nerve wracking, not insurmountable. At all.

Being open minded, watching GPS at the same time would be a GREAT idea.

simply saying “don’t get in that situation” isn’t very helpful. Practicing this is actually fun.

on my instrument check in A-4’s my check pilot actually talked me down to a touch and go UNDER THE BAG. Was confidence enhancing. This is not as dicey as it sounds in a jet where you don’t flare by the way...

I’ve had the chance to shoot a couple PARs at NAS Pensacola down to minimums (100’) and that was quite the experience. Nothing required except a DG and performance instruments.

 

[Maxnr]

Good discussion. I would like to jump in from the G.A., Piper/Cessna, Cat 1 point of view. First, the "LPV is better than ILS" doesn't meet my smell test. Example: an airport 20 miles from my house has 2 intersecting RW's and 4 GPS procedures, one, an LPV. The approach lighting is bare minimum. A night VFR landing on any RW is a black hole approach. I would reject this option because I'm familiar with it. But there are a couple of other choices within 30 miles of this one with ILS, radar svc and great lighting. My choices.
The 135 outfit that I worked at introduced a new wrinkle in the six month IPC's: Below minimums approaches under the hood. Great move.
One true life example: Air craft was a Sikorsky 76, an old "A" model with what they called an AFCS. It was only a SAS with no means to couple. Departure was KHUM Houma, T' bone muni in coastal Louisiana. Took of before tower opened (0700) with a clearance IFR to VFR on top from KMSY approach. Destination was out in the Gulf. TAFS said clearing by 0800. WX great beyond the coast. In bound with a max load and fuel VFR reserves (FAR says for helos destination plus 20 minutes, we had 30 minutes reserve) Home drome was reporting VFR. ETA around 0900. Got the ATIS when crossing the beach and 30 miles from home: weather unexpectedly dropping. Able to reach approach and got a pop up clearance. Only had fuel for the approach, no alternate planned. Or possible. KHUM has an ILS to a 200 x 8'000 foot RW & MALSR approach lights. An old WW2 Navy field, the slab is feet thick. This has bearing on what comes next.
APC brought us up to the north of the field to the IAP, turned us in on the localizer and cleared us for the approach, contact twr. I was the PIC, copilot was on the controls. I completed pre landing checks, got the gear, called on course, no lights or flags, glide slope alive & called the tower. He answered with new weather "Ceiling obscured, Visibility 1/4 mile in fog. We had began the approach and disregarded ceiling. The ILS at KHUM required 1/2 mile. We used FAR 97.3(C) , reduced our minimums to 1/4 mile and continued. Got the lights at about 1/2 mile and saw at least half the rw length clearly.
The approach lights were putting out a good amount of heat and burned the fog away above. Likewise, the runway, acting like a big heat sink was emitting heat from yesterdays sunlight and the arrival was duck soup. Tower's 1/4 mile visibility marker was a land mark away from the rw environment.
Easier than you think. I saw this happen again several times. Think back to WW2 when the RAF lit barrels of avgas to burn the fog away from their airfields.