GOING BELOW MINS.

C650CPT · July 3rd, 2003, 20:40

Here is a question for the masses,
You are set up for an approach in a two pilot airplane and the flying pilot says that if you go a little below mins. you will be able to make it in.

What would you do?

I have had this situation a few times and as I like to do, I will respond with my solutions after some of you answer the quandry.

C650CPT · July 3rd, 2003, 20:43

Let me sweeten the pot, the Pilot flying is your Boss, and he is right, the WX is better below the MDA / DH.

MikeD · July 3rd, 2003, 20:50

[ QUOTE ]
Let me sweeten the pot, the Pilot flying is your Boss, and he is right, the WX is better below the MDA / DH.

[/ QUOTE ]

For a civilian, most likely not worth the gamble during normal ops (no emergency). Would try to tactfully remind the boss that his course of action has no guarantees, and wouldn't bode well were anything to happen, regardless if the WX was causal or not to the incident.

Military-wise, I remember many nights in Afghanistan where the WX was, shall we say, very low, not to mention we were landing on NVGs on a blacked-out airfield, with no real viable divert available. In that case, you do what you need to do. We even regularly entered and flew in IMC with no IFR clearance; just TACAN/altitude separation within the flight.

Mr_Creepy · July 3rd, 2003, 21:32

Depends on the approach. There are some non-precisions here in FL that have ridiculously high mins. VOR 23 APF comes to mind. The minimum is 600' and the highest obstacle for miles around is 220'.

Now I'm not admitting anything here, just pointing out something I "observed."

stuckingfk · July 3rd, 2003, 21:43

I'd turn the knob on the altimeter to give me hundred more feet!

j/k

CapnJim · July 3rd, 2003, 22:35

Hell no man. Busting regs, especially when the big man is there to witness it, and ESPECIALLY one so imperative to the safe operation if the aircraft, is baaaad mojo. Dosen't matter if he tells you to or not, you're the PIC. He may berate you, he may fire you, but he won't be able to deny your commitment to safety or your leadership ability. And it dosen't matter if the feds know it, your fellow pilots know it, or the recruiter for the major airline knows it. YOU know it, and thats all that counts. so the question is: What kind of pilot are you?

Eagle · July 4th, 2003, 07:13

Our motto is:

We guarantee we will get you somewhere.

On a 135 trip, Never bust the mins, Never have, doubt I ever will.

On a 91 trip, well.... I like to think of it like this. When you ask the guy who just landed before you where did he break out... if the answer is

minimums,

be prepared to duck under and take a peek.

Mr_Creepy · July 4th, 2003, 07:56

[ QUOTE ]
Hell no man. Busting regs, especially when the big man is there to witness it, and ESPECIALLY one so imperative to the safe operation if the aircraft, is baaaad mojo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fly 121 and 135 all the time. I doubt there is a day that goes by when I don't witness regs being broken, or take part in it myself.

Admittedly, 99% of them are accidental, but still ... there are many regs that are just so foolish or poorly worded you can't help but break them. I'm trying to think of a good example...

Ok how about this one - summer VFR flying in FL. Do you think it would be possible to go anywhere and maintain 500 below, 1000 above and 2000 to either side? There is no way to accurately measure it if you ask me.

Here's another. Flying a Beech 1900 in to JAX one morning, there was a low layer of ground fog. We were at the outer marker holding, because tower vis was 1/4. Well we could see the entire runway, there was just one tuft of cloud around the tower.

So we called flight watch on another radio and gave a pi-rep of 5 miles in flight visibility. It took some freq switching between tower, approach and flight watch, but eventually we convinced them to let us land.

This is a situation where two regs conflict: 91.175 says you need in-flight vis. to continue below MDA or DH, and 121 regs say you need Tower vis. or RVR to initiate the approach.

As I said before, there are several approaches that have very high MDAs for no apparent reason. Remember that Flight Check, the people that do the approaches (TERPS) are just people, pilots and opinionated like everyone on this forum. It is important to remember that they have their reasons for setting mins though! If you can figure out the reason you may be able to see a way to duck under and "have a look."

Anyone ever do the VFR 27 to Mayaguez, PR? You're out over the ocean with an 800' minimum. 800'??? What sailboat has an 800' mast?

C650CPT · July 4th, 2003, 09:22

[ QUOTE ]
you're the PIC. so the question is: What kind of pilot are you?

[/ QUOTE ]

What if he is the PIC. I like your counter question, this should stir up some comments.

MikeD · July 4th, 2003, 11:43

[ QUOTE ]
[Here's another. Flying a Beech 1900 in to JAX one morning, there was a low layer of ground fog. We were at the outer marker holding, because tower vis was 1/4. Well we could see the entire runway, there was just one tuft of cloud around the tower.

So we called flight watch on another radio and gave a pi-rep of 5 miles in flight visibility. It took some freq switching between tower, approach and flight watch, but eventually we convinced them to let us land.

This is a situation where two regs conflict: 91.175 says you need in-flight vis. to continue below MDA or DH, and 121 regs say you need Tower vis. or RVR to initiate the approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Korea, I was landing at a ROK Air Force base once on a WX divert. ROK tower was calling 2 mile viz, and I was being vectored onto the GCA/ASR final. Couldn't break out, so I execute climbout to get vectored back again...missed again. Third time is successful.

I go to the tower to inquire on how they have 2 miles viz when it appears far less than that, and the Korean says "1 mile that way, 1 mile that way...visibility 2 mile!"

CapnJim · July 4th, 2003, 15:14

[ QUOTE ]
This is a situation where two regs conflict: 91.175 says you need in-flight vis. to continue below MDA or DH, and 121 regs say you need Tower vis. or RVR to initiate the approach.

[/ QUOTE ]

John, I understand your points, but those situations really don't have as great an impact on saftey as descending below mins (well, with the exception of the '800 ft. mast- but hey,what are the odds?

). Maybe I'm not reading this right, but I don't see how these regs are contradictory. There's quite a lapse in time from the moment you initiate the approach (i.e. ATC-- "123 Alpha Bravo, turn left 180, descend and maintain 2 thousand till established on the localizer, cleared ILS 18 right..." "Needle Alive, Glideslope Intercept, Gear Down Before Landing Checklist.") and the moment you have the runway environment in sight ( "300 to mins...There the RAIL... OK, Runway in sight...)

Am I missing something?

Mr_Creepy · July 4th, 2003, 15:17

You are right of course, the key words are descend and initiate.

I've just always felt that if the PIC feels he has the inflight vis. and can justify it with observed data he should be able to initiate an approach.

CapnJim · July 4th, 2003, 23:15

AH, I just read the original post more carefully-- the FLYING pilot is the one wanting to bust the regs, not me. Moreover, he's my boss. Gooood question C650CPT.

Well, in that situation I would: Advise the PIC that weather is below the legal mins. for the approach, and that the published missed followed by a divert to our alternate is the appropriate course of action. If he says "Naaah, lets descend a few hundred more feet- I'm sure we'll break out" there's not a whole lot I can do if I'm not the sole manipulator of the controls. Yet as an (I assume) required cewmember, I run the risk of having my certificates yanked. Tough one.

I'm eager to hear your soultions C650CPT!

E_Dawg · July 5th, 2003, 12:22

[ QUOTE ]
I run the risk of having my certificates yanked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or worse...

I'd advise the pilot flying of the problem after which I'm not sure there'd be a whole lot more that I could do.

Isn't the wx always better below DH/MDA; question is how far below...

I've read lots of NTSB reports that wouldn't have happened had the pilots stuck to written procedures. On a cold day with that altimeter just a bit off, and less than perfect piloting... at worst for a Cat I you only get 190' clearance on an ILS and 250' on a VOR (if I remember correctly)...

I'm also eager to hear what you guys would do.

FlyChicaga · July 5th, 2003, 14:35

Simple. Follow the regs. If reports are below the mins, then you can't do it. If they are above mins, then go for it. There are 34 people in back that are counting on the two monkeys up front not to "cowboy up" and just give it a shot. Sure, they'd like to get home. But I don't plan on being the next .WAV CVR file on airdisaster.com, pointing out why you shouldn't go below MDA or DH "for a peek."

CapnJim · July 5th, 2003, 15:42

We all agree, FlyChicaga, but the question is what to do in the situation where you're NOT the PIC, and your captain, boss, guy in the left seat, etc. (essentially, the sole manipulator of the controls) decides to bust the mins. Obviously you advise him otherwise, but what if he decides to carry on with it anyway?

C650CPT · July 5th, 2003, 15:52

OK Guys here is my "soulution" this again is only in my humble BUT professional opionion.

I actually had this situation a few times, the one in particular happened during an NDB approach. The MDA is 1440' msl and my Boss wanted to go to 1100' msl, the ceilings were around 1100' msl. The fact that there was a 900' msl ridge 1/2 mile north of the runway didn't seem to bother him.

I am not leagalistic, as I will allow a pilot to set 1400 in the altitude preselect so you can use flight director cues for the level off. BUT any time a pilot wants to go 1' below MDA/DH I want to discuss it.

What I did was to question him on weather or not he was briefing me on 1100 as the MDA. My Boss (at the time), a very strong type A, started getting pissy with me, he asked if I had a problem with it. I asked him if he was briefing me that 1100 was the MDA. I just kept throwing the question back into his court. If his intentions were to bust MDA I wanted him to own it. He was just about to give up when his type A personality kicked in full gear and he told me that we were going to 1100', what was I going to do about it. I told him if he descended below 1400 without the airport in sight I was going to bring the gear up and call for a missed approach and that we would debrief the flight in the Col.'s office, this was a Military flight not that, that matters. By the way I am still flying in the unit and he was relieved of command and grounded due to other circumstances. The idea is keep putting it back on the other pilot. While there is time for tack, if the other pilot continues with his attitude, its time to be assertive and take a stand.

Another situation I was faced with concerning integrety was a chief pilot I used to fly for would always load on fuel to make it home, regardless of MGW. One day he loaded 500 lbs.over MGW to make it home. Now is 500 lbs a big deal exspecially since I know the custom guys fly thier C550 at higher MGWs, NO but I went out and after preflighting I got in the jet and started it up, taxied to the runup area and burned the 500 lbs of gas off. The chief pilot was pissed when I got back on the ramp, again I told him I would be happy to continue the discussion with our CEO and someone from the local FSDO present. He never said another word about it.

The problem I have is when one person on a two crew aiplane is willing to compromise not only thier certificate but Mine as well, exspecially without consulting me first. They may be financially set but I depend on my ability to make a living.

I was a little surprised at the apparent subtle break down on discipline based on some answers. There should be NO difference in answers in regards to continuing below MDA / DH because you are operating part 91, 135, 121 or Military. Every approach is certified to very exacting standards based on the TERPS, which are designed to keep us safe, sometimes from ourselves. A 600' MDA is not uncommon on a Non precision approach even though the highest obstacle is only 220', because the TERPS require 500' of protection in the primary area. Many approaches have high mins not neccessarily because of obstacles on the approach, but because the controlling obsacle may be on the missed approach segment. TERPS is anther good reason that when the IAP requires you to stay within 10 miles you do so. There is NO protection built in pass the 10 mile limit.

I believe this is why the FAA has mandated TAWS and/or EGPWS in turbine aircraft, its because pilots are constantly disregarding published procedures ala CFIT(controlled flight into terrain) accidents.

For you new pilots out there NEVER allow another pilot to compromise you on important issues. Stand up and be a proffessionall.

Now the qualifiers: Emergencies and Military Tactical / Combat contigencies.

E_Dawg · July 5th, 2003, 19:49

Great thread! That's hallerious that you burned off the 500lbs in the runup... it worked.

Thanks for the info.

ready2fly · July 7th, 2003, 10:18

I'm with Ed on this one. I work in aviation law and 9 out of 10 of the aircraft crash cases I'm working on at present, occured because a pilot ignored a reg.

I'd say 7 out of 10 involve a pilot ignoring WX regulations.

While I *partially* agree with JT and his VFR in FL during the summer anaolgy, the bottom line is - you stay away from clouds if VFR.

As for busting minimums....nope. Seen WAY too many graphic photos of charred pilots to go breaking regulations.

"Gethomeitis" CAN kill you!

R2F

CapnJim · July 7th, 2003, 11:26

Good thread 650. Thanks for the suggestions, hope I never have to use them.

July 3rd, 2003, 20:40	#1
C650CPT Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Home Sweet Home! Posts: 957	GOING BELOW MINS. Here is a question for the masses, You are set up for an approach in a two pilot airplane and the flying pilot says that if you go a little below mins. you will be able to make it in. What would you do? I have had this situation a few times and as I like to do, I will respond with my solutions after some of you answer the quandry.

July 3rd, 2003, 20:43	#2
C650CPT Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Home Sweet Home! Posts: 957	Re: GOING BELOW MINS. Let me sweeten the pot, the Pilot flying is your Boss, and he is right, the WX is better below the MDA / DH.

July 3rd, 2003, 20:50	#3
MikeD Administrator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pinal Airpark Posts: 6,897	Re: GOING BELOW MINS. [ QUOTE ] Let me sweeten the pot, the Pilot flying is your Boss, and he is right, the WX is better below the MDA / DH. [/ QUOTE ] For a civilian, most likely not worth the gamble during normal ops (no emergency). Would try to tactfully remind the boss that his course of action has no guarantees, and wouldn't bode well were anything to happen, regardless if the WX was causal or not to the incident. Military-wise, I remember many nights in Afghanistan where the WX was, shall we say, very low, not to mention we were landing on NVGs on a blacked-out airfield, with no real viable divert available. In that case, you do what you need to do. We even regularly entered and flew in IMC with no IFR clearance; just TACAN/altitude separation within the flight.

July 3rd, 2003, 21:32	#4
Mr_Creepy Old Skool Join Date: May 2003 Location: In the O-zone Posts: 5,810	Re: GOING BELOW MINS. Depends on the approach. There are some non-precisions here in FL that have ridiculously high mins. VOR 23 APF comes to mind. The minimum is 600' and the highest obstacle for miles around is 220'. Now I'm not admitting anything here, just pointing out something I "observed."

July 3rd, 2003, 21:43	#5
stuckingfk Old Skool Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: El Forko Grande Posts: 2,630	Re: GOING BELOW MINS. I'd turn the knob on the altimeter to give me hundred more feet! j/k

July 3rd, 2003, 22:35	#6
CapnJim Old Skool Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: G-town, Near D-town. In T-state... er... whatever Posts: 4,499	Re: GOING BELOW MINS. Hell no man. Busting regs, especially when the big man is there to witness it, and ESPECIALLY one so imperative to the safe operation if the aircraft, is baaaad mojo. Dosen't matter if he tells you to or not, you're the PIC. He may berate you, he may fire you, but he won't be able to deny your commitment to safety or your leadership ability. And it dosen't matter if the feds know it, your fellow pilots know it, or the recruiter for the major airline knows it. YOU know it, and thats all that counts. so the question is: What kind of pilot are you?

July 4th, 2003, 07:13	#7
Eagle Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Posts: 1,272	Re: GOING BELOW MINS. Our motto is: We guarantee we will get you somewhere. On a 135 trip, Never bust the mins, Never have, doubt I ever will. On a 91 trip, well.... I like to think of it like this. When you ask the guy who just landed before you where did he break out... if the answer is minimums, be prepared to duck under and take a peek.

July 4th, 2003, 07:56	#8
Mr_Creepy Old Skool Join Date: May 2003 Location: In the O-zone Posts: 5,810	Re: GOING BELOW MINS. [ QUOTE ] Hell no man. Busting regs, especially when the big man is there to witness it, and ESPECIALLY one so imperative to the safe operation if the aircraft, is baaaad mojo. [/ QUOTE ] I fly 121 and 135 all the time. I doubt there is a day that goes by when I don't witness regs being broken, or take part in it myself. Admittedly, 99% of them are accidental, but still ... there are many regs that are just so foolish or poorly worded you can't help but break them. I'm trying to think of a good example... Ok how about this one - summer VFR flying in FL. Do you think it would be possible to go anywhere and maintain 500 below, 1000 above and 2000 to either side? There is no way to accurately measure it if you ask me. Here's another. Flying a Beech 1900 in to JAX one morning, there was a low layer of ground fog. We were at the outer marker holding, because tower vis was 1/4. Well we could see the entire runway, there was just one tuft of cloud around the tower. So we called flight watch on another radio and gave a pi-rep of 5 miles in flight visibility. It took some freq switching between tower, approach and flight watch, but eventually we convinced them to let us land. This is a situation where two regs conflict: 91.175 says you need in-flight vis. to continue below MDA or DH, and 121 regs say you need Tower vis. or RVR to initiate the approach. As I said before, there are several approaches that have very high MDAs for no apparent reason. Remember that Flight Check, the people that do the approaches (TERPS) are just people, pilots and opinionated like everyone on this forum. It is important to remember that they have their reasons for setting mins though! If you can figure out the reason you may be able to see a way to duck under and "have a look." Anyone ever do the VFR 27 to Mayaguez, PR? You're out over the ocean with an 800' minimum. 800'??? What sailboat has an 800' mast?

July 4th, 2003, 09:22	#9
C650CPT Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Home Sweet Home! Posts: 957	Re: GOING BELOW MINS. [ QUOTE ] you're the PIC. so the question is: What kind of pilot are you? [/ QUOTE ] What if he is the PIC. I like your counter question, this should stir up some comments.

July 4th, 2003, 11:43	#10
MikeD Administrator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Pinal Airpark Posts: 6,897	Re: GOING BELOW MINS. [ QUOTE ] [Here's another. Flying a Beech 1900 in to JAX one morning, there was a low layer of ground fog. We were at the outer marker holding, because tower vis was 1/4. Well we could see the entire runway, there was just one tuft of cloud around the tower. So we called flight watch on another radio and gave a pi-rep of 5 miles in flight visibility. It took some freq switching between tower, approach and flight watch, but eventually we convinced them to let us land. This is a situation where two regs conflict: 91.175 says you need in-flight vis. to continue below MDA or DH, and 121 regs say you need Tower vis. or RVR to initiate the approach. [/ QUOTE ] In Korea, I was landing at a ROK Air Force base once on a WX divert. ROK tower was calling 2 mile viz, and I was being vectored onto the GCA/ASR final. Couldn't break out, so I execute climbout to get vectored back again...missed again. Third time is successful. I go to the tower to inquire on how they have 2 miles viz when it appears far less than that, and the Korean says "1 mile that way, 1 mile that way...visibility 2 mile!"

July 4th, 2003, 15:14	#11
CapnJim Old Skool Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: G-town, Near D-town. In T-state... er... whatever Posts: 4,499	Re: GOING BELOW MINS. [ QUOTE ] This is a situation where two regs conflict: 91.175 says you need in-flight vis. to continue below MDA or DH, and 121 regs say you need Tower vis. or RVR to initiate the approach. [/ QUOTE ] John, I understand your points, but those situations really don't have as great an impact on saftey as descending below mins (well, with the exception of the '800 ft. mast- but hey,what are the odds? ). Maybe I'm not reading this right, but I don't see how these regs are contradictory. There's quite a lapse in time from the moment you initiate the approach (i.e. ATC-- "123 Alpha Bravo, turn left 180, descend and maintain 2 thousand till established on the localizer, cleared ILS 18 right..." "Needle Alive, Glideslope Intercept, Gear Down Before Landing Checklist.") and the moment you have the runway environment in sight ( "300 to mins...There the RAIL... OK, Runway in sight...) Am I missing something?

July 4th, 2003, 15:17	#12
Mr_Creepy Old Skool Join Date: May 2003 Location: In the O-zone Posts: 5,810	Re: GOING BELOW MINS. You are right of course, the key words are descend and initiate. I've just always felt that if the PIC feels he has the inflight vis. and can justify it with observed data he should be able to initiate an approach.

July 4th, 2003, 23:15	#13
CapnJim Old Skool Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: G-town, Near D-town. In T-state... er... whatever Posts: 4,499	Re: GOING BELOW MINS. AH, I just read the original post more carefully-- the FLYING pilot is the one wanting to bust the regs, not me. Moreover, he's my boss. Gooood question C650CPT. Well, in that situation I would: Advise the PIC that weather is below the legal mins. for the approach, and that the published missed followed by a divert to our alternate is the appropriate course of action. If he says "Naaah, lets descend a few hundred more feet- I'm sure we'll break out" there's not a whole lot I can do if I'm not the sole manipulator of the controls. Yet as an (I assume) required cewmember, I run the risk of having my certificates yanked. Tough one. I'm eager to hear your soultions C650CPT!

July 5th, 2003, 12:22	#14
E_Dawg Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: chicago Posts: 4,311	Re: GOING BELOW MINS. [ QUOTE ] I run the risk of having my certificates yanked. [/ QUOTE ] Or worse... I'd advise the pilot flying of the problem after which I'm not sure there'd be a whole lot more that I could do. Isn't the wx always better below DH/MDA; question is how far below... I've read lots of NTSB reports that wouldn't have happened had the pilots stuck to written procedures. On a cold day with that altimeter just a bit off, and less than perfect piloting... at worst for a Cat I you only get 190' clearance on an ILS and 250' on a VOR (if I remember correctly)... I'm also eager to hear what you guys would do.

July 5th, 2003, 14:35	#15
FlyChicaga Old Skool Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 4,886	Re: GOING BELOW MINS. Simple. Follow the regs. If reports are below the mins, then you can't do it. If they are above mins, then go for it. There are 34 people in back that are counting on the two monkeys up front not to "cowboy up" and just give it a shot. Sure, they'd like to get home. But I don't plan on being the next .WAV CVR file on airdisaster.com, pointing out why you shouldn't go below MDA or DH "for a peek."

July 5th, 2003, 15:42	#16
CapnJim Old Skool Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: G-town, Near D-town. In T-state... er... whatever Posts: 4,499	Re: GOING BELOW MINS. We all agree, FlyChicaga, but the question is what to do in the situation where you're NOT the PIC, and your captain, boss, guy in the left seat, etc. (essentially, the sole manipulator of the controls) decides to bust the mins. Obviously you advise him otherwise, but what if he decides to carry on with it anyway?

July 5th, 2003, 15:52	#17
C650CPT Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Home Sweet Home! Posts: 957	Re: GOING BELOW MINS. OK Guys here is my "soulution" this again is only in my humble BUT professional opionion. I actually had this situation a few times, the one in particular happened during an NDB approach. The MDA is 1440' msl and my Boss wanted to go to 1100' msl, the ceilings were around 1100' msl. The fact that there was a 900' msl ridge 1/2 mile north of the runway didn't seem to bother him. I am not leagalistic, as I will allow a pilot to set 1400 in the altitude preselect so you can use flight director cues for the level off. BUT any time a pilot wants to go 1' below MDA/DH I want to discuss it. What I did was to question him on weather or not he was briefing me on 1100 as the MDA. My Boss (at the time), a very strong type A, started getting pissy with me, he asked if I had a problem with it. I asked him if he was briefing me that 1100 was the MDA. I just kept throwing the question back into his court. If his intentions were to bust MDA I wanted him to own it. He was just about to give up when his type A personality kicked in full gear and he told me that we were going to 1100', what was I going to do about it. I told him if he descended below 1400 without the airport in sight I was going to bring the gear up and call for a missed approach and that we would debrief the flight in the Col.'s office, this was a Military flight not that, that matters. By the way I am still flying in the unit and he was relieved of command and grounded due to other circumstances. The idea is keep putting it back on the other pilot. While there is time for tack, if the other pilot continues with his attitude, its time to be assertive and take a stand. Another situation I was faced with concerning integrety was a chief pilot I used to fly for would always load on fuel to make it home, regardless of MGW. One day he loaded 500 lbs.over MGW to make it home. Now is 500 lbs a big deal exspecially since I know the custom guys fly thier C550 at higher MGWs, NO but I went out and after preflighting I got in the jet and started it up, taxied to the runup area and burned the 500 lbs of gas off. The chief pilot was pissed when I got back on the ramp, again I told him I would be happy to continue the discussion with our CEO and someone from the local FSDO present. He never said another word about it. The problem I have is when one person on a two crew aiplane is willing to compromise not only thier certificate but Mine as well, exspecially without consulting me first. They may be financially set but I depend on my ability to make a living. I was a little surprised at the apparent subtle break down on discipline based on some answers. There should be NO difference in answers in regards to continuing below MDA / DH because you are operating part 91, 135, 121 or Military. Every approach is certified to very exacting standards based on the TERPS, which are designed to keep us safe, sometimes from ourselves. A 600' MDA is not uncommon on a Non precision approach even though the highest obstacle is only 220', because the TERPS require 500' of protection in the primary area. Many approaches have high mins not neccessarily because of obstacles on the approach, but because the controlling obsacle may be on the missed approach segment. TERPS is anther good reason that when the IAP requires you to stay within 10 miles you do so. There is NO protection built in pass the 10 mile limit. I believe this is why the FAA has mandated TAWS and/or EGPWS in turbine aircraft, its because pilots are constantly disregarding published procedures ala CFIT(controlled flight into terrain) accidents. For you new pilots out there NEVER allow another pilot to compromise you on important issues. Stand up and be a proffessionall. Now the qualifiers: Emergencies and Military Tactical / Combat contigencies.

July 5th, 2003, 19:49	#18
E_Dawg Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: chicago Posts: 4,311	Re: GOING BELOW MINS. Great thread! That's hallerious that you burned off the 500lbs in the runup... it worked. Thanks for the info.

July 7th, 2003, 10:18	#19
ready2fly Old Skool Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: DFW Posts: 7,373	Re: GOING BELOW MINS. I'm with Ed on this one. I work in aviation law and 9 out of 10 of the aircraft crash cases I'm working on at present, occured because a pilot ignored a reg. I'd say 7 out of 10 involve a pilot ignoring WX regulations. While I partially agree with JT and his VFR in FL during the summer anaolgy, the bottom line is - you stay away from clouds if VFR. As for busting minimums....nope. Seen WAY too many graphic photos of charred pilots to go breaking regulations. "Gethomeitis" CAN kill you! R2F

July 7th, 2003, 11:26	#20
CapnJim Old Skool Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: G-town, Near D-town. In T-state... er... whatever Posts: 4,499	Re: GOING BELOW MINS. Good thread 650. Thanks for the suggestions, hope I never have to use them.

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