Fists super low ILS

jsb172 · January 7th, 2006, 10:46

Shot my lowest ILS ever on TUE. It was about 1 in the morning in Pittsburgh with 1000RVR and an "indefinite ceiling" I had never hear that term but basically I took it as there was no difference between the ground and wx. I could literally see one dot on the rabbit at a time, and I just followed them one at a time until the tires touched. It was awesome. My next destination was not as low but it was 100 OVC and 2000RVR. Piece of cake!

jsb172 · January 7th, 2006, 10:48

If the FAA asks my flight visibility was 1/2 mile, of course

SteveC · January 7th, 2006, 11:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsb172

Shot my lowest ILS ever on TUE. It was about 1 in the morning in Pittsburgh with 1000RVR and an "indefinite ceiling" I had never hear that term but basically I took it as there was no difference between the ground and wx. I could literally see one dot on the rabbit at a time, and I just followed them one at a time until the tires touched. It was awesome. My next destination was not as low but it was 100 OVC and 2000RVR. Piece of cake!

Man, you're scaring me. Don't be a statistic, O.K.?

smokey1 · January 7th, 2006, 12:34

Did you shoot a CAT II approach? 100 OVC

E_Dawg · January 7th, 2006, 13:33

How were you able to even begin the approach pt135?

DE727UPS · January 7th, 2006, 14:27

"If the FAA asks my flight visibility was 1/2 mile, of course"

Opening a big can of worms, there. You want to risk your career with that as a defense? My advice to you would be to never do that again and tell no one. Well....it's sorta to late for the last part.

Looking4Lower · January 7th, 2006, 14:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsb172

If the FAA asks my flight visibility was 1/2 mile, of course

They don't need to ask. They can simply read your first post in which you described exactly what you did!

Texasspilot · January 7th, 2006, 14:53

Be carefull bud, nobody wants to die for a bag of checks or a box full of blood. I don't know how yalls companys work but I still get paid if I no-go due to weather or mechanical.

I would definatly revise my first statement.

Mavmb · January 7th, 2006, 18:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Looking4Lower

They don't need to ask. They can simply read your first post in which you described exactly what you did!

Yep, really, you already said what you did! Is your job making you do approaches below mins? If so, I would tell someone in upper management and not fly until everthing gets straightened out. It is your life on the line, not theirs. Again, is your job making you do this? What you are doing is very dangerous. We don't need another statistic.

NORCAL pilot · January 7th, 2006, 19:11

Sometimes I can't believe what people are willing to post about themselves online! At the college my brother goes to, a bunch of freshmen were posting photos of themself on "facebook", drinking (underage) in a freshmen-only dorm (no alcohol permitted). They all got busted. The internet isn't some secret private thing where only the intended recipients can see your words/photos/etc.

Be careful what you say, but more importantly, be careful what you do! The FAA sets the minimums as they are for a reason, and it is based on a lot of research and statistics. As they say "the rules are written in blood". Don't let it be yours!

bluelake · January 7th, 2006, 22:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsb172

Shot my lowest ILS ever on TUE. It was about 1 in the morning in Pittsburgh with 1000RVR and an "indefinite ceiling" I had never hear that term but basically I took it as there was no difference between the ground and wx. I could literally see one dot on the rabbit at a time, and I just followed them one at a time until the tires touched. It was awesome. My next destination was not as low but it was 100 OVC and 2000RVR. Piece of cake!

I think a lot of (us) freight dogs began as freight puppies! Being over enthusiastic about somethign difficult and daring is kinda normal at this stage. I had about one month of pulling this crap until I realized that it did not really make sense at all.

Here's another angle. If you are a freight guy bustin miniumns to get in with tight weather, folks like UPS and FedEx etc... they will be asking the other freight guys why THEY cant get in. Think about that. I have seen this exect scenario.

I dont care about if its unwise to post this stuff.. thats not as important as you ruining your life or your families hearts or your companies insurance or whatever, just cuz you are a MAVERICK

!!

averyrm · January 7th, 2006, 22:44

To the mins every approach if need be, but not below.

FYI, smokey, reported ceiling is not controlling on approaches, only vis. It could be VV000 and 1800RVR and (depending on the approach) you're still good to go.

TonyC · January 7th, 2006, 23:47

I'm going to assume that jsb172 failed to accurately describe the scenario, that's all. We all know that an RVR of 1000' and an in-flight visibility of 1/2 mile just don't jive, so that must have been a typo or something. In fact, we should be able to surmise that the RVR was not 1,000' or he would not have even begun the approach.

Some people mistake stupidity for bravery - - but we're not those people, right?

Fly safely. Live long.

.

mtsu_av8er · January 8th, 2006, 10:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyC

Some people mistake stupidity for bravery - - but we're not those people, right?

Or maybe he's just one bad cat, and we need to wise up!!

awacs94 · January 8th, 2006, 23:23

Notice he hasn't responded yet

jonnyb · January 9th, 2006, 03:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsb172

If the FAA asks my flight visibility was 1/2 mile, of course

Um.....yeah....a......ok........aw nevermind!

jsb172 · January 9th, 2006, 12:27

Relax people.
Last I checked as the PIC of the aircraft I am free to make my own decisions. Just becasue most of you wouldn't attempt it thats cool, but thats why I am me and not you. First of all my company didn't make me do anything, I don't work for that kinda place. Secondly, I was empty that leg therefore part 91 so I can start any approach I want. "I" being the important part there, not you, its my decision to make and i felt very comfortable doing it. Thirdly its obvious you folks aren't to familiar with the rules, visibility as stated on the approach plate is predicated as "flight visiblity" which can only be determined by the pilot. Don't get mad at me, thats the way the
FAA wrote it. If they pulled me over they would have to prove that I couldn't see 1/2 mile out of my own eyes. If they can't tell me what I saw out of my eyes, than surely none of you guys can. So dont even try to second guess me. I enjoy challenging myself thats just me, I was very familiar with the airpport, runway, approach, and the airplane. Other than the visibility the wx was very easy, dead calm. Therefore it was just a matter of trimming the airplane and ride down that glideslope, very very easy. Had it been 20kt crosswind, no way. So for all you guys acting concerned, thank you but i feel that according to most of your posts, you could care less. You just want to sound off on somewhat else's decisions and skills are based on what you would do, well you weren't there, I was. I am a very competent and responsible pilot, I made a decision that as PIC i felt comfortable with and just because you thought it was dumb or couldn't hack it then thats your decision, as for my decision I would do it the same all over again!

SteveC · January 9th, 2006, 12:51

<shrug>

Since I'm not allowed to second guess you, I presume I can still "comment" on a couple of points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsb172

Thirdly its obvious you folks aren't to familiar with the rules, visibility as stated on the approach plate is predicated as "flight visiblity" which can only be determined by the pilot. Don't get mad at me, thats the way the
FAA wrote it. If they pulled me over they would have to prove that I couldn't see 1/2 mile out of my own eyes. If they can't tell me what I saw out of my eyes, than surely none of you guys can.

Question; if what you say above is true, then why are you not allowed to start the approach (Pt. 135 or 121) when the ground report of visibility is less than the approach mins?

Comment; I'd suggest you do a little bit more homework on whether or not the FAA has to "prove" what you could or could not see from the cockpit in order to violate you.

Quote:

So for all you guys acting concerned, thank you but i feel that according to most of your posts, you could care less. You just want to sound off on somewhat else's decisions and skills are based on what you would do,...

I think that you are incorrect in your assumption, but you are certainly allowed your opinion regarding our motivations.

Quote:

...as for my decision I would do it the same all over again!

I think that it will be interesting for you to review this when you have another couple thousand hours under your belt and see if you still feel the same way.

Doug Taylor · January 9th, 2006, 12:59

As one who had to tangle with the FAA several years ago, whenever you want to dance with the Feds, they're Erol Flynn.

jonnyb · January 9th, 2006, 13:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsb172

Relax people.
Last I checked as the PIC of the aircraft I am free to make my own decisions. Just becasue most of you wouldn't attempt it thats cool, but thats why I am me and not you. First of all my company didn't make me do anything, I don't work for that kinda place. Secondly, I was empty that leg therefore part 91 so I can start any approach I want. "I" being the important part there, not you, its my decision to make and i felt very comfortable doing it. Thirdly its obvious you folks aren't to familiar with the rules, visibility as stated on the approach plate is predicated as "flight visiblity" which can only be determined by the pilot. Don't get mad at me, thats the way the
FAA wrote it. If they pulled me over they would have to prove that I couldn't see 1/2 mile out of my own eyes. If they can't tell me what I saw out of my eyes, than surely none of you guys can. So dont even try to second guess me. I enjoy challenging myself thats just me, I was very familiar with the airpport, runway, approach, and the airplane. Other than the visibility the wx was very easy, dead calm. Therefore it was just a matter of trimming the airplane and ride down that glideslope, very very easy. Had it been 20kt crosswind, no way. So for all you guys acting concerned, thank you but i feel that according to most of your posts, you could care less. You just want to sound off on somewhat else's decisions and skills are based on what you would do, well you weren't there, I was. I am a very competent and responsible pilot, I made a decision that as PIC i felt comfortable with and just because you thought it was dumb or couldn't hack it then thats your decision, as for my decision I would do it the same all over again!

Well, the above just comfirmed my assumptions. I won't waste my time on someone who's got it all figured out.

jsb172 · January 9th, 2006, 13:17

well stevec,
i aprreciate you not second guessing me, I like healty debate, i'm not pissed and I am not getting into a pissing match with anyone, I just think it funny how people get mad when i didn't break any rules. There is not argument about that, but i will debate pushing the rules to the limit. According to the FARs. i didn't break any rules. Having said that, in response to you, it is correct that you can't start an approach under 135 or 121 when the reported minimums are less than the approach plate ( i was part 91) but my question to you is, once you have started the approach and the minimums drop below, do you have to abort? No! You may continue the approach because the faa allows you the chance to go to the bottom of the hill and see what is there, if not it would be mandatory to go missed. Well why continue if you and everyone else in here knows they are not going to land, thats where you are free to make whatever decision you want. But it is perfectly legal to continue the approach and at DH if you have the runway environment in sight and the "FLIGHT VISIBILITY"as determined by you (not by the faa or anyone else on this site) you are allowed to descend below DH right? In now way or manner did I break any FARs i just went as far as they would let me go, no further. I dont know why everyone thought i got to DH, didn't see anything and continued the approach, I did state that i saw the rabbit which legally allows me to go down 100 feet of so and kept flying till i saw the reils, and then i was on the ground, again, perfectly legal.

jonnyb · January 9th, 2006, 13:40

Hopefully Steve will take the time (as he is a better man than I) to inform you of how many inaccuracies there are in your above post, cause I don't care to. Man, you don't even know the regs!

Looking4Lower · January 9th, 2006, 13:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonnyb

Well, the above just comfirmed my assumptions. I won't waste my time on someone who's got it all figured out.

I'm pretty much with jonnyb on this one. BUT I gotta say one last thing: flying "one dot on the rabbit at a time...until the tires touched" isn't characteristic of 1/2 mile flight vis, my friend.

Good luck, fly safe, I'm out!

SteveC · January 9th, 2006, 13:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonnyb

Hopefully Steve will take the time...

Not now - heading out the door.

Quote:

... (as he is a better man than I)

No way, hoser!

Quote:

to inform you of how many inaccuracies there are in your above post, cause I don't care to. Man, you don't even know the regs!

Someone else can jump in. Gotta run.

Texasspilot · January 9th, 2006, 14:12

Last I checked as the PIC of the aircraft I am free to make my own decisions.
True

Secondly, I was empty that leg therefore part 91 so I can start any approach I want.
Actually if the company was requiring you to be there even if empty your 135. Going to pick up freight..empty...still 135. Unless the company said yah just take the airplane back whenever and give us a call its 135. The weight in the back doesn't matter its how its operated.

Thirdly its obvious you folks aren't to familiar with the rules, visibility as stated on the approach plate is predicated as "flight visiblity" which can only be determined by the pilot.

Thats true..our opspecs say RVR is controlling...what do yours say?

FAA wrote it. If they pulled me over they would have to prove that I couldn't see 1/2 mile out of my own eyes.
Actually in the court of the FAA its up to you to prove innocence not them to prove guilt. You would have to prove it was 1/2 mile or better somehow.

I enjoy challenging myself thats just me, I was very familiar with the airpport, runway, approach, and the airplane.
Challenging yourself is great its the only way to get better. But you have to set limits on things for personal safety. I like paintball but I probably wouldn't play it with real guns just to make it more challengin.

In closing...though I don't know you I don't like seeing people die in airplanes. I have had friends die in them before and if you can prevent it you should.

After all...if the weathers to bad to go..you get the day off.

Fly Safe.

January 7th, 2006, 10:46	#1
jsb172 Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 62	Fists super low ILS Shot my lowest ILS ever on TUE. It was about 1 in the morning in Pittsburgh with 1000RVR and an "indefinite ceiling" I had never hear that term but basically I took it as there was no difference between the ground and wx. I could literally see one dot on the rabbit at a time, and I just followed them one at a time until the tires touched. It was awesome. My next destination was not as low but it was 100 OVC and 2000RVR. Piece of cake!

January 7th, 2006, 12:34	#4
smokey1 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Houston Posts: 331	Did you shoot a CAT II approach? 100 OVC __________________ Terminal B

January 7th, 2006, 13:33	#5
E_Dawg Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: chicago Posts: 4,311	How were you able to even begin the approach pt135? __________________ Yeah, I just stare at my desk; but it looks like I'm working. I do that for probably another hour after lunch, too. I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work.

January 7th, 2006, 22:44	#12
averyrm Old Skool Join Date: May 2002 Location: LCK Posts: 1,654	To the mins every approach if need be, but not below. FYI, smokey, reported ceiling is not controlling on approaches, only vis. It could be VV000 and 1800RVR and (depending on the approach) you're still good to go. __________________ <-- That guy with Belushi as his avitar

January 7th, 2006, 23:47	#13
TonyC Old Skool Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 1,648	I'm going to assume that jsb172 failed to accurately describe the scenario, that's all. We all know that an RVR of 1000' and an in-flight visibility of 1/2 mile just don't jive, so that must have been a typo or something. In fact, we should be able to surmise that the RVR was not 1,000' or he would not have even begun the approach. Some people mistake stupidity for bravery - - but we're not those people, right? Fly safely. Live long. . __________________ <~ Tony C ~> The truth only hurts if it should.

January 7th, 2006, 10:48	#2
jsb172 Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 62	If the FAA asks my flight visibility was 1/2 mile, of course

January 7th, 2006, 14:27	#6
DE727UPS Old Skool Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 6,577	"If the FAA asks my flight visibility was 1/2 mile, of course" Opening a big can of worms, there. You want to risk your career with that as a defense? My advice to you would be to never do that again and tell no one. Well....it's sorta to late for the last part.

January 7th, 2006, 14:53	#8
Texasspilot Old Skool Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 2,080	Be carefull bud, nobody wants to die for a bag of checks or a box full of blood. I don't know how yalls companys work but I still get paid if I no-go due to weather or mechanical. I would definatly revise my first statement.

January 7th, 2006, 19:11	#10
NORCAL pilot Newbie Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: from the mountains, currently at UND... Posts: 22	Sometimes I can't believe what people are willing to post about themselves online! At the college my brother goes to, a bunch of freshmen were posting photos of themself on "facebook", drinking (underage) in a freshmen-only dorm (no alcohol permitted). They all got busted. The internet isn't some secret private thing where only the intended recipients can see your words/photos/etc. Be careful what you say, but more importantly, be careful what you do! The FAA sets the minimums as they are for a reason, and it is based on a lot of research and statistics. As they say "the rules are written in blood". Don't let it be yours!

January 8th, 2006, 23:23	#15
awacs94 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 272	Notice he hasn't responded yet __________________ "Air N'doogoo" flying a MEL-ridden Tupolev 154 with a 22 year-old Chechen crew." - Doug

January 9th, 2006, 12:27	#17
jsb172 Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 62	Relax people. Last I checked as the PIC of the aircraft I am free to make my own decisions. Just becasue most of you wouldn't attempt it thats cool, but thats why I am me and not you. First of all my company didn't make me do anything, I don't work for that kinda place. Secondly, I was empty that leg therefore part 91 so I can start any approach I want. "I" being the important part there, not you, its my decision to make and i felt very comfortable doing it. Thirdly its obvious you folks aren't to familiar with the rules, visibility as stated on the approach plate is predicated as "flight visiblity" which can only be determined by the pilot. Don't get mad at me, thats the way the FAA wrote it. If they pulled me over they would have to prove that I couldn't see 1/2 mile out of my own eyes. If they can't tell me what I saw out of my eyes, than surely none of you guys can. So dont even try to second guess me. I enjoy challenging myself thats just me, I was very familiar with the airpport, runway, approach, and the airplane. Other than the visibility the wx was very easy, dead calm. Therefore it was just a matter of trimming the airplane and ride down that glideslope, very very easy. Had it been 20kt crosswind, no way. So for all you guys acting concerned, thank you but i feel that according to most of your posts, you could care less. You just want to sound off on somewhat else's decisions and skills are based on what you would do, well you weren't there, I was. I am a very competent and responsible pilot, I made a decision that as PIC i felt comfortable with and just because you thought it was dumb or couldn't hack it then thats your decision, as for my decision I would do it the same all over again!

January 9th, 2006, 12:59	#19
Doug Taylor Agent Smith Join Date: Dec 1969 Location: KSDL Posts: 41,926 Blog Entries: 1	As one who had to tangle with the FAA several years ago, whenever you want to dance with the Feds, they're Erol Flynn. __________________ Doug Taylor http://76school.flyblog.com (old!) http://30west.flyblog.com (updated 11/28)

January 9th, 2006, 13:17	#21
jsb172 Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 62	well stevec, i aprreciate you not second guessing me, I like healty debate, i'm not pissed and I am not getting into a pissing match with anyone, I just think it funny how people get mad when i didn't break any rules. There is not argument about that, but i will debate pushing the rules to the limit. According to the FARs. i didn't break any rules. Having said that, in response to you, it is correct that you can't start an approach under 135 or 121 when the reported minimums are less than the approach plate ( i was part 91) but my question to you is, once you have started the approach and the minimums drop below, do you have to abort? No! You may continue the approach because the faa allows you the chance to go to the bottom of the hill and see what is there, if not it would be mandatory to go missed. Well why continue if you and everyone else in here knows they are not going to land, thats where you are free to make whatever decision you want. But it is perfectly legal to continue the approach and at DH if you have the runway environment in sight and the "FLIGHT VISIBILITY"as determined by you (not by the faa or anyone else on this site) you are allowed to descend below DH right? In now way or manner did I break any FARs i just went as far as they would let me go, no further. I dont know why everyone thought i got to DH, didn't see anything and continued the approach, I did state that i saw the rabbit which legally allows me to go down 100 feet of so and kept flying till i saw the reils, and then i was on the ground, again, perfectly legal.

January 9th, 2006, 13:40	#22
jonnyb Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: So. California Posts: 1,304	Hopefully Steve will take the time (as he is a better man than I) to inform you of how many inaccuracies there are in your above post, cause I don't care to. Man, you don't even know the regs!

January 9th, 2006, 14:12	#25
Texasspilot Old Skool Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 2,080	Last I checked as the PIC of the aircraft I am free to make my own decisions. True Secondly, I was empty that leg therefore part 91 so I can start any approach I want. Actually if the company was requiring you to be there even if empty your 135. Going to pick up freight..empty...still 135. Unless the company said yah just take the airplane back whenever and give us a call its 135. The weight in the back doesn't matter its how its operated. Thirdly its obvious you folks aren't to familiar with the rules, visibility as stated on the approach plate is predicated as "flight visiblity" which can only be determined by the pilot. Thats true..our opspecs say RVR is controlling...what do yours say? FAA wrote it. If they pulled me over they would have to prove that I couldn't see 1/2 mile out of my own eyes. Actually in the court of the FAA its up to you to prove innocence not them to prove guilt. You would have to prove it was 1/2 mile or better somehow. I enjoy challenging myself thats just me, I was very familiar with the airpport, runway, approach, and the airplane. Challenging yourself is great its the only way to get better. But you have to set limits on things for personal safety. I like paintball but I probably wouldn't play it with real guns just to make it more challengin. In closing...though I don't know you I don't like seeing people die in airplanes. I have had friends die in them before and if you can prevent it you should. After all...if the weathers to bad to go..you get the day off. Fly Safe.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode